Getting Cute With Aces

[Naismith 0]

"Mixing it up" doesn't magically rationalize anything you do.

Agreed.Checking behind on the river with the nuts is mixing it up, too. I don't recommend that, either.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Not with aces...when you hit your set... who is going to have a hand to pay you off with?

Granted, the villains are less likely to make top pair/top kicker, but there are still other hands that they'd be willing to stack off with: big draws, smaller sets, and two pair.

[Canute 0]

Surely just limping and set mining is profitable.

Ok limping and set mining or just limping with AA here will always be profitable. Assuming you play it right after the flop of course. AA is a huge favorite to win by the river even unimproved against a large field. I'm not saying you want to limp with it here.

[Canute 0]

Why did you even look at your cards, then? Raise and take the free money. "Mixing it up" doesn't magically rationalize anything you do. The goal of poker is not to trick the villains; the goal of poker is to win money. If you trick the villains (say, by convincing them you don't have AA) it doesn't matter unless it gets you money.It's like you walk up to a pencil sharpener, pencil in hand, and think, "Everyone expects me to sharpen this pencil, but I'm going to mix it up." Then you whip out your cock and sharpen that instead and yell, "Ha ha, bitches, you never saw that coming!"Well, no, they didn't. But you still have a dull pencil and bleeding dick.

Lol, good one.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Agreed.Checking behind on the river with the nuts is mixing it up, too. I don't recommend that, either.

But if you don't check behind on the river with the nuts, how are you balancing your ranges for when you check behind on the river with weak hands too?You didn't think of that, did you?

[Jadaki 0]

The fact that people are so weary to play against you because you are too tight also speaks to the fact that you must open up your game so that people will be forced to consider that you are raising weaker hands and bluffing more frequently. It's easy to play AA and KK. Try playing a little more poker and you'll find that it'll be a lot more profitable.

Was more or less this session, I either had big hands or complete trash. I wasn't getting hands like suited connectors to see flops with. Every time I had gone to showdown this session, I had a huge hand. Was more or less the cards playing themselves.Called the river bet for obvious reasons. Mostly that it was barely 1/3rd the pot and based on previous playing with the villain if he had a set or larger hand he would have bet differently on the flop and turn. Maybe posting this hands from the villains perspective would have worked better for the discussion I was hoping for.He flipped over KsTs, he was shocked to see me flip over AA. He told me he put me on a pair and SD or pair and a FD when I bet the flop, so when he hit the ten with his flush draw he was positive he was ahead.

[Webslinger516 0]

Well, no, they didn't. But you still have a dull pencil and bleeding dick.

HAHAHA Ok this guy is okay in my book.I may never look at pencils the same again.

[Acid_Knight 2]

He flipped over KsTs, he was shocked to see me flip over AA. He told me he put me on a pair and SD or pair and a FD when I bet the flop, so when he hit the ten with his flush draw he was positive he was ahead.

Again, really the only hand in his range that you're beating.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I'll raise my hand and say I've limped aces trying to get action.

"limping" does not equal "action" in my mindWhich scenario is better for AA: 1. raising to $12 and getting one caller2. limping and getting 4 callers? In scenario 1, we get $24 in the pot and only have to beat one hand. In scenario 2, we get a $10 pot and have to fend off half the table. You choose.

[mtdesmoines 3]

If you're in the SB, at least there's a 0.00001% chance that the BB will wake up with a hand and raise and you can lay down the super sneaky SB LRR since you'll never get credit for having AA there because what kind of donk limps AA in the SB after 3 limpers.If you're in the BB, there's nobody left to do your dirty work. Why aren't you charging people to outdraw you?I still contend that checking in the BB is worse.Case in point:Last summer, 5/10 @ Bellagio. Guy limps UTG. I limp 57s behind him. 2 more limps. SB completes, BB checks. Flop is 664r. BB donks into the field for $50 into $60. I call, one other guy calls. The turn is a 3. He bets 3/4 of the pot and I flat call, figuring he has a naked 6 much of the time and I will get more by NOT raising here cause he's a bad player. The river is a 5. He checks, I bet like 80% of the pot and he calls saying he's pretty sure I got there. He flips over AA.He checked in the BB after 5 people limped into the pot and then played a huge pot with AA. Surprise, surprise, he wasn't winning.

I love that guy. Now he's got a story about how his AA got "cracked"

Freaking small blind... for me... it'd prolly be more +EV to fold AA from the SB here than limp it.

Surely just limping and set mining is profitable.

Why did you even look at your cards, then? Raise and take the free money. "Mixing it up" doesn't magically rationalize anything you do. The goal of poker is not to trick the villains; the goal of poker is to win money. If you trick the villains (say, by convincing them you don't have AA) it doesn't matter unless it gets you money. It's like you walk up to a pencil sharpener, pencil in hand, and think, "Everyone expects me to sharpen this pencil, but I'm going to mix it up." Then you whip out your cock and sharpen that instead and yell, "Ha ha, bitches, you never saw that coming!" Well, no, they didn't. But you still have a dull pencil and bleeding dick.

Checking behind on the river with the nuts is mixing it up, too. I don't recommend that, either.

But if you don't check behind on the river with the nuts, how are you balancing your ranges for when you check behind on the river with weak hands too?You didn't think of that, did you?

LOL

[David_Nicoson 1]

Most of y'all have reached correct conclusions, and yet no one's keyed in on the levels (images and psychology) at play. Jadaki says that his tight image is relevant here, right? Despite the fact that we've underrepresented our hand and therefore villain could be raising lighter (single pairs and draws), this is unlikely if he shows any perception for our image. Additionally, if this bet-sizing is standard for the game, it's unlikely that a competent villain takes it immediately for weakness. Two bets OOP from a "tight" SB on this board is indicative of strength. He confronts that strength with a raise. Y'all have concluded that his range beats ours.

I think you might be giving the villain to much credit here for being positionally aware.The other way a 1/2 player might think is "The tight player won't raise me without a monster, so I don't have to worry about that. He might fold some hands that he shouldn't, too."