Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

UTG is the table maniac, but I hadn't seen him limp-reraise yet. MP2 is young and seems like a relatively good player. Game is 30/60 at Resorts, but as usual, the game plays like 3/6 online at best.

Hero has K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] in SB.

UTG calls. UTG+1 calls. 1 fold. MP1 calls. MP2 calls. 3 folds. Hero in SB raises. UTG 3-bets. UTG+1 folds. MP1 calls. MP2 calls. Hero Caps. UTG, MP1, and MP2 call.

Flop is 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (18.5 SB)

Hero Bets. UTG calls. MP1 calls. MP2 folds.

Turn is 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (10.75 BB)

Hero checks. UTG checks. MP1 bets. Hero raises. UTG folds. MP1 folds.

River is 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (14.75 BB)

Hero bets. MP1 raises. Hero calls.


What do you think?

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

I'd just bet the turn. No one has shown any interest on the flop, and this could easily get checked around, and you lose value from anyone that wants to call with 2-6 outs.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

I'd just bet out on the turn. Why give it a chance to be checked around? Also, I'd edit the post to make MP1 call on the turn instead of folding.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'd edit the post to make MP1 call on the turn instead of folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange... I don't have the edit button showing up on my screen. But you're right...that is a mistake.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

Bet/call the turn.

Bet the river, or c/c if you were raised on the turn.

- Zach

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

Dear god man, checking this turn is suicide...

Who is going to bet your hand for you? The answer is: you don't know. You are giving free cards to As and gutshots which are worth a ton in this gigantic pot.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

i would like to hear your reasoning for checking the turn.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

I would have bet the turn. You have no way to protect your hand here other than to lead into the likely raiser, and hope he pops it. Checking the turn, while it happened to give the opportunity to checkraise/protect, was not something you could have anticipated beforehand.

Calling the river raise is fine, although I think you should have check-called the river. If you are ahead, you want to give the aggressor the chance to bluff the river on a busted draw. If you are behind to a boat/trips, betting out this river card will only get you raised.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
Calling the river raise is fine, although I think you should have check-called the river. If you are ahead, you want to give the aggressor the chance to bluff the river on a busted draw. If you are behind to a boat/trips, betting out this river card will only get you raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very flawed advice. Betting the river is correct and it's not even close. You are leaving out the scenario which is far and away most likely, which is that you bet and your opponent calls with an inferior hand.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Calling the river raise is fine, although I think you should have check-called the river. If you are ahead, you want to give the aggressor the chance to bluff the river on a busted draw. If you are behind to a boat/trips, betting out this river card will only get you raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very flawed advice. Betting the river is correct and it's not even close. You are leaving out the scenario which is far and away most likely, which is that you bet and your opponent calls with an inferior hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think this is right, Will. Action on the prior streets makes it unlikely to me that the bet on turn was from a top-pair. I think you can rule out overpairs because this player did not raise preflop. My hand reading would say the villain has a boat, trip 5s, or a flush draw. My answer depends in part on the fact that this was a 30/60 live game. Say what you want, but players at this limit are not all monkeys. They are capable of reading hands, and live players in particular are capable of laying down. A hand like A7 might well fold the river, giving the bet -EV.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

My basic thoughts are:

1. Given pre-flop action, many opponents would not raise a 7 on the flop here. In fact, a majority of plays might not because most players are pretty passive. So there are many top pair type hands that might be in play that will call a river bet.

2. Some opponents will not open-raise hands like 88 pre-flop. Most won't raise 66 or 44, which are hands that might bet this turn AND call a river bet.

3. A 5 or a boat becomes significantly less likely once we do not get three-bet on the turn.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
there are many top pair type hands that might be in play that will call a river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
66 or 44, which are hands that might bet this turn AND call a river bet

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think these hands call the river bet, even though the pot is large, where they have been checkraised on the turn by the preflop capper. Not in a live 30/60.

[ QUOTE ]
A 5 or a boat becomes significantly less likely once we do not get three-bet on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this is true.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]


I dont think these hands call the river bet, even though the pot is large, where they have been checkraised on the turn by the preflop capper. Not in a live 30/60.



[/ QUOTE ]

Live players suck at poker often, and I'm taking the OP's word for it that it "plays like an online 3/6 at best."

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
i would like to hear your reasoning for checking the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reasoning for checking the turn was that I rarely see people check-reraise UTG with anything other than AA or possibly KK. I felt that UTG probably had aces and I had a feeling that he was waiting for the turn to pop it. (I grant you that I should find it unlikely that he had aces when he called the flop, but I was having one of those sessions where evryone was beating me). I decided that instead of getting raised on the turn that with such a huge pot, I would check/call the turn and river. When UTG checked the turn and MP1 bet, I felt it was now unlikely that UTG had aces, so I raised.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I dont think these hands call the river bet, even though the pot is large, where they have been checkraised on the turn by the preflop capper. Not in a live 30/60.



[/ QUOTE ]

Live players suck at poker often, and I'm taking the OP's word for it that it "plays like an online 3/6 at best."

[/ QUOTE ]

The 30/60 game averages 4-5 to a flop, often with limpers, which is why I compare it to an online 3/6 game. I do agree that with the exception of the maniac, most of the other players are reasonable card readers.

By the way, if the turn gives you a rainbow flow, I assume y'all feel the same way about checking the turn? What probability to you give to the maniac having AA? (I'd guess the maniac's stats are 50 VPIP, 13 PFR)

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
4-5 to a flop, often with limpers, which is why I compare it to an online 3/6 game

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you find these 3/6 games?

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
My reasoning for checking the turn was that I rarely see people check-reraise UTG with anything other than AA or possibly KK. I felt that UTG probably had aces and I had a feeling that he was waiting for the turn to pop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. If you thought he had aces, why would you check raise him? I don't get it.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My reasoning for checking the turn was that I rarely see people check-reraise UTG with anything other than AA or possibly KK. I felt that UTG probably had aces and I had a feeling that he was waiting for the turn to pop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. If you thought he had aces, why would you check raise him? I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had thought that UTG (the limp-reraiser) had aces. After he checked the turn as well, I check-raised MP1.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

Online, in a no-limit ring game or especially a tournament, lots of players like to limp-reraise with AA or KK in any situation, usually when it is wrong (it is very rare when you should try this but there are a few times where it might be profitable). Usually in a situation like this, the player sees the pot getting bigger and his eyes widen with the size of the pot, so he throws in a reraise with QJs because he knows it plays well in multiway pots, completely disregarding the strength indicated by your raise. As far as I can tell, though, your limp-reraiser gets out of the way on this hand, so what about MP1? Hard to put him on an exact hand here. If he flopped a set, why not raise the flop with the action behind him? And if not that, rereaise the turn against 1 other player? A 5 is possible but unlikely, although you can never quite rule something like that out. Like everyone else said, just bet the turn, you are still probably ahead, only a 5, set, or 24??? is ahead of you. Kind of a weird pot for 30/60 live, I suppose.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dear god man, checking this turn is suicide...

Who is going to bet your hand for you?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about the player to your left who was described as "the table maniac"? This is a great spot to trap the field for two bets on the turn. When it checks around, the free card rarely costs you the pot. Anybody with outs to beat kings up wouldn't have folded the turn anyway. The only real question is which line gets more money in on average and in this spot, it's the check-raise.

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dear god man, checking this turn is suicide...

Who is going to bet your hand for you?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about the player to your left who was described as "the table maniac"? This is a great spot to trap the field for two bets on the turn. When it checks around, the free card rarely costs you the pot. Anybody with outs to beat kings up wouldn't have folded the turn anyway. The only real question is which line gets more money in on average and in this spot, it's the check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bobby,

You make an excellent point. I hadn't realized that UTG was the table maniac.

If he is in fact that, the limp reraise needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, if he is such a maniac, isn't it worth considering betting and hoping to get raised, so we can three-bet? Or does this become a bet-control issue, in which case we don't want to open ourselves up to putting in 4 bets on the turn?

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

I would have bet that turn - I'm surprised the check raise worked, I find they rarely work when I need them to, and I'd be afraid of losing value - besides, betting out, you *may* have received additional bets from UTG, or MP1 may have raised for you, giving you a chance to check the river.

AB

Re: Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser
 

Looking at the pf action, and assuming your assessment of the skill level is correct, I've got to think that mp1 has A5 or A7 suited, or perhaps TT, JJ, QQ or AA. I could see ace-suited getting in for 3 pf (personal prejudice), or maybe he was going to be the limp reraiser but the maniac beat him to it, lol. Anyway, you beat 3 of those 5 hands. I could see the avg. player betting the turn with an overpair or "putting you on AK" and betting A7, but not three-betting in fear of trip 5s, a bigger overpair or a flush draw. The river raise to me means overpair or trip 5s.

Since you only beat 3 of the 5 hands chk/caliing the river is the way to go, no? 2x you'll lose 2 bets and 3x you'll win 1 bet if you bet out, so your ev is slightly negative.