Why All-in with KK

[z28_RoadRage]

First of all, I can't afford these stakes, but I like to watch and try to figure out what cards are being played. Don't get to see much as there is a lot of raising and folding going on.

I was just watching a $500 SnG on partypoker .

3rd hand in
UTG folds
UTG+1 pushes all-in with KK
everyone folds except for the BB who calls with AKo.

I know you want to isolate with K's, but all-in for 60 chips. What am I missing?

Wouldn't a 4-5 BB bet do the same, but atleast give you outs when the Ace hits the flop, which it did and knocked the guy out.

I just didn't think there were donks at that level. Or as I said "Am I missing something?"

 

[switch0723]

you have no idea what the previous history of these guys is, they may have thousands and thousands of hands on each other as they may bump into each other regularly. Therefore utg+1 is aware that his shove will be called by a certain villain if they have a big ace or 88+ for example

 

[1122phoenix]

All in with 70/30 odds with you is not a bad move.

 

[Irexes]

I openshoved KK in a Cardschat game last night in the first few hands. Didn't get any takers but it's suprising how often you get a call with AJ+ and 88+. Lot's of ways to play KK in tournies.

Context is everything of course but if you play KK preflop afraid of an Ace on the flop you are playing it wrong.

 

[odinscott]

If you dont shove you definitely want to throw a big raise out there. If you slowplay AA or KK, you are just asking for your opponent to hit his draw, then you will be asking why you didnt shove your KK preflop...

 

[zachvac]

but atleast give you outs when the Ace hits the flop

Bad logic. While I agree most of the time I won't open shove KK, the point is to get worse hands to call (like AK). If we know our opponent has AK, we want our money in preflop because we know if he hits the A he'll play and if he doesn't he can get away. We're the favorite, we want the money in now. The question is whether the 4x pfr can extract more value than a preflop shove.

 

[zachvac]

But also don't mistake people who play those stakes as all good. I'm sure the majority are very solid, but often-times at tables like those you'll just get rich fish where $500 is just a tiny bit of money to them and they figure why not take a crapshoot with a tourney. Obviously the majority are not that way, just saying that all the people in the $500 tourneys are not extremely good players.

 

[z28_RoadRage]

I agree with what you are all saying, but switch0723 sounds more reasonable with the players having history together.

I never slow play A's or K's, I just wouldn't shove to win 60 chips. If he had of put in a 4-5x raise and got a re-raise, than I can see pushing.

 

[OzExorcist]

^ what Zach said. There are donkeys at every level. Hell - there's dead money in the Big Game at the Bellagio, and they play with $4-8K blinds.

That's not to say that this player was necessarily a donkey, they could have some good reason for making the play. But you're not good just because you're playing a $500 game.

 

[MitchellC]

My question is why would the A-K call for $60?

The K-K all-in makes no sense unless some history in these games, but the A-K is just a drawing hand. Isn't an all-n call a bad move as well?

Your opponent has a least a pair--so your a dog. Or, A-K for the tie. Right?

 

[zachvac]

A-K is just a drawing hand.

It's the 3rd/4th best hand in poker, drawing doesn't apply when facing an all-in, only equity does.

 

[odinscott]

My question is why would the A-K call for $60?

The K-K all-in makes no sense unless some history in these games, but the A-K is just a drawing hand. Isn't an all-n call a bad move as well?

Your opponent has a least a pair--so your a dog. Or, A-K for the tie. Right?

What Zach said, they are the 3rd and 4th best starting hands. Plus dont think that AK is worthless, because it is 50/50 with smaller pocket pairs (ok I think it is like 53/47, but close enough to call it a coin-flip).

 

[widowmaker89]

I also dont think all in to win 60 chips means he has at least a pair. This is a tough range to target but it is not strickly pairs. I would guess there are much more AK AQ type hands than AA KK in these situations.

 

[feitr]

He shoved KK because he wanted a call simple as that. He was obviously hoping like hell that somebody had a hand like AK/AQ or maybe QQ/JJ and wanted to gamble. Because KK is behind absolutely nothing preflop but AA any call for the KK preflop is golden 99% of the time. What he probably wanted to advoid is playing vs a hand like AK/AQ on the flop, which is basically going to get away for nothing or have KK beat. So basically at this stage of the game with tiny blinds, KK is only really going to get action after the flop from a hand that beats it, and IN NO CASE WHATSOEVER does anybody ever not want somebody to call their shove when they hold KK. So by shoving it is a win-win situation...you either pick up a few chips, which is moreorless all you are getting from the hand in any case, or you are dominating them (AA vs KK happens so rarely that it doesn't matter).

Calling with AKo is a terribly loose call however. Just isn't worth a coin flip at that stage of the game for 60 chips.

 

[arkadiy]

It's the 3rd/4th best hand in poker, drawing doesn't apply when facing an all-in, only equity does.

When did AK become the 3rd or 4th best hand in poker?

22 has better odds of winning vs AK....

 

[switch0723]

22 has better odds but a,k has better equity

 

[OzExorcist]

Calling with AKo is a terribly loose call however. Just isn't worth a coin flip at that stage of the game for 60 chips.

While it's not necessarily a call that I'd make, I don't think it need be immediately relegated to the "terrible" pile.

First off, they're not playing for 60 chips - they're playing for a whole stack and 60 chips. But more importantly than that, they're playing for a chance at early table dominance.

The benefits of winning go beyond just the chips in the pot. Holding a 2:1 chip lead on everybody else at the table, especially right at the outset, will let you dictate the pace of the rest of the game if you're smart about it, and let you keep chipping up with relative ease.

We need to remember that player history may come into this too - we've got no idea who these players are, but it's possible the KK shover is a LAGomaniac and the AK caller knows it, so KK was only a very small part of their range.

 

[feitr]

When did AK become the 3rd or 4th best hand in poker?

22 has better odds of winning vs AK....

It is all about equity. 22 is even money vs AK (odds for 22 is less than 77 for example coz the board will pair twice occasionally and make 22 useless) but it is probably a very slight dog vs 87s, which AK covers nicely. AK absolutely dominates any other ace, whereas it is a flip with 22. AK is a slight dog vs 33-QQ, but all of these dominate 22. Calling with AK is an acceptable play but calling with 22 is awful unless you have no other choice, because you basically beat nothing at all with 22.

@ OzExorcist

Yea sure they are playing for stacks, but the fact that only 60 is in the pot means nothing is at stake for UTG. Therefore he wants his shove to get called. And as such his range really can only be AKs QQ+. AKo is HORRIBLE vs that range. Unless UTG is a complete fish he can't possibly be shoving with AQ and AKo is simply no good vs anything else he could possibly come up against. Sure past history comes into play but again only a complete dumbass is shoving anything less than QQ+ AKs and the only logical range for a shove at that stage of the game is really KK+.

 

[OzExorcist]

Yea sure they are playing for stacks, but the fact that only 60 is in the pot means nothing is at stake for UTG. Therefore he wants his shove to get called. And as such his range really can only be AKs QQ+. AKo is HORRIBLE vs that range. Unless UTG is a complete fish he can't possibly be shoving with AQ and AKo is simply no good vs anything else he could possibly come up against. Sure past history comes into play but again only a complete dumbass is shoving anything less than QQ+ AKs and the only logical range for a shove at that stage of the game is really KK+.

Dunno that I agree with an AK/QQ+ range here - to borrow your term, unless the player is a complete fish, surely they're making a bet that's more likely to get them action with those hands?

It's possible (likely, even) that there's some second or third level thinking going on here: "This will look like I must have AA or KK, so they'll think that it's too obvious and I can't really have one of those hands, but I really do".

Or the player could be a complete donkey. I dunno. I'm just saying that without either side of the story here, we can't write either player's decision off.

 

[The Shrog]

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Plays at: Full Tilt
Likes: wild deuces
Posts: 1,570


^ what Zach said. There are donkeys at every level. Hell - there's dead money in the Big Game at the Bellagio, and they play with $4-8K blinds.

That's not to say that this player was necessarily a donkey, they could have some good reason for making the play. But you're not good just because you're playing a $500 game.

Off topic, but I've always been curious...is the "Big Game" a mixed game of limit....not no limit?

 

[OzExorcist]

Off topic, but I've always been curious...is the "Big Game" a mixed game of limit....not no limit?

According to the website of Barry Greenstein (one of the game's regular players), they play the following, usually for eight hands each at a time:

No limit / pot limit with a $100K cap:
(ie: no one player can lose more than $100K on any hand)

NL deuce to seven single draw
NL hold 'em
PL omaha
NL ace to five single draw

$4K / $8K limit:

Omaha 8 or better
Stud
Stud 8 or better
Deuce to seven triple draw
Limit hold 'em
Razz

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

When did AK become the 3rd or 4th best hand in poker?

22 has better odds of winning vs AK....

AK dominates a lot of hands in the average player's raising/calling range, 22 dominates pretty much nothing.

AK is dominated by 2 hands, 22 is dominated by 12.

 

[blankoblanco]

22 dominates pocket 1s though

 

[feitr]

Dunno that I agree with an AK/QQ+ range here - to borrow your term, unless the player is a complete fish, surely they're making a bet that's more likely to get them action with those hands?

It's possible (likely, even) that there's some second or third level thinking going on here: "This will look like I must have AA or KK, so they'll think that it's too obvious and I can't really have one of those hands, but I really do".

That doesn't make sense tho. The key is the fact that there is only 60 in the pot. It simply is illogical to risk open shoving from EP with a wide range when the blinds are nothing. It just doesn't make sense. I would perhaps expect a shove from EP with AQ from a 1$ SnG donkey but honestly that is about it.

The key is that UTG gains NOTHING AT ALL unless he is called. Therefore, he is a complete idiot if he is open shoving with anything that doesn't completely dominate the vast majority of hands that could possibly call. Therefore, AKs QQ+ is the only logical hand range.

I think a distinction needs to be made. I am not saying that this is a typical line for AKs QQ+ to take. It is, in fact, a very bizzare line to take for any range. What i am saying, however, is that no other range can logically take this line. So the fact that AKs QQ+ will often be played in other manners is redundant, because it is the fact that only AKs QQ+ will take this line that is important.

I can't even imagine how much of a donkey somebody would have to be to open shove at the start of a SnG with a wider range than that. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

OzE what do you think UTG could possibly hope to gain from shoving a hand like JJ or AQ? TT isn't calling a shove and AJ surely isn't calling a shove. If you shove JJ/AQ you are in very very very bad shape if you get a call. If you shove AKs QQ+ you are not (although i still think that KK+ is the most likely range for an open shove with no blinds).

 

[Egon Towst]

22 dominates pocket 1s though

Lolol.