A hand Entity and I talked about

[Mathieu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to sum it up. he'll payoff with AA (6 ways) 100% of the time, so he'd need to check-raise KK (3 ways) 100% of the time for us to break even with a bet-call line. if he c/r's KK less than 100%, betting the river makes $$.

bet-folding aside.. but you'd have to be quite confident he isn't fps'ing it up to lay this one down to a c/r.

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn (which would make us more confident in KK over AA here). i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I agree with your EV equation. You might have overlooked one thing though: point 1 (check raise KK less than 100 %) and 2 (more confident that it is AA rather than KK) are related.

The fact that he may sometimes bet out KK on this river (and almost never AA) makes it even more likely that he has AA once he checked. I mean more likely than what card distribution would suggest (2-1). I think Sklansky points this out in TOP in a similar example, I'd like to quote it but a friend borrowed my copy.

[blumpkin22]

I don't think it has been mentioned, but there is an interesting parallel between this hand and the hand discussed in "To Bet or Not to Bet" in Mason Malmouth's Poker Essays Volume I.

In that hand, Mason held the A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and there was a limp-reraise from a player Mason was sure would only do that with aces or kings. On fourth street, Mason made the nut flush and raised his opponents bet (the third player in the hand then folded). However, the K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] was on the board, and the river put a pair of fives on the board. Mason suggests the correct play is to check behind on the river, since with his A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and the K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on the board, there are an equal number of combinations of aces and kings for his opponent, and because he will get check-raised 100% of the time if he has a full house, and may not even get paid off if his opponent has aces. He also mentions that his opponent is aggressive enough that he could not fold to the check-raise.

Jason's hand is fairly different, though. In particular, there are more combinations of aces than kings with the king on the river, and in these online games the opponent will not fold aces in this pot. Bet the river.

[etizzle]

That is highly highly unlikely. Theres almost no reason for him to not fastplay QQ on the turn here. If you are raising for a free showdown with AJ or TT then slowplaying QQ will be very costly.

Also if you have a set he will make much more money by 3 betting it. I dont think he plays QQ like this more than 1% of the time.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
That is highly highly unlikely. Theres almost no reason for him to not fastplay QQ on the turn here. If you are raising for a free showdown with AJ or TT then slowplaying QQ will be very costly.

Also if you have a set he will make much more money by 3 betting it. I dont think he plays QQ like this more than 1% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that. My point is that I think that KQ etc. are just as unlikely here.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
That is highly highly unlikely. Theres almost no reason for him to not fastplay QQ on the turn here. If you are raising for a free showdown with AJ or TT then slowplaying QQ will be very costly.

Also if you have a set he will make much more money by 3 betting it. I dont think he plays QQ like this more than 1% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
This post assumes the TAG plays good. Most of the time they just have the stats but you can't count on them to think out postflop like you just did.