line check - AKs hit the A on the river

[jeanpaulvalley]

weaktight | Hand Poll | KAs - $0.1/$0.25 No Limit Holdem

No particular reads on villain.

Comments on all streets welcome.

[postoakpoker]

Calling keeps your losses to a mimimum when you're behind, and since I don't think you can get value from worse hands, that's what I would do. If you raise river, he folds worse and calls with better, since I can't really see him c/c the flop w/ AQ or A10. Unless he's using the A as a scare card to bluff, his range is weighted to AJ, 44, AK, and a bunch of random hands that include a 7 (mostly SCs). If he is using river as a scare card, he'll fold to your raise anyways. If you'd seen him "float" oop or c/c with just overcards, then you can consider raising the river for value.

[no eff eks]

I'm calling his river bet... make your 3bet bigger PF imo.

[D3rvish]

Preflop is standard.

I'm not quite sure what you're repping on the flop other than JJ+ unless you've shown that you will 3-bet with AJ. I'd expect to get called here by a lot of pocket pairs and maybe some straight draws.

The 7 is a horrible card to double barrel so I definetly like checking behind on the turn.

On the river, the only hands that are beating you are AA, JJ, and hands that shouldn't be calling 3bets OOP (AJ, suited connectors with a 7, 44). On the other hand, the only thing you beat here is a bluff. I'd call and note the hand. If you are beat, you know the villan either likes to slow play OOP and/or calls 3bets with dominated hands. Good info to have when you have position on the big stack.

[ShadesAA]

Call the river .. the rest looks standard imo

[no eff eks]

Making just a pot sized 3bet is far from standard. Given that villain raised UTG, we have fairly poor position in the hijack, and there are 4 people yet to act, a small 3bet like that is actually a pretty bad move.

[ShadesAA]

Originally Posted by no eff eks

Making just a pot sized 3bet is far from standard. Given that villain raised UTG, we have fairly poor position in the hijack, and there are 4 people yet to act, a small 3bet like that is actually a pretty bad move.

hmm , unless im in the blinds my 3bet is usualy pot sized .. thats why i said its standard .. but thanks for bringin that to my attention perhaps its something i need to bring more into my game , makin a larger 3bet when the raise is from utg

[postoakpoker]

Originally Posted by ShadesAA

hmm , unless im in the blinds my 3bet is usualy pot sized .. thats why i said its standard .. but thanks for bringin that to my attention perhaps its something i need to bring more into my game , makin a larger 3bet when the raise is from utg

I'm not sure why you'd want to 3b larger to an utg raise when utg's range is at its tightest

[Vantek]

I like a little bigger 3bet pre myself, but I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that 3,33x 3bet is "definitely not standard". I think the whole hand is 100% standard. Not cbetting without a read would be bad. This river bet says bluff, the unlikely monster, or the unlikely ace, pretty easy call especially if you add in the fact that some people are nutso and will randomly do this with like, a jack or seven. I think reraising would be crazy without a read.

[no eff eks]

Originally Posted by postoakpoker

I'm not sure why you'd want to 3b larger to an utg raise when utg's range is at its tightest

For several reasons... most importantly because of our poor position at the table and 5 people to act after us (say the CO cold calls -- that can start a cascade of calls leading to a multi-way flop and drastically reducing your chances of winning the pot). The fact that the UTG raiser has a strong range is another reason to 3bet larger that pot... he's going to call with dominated aces/kings, but also fold many low pairs - both being good for us.

To be honest, a pot sized 3bet is almost never the best size, and it's definitely not the best size in this situation.