|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 5:01:58 PM PACIFIC |
 A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Kevin J, 30. Dec 2002 12:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I cross-posted this on 2+2. This hand generated some discussion in one of my local card rooms. It was played by a Chicago local against Roy Cooke. I thought it was interesting. Here's the hand as I understand it. The Chicago local raised UTG with AQ and Roy made it 3 bets from late position. Heads-up. The flop came AXX. Local checked, Roy bet, local called. The turn was a rag. Local checked, Roy bet, local called. The river was a K. Local checked, Roy bet, local called and lost to KK. The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine. The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think? The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it? So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand? Anyway, I thought the hand was interesting and might generate some discussion here. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Vincent Merlino, 30. Dec 2002 14:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The local should have bet the flop and the turn. Good players know that if someone bets into a pre-flop raiser then they are probably not bluffing and would put him on at least A Q if not A K. If the local bet the flop I might have called and peeled one off on the turn to see if I could make a set but I definitly wouldn't chase him down to the river with two outs. Roy is a good player and probably would have laid down the Kings but the local gave Roy the opportunity to become the agressor and that was a mistake. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 31. Dec 2002 00:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "Good players know that if someone bets into a pre-flop raiser then they are probably not bluffing and would put him on at least A Q if not A K." Is there any reason why you want Roy (or any opponent) to fold an underpair to your Aces when he's drawing to only 2 outs? The Chicago player played this hand perfectly by check-calling the whole way against a solid pre-flop 3-bettor. Roy also played it perfectly including his flop and turn bets. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Vincent Merlino, 31. Dec 2002 09:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes there is a reason you want him to fold his under pair and this example proves exactly why. Roy thought he had the best hand the whole way and had no reason to think otherwise. He pushed the local off his hand(which was winning the whole way). Although I do understand your point Dynasty. These players are not going to hit there two outs in the long run against you but the local could have easily taken down this particular pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 31. Dec 2002 20:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "These players are not going to hit there two outs in the long run against " That's exactly why you DON'T want to bet or checkraise Roy off his KK. You want him to continue putting money into the pot while a huge underdog. Would you be so quick to get somebody holding 22 to fold after the flop? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Lee Vaughn, 30. Dec 2002 20:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Obviously I don't play to the level of either of the players in question, but here is my thought. If there are not obvious draws on the board I like the check-call on the flop followed by a check-raise on the turn. I would think you have to go for the check-raise on the flop or the turn if you are not going to just bet out. It may appear as if Roy got lucky and caught his two outer on the river, but it seems like he had every reason to believe he was in the lead the whole way and bet accordingly. By the way I read the initial post, he put in the last raise pre-flop and the local didn't show any strength to make Roy think otherwise. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Charles Kincy, 31. Dec 2002 00:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Heads-up against an aggressive opponent, it's good to go passive if you have a good but not great hand. By staying passive, you give the aggressive opponent a chance to make a mistake by betting. You also save a little dough if you happen to have the worst hand--the local has to be somewhat concerned that Roy has AK, you see. I also do not think that Roy is out of line betting his KK all the way. In some situations, I would check the river instead, but betting it has value, because people might put me on a bluff and call. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, limon, 2. Jan 2003 12:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "chigago" should have check raised cooksie with his AQ. you can solidly put cook on the kind of hand (underpair) that he will bet the flop w/on a steal but fold to a raise or take one off and fold on the turn. you expect the same win but take away the free card opportunity (which i would have done) i dont like to give free cards in this situation. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 2. Jan 2003 14:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "you can solidly put cook on the kind of hand (underpair) that he will bet the flop w/on a steal but fold to a raise" Why do you want Roy to fold to a raise when he's drawing to a meager two outs in a small pot? Forcing your opponents to fold while drawing extremely slim is a substantial EV mistake. I think most of the posters here who are incorrectly wanting to force Roy off his hand are overratting the strength of the "mighty" KK. Ask yourself this: If you knew Roy held 22, would you still want him to fold his hand against your AQ if the flop was A,x,x? "i dont like to give free cards in this situation." It is not dangerous to give free cards in this situation. If Roy checks behind on the turn with the intention of calling on the river with his underpair, you'll make money in the long run by checking the turn. This hand was cross-posted on 2+2. The discussion there went into great detail on why both Chicago and Roy played this expertly. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Charles Kincy, 3. Jan 2003 03:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Agreed. I play underpairs almost exactly the same way Roy does. So players like "Chicago" terrify me somewhat. :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Snorbolus, 2. Jan 2003 13:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would have bet the flop. Hopefully I can win the pot right there. If not then a check-raise on the turn might get the job done. I like to play top pair very fast. If I never had to show it down I would be very happy. Snorbolus on 30. Dec 2002 12:53 Kevin J wrote: > I cross-posted this on 2+2. > > This hand generated some discussion in one of my local card rooms. It was > played by a Chicago local against Roy Cooke. I thought it was interesting. > Here's the hand as I understand it. > > The Chicago local raised UTG with AQ and Roy made it 3 bets from late position. > Heads-up. > > The flop came AXX. Local checked, Roy bet, local called. > > The turn was a rag. Local checked, Roy bet, local called. > > The river was a K. Local checked, Roy bet, local called and lost to KK. > > The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I > didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy > to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine. > > The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely > ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to > bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been > thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ > or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think? > > The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet > the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. > Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning > was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. > How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for > it? > > So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot > down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as > possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, > although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose > there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between > winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here > against a two-out hand? > > > Anyway, I thought the hand was interesting and might generate some discussion > here. > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 2. Jan 2003 14:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "I would have bet the flop. Hopefully I can win the pot right there. If not then a check-raise on the turn might get the job done. " You are throwing away money by playing this way against a solid pre-flop 3-bettor. A solid player will reraise you with better hands (AA and AK) and fold worse hands. You don't want to get reraised by the better hands. And, despite your statement, you shouldn't want him to fold an underpair in this small pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Snorbolus, 2. Jan 2003 20:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Dynasty, Your arguments are persuasive but I still can not bring myself to like the way that Chicago played the hand. Perhaps in this situation - where you are heads up and either (most likely) a massive favorite or far behind and also where you feel that betting will cause any hand that you can beat to fold - check calling all the way is the best play. I don't know. One thing that occurs is that if you really can rely on Roy to fold any hand that can't beat AQ then why not bet out every time, including those when you don't have an ace? If you can't rely on Roy to fold his kings (or similar holding) to a bet then why not bet the flop with your AQ? I will say that my reasoning becomes shaky if I bet flop and Roy raises. What then, check call to the river or just muck and be done? I suppose that it depends on how weak I think that Roy thinks I am. I am not trying to be argumentative, just to learn something. I haven't looked at the 2+2 thread yet. If the answers to my questions are there I apologize for asking them again. Snorbolus on 2. Jan 2003 14:42 Dynasty wrote: > "I would have bet the flop. Hopefully I can win the pot right there. If not then a > check-raise on the turn might get the job done. " > > You are throwing away money by playing this way against a solid pre-flop 3-bettor. A > solid player will reraise you with better hands (AA and AK) and fold worse hands. You > don't want to get reraised by the better hands. And, despite your statement, you shouldn't > want him to fold an underpair in this small pot. > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 3. Jan 2003 00:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Against a player like Roy, one of the best reasons for checking and calling is that you can count on him to be aggressive and bet with KK-JJ like he did in this hand. There's just no way Roy is going to get scared with KK just because an Ace comes on the flop, especially when his opponent isn't betting. In fact, I believe Roy would have and should have bet the river with KK even if the river card had been some rag. Checkraising the flop or turn with JJ or TT against and opponent capable of folding KK or QQ on an Ace-high flop is a very viable play. In fact, I'm sure that if Roy had JJ or TT in this hand, he would have bet both the flop and turn hoping his opponent folded KK or QQ. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Snorbolus, 5. Jan 2003 17:50 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Dynasty, Now that I have read all of the posts (here and on 2+2) in this thread, and thought about it a lot, I am convinced that you are right. In retrospect I am a little surprised that I was so dead set against Chicago’s play. I don’t think it was being up against the mighty KK that bothered me. I believe my problem was that I was slow to realize how solidly you can put Roy on either (less likely) best hand or (most likely) only 2 outs in this situation. It was an interesting hand. I believe that I have learned by thinking about it. Thanks to you and to Kevin J for posting. Snorbolus on 3. Jan 2003 00:47 Dynasty wrote: > Against a player like Roy, one of the best reasons for checking and calling is that you can count on > him to be aggressive and bet with KK-JJ like he did in this hand. There's just no way Roy is going > to get scared with KK just because an Ace comes on the flop, especially when his opponent isn't > betting. In fact, I believe Roy would have and should have bet the river with KK even if the river > card had been some rag. > > Checkraising the flop or turn with JJ or TT against and opponent capable of folding KK or QQ on an > Ace-high flop is a very viable play. In fact, I'm sure that if Roy had JJ or TT in this hand, he > would have bet both the flop and turn hoping his opponent folded KK or QQ. > > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, TOM WAGGONER, 3. Jan 2003 01:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It seems to me that the Chicago local played the hand too timidly, probably because Roy 3 bet him pre-flop. I think that he should have let Roy know where he was by either betting the flop, or checkraising the flop or turn. If he does that, Roy will have to release his hand. Basically, Roy hit a two outer, thinking he had the best of it all along, because the local never made a move at the pot. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 3. Jan 2003 15:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| "If he does that, Roy will have to release his hand." I've asked this over and over to several other people who have participated in this thread and the one on 2+2. Why do you want Roy to fold his 2-out hand when the pot is so small? If Roy had 22, would you also want to bet/check-raise him off his hand on an A,x,x flop (no 2) if Roy would bet if you checked to him? Where's the value in getting an opponent to fold a 2-out hand in a small heads-up pot? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Kevin J, 3. Jan 2003 20:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| This is really the whole reason I posted the hand in the first place. I actually thought the guy from Chicago played it pretty well. But several other players in the room (one who is exceptionally good) thought he played it terrible. I couldn't see why, so I posted the hand. I'm pretty much in agreement with all you have to say on this hand. Thanks for your input Dynasty. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Vincent Merlino, 4. Jan 2003 12:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Dynasty, you are obviously a "mathematical" poker player and you are absolutely right that the pair of Aces is a big favorite over the Kings and is going to get the money the majority of the time. All we are saying is that if you have a chance to take down THIS POT then why not take it down? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Dynasty, 4. Jan 2003 15:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Assuming you have Roy beat (he didn't 3-bet with AA/KK/AK), I don't want to take this pot down on the flop or even the turn because I'm certain Roy will put more money into the pot on a later street. As long as Roy will bet the flop and either bet the turn or call a bet on the river, the check-call strategy wins the most money. Don't forget to consider that Roy 3-bet with AA/KK/AK and that your check-raise is going to be met with a 3-bet. The check-calling strategy against a solid 3-bettor is designed to win the most when you are ahead AND lose the least when you are behind. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Charles Kincy, 5. Jan 2003 01:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| dynasty is exactly right. what do you do if roy plays right back at you? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, -t, 5. Jan 2003 08:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I feel the chi towner played like a complete dolt from the flop on. especially against someone as cagey as the well known R.C. I guess play like this is what makes the 60 game so sweet. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, Roy Cooke, 7. Jan 2003 13:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Gee...all you guys are going to this lenth to take my money :-) LOL I think the right guy won the pot....He is such a nice guy and will take good care of the money! Roy Cooke | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke, John, 9. Jan 2003 19:36 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Look, here's what you should have done: bet continously, flop, turn, and river You most likely have the best hand, so you should bet it, If he plays back at you re-raise to see if he has it. If reraised, either reraise again or call and then do the same thing on the turn. On the river bet and if raised you can safely throw your hand away. This way you get huge value for your winning hand. Poker is not for feinthearted. I'm not here to say I'm better than anyone else, I just want to share what I've learned. Good luck and pockets aces, Johnny Chan. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|