Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkmann
@shootaa - Its safe to assume this player knows the bb is bad and raises more, would be pretty silly to think otherwise.
If I'm 12 tabling a stake I know I can crush, then it's less likely that I'll know that the big blind is a weaker player to the extent that I'll drastically change my opening range in a given spot. So depending on how many tables your opponent is playing, he may or may not have adjusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirwanda
Yeah, I agree with Shootah about river and villain being able to play it really well. That makes me feel a little 'meh' about valuebetting in the first place, tho it feels a bit weak to xback such a strong hand.
It's an awful river to bluff as well, which makes things worse for us.
You have a few conflicting ideas here. It's weak not to value bet AQ here, but it's a bad river to bluff. Villain can play well versus our bet, but it's a bad river to bluff.
So I think when you're saying that it's a bad river to bluff, then you meant that we do not credibly represent a bluff all that often, and you'd be correct. So just because we have trips with a good kicker does not mean that it's a value bet, and I think the absolute strength of the hand can be deceptively value in some instances. Almost no matter how you slice it, we have at least a pair by the river (or one of a very few missed flush draws). Why would we bluff with a pair when it's incredibly unlikely that our opponent is check-folding a better hand. I mean, he probably doesn't even play KK this way.
So the point about AQ being high up in your range should probably be ignored. It's probably at the bottom of what should be a value betting range on the river, with boats making up the majority of what you can balance with credible air. And because we kind of ruled out the profitability of turning a hand into a bluff, it makes sense to value bet rarely and balance it with the rare instances that we have a bluff.