[NL5 SH] Fold AK on an AA board vs a nit

Correct imo. He has almost nothing in his value range on the river (unles hes really bad) that you beat. What is his range on the river for bluffing, busted straight draws or some mp? However i really dont Think he would bluff with that crazy bet size with those hands. Or with any hand for that matter

Originally posted by jonnyZ
Correct imo. He has almost nothing in his value range on the river (unles hes really bad) that you beat. What is his range on the river for bluffing, busted straight draws or some mp? However i really dont Think he would bluff with that crazy bet size with those hands. Or with any hand for that matter

Exactly, but if you consider his opening range, probably he doesn't even have a busted SD here, and the only pair he can have is something like 88 or TT: these pairs either call or fold, they never bluff-shove here.

PS: I was talking about 88, and this is my post #888. Shame I don't play at 888.com, maybe they would give me a million dollars or something (or eight) ♦

On the turn, I think a check is much better than betting here. By leading, we will get a ton of fold most of the time especially that the board completes a flush (knowing that people likely cbet if they had the FD themselves, both players know that the pre-flop aggressor couldn't rep the draw himself when he check flop). So unless villain didn't cbet bluff Ax on the flop, no worse hands will call us on the turn. Thus, our intended turn value bet will be called less often. On times that he has worse Ax or a turned flush draw, we can call a turn bet and then lead the river. (our intention is to prevent check-back from bluffs and to ensure extra value from worse Ax).

Against people with WWSF above 48%, I tend to play passive on the turn like this spot and let them stab. If they stab on the turn and get called, sometimes they will stab river too knowing that the only way for them to win is to fire a second bluff.

Originally posted by spreeboy
On the turn, I think a check is much better than betting here. By leading, we will get a ton of fold most of the time especially that the board completes a flush (knowing that people likely cbet if they had the FD themselves, both players know that the pre-flop aggressor couldn't rep the draw himself when he check flop). So unless villain didn't cbet bluff Ax on the flop, no worse hands will call us on the turn. Thus, our intended turn value bet will be called less often. On times that he has worse Ax or a turned flush draw, we can call a turn bet and then lead the river. (our intention is to prevent check-back from bluffs and to ensure extra value from worse Ax).

Against people with WWSF above 48%, I tend to play passive on the turn like this spot and let them stab. If they stab on the turn and get called, sometimes they will stab river too knowing that the only way for them to win is to fire a second bluff.

I don't really follow you. We know that he doesn't cbet much, so we have all reasons to assume he can have an Ax in this spot. Plus what about a king or a queen of hearts? They call us as well, so I say we have value here. Especially seeing that he's passive, I don't expect him to take a stab without an ace, but rather just check back with a flush draw. Similarly, expecting him to take a stab and barrel river as well also seems under reasonable. If he bets only when he has an ace, we might as well bet ourselves, so he can't check back when he doesn't have an ace. Plus, we have a TPTK in the end, and with no betting on the flop, I think it's time to put at least some money into the pot.

First, I apologize that I did not address your original question above because I thought you are in agreement with the other guy about making the correct fold. So I assumed its solved.

Originally posted by Th334
I bet for value against worse aces and K♥x / Q♥x

This is the main reason why I made my comment above. All I am saying is that in general, in the same exact spot on that board with us holding TPTK, I think a check is much better than lead bet on the turn because of the reason I pointed out above.

Of course there is nothing wrong with betting as I don't think its negative EV, its just that we are ahead way more often on this spot that we don't have to worry to much about runner draws. The amount of time that villain holds Ax or big FD is too small compared to the time that he has complete air. By checking turn, we at least give him a chance to catch a worse pair or who knows he might bet on the turn (no matter how small the chance, the possibility is there), if not then we can now lead river and hope he did finally caught a worst pair.

However, if your turn bet is influenced heavily by the reason that he is a nit, then yes I don't think its wrong to bet it ourselves. But in general (barring player type), I think a check is more profitable than a lead bet on that spot.

P.S. About the two street stab, I am not referring to this "nitty" player.

^ + 1

I agree with betting on turn, to get some money into pot after checked flop and also for protecting Your TPTK against possible flush draw or any other random.
Edit: Also to get more info about villain

@spreeboy, Not a problem, sir, it's nice – and rather refreshing – to talk to somebody polite on the Internet ♦

Let's look at the turn again. I think both you and KKNgroup might have been a bit mislead with the concept of protection. It might be a useful practical concept to remember what buttons to click during the game, but it's fundamentally wrong: the reason you bet with TPTK on a drawy board is not to protect yourself from draws, but to extract value from draws. It's a value bet. You have 81% equity against a FD, so virtually the entire pot is yours, and the bigger you'll make the pot, the more money you will win.

So you can't say, "We're ahead, so we don't need to worry about runner draws," no, we absolutely must worry about them, because they will pay us money with a worse hand, but only if we make a bet.

Basically, your suggestion is to slowplay that turn. "Wait for the villain to catch something." This is not a great idea, because:
(1) we don't have the nuts, we have a mere pair, not a situation for slowplay
(2) any heart card the opponent might have now gives him a flush draw, so it's not true that Ax or a heart are unlikely. Go into Equilab and see how many combos Ax or a broadway heart make, there will be a lot of combos.

I did this for you. He has 26 combos of aces and broadway hearts: {AdKd, AsKs, AdQd, AsQs, AdJd, AsJs, AdTd, AsTs, AdKh, AsKh, AdQh, AsQh, AdJh, AsJh, AdTh, AsTh, KdQh, KhQd, KhQs, KhQc, KsQh, KdJh, KhJd, KhJs, KhJc, KsJh} that we crush on the turn with 76% equity! From his total range of 93 hands: {22-99,AT+,KJ+}. So 26/93=28% of all his hands at this spot are much weaker than us and will easily call a value bet, and 11 combos (12%) has us beat. There are only 52 combos of hands that are behind and will fold (56%). While it might seem like a lot of air, remember that these hands include hands like 88 and 22, and there's no way they are investing any more money in the pot, whatever we do, but we have a real chance (28%) of him having and ace or a heart, and this is what we should focus on.

Originally posted by Th334
Let's look at the turn again. I think both you and KKNgroup might have been a bit mislead with the concept of protection. It might be a useful practical concept to remember what buttons to click during the game, but it's fundamentally wrong: the reason you bet with TPTK on a drawy board is not to protect yourself from draws, but to extract value from draws. It's a value bet.

I know that. But part of the reason why I rule out any draw on the turn is because it is highly likely that he has none (especially a flush draw). Any two overcard with heart will likely cbet the flop. But since we are dealing with a postflop-nit in your example, we can assume that he doesn't cbet most two-overcards. Still by leading the turn, we are simply forcing villain to continue with AT-AQ if we expect to get called with worst. I don't think it's profitable for villain (fish or not) to call with a QJ, KJ, KT flush draw with an A on the turn. That A is an absolute scare card for any lower broadway. So I don't think he will continue unless he has the K (still pretty unlike when he checked flop). If I am hero, villain should expect a two barrel stab from me trying to rep an A-pair or better (whether I have it or not), good luck with him calling with lower broad ways on the turn.

Also, I think you are focusing too much on villain having the FD. If the flop brings a flush draw, it is not that villain has the correct suit every time that he saw the flop with a suited connector. I hope you will see here that I am letting villain continue with all his range rather than by cutting it too narrow on the turn to a range with a decent equity to beat us. Note that we are out of position, do you know how much money you will lose if villain turned a two-pair or indeed slow-played a set? I think it cancels out the pots you win when we have him holding worse Ax. I can't give you the numbers too but I am sure it will cost us big enough overtime to cancel out or close the gap with our winning with those little pots when he has AT-AQ.

At this exact spot, our hand is considered "showdown-value", not a monster as you stated. But being out of position and given the fact that villain seems weak on the flop, I think the best way here is to try to win just one more bet on the river.

It's just math, I corrected a few mistakes, and it looks much more convincing: we are behind 11.8%, he has a weak hand and folds 41.9%, but he has a hand we beat that calls our bet 46.2%. Easy value bet here. You should have another look at ranges and combos, because there's really a lot of Ax and hearts here, and you should be able to see it without Equilab (but practice in Equilab first).

Basically, I think when weaker that calls is at least slightly more frequent than stronger, we have a value bet. Here it's obvious: weaker calls 46.2% and we'll see stronger only 11.8% of the time.

are you serious? snap call river