|
|
#1
02-08-2005, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
AK no pair
25/50
folded to hero who raises from CO with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] folded to BB who calls. flop: 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] villain bets, hero raises, villain calls turn: 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] villain bets, hero folds Is this OK 
|
|
#2
02-08-2005, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
This is entirely read dependent, so you can't get a really comprehensive answer here without more detail.
Is it OK? Yes. Would a raise be better? Against certain opponents, yes. If he had a 9 do you really think he would have bet out the turn?
|
|
#3
02-08-2005, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
[ QUOTE ]
This is entirely read dependent [/ QUOTE ] I have no read on him. first time I've ever seen him [ QUOTE ] If he had a 9 do you really think he would have bet out the turn? [/ QUOTE ] no, not really, but do you think he can't beat AK? how likely is he to have 78 here? how about AT? If I raise, will a villian who led out with 78 ever cap with it? will a villian who led out with 77 always call and then check the river? will i ever see something like JT here? do all the combined times I end up winning this hand add up to enough money to cover losing 2 bets every time I lose?
|
|
#4
02-08-2005, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
[ QUOTE ]
If he had a 9 do you really think he would have bet out the turn? [/ QUOTE ] I've played with a lot of people who like to stop-and-go when they turn trips here. They figure that the opponent will probably raise and they can get in three bets, rather than the two they get by check-raising. Obviously, I don't know if this specific opponent would do that, but I wouldn't say that his play is necessarily inconsistent with having a 9.
|
|
#5
02-08-2005, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If he had a 9 do you really think he would have bet out the turn? [/ QUOTE ] I've played with a lot of people who like to stop-and-go when they turn trips here. They figure that the opponent will probably raise and they can get in three bets, rather than the two they get by check-raising. Obviously, I don't know if this specific opponent would do that, but I wouldn't say that his play is necessarily inconsistent with having a 9. [/ QUOTE ] How about his play on the flop, though? The guys at this limit that are capable of betting out with top pair are usually doing so with the hope of getting three bets in, especially against a late position raiser.
|
|
#6
02-08-2005, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is entirely read dependent [/ QUOTE ] I have no read on him. first time I've ever seen him [ QUOTE ] If he had a 9 do you really think he would have bet out the turn? [/ QUOTE ] no, not really, but do you think he can't beat AK? how likely is he to have 78 here? how about AT? If I raise, will a villian who led out with 78 ever cap with it? will a villian who led out with 77 always call and then check the river? will i ever see something like JT here? do all the combined times I end up winning this hand add up to enough money to cover losing 2 bets every time I lose? [/ QUOTE ] you wont lose 2 every time you lose. your turn call will sometimes (depending on opponent) cause him/her to check and call on the river with a small pair...other times you'll see an ace here which you beat... its close and depends on the player, but i do not think he has a 9. -Barron
|
|
#7
02-08-2005, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If he had a 9 do you really think he would have bet out the turn? [/ QUOTE ] I've played with a lot of people who like to stop-and-go when they turn trips here. They figure that the opponent will probably raise and they can get in three bets, rather than the two they get by check-raising. Obviously, I don't know if this specific opponent would do that, but I wouldn't say that his play is necessarily inconsistent with having a 9. [/ QUOTE ] How about his play on the flop, though? The guys at this limit that are capable of betting out with top pair are usually doing so with the hope of getting three bets in, especially against a late position raiser. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah. I was just disagreeing with the claim that no one would bet the turn here with a 9. I wanted to comment on that partially because I happen to like the bet-and-three-bet line there and find myself doing it a lot more often than I used to. I agree that his flop play isn't terribly consistent with a 9 for most players. But, at least for most people I play with, betting out on a 9-high uncoordinated flop into a steal raiser like this isn't terribly consistent with anything, because they never do it at all.
|
|
#8
02-08-2005, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
Could be a 6, a 3, a small pocket pair, a draw, or a 9. Although I think a 9 is the least likely out of that list. I'd call and look him up. Was it online or live? Also note that against a 3, 44, or 55, you have 9 outs (if the 6 pairs), and against 22, you have 12 outs.
|
|
#9
02-08-2005, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
BTW, I don't know what the flop raise accomplishes. It's really not a sin just to call down the whole way if you think your opponent is capable of making this play with little or nothing.
|
|
#10
02-08-2005, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AK no pair
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I don't know what the flop raise accomplishes. [/ QUOTE ] basically, it's supposed to make him check the turn and hopefully the river too. You know that. I had no read on him and so assumed that he could be easily coerced into submission/passivity on further streets.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
