AA line I've never taken before...

[tdomeski]

you aren't re raising enough pf is this is a possible line you would ever take with AA...

just in a vacuum this hand still sucks...if you want to play small ball just don't re raise pf

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK isn't really an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

why isn't AK an option? plenty of players play AKo to a re-raise to 50+. and these players will definitely play AKs for 50+. i think you're narrowing down the villain's hand range as a result of that. i lead this flop and slow down after that. or check-call and re-evaluate on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-Calling is horrible. Your only other option is to to lead/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep. lead fold. who else raises you besides kk/qq? i see ak based on this players stats falling into passive mode.

[Finite_Risk]

This hand also illustrates the value of position.

If Garland had position in this hand and was checked to on this flop...easy check behind for the same reasons as why he folded in the real hand.

Garland - if instead you were led INTO here, I assume you also fold?

argreed. hes tight but does that not mean he might save that tightness to fire in a bluff when he thinks it will work?

[FlyingStart]

No.. If he's a good player it could mean that, but in general if he is tight, he is less likely to bluff. Game theory so to speak

edit: I mean, if one were to use the agrument that he was loose and somewhat aggressive and therefore might be bluffing, it is not possible to use the argument that he is tight and therefore also is bluffing. In that case he would always be more likely to bluff..

[wtfsvi]

Hi there Garland.

Very interesting hand. Really shows some of the value position can have in NL, 'cause if he has AK, you are basically [cencored].

I think it's close, but fwiw, I like it.

(You'd be better off having more reads than his preflop stats after 350 hands, though.)

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
Garland - if instead you were led INTO here, I assume you also fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would mean a different sequence of bet actions as I would have position. Then I would have to have the same type of opponent...one who has very tight stats, like original villain. Again, I usually don't let go of AA that easily post-flop, and it would take a specific set of circumstances to do so.

Garland

If you "know" he is only going to call this pre-flop raise with KK-QQ then why make the large raise? Were you just afraid to play the hand out of position? In that case I think you were better off just pushing pre-flop if you were going to give it up on the flop so quickly.
With the large raise you made pre-flop, and the read you have on this guy, I think you are in a lot of trouble on the flop and might be better off giving up the hand to even the slightest resistance.
However, if I am the villain I bet the flop here almost every time when checked to if I have a missed set or AK/AQ to see where I am at. So I think it is still correct to bet the flop to see where you are at.
Also, if villain will only call your reraises with AA-QQ then you should be raising him more often.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
If you "know" he is only going to call this pre-flop raise with KK-QQ then why make the large raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I don't know he has KK or QQ when he first raises, so that is quite silly. His call of the re-raise gives me a bigger clue to his holdings. Secondly, SB called so it's entirely possible that the original raiser will fold and SB will call. This sequence of events is also ok, and in fact better for me as I have position and SB could have lesser cards than the original raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
Were you just afraid to play the hand out of position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. I know to a certain extent the range of his hands. I'm praying for a raggidy xxx flop...one where I can check-raise all-in and expect a call from an overpair. Instead I'm given a flop where I'm screwed against the range of hands I put him on due to his tightness. Literally, if he has KK, QQ or AK, I've "lost" (AK will put me to the test by the turn or the river when I stop betting after the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
In that case I think you were better off just pushing pre-flop if you were going to give it up on the flop so quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entirely silly statement. Raising all-in will make all hands except the case AA to fold. Of course I want action with my AA, but I want to make them pay. I want KK and QQ to re-raise me pre-flop thinking I'm FOS. It's the horror flop I didn't want.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I am the villain I bet the flop here almost every time when checked to if I have a missed set or AK/AQ to see where I am at.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I don't believe in the slightest that villain has AQ. Secondly, if he has AK, then I'm going to be screwed (see above). Obviously if I increase my villain's range of hands to include more pocket pairs (JJ, TT, 99 and such) then betting the flop would be correct. I just didn't in this case.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Garland

[ryanghall]

I don't know why everyone hates this fold so much. I'm guessing he was behind here. He may have to call 2 more bets to find that out, as well. If he's ahead, he'll win much LESS than he'll lose if he's behind.

I think on these boards, people are too concerned with not being "weak-tight", whatever that actually is. (I'll tell you what it is, it's probably the right way to play mid-stakes poker unless you're REAL good).

This is an interesting line, although I have an alternative one. Making a smallish, maybe 1/2 pot flop bet could also have some merit, as it could look like you're milking a set. What would you think if your opponent bet 1/2 pot after reraising and this flop came out? If he raises, you're done with the hand at that point. If he calls and he *doesn't* have the set, he'll almost certainly check behind on the turn and then you can check/call the river. If he bets the turn, fold.

Ryan