coremiller

EDIT: sorry, double post.

It's a little bit better. The K outs are less likely to be dirty, if he has a flush draw we hold one of his outs, we can rule out some holdings for him (like KQs, KJs, K10s, etc.), and if he has a smaller flush draw we have a redraw possibility if a club comes on the turn. So our odds are a little bitter, and our reverse implied odds aren't quite so bad. Given the price, I think that makes calling more reasonable.

First of all, I think a laggy player would probably have 3-bet pre-flop in position with AK, so it's unlikely he has that.Value-shoved with KQ? Expecting you to call with what, exactly, that he beats? Does he really think you can call an all-in with QQ here? This is especially true because his raise prices out all the 8- or 9-out draws, so he knows you won't call with those. Any draw that would call his all-in is a draw KQ is not really ahead of anyway.Unless there's more history and meta-game considerations between you and him that we don't know about, I think this is very rarely just a on

I'm not shocked that you have a slight equity edge against his range, but that's really irrelevant, since you can't assume there will be no more betting in the hand. Equally irrelevant is that you won $88 more as a 4-1 favorite, unless you first multiply it by the likelihood (at the time you made the decision) of its occurrence, and the include the likelihood and payoffs of the other possible outcomes.Given that, I'm not sure how you justify your assumption that "implied odds and bluffing odds are larger than the associated reverse implied odds"; I'm convinced it's precisely the other way aro

You got lucky and hit a 4-outer when it was somewhat predictable that you might be drawing that slim (see my earlier post in which I suggested one of Villain's likely holdings was a flush draw with overs that takes away our outs), and even when you hit one of your four outs, you still had to dodge 12 outs on the river. I can't imagine how this was a good play. Justifying this mistake with "I got a little bit of money in behind and got a good chunk in ahead" is wrong-headed thinking. "I made a small mistake, and got very lucky it didn't turn out to be a bigger mistake" strikes me as a much m

I can't possibly think of a worse hand he leads with that calls a raise here, and at these low stakes there's always a possibility that this is the one of the worst-played AA of all time. Since there's no value to a raise (and you lose a little bit to the rake if you raise and it's a chop), I'd just call.

I agree that KK or QQ are both extremely unlikely here, based on the pre-flop action. KQ and 66 are both possibilities, but so is something like K9, or JT. This is worth raising.

This would make sense against normal players, but these are drunk retards at $25NL. They could both literally have anything here. I don't really mind stacking off with TPTK in those circumstances, especially since at least one, if not both of them, is likely to have just a draw.

Is it standard to justify one's mistakes by referring to some vague, potentially unrealizable "meta-game" benefits? I know I do it all the time.

Reraising pre-flop is marginal; your opponent probably won't fold, and then you'll miss the flop a lot and be stuck OOP. But since the villian is raising so much, it's not such a bad idea.As for the flop, you should lead for more, especially with all those draws out there. Bet the pot. That way, when you get reraised, you can just push and take your chances that you were outflopped.As played, after that min-raise, you should probably just push, since betting $10 pretty much commits you against drunk-retarted players anyway. If they're going to call with draws (and they probably will), you m

I don't like this, unless you put him on complete air, and without reads you can't really do that (besides, if you think he has just air, you should push now, not on the turn). One problem is that not all of your "outs" are always good; it's reasonable (well, reasonable in a limited sense, since his min-raise here with anything is kind of stupid) that he might have the the nut flush draw, which would kill seven of your outs. Or he could have something like KQs, or some other variation, so even if you get a favorable turn card, you'll never know if your hand is good or not.It's also conceivab

why lead for so little on the turn?

You're right that the OP shouldn't have included results, but who was talking about shoving the flop? Most people said to raise the flop, not push, which is a big difference. Although shoving is actually not that bad here at 25NL, because even with a push you'll still get called a lot by overpairs.

Way, way too passive. You should have stacked him here. At 25NL people play AA like it's the nuts, especially on dry boards like this. On the flop, you should he assume he has AA-JJ and raise. If he has those hands he'll pay you off almost every time, especially if it's aces or kings. If he has anything but an overpair he probably missed the flop and you make no money from him anyway. Try to figure out how to get him all-in as quickly as possible. Since you're both 200bb deep that means building the pot, and fast, and you do that by betting and raising.

An important point on this hand is that the villain is short-stacked. He's only got like 40 bbs to start. Since you flopped tptk, you might as well try to stack him. Bet the turn.As played, bet like $2 on the river. Most likely he'll either fold or push for the 60 cents or whatever it is he has left. If the villain were deeper, checking the turn for pot control, and then firing a decent bet on the river (maybe like 2/3 of the pot) would be my line.