NL50 - AA c/r'd on flop

[subzero]

[ QUOTE ]
AC,

If we check behind on flops like this with the goods, doesn't it kinda ruin our ability to c'bet with air on the same kind of flop?

[/ QUOTE ]
With that flop and heads up, I'm almost always going to cbet here against any player whether I have top pair, over pair, set, or air. It's partly for metagame reasons. Until someone plays back at me I will continue to cbet at every opportunity. I'm a pretty tight/patient player, so I look for opportunities like this to appear LAGgy.

[mce86]

These spots suck in my opinion. Player dependent, but I think I would call down in this spot. On a dry board like this, you might try to take this pot away from the CO raiser. Raise for information to see if your hand is good. AK, QQ, JJ are just as likely in this spot as well as QK. Also, some other weak hands as well.

[mce86]

Also, any player might take this line thinking the cutoff range of raising is quite large. And unless the raiser has AK, AA, KK or 99, he might fold to this play. Which makes it even harder to fold. Plus, at this level, QQ is a monster hand on this flop.

[Jeff76]

I think checking behind on this flop is fine, as is betting. It sort of depends on villain, how I've been playing my other hands this session, etc. I lean toward betting (because I'm so aggressive on the flop that it's just natural and my opponents expect it). However, if I've checked behind a lot of flops recently (I sometimes take a check behind, bet turn line with AK), I'll do it here.

I actually think that betting and checking behind are very close in value, so I prefer to make my decision based on meta game and how this line will affect other lines I may take later in the session.

[A_C_Slater]

I agree Jeff that it is quite close. And I certainly wouldn't want to flame Roger Manfield for saying the flop should usually be bet. My flop AF is 4.66 so it's not like i'm some obsessive pot control freak.

[Larude]

I feel more for Slaters line. I often check behind on drawless or small drawing boards when I am WA/WB against 1 opponent unless villain has prooved to be a calling station with something like KQ or KJ (in this specific case).

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
"It shouldn't be, at 50nl you will find quite a few villians willing to play for stacks with tptk type hands. And you lose a lot of value checking the flop, as well as giving hands that would have called a bet a free chance to catch up."

So we want to play for stacks since unknowns will stack off with top pair? If that's the case then why fold to the turn lead? He has at most 5 outs to catch up.



"Aces and other big pairs do best on the flop, every street you give free to an opponent gives him a chance to suck out on you. If you routinely do this vs mid pairs you give them an extra 5% a street, at no gain to yourself."

No they do better on the turn when your equity is better. You also have to bet less to make it incorrect for draws to call profitably as they will have less implied odds with only 1 street of betting remaing. And I don't see how you can see that there is no gain. Here is an examaple.

Villian limps 5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and calls your AA raise.

Flop: K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]


Villian checks, you bet, villian folds.


Scenario #2

Flop: K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]


villian checks 55, you check behind


Turn: K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]


Villian leads. Hero calls.

Which scenario is more likely to occur, the bluff induction scenario or one where he spikes a set on turn?

And if he checks turn than we can bet for value and he will still probably call with 55, but we won't already have a big pot on by the turn with only one pair. This is all dependant on stack size of course. If villian has 40bb then I would just CB flop. He is more likely to call with an UI pocket pair on the turn than on the flop because he knows he only has 1 more street to get to showdown against your AQ or whatever he puts you on by checking the flop.


A unknown will not know you have an overpair/tptk when you check this flop because they are usually obsessed with protecting their hands. You keep referencing a decent player in your opponent description type, but this is an unknown.


[/ QUOTE ]

alternatively, on the flop villain checks, we bet villain calls. villain checks turn, we check behind. then on the river we either bet when checked to or we call villain's bet. this line is completely standard-- flop cbet, check turn for pot control, value bet river.

[AmonRaa]

I get that you'd check flop to get value from pp, but what yould you do if you held AQ on K high flop. I would bet it and thats why I have to bet AK or AA hand (basicly hand that hits). How can i cbet flops that miss me and check flops that I hit?

[A_C_Slater]

"alternatively, on the flop villain checks, we bet villain calls. villain checks turn, we check behind. then on the river we either bet when checked to or we call villain's bet. this line is completely standard-- flop cbet, check turn for pot control, value bet river."

But in this scenario the pot is already bigger by the turn. And since the pot is bigger going into the turn it now makes a possible donk bet by villian all the more perplexing. So if both lines offer pot control then why is betting flop such a big deal?

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get whats with that comment? This is just a discusion, you can keep your condescending comments to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]It didn't look like you were discussing, it looked like you were saying any other line was stupid or "sooooo nitty". Your mind seemed made up and I didn't feel like arguing the pros of checking behind.

Sorry you took offense.