25NL - AKS (LC)

[CesareBorgia]

When I read your post the first few times, I thought to myself: "What's his problem, he just got unlucky." I admit I would have played the hand just about the same way. My analysis below, however, suggests that the play on the river and possibly also on the turn, would not be correct.

It is very unlikely that he had a straight draw on any street. So let's say that he made at least top pair on the flop. I would put him on 66, TT, KQs, or AK after he called you on the flop. According to pokerstove you have 46% equity against this range.

On the turn, you again were called, which I don't think narrows down our hand range any further.

On the river you made your top two pair.

Let's assume that he would've called with just kings, i.e. pocket KQ. You would lose the pot against the 66 (3 combinations), and TT (3 combinations), and split the pot against AK (4 combinations). You would win only against the KQ suited (2 combinations). Your equity would be only 33%.

Let's assume that he would've folded the KQ suited and would've just called any other hand. You would win the $16.60 in the pot right after the turn if your opponent had KQs. You would get $8.30 if your opponent had AK. You would lose your $8 bet if you were called. EV=(2x$16.60-6x$8.00+4x$8.30)/12hands=$1.53/hand.

If your opponent would have played his hand the same way if you bet just $6 instead of $8, EV would be 2x$16.60-6x$6.00+4x$8.30)/12hands=$2.53/hand.

Ideally you would want your opponent to check behind you if you check. EV=2x$16.60-6x$0.00+4x$8.30)/12hands=$5.53/hand.

Since you're opponent is not likely to check if you check, you should block bet. I would block bet about $5 and pray that he just calls.

A similar reasoning probably also applies to the turn play. <font color="blue">Does anyone disagree with my analysis? If so, why?</font>