Party 600 NL AK hand

[kagame]

with big pots people usually play draws alot faster than he played his hand. just from personal experience.

if you had more money left this is an easy check fold or call down small bets.

as it is you are essentially pot committed if you bet again, which is terrible.

all in or check fold the turn, i dont mind your line at all, just sad that youll be beat here quite often.

lucky you he didnt have a set ;-)

[FishyWhale]

He would have raised with AA, QQ, and AQ from late middle so that leaves only 55 and A5s beating you (barring Axs turned two pair). I think I put him on KQs, KJs, KTs, QTs, QJs, or JTs and push. If you are very lucky he has A-crap and calls.

[ggbman]

Yeah, as it was mentioned, any bet i could make pot committed me, so if i was going to bet it was a clear push, and fortunatley the river saved me. People are incredibly passive in these games and it messes me up sometimes. Last night someone limped with AK and busted my AQ when an ace flopped, people certainly mix it up a lot more, as AQ is always raised in the lower games, and i was in shock when the the limper had AK in my hand last night. I should probably just stuck to limit. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[theben]

what did he have? 55 or AQ? flush draw? i am curious..

a 200$ bet committs you, so its a move in or check situation.

[dontcrack]

Can someone please explain the "check" line of reasoning here?

I'm not much of a NL player so I don't quite understand the, what I perceive to be passive, move of checking the turn.

Essentially, I would think you are giving away a free card to beat you when you are probably ahead. You would be giving infinite odds for any number of hands to catch up and win the pot with a better hand.

Is the line of reasoning that if you bet the only players who could call are those who have you beat?

Are players with AJs or not playing at this level? If the players are that solid aren't you essentially begging for someone to bluff at you on the river? What do you do then?

BTW, what is wrong with charging the draws? It makes you pot committed so I could understand shoving your stack on the turn as well.

The "check" line confuses me here. I would also think you are setting yourself up for the entire table to take shots at you in future hands.

[nuSFwck]

Can someone please explain the "check" line of reasoning here? Can someone please explain the "check" line of reasoning here?



From what I gather, the consensus is AK appears to be behind. With little information on the villian, his logical holdings are 55, AQ, or possibly (but doubtfully) A5. This is indicated by the smooth call on the flop bet, in my opinion.



It's true he may have a strong drawing hand or something like AJ, but I think the original poster's line of checking behind on the turn may be correct. The check does allow a drawing hand to see a free card, but to me it's very doubtful he called a pot size bet heads up, out of position, on a draw.



That's the conesensus I gather from the other posters, and it makes sense to me too.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I am most definitely not laying down TPTK for 200 more into a 1K pot by the time he raises to me. I say given how big the pot's gotten due to the preflop action you're committed to get it all in here.

With that said, I like around a $200 dollar bet but not because you can lay down to a reraise but because you're extracting value on the hand. I'm looking to get it all in, so betting half of the guy's stack is as good a way as any to do it.

[suspicious_mind]

"I'm not much of a NL player so I don't quite understand the, what I perceive to be passive, move of checking the turn."

Checking might be passive but if you don't have the best and can't bluff your opponent off his hand then why bet?

"Essentially, I would think you are giving away a free card to beat you when you are probably ahead."

That's the point though. The reasoning behind checking behind is that you do NOT have the best hand mosst of the time. If you move in on the turn you will win 400 the times your opponent was on a draw and lose 400 when he has a made hand so your opponent has to have a drawing hand about 50% of the time to make moving all-in profitable.

So if he could have KQs, KJs, KTs, QJs, QTs and JTs as well as AQ and 55 you will win the pot 40% of the time and you will lose money in the long run. If your opponent could have Qxs as well then you will win more than 50% of the time.

So in the first example you will lose money if you bet but if you check and the river is a blank you could make money if you opponent bluffs to often.


"Is the line of reasoning that if you bet the only players who could call are those who have you beat?"

Yes, and also that your opponent will have a made hand more often than a draw.

"Are players with AJs or not playing at this level? If the players are that solid aren't you essentially begging for someone to bluff at you on the river? What do you do then?"

It depends on what read you have on your opponent. If he is the kind who will bet a small amount not wanting to scare you off with a made hand and move in if he is bluffing you just call every time he moves in. A good player would move in whether he was bluffing or betting a made hand though.
Against a player like that you can call if you think your opponent could be bluffing with a busted draw 1/3 of the time. If he will not bluff 33% of the time you should fold and if he would bluff more often you should always call.
I guess someone who is smarter than me could come up with some sort of game theory answer on how often to call on the river.

"BTW, what is wrong with charging the draws? It makes you pot committed so I could understand shoving your stack on the turn as well."

If you are going to bet I agree you should move all-in since if you make a smaller bet your opponent would be getting the right odds to call, with QJs he only needs 2,15:1.

"The "check" line confuses me here. I would also think you are setting yourself up for the entire table to take shots at you in future hands."

Thats true and an important consideration.
Your opponent might start calling with more draws on the flop because they know they will often get a free card on the turn. If you often fold a hand like AK on the river as well the whole table might try and run over you, but you don't have to sit back and watch them do it. If you notice your opponents are changing their strategy you can adjust and start betting more on the turn and calling more on the river.

[dontcrack]

Thanks suspicious mind.

Unless I played a lot with the guy in late-middle position, it would have been hard for me to put him on a hand that beats my AK.

I would have a hard believing that someone had AQ, QQ, KK or AA because I would have thought they would raise preflop.

So the only hands that would have had me beat would be A5s or 55.

Even on the flop, the one caller slow-played 2 pair on a potentially flushing board. Is it possible he was looking to check raise the turn if the spade didn't come? It seems like checking not only once but twice in this spot is not something AQ, A5s, or 55 would do.

I appreciate the replies. I have to think about and study this a bit more because between the free cards and table image issue I'm having a hard time checking the turn.