$50 - AK flops tptk oop HU with deep stacks

[xGREGORx]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the point in calling the mini-raise if only 5 cards can improve Hero's hand, one of which Villain may be holding? Especially when none of them may actually be "outs" if Villain has a set?

Calling + leading the turn for 1/2 to 2/3 of the pot means committing another $32 to $36 to the pot with one pair. If you're not gonna fold (which is what I'd be learning towards here), why not just 3-bet on the flop and shut down after any resistance? You'd save several bucks and it puts pressure on Villain to define their hand further rather than forcing yourself to make an expensive decision on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't 3betting the flop commit the $32 - $36 as well? And 3betting the flop is usually just going to get action from better hands. I still think doing our best to keep the pot small is the way to go.

[JoaoPinto]

Check the flop and keep the pot small. I don't like how much you raise pre flop either as it invites a landmine.

[silentbob]

My sense is that a 3-bet need not cost $40 here. Obviously, I'm not advocating a donkbet to $24, but something in-between will get more information from Villain sooner rather than later. The turn can help Villain just as easily as Hero (if not more), and we don't need an extra card to cloud the analysis further.

The only way to keep the pot smaller after calling the flop mini-raise is to check, and that's practically waving a white flag. I'd rather have my final act be one of aggression, and force Villain into making the decision. Calling the mini-raise + leading the turn is hardly passive, but I still think it doesn't send as forceful of a message as a 3-bet.

Any of the vets/pooh-bahs want to weigh in on this? I'm still relatively new at SSNL (~21K hands) and would like to hear from those with more experience under their belt.

[Jamougha]

3-bet/no more money in is a horrible flop line, more so OOP. When he calls you really have no idea where you are.

I'd call the flop and probably check the turn, decide what to do based on the size of his bet. Make a near PSB on the river if he checks behind. You can be pretty sure that if he wants to get ai then your hand is no good.

[silentbob]

[ QUOTE ]
3-bet/no more money in is a horrible flop line, more so OOP. When he calls you really have no idea where you are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? With no real draws on the board, are Villains with AQ really calling a 3-bet (or better yet, calling a $4 raise PF as a 20/5 player)? IMO, if Villain calls, I just don't see how TPTK can be good.

Similarly, is a Villain who calls the 3-bet on the flop really going to check behind or make a weak bet on the turn? Maybe I'm missing something here.

[beavens]

[ QUOTE ]
Check the flop and keep the pot small. I don't like how much you raise pre flop either as it invites a landmine.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is beyond weaktight.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

Really? With no real draws on the board, this seems like a classic WA/WB situation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is why raising is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Are Villains with AQ really calling a 3-bet (or better yet, calling a $4 raise PF as a 20/5 player)? IMO, if Villain calls, I just don't see how TPTK can be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's SSNL He might minraise the flop with A5 to 'find out here he's at' and end up calling off his whole stack. That's why it's profitable.

Btw, are you 3-betting here with any two cards? Because if your assumptions are correct hen the fact that you have TPTK is irrelevant. It's called turning a good hand into 72o.

[silentbob]

Oops, I edited my previous post because maybe I misunderstood the WA/WB concept. WA/WB is where both are equally likely, right?

IMO, this seems to be a situation where Hero is more likely WB than WA. Given the preflop play, it's pretty unlikely that a tight Villain will call $4 with a weaker ace. On the off-chance that they do, he's just as likely to have AQ as AJ.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, are you 3-betting here with any two cards?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you're getting at here. If I miss the flop and Villain mini-raises my c-bet, isn't it an easy fold?

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
WA/WB is where both are equally likely, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

WA/WB in NL is where if you hare ahead villain has few outs, if you are behind then you have few outs, and if you raise worse hands fold and better hands call.

[ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're getting at here. If I miss the flop and Villain mini-raises my c-bet, isn't it an easy fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're assuming that if you reraise and he calls then your hand is definitely no good, yes? If so, it doesn't matter that you have top pair top kicker, because you're always behind and can't win a showdown. So 3-betting with a hand worse than TPTK has exactly the same expected value.

You say his is more likely WB than WA - so why are you eager to put more money in the pot?

[silentbob]

I guess I'm still not convinced that putting more money into the pot with a call is any better. You're just buying into Villain's goal of building the pot. While it's true that 3-betting does the same, at least you're projecting the possibility of AA or TT. Calling seems to scream that you have AK/AQ and puts Villain in a great advantage going into the turn with position.

Ultimately, I agree with you that in a WA/WB situation, pot-control is the main consideration, which is why I wouldn't have necessarily led the flop and check-called instead. That way, the pot would've been around $27 going into the turn. But given how OP played it, 3-bet disguises his hand and makes Villain think twice about whether or not his two pair or set of 4s really is better. And if Villain's stats aren't 20/5 but, say, 40/15, I would concede that calling the mini-raise is probably better.