Passive Play With Pocket Aces

[Zach6668 513]

I think our analysis might be a bit different on this one if you don't include the results in the OP, so I'd like to ask you to keep them out next time, but like I said in a previous post, please oh please keep them coming. These high limit NL hands are fascinating, and definitely something I'd love to see a lot more of, in all forms of poker, at FCP.Cheers.- Zach

[Naismith 0]

If I change the results, then yeah, I get all kinds of praise or whatever, but I don't care. This hand took place months ago and is all done. I'm just trying to give people stuff to think about and to discuss. At least this one seems to be sparking some debate.

Yeah, I was only trying to point out that a raise is only valuable against one-third of the possible holdings for our villain.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I actually like the play. As I said, it's way out of my league to play at these levels.The one thing I don't get though is the river bet. We are losing to 1 hand here, assuming that villain wouldn't have raised with 22, 44, 77, or 99 or any combination to make 2 pair. So that leaves us with only QQ to worry about. With the texture of the board, do we not re-raise the river here, or is this standard at these limits? I would want to either shove here, or at worst re-raise (which would probably induce his shove).Or are you so deep that you just aren't sure anymore so you take what you can get?

It's a good point, but think about the action on the hand.Let's say I do decide to check raise the river. The two options are he has me beaten (and yes, I'm worried about ONLY QQ here) and he reraises, at which point I've already put in 60-70% of my chips and I get stacked because I'm pretty well committed and I can't fold just in case he's capable of doing it with KK.Let's say that he does have KK and I raise the river. That's pretty easy for him to figure out and get away from, don't you think? I've appeared cautious the whole hand. If I had AQ or some other hand which I thought was good, wouldn't I just call? If I'm raising, then I must have been up to something all along, which probably means that I have the QQ and he's been dead from the flop on.The end result is that if I raise on the river, and I am beat, I'm almost certainly committing myself to getting stacked and losing $5000 that I didn't need to lose. If I raise and he doesn't have me beat, he probably figures things out really quickly and folds. There's nothing to win on the river, but $5000 to lose, so that's why I didn't raise.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I think our analysis might be a bit different on this one if you don't include the results in the OP, so I'd like to ask you to keep them out next time, but like I said in a previous post, please oh please keep them coming. These high limit NL hands are fascinating, and definitely something I'd love to see a lot more of, in all forms of poker, at FCP.Cheers.- Zach

I appreciate the compliments and that you're enjoying the past hands that I have played. I know that the norm for this forum is not to post results so that people can comment on what they WOULD do in the hand. I am posting more as a post-hand analysis thing that I do all of the time. It's important to see how the hand played out from start to finish, as well as what the villain held. That way you are able to reconstruct the hand, as well as the villain's thinking and your own and see if they were in line and if they made sense. I guess that what I'm getting at is that I want these hands used to analyze what happened and analyze the decisions on all streets. I think ti's helpful to know what the villain turned over. Was it in my range of hands that I assigned him? Was I way off? Did he represent the actual hand that he had? What things did he do in the hand to throw us off of his trail?All of these are important things to analyze and they are things that you can only analyze when you know the whole story. I'll try to keep posting these, but they're gonna include an ending as well. I like the discussion that goes on better than people trying to say what they would do when faced with that river bet, or criticizing my choice to flat call preflop. You can criticize after, but it's important to understand that there were very distinct reasons that I did the things that I did. Now that you see the decisions, do you agree with them? Why or why not?That's the kind of discussion I'm trying to spark.

[outsider13 0]

All of these are important things to analyze and they are things that you can only analyze when you know the whole story. I'll try to keep posting these, but they're gonna include an ending as well. I like the discussion that goes on better than people trying to say what they would do when faced with that river bet, or criticizing my choice to flat call preflop. You can criticize after, but it's important to understand that there were very distinct reasons that I did the things that I did. Now that you see the decisions, do you agree with them? Why or why not?

If you post the results, you'll get a biased answer. I personally like the discussions that detail the hands one street at a time, but this was a good discussion.

[Zach6668 513]

I appreciate the compliments and that you're enjoying the past hands that I have played. I know that the norm for this forum is not to post results so that people can comment on what they WOULD do in the hand. I am posting more as a post-hand analysis thing that I do all of the time. It's important to see how the hand played out from start to finish, as well as what the villain held. That way you are able to reconstruct the hand, as well as the villain's thinking and your own and see if they were in line and if they made sense. I guess that what I'm getting at is that I want these hands used to analyze what happened and analyze the decisions on all streets. I think ti's helpful to know what the villain turned over. Was it in my range of hands that I assigned him? Was I way off? Did he represent the actual hand that he had? What things did he do in the hand to throw us off of his trail?All of these are important things to analyze and they are things that you can only analyze when you know the whole story. I'll try to keep posting these, but they're gonna include an ending as well. I like the discussion that goes on better than people trying to say what they would do when faced with that river bet, or criticizing my choice to flat call preflop. You can criticize after, but it's important to understand that there were very distinct reasons that I did the things that I did. Now that you see the decisions, do you agree with them? Why or why not?That's the kind of discussion I'm trying to spark.

Yeah, I understand what you are trying to do, and again, I appreciate it, however, whether we like to believe it or not, it really does bias the discussion. I won't get on you any more about it though. If you choose to post the villain's hand in future posts, that's fine. You certainly are smart enough to know when it is or isn't warranted.- Zach

[Acid_Knight 2]

Yeah, I understand what you are trying to do, and again, I appreciate it, however, whether we like to believe it or not, it really does bias the discussion. I won't get on you any more about it though. If you choose to post the villain's hand in future posts, that's fine. You certainly are smart enough to know when it is or isn't warranted.- Zach

I agree that people will be biased. I think that they should also try and learn to say "well, what if he didn't have that hand" and still critique the play.Naismith had the right idea. He said that the only reason that people are critical of my play in the hand is becuase the villain turned over the one hand that he might have paid me more with. That's true. That also doesn't mean that I made mistakes in the hand. It's good if people can start to open their eyes to that a little bit. I'll make some posts in the future that are a little more open ended. I just want to see if people can read the results and comment intelligently anyway.

[Zach6668 513]

Sounds good to me.

[Jordan 1]

considering the pf line we took...this is really the 'best' line to take.unless he was a lag..id narrow his range to KK/QQ and AK...so a Qxx flop while not necc. bad..i wouldn't just fling my stack into the pot. The flop check obviously means he is scared of us having QQ, but we don't know he has KK himself. Personally, I might lead the turn, but I think for pot control and all that, and then of course not wanting to be outplayed...check/calling is fine.- Jordan

[mtdesmoines 3]

... I now feel that there's a roughly 50% chance that he's outflopped me with a set of queens. This feeling is not helped when he checks behind on the flop.

I hear people saying this all the time, and I just don't see the sense in checking the flopped nuts. I never, repeat, NEVER give a free card in this situation.You missed your chance to double up. If it's me, I re-raise preflop and villain probably can't resist pushing back. Then you go all in, define your hand and he either folds or pays you off. But if you're out of your bankroll, it gets scary.

[coremiller 0]

It's results-oriented to be commenting on how the flop came down and how I managed the pot. If a different flop comes down, I stack him. If a different flop comes down, he stacks me. if a different flop comesdown, neither of us do any betting becuase we're both worried the other has outdrawn us.The fact of the matter is that I knew where I was at in the hand and I made the plays which I thought would result in me making the most money on the hand. With that board, if I check raised at any point, he knows that he can't be winning becuase I either have AA or QQ and he folds.I can't help what flop comes out. It's a trap play, smooth calling with AA. Whether you're in position or not, it's a risk that you're taking in hopes of making a bigger profit on the hand. This hand was a weird case where I chose not to bet it at any point and I let the Villain do it for me.

look, you're a much more successful player than i am, and play at limits far beyond anything i've ever played at. that said, i still feel that smooth-calling to trap here is a mistake most of the time.when you have aces, you raise, and you get reraised, and you're out of position, trapping is not your goal. stacking him is your goal. the ONLY reason to smooth-call is if you think he can fold kings preflop. even if he doesn't have kings, you should act as if he does. why? because your goal is to win as big a pot as possible. since kings is a likely holding, you should play in order to maximize your win agianst that hand, because that win will be significantly larger than your win against any other hand he might hold. see my reasoning in an earlier post for why he won't pay off very much with QQ or AK no matter what happens. assuming he has KK and trying to stack him is much, much better than thinking he might have AK and bluff off a bet or two. this is the same reasoning for betting hte flop when you hit a set - you're trying to build a big pot while holding the best hand.notice also that he doesn't have to call every time you raise for this to still to be the most profitable play. because every time you raise, and he calls or pushes, you'll almost certainly stack him, the payoff is so much larger that you can afford to win it a little less frequently. even if he'll fold half the time to your reraise of $1700 (and considering his range, he's probably not folding that often), you'll stack him the other half, which has an approximate EV of ~.8*.5*8000+.5*2200=+$4300. it's harder to estimate the EV of just calling because there are more variables involved, but i would expect it's less than that. smooth-calling reeks of fancy-play syndrome. sometimes poker is as simple as sticking your money in with the best hand.

[Acid_Knight 2]

look, you're a much more successful player than i am, and play at limits far beyond anything i've ever played at. that said, i still feel that smooth-calling to trap here is a mistake most of the time.when you have aces, you raise, and you get reraised, and you're out of position, trapping is not your goal. stacking him is your goal. the ONLY reason to smooth-call is if you think he can fold kings preflop. even if he doesn't have kings, you should act as if he does. why? because your goal is to win as big a pot as possible. since kings is a likely holding, you should play in order to maximize your win agianst that hand, because that win will be significantly larger than your win against any other hand he might hold. see my reasoning in an earlier post for why he won't pay off very much with QQ or AK no matter what happens. assuming he has KK and trying to stack him is much, much better than thinking he might have AK and bluff off a bet or two.

Trapping is not a goal, it's a tool. In this case, I believed that I could lure more chips, or all of them, into the pot by taking this line. I don't do it every time, it's called varying your play. Give it a try.My goal in the hand was not to get him to bluff at me. I read him for a VERY strong hand preflop, as I said in the OP, most likely KK or QQ, with AK a much lesser possibility. I feel that you have not read my post or don't understand the reason that I slowed down so much post flop and chose to take such an odd line. Your assertion that I should "assume he has KK and try to stack him instead of getting him to bluff with AK" is ridiculous. I never once thought that he had AK in the hand after it played out as it did. I read him for strength and I acted accordingly.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I hear people saying this all the time, and I just don't see the sense in checking the flopped nuts. I never, repeat, NEVER give a free card in this situation.You missed your chance to double up. If it's me, I re-raise preflop and villain probably can't resist pushing back. Then you go all in, define your hand and he either folds or pays you off. But if you're out of your bankroll, it gets scary.

I wasn't really "out of my bankroll " per se, but I was taking a shot at a higher limit. I was fully aware that I could easily lose my buyin, but I was not afraid to put my chips in the pot, don't make that mistake.IF he had flopped a set of queens on that board, there is virtually no harm in checking. The only way I'm even drawing live without runner runner is if I have AA or KK. If there's ever a board to check top set on to set a little trap, that would be the board.

[davezz5 0]

I wasn't really "out of my bankroll " per se, but I was taking a shot at a higher limit. I was fully aware that I could easily lose my buyin, but I was not afraid to put my chips in the pot, don't make that mistake.IF he had flopped a set of queens on that board, there is virtually no harm in checking. The only way I'm even drawing live without runner runner is if I have AA or KK. If there's ever a board to check top set on to set a little trap, that would be the board.

If you check how does that help you, apart from giving you the chance of a free card and hitting your set. You cant know for sure he didn't re-raise with AK AQs. I realize that this is quite a high limit, but people are still capable of making slightly sub-standard plays. If he raised with AQ and decided to check behind you on every street thats a lot of missed value bets. He may also be suspicious of a player calling such a large raise pre-flop and not betting.If he pushes on the river do you still call? He may be playing super cute with his set waiting for you to make a move,Then push on the river trying to represent a bluff, especially if he senses your strength.Did you consider re-raising pre-flop?, maybe it would help to define his hand more. Although it also defines your hand as well, at least it would of made it less likely he was holding Queens. Who knows he may of put you all-in

[Acid_Knight 2]

If you check how does that help you, apart from giving you the chance of a free card and hitting your set. You cant know for sure he didn't re-raise with AK AQs. I realize that this is quite a high limit, but people are still capable of making slightly sub-standard plays. If he raised with AQ and decided to check behind you on every street thats a lot of missed value bets. He may also be suspicious of a player calling such a large raise pre-flop and not betting.If he pushes on the river do you still call? He may be playing super cute with his set waiting for you to make a move,Then push on the river trying to represent a bluff, especially if he senses your strength.Did you consider re-raising pre-flop?, maybe it would help to define his hand more. Although it also defines your hand as well, at least it would of made it less likely he was holding Queens. Who knows he may of put you all-in

I didn't call a large raise preflop. His reraise was a very small one, which led me to believe he had a big hand, definitely not AQ. My flat call of the raise would have come with any 2 cards that I chose to raise with, whether it was 22 or 78 suited.I don't know if I call if he pushes the river. I already said the reasons why I chose not to reraise preflop. I dind't feel the need to define his hand anymore since I thought I knew almost exactly what he held. Since I was pretty sure where he was at, I didn't want to let him know where I was at.If I reraised preflop he is folding QQ about 90% of the time in my estimation. I am not sure how he'd play KK if I reraised preflop.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I pick up A A and open the pot for $175, which was the standard opening raise. MP2 reraises me to $500 total. Action folds back to me and I smooth call.

I'd like to think about what the distribution of his range looks like here. Suppose he puts in the second raise here if and only if he has QQ, KK, AA or AK.Combinations that make those hands:AA: 2 choose 2 = 1 (5%)QQ: 4 choose 2 = 6 (29%)KK: 4 choose 2 = 6 (29%)AK: (2 choose 1)(4 choose 1) = 2 x 4 = 8 (38%)The total # of combinations is 21, so I divide by 21 to get the percentage.Wow, that's just . . . completely unhelpful. He might have a pair. He might not. Maybe math has something to tell us about his distribution after the flop. P(opponent has QQ) = 1/21 = 0.2857P(flop contains a Q) = 1 - (46/50)(45/49)(44/48) = 0.2255P(flop contains a Q | opponent has QQ) = 1 - (46/48)(45/47)(44/46) = 0.1223Bayes theorem in general:P(A|B) = P(B|A) x P(A) / P(B)Substitute for A = opponent has QQ and B = flop contains a queen.P(opponent has QQ | flop contains a Q) = P(flop contains a queen | opponent has QQ) x P(opponent has QQ) / P(flop contains a queen) = (0.1223)(0.2857)/(0.2255) = 0.1549 I suppose that makes sense. He's about half as likely to have QQ if we know one of the queens isn't in his hand.(3 choose 2) / (4 choose 2 ) = 3/6 = 1/2Should we check-raise the river? He's roughly twice as likely to have KK as QQ. Our action makes no difference if he has AK. We might occasionally get a fold on the rare occasion we face AA.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Does it change your analysis if I said that I'm about 95% certain that he wouldn't even have called a min raise on the river since he actaully took his time before betting on the river and admittedly the only thing he was thinking about was not how much to bet, but whether or not he needed to check behind me?

[David_Nicoson 1]

Does it change your analysis if I said that I'm about 95% certain that he wouldn't even have called a min raise on the river since he actaully took his time before betting on the river and admittedly the only thing he was thinking about was not how much to bet, but whether or not he needed to check behind me?

If you minraise you're giving him almost 4.5:1. I think I'd pay you off if were the villain in that situation. (In reality, I would've reraised preflop with AA and then gone for a change of underwear on the flop. I'm imagining this is 0.25/0.50 .)Suppose he never bluffs and you fold to a re-raise:EV = bet[(2/3)(chance he calls with KK) - (1/3)]Break-even at EV = 00 = (2/3)(chance he calls with KK) - 1/3(1/3)/(2/3) = chance he calls with KK1/2 = chance he calls with KKSo if you really think there's a 95% chance he'll fold, then a bet here is clearly negative EV. It does give us an idea of how to play JJ though.

[Acid_Knight 2]

So if you really think there's a 95% chance he'll fold, then a bet here is clearly negative EV. It does give us an idea of how to play JJ though.

I saw him seriously thinking about it on the river. I thought I'd misread his hand becuase it looked like he was conflicted on whether or not to bet the river. He said he just couldn't imagine me checking AA or QQ 3 times there. He definitely would not have called a raise.

[benhoug 0]

MP2 had just sat down to the table 2 orbits earlier. He saw me show down 3 hands, all winners. He appeared to be solid, but I had no reads from his hands to confirm this.I pick up A A and open the pot for $175, which was the standard opening raise. MP2 reraises me to $500 total. Action folds back to me and I smooth call.

Do you ever limp into this pot? Considering your position I like that play maybe a little bit more than open-raising. If someone raises, we can either continue the trap, or re-raise (which I lean towards). Obv. we can't know MP2 is gonna wake up w/ KK, but if he does then we're gonna get paid off on this hand. Esp. considering that you said you've been running hot and tabling only winners. You said opponent may lay down KK, but given all the facts, I don't think there's any chance in hell he lays that down against you.As played I know we only have one pair, but the board is EXTREMELY DRY and I'm just not convinced we got all the value we could from our AA. I've never sat at a game that high (not even close), so take my opinion for what it's worth... I just feel like given the pre-flop action exactly 1 hand has us beat, and we're pretty much burying everything else. I would like to see a raise on one of the later streets. Besides QQ, what hand are we afraid of here?

[Acid_Knight 2]

Do you ever limp into this pot? Considering your position I like that play maybe a little bit more than open-raising. If someone raises, we can either continue the trap, or re-raise (which I lean towards). Obv. we can't know MP2 is gonna wake up w/ KK, but if he does then we're gonna get paid off on this hand. Esp. considering that you said you've been running hot and tabling only winners. You said opponent may lay down KK, but given all the facts, I don't think there's any chance in hell he lays that down against you.As played I know we only have one pair, but the board is EXTREMELY DRY and I'm just not convinced we got all the value we could from our AA. I've never sat at a game that high (not even close), so take my opinion for what it's worth... I just feel like given the pre-flop action exactly 1 hand has us beat, and we're pretty much burying everything else. I would like to see a raise on one of the later streets. Besides QQ, what hand are we afraid of here?

I considered limping, but chose the more straight forward play. I hadn't been limping into pots, so I didn't want to start now.If you read all of the posts, you will see that I commented several times that the villain almost didn't bet the river becuase he was worried he was beaten. He looked confident when he bet the turn, but on the river, he pondered for quite a while before betting. The reason the river was not raised was becuase his apprehension to bet was either A: An act because of his hand strength, hoping to get called or B: real doubt about whether or not he should put more chips in the pot. If it's either A or B, then raising has no value.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Do you ever limp into this pot?

I like raising to better define villain's hand. It just HAPPENED to work out that the flop was dry. That's a luxury that's not provided on every flop.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I considered limping, but chose the more straight forward play. I hadn't been limping into pots, so I didn't want to start now.If you read all of the posts, you will see that I commented several times that the villain almost didn't bet the river becuase he was worried he was beaten. He looked confident when he bet the turn, but on the river, he pondered for quite a while before betting. The reason the river was not raised was becuase his apprehension to bet was either A: An act because of his hand strength, hoping to get called or B: real doubt about whether or not he should put more chips in the pot. If it's either A or B, then raising has no value.

In the end, the villain wagered $1,700 that he had the best hand on the river. He makes this wager only if he thinks he's ahead more than half of the time. Putting myself in his shoes, I'd be concerned about reopening the betting. I think the hesitation indicates that he's working through what he'd do against a raise here. I think that's evidence that he's giving careful consideration to the possibility of calling that raise.

[Acid_Knight 2]

While we're bumping old threads, the villain in this hand is actually FoxwoodsFiend but I didn't know it at the time.

[outsider13 0]

And lol at me commenting on cash hands.