pair + draw vs spewtard

[fslexcduck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
she was including AK suited

[/ QUOTE ]

So the one of the same suit counts twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think syndrome's right. There's 12 AKo and 4 AKs

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough but it was an off the cuff comment to make the point that people thinking we are not significantly ahead of his range on this flop (which we are) are probably just vastly underestimating how many more AK's exist or probably regularly don't even consider combinations at all.

[Irish Mafia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
she was including AK suited

[/ QUOTE ]

So the one of the same suit counts twice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think syndrome's right. There's 12 AKo and 4 AKs

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough but it was an off the cuff comment to make the point that people thinking we are not significantly ahead of his range on this flop (which we are) are probably just vastly underestimating how many more AK's exist or probably regularly don't even consider combinations at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just b/c there are 16 combos of AK, and in a pure probability sense, its "more" likely he holds AK than a big pair - does not mean you cannot discount AK given the action.
a) this guys has not 3-bet pf one time; surely this means this player would rather "see a flop" w/ AK/AQ type hands (in fact - given the "probabilities" he most assuredly has had AK already this session and chose NOT to 3bet it);
b) in previous 3-bet pots this player chose to bet like half-pot when checked to when he held a questionable pair. From a reads standpoint this seems to indicate that this player bets weakly when he is unsure of his hand. This doesn't correlate w/ him betting full-pot w/ A-high in this hand.

Granted, even discounting AK we have 40% equity - so this can never be terrible. But couldn't this be a situation of OP unnecessarily stacking off as a dog? Maybe i'm wrong, but I think villain rarely has AK here given history/description.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
a) this guys has not 3-bet pf one time; surely this means this player would rather "see a flop" w/ AK/AQ type hands (in fact - given the "probabilities" he most assuredly has had AK already this session and chose NOT to 3bet it);
b) in previous 3-bet pots this player chose to bet like half-pot when checked to when he held a questionable pair. From a reads standpoint this seems to indicate that this player bets weakly when he is unsure of his hand. This doesn't correlate w/ him betting full-pot w/ A-high in this hand.

Granted, even discounting AK we have 40% equity - so this can never be terrible. But couldn't this be a situation of OP unnecessarily stacking off as a dog? Maybe i'm wrong, but I think villain rarely has AK here given history/description.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're logic is off here. How many hands have we seen where doesn't 3-bet preflop? 75? 250? 600? You can't make any assumptions about how villain plays AK preflop based on a small sample of hands. Maybe he had AK 3 times already, but opened with them each time.

Also, the "probabilities" say that it's more likely he's already had QQ+ than AK this session, so maybe he just likes to see a flop with his big pairs.