Readless play at NL100

[scottie_g]

I like a check-raise or check-call. I don't like betting out in this spot. Again, its very dependent on villain.

[goofyballer]

I would probably check-call the flop and check-fold the turn. I think this depends heavily on game dynamics; from what I understand you don't see a lot of light 3-betting at .5/1 FR, so you might try to snap off a CB from AK/AQ (even AQ is unlikely imo unless he turns out to be a huge maniac later) but he probably isn't firing a 2nd barrel with AK UI.

[ugignadl]

So I misplayed this? I did suspect as much.

[neverthink]

Leading out on the flop spells out your hand, and doesn't seem to have any obvious value. You lead and he folds AK, no value. You lead and he raises AK, and you still fold because you bet for information rather than value, and he gave you what you didn't want to see, so he wins with the worst hand. You can only lead out if you are willing to call or push over his raise, calling is far better as he'll fold Ace high to an all in you would presume. Overall, leading is negative EV a great chunk of the time.

Any action initiated by checking is much better. Check/raising is probably a little less preferable to check/calling because if the raise is called you can safely forget this hand and throw away to another bet if you don't improve. This is probably a break even prospect, maybe slightly profitable.

Check/calling is optimal imo as you put him to the test on 2 streets for the same price as check/raising yet do not have to put in as much yourself. It also looks like less of a play and he will be afraid that you won't go away and will slow down. Leading and check/raising could both be perceived as forms of stealing given how poor the flop is.

The only drawback to check/calling is you will never know where you are and know if you made the correct play. It goes against what the books teach you and you feel like you are a calling station. That's ok though in this situation though imo.

Generally, it's bad to bet unless you fold out better or get called by worse, particularly when you are not sure of your place in a hand.

[ugignadl]

Since I've now played around 2k hands with this villain, I can safely say he had KK or AA. One of the nittiest tightest rocks in the omniverse of poker.

With that said, do you not think if the turn and river were blanks, that he was going to bet the flop, turn and river for value? I do not disagree that I misplayed the hand (thus the post), however I do not think that I lost more than the minimum to what must have been his hand, given the current information.

In fact, even if he turned out to be extremely aggressive with AK, as some people are, what is going to stop him from firing two or three bullets? Are you just folding on the turn?

I am pretty sure check raising is the best play.

[neverthink]

If he is aggro enough to fire 3 times with AK, then he'll raise your lead with it a lot of the time also. Check raising gets some cash from a c-bet, but not as good as c/c and evaluate on the turn. You lost the minimum here through bet/folding, but it was a plan to always keep your losses small, rather than to profit.

[nlman]

In $100 full ring NL most people don't have the balls to reraise with anything other than AA/KK, especially if they are deep stacked. Sometimes you'd get an occasional reraise with AK, QQ/JJ or a high suited connector like 9Ts, but you'd need a read to know this. Readless I put him on AA/KK/QQ/JJ and fold unless I flop a set.

(From what it looks like so far, $200 NL gets a bit more tricky as more and more people add AK in the reraise mix, but still, more than 50% of the time you'll see AA or KK)

PS: I've seen quite a few AK bluffs that go all the way (especially after a reraise and especially if you just call his first bet on the flop). I wouldn't count on him stopping his bets on the turn.