Agressive Villian / blocking bet on river

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
The minraise didn't mean much to me but since i was getting 4-1, had a gutshot, a backdoor flush draw, and 2 overcards (one of which was probably live) i decided to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit reasoning for calling, not no-limit. Backdoors draws and overs don't mean nearly as much in no-limit.

Garland

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Folding to the flop raise seems to be the easiest solution. I don't think you can expect to get paid off when you hit a one-liner to a straight, and you're not sure if you want to hit an A or a J. Villain also has position. In fact, I'm not sure why you even opted to lead into villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number one reason i lead the flop was because i hoped to take it down right there. I only had 2 opponents and this looks like a flop that MIGHT have missed them both. I explained why i called the minraise earlier this thread (and i think it was very marginal)....You're points are taken!

[ QUOTE ]
The best I would ever do here is make a very loose check-call.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would NEVER check call any more than a minbet on this flop. I hate check-calling.

[ QUOTE ]
He could be having a run of cards which warrants him being aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true which is why i had an easy fold.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate check-calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you mean this in a hard fast way, and I agree that most of the time you should be raising or betting. However, there are times when check-calling is correct. One of them is against very aggressive opponents or opponents who tend to bluff.

I'm not necessarily saying the flop is one of the cases for check-calling, but the river is a classic example.

Garland

[Garland]

The results are still a bit unclear. Did you call and see his cards? Or did you fold, and he showed his bluff?

I'm pretty sure you folded. And if it's true, you just got some free info.

Garland

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you mean this in a hard fast way, and I agree that most of the time you should be raising or betting. However, there are times when check-calling is correct. One of them is against very aggressive opponents or opponents who tend to bluff.

I'm not necessarily saying the flop is one of the cases for check-calling, but the river is a classic example.


[/ QUOTE ]

Over the past couple of days, this has been rare. We're 100% on the same page [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

PS. I did not mean it in a hard fast way. I was talking about that particular flop.

[Lucky]

dont bet flop.

[soah]

LAGs make big calls because they know people don't give them credit for hands ever and expect to get played back at. I like making a big bet on this river to "represent" a busted straight draw so that he can make his big call. Or, I just check and call. Betting 30% of the pot here just serves no useful purpose in the context of this hand.

Preflop and flop is just a mess. AJ is not a hand I like to play out of position, especially if I'm not the aggressor. Having an aggressive player in the BB makes it even worse. If the flop is checked to UTG then a bet leaves you stuck right in the middle... AJs tends to flop marginal hands and draws, neither of which want to call a bet on the flop and then face a big checkraise which could mean anything... and leading hands into a LAG and a preflop aggressor is unpleasant as well. I don't get why money is going in on this flop... you have a gutshot and only one overcard which provides decent outs. If the maniac will spew if you hit something then maybe the implied odds are right to peel one off... but then you hit your card and folded the winner when the maniac spewed, so clearly that plan was no good from the start.