Big Stacked AKs

[willie]

[ QUOTE ]
people who say check: you. are. wrong.

shove, or bet like 4/5 pot if you think it looks scarier

just get it in though

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously

jam the flop, if he folds- sweet, if he calls- get there. it's that simple here.

as for the person who said they were calling a brick turn shove....whaaaaa? You don't want to move in and make someone fold but want to call allin and HAVE to get there?

hand looks very good as long as you bombed the flop.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who are saying check behind are we calling a shove on a 2 spade turn? If not then this is awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still hate it. Med pairs and such might shove turn and they might of folded the flop. This justs seems really bad. Shoving flop is sooo much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned several times why I like checking behind on the flop and this will be the last time I mention it.

Checking behind on the flop allows the villain to incorrectly play more hands in his range. Sure, if he has a middle pair checking behind lets him see a brick. But I don't really care. I am committed on this flop anyway.

Read: I am not folding from the flop on. So what makes the difference when I get the $ in?

By checking on the flop we allow villain the opportunity to mis-play other hands in his range like AQ,KQ,AJ,AK w/e. If the turn bricks and villain shoves, he is now likely shoving with a wider range than on the flop. This makes calling the turn more +EV than it seems because sometimes he shoves and our AK high is good.

However, if we shove the flop against some of the weaker hands in his range, he folds. He gets away with a hand that we might have convinced him to shove on the turn. Once again, I don't care if he has a pair because I don't intend on folding the turn anyway. BTW, if villain really folds any pair on this flop to a shove, that is just terrible.

Can anyone answer this question: If I am going to see all five cards on this hand anyway, what makes the difference if I get the $ in on the flop or on the turn?

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people who say check: you. are. wrong.

shove, or bet like 4/5 pot if you think it looks scarier

just get it in though

[/ QUOTE ]

as for the person who said they were calling a brick turn shove....whaaaaa? You don't want to move in and make someone fold but want to call allin and HAVE to get there?


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean have to get there? Who said he only shoves a better hand on the turn? Our AK might still be the best hand when he shoves the turn. That's the whole reason for checking the flop. Otherwise checking the flop would be dumb.

[ThePershore]

I bet like 4,000 on the flop or something that obviously shows we're not folding.

I mean you have a ton of outs vs 95% of his range + a decent amount of FE.

[ QUOTE ]
Read: I am not folding from the flop on. So what makes the difference when I get the $ in?

[/ QUOTE ]

He can fold some pairs on the flop if we bet. Get it in as 50/50 on the flop not as a dog on the turn when we miss. Checking the flop is too weak IMO it's not like we're checking AA/KK here. ever. so bet.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet like 4,000 on the flop or something that obviously shows we're not folding.

I mean you have a ton of outs vs 95% of his range + a decent amount of FE.

[ QUOTE ]
Read: I am not folding from the flop on. So what makes the difference when I get the $ in?

[/ QUOTE ]

He can fold some pairs on the flop if we bet. Get it in as 50/50 on the flop not as a dog on the turn when we miss. Checking the flop is too weak IMO it's not like we're checking AA/KK here. ever. so bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

He should never ever fold a pair on this flop. If you raise/call PF with a pair and hit a flop this good, you should be shoving the flop. Therefore, villain SHOULD NOT have a pair (unless he has a boat or quads) at this point. Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a pair. But a good thinking opponent, never has a pocket pair here.

[ThePershore]

[ QUOTE ]
He should never ever fold a pair on this flop. If you raise/call PF with a pair and hit a flop this good, you should be shoving the flop. Therefore, villain SHOULD NOT have a pair (unless he has a boat or quads) at this point. Of course, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a pair. But a good thinking opponent, never has a pocket pair here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because people "shouldn't" do something doesn't mean they don't. You have no read that villian is a "good thinking opponent".

[BarryLyndon]

I think it's amazing that this post is still going on.

Barry

[Sherman]

Barry, the reason this post is still going is because it is about maximizing equity against a villain's hand range. No doubt an important part of poker.



Ok. Let's try some math.

I think this is a reasonable hand range for villain PF 66+,ATs+,ATo+,KQs+,KQo+.

If we shove the flop he calls with 66+,ATs,ATo. That means he folds the flop 48% of the time. We pick up t4650. 52% of the time he calls and we have 44% equity (see below).


Board: Tc 7c 7h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 55.807% 55.63% 00.18% 26985 87.00 { 66+, ATs, ATo }
Hand 1: 44.193% 44.01% 00.18% 21351 87.00 { AcKc }

With his remaining stack and our call that makes the total pot 15,450. 44% of the times he calls we win t4441 and 56% of the time we lose 3013 for a net gain of +t1428.

So 48% of the time (we he folds) we win 4650 uncontested and 52% of the time (when he calls) we win 1428 for a total net gain of t6078.

So what happens when we check? Now we have to assume that villain shoves a certain % of turn cards, check/folds a certain %, and check/calls a certian %.


I'll begin first with when he checks. Let's again assume that he has the same hand range (as we should). When he checks, given that we don't know anything about the turn card, we have to assume that he will fold to our shove a certain % of the time and call a certain % of the time. Because we don't know what the turn will bring, let us again assume the same calling and folding range as on the flop.

So 48% of the time he will fold and we win 4650 unconetested. 52% of the time he will call and we will still win 44% of the time (t4441) and lose 56% of the time (3013) for a net gain of t1428. We don't know what the turn card will be so we can't assume any differenlty. Beyond that, arguments can be made both ways: "He'll fold a pocket pair to a shove on a Q or J turn." "He won't fold a pocket pair to a shove on a 2s turn."

So when the villain checks to us, we win 4650 48% of the time (he folds) and we win 1428 52% of the time (he calls) for a net gain of t6078. Notice this is the same math as above for shoving the flop.

However, this is only when the villain checks to us. What happens when he shoves into us on the turn? Well now at least some of the time, he is shoving with a worse hand. Given that we stand to make just as much for shoving the turn as we do for shoving the flop, we obviously make even more by calling his sometimes bluffs on the turn.


Against his full range of 66+,ATs+,ATo+,KQs+,KQo+, we have 58% equity w/out knowing the turn card.

Board: Tc 7c 7h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 42.141% 39.93% 02.22% 25297 1403.50 { 66+, ATs+, KQs, KQo }
Hand 1: 57.859% 55.64% 02.22% 35256 1403.50 { AcKc }



In summation, by shoving the flop we gain t6078. By waiting until the turn and either calling his shove or shoving ourselves, we gain t6078 + tXXXX depending on his bluffing frequency.


Thus, it is plainly obvious to me that if villain ever ever bluff-shoves the turn, we do better than just open-shoving the flop.

[Dunkman]

Look this hand is pretty simple. The more unpaired hands that villain's range contains, the more desirable checking the flop becomes. I personally can't really imagine AT and KQ here ( or some of the lower pairs,) but whatever, I'm done arguing that. So the discussion is about what we think villain's range is, not how to play the hand. Sherman has villain on a wider range than most of the rest of us, that's fine, I honestly don't know who's right. If villain's range is AQ+ 88+, shoving the flop is pretty clearly correct. If villain has the range that Sherman just depicted, then it seems checking behind is pretty clearly correct.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Look this hand is pretty simple. The more unpaired hands that villain's range contains, the more desirable checking the flop becomes. I personally can't really imagine AT and KQ here ( or some of the lower pairs,) but whatever, I'm done arguing that. So the discussion is about what we think villain's range is, not how to play the hand. Sherman has villain on a wider range than most of the rest of us, that's fine, I honestly don't know who's right. If villain's range is AQ+ 88+, shoving the flop is pretty clearly correct. If villain has the range that Sherman just depicted, then it seems checking behind is pretty clearly correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is also a clear check behind against the range that is 88+,AQ. Because if villain ever bluffs the turn, or shoves with a worse hand, checking the flop is +EV.

Just so long as villain's hand range doesn't contain only pairs, check the flop has to be correct. And as I said before, if I am villain in this hand I always shove this flop if I have a pocket pair. What more could a pocket pair hope for taking a flop here?