A Hand Against Roy Cooke

Kevin J · #1 12-30-2002, 04:51 PM

This hand generated some discussion in one of my local card rooms. It was played by a Chicago local against Roy Cooke. I thought it was interesting. Here's the hand as I understand it.

The Chicago local raised UTG with AQ and Roy made it 3 bets from late position. Heads-up.

The flop came AXX. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The turn was a rag. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The river was a K. Local checked, Roy bet, local called and lost to KK.

The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine.

The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think?

The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it?

So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand?

Anyway, I thought the hand was interesting and might generate some discussion here.

mikelow · #2 12-30-2002, 05:01 PM

Roy sucked out (on a two-outer), but there were check-raises missed on both the turn and flop.

gaylord focker · #3 12-30-2002, 06:16 PM

"Roy sucked out (on a two-outer), but there were check-raises missed on both the turn and flop."

Do you mean the turn or the flop? I highly doubt Roy would fall for check raises on both the flop and the turn without an ace in his hand.

Manzanita · #4 12-30-2002, 05:28 PM

Kevin,

I think that Roy played his hand well. I like his bet on the turn. My guess is that he planned to check down the river if he failed to improve.

The Chicago local could have been more aggressive on the flop by either betting out or check-raising Roy; I don't think that his hand was strong enough to wait until the turn to put in a raise.

-- Manzanita

Kevin J · #5 12-30-2002, 07:46 PM

"I don't think that his hand was strong enough to wait until the turn to put in a raise."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Assuming he has the best hand and that the XX are truly blanks, how many outs can Roy have here? In other words, how close to drawing dead must an opponent be before waiting until the turn IS correct? (just playing the devil's advocate). Thanks.

Manzanita · #6 12-31-2002, 06:05 PM

Kevin,

If Roy has an Ace (which is a reasonable assumption given that he 3-bet an UTG raiser) then it is unlikely that the Chicago player is ahead. Of course, Roy could also have 3-bet with KK, QQ, and possibly lesser pocket pairs. If you look at the distribution of possible hands then the Chicago player appears to be a slight favorite. That is why I think he should play the flop aggressively. If analysis suggested that the Chicago player was a bigger favorite then check-calling the flop and going for a raise on the turn is a better play. I hope that this reasoning makes sense (which is not to say that it is necessarily correct).

-- Manzanita

anatta · #7 12-30-2002, 08:27 PM

I agree that check raising the turn with AQ here would be too aggressive. Looking at Roy's possible holdings, AA, AK, KK are the most likely, and I do not think check raising on the turn makes sense for any of them.

Gabe · #8 12-30-2002, 05:39 PM

It is hard to comment on how the hand was played without knowing what the xx or rag really were. If they really were totally unrelated and could not conceivably relate to one of the players hands, the man from Chicago should probably have bet the river, and maybe Cooke should have checked, the flop or turn. Are you sure he had KK, not JJ? I would certainly would not consider this hand interesting.

gaylord focker · #9 12-30-2002, 06:14 PM

Funny you posted, this, I was just talking with a friend of mine who recently got back from Vegas, and played in the 30-60 game at the Bellagio with Roy every day. He described his play as "skweaky tight", and said basically when he bets the flop you can be 90% sure he is ahead on the hand. Anyway if I held AQ I would just play it in a manner that I thought I could get the most amount of Roy's money in the pot, and if he happened to have AA or AK so be it. I think probably check raising the flop and betting the turn and the river would be best. Going for a check raise on the turn is an option, but I would be afraid he might check behind with a pocket pair, and I wouldnt want to lose a bet.

Softrock · #10 12-30-2002, 11:13 PM

I have played with Roy quite a bit at Bellagio and for many years before the Bellagio at the Mirage. I think it's erroneous to call him "squeaky tight". One of the things I've watched him do and something he writes about is adjust his play to the game and players at hand. Recently we were together in a ridiculously tight 30-60 game. Roy raised UTG and I was in mid-late position with KK and 3 bet. To make a long story short he hit his set, played it fast until the river when the board paired and then checked to me. I checked. Roy later said to me "I can't believe you didn't bet those Kings on the river." I responded that I never value bet when I'm confused as to where I'm at and his play had confused me - I think we both learned something from that encounter.

However, the point is, in a very tight game you will see sophisticated players like RC come in for a raise UTG with a hand like 55 where he would never do so in a different type of game.

My suspicion is your friend was in a relatively loose game where someone like Roy is only going to bet when he has a hand because he knows he's going to be called. Can this possibly be a product of your friend's play?