NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...

[Renton]

just because you are betting every street doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get stacked. If he raises you can evaluate from there.

[RapidEvolution]

I think the standard play would be to bet flop and turn, then c/c river. With a board full of medium cards and your read, I c/c turn here too, both for pot control and because I won't be happy if villain raises my turn bet. The king doesn't slow the villain down (which I think rules out a lot of PPs) and the FD came in. IMO, the river is tough and I can't find much fault with either calling or folding. Ugh...

[Renton]

generally speaking, if you aren't getting three streets of value with AA on this board, then there is something pretty srsly wrong with your game.

[Renton]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, the river is tough and I can't find much fault with either calling or folding. Ugh...

[/ QUOTE ]

This only thing that sucks about this river is that we get paid off less by worse hands. We still have practically the nuts vs his river calling range once we bet, and vs his river betting range once we check, so this isn't really a tough spot at all.

[RapidEvolution]

What do you have as his calling range on the river given the action so far? (same for his betting range, and maybe moreso, since, IMO 99-QQ would happily check behind).

[AlexB182]

[ QUOTE ]
generally speaking, if you aren't getting three streets of value with AA on this board, then there is something pretty srsly wrong with your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not like my default line with a hand like this but I just don't get it why we should bet every street here when (IMO) villains play looks so much like a [censored] set. He is rather aggressive in general and this line with calling PF, just flatting on the flop is soooo suspicious I think. Honestly, before posting this hand here and reading the replies I was rather pissed that I did not manage to get away from this hand at least on the river.

[Renton]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't get it why we should bet every street here when (IMO) villains play looks so much like a [censored] set. He is rather aggressive in general and this line with calling PF, just flatting on the flop is soooo suspicious I think. Honestly, before posting this hand here and reading the replies I was rather pissed that I did not manage to get away from this hand at least on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is incredibly results oriented thinking

wouldn't you also say that his line looks like a censored set if he'd raised the flop and potted the turn?

Does he always have a set no matter what line he takes?


Truthfully the line most consistent with him flopping a set would be raising the flop. A loose and bad player is going to peel this flop with pretty much any pair, and a lot of overpairs (although he may raise the flop with some of those).

I'm also troubled by your attitude over this hand. Your use of "he had a [censored] set," and "im so pissed i didn't get away from this on the river." These are subtle signs that you are having trouble emotionally handling poker variance, and something you should work on.

Anyway, long story short, when he smoothcalls the flop, you should be putting him on top or middle pair, not a set, and since he's a bad player and will continue to call down with these hands, you should then make a bet on the turn as well. If he raises the turn, then you need to entertain the likelihood that he has a set, but if he just calls again, you should continue and bet big on the river as well, looking to get paid off by top pair.

[RapidEvolution]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't get it why we should bet every street here when (IMO) villains play looks so much like a [censored] set. He is rather aggressive in general and this line with calling PF, just flatting on the flop is soooo suspicious I think. Honestly, before posting this hand here and reading the replies I was rather pissed that I did not manage to get away from this hand at least on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is incredibly results oriented thinking

wouldn't you also say that his line looks like a censored set if he'd raised the flop and potted the turn?

Does he always have a set no matter what line he takes?


Truthfully the line most consistent with him flopping a set would be raising the flop. A loose and bad player is going to peel this flop with pretty much any pair, and a lot of overpairs (although he may raise the flop with some of those).

I'm also troubled by your attitude over this hand. Your use of "he had a [censored] set," and "im so pissed i didn't get away from this on the river." These are subtle signs that you are having trouble emotionally handling poker variance, and something you should work on.

Anyway, long story short, when he smoothcalls the flop, you should be putting him on top or middle pair, not a set, and since he's a bad player and will continue to call down with these hands, you should then make a bet on the turn as well. If he raises the turn, then you need to entertain the likelihood that he has a set, but if he just calls again, you should continue and bet big on the river as well, looking to get paid off by top pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were an A/K/Q on the flop, I think this would definitely be the case and I'd be betting 3 streets for value figuring that a good part of villain's range was TP. On an 8-high flop, I think it's far less likely, We're only really considering A8s, 78s, 98s and 99-QQ (though I think at least JJ/QQ repop us). 78s hits 2 pair on the turn and is probably calling a river bet, whereas 98s and 99-QQ are probably scared off after the Kd hits the river. (Maybe I'm wrong on this last part?)

(Sorry if I'm thread-jacking, but this is a spot I think about a lot.)

[AlexB182]

Renton,
first let me thank you for your thoughts and replies. I think that we really just have different opinions here, there a lot of bad players out there (especially at NL50) but at NL100, too, that play generally rather aggressive but slow down with strong made hands like sets. Therefore, I was really more concerned that he might have a set here then with this line as if he had just raised the flop, something I think he would've done with like JJ,TT stuff. That he is floating the flop here is of course an option, too.

With what you said about my attitude about this hand, I can assure you that I don't have troubles dealing with variance and stuff. I'm playing poker for quite a while now (LHE and PLO before finally moving to NLHE) and I know how sick this game can be from time to time. Me being upset here was really just because I thought a good player (what I am of course not as just proved) could have gotten away from this hand somewhere but maybe this is just a wrong evaluation on my part.
So, once again, thanks for you help and all the other comments!

BTW: "wouldn't you also say that his line looks like a censored set if he'd raised the flop and potted the turn?"

I honestly think that it would have been much easier for me to commit here if he would've played the hand like this cause I always expect the average/bad players to slowplay their sets. Maybe wrong thinking...

[Renton]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly think that it would have been much easier for me to commit here if he would've played the hand like this cause I always expect the average/bad players to slowplay their sets. Maybe wrong thinking...

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely wrong thinking.

Bad players slowplay hands, but when bad players are playing passively, it is overwhelmingly more likely that they have a weak hand than a strong one, EVEN IF THEY SLOWPLAY EVERY SINGLE BIG HAND. It's simply difficult to make big hands, and easy to make weak ones. Standard mathematics.