[KiwiMark]

[ QUOTE ]
rafe furst totally veiled the strength of his hand and was thus unable to determine when/if he was beat. This isn't good poker. This was his own fault. No, we don't expect him to be able to see his opponent's hole cards, but by betting for information he is able to make a better determination.

he played the hand horribly, got his money in drawing to two outs. This is not what we try to achieve in poker, and alot of better players would have been able to avoid this by either a) jamming it preflop, b) actually betting for information and giving themselves a chance to get away should they be beat.

if you like his play you are bad, which I had no doubt you are anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that he made a big mistake risking a flop heads up as an 88% favourite than could you explain why that is so bad? Are you always scared of flops when holding AA? If you think that he should have raised post-flop then what amount would you suggest? How much could he raise without being pot committed? After the flop Hua bet $55K, if Rafe raised the minimum of $55K then Hua pushed all-in - can Rafe fold an overpair when he is getting better than 4 to 1 on his money to call?

I am not too sure that I like his play, or that he likes his play. I agree that normally you would like to either raise pre-flop or limp/raise. I agree that you would normally like to raise post-flop to see where your at.

I think that in this particular situation he could not raise post-flop to see where he was at. If he put in a raise then he would have been committed to call all in if Hua pushed. Why does no one look deeper than just the cards? Does no one understand why Rafe might decide to play the dangerous way because he was short stacked and was willing to risk someone drawing out on him in an attempt to double up? After the flop he was either ahead or behind, but he was committed to his play because he had good cards and too many chips already in the pot. IF his opponent hand a seven (or QQ)he was beat, but if not he called post-flop in good shape with the biggest risk being Hua hitting a 2 outer to overtake his hand (if Hua actually had anything, against a bluff he was even better off). After the flop Hua bet $55k into a pot of ~$140k, the only way Rafe can get off his hand is to assume Hua must have trips (or a full house) and fold. As soon as Rafe calls or raises he is pot committed, if Hua is bluffing then a raise would take the pot down, but if Hua IS bluffing then Rafe risks little to let Hua see another card and maybe Hua will bluff the turn too. If Hua bluffed post-flop then he cannot win unless he gets runner runner, that would be a risk Rafe is willing to take.

In short betting for information is complete bull in this case. Pre-flop he needs no informations, he KNOWS he has the best hand and is a big favourite. Post-flop he lacks the chips to bet for information, just calling the small post-flop bet commits him to the pot, if he is going to raise he might as well just push all in. Pushing all in does not help him make money, his best chance of maximizing his EV is to call.