call, you're probably up against a set though but i'd have to see the turn

i see what you're saying but i bet 15 yesterday with aces and everyone folded. Then I bet 12 with jacks and the same thing happened. if you increase your bet size then everyone knows you have aces or kings

i want to play in your game lol

I'm fairly certain villain doesn't have a set/2p with his flop/turn sizing - we should be jamming turn to get value from his draws/Tx imo.

Don´t you think that´s because the "get two callers take it down after cbet" and "got a favourable flop and won a middle sized pot" hand histories rarely get posted?

You should PM JB Clark for the answer.

Folds to Hero in UTG+2 who opens to 13 with AA, folds to villain who calls in SB, BB folds.

Flop: 4T6 (pot=$25)

Villain checks, hero bets 22, villain apparently thinks there's another player to act before him and just waits till dealer informs him it's heads up. He then apologizes for the wait and raises to 50. Hero calls.

Turn: 4T69 (pot=$125)

Villain bets 50, hero calls.

River: 4T695 (pot=$225)

Villain bets 60, hero..?

Just call, jam it in, or fold? Hero has ~135 behind at this point.

Probably jam for value vs this weak sizing

Actually didn't realize how little you had left on the turn. My bad. However, if we were ahead, we are still ahead (or should be), and I'm not folding, so might as well jam.

I would just call. It depends if you got villain's profile. What's his baseline behavior in the past with TP type hands? .., Anyway ..,

If he's a donkey that has read couple poker books he is protecting his TP against a possible flush draw. Most dudes act like that. They find out from little poker books that you should bet to protect against a draw. Well, of course you want to protect but at the same time you don't want to build a big pot on a weak hand that is not worth to be protected with your 1/2 or all stack. One or the other has got to take precedence. So, I would say that if he is a little above the fish level he's got TP and doesn't want you to draw out on his little TP.

So, you call. I bet you that you can even bluff him if a comes down. If he's afraid of you take all the as your bluffing outs. But in this situation you don't need to bluff because your AA I think are good to go.

Note:
Anytime you suspect a villain's bet means protection against a possible draw if one is present on the flop, if he bets in such a way so you feel he's trying to price you out of a draw, even if you don't have that draw, .. wtf? In that case you automatically take all the remaining 11 flush outs on your side and bluff with them. You got your own outs plus his horror "outs" that he's afraid of. (LOL) plus some more .==> Also look for connectors and gapers that could build a str8 with 4 cards on the turn. Usually the turn is the joint of the hand where you got a very clear picture of what he's afraid of or if he wants to build a big pot. So, you act accordingly .., wtf?

I really respect your outside the box thinking on playing big PPs in early position, but I've seen you make comments like this a few times and it seems like you are ignoring what nerdy statisticians call "voluntary response bias."

People on this form (understandably) post hands that generally didn't go well for them and/or where difficult decisions had to be made. We also tend to remember these times when a large pocket pair didn't hold up, but forget the amount of times we raise pre-flop and get 2 callers and they both fold to a c-bet on the flop, or where one person calls w/ TPGK and we win a medium sized pot at show down.

IME, the latter happen way more often, and as long as we aren't playing an overpair like it is the nuts, I think we can make a lot more money in the long run by raising AA/KK from early position.

My table probably doesn't get as deepstacked as much as it once did, and it never ever got to the point where "average stacks are $1000" (I play in a $300 max BI game). But yeah, there will be times when half the table is sitting on $500+ (but very rarely will 2 people be sitting on $1000+).

Frankly, my raising range in EP as stacks get deeper is 0%. But this works well for my nit image, as I'm probably making a lot more money setting up bluffcatchers with disguised hands against aggro opponents than I am making by doing the betting myself.

Gbut,asalways,IdosuckatdeepstackandI'mnotverycomfo rtablewithitagainstdecentopponentsG

Yeah, I'm aware of the posting bias in a forum, so always something to be aware of (especially since most times the conclusion of a posted HH is the MUBSy result).

And yeah, you probably won't see the raise/gotit3ways/tookitdownwithacbet hands. But you're going to have to have a lotta those hands to make up for the times you blow it in a big pot, and my guess is that a lot of posters that are posting these hands are realizing that that one big blowup in a big pot is defining their session and making all the raise-and-take-it-with-a-cbet a little meaningless (which they are if you give back all those profits in one hand). A lot of poker comes down to avoiding the big mistake; everything done in-between is relatively meaningless if you can't do that.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Thanks for the responses

Results:

Yup - this is one of the most obvious bet sizing tells from bad players that we can exploit. When they have a set/2p and there is a flush draw on the board they bet much larger because they are scared of getting sucked out on. When he sizes his x/r and turn lead that way we are ~always good and need to be jamming for value.

It's funny because I have basically played this ~exact hand back at my days at 1/3 and searched my notes and found the HH: