$100nl KK, line on flop?

ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Chips
0
You don't know what this guy has and you don't know for sure if he's going to continuation bet.

Of course we don't, but we know what type of range he's on, and that range will almost always c-bet based on how he played pf.

It's possible he was making a play preflop and now he has a gutshot straight draw or open ended straight draw or flush draw.

And he could also have done it with 84 offsuit for top two pair - QUICK! Fold your hand ASAP!

The point is that he most likely has a big pair or AQ/AK here, and the ideal play against that range is to ch-r all in on the flop as played pf.

And if you push he'll probably call with QQ JJ 10 10 or 99 anyway.

Probably, but there's still a significant chance TT/99 can get away at that point.

You're also ignoring just how bad open shoving here vs AK/AQ is.

You have no solid reasoning here, ben. Everything you're saying just alludes to your fear of being outdrawn by hands that are so unlikely to be in his range, or to actually outdraw you (shoving to protect vs 3 outs is ridiculous).

Protecting our hand here isn't our objective - getting value is.

btw Jagsti, I think you played this hand perfectly. I also think 4-betting/shoving pf is fine, but this is clearly a higher EV line in my opinion. nh sir.
 
Jagsti

Jagsti

I'm sweet enough!
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Total posts
5,478
Chips
0
Cheers Chuck, and thanx to Ben and everyone else on this. This is why we post these HH's, at 1st glance it may look obv in how to play big hands, but ocassionally we need to look at them more closely to see how to extract the max in any given situation. OK it didnt work out as I expected but we have had good arguments in this thread, which is why we post this stuff.
 
B

Bentheman87

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Total posts
794
Chips
0
"Probably, but there's still a significant chance TT/99 can get away at that point.

You're also ignoring just how bad open shoving here vs AK/AQ is.

You have no solid reasoning here, ben. Everything you're saying just alludes to your fear of being outdrawn by hands that are so unlikely to be in his range, or to actually outdraw you (shoving to protect vs 3 outs is ridiculous).

Protecting our hand here isn't our objective - getting value is.

btw Jagsti, I think you played this hand perfectly. I also think 4-betting/shoving pf is fine, but this is clearly a higher EV line in my opinion. nh sir."

If he does have 10 10 - QQ here if we shove or check raise it doesn't really matter. The only time check raising here would be best is if we are sure he has AK/AQ/AJ/A10/small or medium pairs and we are sure he's going to make a bluff if we check and we are sure if we push he will fold. But if he does have Ace - X and choses not to bluff after you check then you've just given him a free chance to hit a miracle card and win a massive pot. Again, you do not know for sure that he is going to continuation bet, so the safer play is to bet first. He could also have Ace rag where he has 7 outs total (3 outs to hit an ace and 4 outs for a wheel draw), it's better to bet against these hands. He could also have an ace high flush draw or king high flush draw and in these cases it's better to bet. And you say protecting our hand here isn't our objective getting value is. When the pot is this large our objective should be to simply win it, not to get more value. If the pot is small and we have a big hand our objective should be to get more value later.
 
blankoblanco

blankoblanco

plays poker on hard mode
Silver Level
Joined
May 16, 2006
Total posts
6,129
Chips
0
ben, your argument is terrible. it's just a bunch of vague meaningless fluff. the "safer" play is to bet. so the hell what? yes we will lose the pot slightly more often when we check, but that doesn't make it wrong when our average expected value is still greater. is your understanding of poker that bad? guess what? we lose the pot slightly more when we raise 3x BB with AA than when we openshove for 100 BBs with AA. openshoving is "safer" and leaves us less likely to be outdrawn so i guess we should just do that! jesus.

and before you say it again, it DOESN'T matter if the pot is already "big" when there's SO MUCH more value left to be had. we're not interested in just "taking down" the pot with a big hand every time it gets remotely big. we want more. we want to play for the full stacks when the risk is low enough to deem it profitable. there's more variance, but in poker you're always increasing variance in order to increase your average expected value, just in more subtle ways (like not openshoving every time you have AA or a set). in cash games ALL THAT MATTERS is average expected value

When the pot is this large our objective should be to simply win it, not to get more value. If the pot is small and we have a big hand our objective should be to get more value later.

you don't need to keep spitting out your dumb aphorisms like they're fact over and over again. they really just show a poor understanding of the game
 
B

Bentheman87

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Total posts
794
Chips
0
"ben, your argument is terrible. it's just a bunch of vague meaningless fluff. the "safer" play is to bet. so the hell what? yes we will lose the pot slightly more often when we check, but that doesn't make it wrong when our average expected value is still greater. is your understanding of poker that bad? guess what? we lose the pot slightly more when we raise 3x BB with AA than when we openshove for 100 BBs with AA. openshoving is "safer" and leaves us less likely to be outdrawn so i guess we should just do that! jesus.

and before you say it again, it DOESN'T matter if the pot is already "big" when there's SO MUCH more value left to be had. we're not interested in just "taking down" the pot with a big hand every time it gets remotely big. we want more. we want to play for the full stacks when the risk is low enough to deem it profitable. there's more variance, but in poker you're always increasing variance in order to increase your average expected value, just in more subtle ways (like not openshoving every time you have AA or a set). in cash games ALL THAT MATTERS is average expected value"

In this particular hand check raising was better, since he did bluff after you checked. But you are assuming he's going to make an all in bluff or something if you check to him. How can you know he's not going to check behind you and take a free card? Look at it from the opponent's point of view. He had $109 before the flop and going to the flop he's got $75. He's not pot comitted. If you check to him he's not going to always make a big bluff with ace x or move all in, he's got to give you credit for a hand probably a big pair after all the preflop action. In this actual hand it turns out the opponent did bluff, but that's not always going to happen. What if in this hand the opponent checked instead of bluffed? Then the turn gives him an Ace and you just costed yourself a huge pot. It was a longshot for him to hit a 3 outer but you gave him infinite odds to draw out.
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Total posts
13,642
Chips
0
Alright last time. If you still insist that our hand is vulnerable (LOL) then I'm through with the thread. You just keep spouting the same nonsense argument over and over again with no solid reasoning.

It's extremely clear that check-raising is best here for several reasons.

-A 4-bet pf from a 14/10 tag is a TIGHT range, and doesn't include A-wheel hands. It's narrowed down to roughly JJ+, AQ+ (in fact I'm surprised he showed up with AQ).
-He's almost always c-betting that range
-We're a solid favourite over that range
-By betting, we scare out the hands that we're a massive favourite over, and lose tons of value
-Based on the JJ+,AQ+ range, he'll be drawing to the flush short of %2 of the time here (1 of 54 possible hand combinations)
-When he does check behind, he'll hit one of his outs %6 of the time when holding AK/non-A♣Q♣ AQ hand, %4 of the time when holding a smaller pair, and %26 of the time when he's got A♣Q♣ (which again only shows up %2 of the time). Actually the flush outs are discounted since we have the [Kc] too. Anyways, trying to protect against that range is ridiculous.
 
C

Czech Razor

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Total posts
41
Chips
0
I'm really surprised that the villain flipped up AQ and the pre-flop decision was incorrect no matter what the results of the hand were in my opinion. When you have AA or KK and your opponents are giving heavy action pre-flop why would you want that to change? He already stuck in 1/3 of his stack so he's most likely going all the way with this hand.
 
Top