How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

Villain in this hand is PinkRazor, a good tricky very aggresive player. I dont have the HH but this is almost exaclty how it went down. Efective stacks 3.8k
He probaly sees me as an fairly aggresive but good player, while somewhat loose and known to gamble with draws, but who slows way down once people start making larger bets/raises vs me.


I open raise UTG+1 with KK to 75, all fold around to PinkRazor who makes it 275, I call. Flop is 458r (550), he bets 400, I call. Turn is T (1350), he checks, I think a fairly long time about what I do if I bet and he check riases, finally I bet 900, he moves in very quickly and I instacall.

On the turn I basicly desided that if i make a reasonable bet this would be an ideal spot to push someone off jj-kk from his point of view, and up till now iv played my hand very consistently with jj-kk.

Any how, how foolhardy was this hand, rip in...

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

I think you should have raised the flop.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

OK...whats my plan then for the turn if he bets in to me a decnet amount, or i get checked to?

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

Whats his reraising range from the blinds when you raise from UTG+1? I would put you on set or overpair on the turn. So I wouldnt push without AA+. But maybe this guy would try to push you off JJ-KK. I wouldnt try that though.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

nh, holla.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

seriously, i think if villain is aggressive this is a nice line to win a lot. a more conservative approach with also be to check behind and call a very large river bet. but since K's usually rank to be pretty good and he is really representing a pocket pair here (whether he has it or not, obv) then i don't mind this line at all.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

Your line seems fine. 70% you are ahead and the way you played it makes it look more like a bluff.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

very good post duck: I agree that your line is a great one against a super aggressive and/or overplaying villain. But checking behind and calling a river bet or betting if checked to is a reasonable conservative alternative.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
very good post duck: I agree that your line is a great one against a super aggressive and/or overplaying villain. But checking behind and calling a river bet or betting if checked to is a reasonable conservative alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

By checking the turn the probability of the hero winning the hand on a bluff decreases immensely and if you are ahead there is a 5 to 10 % chance the villain will outdraw you. Against an opponent that aggressive you are obviously bluff calling flops slightly more and picking up pots with garbage on the turn every now and then. Against this type of opponent a check/call check/check induce bluff line should be used much less.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
very good post duck: I agree that your line is a great one against a super aggressive and/or overplaying villain. But checking behind and calling a river bet or betting if checked to is a reasonable conservative alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

By checking the turn the probability of the hero winning the hand on a bluff decreases immensely and if you are ahead there is a 5 to 10 % chance the villain will outdraw you. Against an opponent that aggressive you are obviously bluff calling flops slightly more and picking up pots with garbage on the turn every now and then. Against this type of opponent a check/call check/check induce bluff line should be used much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is very true and definitely something to think about a lot.

generally, if this board were two tone, i would take this point with an even greater weight... meaning i would gladly bet/call this turn all day every day. given that the board was rainbow though, we can assume he is semibluffing less (very little detective work on this forum will show that the results in THIS hand prove otherwise, but that is irrelevant) and so this bet to induce a semibluff check raise all in and win a big pot against a draw isn't as great a line.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
very good post duck: I agree that your line is a great one against a super aggressive and/or overplaying villain. But checking behind and calling a river bet or betting if checked to is a reasonable conservative alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

By checking the turn the probability of the hero winning the hand on a bluff decreases immensely and if you are ahead there is a 5 to 10 % chance the villain will outdraw you. Against an opponent that aggressive you are obviously bluff calling flops slightly more and picking up pots with garbage on the turn every now and then. Against this type of opponent a check/call check/check induce bluff line should be used much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post Bld, this is a great point. Does the situation change if you have AA? TT?

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does the situation change if you have AA? TT?

[/ QUOTE ] The only thing that changes is that the villain will outdraw you less ( now 5% at best) so this doesn't change things much. The hero is not folding kk on the flop or turn in this hand ever. So KK, AA, TT can be played pretty much the same. QQ on the other hand, may be a fold here.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the situation change if you have AA? TT?

[/ QUOTE ] The only thing that changes is that the villain will outdraw you less ( now 5% at best) so this doesn't change things much. The hero is not folding kk on the flop or turn in this hand ever. So KK, AA, TT can be played pretty much the same. QQ on the other hand, may be a fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I think I got it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said.

With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said.

With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size?

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

fwiw, im pretty sure there is a 0% chance pink has JJ/QQ here. its either 2 pair, set, or some kinda goofy draw. holla

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

I was thinking more along the lines of calling the cold bluf and not a semi bluf, which I thought might be possable for this guy as the board is so "scary" to a big pocket pair if alot of money is going in the pot.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

I agree about qq/jj, the most likley hand I figured him on was a suited connector/AA. THough after he moved in the possablity of AA pretty much disapeared in my oppinion with some peice of the board holding a conector being the most likley.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said.

With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size?

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know how much you need to balance that out. I mean, when you check behind on the turn its very often in order to call a river bet. So the only reason to balance it as I see it is so that opponent can't value bet AA/KK here 100% of the time when he has it. I don't think that happens often enough to make it worth checking TT on occaision. Maybe if you planned on folding QQ/JJ to a river bet more often than calling with it.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said.

With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size?

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know how much you need to balance that out. I mean, when you check behind on the turn its very often in order to call a river bet. So the only reason to balance it as I see it is so that opponent can't value bet AA/KK here 100% of the time when he has it. I don't think that happens often enough to make it worth checking TT on occaision. Maybe if you planned on folding QQ/JJ to a river bet more often than calling with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm speaking in metagame purposes. If you only check with either QQ/JJ or TT it will be pretty exploitable IMO. I figured it was something like this: bet with AA/KK or air, check with QQ/JJ or TT.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think TT is significantly more powerful than AA or KK here and should be played accordingly. I think checking behind with TT would be a mistake whereas with AA or KK, it might be OK (though a bit inferior for the reasons Bld explained). AA and KK are more or less the same. ... Other than that, I agree with everything Bld said.

With QQ/JJ, I think checking behind on the turn is a more serious option.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you checking with TT to balance out the times you check with QQ/JJ to control pot size?

[/ QUOTE ]I don't know how much you need to balance that out. I mean, when you check behind on the turn its very often in order to call a river bet. So the only reason to balance it as I see it is so that opponent can't value bet AA/KK here 100% of the time when he has it. I don't think that happens often enough to make it worth checking TT on occaision. Maybe if you planned on folding QQ/JJ to a river bet more often than calling with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm speaking in metagame purposes. If you only check with either QQ/JJ or TT it will be pretty exploitable IMO. I figured it was something like this: bet with AA/KK or air, check with QQ/JJ or TT.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I get that but HOW is it exploitable? I can't really see a way, except for the vbetting of AA/KK. I'd like someone to point out how a good opponent could exploit this in me, if I'm missing something. Have to go for now, but will check back in later.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

nah - not a situation to really worry about balance (since I will be betting with AA, KK, and air too, I won't be predictable); I just about always bet TT here.

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

[ QUOTE ]
nah - not a situation to really worry about balance (since I will be betting with AA, KK, and air too, I won't be predictable); I just about always bet TT here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected. I was going to write out a post to explain myself but quickly realized I was wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

gosh.. my post flop game must be way too tight. in general, i feel that i cehck behind this turn a LOT with KK. if not, im pretty much bet folding to shove. it just doesnt seem like there are many hands that pink_razor can have that KK does well against. its either a suited connector or something that has kings killed, and i just think the probability of AA, 2 pair, or a set are much hihgher than a goofy draw. meh, i guess im a big dumb nit. holla

Re: How ugly is this call with KK, 10/20 deep.
 

I like a bet of 3/4ths to a full pot bet. By flat-calling, you don't really knwo were you stand. The reason I would bet this is that he may have called with a smaller pair PF and thinks you could easily have overs. He may have a pair higher than the board such as 99+. The good thing about betting this flop is that he may raise your bet and pay you off. If he has a small PP that didn't set or overpair to board, he would probably raise to prevent you from drawing while also finding out where he stands. A flat-call would actually be the scariest play by him in this instance as he could very well be doing this with a set in hopes that he can draw you into the hand. Another possibility is that he does have a piece of the flop with a draw and would more than likely raise any bet you make on the flop in an attmept to shut you out.

So, IMO, a good-sized bet on the flop should accomplish numerous things for you and could allow you to win a big pot. The main reason for this play is that with a hand like this you do not want the pressure to be on you but on your opponent. By flat-calling on the flop, you are very suceptible to a turn bet (more than likely a big one too) and their is more pressure on you.

The play you made however is not that bad, but you have to be almost positive that he has JJ or QQ in order for this to be the correct play. Him having AA could make sense, but more than likely since this is a relatively scary board for overpairs, which could make him as scared as you with KK. If he does have AA, I don't really think you could help but lose some good money in this situation. If he had AA, he must be able to put you onto JJ+ and played it well.

-GrinDed-