$50 AK, tough river decision

[Four Dogs]

Holy cow! You get all of that from one hand? Are you a Gypsy?

That was directed at the post directly above me from MrDaMan.

AA huh. OK, lots of people limp with that from EP. It's not a bad move if you've got agressive players ahead. If your capable of laying them down if things get scary in a milti way pot, you can often make up the difference with the increased implied odds you get from concealing its strength.

Let me get this straight. You called a $16.00 bet when you knew you were behind, with no chance of improving, just to see what he had?

 

[hott_estelle]

That was directed at the post directly above me from MrDaMan.

AA huh. OK, lots of people limp with that from EP. It's not a bad move if you've got agressive players ahead. If your capable of laying them down if things get scary in a milti way pot, you can often make up the difference with the increased implied odds you get from concealing its strength.

Limp is fine, but the limp is normally followed by a reraise if someone raises preflop, and gives a chance for a reraise like I did there, to make sure its not a multiway pot, like it was. That's why I said it was weird at the end.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

There are so many horrible posts in this thread. "call for information" - WTF? "Raise the river" - seriously WTF? Please people, I know we're all learning here, but you're not gonna learn anything if you don't even think before you post.

His pf/flop/turn play is telling us one of three things.

1) He flopped a monster and slowplayed it, and then has donkbet the turn to try and represent weakness

2) The 2 on the turn has helped him somehow.

3) He's bluffing with a hand that is worse than ours (obv).

(let's ignore the actual result "He's a donk with AA" ^^)

1) is unlikely simply because we have a King, the 2 has paired on the turn, and the flop is as drawless as a flop can get.

2) is unlikely because who limp-calls UTG with anyhting that has a 2 in it? If you've been playing with this guy for any length of time these donkish tendencies would have revealed themselves.

Which leaves us with 3). I'm skeptical enough about villain's play to call here. I think you played the hand fine.

(incidentally, although villain's preflop is horrible I think he played it well from the flop onwards)

 

[hott_estelle]

There are so many horrible posts in this thread. "call for information" - WTF? "Raise the river" - seriously WTF? Please people, I know we're all learning here, but you're not gonna learn anything if you don't even think before you post.

The call for information explanation was ridiculous

I would call just to see if he has it. If you lose at least you gain information on how he plays, by how he play this hand.

You call off $16 just for information??

I didn't even see the one about raise the river until now. Also, when trying to state what hand you might possibly put someone on, it would be nice not to cover every single hand possible (including bluffs, so pretty much zero analysis is occurring, saw one of these posts in this thread) and state that's probably what they have just so you're right in the end when the results come out and you can say "Yes, *fistpump*, I was right, ect, ect, ect, whatever people say." Anyways, there were a lot of bad posts here I agree, but some of the analysis was decent.

I ultimately made the call because I really thought I had him here, but he did play it rather unconventionally, so it did have me a bit confused at the end there. Had to reread the HH a couple times to see what the hell happened there. Ultimately, the preflop play is what completely threw me off in the hand.

 

[MrDaMan]

Originally Posted by Four Dogs View Post
Holy cow! You get all of that from one hand? Are you a Gypsy?
That was directed at the post directly above me from MrDaMan.

No, but I do try and get into the heads of my opponents, when I'm sucsessful it's profitable ... when I'm not it can cost me. While the cards are a factor, it's the player that makes the differance.

I suspected she was new to the table and didn't have enough information on this player, who turned out to be a tricky/change up kind (at least for this hsnd). Definately wouldn't go on my "free money" list but I might make a note that he slowplayed A/A utg and keep an eye on him if I got him in a game again.

A/A ... it makes more sense now, I may not have ever known because I probably would have folded to a re-raise after my re-raise on the turn. Estelle got more solid information just by calling the river ... if I wanted that information it would have cost me more. So as a new player to the table, Estelle's calling it down probably makes more sense than re-raising on the turn to find out where your at.

 

[Bombjack]

I think you played it fine. This was just a cooler. Reload and carry on. You have to call the river even if you're only ahead 1 time in 4.

Calling for information isn't that daft. If it's not a clear decision either way whether you should call the $16 bet on the end, i.e. a lot of the time you're ahead, your expectation from calling this bet is going to be much less negative than -$16. Say you expect to be ahead here only 1 time in 6. Calling this bet is costing you (-16*(5/6)+51*(1/6)) = $4.8, not the full $16.

If you're playing a long game, and the information on what hand he plays in this unusual way enables you to win rather than lose a $10 pot later on, it will have been worth it.

It's only generally worth it if the situation is very marginal though.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

BJ,

I agree, but (as I think you implied) in this situation it's not a 'call for information', it's a call because we believe it's immediately profitable.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is a bad habit to get into.

 

[joeeagles]

Your right Estelle, he did play it unconventionally enough which allowed him to extract some money out of you. Don't misunderstand, I'm not leaning towards giving him any credit for it. I think you played this correctly, you had to make the call there.

I disagree with Dorkus when he says that only PF is horrible, I think his check/call flop play was also terrible, it only looks good because the turn brought the best non A card available which allowed him to extract $24 from Estelle between turn and river. Those are the only 2 streets he played well, by not overbetting them. Overall he played this in a way that could have turned in a disaster for him, starting by limping UTG and not check/raising the flop.

Sure, decieving is fine but when you push it that far it can become very expensive. It didn't in this case because he was lucky Estelle had AK, and she raised the flop (correctly) for him. That was his 1st break. His limp already had 2 callers + BB, creating a 4 way pot with AA in the hole. Not what you want, obviously. His 2nd break was, as already mentioned, the 2 on the turn. Not check/raising the flop is terrible.

 

[dj11]

He played you like a violin, and for him you sang so sweetly!

 

[hott_estelle]

BJ,

I agree, but (as I think you implied) in this situation it's not a 'call for information', it's a call because we believe it's immediately profitable.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is a bad habit to get into.

This is exactly why I asked why would you call for information here?? I mean, that should not have been the reason to call here, that's why I asked the poster who posted that response why would he call for info here.

There's no need to call for info here, we call because we think we're ahead. I understand calling for info is very profittable in the future in some cases, but it's very unporfitable in many cases as well. This isn't one of those times where we should call for info, and doing so would just be calling for all the wrong reasons.

Your right Estelle, he did play it unconventionally enough which allowed him to extract some money out of you. Don't misunderstand, I'm not leaning towards giving him any credit for it. I think you played this correctly, you had to make the call there.

I disagree with Dorkus when he says that only PF is horrible, I think his check/call flop play was also terrible, it only looks good because the turn brought the best non A card available which allowed him to extract $24 from Estelle between turn and river. Those are the only 2 streets he played well, by not overbetting them. Overall he played this in a way that could have turned in a disaster for him, starting by limping UTG and not check/raising the flop.

Sure, decieving is fine but when you push it that far it can become very expensive. It didn't in this case because he was lucky Estelle had AK, and she raised the flop (correctly) for him. That was his 1st break. His limp already had 2 callers + BB, creating a 4 way pot with AA in the hole. Not what you want, obviously. His 2nd break was, as already mentioned, the 2 on the turn. Not check/raising the flop is terrible.

He definitely played unconventional, which definitely did allow him to extract more money from me, but I wouldn't ever encourage anyone here to play AA preflop like he did. It's asking to lose a huge pot.

He got the absolute perfect flop to extract money from one of his 4 opponents (me), and was very lucky that the flop didn't give any decent draws to any of his opponents.

He played you like a violin, and for him you sang so sweetly!

Yes he did play me like a violin, but I don't know if I sang so sweetly after the hand was over.

And nothing wrong with that either, everyone gets "played" or completely misreads someone because of unconventional play. I not embarrassed of my play at all here, I just posted this HH because I thought it would be a very interesting hand to analyze and talk about. Also, to show that even if you play a hand as perfect as you possibly can (or just decent, whatever your opinion of me may be), you can still lose and lose without a bad beat. Sometimes you just lose without making a single mistake, and you just have to take it as a part of poker. You're not going to play perfect all the time, or win every hand all the time; and when the time comes when you do lose your stack at a table, even when you played well, just reload and keep on going (unless you're on tilt, then just stop playing).

Anyways, hope this was interesting enough for you guys.

 

[joosebuck]

weaker K/x that picked up a spade draw can take this line. pp between king and 7 can take this line. annoying but necessary call.

 

[Four Dogs]

hott_estelle said, "i really cant see pocket 7s"
Why not?

hott_estelle said, "definitely not AA"
I wouldn't say definately not, but certainly hard to see without the preflop re-raise.

hott_estelle said, "not A2"
No, not A2

hott_estelle said, "i hav to see"
hott_estelle: calls $16
Why? Why did you have to see? You can be stymied by your opponents betting pattern and still suspect that your behind. Without a read on him you just can't give a weaker range of hands than kings that much credit.
Is "I have to see" any better than calling a $16 bet for information?

 

[hott_estelle]

hott_estelle said, "i really cant see pocket 7s"
Why not?

hott_estelle said, "definitely not AA"
I wouldn't say definately not, but certainly hard to see without the preflop re-raise.

hott_estelle said, "not A2"
No, not A2

hott_estelle said, "i hav to see"
hott_estelle: calls $16
Why? Why did you have to see? You can be stymied by your opponents betting pattern and still suspect that your behind. Without a read on him you just can't give a weaker range of hands than kings that much credit.
Is "I have to see" any better than calling a $16 bet for information?

I called because I thought I was ahead. "I had to see" because I thought I was ahead. I wouldn't call that much on the river, unless I thought it was more likely I was ahead than not. I thought that call was the move here, maybe I was wrong, maybe not, but if I get same situation again, and hand is played out the same way I probably call 8 times out of 10.

 

[joeeagles]

Fd, if you look carefully at HH, there is no way he can have AA without being a dumbass. Besides his PF play, its mostly his behavior after the flop that suggests he can't have it. Pot is 4 way, he's first to act and he checks, that's fine; 2 more check, then Estelle raises $4.50 and he simply calls, with 2 players left to act after him. That, IMO, is asking for trouble. As I posted before decieving is fine, so is trying to get value, actually you should do both, but this is very stupid and dangerous territory. AA is not so much of a powerhouse against 3 opponents, they can easily lose costing you alot in the process.

The 77 was a possibility, although I still think he would of check/raised the flop. But a set, since there were 2 left to act after him, could have been played in this fashion trying to get more action from the other 2 behind him, I guess. But you can't fold that hand because you suspect he has a set. That would be weak. No sense in going back to discussing the chance he has A2.

In conclusion, she called because she thought she was ahead, and I think it was a good call. She had a hand to call with and his betting pattern didn't look right. Also, for table image, you can't just fold every time someone throws a big bet on the river. In this case she had a hand to call with, and it could have been the best hand.

 

[ChuckTs]

To give villain some credit, it did definitely fool us. New AA strategy = play them like an idiot.

I think Kx and medium pairs (not to mention bluffs) make this play often enough that we can call here. With the time constraints, I probably don't figure out his line in time and call out of confusion.

 

[hott_estelle]

To give villain some credit, it did definitely fool us. New AA strategy = play them like an idiot.

I think Kx and medium pairs (not to mention bluffs) make this play often enough that we can call here. With the time constraints, I probably don't figure out his line in time and call out of confusion.

Definitely had me confused after I saw his hand. I did not see that coming at all. But I wouldn't encourage that type of "strategy" at all. Playing like he did there, inviting people in order to make it a 4 way pot, will make him lose a lot of chips in the long run if he keeps doing that.

So I hope no one on here thinks that's the way to play AA after this.

 

[iamXnl]

when I first read the top post, i'd had him in KK or maybe a K2 suit (some idiots actually play those hands!). Then again, there's a K on the board and a K in your hand leaving out 2 K's in the deck.

Reading further down the line I saw he had AA.
Not normal to play AA like that, but then again, how many time have you had AA and got beat by a stupid trips chaser or straight chaser with a 2 3 ? I've seen them alot!

The $2 raise is fairly regular for a pair or a high card. Maybe that's the reason why he was just calling. When seeing you bet 4,50 on the flop with that K, I think he had you on that hand and just called again. Etc on the rest of the draw.

So I really think he had you on the kind of hand you had in stead of you having him on his hand. Sometimes it's better to look at the opposition then looking at your own situation.

Look at him checking on the flop at first, either weak or slowplay, and with your bet he had you on AK or KK.

Now the interessting part: He bet $8 on the turn.
IF you had KK, you'd raise here. You would make full house and have his AA (or whatever pocket pair or board pair etc) beat. INSTEAD, you just call him. This, I think, is the error. You made yourself weak. He fished you this time to see if you really have a good as hand as he thinks you have.

Now I could be wrong and have easy talking now coz I saw the outcome, but rerunning the story of that hand, he read you perfectly.

 

[hott_estelle]

Look at him checking on the flop at first, either weak or slowplay, and with your bet he had you on AK or KK.

Now the interessting part: He bet $8 on the turn.
IF you had KK, you'd raise here. You would make full house and have his AA (or whatever pocket pair or board pair etc) beat. INSTEAD, you just call him. This, I think, is the error. You made yourself weak. He fished you this time to see if you really have a good as hand as he thinks you have.

Now I could be wrong and have easy talking now coz I saw the outcome, but rerunning the story of that hand, he read you perfectly.

Error? You think calling was an error? How so? And if calling was the error that means you think I should either have reraised or folded.

Reraising when is like throwing money away possibly, it isn't the right move here. Sometimes playing cautious and controlled is the right play, and calling is the right play here. Not reraising.

And speaking of being weak, folding (the other option that you think is right I guess), is definitely not the right play. You can't fold to that bet there at that point in the hand.

So, back to the question, how would you justify me calling as an error?? And so why would you fold or raise??

Also, I think people are really, really not understanding situational plays and that sometimes, even when you lose the pot you didn't make a horrible play or an error--like you think.

 

[Four Dogs]

Fd, if you look carefully at HH, there is no way he can have AA without being a dumbass. Besides his PF play, its mostly his behavior after the flop that suggests he can't have it. Pot is 4 way, he's first to act and he checks, that's fine; 2 more check, then Estelle raises $4.50 and he simply calls, with 2 players left to act after him. That, IMO, is asking for trouble. As I posted before decieving is fine, so is trying to get value, actually you should do both, but this is very stupid and dangerous territory. AA is not so much of a powerhouse against 3 opponents, they can easily lose costing you alot in the process.

The 77 was a possibility, although I still think he would of check/raised the flop. But a set, since there were 2 left to act after him, could have been played in this fashion trying to get more action from the other 2 behind him, I guess. But you can't fold that hand because you suspect he has a set. That would be weak. No sense in going back to discussing the chance he has A2.

In conclusion, she called because she thought she was ahead, and I think it was a good call. She had a hand to call with and his betting pattern didn't look right. Also, for table image, you can't just fold every time someone throws a big bet on the river. In this case she had a hand to call with, and it could have been the best hand.

I agree that AA was a longshot. I'm not sure why 77 was dismissed so quickly, it fit perfectly. For that matter, K2s or K7s were also strong possiblities. The point is that this just didn't seem like a bluff. He either had the goods or he was a complete donk, and you'd better have a book on someone before you tag them with that label. The turn call was Okay, you can't fold, a reraise might have defined his hand better and enabled her to get away from the hand on the river, or it might have slowed him down a bit, who knows. I don't like to get dragged along with nothing but a pair after the flop.

 

[iamXnl]

Error? You think calling was an error? How so? And if calling was the error that means you think I should either have reraised or folded.

Maybe I used the the word error in a wrong way (I'm dutch so english is not my first language). with error I mean that you we're absolutly sure your AK with the K as pair was the best card and like the options you already mentioned, there where alot of other options that could beat you.
Heads up on the turn, with him betting first is the point where you really had to show you're still the strongest!

Reraising when is like throwing money away possibly, it isn't the right move here. Sometimes playing cautious and controlled is the right play, and calling is the right play here. Not reraising.

You showed aggression from the start. And now Head's up, your going weak. He called and checked before because there are two more players in it. AA isn't that strong and overrated alot of times. so he played cautious first.
By playing your hand cautious at the turn, it cost you $24 more then folding after his turn bet or reraising to let's say $20 on the turn.
Reraising that "much" could imply a set (trips K, 2, 7,) on your part.
I really think he would fold there coz he might feel his AA is beat.
IF he would call. it still would save you $4 if you fold the river.
The rule of thumb is here: If he bets on the turn, what is it gonna cost me at the river?

And speaking of being weak, folding (the other option that you think is right I guess), is definitely not the right play. You can't fold to that bet there at that point in the hand.

Why not? Turncard isn't called turncard because it sounds nice. Turn card is the point where you decide to go on, or drop out.
Many people think the flop are the most important cards on the board.
And now heads up on the turn, first to act, he could try to see how good his AA is and how strong you stand.
And what is wrong with folding? there's no shame there right? in fact, it would save you money sometimes.

I still think poker is not a card game, but more a mind game.
Don't play the cards, play the people. The minds are making the decisions, not the cards. The cards just aid in making the desicions.

So, back to the question, how would you justify me calling as an error??

the call made you weak and he took the lead away. You're telling: "I'm not sure anymore I got the best hand. I need another card to tell me where i'm at".

Also, I think people are really, really not understanding situational plays and that sometimes, even when you lose the pot you didn't make a horrible play or an error--like you think.

He played his position from the turn up right out of the Poker handbooks.
- Head's Up.
- First to act (early position)
- pocket Aces
- Opening bet

I agree the whole situation is very questionable.
But every hand is another situation.
And in this situation, you already thought you won the pot.

addition:
If seen this hand once in a High stakes poker broadcast with Doyle Brunson having the AA acting exactly the same as this guy played it.
although the amounts where a bit bigger

and maybe now after we all chewed and grinded out the hand(/play), yes maybe you had made other desicions, but in that hand, those 2 minutes, you acted as you thought was right.

And as much as some players really do some strange things (and I don't mean this hand but in general), if they think that's the way to play it, than that's the way they play it. there is no wrong or right play, there is just the way you handle the plays. Just have to figure out how to coop with that and make your advantage.

 

[Four Dogs]

Very nice posts there iamXnl.

 

[robwhufc]

If seen this hand once in a High stakes poker broadcast with Doyle Brunson having the AA acting exactly the same as this guy played it.
although the amounts where a bit bigger

Well I was reading through the post wondering why Mr AA was getting such a bad rap. If you can't slow play AA on a raggy King high flop, when can you?

 

[ChuckTs]

I don't think he played it that poorly postflop (though it was odd), but his PF is terrible. Limp w/AA is fine if you're going to reraise, but there were two more limpers behind him and he still decided to just call rather than repop. He's basically doing exactly the opposite of your ideal strategy with AA.

 

[hott_estelle]

Well I was reading through the post wondering why Mr AA was getting such a bad rap. If you can't slow play AA on a raggy King high flop, when can you?

I think most of the people were talking about his preflop play being so horrible, which is the reason why we couldn't put him on AA. Postflop is OK, it's just playing tricky, preflop is horrible.

If seen this hand once in a High stakes poker broadcast with Doyle Brunson having the AA acting exactly the same as this guy played it.
although the amounts where a bit bigger

Highly doubtful that Brunson's play and situation were the same as this one. I doubt he really would have just straight called a raise to him with AA preflop, with two other limpers besides the raiser already in the pot.

 

[iamXnl]

Highly doubtful that Brunson's play and situation were the same as this one. I doubt he really would have just straight called a raise to him with AA preflop, with two other limpers besides the raiser already in the pot.

I'll try to look it up. Have all the 3 seasons on dvd.
Good as any reason to watch them again