Two AA hands - ULTRA-deep 1/2 and 3/6

[luckyjimm]

Because I won like 930 Euro!!!! Hahaha. That hand was about three times larger than any pot I'd won before on this network, and I thought I played it well.

Yes, you're kind of right about the second hand, but you're kind of wrong, too. As I said, why stick 900e into the middle unnecessarily? Aren't I better off waiting till I actually have the flush, realising that well-rolled players will call down light?

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 2 is fine. Don't be results oriented.

Unless you had some really good read there's no way you can know he's calling you down after just the flop bet.

Hand 1 is so boring I don't know why you posted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[greywolf]

The third barrel is good play if the game conditions are right i.e you are upp against an tigt and good player and you have an sane image.

[akishore]

I'm wondering why you don't cr the flop in hand 2 instead of bet out. In my experience (feel free to disagree), a donkbet there screams naked ace bluff, because the nut flush is usually checkraising there.

As played, I agree that the third barrel is horrible.

[luckyjimm]

Yes, Akishore, you're right - if I did have to play this hand, a turn check-raise would have been the way to do it.

[piiop]

No, a turn checkraise makes no sense.

A flop checkraise would be fine depending on how you play your other hands and how the flow of the game has been but a flop bet is fine too. It does not scream naked ace bluff.

The 3rd barrel is NOT horrible.

[akishore]

[ QUOTE ]
No, a turn checkraise makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in general, but it could be okay depending on villain and game...

[ QUOTE ]
The 3rd barrel is NOT horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's good about it? Value bet? Hardly. Bluff? Hardly.

[luckyjimm]

Put it this way - if you'd flopped the nut flush here, how'd you play it? Could he have picked up I was playing it differently than if I had it, or is this more about villain being on tilt from losing 1200 the previous hand, whilst being generally inclined to call down light?

[Aisthesis]

Yeah, you can make the naked A bluff sometimes, but I don't think it's a good habit.

It works nicely if you feel like you're coming off as playing very tight/nut-peddlish and/or your opponent is very tight. I don't think it's a great idea against a player who's steaming and probably inclined to play a bit unpredictably.

[sahaguje]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
The 3rd barrel is NOT horrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's good about it? Value bet? Hardly. Bluff? Hardly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree ; against a lot of players you have a very good chance to take the pot on the river. More importantly, I do not have to courage to do the math, but it is a simple question of game theory here (nuts or total bluff vs. hand that can only beat a bluff). You should actually bet pot on the river a decent amount of time here, since you obviously want to bet the pot almost every time with the nuts ; not bluffing here would make you very easy to beat in the long run.

(And if you are used to betting less than pot with nuts, maybe half pot, then you should also increase your bluffing proportion accordingly).

If someone wants to give the precise numbers (I think they are in Ciaffone/reuben and in the mathematics of poker)