Quick Question

[Hoss12]

I had AQ and raised preflop. A player behind me three bet I called. The flop came A 8 6 two clubs i bet he raised. I thought he had AK but i called anyway. I then got an ace high flush draw on the turn but i checked knowning he would reraise. So i called his bet on the turn and a bet on the river. I missed the flush draw and he did have AK. Did I play this poorly and how should I have played it.

[jopke81]

looks fine to me. sometimes you pay off better hands.

[iNsChris]

Sounds ok, Pride yourself on your read being correct [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Good job.

[yellowjack]

You played it fine, but am jacking your post but taking your hand. I think a check/call, check/call, bet while calling a raise is also viable. However, I am trying to weigh the two against each other.

In the way you played it, the 3-bettor will call you with a lower PP and raise you with AK and AQ (maybe weaker aces too if a LAG). He may or may not call you down with a PP. The aspect I don't like is that he has the option of popping you on the flop or turn if he has AK, assuming he won't do this with a weaker ace.

On the other side, using the WA/WB line (check/call, check/call, bet) encourages PPs and any aces to bet the flop and turn, and we can make sure the river isn't checked behind. I suppose a problem is that we miss a bet if the flop is checked behind.

Thoughts?

[aK13]

[ QUOTE ]
You played it fine, but am jacking your post but taking your hand. I think a check/call, check/call, bet while calling a raise is also viable. However, I am trying to weigh the two against each other.

In the way you played it, the 3-bettor will call you with a lower PP and raise you with AK and AQ (maybe weaker aces too if a LAG). He may or may not call you down with a PP. The aspect I don't like is that he has the option of popping you on the flop or turn if he has AK, assuming he won't do this with a weaker ace.

On the other side, using the WA/WB line (check/call, check/call, bet) encourages PPs and any aces to bet the flop and turn, and we can make sure the river isn't checked behind. I suppose a problem is that we miss a bet if the flop is checked behind.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about this too, but somebody slightly more passive postflop might be 3betting hands that we are now way ahead of (such as TT, JJ, QQ, KK), might not bet the flop, but be willing to call every street to showdown.

An aggressive player, will raise our flop bet with JJ, QQ, KK, and continue to fire on every street. I like betting the river here to keep hands like these from checking behind.

So, recap, I like the:

Bet/call, check/call, bet/fold line.

[Nyack]

[ QUOTE ]
You played it fine, but am jacking your post but taking your hand. I think a check/call, check/call, bet while calling a raise is also viable. However, I am trying to weigh the two against each other.

In the way you played it, the 3-bettor will call you with a lower PP and raise you with AK and AQ (maybe weaker aces too if a LAG). He may or may not call you down with a PP. The aspect I don't like is that he has the option of popping you on the flop or turn if he has AK, assuming he won't do this with a weaker ace.

On the other side, using the WA/WB line (check/call, check/call, bet) encourages PPs and any aces to bet the flop and turn, and we can make sure the river isn't checked behind. I suppose a problem is that we miss a bet if the flop is checked behind.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the board isn't too draw heavy and scary I take the WA/WB line most of the time in this situation heads-up. Win the most when he has a worse hand and lose the least when he has a better one.

So yeah I think that's a better line but the original poster's line is fine aswell.

[yellowjack]

[ QUOTE ]

So, recap, I like the:

Bet/call, check/call, bet/fold line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Typo? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]