Re: NL100 KK against 4bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
We are getting closer to 16:1 arent we?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's 2+18+31= 51 in the pot. 183 remaining in villain's stack, so if we stack him we make 234. We have to call 13 to see a flop, 234/13 = 18.

18:1.

[ QUOTE ]
And no thats not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL?

Re: NL100 KK against 4bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are getting closer to 16:1 arent we?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's 2+18+31= 51 in the pot. 183 remaining in villain's stack, so if we stack him we make 234. We have to call 13 to see a flop, 234/13 = 18.

18:1.

[ QUOTE ]
And no thats not enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL?

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok. Sorry I added wrong I think. Anyways we are barely getting this odds to set mine

Re: NL100 KK against 4bet
 

The thing is you don't need all that high of implied odds here, because we are very confident that your opponent has exactly AA here, it is different than the cases in your link where we don't know the villians range.

I would think getting 10:1 here would be a profitable call, 16 or 18:1 is a no-brainer.

Actually this is a 5-bet not a 4-bet correct?

Anyway I always get myself in trouble on these type of flops, thinking the villian is betting so small, maybe I am good here. You made a nice fold on the flop, one that I wish I would make more regularily.

Re: NL100 KK against 4bet
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ok. Sorry I added wrong I think. Anyways we are barely getting this odds to set mine

[/ QUOTE ]

That post should be applied in situations where we have a villain 3-betting us with a wide range. That's not the case at all here.

You'll notice that he calculates the minimum implied odds we need to be 11.7:1. This is far less than 18:1. However, we must note that the calculation assumes:

1) Villain stacks off every time we hit
2) Hero stacks off every time he's beat

Although (1) will not be completely true in practice, it is a decent assumption to make here since we know villain's range is heavily weighted towards AA and the pot is big. Secondly, if we are willing to get away from AKx type flops, then (2) may not be true.

What this all means is that the set odds needed in this case are overstated by that post.