Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
The decision of whether or not to bet the river seems like a pretty straightforward exercise in combinatorics.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complicated than that since we don't have a good idea what an unknown donk/donk/checks with on this board, and whether he'll payoff with A high or get scared on the river for no reason with a better hand.

I like a bet, though, he'd have to be a big puss to hold a jack here.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
possible holdings of BB could be: AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ, J8s+

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it incredibly odd that you think villain will bet AQ but not bet 88 and other pocket pairs.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overall I agree. OP said the table was tightish, so a J is fairly likely. I'd need to have a read that this was the kinda guy who likes to bluff paired boards to raise the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you see, **even** if villain was the type who likes to bluff paired boards, raising would probably not be correct. I won't talk a lot about WA/WB situations because there's a search function on this site, but suffice it to say that:
- this is a textbook WA/WB

- if he's bluffing, why do you want him to stop?

- if he's not bluffing, why do you want to give him more money (i.e. he checks the river, just like he did in this hand - now you're the one who can decide to value bet or take a free showdown)? **or** give him the same amount of money and not see a showdown (i.e. he 3's it).

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't play shorthanded much, do you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] There are a lot of guys in those games who'll show bizarre aggro on a paired board, and given that full-ring games have also got more aggressive, I suspect that there are similar players there too. It would be no bad thing if he folded if he had 6 outs against us. In this situation though, we have a player who we think is tightish, a J on the board, and a fairly high pocket pair which somewhat decreases the number of two overcard combinations he could have. But IMHO, assuming that only a small minority of players would play like this with OCs is wrong.

Re: A 99 hand
 

33,77 -> 3-bet -> fold
TT unlikely he has it, not likely he folds it but adds a bit to the folding equity and will likely C/C
88 may fold, but also may call the turn raise

I still would like to raise the turn, because villain might call the turn raise with 88 making a big mistake, if the pot was smaller i'd prefer to C/C...

however the more i think about this hand the more it's becoming a very thin descision between R/F and C/C, i don't think the EV between both lines differs a lot, and it's not a classical WA/WB situation because the 99 is vulnurable to overcards...

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I check, but plz r/f the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

Clearly, a pooh-bah needs to write an essay on WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a few, and clearly you should read them as this isn't WA/WB.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I check, but plz r/f the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

Clearly, a pooh-bah needs to write an essay on WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a few, and clearly you should read them as this isn't WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, i know there have been a few. stupid comment. as per the hand.

Ok, I'm going to get super nitty, so bear with me. Let's see, from the flop, if we are behind, we have 2 outs - so, I'm pretty certain the "WB" part of the WA/WB is correct. Now, I believe that this line by villain is almost always, like 95%+, either a Jack, or another PP. If it's a jack, we are WB. If it's another PP, we are either WA or WB. Am I missing something here? How often does an this line mean random wiffed big cards: AT, AQ, KQ? In this case I suppose it's not WA/WB.

Re: A 99 hand
 

This isn't WA/WB because villian could easily have two overs.

Re: A 99 hand
 

I tend to just get to showdown when they donk, just to see why they donk. Also I will be paying attention to this one vs other opponents.

Re: A 99 hand
 

What about this hand makes it appear that villain has AT, AQ, AK, KQ, KT, or QT?

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't WA/WB because villian could easily have two overs.

[/ QUOTE ]

word. WA/WB is an overused term and often used when hero has few outs and villian has many.

[ QUOTE ]
have to admit my first thought was to raise the flop after the donk bet because this can be overcard(s)


[/ QUOTE ]
guilty as charged [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]