A Hand Against Roy Cooke

[Kevin J]

This hand generated some discussion in one of my local card rooms. It was played by a Chicago local against Roy Cooke. I thought it was interesting. Here's the hand as I understand it.

The Chicago local raised UTG with AQ and Roy made it 3 bets from late position. Heads-up.

The flop came AXX. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The turn was a rag. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The river was a K. Local checked, Roy bet, local called and lost to KK.

The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine.

The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think?

The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it?

So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand?


Anyway, I thought the hand was interesting and might generate some discussion here.

[mikelow]

Roy sucked out (on a two-outer), but there were check-raises missed on both the turn and flop.

[Manzanita]

Kevin,

I think that Roy played his hand well. I like his bet on the turn. My guess is that he planned to check down the river if he failed to improve.

The Chicago local could have been more aggressive on the flop by either betting out or check-raising Roy; I don't think that his hand was strong enough to wait until the turn to put in a raise.

-- Manzanita

[Gabe]

It is hard to comment on how the hand was played without knowing what the xx or rag really were. If they really were totally unrelated and could not conceivably relate to one of the players hands, the man from Chicago should probably have bet the river, and maybe Cooke should have checked, the flop or turn. Are you sure he had KK, not JJ? I would certainly would not consider this hand interesting.

[gaylord focker]

Funny you posted, this, I was just talking with a friend of mine who recently got back from Vegas, and played in the 30-60 game at the Bellagio with Roy every day. He described his play as "skweaky tight", and said basically when he bets the flop you can be 90% sure he is ahead on the hand. Anyway if I held AQ I would just play it in a manner that I thought I could get the most amount of Roy's money in the pot, and if he happened to have AA or AK so be it. I think probably check raising the flop and betting the turn and the river would be best. Going for a check raise on the turn is an option, but I would be afraid he might check behind with a pocket pair, and I wouldnt want to lose a bet.

[gaylord focker]

"Roy sucked out (on a two-outer), but there were check-raises missed on both the turn and flop."


Do you mean the turn or the flop? I highly doubt Roy would fall for check raises on both the flop and the turn without an ace in his hand.

[soda]

I think Roy played the hand fine. It's usually correct to bet if checked to in a raise, reraise heads up pot like this. Heads up, Roy will likely call a river bet with KK if he checks the turn, so why not bet the turn and check down the river?

With the AQ, I'll sometimes check call here against a solid, aggressive three bettor too. If I checkraise and the person lays down the 2 outer, then I lose money. Check calling is often correct with just 7 SBs in the pot. Also, if your opponent does not bet/raise the river enough with 1 pair, but calls a lot, I'd bet the river for value here. Usually, a bet out of nowhere on the end is called. Of course, if Roy had AK and the Chicago local made this play, there is a very good chance Roy would value raise. Which, may be why the player check called the river also.

All in all, I think the hand was played well by both players. Roy just got lucky on this one, but not because of a mistake by the Chicago player - IMO.

soda

[skp]

Chicago Pro's play:

I think that his play was fine so long as he doesn't always play it this way i.e. now and then, he needs to shed the rope-a-dope and checkraise somewhere. Note betting out on the river after you have played rope-a-dope is a better play when your opponent had raised in a steal position. Here, that was not the case. Chicago raised UTG and Roy 3 bet. He certainly has a legit hand which includes AK. So, Chicago's checkcall on the river is also fine.

Roy's play:

The better play is for Roy to check KK on the turn. BTW, if the flop was A53 for example, he may also want to check QQ. I mean, how can the other dude call his flop bet with a King? With JJ, again, he might want to consider checking the turn as there is little danger that Chicago called the flop bet with a King or Queen in his hand without an Ace. But a turn bet might be supportable if Chicago would fold KK or QQ i.e., given the Ace on the board.

As for Roy's bet, it's not entirely bad either. Perhaps, he told himself that "if Chicago raises, he has an Ace for sure and I can lay down" or that "Chicago would have raised for sure on the flop if he had an Ace and that he is capable of calling me twice more with some lower pocket pair".

But on balance, Roy should probably check KK on the turn.

[astroglide]

i think it was roy that screwed this one up

if i get my aq 3bet by a good or aggressive player and an ace flops, i check/call the whole way through - possibly value bet the river if it looks like they're not going to come through on the river.

you lose the least to aa and ak, and you win the most from everything else. i don't mind giving them a free shot at a 2 outer if it's going to induce a bluff or make them think they're ahead.

there are no overcards that roy can give out, no straight draws, no flush draws. he's either losing or handing out meal tickets for a 2-outer. definitely check the turn.

[Kevin J]

I was also very curious what the XX actually were, but the only answer I could get was that they were not important to the hand.

I'm positive Roy had KK.

I thought the hand was interesting, but then I think a lot of stuff about the way a hand plays is interesting that others don't think is.