How would you play a KK from the button, heads-up, after the flop shows an A?

[Gnikace]

Excelent analysis, vinnie, thank you very much! Checking is the right thing to do. Hold'em is amazing.. I have a lot to study and improve.

 

[Gnikace]

For part 1 - I would still put in a raise with KK on the button unless I know one of the players behind me likes to raise. Then I can play based off that.

For part 2 I would like to know what type of player is calling in the big blind and what the preflop raise was. Is this a player that likes to defend his blinds or not? Tight or Loose? You can make arguments either way depending on your opponent.
If I have an unknown player, I would likely make a c-bet.

Good points. Observing who you are playing against is critical. If against a very loose aggressive player, like we see many times in micro MTTs, it can be really good to limp knowing he will go all in almost instantly after you limp... he will just go all in with almost any hand seeing just one limp

You have some errors in the calculation. We don't have 100% equity when worse hands call, and our equity is (win%*pot - bet). Even if we had 100%, it would be (0.285 * 14.5 - 4) or 0.1325 in your original calculations, but worse in the actual. We also have equity when called by better 43%*(8.69%*14.5 - 4) or -1.18, which is not quite as bad as you gave.

I get 53.19% equity with that range checked down. This is just using Equilab, but that shouldn't be off too much.

If it checks down, we have 3.46xbb average EV.

There are 289 combos in this range.

129 of them are {top pair, two pair, or better}: 8.69%
78 of them are single pairs {middle, second, or worse}: 84.75%
4 of them are open-ended straight draws: 63.91%
78 of them could be considered complete misses and will fold: 100%

129/289 * (8.69% * 14.5 - 4): -1.223
78/289 * (84.75% * 14.5 - 4): +2.237
4/289 * (63.91% * 14.5 - 4): +0.073
78/289 * (100% * 6.5): +1.754

Total combined EV: +2.841

2.841 is worse than 3.46, so betting the flop makes us less money than checking, even in your scenario. A scenario where we get calls from 22, 33, and 65s, all of which have no draw and are horrible pairs. I think that is pretty optimistic on an Ace high flop, OOP, against a pre-flop raiser. I think these assumptions are far too optimistic, but we can go by them.

Checking the flop and calling the turn will have higher or at least equal expectation to betting (as we can assume that hands which won't call on the flop might bet the turn when we show weakness). We are still calling against all the hands which beat us, so our EV will be worse than if it checked down.

Are you really worried about being double-barrel-bluffed on the turn and river OOP on an Ace high flop, just because you checked behind on the flop? If so, the solution is going to be adding more value to your flop checking range. Hands like AQ (and KK ironically enough), where you can check and call turns and some rivers (not with KK but yes with AQ) when an opponent decides to lead. You can also bet AQ on the turn, if your opponent checks again. Heck, I probably check behind AA here, because there's just nothing out there that can call a bet.

It is really suicidal for the OOP player to have a high two barrel frequency on the turn and river here. There are many A-x hands in the Button's raising range which won't always bet this flop, but also aren't folding to two bets. Granted, some of the worst of those hands "should" be folds to two bets, but people don't like to fold Aces, even Ace-X they would never bet themselves.

Why do we check behind in position aside from because we missed and/or are weak? Pot control, encouraging bluffs, deception, etc. Or, like in this spot, because checking the flop and calling a single bet on a later street is higher EV than betting the flop is.

 

[AviCKter]

FCKed it up while ranging Villain, twice!

Great, Vinnie. Thanks for pointing it out. You see, I told you I suck at post-flop analysis.

So, the EVbet = 0.285*6.5+(0.285*(10.5*0.85-4*0.15))-(0.43*(4*0.92-0.08*10.5)) = 1.8525+(0.285*(8.925-0.6))-(0.43*(3.68-0.84)
=1.8525+2.3726-1.2212
EVbet = +3.0039
EVcheck = +3.575
So yeah people who're saying Check has a better equity than bet, are right (With the range that we've assigned to the Villain)

But just for argument shake, let's see what happens when we change his range.
Eg. BB Defense range: {22-55, 66-77(3-bets 1/2 the time, flats the other half), A2s-A7s, A2o-A9o, K6s-KTs, K8o-KJo, Q8s-QJs, Q9o-QJo, J8s-JTs, J9o-JTo, T8s-T9s, T8o-T9o, 97s-98s, 98o, 86s-87s, 87o, 75s-76s, 76o, 65s, 54s}
BB 3-bet range: {88-AA, 66-77(3-bets 1/2 the time, flats the other half), A8s-AKs, ATo-AKo, KJs-KQs, KQo}

Now the analysis turns its table, because

EVcheck = 0.64*6.5 = +4.16
EVbet = 0.39*6.5+(0.33*(10.5*0.85-4*0.15))-(0.28*(4*0.92-0.08*10.5))
=2.535+(0.33*8.325)-(0.28*2.84)
EVbet=+$4.4771
In this case, betting the flop would be more profitable than checking.


And, as you can see ranging the Villain might be the key to the problem. If we can properly range him, I guess the analysis would be different and we might draw to a better conclusion.
I'm pointing this out, because I had done this analysis before and betting the flop dominated checking. i.e. 2nd pair like holding KQo in a AK3 board or QJ in a KJ2 board, you have to bet the flop (Assuming the board doesn't have flush draw to it, the analysis changes with that). In my opinion you should bet your entire range there (In the context, playing against a BB defense).

But thanks to Vinnie, I know I still have a lot to learn. And hopefully you'll be there to help me.

You have some errors in the calculation. We don't have 100% equity when worse hands call, and our equity is (win%*pot - bet). Even if we had 100%, it would be (0.285 * 14.5 - 4) or 0.1325 in your original calculations, but worse in the actual. We also have equity when called by better 43%*(8.69%*14.5 - 4) or -1.18, which is not quite as bad as you gave.

I get 53.19% equity with that range checked down. This is just using Equilab, but that shouldn't be off too much.

If it checks down, we have 3.46xbb average EV.

There are 289 combos in this range.

129 of them are {top pair, two pair, or better}: 8.69%
78 of them are single pairs {middle, second, or worse}: 84.75%
4 of them are open-ended straight draws: 63.91%
78 of them could be considered complete misses and will fold: 100%

129/289 * (8.69% * 14.5 - 4): -1.223
78/289 * (84.75% * 14.5 - 4): +2.237
4/289 * (63.91% * 14.5 - 4): +0.073
78/289 * (100% * 6.5): +1.754

Total combined EV: +2.841

2.841 is worse than 3.46, so betting the flop makes us less money than checking, even in your scenario. A scenario where we get calls from 22, 33, and 65s, all of which have no draw and are horrible pairs. I think that is pretty optimistic on an Ace high flop, OOP, against a pre-flop raiser. I think these assumptions are far too optimistic, but we can go by them.

Checking the flop and calling the turn will have higher or at least equal expectation to betting (as we can assume that hands which won't call on the flop might bet the turn when we show weakness). We are still calling against all the hands which beat us, so our EV will be worse than if it checked down.

Are you really worried about being double-barrel-bluffed on the turn and river OOP on an Ace high flop, just because you checked behind on the flop? If so, the solution is going to be adding more value to your flop checking range. Hands like AQ (and KK ironically enough), where you can check and call turns and some rivers (not with KK but yes with AQ) when an opponent decides to lead. You can also bet AQ on the turn, if your opponent checks again. Heck, I probably check behind AA here, because there's just nothing out there that can call a bet.

It is really suicidal for the OOP player to have a high two barrel frequency on the turn and river here. There are many A-x hands in the Button's raising range which won't always bet this flop, but also aren't folding to two bets. Granted, some of the worst of those hands "should" be folds to two bets, but people don't like to fold Aces, even Ace-X they would never bet themselves.

Why do we check behind in position aside from because we missed and/or are weak? Pot control, encouraging bluffs, deception, etc. Or, like in this spot, because checking the flop and calling a single bet on a later street is higher EV than betting the flop is.

 

[Marcos mats]

Suppose you are at the button and have KsKd. Everyone folds. Would you limp or raise? Now, suppose you raised and just the BB called. The flop comes Ac6h9s... BB checks... what would you do? And what would you do if the BB bets?

Without thinking much, I would pass because I wanted to discover the owner of the Aces and, if nobody bet, I bet from 3 × to 5 × the blind for the owner of the aces appear. I bet on the certainty that my hand is the strongest, ok.

We are together.
😎👊

 

[vinnie]

But just for argument shake, let's see what happens when we change his range.
Eg. BB Defense range: {22-55, 66-77(3-bets 1/2 the time, flats the other half), A2s-A7s, A2o-A9o, K6s-KTs, K8o-KJo, Q8s-QJs, Q9o-QJo, J8s-JTs, J9o-JTo, T8s-T9s, T8o-T9o, 97s-98s, 98o, 86s-87s, 87o, 75s-76s, 76o, 65s, 54s}
BB 3-bet range: {88-AA, 66-77(3-bets 1/2 the time, flats the other half), A8s-AKs, ATo-AKo, KJs-KQs, KQo}

Now the analysis turns its table, because

EVcheck = 0.64*6.5 = +4.16
EVbet = 0.39*6.5+(0.33*(10.5*0.85-4*0.15))-(0.28*(4*0.92-0.08*10.5))
=2.535+(0.33*8.325)-(0.28*2.84)
EVbet=+$4.4771
In this case, betting the flop would be more profitable than checking.

• EVcheck = 0.639 * 6.5 = +4.15

EVbet =

• Folds: 0.328 * 6.5 = 2.132
• Worse Hands: 0.388 * (14.5 * 0.811 - 4) = 0.388 * (7.7595) = 3.01
• Better Hands: 0.284 * (14.5 * 0.0873 - 4) = 0.284 * (-2.7342) = -0.776
• = +4.366

This range had 237 combinations, and we're 64% against it. Like you said. 90/317 are better: 28.4% (8.7%), 123/317 are worse pair or open ended draw: 38.8% (16 are open-enders, which I assume we keep 81.1% if we do and 83.4% if we don't), 104/317 fold: 32.8% (100%)

I reran these numbers, but in this case we do end up with more equity from betting. But, we've removed a lot of his A-x combinations and included more bad pairs that he is calling with. We could get even better, if we remove all A-x hands and have his call with any pair and any draw. But, these sort of range constructions and assumptions are pretty wild.


And, as you can see ranging the Villain might be the key to the problem. If we can properly range him, I guess the analysis would be different and we might draw to a better conclusion.

I'm pointing this out, because I had done this analysis before and betting the flop dominated checking. i.e. 2nd pair like holding KQo in a AK3 board or QJ in a KJ2 board, you have to bet the flop (Assuming the board doesn't have flush draw to it, the analysis changes with that).

Like I said, I think your range here is unrealistic. It's basically assuming that he holds very few hands that beat you, and calls very wide with hands you can beat. How many people are really calling with worse than third pair? Of these players, how many are 3-betting A8s? If they're passive calling stations who will call down with horrible pairs, it seems much more likely that they are equally passive pre-flop and will be calling most or all of their A-x hands. And, those players who know that A-x is a good 3-bet (A6 - A9 are great for many reasons), might also be prone to check-raise bluffing some of these flops with hands that miss.

There are some players who are aggressive pre-flop (and an 11% 3-bet is a pretty aggressive player) but passive post-flop, but they are as rare as unicorns.

In my opinion you should bet your entire range there (In the context, playing against a BB defense).

This is a different post, but this is also a bad idea. Your opening range has way too much air on that board to c-bet 100%. An observant player could check-raise you with reckless impunity if you c-bet 100% of your range. Something like 40-50% of your range is pure air on this flop, and only 28% of your range is top pair or better (plus some of those top pairs are stuff like A-2 where you should be folding).

If you are only c-betting pairs or better, your flop checking range is wide enough and weak enough that your opponent can call the BB 100% of the time, check the flop, and play you perfectly (folding to your bets with air and betting all the turns to pick up the pots you miss). They will show a profit doing this, even with 100% of their hands.

What you need is a balanced betting and checking range, one where each category contains value and air. You will be checking the majority of your complete misses and some of your value hands. You will be betting many of your value hands for value, as well as some of your [complete air] as bluffs. The value hands in your checking range protects your checks, so the BB can't just bet all the turns after you check. The air in your betting range gives value to your bets, because the BB can't just fold everything that doesn't beat middle pair.

 

[eyeluvpoker]

Depends on position. If I get to act without any prior bets I would throw out a 1/3 - 1/2 pot bet and see what happens from there. If someone comes over the top they either have the Ace, 2 pair or flopped a set. They could also be on a flush or straight draw depending on what the board looks like. Live it is easier to read but online it is a crap shoot. If I think they are bluffing or on a draw I will come back over the top. Always have those 2 outs if needed!!!

 

[eberetta1]

Suppose you are at the button and have KsKd. Everyone folds. Would you limp or raise? Now, suppose you raised and just the BB called. The flop comes Ac6h9s... BB checks... what would you do? And what would you do if the BB bets?

If the BB min bets I would call. If it is higher than a minimum raise I would fold. The thinking being, I don't mind losing my minimum raises if it puts in the other players mind that I am willing to chase (in this case chasing a K, even though I could be losing to Aces).
I would not risk my money on losing to bets higher than minimum raises, because I would want to bet more when I have a better hand than the one I have at this point. I am not a risk taker, so I probably leave a lot of money at the table.

 

[AviCKter]

• 
  Like I said, I think your range here is unrealistic. It's basically assuming that he holds very few hands that beat you, and calls very wide with hands you can beat. How many people are really calling with worse than third pair? Of these players, how many are 3-betting A8s? If they're passive calling stations who will call down with horrible pairs, it seems much more likely that they are equally passive pre-flop and will be calling most or all of their A-x hands. And, those players who know that A-x is a good 3-bet (A6 - A9 are great for many reasons), might also be prone to check-raise bluffing some of these flops with hands that miss.
  
  There are some players who are aggressive pre-flop (and an 11% 3-bet is a pretty aggressive player) but passive post-flop, but they are as rare as unicorns.

• 
  
  Aren't we all making some assumptions here. Lets look at with fresh eyes:
  
  

  In my opinion you should bet your entire range there (In the context, playing against a BB defense).
  
  This is a different post, but this is also a bad idea. Your opening range has way too much air on that board to c-bet 100%. An observant player could check-raise you with reckless impunity if you c-bet 100% of your range. Something like 40-50% of your range is pure air on this flop, and only 28% of your range is top pair or better (plus some of those top pairs are stuff like A-2 where you should be folding).

  
  When you're opening from the BU, the BB should have a rough estimate of what percentage of hand you're opening with from that position, if he doesn't he should make a guesstimate from heuristic or any other experience. Let's say for argument shake he thinks you're opening 30% from button, reasonable? Tight, but reasonable?
  This looks like a 30% range: {22+,A2s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,98s,A2o+,KTo+,QTo+,JTo}
  
  So what hands do you think he should defend with from BB, given that he's assuming you're opening this range?
  Let's do some maths for it, he has to call 2bb to win 6.5bb(=1bb Big Blind+0.5 Small Blind+3bb Raise+2bb Your call) , so in order to for him to break even he needs 2/6.5=31% against your range.
  And if you put it down on your equity calculator, you can see that even hands like 53o, 74o, have that equity against your range.
  
  But lets say, he's not that analytical, but he knows by heuristics which hand he should defend. Is this a fair enough range for him to defend?
  {88-22, AJs-A2s, K8s+, Q8s+, J8s+, T8s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, AQo-A2o, K9o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o, 98o, 87o, 76o}
  and have 3-bet range of {99+, AQs+, AKo}
  
  Even against that range on that board, we still have 58% equity overall.
  He misses the flop 31.5%, 32.5% has weak middle pair, combine these two you have around 64% where he's weak or completely missed (i.e. why I think you should c-bet that flop, you're betting 4 to 6.5, i.e. your bluff only has to work 38% time).
  36% of the time he's top pair or better, i.e. hands that we're in a lot of pain against.
  On the notion of check-raising us, if we c-bet 100% of the time, I don't think that's optimal OOP. Because we're very likely to call in position (like you said, 40-50% is bluff, i.e. 50-60% is value), on a dry board like that. True, he might on occasion find the balls to do it (3-barrel bluffs), but very unlikely. Not true that we have to fold weak hands, in position, to a check-raise. On a dry board like that, check-raising is never a good play, OOP. If he's a pro and knows this, he might only be trying to exploit that very fact (i.e. 36% of the time). And remember, he too has weak hands 64% of the time (off that he'll be folding 31.5% gtd, in theory atleast).
  And a pro can do much better with: "Check-call the flop, lead the turn and pile the river" vs "Check-raising the flop"
  
  The more we widen our range, the more hands he should call. And thus starts the game of cat and mouse, strategy and counter-strategy, attack and defense. Did somebody not say, BB is the position you're going to lose the most.
  
  Again, any additional information might be great. Any hand observation, notes from previous hands, all good and important.
  
  P.S. On the note of why we should c-bet with 2nd pair, I'll write an entire post about it, later.

 

[kraemer]

Checking might seem +EV here... but I think You are not taking into considderation that someone with A x might fold his winning hand... Depending on the kicker he doesn't neccessarily have a good reason to think that his pair of aces is the winning hand here... You raised pre-flop so You could as well have AK, AQ....

Depending on what we know about that player we could get him to fold A 10 and smaller A x hands...

 

[Temirgali]

Who can advise the school of poker or a link, other than pokerstars.

 

[spottedflyer]

i would definitely make a small bet because in my opinion, if he has an ace he wont fold unless hes got an ace with a weak kicker. at least thats what i think a smarter player would do