I fold AA for one bet in a big pot on the river heads up - Page 3

Paxosmotic · #21 09-20-2006, 11:32 PM

The fold is fine, you know it's fine, so why post the hand beyond a "look how good I am" expo? You win this hand approximately as often as I cash in SNGs (read: not 1 in 11)

CaptVimes · #22 09-21-2006, 07:21 AM

Just curious about the river play here. If you are going to fold to a raise should you really be betting? Shouldn't this be one of those times we check behind? By folding we're giving away 1 big bet and still don't know if we are actually beat. I know this may be too passive of a line but I think the free information's future value against this villian might be worth it. Pls explain to me why I am wrong here.

Thanks

JerBear77 · #23 09-21-2006, 08:25 AM

*grunch*

Probably would have called down after he leads the turn bet here. Even though he's a tard doesn't mean that he can't have a myriad of 2 pair hands here and other stuff that the 9 completes. Considering the fact that you have him tagged as a passive as well makes me even more inclined to call him down. TWIWP, i think the "correct" play is to fold here as he is screaming that you are beat for the one bet. It sucks but i think you are right.

tiltaholic · #24 09-21-2006, 10:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fold is fine, you know it's fine, so why post the hand beyond a "look how good I am" expo? You win this hand approximately as often as I cash in SNGs (read: not 1 in 11)

[/ QUOTE ]

honestly, thats not my intention.
i'm trying to post more hands that i find interesting since recently i've only been making dumb posts without hand related content. this was also the first time i've intentionally folded AA for one bet like this on a non-4straght/4-flush board.

i also forget how to win at this game, i think i'm having a 500bb downswing but i don't keep track anymore for psychological reasons. so i'm 99% confident i'm making mistakes in "routine" or at least costly situations...hence the post.

in conclusion, don't be silly, i'm really not that good at this game.

tiltaholic · #25 09-21-2006, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious about the river play here. If you are going to fold to a raise should you really be betting? Shouldn't this be one of those times we check behind? By folding we're giving away 1 big bet and still don't know if we are actually beat. I know this may be too passive of a line but I think the free information's future value against this villian might be worth it. Pls explain to me why I am wrong here.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

see other posts above -- in short, imho, villain will check and call one bet on the river like 90+% of the time when beaten. there is no information we get from checking it through that won't be almost immediately availible when he goes to showdown in some other hand vs someone else since i already know he's loose and passive. in fact, i think it is much more valuable as a general rule for us to bet the river for negative information (eg, villain folds and doesn't see what we held). in general if you are considering checking because villain will fold the river then lean towards betting anyway.

tehox · #26 09-21-2006, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious about the river play here. If you are going to fold to a raise should you really be betting? Shouldn't this be one of those times we check behind? By folding we're giving away 1 big bet and still don't know if we are actually beat. I know this may be too passive of a line but I think the free information's future value against this villian might be worth it. Pls explain to me why I am wrong here.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

see other posts above -- in short, imho, villain will check and call one bet on the river like 90+% of the time when beaten. there is no information we get from checking it through that won't be almost immediately availible when he goes to showdown in some other hand vs someone else since i already know he's loose and passive. in fact, i think it is much more valuable as a general rule for us to bet the river for negative information (eg, villain folds and doesn't see what we held). in general if you are considering checking because villain will fold the river then lean towards betting anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the value of negative information is pretty limited. I think that if we think villian is folding a lot of hands we beat we shouldn't bet, b/c it's no longer a value bet.

tehox · #27 09-21-2006, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious about the river play here. If you are going to fold to a raise should you really be betting? Shouldn't this be one of those times we check behind? By folding we're giving away 1 big bet and still don't know if we are actually beat. I know this may be too passive of a line but I think the free information's future value against this villian might be worth it. Pls explain to me why I am wrong here.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the action, we have a really strong hand here that beats a vast majority of a loose passive players holdings. So you have to bet the river for value. You are not going to get check raised that often.

CaptVimes · #28 09-21-2006, 02:00 PM

Thanks,

That clarifies. So in other words many marginal hands will just call/fold since villian is loose/passive, but the check raise tells us that we are pretty much toast and need to go. Would be hard to give up on the Aces though.

tehox · #29 09-21-2006, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks,

That clarifies. So in other words many marginal hands will just call/fold since villian is loose/passive, but the check raise tells us that we are pretty much toast and need to go. Would be hard to give up on the Aces though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes that is the rationale. I probably would not fold to the river c/r but that seems open to debate.

tiltaholic · #30 09-21-2006, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just curious about the river play here. If you are going to fold to a raise should you really be betting? Shouldn't this be one of those times we check behind? By folding we're giving away 1 big bet and still don't know if we are actually beat. I know this may be too passive of a line but I think the free information's future value against this villian might be worth it. Pls explain to me why I am wrong here.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

see other posts above -- in short, imho, villain will check and call one bet on the river like 90+% of the time when beaten. there is no information we get from checking it through that won't be almost immediately availible when he goes to showdown in some other hand vs someone else since i already know he's loose and passive. in fact, i think it is much more valuable as a general rule for us to bet the river for negative information (eg, villain folds and doesn't see what we held). in general if you are considering checking because villain will fold the river then lean towards betting anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the value of negative information is pretty limited. I think that if we think villian is folding a lot of hands we beat we shouldn't bet, b/c it's no longer a value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i think you are wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ok so if villain can call with a worse hand, there is value in a bet (hence "value-bet"). but we don't know if he will fold a hand we beat. however, even if villain can ONLY fold a worse hand, there is some amount of value that we gain by not letting villain see our hand. while obviously it is best when villain calls and loses, it's not the case that we gain nothing when he folds. i think this is more important as players become more observant so maybe its utility is reduced at lower levels.