Hand from the Older Archives, standard?

[disjunction]

Live game, 8-handed before the poker boom. Axo and 65s is in the villain's range, but no other description is given. Assume he's not crazy-bad in any way.

Hero raises AKo UTG. Villain calls in BB.

Flop is K55 rainbow. Bet/raise/call.

Turn is offsuit Ten. Villain checks. Plan?

[jay b.]

Just a guess, bet.

[bobbyi]

I'd bet. Most likely he has a worse king or maybe a pocket pair and we are winning. He bet once to "see where he's at" and is now going to call us down. Obviously, there are other possible scenarios and we can't know for sure without more info on the opponent, but this would certainly be the default. You just get paid off too often my KJ or whatever to miss a bet by checking behind on the turn. If you get raised, you have to make a decision, but without more info my default here would be to grit my teeth and call down.

[disjunction]

Maybe not so standard, then. I'll wait a little longer before posting the reasoning for the turn action that everyone, including MM, agreed on.

[flawless_victory]

its pretty obv they said check it or bet/fold, but this isnt 1992... u dont check this hand and u dont fold it unless u know who youtre dealing with... i also dont understand the flop raise if you arent betting fourth, makes no sense.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
its pretty obv they said check it or bet/fold, but this isnt 1992... u dont check this hand and u dont fold it unless u know who youtre dealing with... i also dont understand the flop raise if you arent betting fourth, makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree about the flop raise, OP didn't seem like a good player. OP was from 1998. There were no reads but assume "typical 1998 player" if that helps you. Besides the reads I gave you, villain plays Axo or 65s, I don't see how the presence of an unknown 1998 opponent significantly affects the decision (well, he won't go insane and spew I guess).

Play was described as "textbook", and MM did not object. I don't want to misrepresent it, he wasn't a huge participant in this thread, but he did read it, and MM and Sklansky (who didn't participate) were pretty quick with a "Not my textbook!" response when appropriate back then.

[disjunction]

I'm just going to post the results now, since dry flops probably bore people to tears. But I do think they're important, and I'm more uncomfortable with dry flops than with typical ones.

The OP in 1998 was kind of a bad beat story (it's amazing how different the forums are now. The only meaningful discussions in the Older Archives seem to be about preflop). The OP complained that he checked the turn behind, the river was a 6 and went bet/call, and the villain showed trip 6's. The OP complained that the "textbook play" had cost him the pot.

The thread drew 15 or so responses, none of them criticizing the play! One person said that he would be the turn but wasn't too emphatic about it. Everyone seemed to agree that checking behind was, in fact, the "book" play. MM pointed out that it wasn't clear the check had cost him the pot, and it may have even saved a bet. It like tacit approval of the turn action. The idea, of course, was to induce a river bluff or call, and save a bet when behind.

My reasoning to bet was the same as bobbyi's. I would bet and not give it a second thought (and call down without a read). If I didn't think he had a 5, I might check and raise the river on my FPS days. Which is why I was surprised that anyone could dream of checking and then calling the river. The fact that the year was 1998, I would think, makes it more likely for a pocket pair to call down.

Just struck me as weird that I'd be so far off with what's standard, so I posted this as a sanity check.

[lil']

Well, at the time of this hand the Party Poker moron had not been invented yet.