limped aces UTG top set

mgsimpleton · #1 08-23-2005, 01:57 PM

Hi guys. Here's a hand which demonstrates why I hate money. So if anyone asks why I didn't ever try to build the pot (on the flop, for instance) just remind yourselves that I hate money. I also love action, however.

I also hate the converter so I'm going to do it manually... this is PP 10/20 NL full ring.

Hero (4k)
Villain (3600)

Hero is UTG with (A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img])

Hero limps, two other people limp, blinds complete.

Flop (100): A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Checked around.

Turn (100): 5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Hero bets 80, Villain raises to 250, Hero calls 170.

River (600): 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Hero checks.

Comments? Thoughts and justifications for my line and results to follow.

Ulysses · #2 08-23-2005, 02:00 PM

Bet pot on river.

mgsimpleton · #3 08-23-2005, 02:02 PM

can you give reasoning, please?

edit: you know, i'll jsut include my reasoning here to generate discussion on the pros and cons of my thinking. i was thinking that i have ridiculously underrepresented my hand.

on the turn, i diddn't want to reraise in case he had the straight. but anyway when i check that river, either he has a straight, which will bet for value, or he has trips (67) which will likely bet for value, a fh which will bet for value, or a missed draw. the other possible holdings are a counterfeit aces up or any weak ace which probably aren't calling a large bet on the river anyway. So i thought given his range and how hard it is to put me on a monster the way it played out, a check raise was in order. but given weak aces/aces up is a weak lead on the river a better line? do the other hands i mentioned HAVE to raise a weak lead?

VanVeen · #4 08-23-2005, 02:26 PM

I have nothing constructive to say about preflop -> turn. You hate money. That's cool. As for the river, I dick around for awhile then raise pot thinking:

i) It gives him a chance to fire a second barrel with missed spade draws;

ii) He'll bet as much as he'll call with a straight (and trips) and will occasionally payoff a check-raise. He will never raise with a straight.

iii) He'll always bet a full house and will always payoff a check-raise. It may be more difficult to stack worse fhs by check-raising than it would have been had you led and 3bet (most players will foolishly autoraise here with 65 or even 44), however.

Those times he's holding a counterfeited two pair you're missing value by not leading since he'll occasionally payoff, but I think he has that relatively infrequently given the action (bets flop a decent % of the time w/A5 and always w/a4, let's say). I can be persuaded that leading pot is a better play if we're playing a certain (not uncommon) type of opponent, but I think c/r is best vs. random.

thabadguy · #5 08-23-2005, 02:33 PM

Checking flop is alright, if you're going for a check raise.
I dont really like check calling here(limped pot, 2 spades), although i would prefer leading that flop, an ace is calling, prolly raising.
Turn is fine. I dont like 3betting, because he might have straight or he might muck something like Aces up.
River I bet pot, you might get raised by a 6 or the straight, which makes it easier getting it in. The check on the river, which does allow weaker hands to bet into you, makes it a little difficult to get good value from good 2nd best hands, and since you say you think he has the straight, lead into him and let him raise ya.

mgsimpleton · #6 08-23-2005, 02:53 PM

if i bet full pot, i don't think trips or a straight are raising. hell i don't know if trips is even calling.

coltrane · #7 08-23-2005, 03:04 PM

you bet pot on the river because:

there are more hands that villain will call a bet with (but not bet himself) than there are hands that he'll bet and call a potsized checkraise with.....and if he happens to have the latter type of hand, those are the hands you want to 3-bet and give him a chance to go broke with.....

9cao · #8 08-23-2005, 03:06 PM

I was thinking the same thing. I guess the idea is to leverage the size of his possible raise and get full value out of him if he just calls figuring you for missed draw or if he has counterfitted ace. However, I am thinking that this would be a good spot to lead out weak and then I think the range of hands that raise you up increases, specifically the straight.

VanVeen · #9 08-23-2005, 03:14 PM

This is untrue! Almost every hand villain can call a bet with he'll *always* bet and he'll bet with hands that cannot call a bet.

Whether to check-raise or lead and attempt a 3bet basically comes down to how often he has a straight vs. a worse full house and how often he'll call a check-raise with a straight vs. raise and call a 3bet with a fullhouse.

coltrane · #10 08-23-2005, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
he'll bet with hands that cannot call a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

what hands?...bluffs and busted draws?....possible, but he'd have to be pretty stupid to bluff this river after hero called a turn raise on that board....

also, I still contend hands like an ace will check behind but might make a crying call....

but most importantly, metagame reasons aside (I rarely checkraise), hero has a big hand and wants to win the biggest possible pot when villain does have a FH....only way to do that is to lead out..... i.e. - even if say 2 out of 10 times the 3-bet works, it's worth it and is more profitable long-term than checking the river.....