3/5 NL

Just table changed and have been there for about 5 hands. Villain has been pretty splashy and is raising very wide and bluffing/betting aggressively to take down pots. Looks like he's down to gamble.

Effective stacks $700
Hero SB
Villain UTG+1

Villain raises to 20, folds to hero who flats with AK.

Flop $40: AQ3

Hero checks, villain bets $35, hero calls. I think there's a good chance that I'm ahead of most of his range. I don't want to play a bloated pot OOP vs a potential pair+spade draw or a made flush so my plan is to c/c and hope another spade doesn't fall.

Turn $110: 7

Hero checks, villain bets $85, hero calls. I still have villain on a wide range. Am leaning towards more of the Ace side of the range based on his body language after my C/C on the flop and turn. Still could be pair+fd and hopefully not a made flush.

River $280: 5

So I definitely didn't want to see this card. I kinda spazzed at this point and wasn't sure what to do so I fired $100 into the pot. I didn't have a clear idea as to what I was trying to accomplish it and even now thinking back on the hand with a bit more perspective, I still don't know if I like or dislike it. I guess the question is whether or not we ever get called by worse in this situation and also whether or not it deters villain from bluffing us off our hand when the fourth spade hits. I think that was probably my primary concern. With that in mind, is this bet justified?

What hand are you trying to sell here? It is all so dependent on the villain here. Is he going to pay off a flush with two pair or a set here? Will he fold a medium flush for $100? Or should you have bet more on the river to make it harder for him to call?

The bet of $100 into $280 seems weak to me ... IDK. I think I'd call here against you because it seems week and not like a value bet with the K or J of spades. I think $140-$150 seems like a better bet on the river to get a smaller flush to fold and to get a guy off two pair. IDK. Just my .02 at 4 in the morning.

Now that you say that, I think that I my reaction to make this bet was more of a blocking bet. I wasn't trying to fold out better hands. I think given that fact, this may have been a waste of money because I really don't beat much of villains range at this point and the range that I do beat likely checks behind. I think I was really concerned of getting bluffed in this spot. Is this one of those clear C/F spots? I'm very bad at identifying those....

If you think he's capable of folding anything here, it makes sense. With only 5 hands on him, I can't tell. Maybe bet slightly more to encourage a fold. 150-200.

You turned your hand into a bluff as you can't call a raise and don't rate to get called by worse. At 100, a mid flush will probably call and anything remotely better will raise. A set will call from a loose player, maybe even 2p.

the thing about these types of villains is that you're just as good checking as making a blocking bet, because they can come over the top as a bluff no biggie...

Looks like Clarkmeister theorem to me. If you think he's bluffing/splashing alot then he's probably gonna fire the river too whether he has it or not. I'm with ibelieve (above) and think you need a larger bet on the river if you're going to go that route. You're repping the Ks or Js in your hand..assuming the villain doesn't have either in his hand. I probably c/f river although 5 hands doesn't seem like enough hands to get a read.

Five hands are not that much to decide he's a maniac.

Raise pf. You don't want to play AK oop. After that, you're playing what Harrington calls, "dark tunnel" poker. You're hoping he doesn't have a hand and you're ahead. Your only plan to keep calling. This is a losing strategy.

You need to decide on the flop whether you are ahead or not. Since you don't has a spade or a draw, there's no reason to see another card. You want to end the hand now. If behind, then fold. If ahead, you want to c/r to gather the FE along the strength of your hand.

Consider 3 betting pre. Raise flop or turn for sure... the line you took here is ridiculous.

As played OTR I'm not sure, his range is pretty much biggish Ax's often with a spade and Ksx. I doubt he would barrel the turn without either top pair or a a decent spade draw so I think you should just check this river and hope to god he checks back AJ or AT.

Given any range of hands I can put villain on I really don't like trying to bluff here.

Why don't more players 3bet AK in live games? I mean the villain you described is GOING to call with worse AJ, AQ, AT any suited ace, KQ KJ etc and 22-TT or something. don't be afraid to inflate the pot. Not to mention people tend to player very str8 forward in 3bet pots.

Given his read, I think 3 betting preflop is a leak.

Hand is played fine up until the river. This isn't online, we don't auto-jam with AK just because "it's Ace King" and Norman Chad extolled its' virtues on last night's episode of the WSOP Main Event. Your preflop and flop lines are fine.

As for the river, your bet really doesn't accomplish anything except maybe fold out some ridiculous hand that your opponent could have if he were a bad player, but caught up (i.e., QxTs, A3o, Ax8s etc). Otherwise, you're getting called/raised by a better hand very often here.

lol that 3betting preflop and just jamming AK norman chad style like an online player same thing? I don't follow. Why do we want to bluff catch here? If you have a good read on what players are willing call with preflop then is can be very profitable to get the chips in pre, you just have to know what villains are willing to to with certain hands preflop. I can't say for sure in this spot but there are plenty of villians I encounter in live games that I am fist pump getting it in pre vs with AK. (obv not deep but 100-150bb)

I don't understand why you would not want to take initiative and grow the pot here vs a villain that is very likely to call a 3bet with a range we crush?

Can you elaborate/post a link to this theorem?

It's for this reason specifically that I didn't 3bet AK. Against this player I really don't like getting flatted and having to play OOP. I feel that he will be capable to float or bluff me off the best hand on a rag board where I don't connect so I would prefer not to bloat the pot OOP. I also don't think I'm giving up a lot of value as MonkeyMaps suggested because if I just flat and the ace comes, villain will valuetown himself for me with lesser aces. Don't get me wrong, It's pretty standard for me to 3 bet AK in position, I'm just choosy of when I do it OOP and I didn't like this spot.

My thinking was that I would let villain valuetown himself for me and that I'm pretty sure that I'm good unless a spade falls. I don't want to raise him off a worse ace of QX if he is willing to bet all three streets, which I think he will. The big question that I have with this hand is what is the plan when a 4th spade falls. Knowing that your OOP vs a player who you feel will definitely be capable of bluffing you off the best hand when a spade falls, is it worth it to try and stop with a blocking bet or anything of that sort, do we simply C/crying call, or is it a C/F type situation. I really don't mind my line until the river hits, I'm just not sure what to do there.

We have no info on the guy so we don't know his range for open raising, or his range for calling a three-bet. It also is not as simple as "we crush his range" even if we do in fact crush it. We're OOP and will be bloating a pot in a situation which we will miss the flop 2/3 of the time. You aren't taking the initiative, you're inflating a pot for no reason, OOP. I am not advocating never getting aggressive with AKo, but this seems like a fine spot to call preflop and proceed.

If you think the villain is going to be bluffing a large amount of the time with hands that have you beat then you want him to bluff so you can snap it off. Betting to not get bluffed is just bad logic in general imo. As played c/f or c/c are the two best options. I think c/f is a bit better depending on how often villain has been bluffing in these spots

I'm a little late to the party but...

Clarkmeister Theorem

When the board makes a 4 flush and ur OOP u should lead at the pot (but a bigger bet would make more sense here.)

------

3betting PF would have made this hand play so much easier (as u know ur going to get called so it would be for value.)

As played, fire $200 on the river (yes, turn ur hand into a bluff.) The terrible line u took tells a pretty consistent story with that bet.

OP says villain is opening a wide range, and is looking to gamble to me that says he has a wide range for calling 3bets. but then goes on to say he isn't so sure because it was only a few hands. OP needs to pick a read here.

I dunno I understand what your saying about playing oop but at the same time just calling and just c/f? when we miss seems like playing pretty weak if we have identified villain as fishy/bad. yeah we miss 2/3 of the time but we pretty much value own him when ever we get into a dominating situation and prob get his stack so have to take the risk/reward into consideration. its pretty hard to get someones whole stack in a non 3bet pot as stacks get deeper.

i do agree that betting more like KneedyourDough suggests is very consistent with your line.

not sure if villain is competent enough to fold though... hence the dislike

Clarkmeister Theorem: a Review And Discussion (looong but has a summary) (Mitke, 3/09) - Mitke revisits the Clarkmeister.

It's primarily a Limit play but it works w/NLHE as well

Your line isnt going to get a middle spade or a set to fold and may induce a bluff raise from this opponent.

I really think you´re behind on the turn if not and he is a huge maniac then you would be better off check calling any river. Check raising on any street with this hand seems bad as we can get called by draws and better hands but getting flatted after raising puts us in a gross spot on any future street and check folding after check-raising the flop is burning money.