Poker is a partial information game

[fuzzbox]

Yucky mac Yuck.
I think its almost certain that he has AK, as the chances of you having it are far too high for him to make this bet without it. 98 would be too worried about AK to make such a massively strong bet.

Nope - he has AK - and while I am not sure I can get away from my set - upon reflection - I have to put this guy on AK.

In fact A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] would make a WHOLE lot of sense.

[fuzzbox]

However - K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] would make sense too, as would Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

I give up.

[meow_meow]

Putting myself in the sb's shoes, I play this way with either 89 or with AsK (lots of people will peel one for $30 with 3 clean outs with any AK here).
Looks like either he's made his straight, but fears half the river cards, or he slowplayed his top set and is cursing himself when the J hits - people seem to do this a lot - bet big after a scare card comes.

[Ghazban]

I agree that AsKs, KsQs, and QsJs are all well within the realm of possibility (though QJs is a little less likely for someone to call raise with out of position).

In my mind, the evidence against those holdings is this:

Why play them so strong on the turn but so passively on the flop? KQs is a big draw on the turn but it was a pretty big draw on the flop, too (pair+flush draw). It seems weird for villain to play a big draw aggressively with one card to come when he didn't play it aggressively with two. QJs is a little more credible in this department as it can now beat an overpair as well as having outs against a set but reasonable villains don't usually call raises with QJs out of the blinds (even with button's call in front). AsKs might play this passively on the flop but why would it bet so much on the turn? Its got the current nuts with a redraw to the nut flush. The only thing it could possibly be worrying about is the board pairing and it doesn't need to overbet the pot to protect against that.

I think 98s (non spades) is really the only thing a reasonable player plays this way.

[jkkkk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only hand I'm truly scared of is AK [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], a set of queens is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a set of jacks?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be kidding me.

[Jester999]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 98s (non spades) is really the only thing a reasonable player plays this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Johnny, what do we have for Ghazban?

The river bricked and the guy flipped 8c9c for the idiot end and a giant pot. I'm not sure I would have played his hand especially with 3 people in the pot and even if he hits his hand both of us could be drawing very live against him.

This is a tough one and also one where some good math can be done. I'll work on it over the next few days from a Bayesian perspective. Regardless, it'll be interesting to see if it's smart to get away from it. I tossed and turned about this hand all night long and I'm not sure given the guys range of hands that a laydown is best. It might be, but I think a little more detective work is required. The biggest mitigating factor might be the presence of the button behind me. It seriously degrades the probability that the SB might be bluffing or semi-bluffing wtih a draw. It only seems logical to me that he has a made hand. With the button still in the hand, the SB's bet seems like nothing other than a big giant hammer.

Oh, and to be completely honest, I NEVER saw the double gutter. Doh!

Thanks for all the replies.