Top two pair very deep vs nit - uh ohz

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IN CASE ANYBODY FORGETS: PASSIVE MEANS HE LIKES TO CALL

[/ QUOTE ]

no. that is a separate characteristic. doesn't bet != likes to call

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does. OP is undoubtedly going off his PT numbers with regards to the passive read. PT aggression is the ratio of calls to other actions. Anything but calling is aggressive. Low aggression = likes to call. Low aggression is completely unambiguous. The high aggression numbers are the ambiguous ones.

[Dire]

There is exactly one hand you can be afraid of in this spot: AsAd. Our passive guy isn't betting KK on this flop into 4 people and he's probably not raising 66/77 UTG.

Outside of that you have AQ/AJ - both would play the exact same way from a tight but stationy type guy, especially if their kicker was a heart. They'll pay off here sometimes, sometimes they won't. But checking here because you put your opponent on exactly AA is just seeing monsters under the bed, and refusing to accept money that's being handed to you.

If you're going to be so nitty about it, make it $50 on the river. He'll always call with his AJ/AQ then, and again - he's not going to bluff you on the river. But I think he calls $100 often enough with AQ to make it more profitable.

[terp]

dire you're making a lot of assumptions in the passivity conclusion. A5 provided a pretty extensive list of reads so i'm going to (safely) assume that it's an exhaustive one

[fitnessfreak]

the real question regarding the villian is how light he calls down. my default here would be to bet 100 for value and fold to a raise, assuming he is almost never bluff raising or value raising a worse hand here.

however, i can see an argument for checking here also. the flop was multiway and this type of player is going to get scared and probably go into c/c mode even with a hand as strong as AA given that he is oop against two players, the flush got there, and you and him are both playing deep.

i would probably end up betting out 100 to get thin value from AQ or AJs, but i dont hate checking behind either.

[RainbowBright]

I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

[shpanko]

This looks perfect. I feel like this kind of player doesn't pay off with worse and is often looking for a showdown with a set. Betting is marginally ok since he never c/r'es with worse but I think you get called by better hands a lot more than you get called by weaker hands. You only beat AQ really. I doubt he even c-bets into 4 people with QQ/KK so for him to bet that flop he needs to have 66/77/AA/AK/AQ/AJ
since those are the only hands in his pf UTG raising range that would c-bet the flop into 4 people.

[RainbowBright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you made an argument for checking the turn. By betting the turn you're turning your hand into a bluff. I don't think any worse hand calls, do you?

So if your bet is not for value than it has to be a bet for protection against a lone heart coming. Which although a possibility, I think you have to be more worried about OP or the CO having a made flush.

And if in fact OP has a made flush then not getting a look at a free card on the river that could bust him when your this deep is very bad.

However, since it's much more likely that the CO has the made flush, betting might not be as bad as I make it out to be because it might work as a blocking bet and slow the CO down.

(I just reread the OP and saw the CO stack size. This makes things a little more awkward for my argument.)

* The only reason I could see the UTG calling your turn bet with a worse hand is because you didn't reraise preflop and so AK has to be at the top of your range preflop. But I think this is wishful thinking given that since you called preflop it's just as likely for you to have a made flush as a weak Ace.

[keikiwai]

after UTG calls turn and checks river, there's no way he's calling anything you beat, so a check behind is good

i like the turn bet for value, and as you said, fold to a raise

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd check the turn because I'd hate to get check-raised. I don't think any worse hands really call the turn because it looks like both you and the CO could be drawing. So I'd much rather check the turn and see how the CO acts and the UTG (if the CO bets.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like checking the turn at all. I feel like I can bet the turn and easily fold to a raise from UTG and CO is barely even a factor at this point, he can't really do anything to affect the outcome of the hand, except that UTG knows I'm never bluffing the turn with CO shortstack behind me, so if I get raised (which he really should only do with a flush, and a big one) it's a pretty easy fold I think. But my hand looks very much like a flush myself so it's not like he is going to c/r me with air or turn AQ into a bluff etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you made an argument for checking the turn. By betting the turn you're turning your hand into a bluff. I don't think any worse hand calls, do you?

So if your bet is not for value than it has to be a bet for protection against a lone heart coming. Which although a possibility, I think you have to be more worried about OP or the CO having a flush draw.

And if in fact OP has a made flush then not getting a look at a free card on the river that could bust him when your this deep is very bad.

However, since it's much more likely that the CO has the made flush, betting might not be as bad as I make it out to be because it might work as a blocking bet and slow the CO down.

(I just reread the OP and saw the CO stack size. This makes things a little more awkward for my argument.)

* The only reason I could see the UTG calling your turn bet with a worse hand is because you didn't reraise preflop and so AK has to be at the top of your range preflop. But I think this is wishful thinking given that since you called preflop it's just as likely for you to have a made flush as a weak Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think UTG check-raises the turn about 0-1% of the time, because he is only going to do that with a flush and given his stats he should show up with two suited hearts next to never. But he could definitely have AQ/AJ with a heart or something that he might call the turn with, so I think there is definetely value in a turn bet. I really don't want to let a random pair + FD get there.