NL50 - AA c/r'd on flop

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
check behind flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Results oriented, betting here is soooo standard, and checking should be done rarely for metagame purposes agains't regulars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Results oriented? Hardly. I think checking behind on a dry board like this is a great line here for the reasons mentioned.

[Roger Mainfield]

You are in position on a dry flop, agains't an opponent who is most likely to be bad (this is 50nl). The reasons stated strike me as a joke almost.

"And checking the flop will get to showdown most cheaply."

SOOO nitty, you have a great hand, you should be concerned about getting to a showdown cheap when A) You are OOP B) Your opponent had shown strength, and you have a decent but not great hand. Get some money in when you have control of the pot.

"I would also like to see showdown to get info on this unknown player."

Similar to the other point, why would you "waste" aces trying to get information on your opponent? It is bad to play a hand extremely meekly because you don't know your opponent.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
You are in position on a dry flop, agains't an opponent who is most likely to be bad (this is 50nl). The reasons stated strike me as a joke almost.

"And checking the flop will get to showdown most cheaply."

SOOO nitty, you have a great hand, you should be concerned about getting to a showdown cheap when A) You are OOP B) Your opponent had shown strength, and you have a decent but not great hand. Get some money in when you have control of the pot.

"I would also like to see showdown to get info on this unknown player."

Similar to the other point, why would you "waste" aces trying to get information on your opponent? It is bad to play a hand extremely meekly because you don't know your opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Best of luck.

[Klompy]

FWIW I checked behind with a few overpairs/tptk with a,k in a session I just completed and was shocked at how light I got looked up. Maybe there's something to this. Drawless boards obv.

[Roger Mainfield]

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

[tgo007]

does anyone fold on the flop? mini raises are usually lure bets and u have to fold most of the time on the turn unless u hit a set. I almost never see a mini raise on the flop then have villian give up on the hand.

[tarheeljks]

against an unknown there is no reason to check this flop, that is ridiculous. you are betting here for value from a K and from villains who like to float flop cbets. to call the turn you need a read that says he would do this w/tpgk (since AK is unlikely here).

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
against an unknown there is no reason to check this flop, that is ridiculous. you are betting here for value from a K and from villains who like to float flop cbets. to call the turn you need a read that says he would do this w/tpgk (since AK is unlikely here).

[/ QUOTE ]


So you want to extract value from top pair. Is that the reason the bet here? Are we going to value bet all streets if blanks hit swelling the pot on each street? Or are we going to bet flop and turn and then check river UI? Are we going to make a value shove for stacks on the river?


And I really am not being results oriendted just because villian happened to get check/raised here, that is absurd. This is just a routine line I take in these situations.

If we're not going to push river for value vs his range then that means we are only going to be putting 2 bets in. If that's the case then why not put them in on turn and river and keep the pot small at the same time. Big pots are for big hands and a single pair is not a big hand, even AA.

At the same time we can induce bluffs from underpairs that don't want to give up. If we CB flop those hands will either just fold (loss of value) or they will trickily check/raise (tough spot). If opponent is a donk he will also be check/raising top pair here and unwittingly outplaying you.

Checking behind flop here DOES extract max value from villian's range as he will only be calling with top pair. We lose bluff induction from everything else. But even if he does have top pair we can still get value bets in on turn and river if he checks again.

[Roger Mainfield]

I am planning on going to bed, so we will see how long this is.

[ QUOTE ]
So you want to extract value from top pair. Is that the reason the bet here? Are we going to value bet all streets if blanks hit swelling the pot on each street? Or are we going to bet flop and turn and then check river UI? Are we going to make a value shove for stacks on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

K well you blew that out of proportion, he never said anything about trying to play AA for stacks. But I will try and answer the questions 1-by-1. Betting here is to attract value from top pair, and to get the money in when you are reasonably sure you have the best hand. No one said anything about betting the turn. How NL works is that many pots go, raise pre, c-bet flop, check turn and bet river. If you bet the turn you usually get quite a few decent hands to fold, going losely by the baluga theorem. I wouldn't love shoving the river for stacks vs an unknow, but I wouldn't hate it either. Def depends on how we get there. But if it gets checked to us 3 times, you can be fairly confident you are ahead, and this is 50nl give people chances to make mistakes.

[ QUOTE ]
And I really am not being results oriendted just because villian happened to get check/raised here, that is absurd. This is just a routine line I take in these situations.

[/ 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. Checking the flop with tptk type hands is a signifigant mistake. Decent opponents will realize that a check on the flop, and then a bet on turn, followed by a bet on the river is usually a decent hand. I.E if someone is bluffing they will use their momentum to bet the flop, tring to take the pot away. Waiting to raise when they do not have momentum is worse, thus makes less sense to be a bluff. I am much more likely to call a river bet in the situation above(bet,bet,check,bet), than I am if it goes (bet,check,bet,bet).

[ QUOTE ]
If we're not going to push river for value vs his range then that means we are only going to be putting 2 bets in. If that's the case then why not put them in on turn and river and keep the pot small at the same time. Big pots are for big hands and a single pair is not a big hand, even AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

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. I think you are over-estimating pot control in this situation as well. Pot control is vs people who can lay down decent holdings to pressure, and won't get in big pots without the goods.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time we can induce bluffs from underpairs that don't want to give up. If we CB flop those hands will either just fold (loss of value) or they will trickily check/raise (tough spot).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that they will either fold/check-raise the flop. This is an extremely dry flop, and I can see someone check-calling the flop with a few underpairs. I would like to say I don't think our hand is a bluff-catcher, which seems to be how you classify it. You are ahead of hands he will value bet, and only behind certain hands, you don't need to play this hand passive and afraid.

[ QUOTE ]
Checking behind flop here DOES extract max value from villian's range as he will only be calling with top pair. We lose bluff induction from everything else. But even if he does have top pair we can still get value bets in on turn and river if he checks again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only be calling with top pair?(what?!?!) I disagree with essentially the entire last paragraph. Playing the hand as you described is good only agains't set miners. Regular opponents will call you down with more holdings. It is much more likely that villian has a top pair type hand then a set, you realize that right? I can't do any hand distribution of the top of my head, but if he limp calls KJs,KQs,KQ,and with 66,99(hands that call you on the flop, and furture bets,Obv only a part of his range). Then numerically he is much much more likely to have an okay king than to have a hand that beats us, and playing optimaly agaisn't a small part of his range and badly agaisn't the majority is a large mistake.

Side Note: Rainstlix you have the pleasure of being the first person I have ever censured on the internet, and I won't be reading any of your responses.

Note #2: Ya it came out pretty long, I will answer the inevitable flames in 8 hours or so.

[A_C_Slater]

"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.