400NL: AA, very passive

[yvesaint]

i like this check far better in a heads up pot

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would not bet the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? I would think this is a pretty ez bet

[/ QUOTE ]

I do it to control pot size/ induce a bluff/ under rep your hand and get paid off on later streets.

But by checking the flop and just relaxing on the hand, don't get married to it later.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to under-rep your hand; you are c'betting on a scary board. They can easily perceive it as nothing. Of course I don't mind checking it here, but I'm just thinking that a Q is going to call your c'bet, you both check the turn, he will either bet the river or check/call it. I'm not sure how much it matters, but I'd not want a bad hand to backdoor a weird better hand on me via getting the flop checked through, him semi-bluffing the turn, and him value betting the river.

Bet the flop, check the turn, call the river.

As played, you got lucky that they ID'ed their hands.

[Kristian]

[ QUOTE ]
by not betting the flop, you don't know if BB is doing this with a J or just a naked queen. In fact judging by the fact you posted this I'm assuming BB won with a naked Q and you're wondering why the eff you didn't just bet. Also if you're gonna make this flop play you should probably call the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO no one raises this turn without at least a J with a strangely passive preflop raiser still to act. I shouldn't have included turn action since it's sort of like posting results. The interesting part is the flop.

I understand the problems, but I like the flop check partly because peeling off a safe turn makes it easier to distinguish between a J playing tricky and a draw. The downside of course is that if a scary turn falls, I have to let it go relatively easily.