I'm intrigued.... Def fits my Typical WAG (weird aggressive) style. What's your thinking?

Well people don't fold and I don't think we get 3 streets unless V decides you are FOS and wants to commit with worse. The only way hero should be getting 3 streets is with pretty small sizing and even then it might not work. What's V doing with an overpair or pair plus gutter if we make a huge flop bet? I dunno but if they flopped a set we are getting owned going for three streets anyway.

I could definitely see this hand turning into an overbet flop/check turn/shove River line that makes zero sense to V, but it depends on the runout. If board straightens on turn I prob bomb it again but if turn is like a T/J/Q/K I would prob check. Just depends on the situation.

Yeah kinda bad runout but you are describing my thinking mostly. But overbetting flop wasn't really something I considered. Not sure it's realistic but the concept is what I was going for. Bomb flop check Trn "repping AK" bomb river get looked up by 77, 88.

I don't think we should be planning our hands around not getting owned by a set.

Yes I agree. The bet is either a bluff or a hand that beats us. I just don't see that many bluffs in his range here. Even if he does this every time with every airball and hand that beats us, it's still not a call unless he has air > 30%.

I know this is a PAHWM, where things get dissected and parsed down to the nth level but, sitting at the table, what I underlined above strikes me as the KISS factors of the real-time call or fold river decision.

"My turn check was for ... pot control." Mission accomplished. We're not playing for stacks on the river with an overpair.

"...to induce his busted straight draws to take a stab." Mission accomplished if he has the busted straight draw.

I know his river bet is bigger than we would have liked, but to me this is a textbook way to play AA, but only if we make the river call. If we're good we under-repped our hand, kept the pot under control, and got paid. If we're beat we played AA against a flopped set (or something) and got away with most of our stack still intact.

Call.

Agree with alienbogey. If we are gonna take a pot control line we gotta call the river with nut pair. Does the fold crowd really think we are good <1/3 of the time?

I would prefer a turn bet as I think it would help define ranges more. C-bet flop, check turn is pretty typical for missed overs giving up which allows a moderately thinking player to steal on the river.

yep ab, jB.

I played in a 2/5 game yesterday for 6.3 hours & did not find any of the players any better than a "good" 1/2 player. The cards they were willing to pay $25 to see a flop with were just as wide a range as seen in 1/2 games for $10.00. The major difference was players' willingness to "stack-off bluff" with their last $200 otr, get called & quickly reach in their pocket for another $500 chip, or 5 100's.

One player, in the game for a grand from caught bluffs early on, was sitting on over 2k when I left, because he had stopped bluffing & was getting called a lot. Other players with big stacks had been hit over the head with the deck and were on lock-down, spending a lot of time away from the table before rackin' up & runnin' off.

Another player, whom appeared to be bluffin' at the right times & building a stack, finally got caught & then went on lock-down, playing much fewer hands. He later won a few more pots to more than recover the caught bluff, went to lunch & had not returned when I left.

I can't make a decision from my desk as to whether the river call is long term +Ev vs. this V. I do, however, now know that 2/5 players [in general] are nothing more than 1/2 players with deeper pockets.

I say this because one hand that was won, a player had led out otf & turn with a K hi flush draw that paired his king ott [for top pair] & when he caught his flush otr, he c/r & caught him totally off guard, as his V thought that he had the same hand as him - two pair - kings & jacks. The guy had over 2k in front of him before the hand and approx ~1.5 when the hand was over. It's not so much that he value bet his two pair hand, as it was the fact that he called the c/r vs. this particular player. Even I knew he could beat two pair.

+1. Good post

I must disagree. Because of our check OTT, V could be betting for value hands that still lose to AA, and I certainly think those + bluffs is greater than 30%.

Hey guys thanks for all the comments. I'll prob circle back and deal with a few interesting ones. Bet bet bet is obv fairly standard. Due to results I was struggling with whether I totally FPSed / out leveled myself.

Anyway results:

Our Genius hero (having v on a rather narrow range at this point) was convinced V was value betting what he knew to be the best hand. I folded and did so fairly confidently....

Villain showed his KK (no that's not a typo) and hero spit up in his mouth.

I was supposed to win stacks and instead lost $55 with the best hand. Not my finest hour.

Yeah the river card wasn't great but I do think the comments saying this is a call are correct.

Not the most exciting PAHWM but I felt this was the best way to get solid input. Obv the results oriented part of me said "**** I should never have folded."

Surely you understand V was valuebetting what, in his mind, was the best hand.

It's still an ok fold probably. You were right that he didn't have a bluffing range here. If KK is near the bottom of his range then your fold is fine. If he is doing it with TT and JJ then fold less good obviously.

I think it was a valuable PAHWM. Demonstrates the danger of pot controlling when a scare card hits on that type board. It was played well. Just read V wrong otr. Next time! Thanx for posting

Oh. This was THAT HAND!

Yeah, this is kinda where I shake out too. A little unfortunate he shows up with KK but I'm still not sure he has any bluffs here. Though adding in TT-QQ in his range makes it closer.

If he had shown a bluff then I think you can be pretty confident it was a bad fold.