Poker Stars $10.00 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players - View hand 1491476
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

BTN: $4.16
SB: $5.49
BB: $11.19
UTG: $15.26
UTG+1: $9.45
UTG+2: $10.00
MP1: $12.28
Hero (MP2): $10.95
CO: $12.02

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is MP2 with A A
3 folds, MP1 raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $0.90, 4 folds, MP1 calls $0.60

Flop: ($1.95) 9 K T (2 players)
MP1 checks, Hero bets $1.35, MP1 raises to $2.70, Hero calls $1.35

Turn: ($7.35) Q (2 players)
MP1 bets $2.80, Hero folds

Villain

I think you can just fold on the flop against what looks like an unimaginative nitty reg who probably setmines too much in 3bet pots.

Raising more preflop makes this easier. Against a reg like this you can raise to $1.2 or even $1.5. He's either folding the bottom of his 9% MP PFR range, or calling enough of his stack that I don't mind losing to his flopped set...and of course he might just jam with KK-QQ. Then on the flop I'm betting pot and getting it in.

As played, I call the flop and hope he checks the turn. If he does I call smaller bets on the river, if he bets turn, I'm out.

Edit: I didn't realize it was a flop c/r. I fold to the c/r, but if it were me I would have pot controlled and checked the flop

Fold to flop raise. I also cbet flop smaller like $1.

You need to stop posting results orientated dribble sir. And/or start giving reasons behind why you'd take a certain line.

+1

You're talking about pot controlling AA in a 3bet pot on a flop that nails you're opponent's calling range giving a lot of worse pairs and draws. If you're scared of going for value and being c/r just call pre and check it down because the logic of pot control here is akin to saying you never cbet worse than middle set.

Feel free to say I'm wrong, but I'm certainly not being results oriented. Believe it or not, that is actually how I would have played the hand.

Based on stats, villain is raising 9% of hands, and calling the 3bet with half of those, giving villain a range that is more or less the top 4% of hands. KK, TT, and 99 are a significant portion of this range, and we are drawing nearly dead against them. Hands such as AK are unlikely to call three streets, particularly when the villain isn't an obvious spewer. Drawing hands are a fairly small part of his range, and I don't love giving them a free card on the flop, but I also value the ability to minimize losses against the setted part of his range, as those losses likely equal a buyin. This is where I am being nitty compared to you imo, but I think sacrificing some potential value to prevent huge potential losses is a legitimate strategy, even if it is not necessarily 100% "optimal".

Also, the semibluff tuned bluff on the river nets me a decent amount of value, which somewhat makes up for the lost value against draws.

We are never checking this flop, period.

4% of hands is basically 99+, AQs+, AKo or TT+, KQs, AQs+, AKo

We have 58% equity against range 1 and 64% equity against range 2 on the flop. So lets say 61%.

You can certainly minimize losses while still betting for value. All you have to do if you are convinced it's a set when he c/r is to b/f. There are several nice things about b/f rather than pot control here:

• You don't miss value from worse. Most important.
• You fold out equity pieces (or even better, get them to incorrectly call) that are generally not going to put any more money in unless they improve to the best hand rather than offer them oo:1 on their draws to sets and gutshots: AQ, JJ, QQ.
• You set the price. You get to win $x from AK/KQs or lose $x against sets. I would argue you actually reduce losses more, if not increasing profit as well, by taking a valuebet/fold line rather than a guess-call/guess-call line.

To clarify, I'm still not folding if villain c/r as we're still getting 1.7:1 with 42% equity against sets/AK, but if you're positive a c/r is only ever a set, then b/f is still better than pot control.

b/shove (or b/c/shove if you think villain can fold on this board, unlikely at 10NL) >>>> b/f >>>>>>>>>> pot control

look at his 4bet% and fold to 3b%
he prob has AK KQ in range but they dont check raise this flop

checking back flop would be bad

as played fold flop he has nitty flop stats

Excellent post JH1. Just want to add that there may be several arguments for checking this flop (mostly incorrectly), but pot control is at the bottom of the list. Pot controlling AA on a K hi flop against a guy that's only folded to 8/17 3bets so far is just terrible.

You shouldn't be calling flop if you can't call another bet. He's going to bet the turn most of the time so just fold on the flop.

Agreed. Things like range manipulation would qualify as reasons to check -- villain's tendency to bet parts of his range vs missed cbets (getting value from his bluffs) and how he perceives his hand strength and showdown value when we check back (better chance of value later).

For example I could come up with the following based on the HEM popup:

• Bet flop for value because he calls a decent amount of flop bets and will probably peel with JJ/QQ and obviously AK/KQ.
• Check back turn, not for pot control, but because he's folded 3/4 to turn cbets so far and will probably fold JJ/QQ/KQs fearing a large river bet and will call AK again
• JJ/QQ/KQs is the larger of the two combinatorically and will probably crying call most rivers to see a showdown after we check back turn while leading AK and possibly KQs on the river himself.

In an extreme example for illustration, I would check back every flop if villain's fold to cbet was 100% and bet vs missed cbet was 100%.

i prob dont even beat flop but yea, ide fold otf too

This is an interesting hand, I've definitely learned from the discussion.

My apologies for being rusty, This is the first hand I've discussed strategy on since BF