NL50, well...my AA got raised on the turn...

[Marshall28]

check the nuts ... thanks for telling me im very wrong. i appreciate it when people take a style-based response to a situation and try to show how their style is best. LOL....

u havent really determined what villains AF is on the turn or river, as it is the case sometimes that someone w/ high AF bets the flop a huge amount of the time and tends to slow down on turn and river. i guess you didnt really think of that...

also you seem to think that just because he has a high AF that it means hes GOING to bluff. this isnt necessarily true, however I will give u the benefit of the doubt that it is the case he will bluff more often than other opponents.

you could check behind the turn and induce a bluff, thats fine i guess, but id want to be pretty certain that i was ahead before i did that, if you are the type of player that feels comfortable doing that w/ aces on a draw heavy board thats fine. i guess im a little nittier in that i like to protect my hand in this situation, regardless of villains AF. id feel that on this board my hand isnt particularly strong and im going to be cautious.

[Check_The_Nuts]

Humm ok marshall I'll try explaining it again. Someone with an AF of 6 normally likes to make a lot of leading bets at the pot with his gutshots/blufsf/etc. This is how he manages to get his betting/raising frequency to be 6 times his calling frequency.

If his AF is 0.5, he calls twice as often. Most likely because he check/calls way too often with top pair/gutshots/etc, and doesn't bet for value nearly often enough.

So some guy, who likes to bluff at pots with bets all the time, checks two streets. Well you can pretty well ignore all one pair hands, cuz he's leading with all pairs/bluffs/etc. He's not check/calling two streets with JJ or whatever. He would always put at least one bet in.

Remember he could still have an AF of 6 and still never fold. If he folded exactly 0 percent of the time he's a complete maniac (obviously), but if he folds 90% of the time he's a huge nit. Make more sense?

Ok read your above post. I wasn't sure hwo much you understood PT numbers, so my post is somewhat "yeah duh" to you. But anyways, to get an AF of 6 he's much more likely to put in a ton of bets on early streets than late streets. Mostly cuz its cheaper and you haven't shown any interest in the pot, so its obviously better to bluff in those instances than when you bet flop/turn/river for full pot (obviously a river bluff in such a situation is terrible). If you bet turn your basically hoping he has 78 and semibluff-called the flop. But this guy doesn't semi-bluff call, he semi-bluffs all the time. So yeah, its def. a turn check. See why now?

Humm also consider that guy has a much wider range if he leads turn than if he checks turn. I think I'd rather raise a turn bet than lead to a turn check. Weird eh?

[derosnec]

ok, so we are never getting all in on any board with AA on the turn against this guy when he takes the line he did? (assuming we are drawing to two outs if behind)

[Check_The_Nuts]

I wouldn't say never. Guy could conceivably overcall with KK preflop then play it like a set postflop and it wouldn't change his stats much. At the same time he could do that with 22 on this board and probably win just as much with it versus decent opponents. The only times he may win more money is if you look him up light with JJ-QQ, which is really hard to do.

At the same time this is why calling the river is obviously fine. Guy could have QQ-KK still. I was gunna say something about TT-JJ, but I really doubt those hands are in his range. I think this hand could have an interesting discussino about how big a bet we should call on the river.

[avfletch]

[ QUOTE ]
well, based on your argument, i guess there's never any point in betting to protect a hand, is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed my point but I'm tired so I'll check back in the morning. Doubt I'd do a good job of explaining right now.

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]

So some guy, who likes to bluff at pots with bets all the time, checks two streets. Well you can pretty well ignore all one pair hands, cuz he's leading with all pairs/bluffs/etc. He's not check/calling two streets with JJ or whatever. He would always put at least one bet in.

Remember he could still have an AF of 6 and still never fold. If he folded exactly 0 percent of the time he's a complete maniac (obviously), but if he folds 90% of the time he's a huge nit. Make more sense?

Ok read your above post. I wasn't sure hwo much you understood PT numbers, so my post is somewhat "yeah duh" to you. But anyways, to get an AF of 6 he's much more likely to put in a ton of bets on early streets than late streets. Mostly cuz its cheaper and you haven't shown any interest in the pot, so its obviously better to bluff in those instances than when you bet flop/turn/river for full pot (obviously a river bluff in such a situation is terrible). If you bet turn your basically hoping he has 78 and semibluff-called the flop. But this guy doesn't semi-bluff call, he semi-bluffs all the time. So yeah, its def. a turn check. See why now?

Humm also consider that guy has a much wider range if he leads turn than if he checks turn. I think I'd rather raise a turn bet than lead to a turn check. Weird eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I would trust this number enough to not bet AA on the turn here, but if you do that's fine. Different styles.

Still looks like a set to me.

[Marshall28]

check the nuts ... maybe i just dont understand PT numbers, but i still have one problem with your argument. you are basing everything you do on villains mean style of play. he may do what u say fairly often, but it doesnt mean he will do it every time, its just an average of what he's done in the past. i dont see how u can possibly argue with that, and how either of us could be "wrong" in this instance.

i still stand by my initial claim that checking the turn gives a wide part of his range a free card. u still seem to want to "prove" u r right though ... so, whatever i guess.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
check the nuts ... maybe i just dont understand PT numbers, but i still have one problem with your argument. you are basing everything you do on villains mean style of play. he may do what u say fairly often, but it doesnt mean he will do it every time, its just an average of what he's done in the past. i dont see how u can possibly argue with that, and how either of us could be "wrong" in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we aren't supposed to be making generalizations based on past experience, then the whole thread (and poker analysis in general) is pretty pointless. Your generalizations that he isn't playing this way without 2 pair or better are of the same category, obviously.

[TheGrifter]

You have to make sure when commenting on hands that we don't use backwards logic. Remember, when we bet on the turn we don't KNOW we're getting c/r, I'd say it's not even real likely on this board.

Once the c/r actually happens you have that additional information and can change your opinion regarding his preflop/flop actions accordingly.

[Ryan2009]

Fold. He's not doing this with just a pair given his stats and the action so far.