AKKQ versus LAG
 

This one seems horribly misplayed by me. Comment on all streets welcome, though I am most interested in turn/river thoughts. Does anyone play this turn/river the same way?

Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $0.50/$0.50
10 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
Hero: $41.50
UTG+2: $61.85

I have been at the table for just under an hour and gotten total crap dealt to me. I look like a complete rock to anyone paying attention. Whether or not anyone actually pays attention in these games is debatable.

UTG+2 is a super LAG, though, as we all know, maniacs can show up with hands.

Pre-flop: (10 players) Hero is UTG+1 with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

UTG calls $0.5, <font color="#cc3333">Hero raises to $1</font>, UTG+2 calls $1, 3 folds, CO calls $1, Button calls $1, SB folds, BB calls $0.5, UTG calls $0.5.

Flop: 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ($6.5, 6 players)
BB checks, UTG checks, Hero checks, <font color="#cc3333">UTG+2 bets $6.5</font>, 4 folds, Hero calls $6.5.

I thought my club draw was live and figured that I would stack him if a magical K turned.

Turn: Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] ($19.5, 2 players)
Hero checks, <font color="#cc3333">UTG+2 bets $19.5</font>, Hero calls $19.5.

No help. More outs. I passively call. Pretty marginal call. At the low end, I am a 30-70 dog versus a set. I don't think his hand range is that narrow though.

River: Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($58.5, 2 players)
<font color="#cc3333">Hero is all-in $14.5</font>, UTG+2 calls $14.5.

I pushed because I felt his hand range was wide enough to include a flopped 2 pair or some now busted draw to make this +EV. Part of this thinking was fueled by the fact that it was entirely possible he put me on A-A-x-x as this was the first hand I raised and only the 4th I had played at this table in the last hour.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

PF: I dont like min-raising in general, all it does is build a pot and give people a reason to stick around with draws if you hit this flop semi-hard.
Flop: Fine
Turn: I dont like this call because you have no real money behind you to make there be any implied odds. If he has 2pr or 2 pr with same FD, then your outs are very small. I dont like the call on the turn though.
River: I think either betting or c/c works here. Does look like you missed some draws so I think he would bet this river anyways if you dont. I think either works.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

I don't know about minraising with this hand up front. It doesn't really seem to do anything for you. If you're the type of player that hates playing good hands out of position and wants to hit flops before committing anything, then limp. Personally, I'd raise the pot here (but then I do that with a lot of hands) position or no. Your hand simply figures to be better than the hands that will call.

On the flop I'd lead out for the pot after the two checks. On a 23T flop, I think the only hand you can be reasonably worried about is a set of tens, although this would be more true if you had raised PF. Worrying about anything else from the LAG other than the remote possibility of AAxx seems like monsters under the bed. I don't know if people are limping/calling any raise with any pair at the .50 game. Letting the LAG take the betting lead seems like a mistake here because now you have no idea where you're at in the hand. At least if you lead out for the pot, he (and everyone else) either folds and you win a small pot with a marginal hand, or if he calls or raises you have more info and a better feel and can get away from the hand more cheaply if you wish. Knowing whether or not he'll raise you with the nut flush draw only or 45xx or whatever is important, too. Alternatively you can use your rocky image to check raise him on that flop -- you should have some FE and as you intimated, you think your club draw is live as are your 2 K outs so you don't really mind a call. I actually think the flop is where you might have taken a different approach; the turn call isn't one I'd make a lot of the time vs. a decent player, but vs. a LAG it's probably not that terrible since you have 12 probable good outs (9 flush cards, 3 jacks) and potentially even two Ks. LAGs do get dealt good hands on occasion, it's true, but because of the way you played on the flop, I think you begrudgingly have to call this turn. River lead is fine, I think.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

I agree, min raising here is bad, not because I don't like min raises preflop, its just that if you are going to use them you need to use them often enough to disguise your hand. They are very useful to generating action at certain tables but in this case anyone who was paying attention just marked you with an overpair. So, in that context, the LAG is telling you he can beat an overpair. Muck this on the turn.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

I dont like the min raise PF.

I would either bet of fold on that flop, if he has the NFD with two pair/trips you are drawing VERY slim.

Assuming your FD was live on fourth street the call is OK with your outs.

Personally I dont like the raise on the end, you wont get paid off by two pair, (T3 T2?) And i can only assume a set, another queen or AA will call here.

I think you could have either CRaised the flop as a semi bluff or folded right there and then.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
pushed because I felt his hand range was wide enough to include a flopped 2 pair or some now busted draw to make this +EV. Part of this thinking was fueled by the fact that it was entirely possible he put me on A-A-x-x as this was the first hand I raised and only the 4th I had played at this table in the last hour

[/ QUOTE ]

So you pushed knowing he would fold hands you know you have beat? How exactly is the +EV? If you feel like he has a busted draw or a sketchy two pair you're much better off inducing a bluff.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

I think there's way too much credit being given to the possible range of hands the LAG could hold in this hand. If the poster has a good read on him, automatically suspecting that he has a strong hand here is a bit presumptious. That's why I don't think that the turn fold is a slam-dunk easy decision.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

I didn't say anything about the turn call.

Chimichonga said he pushed the river because he felt it was likely the villain had two pair (which he has beat) or a busted draw (which he also has beat). This is not a +EV bet, especially when the villain has likely put him on AA since the only 'strong' hand he'll call with that Chimichonga has beat is a bad queen. Anything else and Chimi is either spewing or not getting called. If he bet here and got called by a worse hand that did not contain a queen I'll eat my hat.

Checking to induce a bluff would be much better. Making a small bet hoping the villain will bluff raise would be fruitless since he has so little left in relation to the pot size.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a +EV bet, especially when the villain has likely put him on AA since the only 'strong' hand he'll call with that Chimichonga has beat is a bad queen. Anything else and Chimi is either spewing or not getting called. If he bet here and got called by a worse hand that did not contain a queen I'll eat my hat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Rempel here, other than to point out that the bet may be +EV, but it is almost certainly dominated by check/call. The range of hands that beats Chimi but folds or loses to Chimi but calls (when they would have checked behind) is microscopic.

Re: AKKQ versus LAG
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say anything about the turn call.

Chimichonga said he pushed the river because he felt it was likely the villain had two pair (which he has beat) or a busted draw (which he also has beat). This is not a +EV bet, especially when the villain has likely put him on AA since the only 'strong' hand he'll call with that Chimichonga has beat is a bad queen. Anything else and Chimi is either spewing or not getting called. If he bet here and got called by a worse hand that did not contain a queen I'll eat my hat.

Checking to induce a bluff would be much better. Making a small bet hoping the villain will bluff raise would be fruitless since he has so little left in relation to the pot size.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are exactly right and this is why I felt I played the hand so poorly. At the time, I thought, "I am going to call any bet, so why not push." Checking to induce a bet on the river is by far the better option for the reasons you stated. I f'd up.

On the bright side, after I pushed, Villian thought for a long time and called with a naked A-A, so you will have to eat your hat Rempel. Ketchup or mustard? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]