insolitude
Rock Star
Silver Level
Thanks for the comments guys. Seems like I've been burned post-flop more times than not with AA/KK, so I raised him all-in. If I had a better handle on online player profiling, I'd feel a lot more confident just raising here. That's next on my list of skills to develop.
NuRelic
Rock Star
Silver Level
The way this hand is playing out just doesn't make since on the surface. Was there something else going on like some kind of verbal sparing between you two or had one of you been playing Hyper Aggro since sitting down?
Here's why I ask:
Nevertheless, with that all said I'd still shove it back at him. The major difference in how I'd have played it would have been on the Flop, I'd have bet 1/2 the pot or less and that if I bet at all. There would be a good chance that I'd have checked it to see if he had any strength and therefore, commitment to the hand.
Here's why I ask:
His Raise and your Re-raise, along with him calling, all makes since but...
Why are you potting your bet? There's no threat from a Flush or Straight so there's no reason to push as hard as you are. The downside to this kind of unnecessary aggression is that your putting so much money in the pot that it starts making it worthwhile for your opponents to go ahead and push if he's holding a monster. Additionally, with your 24xBB PFR coupled with this bet you've effectively told him what you've got. This might be giving him more credit than he deserves (considering this is a penny table), but if he has any skills he could prolly guess that you were holding AA or KK. With that in mind...
This kind of Re-raise would be understandable if he was holding QQ, 88 or 44 because your not about to lay this one down, right?
Nevertheless, with that all said I'd still shove it back at him. The major difference in how I'd have played it would have been on the Flop, I'd have bet 1/2 the pot or less and that if I bet at all. There would be a good chance that I'd have checked it to see if he had any strength and therefore, commitment to the hand.
insolitude
Rock Star
Silver Level
No verbal sparring, I don't get into that kind of thing.
I've always been pretty aggressive. (Probably too aggressive, see here for example.) And I have been playing tighter (down to ~25% to see the flop).
Maybe I could have squeezed a bit more $ out of this pot by checking the flop, but like I said it seems my AA/KK haven't been holding up so well lately. Bottom line I didn't want him to see another card.
But I could be way off, that's why I'm here to learn.
I've always been pretty aggressive. (Probably too aggressive, see here for example.) And I have been playing tighter (down to ~25% to see the flop).
Maybe I could have squeezed a bit more $ out of this pot by checking the flop, but like I said it seems my AA/KK haven't been holding up so well lately. Bottom line I didn't want him to see another card.
But I could be way off, that's why I'm here to learn.
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
Jillychemung
Stacks & Stacks
Loyaler
Did I read this wrong? The pot was $.96 after the flop and so a $.68 bet into this looks to me like a standard C-bet. I've been reading everywhere that we should be leading all but our monsters on the flop and AA while great is not a monster, QQ would have been a monster.
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
bold^^^
V
viking999
Visionary
Silver Level
I like just calling. A savvy player would take your call to be significant and might rethink top pair. At 0.01/0.02, that's unlikely to happen. It's a weak drawing board, so I'm inclined to let him continue bluffing if he is in fact bluffing. If he's not, then he's going to get all his money in anyway, so it doesn't matter if you get him all in now or later.
On a drawing board, all of that logic goes out the window. I only like the call because things are unlikely to change on the turn.
On a drawing board, all of that logic goes out the window. I only like the call because things are unlikely to change on the turn.
NuRelic
Rock Star
Silver Level
No you didn't read it wrong, I read it wrong. I miss typed about it being a Pot bet. My bad and good catch.
I didn't think there' was animosity in this hand and you might be missing my point (or maybe I worded it incorrectly). What I was alluding to was the fact that there is a lot of action on a non-threatening board and that just didn't add up in my head. Moreover, if that action was the result of a LAG (Hyper-Aggro) player, I was going to suggest that slowing down and setting up a check/raise or even check/call would have been a better play because the odds of getting pis.joddo to bet out would have been very high. I've seen multiple posts on this forum where members have asked how to deal with an LAG player and setting up a check/raise or even check/call in this situation is the second best scenario for that particular case (holding Top Set would have been the best).
I disagree! I don’t think you can readily dismiss another players ability simply because the majority of players at that level are one way or another. Most players in the Micro level are learning, admittedly but those that are learning are generally scared money. LAG on the Micro level are players who generally feed on that scared money. As result, pis.joddo does not appear to fall into the scared money type but rather, the LAG category. Moreover, if he is a LAG player then my suggestion of setting up a check/raise or check/call would have been sound.
Additionally, I want to point out that this is not a 5nl table, it’s a penny table. However, I do want to say that I totally understand how its very easy to miss read something and post a response with that misrepresentation still in mind. This is why I started this post off by admitting for my own over-site about the ‘potted-bet’.
We obviously see this differently because I don’t agree with betting half the pot if you’re dealing with a LAG player, so we’ll just have to disagree. But look man, if I somehow stepped on your toes or, through some other action, ticked you off I’d appreciate it if you could point that out so I can make it right or something because you really seemed to be steamed. If not, then it’s my bad again for reading something in your post that wasn’t there.
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
I'm not ticked off, I just don't agree with you 
Sorry if I came off pissed or rude.
Anyways yes, check-raising is fine, but OP didn't mention anywhere that he was a loose aggressive player. Nor did he mention that he was one of the few 'good' players at 5nl.
So we are against an unknown and we have to assume based on probability that he's a bad player who probably calls too much, and thus we need to value bet.
There's something called FPS (Fancy play syndrome) and you see it come up most often in micro/small stakes. It's what you're falling pray to right now.
When you're up against good players, you have a whole shed of tools to use against him. When you're up against a bad player, you have to just bash his head in with a shovel.
Sorry if I came off pissed or rude.
Anyways yes, check-raising is fine, but OP didn't mention anywhere that he was a loose aggressive player. Nor did he mention that he was one of the few 'good' players at 5nl.
So we are against an unknown and we have to assume based on probability that he's a bad player who probably calls too much, and thus we need to value bet.
There's something called FPS (Fancy play syndrome) and you see it come up most often in micro/small stakes. It's what you're falling pray to right now.
When you're up against good players, you have a whole shed of tools to use against him. When you're up against a bad player, you have to just bash his head in with a shovel.