Yep. And that's cool with me.

When the pot reaches a certain size and I have a vulnerable but likely best hand, I'm taking the strategy that wins the most pots because I believe that strategy will net me the most money in the long run. I believe that's the best general course. You're free to disagree. At the end of the day tho poker is not about winning pots, it's about making correct decisions. That's all you can really control. I think decision points change at certain pot sizes with certain holdings. That's pretty much it.

No need to make up percentages. Poker, like life, is risky. The best laid plans can always backfire. When the pot gets very large I'm willing to take on certain risks if I believe such a strategy maximizes the probability of winning that pot.

I'm not making up percentages, board pairing and straight/A cards count for 40% of the remaining stub. I think this is a very large number and way to large to account for him leading the turn often enough to sacrifice a flop raise.

Also you need to account for the % of times we actually are beat, as your line results in maximum loss when we get 3 bets in on the turn (rather than getting 4 bet on flop, or check raises on the turn and we call down both).

Yes there's lots of possibilities that are hard to account for. As I've said from the beginning, I cannot prove my case. And it goes without saying that the other side can't prove their case either. No big deal. That's life sometimes. I've said why I think raising the flop with AA in this spot is a mistake, and I've elaborated on why I think that is so, and I've elaborated on why I take an alternative line. There's nothing else that needs to be said. You're free to disagree.

Wat?

It most certainly is. Of the four action options in a poker hand, check and call are passive, bet and raise are aggressive.

Sent from my QMV7B using 2+2 Forums

You're focused on the definitions rather than the meanings.

Donking is a passive move in most cases, and the donk/call-redonk line is exceptionally passive. It comes from a fear that the initiative-holder won't bet (e.g., free carding), or that their hand isn't good enough for 3 bets. Check/raise is more aggressive than donking, despite how it's counted in Pokertracker.

As an aside, I've voiced this opinion in micros before, but I strongly caution people against blindly trusting Pokertracker stats. Counting check/raises as a check and a raise (AF = 1/2) is a quirk of the program, not a reflection of reality. Likewise, AF is rooted in VPIP. Someone with a 5% VPIP should have an astronomical AF, because they should be betting and raising almost anything postflop. Someone with a 50% VPIP and a 30% flop aggression has a 15% range; someone with a 20% VPIP and a 50% flop aggression has a 10% range. To best reflect reality, check/fold, check/call, and donk/call should be weighed against check/raise and donk/3-bet in the OOP case. Donk/call may be aggressive in multiway pots where the turn is not redonked without improving.

Isn't it true that in these low-stakes no-fold'em games most players who donk the flop and get raised will only donk the turn if their hand improved to (or already was) two pair or better?

I've found that to be the case online but not live.

getting backdoor flush draws and two outers out on the flop is enough to make me want to raise the flop in this pot. not to mention you get a big clusterf*** when you raise a broadway turn and get 3 bet, as raise/folding up to 6 clean outs on something like a turn J is silly.

ILP i think you're only considering the ideal scenario, when there are plenty of other possibilities that can screw up your plan.

no reason to raise the flop. Pot is already 19 bets, raising doesn't do anything.

I call flop and raise the turn.