secondhander

I think the AT hand is a clear fold on the river. I don't think there are any bluffs that are betting that river. And we are behind all value hands that would bet it. In fact, I think there is good reason to start getting concerned when facing the turn bet. On the turn, we are not facing AK, because it would have raised preflop most likely. AQ might have raised preflop, but might have called, so that's a possible hand that might bet this turn, although it's pretty much only beating AJ at this point, so it might also slow down. Air is probably not continuing to bet this turn. Only Ax clubs may continue to bet, but it will likely check behind a good portion of the time. There are just about no pure bluffs that are betting the turn, and only a little bit of semi-bluffs that might bet the turn. So the only hands that are likely betting this turn are sets, Ax suited sometimes, and KQ, KJ, QJ sometimes (checking behind sometimes). The river bet seems clearly to be a value bet with no bluffs in the range. KQ, KJ, AQ, AJ are checking behind, as are Ax suited that missed the flush. The only hands I can see that would get to this river betting the whole way and would bet this river for value (and it's clearly a value bet) are 55, 88, and QJ. Clear fold, I have no idea why Snowie says to call.

@James: Thanks. Is the main breakdown in my thinking here that if he called the flop, that he will likely call the turn as well with a basically unchanged board, and thus we know that we won't have enough fold equity to continue to represent the hand we're trying to represent? That plus the likelihood that he would check to let us lead the turn? I suppose that's pretty much what you are saying, correct?

Also, does an Ax play it the way he plays the hand? If so, are we making the hero call puttin ghis range either on the failed draw or Ax? You mentioned he would more likely go with a check/call with Ax. Is our hand too polarized for him to put in the bet with Ax?

My thinking, perhaps it's flawed: On the first hand you have to barrel the turn. Three things: 1. The A on the turn makes it less likely he has an A in his hand. 2. The way you've played it you have a lot of Ax in your range. 3. He slows down and checks the turn. Would he do that if he had an A on that draw-heavy board? Unlikely. This looks a lot like KQ, KJ, QJ, 9J, 97 or maybe even Tx, TQ, TJ. He may not fold the Tx hands, but I think he's still likely to bet those as well on the turn since it's so draw heavy, so I think he's weighted more toward straight draws, some of which have you beat. (Obviously if you have all his air beat then there's no value in a turn bluff.)

You are probably right that my thinking is muddled in my response, but I think you misunderstood part of what I was advocating. 

I was arguing (rightly or wrongly) that if we check-raise here we are turning our hand into a bluff and aren't wanting to get called. We do have some showdown value if we check and get checked behind. So with a check, and then facing a raise, I think we have a bluff-catcher hand, but also have a lot of folding equity against low flushes and straights, because as played it really looks like we had a weak holding. 

The flop bet looks like a standard cbet. The turn check looks like a giveup, to which villain bet with a float or a medium hand. Our call looks like a medium hand or a draw. That's why I said that a raise on the river may very well have a lot of folding equity, but we don't know if we want to turn our hand into a bluff yet, because it has some showdown equity. So a check may get a check behind with some hands we beat, some we don't. But also, the river is the ultimate scare card that a villain can use. A check-raise puts a ton of pressure on him on any hand but the nut flush. Even if he was trying to value bet with a straight or a low flush, our check-raise folds some of those out a percentage of the time.

So basically, it's a check hoping for showdown value, but once the river bet comes I think this is prime for turning our hand into a bluff that we can rep very well.

Again, it's likely that my thinking got muddled along the way, but I am wondering if when all the equity of each decision is compared, that we either check and showdown, or check and re-raise enough times to make it more equitable verses a check-call or check-fold.

Am I being a complete donk here, or do you see any validity to my line given that explanation?

I understand you wanting to get value from Ax by raising the flop. The problem as I see it is in terms of what you are repping. This is what I'm thinking, tell me if I am in error with my thinking here (because  I might be). 

By making the raise, and then calling the 3bet, you make your A+high kicker hand pretty apparent. 

But we don't know he's going to 3bet, so let's of course just consider what's best to do on the flop before we know that he 3bet. The key question to ask, I think, is, If he is indeed a weak player, what are you trying to rep to him?

When you re-raised him, wanting him to continue with his Ax, what did you think he was putting you on in order for him to call? Are you trying to rep a strong hand or a bluff?  

Yeah it's true that if you raise, an Ax is going to call a good portion of the time, particularly from a weak player. But his range also has weak pairs and bluffs.  It appears that you are trying to rep a made hand here. So, you would either have Ax, 4x, or some mid to high pair most of the time. So, his bluffs and his weak pairs will often give up to the raise, even if he's a bad player, and his Ax will call, but maybe cautiously. 

Or, maybe you are trying to rep a bluff steal here with air. But I think he would have to be a somewhat thinking opponent to put you on that. 

So I think to a bad player, you are actually repping a strong hand, with AK AQ being toward the bottom of that range. That gives him reason to fold most of the holdings that you actually want value from, and the hands that you beat that may call would be a small part of his range (even with a bad player, he may be folding some Ax-low kicker hands ... maybe). 

If you just call, then you are repping a much wider range. 

A re-raise on the flop reps either a bluff or a strong hand. But a call reps either a strong hand, or an unsure hand that is cautious. That pulls in a lot more of his range that you are beating for him to continue with.

Now, if he was firing with air, he may fire again on the turn with hands that you would have folded out with a flop re-raise. Same goes for hands like mid-pairs that he was thin value-betting or protecting.  

You're in a WAWB situation, so now that you did re-raise (meaning you are repping either the virtual nuts that you are going to commit with, or a bluff that you are not wanting to commit with), I don't see him 3betting you on the flop (and definitely not opening again on the turn after you called) unless he is a thinking player who put you on some air and is trying to fold you off it. But you already say he's a bad player, so I don't think he's doing that. 

I didn't say we should raise the flop if we have AA. You either misunderstood me or I didn't state it very clear. 

I said that the fact that we raised the flop demonstrates to a thinking player that we don't have AA in our range. And then when we get 3bet and we just call, it solidifies the fact that we don't have AA and also shows that we don't have A4.

Oh, so anyway it's a fold here for me. And I think we have to call the flop, not raise.

I think you went wrong here.

You open, he calls preflop. On A44r flop, he min-bets, and you raise him (well, you probably don't have AA), then he re-raises and you call (now you definitely don't have AA or A4). I think you pretty much play your Ax hand face up by the line you chose, although 4x with strong kicker maybe be in your range as well. 

Since you said he's a bad player, I don't think that he's bluffing with air for two barrels by reading that you definitely don't have AA or A4, and thinking that a 4 with low kicker might fold. So I definitely don't think he has air. And I think the donk bet on the A44 flop is often a bad player sort of testing the waters or something (?) with trips hoping that you have an A and he gets some action. 

I think you have to bet this river, as played. And a check-raise on the river (if you can believe it) is probably even better, by my thinking.

I don't like the turn check, but now that it's checked you are very much repping a cbet stab into the flop, and a hesitant continue on a wet turn. His turn bet is often a bluff or small-to-medium hand trying to take the pot down with a play into your repped weakness. Your call then repps a medium hand that is continuing or/and a draw.

Then AJ and flush draw gets there (although AJ without the flush probably check/calls), and there's less reason to put villain on made draw here since he bet the turn instead of checked behind. All in all, I think we get more equity from a river lead than we do from a check-call or a check-fold. And in fact, if we're daring, we may actually do better from a check-raise on the river, because he might show down with Kx and lose, or we may make more money off his river bluffs.

@chael Sonnen and WM2K

Is a c/c on the turn better than a c/r because a c/r turns our value into a bluff rep too much? What is the thought-process on the c/c vs. c/r decision here? And if we c/c and the river bricks (say, 2c) and we face a bet, what is the best line?  

Yuck, on a few points imo.

You can 3bet preflop, although I understand your trapping reasoning. 

On flop, I'd rather c/r. It's a draw-heavy flop, and you most likely are ahead here. No sense in just flatting the flop. 

Given that you c/c, I think you ought to now c/r on the turn, or maybe c/c. What are you trying to rep by leading the turn? What do you think he can call with that you beat? 

When you lead the turn, you are reping a made draw. V might expect you to lead the turn if you hit a flush, but he may think you are either donk-betting the flush, or betting a paired A (which you are). 

I think what you said about "calling range vs. betting range" sort of goes out the window when you are reping something that he can't call unless he's ahead. So I think his betting range that you beat is > than his calling range that you beat. 

His calling range that you beat is small. Pretty much Ax. So he folds most of his range here if you are ahead, and calls or re-raises with better hands. 

If you c/r the turn and get re-raised, you can get away from it.

But once you leade the turn and get re-raised, it's fairly tough for him to be bluff-raising you here. As played, you sort of turn your hand into a bluff on the turn, but reping something strong. I don't think you are beating anything that re-raises you here and I think this is a fold.

This is awesome to hear.

Good points. But why turn four-of-a-kind kings into a bluff? :P Flat it.

Now, that's the bigger bad beat. That really sucks.

But ... but ... but ... QdJd, and AA. 

The only thing villain could call you with on the river that you beat is AT, and do you think he's x-raising turn with AT? I don't see it.

Flat the river.

I may be wrong and dumb, but my thoughts ...

Preflop 3 bet is a no brainer.

On flop, check is standard. Raise by villain has a high percentage of being a bluff a lot of the time, or a Jxxx. So the x-raise represents a Qxxx. Not much of another way to win the pot, and this would be read-defendant and I'd think a x-fold would be right a lot of the time against certain players. 

The call is unexpected and interesting. A QJxx would not likely bet the flop. A Qxxx with good kickers may raise instead of call, although he may still call, fearing hero has QJxx. 

I think the only hands that lead the flop and call the raise here are Qxxx, Jxxx, and sometimes JJxx, although I'd think we'd see a re-raise from that on the flop a good portion of the time. 

So I think villain usually has Qxxx or maybe a thin bluff-catching defense with Jxxx. When the K comes on the turn, villain now is worried about QJxx, Qxxx with better kickers, QKxx, JJxx, ATxx, and KKxx. 

So, with all that I think we have to continue, because it's too disgusting to give up on the turn here with all that we can rep while at the same time opponent is unlikely to have QJxx, JJxx, KKxx, ATxx. He might have QKxx, but that's a chance you might have to take.

Now, the bet sizing I'm not sure about. Seems like if the read of Qxxx or Jxxx is right, then there is so much we can rep that he hates that he really can't call even that much. He's either going to have to push, which he hates to do given our range that has hit big hands, or fold. So we can make a cheap, smart play, and then finally give up on a call/raise. 

If my understanding of the hand is right (big if?), then it seems like a beautifully well-played hand.

My thinking is that if he's supper tight and wouldn't 3bet with anything other than AA KK, then you're probably better calling and shoving on a flop like that to get some fold equity in from KK and maybe even AA. The money's going in anyway, might as well get fold equity on a safe flop and re-eval dangerous flops.