Escaped AA holding KK

[Rondavu]

Here is an example of a very poorly played AA by an opponent. Part stupidity, and part misfortune. It was my second hand at the table....

***** Hand History for Game 2624769070 *****
0/0 Texas Hold'em Game Table (NL) - Tue Aug 30 17:45:58 EDT 2005
Table Table 55875 (6 max) (No DP) (Real Money) -- Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: Red_Monster ( $99)
Seat 2: dubbonet ( $173.50)
Seat 3: JustGinger ( $13.27)
Seat 4: hulken82 ( $45)
Seat 5: elRaja ( $100) [ Ad Ac ] <---- Opponent
Seat 6: eslue ( $106.05)
hulken82 posts small blind (0.50)
elRaja posts big blind (1)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Red_Monster [ Ks, Kc ]
eslue folds.
Red_Monster raises (4) to 4
dubbonet folds.
JustGinger calls (4)
hulken82 folds.
elRaja calls (3) <---- Smooth calls my raise. What a douche. Oh I mean thanks.
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 8d, 4d, 2d ]
elRaja checks.
Red_Monster bets (11)
JustGinger calls (9.27) <---- Has no idea she is against two high pockets. Hahaha
JustGinger is all-In.
elRaja raises (30) to 30 <---- Mistake of the century
Red_Monster folds. <---- Escape! Escape!
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 6s ]
** Dealing River ** : [ Ts ]
Creating Main Pot with $38.31 with JustGinger
** Summary **
Main Pot: $38.31 | Side Pot 1: $22.46 | Rake: $2
Board: [ 8d 4d 2d 6s Ts ]
Red_Monster balance $84, lost $15 (folded)
dubbonet balance $173.50, didn't bet (folded)
JustGinger balance $0, lost $13.27 [ As 8s ] [ a pair of eights -- As,Ts,8s,8d,6s ]
hulken82 balance $44.50, lost $0.50 (folded)
elRaja balance $126.77, bet $34, collected $60.77, net +$26.77 [ Ad Ac ] [ a pair of aces -- Ad,Ac,Ts,8d,6s ]
eslue balance $106.05, didn't bet (folded)

When the opponent smooth called preflop they lost the chance to have every dime in my stack. If he reraised me I was certainly pushing. I was fortunate I was acting before him, because if he acted first, I would have reraised his raise, and he may have pushed.

Then he flopped a nut flush draw holding two aces and raised me hard on a flop board which had very little chance of drawing against him on the next two streets. This is why I always ask myself why I'm doing something. He really had no reason to raise in this spot.

He played them slow at the wrong time, and then played them fast at the wrong time. All in the same hand.

[ejdewey]

Not sure what JustGinger was thinking, your betting screamed overpair. Raja's bet was over the top tho. What would you have done if he reraised say $11 instead of 30?

[Rondavu]

What would you have done if he reraised say $11 instead of 30?

It's hard to say. I was out of position, the board was flushing, and a short stack just pushed all in before the guy decides to raise me. That tells me there is some genuine strength present. I would have probably taken reverse implied odds into consideration here and folded to any raise. I had absolutely no read on anyone, so when in doubt get out.

[baudib]

What's wrong with the smooth call preflop? I think it's a pretty good play when you have AA and have a good idea you're against a high pocket pair.

If the board doesn't flush against you he probably does get every dime in your stack.

[dsaxton]

I don't see anything wrong with his play after the flop. He probably has the best hand and the best draw and so he decides to try to get more money in the pot by raising on the flop. What's wrong with that?

If he raises on either the turn or the river, then it looks like a slow-play (it's worth noting that he knows no one else could possibly have the nuts on the flop) and prevents him from getting action from the weaker hands which may've paid him off more had he done otherwise. I think that if he were to just call, he's almost resigning himself to playing passively for the remainder of the hand unless he makes his flush, since otherwise he's overrepresenting his hand after just calling on the flop.

I may have raised less in his situation, but it isn't fundamentally wrong to raise, I don't think.

I think his mistake is not reraising preflop.

[Laeelin]

What's wrong with the smooth call preflop? I think it's a pretty good play when you have AA and have a good idea you're against a high pocket pair.

If the board doesn't flush against you he probably does get every dime in your stack.

I sometimes play AA like that...

Is not reraiseing such a bad move?

[Rondavu]

I don't see anything wrong with his play after the flop. He probably has the best hand and the best draw and so he decides to try to get more money in the pot by raising on the flop. What's wrong with that?

If he raises on either the turn or the river, then it looks like a slow-play (it's worth noting that he knows no one else could possibly have the nuts on the flop) and prevents him from getting action from the weaker hands which may've paid him off more had he done otherwise. I think that if he were to just call, he's almost resigning himself to playing passively for the remainder of the hand unless he makes his flush, since otherwise he's overrepresenting his hand after just calling on the flop.

I may have raised less in his situation, but it isn't fundamentally wrong to raise, I don't think.

I think his mistake is not reraising preflop.

Not reraising AA preflop isn't a terrible move. I'm just saying it was retrospectively a bad move for this hand. I smooth call with AA all the time. I show this to demonstrate one pitfall of doing so. Your implied odds preflop against another high pocket are so enourmous, that the money you lose by scaring an opponent out sometimes (reraise preflop) is made up for tenfold by that occassional KK-QQ-JJ-AK-AQs-TT that puts everything in the middle for you. Especially at low skill tables.

In terms of the flop raise, it was definately a bad move. If an opponent wants to take control of a hand you're crushing them in, and no draw can beat you, then you leave your opponent confident. I mean come on, I raised preflop and the board was raggy diamonds. My opponent with AA had to think I hit nothing at all and then told me to stop paying the pot by raising me, after slowplaying AA preflop to trap me! What's the point of trapping preflop, if you're just going to reveal your strength when the flop doesn't improve your opponent? Might as well push preflop in that case.

There's no reason to wake up an aggressor that has very little chance of drawing out on you. This is no time to jam a flop like that. You buy someone out only when you want to take it down right there, or you think your opponent will be confident on the board.

You could argue that the guy with AA actually feared his own flush drying up the action, therefore wanted the heavy betting to happen before another scare card. The problem is the board is already too scary to extract on. The best option is to slowplay here and leave your opponent confident. You actually hope the turn card is a complete blank and keeps you both confident.

This guy got caught up in the cloak and dagger thought process of slowplaying a high pocket only to the flop. Normally that's correct. Not this time.

Do you see why?

Sorry I had to say that once.

[dsaxton]

I don't see anything wrong with his play after the flop. He probably has the best hand and the best draw and so he decides to try to get more money in the pot by raising on the flop. What's wrong with that?

If he raises on either the turn or the river, then it looks like a slow-play (it's worth noting that he knows no one else could possibly have the nuts on the flop) and prevents him from getting action from the weaker hands which may've paid him off more had he done otherwise. I think that if he were to just call, he's almost resigning himself to playing passively for the remainder of the hand unless he makes his flush, since otherwise he's overrepresenting his hand after just calling on the flop.

I may have raised less in his situation, but it isn't fundamentally wrong to raise, I don't think.

I think his mistake is not reraising preflop.

Not reraising AA preflop isn't a terrible move. I'm just saying it was retrospectively a bad move for this hand. I smooth call with AA all the time. I show this to demonstrate one pitfall of doing so. Your implied odds preflop against another high pocket are so enourmous, that the money you lose by scaring an opponent out sometimes (reraise preflop) is made up for tenfold by that occassional KK-QQ-JJ-AK-AQs-TT that puts everything in the middle for you. Especially at low skill tables.

In terms of the flop raise, it was definately a bad move. If an opponent wants to take control of a hand you're crushing them in, and no draw can beat you, then you leave your opponent confident. I mean come on, I raised preflop and the board was raggy diamonds. My opponent with AA had to think I hit nothing at all and then told me to stop paying the pot by raising me, after slowplaying AA preflop to trap me! What's the point of trapping preflop, if you're just going to reveal your strength when the flop doesn't improve your opponent? Might as well push preflop in that case.

There's no reason to wake up an aggressor that has very little chance of drawing out on you. This is no time to jam a flop like that. You buy someone out only when you want to take it down right there, or you think your opponent will be confident on the board.

You could argue that the guy with AA actually feared his own flush drying up the action, therefore wanted the heavy betting to happen before another scare card. The problem is the board is already too scary to extract on. The best option is to slowplay here and leave your opponent confident. You actually hope the turn card is a complete blank and keeps you both confident.

This guy got caught up in the cloak and dagger thought process of slowplaying a high pocket only to the flop. Normally that's correct. Not this time.

Do you see why?

Sorry I had to say that once.

Your thinking seems to center around the idea that that a raise is going to intimidate a player with a dominated hand, but I don't think that's the case at all. From his perspective, the only hands he can beat which will continue to pay him off are high pocket pairs (what you're representing) which include a diamond, and players with these hands will generally remain very confident in their holdings even after being raised. An overpair with a flush draw on the flop is regarded as a very strong hand by most, and a small raise might even induce an all-in from a player with one of these hands, which is obviously superior to just calling and hoping the other person builds the pot to the same degree on his own (since again I feel he'd be resigned to playing passively for the duration of the hand, since otherwise he's overrepresenting his hand and making it too difficult for a worse hand to pay him off). He raises and hopes you have a diamond to go along with your high pair, and if you don't, then you just fold and he doesn't miss out on anything anyways.

On a different topic, in your position I would've considered checking my hand in first position, since you're probably a pretty significant underdog to win the pot with one pair and no diamond on an all diamond board against two opponents. There's no reason to get yourself committed to this pot. What were you intending on doing if both players called you?

[Rondavu]

On a different topic, in your position I would've considered checking my hand in first position, since you're probably a pretty significant underdog to win the pot with one pair and no diamond on an all diamond board against two opponents. There's no reason to get yourself committed to this pot. What were you intending on doing if both players called you?

At first glance my stab at that pot out of position looks absurd. For most people it probably is.

On the rag board suited I bet the pot amount on the flop out of position to make sure someone doesn't take command of the hand illegitimately. I'm in bad position, but holding KK is an expected value equalizer in favor of this move.

A lot of times you're ahead here on a suited rag board with KK (none of the suit), with one or both your opponents having the flush draw. If that's the case, then you want to force them into making incorrect pot sized calls. Also, I find that if I'm going to represent the best hand out of position here, I need to bet at least the pot amount to make sure an over the top isn't just a move with a draw and nothing else.

I definately considered checking here, but thought that betting was correct given that I had the second best hand in poker.

You're making me think here. You and I are a little separated on the aggression scale I believe. I feel I can afford to be more aggressive in different situations because I make good laydowns. In fact I am forced to be efficient in this department, or else I wouldn't be playing poker, because I would be broke.

[Rondavu]

An overpair with a flush draw on the flop is regarded as a very strong hand by most, and a small raise might even induce an all-in from a player with one of these hands, which is obviously superior to just calling and hoping the other person builds the pot to the same degree on his own (since again I feel he'd be resigned to playing passively for the duration of the hand, since otherwise he's overrepresenting his hand and making it too difficult for a worse hand to pay him off)

I'm having trouble understanding this. So your saying if he puts me on KK with one a diamond he should remain aggressive because he may get me all in on the flop, as opposed to playing passively until later streets because that might over represent?

I'm wicked confused. If your opponent (me) has KK with one a diamond, then you're getting their money if you slow play or not aren't you? In contrast, if your opponent is weaker such as I was (and I was pretty damn strong), then the only way to extract is by playing passive. I mean very few hands are going to go all in with you on that flop if you hold AA one of suit.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to understand what you mean. I hope to learn something.

[dsaxton]

An overpair with a flush draw on the flop is regarded as a very strong hand by most, and a small raise might even induce an all-in from a player with one of these hands, which is obviously superior to just calling and hoping the other person builds the pot to the same degree on his own (since again I feel he'd be resigned to playing passively for the duration of the hand, since otherwise he's overrepresenting his hand and making it too difficult for a worse hand to pay him off)

I'm having trouble understanding this. So your saying if he puts me on KK with one a diamond he should remain aggressive because he may get me all in on the flop, as opposed to playing passively until later streets because that might over represent?

I'm wicked confused. If your opponent (me) has KK with one a diamond, then you're getting their money if you slow play or not aren't you? In contrast, if your opponent is weaker such as I was (and I was pretty damn strong), then the only way to extract is by playing passive. I mean very few hands are going to go all in with you on that flop if you hold AA one of suit.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just trying to understand what you mean. I hope to learn something.

How are you guaranteed to get the players money by slow-playing? Slow-playing is least efficient way to get the person's money in almost every situation, this one included. You're basically assuming the opponent with K-K (you, in this scenario) is just going to keep betting until all his chips are gone, which isn't very likely given the size of your stack relative to the size of the pot. Fast-playing gets the maximum amount of money in on every street. It encourages action from the opponent when they're most likely to think they're ahead.

Another way of looking at it is that, by raising, you're increasing the ratio of the size of the pot relative to the person's stack not only by building the pot, but by diminishing the player's stack, which is how you get an opponent pot-committed.

I didn't say he should put you on an overpair with a diamond, I'm saying he should act under the assumption that you do because he's putting himself in a position to win your whole stack, or a good portion of it if you are holding a hand like this, while only forgoing winning a little bit more from a weaker holding. Plus, it's reasonably likely that you're holding a hand like this given how you played the hand.

Also, you said that if the opponent has a weaker holder, than the only way to extract money is to play passively. If you are in fact weaker than this, than slow-playing is almost pointless from his perspective. Only an idiot would continue committing money here with a hand worse than that. You're suggesting that he play passively in the hopes of winning a tiny bit more from a weaker holding, at the expense of winning a lot more from a stronger holding. This doesn' t make much sense.