AJ in EP early

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
When you check behind, you've lost control of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the 2nd time in a couple of days someone has said this in response to one of my hands. it's rapidly becoming my least favorite poker cliche. i'm playing the hand to win the most/lose the least, not to have some macho "i must always bet" thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I bet because I c-bet most of the time, whether I've flopped 2nd pair, the nuts or nothing at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

i think is a reasonable point. i would bet air here, and i would bet a hand like AK. but i'm going to check some hands behind, and i like to do it with medium strength hands, that i want to showdown, especially when i have some outs. yeah, it's exploitable if you know that, but those situations don't come up often (and i wouldn't play it the same after showing it down once) and few people know my sn.

Preflop raise is pretty questionable, like a lot of people said. I think it's better than calling, though, because calling frequently leads to a multiway pot OOP with AJo. I think it may be folding > raising > calling, but maybe raising's best.

The flop check behind is good as long as you call the turn bet [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. You got mad at another poster for alluding to who has the lead in the hand, but I think it's a pretty important concept, especially because your opponents consider it. In this case, after you give up the lead on a draw-heavy flop like that, villain could easily be bluffing or semi-bluffing or value betting/protecting a T or a worse J or a bunch of crap.

[flawless_victory]

fold preflop.
call turn and see what he does on river.
u check to induce a bluff, call... raising would be plenty viable if this was deep, but i dont see the point w/ such a small stacks... youre not putting pressure on better hands.. in a deep situation u can raise here on the 2 way bet and possibly get him off a K cause he has to fear a big river bet, but here hell prob just scoot the rest of his money in there w/ KQ... so call.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop raise is pretty questionable, like a lot of people said. I think it's better than calling, though, because calling frequently leads to a multiway pot OOP with AJo. I think it may be folding > raising > calling, but maybe raising's best.


[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not in love with the raise. fold > raise > call sounds right to me except i thought the limper was weaker than he should be in that spot and i was happy to isolate him. i think folding would still be fine.

[ QUOTE ]

The flop check behind is good as long as you call the turn bet [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. You got mad at another poster for alluding to who has the lead in the hand



[/ QUOTE ]

didn't mean any ill will. me and sam go back.

[ QUOTE ]

, but I think it's a pretty important concept, especially because your opponents consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree, it's important. but the idea that one must take/keep the lead for its own sake is what grates on me.

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, after you give up the lead on a draw-heavy flop like that, villain could easily be bluffing or semi-bluffing or value betting/protecting a T or a worse J or a bunch of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. which is a big reason i checked the flop.

incidentally, i think i "keep control of the pot" much better by checking than by betting. if i bet and get c/r'ed, i've lost all control and have to fold what may be the best hand, and i certainly have some outs. if i bet and get called, i'll check behind on the turn, and then i'll be faced with a relatively large river bet and i'll have no idea where i stand and i'll usually fold, possibly with the best hand.

checking keeps the pot small and helps me get to showdown / see if i improve cheaply.

[Sam T.]

Re: Losing control of the hand

FWIW, I think I agreed with your other post, but I'd have to go back and check.

Yes, there are times when it's okay to let the villain take the lead, but I don't think this is one of them. If you could say with some certainty that you are WA/WB, I could understand this line, but you have no earthly idea where you stand. You could be miles ahead, miles behind, or neck and neck. By going passive, you are simply putting chips into the pot with a marginal hand against an opponent with an incredibly wide range. Maybe it is a problem with my mindset, but I don't want to sit around calling bets and hoping that: a) I'm ahead; and b) I stay ahead.

Your point about controlling pot size is a good one, but in this situation I think I'd rather control the pot.

Sam

[ QUOTE ]
By going passive, you are simply putting chips into the pot with a marginal hand against an opponent with an incredibly wide range.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good thing isn't it? Would you rather put chips in the pot against hands that have us beat and get nothing else out of small PPs and SCs that may consider a bluff? This is a great spot to try and get to showdown against as wide a range as possible.

[bruce]

Preflop if you play the hand a raise is the best option in my
opinion. Limping seems to be the weakest play.

I actually like a flop check. What difference does it make
if the action round is the flop or turn?

The way I look at your hand when villian bets the turn
you're way ahead, way behind, or if you reraise enough
you might be able to eliminate the best hand. Given that's
it early in the tournament I would opt to keep the pot small
and call the turn bet and call most reasonable river bets.

Bruce

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By going passive, you are simply putting chips into the pot with a marginal hand against an opponent with an incredibly wide range.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good thing isn't it? Would you rather put chips in the pot against hands that have us beat and get nothing else out of small PPs and SCs that may consider a bluff? This is a great spot to try and get to showdown against as wide a range as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm. Good point.

I think I'm changing my mind on this hand, but am having trouble coming up with what exactly I've learned. Are you essentially treating this as a WA/WB situation? I suppose that makes some sense, but the drawlicious board made me think betting was the right choice.

And if you simply call, he can make life very tough on you with a good-sized river bet. If you goal is to get to the river cheaply, I think the best way to do it is to bet the flop.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you essentially treating this as a WA/WB situation? I suppose that makes some sense, but the drawlicious board made me think betting was the right choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

it's sort of like WA/WB but not quite. if he has QJ/QT then he has a ton of outs. beyond those hands, he is WB if he's behind. the next best draw is Tx, with 5 outs. (or Q8, but i don't think he has that).

it's also not really WAWB because we're almost never WB. some likely hands and our number of outs:

- KJ: 7
- KT: 9
- TT/JJ/KK: 4
- AA: 2+4 chop

so it's not a ton of outs, but there are 4 outs to the nuts. i think it's a reverse implied odds problem more than anything - if we bet, he only puts in money ahead.

on the other hand, i agree that he made it easy on me with the tiny turn bet. if he bets 140 into 190, then i am kicking myself, and similarly if he bets full pot on a blank river.

i don't think that betting the flop is bad here, btw. i think checking is a little better but that you don't lose much by betting.