AA in the BB

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FLOP: Your flop bet is a mistake, but I think only a very small percentage of poker players truly understand why it's a mistake. I just wanted to point that out cuz I think most 2+2ers would bet in this spot even though betting is actually the incorrect play in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're advocating a c/r to narrow the field right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Were OOP to 6 players in a 16sb pot. This means two things.

1) A flop bet will not protect our hand.

2) Someone out of those 6 players is very likely to bet.

Given these two realities betting is a clear strategic error. I am not necessarily advocating a check/raise to narrow the field however. I am advocating a check with the intention of seeing the action and making the best play possible from there.

Sometimes I will be check/raising to narrow the field. Sometimes I will be check/raising for value becuz there may not be a way to protect my hand. Sometimes I may check/call the flop, and check/raise the turn depending on the action and my reads. Sometimes I may check/call the flop with the intention of donk/calling the turn or donk/3betting the turn depending on the action and whom im up against. However I would say that most of the time I am check/raising this flop.

My main point here is that checking the flop in this spot with this type of hand is clearly better than betting in my mind. Yet whats interesting to me is every time I watch a good player play this spot or read about a good player playing this spot, they invariably continue bet and it always makes me cringe. For many good players continue betting in spots like this with this type of hand is their last fundamental leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

In games where you can feel reasonably certain (I don't even think it has to be "very very" certain), I agree. However, in live games, these sort of flops get checked around much much more often. Couple that with the fact that it's a KJxr flop, and your fears of being outdrawn aren't nearly as legitimate as they are on a lot of other boards. Finally toss in the fact that you won't have the option to protect your hand on the turn the vast majority of the time anyway due to your positional disadvantage and your informational disadvantage based on your flop play, and you've set yourself up for a very awkward position.

Given the inability to protect your hand, you should be betting for value here; your hand has plenty of it in a live 15/30 environment with many hands that won't bet that will call. Regardless, when you're talking about "checkraising to protect" and you're still offering sufficient odds for 4+ outers to call your flop checkraise, you've got to be much more certain about who will do your betting, what their likely play on various turn cards will be, and what their various ranges are for flop/turn bets in this sort of spot. I know that you know all of this but I think you're overstating the case here quite a bit. Often I find inexperienced players who do understand a bit about hand protection checking "because they can't protect their hand," where you should at least have some glimmer of an idea of what you really intend to have happen when you check --oftentimes you'll end up with a big pot anyway and very uncertain action, at best, on the turn, and to boot you'll have a gap in how well your hand and your opponent's range of hands are defined, leaving you with both a positional and informational disadvantage in the hand.

In the live game I have the most recent experience in, the Bellagio 15/30, I'd strongly urge the OP to bet the flop the vast majority of the time. In the Bellagio 30, however, I think the argument for check vs bet with the same action preflop is much stronger leaning toward the check side.

OP:

Overall, assuming you bet-folded the turn, I think you played the hand well.

Rob

[7ontheline]

I had a post typed, but Entity said it all. I see ILP's point about wanting to protect your hand but this pot is too big already and being OOP just makes it too unpredictable what is going to happen behind you. Just bet and hope your aces hold up. Turn J sucks obviously, fold to that c/r is best.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

“In games where you can feel reasonably certain (I don't even think it has to be "very very" certain), I agree. However, in live games, these sort of flops get checked around much much more often.”

The pot is large enough to take this risk IMO. Out of 6 opponents someone is very likely to bet.

“Couple that with the fact that it's a KJxr flop, and your fears of being outdrawn aren't nearly as legitimate as they are on a lot of other boards. Finally toss in the fact that you won't have the option to protect your hand on the turn the vast majority of the time anyway due to your positional disadvantage and your informational disadvantage based on your flop play, and you've set yourself up for a very awkward position.”

Making the right play will sometimes put me in awkward positions. I don’t mind that. I don’t avoid correct strategy becuz I may feel awkward.


“Given the inability to protect your hand, you should be betting for value here; your hand has plenty of it in a live 15/30 environment with many hands that won't bet that will call.”

Obviously I strongly disagree in this specific spot. Even if I cant protect my hand I would rather check/raise for value than bet for value.

“Regardless, when you're talking about "checkraising to protect" and you're still offering sufficient odds for 4+ outers to call your flop checkraise, you've got to be much more certain about who will do your betting”

Again I strongly disagree. You don’t have to be certain "who" is going to bet to make checking here the right play. In fact when I make this play most of the time I have no idea who is going to bet. All I really know is that the probability that one of these 6 opponents will bet this flop is close enough to 100% to make checking here better than betting here given the fact that a bet will not protect my hand. Also there’s another thing I want to point out. It doesn’t matter that if we check/raise for elimination that the people in the middle will still have the odds to call with their 4+5 outers becuz so many of them will fold anyways. There are enough people who play this game that simply wont make this call with this draw for 2 cold not closing the action to still make this play worthwhile. Its like they have it in their minds that "I can see the turn for one small bet, but not two" Check/raising the flop takes advantage of this very common mistake, and if they call anyways, its still a check/raise for value.

“what their likely play on various turn cards will be, and what their various ranges are for flop/turn bets in this sort of spot. I know that you know all of this but I think you're overstating the case here quite a bit.”

Nope Im not overstating anything. I feel very strongly about this idea. I'll let you and all 2+2ers in on a little secret about my play. Whenever I have any one pair hand and I'm OOP to 5 people or more I never bet whether the pot is raised or not unless the game is extremely passive. Why do I make this play? Becuz its the right play, and thats the only kind of plays I like making. I believe anyone who blindly bets out in this situation doesnt understand the simple dynamics of this game and they do not understand just how much the size of the pot should alter their normal strategy. I understand that what I am saying is controversial but I don’t care. Not only is this "mistake" I’m talking about a large strategical error but its also a mistake too common among all poker players.

“Often I find inexperienced players who do understand a bit about hand protection checking "because they can't protect their hand," where you should at least have some glimmer of an idea of what you really intend to have happen when you check --oftentimes you'll end up with a big pot anyway and very uncertain action, at best, on the turn, and to boot you'll have a gap in how well your hand and your opponent's range of hands are defined, leaving you with both a positional and informational disadvantage in the hand.”

No strategy is perfect. There will always be a downside to any choice you make in poker or life. I promise you the pluses outweigh the minuses here. It is my contention that checking this flop will increase your probability of winning this pot by a significant enough percentage to make it the far superior play. Also keep in mind that even if a player on my direct left bets, I will still check/raise for value since I cant protect my hand and now I will still win a larger pot than if I had bet when my hand holds up. (I realize that had we known the player on our direct left had a betting hand we would rather bet the flop hoping he would raise but were not psychic)

“In the live game I have the most recent experience in, the Bellagio 15/30, I'd strongly urge the OP to bet the flop the vast majority of the time. In the Bellagio 30, however, I think the argument for check vs bet with the same action preflop is much stronger leaning toward the check side.”

Here’s what I think. If the opponent was playing online he should never ever bet this flop no matter what the limit. In 95% of all live games 5-10 and above checking will be the best play. Checking will be the best play so often that if one doesn’t have any reads, checking here should become just as much as a default play as raising with AA's after 3 limpers.



“Overall, assuming you bet-folded the turn, I think you played the hand well.”


I think he could’ve played the hand better.

[mongidig]

Another negative to checking this flop is that you will sometimes create difficult decisions for yourself if the there is a lot of action and say it is three bet or capped back to you or if you wait for the turn to raise and it is two bets cold to you.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
Another negative to checking this flop is that you will sometimes create difficult decisions for yourself if the there is a lot of action and say it is three bet or capped back to you or if you wait for the turn to raise and it is two bets cold to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually dont wait til the turn, but there are exceptions which is why I mentioned the idea. If I check the flop and the action goes bet-raise-3bet, most of the time I am folding and its not that difficult of a decision for me. Of course knowing your opponents certainly comes into play here. Against certain lineups I may cap it after that action.

If the action goes bet-raise-3bet-cap, this will usually be an easy fold situation.

To be honest, since checking here in this spot is my default play, the hand is not more difficult for me to play becuz ive seen pretty much every combination of events many times over after taking this line. Put another way, once youre used to something it ceases to be difficult.

[Harv72b]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but just as an aside...what hands would you bet in this situation? I'm afraid I'm one of the players you see making the continuation bet here nearly every time.

Conceptually, I think I understand your premise, and I think I agree with it. I'm just trying to fill in the last little pieces here, because it would seem to me that with the same logic, it would never be correct to bet out.

[cgrohman]

Yes.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but just as an aside...what hands would you bet in this situation? I'm afraid I'm one of the players you see making the continuation bet here nearly every time.

Conceptually, I think I understand your premise, and I think I agree with it. I'm just trying to fill in the last little pieces here, because it would seem to me that with the same logic, it would never be correct to bet out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Youre not hijacking this thread. Thats a good question. The OP said the flop came out KJx. Lets say the flop came out KJ7. Without any reads, here are the hands I would usually bet out with. KK,JJ,77,KJs,QTs,T9s. Once in a while I may make a -ev bet with a hand I intend to call 2sbs cold anyways if I had checked. A hand like AQ/AT, but I rarely do this. This last bet is more or less a deception play that costs me very little just to throw some observant people off.

Now you may be wondering why I would lead out here with KK,JJ,77,KJ when technically this flop bet will not protect our hands from any gutshow draw or 3 out draw those times we have KJ and one of our opponents has a hand like AJ. The reason I would bet here is becuz now I am more concerned with making money from hands drawing dead then I am from protecting my hands from gutshot draws. Put another way I think there is more money to be made by inducing people to draw dead then trying to protect our hand from gutshot draws, and I believe the best way to induce people to draw dead is to simply bet out.

Also the reason I would bet the flop with any strong draw is for balance and simply for value.

I also want to point out that my hand does not become transparent when I raise preflop and check the flop in this spot. For example, this will not mean I have top pair or an overpair. I will still be raising correctly in this spot with a wide enough range of hands that will not like this flop or other type of flops. So most of the time when I check in this spot I will have a hand that is hoping for a free card not hoping to check/raise.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I promise you the pluses outweigh the minuses here. It is my contention that checking this flop will increase your probability of winning this pot by a significant enough percentage to make it the far superior play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really not sure what to say to this: you haven't really made any major points, other than to say that "checking is correct" and that you know why and few other good limit players do. That's great and all but it comes back to pretty much every thread where I disagree with you, where you start with an obviously contentious point and don't do much with regards to handranges, etc., to back it up. Since your post is the counterpoint, doing a little extra work to support the burden of proof here would be nice, but to be honest, I really don't expect it.

You post well but you make a lot of generalities. The reason I bet here as a default when I am unaware of tells, etc that would suggest checking to be better (i.e. betting with the absence of information; checking when I feel I have an informational advantage) is that over a typical limppot range of hands here, I still have a significant equity edge. Yes, I will be outdrawn, but 7-ways vs a typical "limpfest" my flop equity is sitting around 37% in general. That's significantly higher than the equity with an OESD+BDFD and any other hand here than 2pr+ (on the KJ4 board vs 6 ~40% players who do raise JJ+ but don't raise any pocket pair or KJ or AJs, QTs is sitting at 27.7% while AK has around 38% equity). Obviously the equity calculations of this are skewed as some of the limped preflop hands will find flop folds in this, but the main that I'm proposing is that AA has very good equity here regardless, and without a concrete case for determining how to best protect your equity, simply capitalizing on the equity when you have absolutely no idea who will bet, or what range of hands they will bet with, is fine in this situation.

Obviously my contention isn't really earth-shattering here, but I figured I'd post it anyway, not really for the intent of getting much of a dialogue going with you but just to provide reading material for those who are debating between the two sides and wanted one last counterpoint to read.

Rob

[ILOVEPOKER929]

“I'm really not sure what to say to this: you haven't really made any major points, other than to say that "checking is correct" and that you know why and few other good limit players do. That's great and all but it comes back to pretty much every thread where I disagree with you, where you start with an obviously contentious point and don't do much with regards to handranges, etc., to back it up. Since your post is the counterpoint, doing a little extra work to support the burden of proof here would be nice, but to be honest, I really don't expect it.”

I really have nothing else to add to this thread Rob. The main point I wanted to get across is that I strongly believe betting the flop in that spot is a mistake. Can I prove this? No I cannot, but I will continue to cringe every time I see a player bet in that spot. My main goal when I post on 2+2 is to make other players better. I will never feel obligated to prove anything point I make.

“You post well but you make a lot of generalities. The reason I bet here as a default when I am unaware of tells, etc that would suggest checking to be better (i.e. betting with the absence of information; checking when I feel I have an informational advantage) is that over a typical limppot range of hands here, I still have a significant equity edge. Yes, I will be outdrawn, but 7-ways vs a typical "limpfest" my flop equity is sitting around 37% in general. That's significantly higher than the equity with an OESD+BDFD and any other hand here than 2pr+ (on the KJ4 board vs 6 ~40% players who do raise JJ+ but don't raise any pocket pair or KJ or AJs, QTs is sitting at 27.7% while AK has around 38% equity). Obviously the equity calculations of this are skewed as some of the limped preflop hands will find flop folds in this, but the main that I'm proposing is that AA has very good equity here regardless, and without a concrete case for determining how to best protect your equity, simply capitalizing on the equity when you have absolutely no idea who will bet, or what range of hands they will bet with, is fine in this situation.”

As you already know I strongly disagree with everything you’ve said here. I think with a hand like AA in this situation, the hero’s #1 goal should be to maximize his chances of winning this large pot, not to maximize his equity advantage. I strongly believe that checking this flop will increase the hero’s probability of winning this pot by a significant enough percentage to make betting out the inferior play.

And your right Rob, I do post with a lot of generalities. I am not the perfect poster. This is the way I talk and it is the only way I know how to express what I’m thinking. I leave it up to the reader to expand further on their own. I can only take them so far becuz my knowledge/intelligence is limited.

“Obviously my contention isn't really earth-shattering here, but I figured I'd post it anyway, not really for the intent of getting much of a dialogue going with you but just to provide reading material for those who are debating between the two sides and wanted one last counterpoint to read.”

Im glad you posted in this thread Rob. I think its important for readers to see both sides of the story and figure out on their own which path to take.