With deep stacks, I always fold top pair! - Page 8

Ansky · #71 02-20-2006, 04:09 PM

If an ace bets it is for value. KK is not in his range more than 5% of the time. If you can't see why... I don't really know what to say. Just called 2 pf raises, then calls down on ace high board and bets the river? Hm... no.

rockin · #72 02-20-2006, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If an ace bets it is for value. KK is not in his range more than 5% of the time. If you can't see why... I don't really know what to say. Just called 2 pf raises, then calls down on ace high board and bets the river? Hm... no.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with KK not being in his range due to preflop action, but i do not see a weak ace betting for value here, especially considering preflop action. Why would a worse ace than yours feel confident enough that he can bet this board on the river for value, when he should be confident enough that he can get to showdown very cheaply WA/WB? A weak ace here is a bluff bet IMO.

LearnedfromTV · #73 02-20-2006, 04:14 PM

Doesn't this kind of player either bet or checkraise the flop with AJ-AT? The next problem is that there is an ace (AQ) where being cautious on the flop and betting the river makes sense, if we are against a good player. And we don't beat it anymore.

bruce · #74 02-20-2006, 04:17 PM

Too bad this wasn't a live B&M tournament and if you were Phil
Hellmuth you could look into your opponents soul and make the correct read. Does anyone claim to have these capabilities online?

Bruce

A_PLUS · #75 02-20-2006, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this kind of player either bet or checkraise the flop with AJ-AT? The next problem is that there is an ace (AQ) where being cautious on the flop and betting the river makes sense, if we are against a good player. And we don't beat it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the river bet is a little out of character for your typical passive player (who will usually check-call the whole way with AT). But not THAT out of line. Seriously think about how many players make bets that will only be called by a better hands.

Exitonly · #76 02-20-2006, 04:23 PM

I'm not positive i'm right, but some of you guuyys are giving villains lots of credit..

"If he had AJ he played it horrible"

Well, yea. Thats why a good % of us don't have to have real jobs.

AJ could definitely get here. and worse.

(again, i'm not positive it's a call or anything, it's thin either way, but you gotta remember, people are bad at this game)

Ansky · #77 02-20-2006, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If an ace bets it is for value. KK is not in his range more than 5% of the time. If you can't see why... I don't really know what to say. Just called 2 pf raises, then calls down on ace high board and bets the river? Hm... no.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with KK not being in his range due to preflop action, but i do not see a weak ace betting for value here, especially considering preflop action. Why would a worse ace than yours feel confident enough that he can bet this board on the river for value, when he should be confident enough that he can get to showdown very cheaply WA/WB? A weak ace here is a bluff bet IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything is WA/WB on the river.

If an ace bets here it is never as a bluff. He wouldn't expect me to fold a better hand, and thinks he could get pair by worse hands.

illegit · #78 02-20-2006, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If an ace bets it is for value. KK is not in his range more than 5% of the time. If you can't see why... I don't really know what to say. Just called 2 pf raises, then calls down on ace high board and bets the river? Hm... no.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with KK not being in his range due to preflop action, but i do not see a weak ace betting for value here, especially considering preflop action. Why would a worse ace than yours feel confident enough that he can bet this board on the river for value, when he should be confident enough that he can get to showdown very cheaply WA/WB? A weak ace here is a bluff bet IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything is WA/WB on the river.

If an ace bets here it is never as a bluff. He wouldn't expect me to fold a better hand, and thinks he could get pair by worse hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most players in these fields simply don't think in these terms. Clearly the point of betting in poker is to get opponents to call you when they have worse hands and fold when they have better hands.

However, most people simply DO NOT understand this concept as simple as it is. Any thinking person would say 'why would I bet AJ here when i can check-call and induce a bluff which would make me more $ in the long run?' Most people think 'i have a pair i bet. Why? Cause there's a button that says bet.... and I have a pair of aces'. Is it for value? is it a bluff? Honestly, they have no clue.

If we assume, or know, the opponent understands the object of poker then folding is OK. Though if he KNOWS we know that he knows, and is capable of calling with air on the flop just to represent a hand bbetter than AK then you're back to probably having to call here again.

LearnedfromTV · #79 02-20-2006, 05:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not positive i'm right, but some of you guuyys are giving villains lots of credit..

"If he had AJ he played it horrible"

Well, yea. Thats why a good % of us don't have to have real jobs.

AJ could definitely get here. and worse.

(again, i'm not positive it's a call or anything, it's thin either way, but you gotta remember, people are bad at this game)

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not about giving the Villain too much credit and it's not that he couldn't have AJ/AT. My point is that the inconsistency in the line doesn't fit most bad players. It's more likely that a bad player will bet-bet-bet or call-check-call than call-check-bet. A lot of bad players will play this flop aggressively holding a weaker ace. Other bad players will play the flop passively with the same hand (and probably call down). Whichever it is, it's more likely than not to be a general tendency that will help us with the river read.

The information we have is that he played the flop passively (and preflop, calling raises twice), which makes it more likely that *if he has AJ*, he'll check-call the river. For this reason I think it is less likely that he has AJ/AT/etc.. Not impossible, but less likely. We're weighing probabilities here. Combine this with the flush and the fact that AQ waking up and betting the river does make a lot of sense, either from a bad player who plays passively against strength or from a good player who wanted to keep the pot small until he hit the river, and I think this is a close fold.

LearnedfromTV · #80 02-20-2006, 06:04 PM

Put another way:

He called two raises preflop and check-called the flop. So far, he looks pretty loose-passive. What hands does a loose passive player do this with: an ace, a club draw, a set/two pair (maybe), a lower pair. Which of these is he most likely to bet the river with after the club draw and Q have hit?

AQ, flush are the two the jump out at me. Most people who call three bets in a row need their hand to change to wake up and bet out. Again, not necessarily, but way more often than not.