Linecheck: double suited rundown hand against aces

[Troll_Inc]

Is this a reasonable play vs a bad player that you know will push any and all flops if checked to?

PStars 1/2

Seat 1: ($178.50 in chips)
Seat 2: hero ($200 in chips)
Seat 3: ($674.50 in chips)
Seat 4: Villain ($439.65 in chips)
Seat 5: ($231.20 in chips)
Seat 6: ($97 in chips)


*** HOLE CARDS ***
6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Seat 3: calls $2
Villain: raises $4 to $6
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: calls $6
SB folds
Hero: raises $21 to $27
Seat 3: folds
Villain: raises $63 to $90
Seat 6: folds
Hero: calls $63

*** FLOP *** [K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]]
Hero: checks
Villain: bets $186
Hero: calls $110 and is all-in

And I'm probably winning here right? No way does villain have KK.

[BluffTHIS!]

The pot is big and it's very bad not to push if you are going to call. This isn't just because you lose any FE however small, but also because the aggressive image you get from the play when called will help you get called when you have a set here. Even though he's probably never checking behind like you say and thus getting a free card isn't of as much value, especially OOP, when he does and you hit on the turn it will be easier for him to get away if you then bet. It's not like you're slowplaying a monster with one pair and a draw.

[Ribbo]

http://www.pokerhand.org/?1263697

pwned

Of course the really great thing about the hand is that this happened 25 minutes after I was recorded saying "now I am going to be loose aggressive out of position, let's see how unprofitable this really is."
Turned out it was quite profitable.

[Ribbo]

Except there is 0% fold equity. If you had KK here, you would check it on that flop. There is more equity to be had from checking and hoping opponent with AA doesn't bet fearing you have KK.
AA will never fold that flop, but he might check it.

[Silent A]

Waiting for Ribbo to update his avatar.

P.S. I don't think it matters much since villain checking behind is about as likely as villain folding to a lead (ie. zero).

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I don't think it matters much since villain checking behind is about as likely as villain folding to a lead (ie. zero).

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the perfect spot to be aggressive and just push for future image garnering calls when you really want them.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I don't think it matters much since villain checking behind is about as likely as villain folding to a lead (ie. zero).

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is the perfect spot to be aggressive and just push for future image garnering calls when you really want them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting $100 into a $200 pot with opponent having $100 left hardly constitutes pushing. It's more like flicking.
I play it like I would KK on that flop, which is to check.

[BluffTHIS!]

The difference here is that the OP said villain was always pushing, and thus likely always calling, which was what Silent was saying. So then one might as well be aggressive to garner even a 2% FE, and to put it in their minds that you are an aggro in order to help get future calls when you do have a set. Even in the case of an opponent with AA who is more likely to check behind fearing KK, your drawing equity will be diminished by many brick turn cards and you can let him pick up a flush draw or something with a checked flop. Also in general slowplaying a big hand is more useful when you can checkraise instead of just being able to bet the pot or less. I play more hands than you do, but less than most, but I still play agressively when I'm in a pot because that aggession gets more suspicious calls from non-stationish reasonable opponents who think you're full of it a lot of the time.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference here is that the OP said villain was always pushing, and thus likely always calling, which was what Silent was saying. So then one might as well be aggressive to garner even a 2% FE, and to put it in their minds that you are an aggro in order to help get future calls when you do have a set. Even in the case of an opponent with AA who is more likely to check behind fearing KK, your drawing equity will be diminished by many brick turn cards and you can let him pick up a flush draw or something with a checked flop. Also in general slowplaying a big hand is more useful when you can checkraise instead of just being able to bet the pot or less. I play more hands than you do, but less than most, but I still play agressively when I'm in a pot because that aggession gets more suspicious calls from non-stationish reasonable opponents who think you're full of it a lot of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but as I pointed out the hand was actually between me and Troll, and he was being liberal with the truth. So don't tell me what actually happened because I was involved in the hand.
Let me put it another way. Should 3456 bet if button is calling 100% of the time which he clealy is?
The answer is no, because there is no value in betting since the flop is a total coin flip. There is value in checking as if button shoves 100% of the time then this gives me the button, as I know how he will act, and he does not know how I will act.
3456 has no reason to ever bet this flop where button will call 100% and bet if checked to 100%

[Greeksquared]

[ QUOTE ]
3456 has no reason to ever bet this flop where button will call 100% and bet if checked to 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

well if this statement is true then it doesn't matter what you do. I just shove and hope he makes a horrendous laydown. Your hand isn't that far ahead of a random 4 so at least attempt to create some FE, even if it is einstein-bose 0.