AA

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He never said she was passive. He said she was a little too passive. Maybe he should explain what that means. To me it means she plays aggressively, but misses a lot of bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you are getting at, and yet I think you are contorting the language here. Aggressivity is a continuum, where "too passive" indicates a tendency in one direction, which is imperfectly, but fairly, abbreviated as "passive" -- beyond that, I agree the original speaker has to say. Note that you are arguing on a different front than the OP, whose opinion is not that she isn't passive, but that her behaviour in the hand with AQ isn't particularly aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly there is a big distinction between preflop/flop aggression and turn/river aggression, and that one can give action on the small streets but be passive enough on the big streets such that raises are indicative of a much narrower range of hands. If that range is narrow enough, that is a turn/river raise is almost never less than 2-pair, I would consider that player too passive.

[shemp]

Then, at the outset, you need to tell us she is aggressive preflop and on the flop but doesn't give action on big bet streets without a big hand, rather than persist that "too passive" should be read "is aggressive preflop and on the flop but doesn't give action on big bet streets".

That's my opinion. Posts where information seeps out and context is added as needed to bolster hero's line annoy me.

But again, why ask the forum for comments on something so idiosyncratic and hinging on information unknown to the forum? Obviously you know the river play is perfect given the constraints you've placed on this person. The other streets are reasonable, I'm kind of partial to turn raises and 3-bets where I like my hand so much, but so be it.

[tpir90036]

I just took your read in context and came up with "too passive for a 40 game in Atlantic City" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] But I still don't see how she raises with a hand you are beating. If that is anywhere in the range I would rather check/call then bet/fold.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Then, at the outset, you need to tell us she is aggressive preflop and on the flop but doesn't give action on big bet streets without a big hand, rather than persist that "too passive" should be read "is aggressive preflop and on the flop but doesn't give action on big bet streets".

That's my opinion. Posts where information seeps out and context is added as needed to bolster hero's line annoy me.

But again, why ask the forum for comments on something so idiosyncratic and hinging on information unknown to the forum? Obviously you know the river play is perfect given the constraints you've placed on this person. The other streets are reasonable, I'm kind of partial to turn raises and 3-bets where I like my hand so much, but so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I'm inclined to think, however, that my characterization of "too passive" is common to the point of default in live play. Maybe you disagree.

As for the river, I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's right, and it's not because of my prior experience with her so much as what Max was saying. That is, when the river goes bet/call I'm a favorite. When it goes bet/raise or check/bet I'm toast.

EDIT: Obviously, I think I'm a favorite when it goes check/check too.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]


HU for 11.25 BBs. Turn is the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. I bet, she calls.

River is the K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. I check, she bets, I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Based on your description, there is no way she has JJ or AK (EDIT: or AQ).

[shemp]

You don't want to take credit for playing the river perfectly as you suggest any other way is less profitable. How is this not more word games? I'd wish you luck, but you clearly don't need any with the control you have over your opponents. Just be careful when you read their minds that they haven't misread their hands.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


HU for 11.25 BBs. Turn is the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. I bet, she calls.

River is the K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. I check, she bets, I fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Based on your description, there is no way she has JJ or AK (EDIT: or AQ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, we can't check-fold this river unless we're positive she doesn't bet AA.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want to take credit for playing the river perfectly as you suggest any other way is less profitable. How is this not more word games? I'd wish you luck, but you clearly don't need any with the control you have over your opponents. Just be careful when you read their minds that they haven't misread their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have some sort of beef with me. I don't quite understand why. I think I've made a serious attempt to curtail the smarm I usually use to post, but whatever. Thanks for not wishing me misfortune.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want to take credit for playing the river perfectly as you suggest any other way is less profitable. How is this not more word games? I'd wish you luck, but you clearly don't need any with the control you have over your opponents. Just be careful when you read their minds that they haven't misread their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will go out on a limb and say that he played the river perfectly and I'm happy to be proven wrong.

He is not going to make any profit on money he puts in to the pot on the river, but he will lose less by betting than by checking and calling.

The only time he should check is if she is so passive that she will check behind with most of her hands that aren't the nuts.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't want to take credit for playing the river perfectly as you suggest any other way is less profitable. How is this not more word games? I'd wish you luck, but you clearly don't need any with the control you have over your opponents. Just be careful when you read their minds that they haven't misread their hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have some sort of beef with me. I don't quite understand why. I think I've made a serious attempt to curtail the smarm I usually use to post, but whatever. Thanks for not wishing me misfortune.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave, I don't think it's a beef with you personally. I've talked about this hand with a few people and every one of us has said check-call -- she's got AA or KK -- given the read you provided. You've given us information after the fact that literally makes it impossible for us to disagree with your river play, because the read you gave (she can have AQ, will only raise KK, and will bet AA if checked to) makes your best river play obviously the best both mathematically and logically. Basically you've constructed a situation in which it's impossible to argue the proper play on the river, due to your read, which since we weren't there, we can't disagree with. Which makes this hand kinda worthless to post, because what's the point of posting a hand where you've constructed the variables in such a way where there is only one proper mathematical play and you took it?

Hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, you know I like you but if you think she can have AQ and will bet AA on the river you know that bet-folding is the right play and there's no way around it. Which makes the whole hand kinda moot.

Rob