Don't check when you hit with AK!

ericlambi · #1 01-11-2005, 12:52 PM

Everyday we get posts on here about how people lose money because they hit with AK and checked. Now, if you have AK you should have raised pre-flop, so the pot should be big enough it is worth something. I know everyone wants to win a bigger pot, but you can't do it every time. When you hit with AK, you are really hoping for action from a weaker ace or a draw. Charge them right away! No free cards!

Does this sound correct to everyone? Can we agree as a group that 2+2ers will not check when they hit with AK? Am I wrong?

I was trying to think of a reason to check with AK. I thought maybe to induce a bluff from an ultra-aggressive player when you are out of position. Any other reasons?

Kips Bay Kid · #2 01-11-2005, 12:57 PM

I think depending on who is playing at your table, you may want to consider NOT raising AK PF, here is a thread I started a few weeks back, it is about AQ but given the outcome, consider how you would have played it differently with AK - you run into the same problems.

link

I have considered NOT building pots PF with AK.

soah · #3 01-11-2005, 01:01 PM

Ciaffone says you should check your AK about 1/3 of the time when you flop TPTK on a safe board. Clearly, you both cannot be correct on the issue.

Ghazban · #4 01-11-2005, 01:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ciaffone says you should check your AK about 1/3 of the time when you flop TPTK on a safe board. Clearly, you both cannot be correct on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ciaffone is assuming you are playing in games with other thinking players. At low stakes, this is rarely the case.

ericlambi · #5 01-11-2005, 01:23 PM

1/3 huh? My research says that you should do it 1 in 3.7894 times. LOL.

Seriously though, I have not read this book or heard of Ciaffone in any regards other than I know he wrote a book on poker. However, I admit he knows more about poker than I do.

That being said . . . mixing up your play in this manner is meaningless at these stakes. The players do not know that you might have checked when you hit with AK or that you didn't. Between the fact that you don't play all that much with any given player, and that most players are terrible, the need to be tricky in this manner does not exist.

The point of my post was that a lot of people post hand histories where they check AK and end up losing a lot of money because of it. It seems like a specialized situation where you would want to check(i.e. the need to be tricky), and I don't think people here are running into those situations often.

soah · #6 01-11-2005, 01:26 PM

The first post simply says "never" to do it. Even small stakes games will feature some thinking players. Some of the Party 100 LAGs will eat you alive if your bets and checks always match the strength of your hand. It's rather silly to make a thread saying that you should "always" do something a certain way. About the only time that can really be true is when you're last to act on the river with the nuts. There's always an "it depends" in there somewhere for every other situation you run into.

ericlambi · #7 01-11-2005, 01:38 PM

Well, since you want to be nitpicky about it. No my original post did not say to never check with AK. Did you read it?

My original post even gave an example of a situation where you might want to check, and then went on to ask if others had more examples of situations where you might check.

Thanks for being helpful.

Ghazban · #8 01-11-2005, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The first post simply says "never" to do it. Even small stakes games will feature some thinking players. Some of the Party 100 LAGs will eat you alive if your bets and checks always match the strength of your hand. It's rather silly to make a thread saying that you should "always" do something a certain way. About the only time that can really be true is when you're last to act on the river with the nuts. There's always an "it depends" in there somewhere for every other situation you run into.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%; I was just giving the context for Ciaffone's remarks. I don't think he would advocate checking an AK that hits this often in the kind of low stakes, short stacked online games people on this forum are accustomed to (checking 1 out of 6 or 7 times seems closer to appropriate to me, all things being equal).

excession · #9 01-11-2005, 01:40 PM

I would check when I am first to act and either
a) I cold called my opponent's raise (from the blinds usually as I don't tend to limp in EP with AK) and he has a PFA of more than 1.0 in PT; or
b) He called my raise and he has a PFA or more than 2.5 (in which case he is going to bet at me on the end whether he hits or not). Actually if his PFA is much over 4 I'm trying the old bet 1/2 pot unless the board is real nasty as he'll likely come over the top.

Both the above situations assume that the board is not very co-ordinated of course. If 3 spades flop I am betting out and not giving him a free card in case he has one (if he has two already well I'll have to take that on the chin).

Tilt · #10 01-11-2005, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ciaffone says you should check your AK about 1/3 of the time when you flop TPTK on a safe board. Clearly, you both cannot be correct on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ciaffone is assuming you are playing in games with other thinking players. At low stakes, this is rarely the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but if you are reasonably sure that your opponents will bet if you check then checking is sometimes the best play. Thoughtless players are often over-aggressive. Its not necessarily about mixing up your play its about the best way to build the pot.