Interesting Barry Greenstein AA Hand

[Ian J]

Ok, maybe I'm just going nuts, but I think everyone is missing the point here.

Let's just say that he has AK, since that would be most likely given the action thusfar. What do we all think is the best way to stack AK here?

It certainly appears to me that checking the turn, and then either calling his all in on the river, raising all in on his river bet, or shoving the river if he checks would be much much more effective than continuing to represent AA/KK here on the turn. Can anyone disagree with this statement?

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, maybe I'm just going nuts, but I think everyone is missing the point here.

Let's just say that he has AK, since that would be most likely given the action thusfar. What do we all think is the best way to stack AK here?

It certainly appears to me that checking the turn, and then either calling his all in on the river, raising all in on his river bet, or shoving the river if he checks would be much much more effective than continuing to represent AA/KK here on the turn. Can anyone disagree with this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

The broad argument that the bottom card pairing the turn when you hold an overpair (or a paired flop hitting) is a reason to consider checking is fair. You can underrepresent your hand in a WA/WB situation, which is generally good. It isn't the only consideration, but it is a consideration. The question is how whether, in this particular case, you get enough more on the river than the turn from the WB hands (AK/QQ/JJ) and lose enough less from the WA hands (KK/TT) to justify giving a free card to hands with 2-4 outs.

I think bet/fold is probably better than check, because tight passive isn't likely to put any more in with QQ/JJ if he even called the flop which is unlikely. Betting 5K or so on the turn is the most likely way to eventually stack AK without giving up anything to KK/TT (since you can confidently fold to a checkraise from tight passive, you lose the same as you would checking and then calling the river.)

If I recall betting half the guy's stack on the turn and the rest on the river was what Barry ends up advising, although at the time he bet 10K and the guy folded.

In general, I think Barry leaves something out in the book by not considering and then rejecting checking, but that betting is in fact better.

[DONTUSETHIS]

From the responses that I have read it seems that the posters are divided on weather to keep the pot small or not. If Barry bet 10k on the turn, it does not seem like that accomplishes either. if you are gonna bet the turn, shouldn't you bet more or less than that.

[Ansky]

It's amazing how different the styles of play are with deep stacks in MTT compared with high stakes nl.

[Ian J]

[ QUOTE ]
It's amazing how different the styles of play are with deep stacks in MTT compared with high stakes nl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on now. We need more than this.

Something I failed to mention that I figured everyone would just pick up on is that going into the turn the pot has 14k in it and the EP player has only 11k, FWIW. This is the only reason that makes me not like LearnedfromTV's line of bet/fold, because we're getting wonderful odds if we bet 5k and he jams what could very well be AK. Barry doesn't say that this player is especially good, just passive and not completely loose and fishy.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]

Something I failed to mention that I figured everyone would just pick up on is that going into the turn the pot has 14k in it and the EP player has only 11k, FWIW. This is the only reason that makes me not like LearnedfromTV's line of bet/fold, because we're getting wonderful odds if we bet 5k and he jams what could very well be AK. Barry doesn't say that this player is especially good, just passive and not completely loose and fishy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. This may be a reason to bet less on the flop. 3K on flop/5K on turn/the rest on the river might be a good way to value bet at AK while giving you room to fold to a checkraise but without seeming so weak as to induce a bluff checkraise, which is pretty unlikely anyway given the description. Hard to imagine AK value-checkraises any bet given the description and the range he has to put Greenstein on (no worse hand calls and Greenstein isn't likely to have more than 2 outs against AK if he's behind).

FWIW, I think bet/fold is unquestionably the turn line if they are a little deeper but not too much deeper (like 25K-30K) because the ranges are likely the same but the odds he has to call the turn checkraise aren't nearly as good.

Edited to add - a bluffcheckraise is very unlikely in large part because AA is probably the only hand that Greenstein bets on this turn and then folds to a raise. The passive player has to fear KK/TT if he has QQ-JJ and is inclined to get fancy.

I also think a Greenstein level pro is capable of manipulating/reading the situation such that his opponent could only raise the turn with KK/TT and then make a big laydown knowing that 5-1 or whatever he would be getting to call the checkraise isn't enough.

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
An ace, king, queen, jack, or nine are all potential scare cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you fold to a turn c/r all in?

[bruce]

Oops, didn't see the board pairing on the turn. That changes the dynamics of this hand completely.

With the board being paired the initial raiser either has a set or is probably drawing to either two cards or four cards. Checking instead of betting becomes a more viable
option. If we bet and are c/r'ed it's a tough call. If we
check and a blank comes villian probably will bet for us.

Folding if c/r'ed on the turn is very situational. I doubt
an unknown player is going to c/r Barry without a set so
a fold may be the best play. Now if I had the Ace's an
unknown player perhaps might be more likely to make a play and try to blow me off with a c/r so unless
I had a specific read I'd probably be more inclined to call.

Bruce

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Come on now. We need more than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of pot control just seems to be lost amongst MTTers... a lot. For me, betting this turn is very player dependent and dependent on my image as well. If I have been seen 2 barreling bluffs before, I will bet probably. If I think my opponent is a calling station, I think I would bet.

Agaisnt a solid opponent there is nothing wrong with letting him draw free to a likely 2 or 4 outer.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come on now. We need more than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of pot control just seems to be lost amongst MTTers... a lot. For me, betting this turn is very player dependent and dependent on my image as well. If I have been seen 2 barreling bluffs before, I will bet probably. If I think my opponent is a calling station, I think I would bet.

Agaisnt a solid opponent there is nothing wrong with letting him draw free to a likely 2 or 4 outer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, both with respect to MTTers and the merits of inducing gain/minimizing loss versus always "protecting your hand". For some reason I dislike the term pot control. I'd prefer something like "range control" - something that implies that what you are really doing is manipulating the range with which your opponent puts chips into the pot and manipulating the number of chips he puts in with various hands within the range.

*Huge generalization alert*:

I think part of the reason for the difference you note between MTT and cash is that tournament players generally pay off more frequently with weaker hands and more frequently pay too much to draw. So players who value bet the turn with "pot control" type hands get away with it.

This is just a variation of what you said (read-dependency of the turn bet)