[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
How about Winning overall with KK AIPF? Is that sufficient evidence? I can find you 100 players winning overall with KK aipf.

[/ QUOTE ]
That statistic is not directly relevant, as I pointed out earlier.

That KK is a winning hand overall does not mean you will win on average when you call all-in after a limp-reraise-push.

That AA is rare for your opponent to have does not mean it is rare when your opponent 4-bets from early position.

That you get called by weak hands does not mean passive players are pushing with weak hands.

If you want evidence that calling with KK in some situation is ok, find examples where people (not previously identifiable as maniacs) pushed with less than KK in those situations. Depending on the pot odds, you may need to find one hand worse than KK for every two times you see AA. If it's so obvious that calling all-in with KK is +EV, say at NL $100, it should be easy to find lots of these hands. Instead, people keep posting hands where someone with KK pushes, and someone else makes a bad call.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As has been discussed many times, you don't need to be 90% convinced that someone has AA to make it right to fold KK. Since you are less of a favorite over plausible worse hands (particularly Ax) than you are an underdog against AA, even a 50% chance that you are up against AA can make it right to fold against an overbet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely,

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you are wrong. This is a simple mathematical issue.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you are a fav, whether slight or not, over Ax or other hands gives your KK more equity against a villians range. Knowing someone could have a lone A should not sway you more towards folding but in fact the other way.


[/ QUOTE ]
Adding Ax hands to your opponent's range obviously should make you more eager to call. However, that's not what was being discussed. Replacing QQ with AK in your opponent's range is bad for you.

Let's suppose your opponent will only push with AA or AK. You are ahead of 8 hands, and behind 6. However, you are less of a favorite over AK than you are an underdog against AA, which means you are behind your opponent's range. KK has only 47.1% equity against {AK,AA} despite being ahead 57% of the time. It's not as dramatic as having a medium pair against a range of {TT+, AJ+, KQ}, where you are a 4:3 underdog despite being a favorite over 3/4 of the time, but the same logic applies.

AA wins 82% against KK. KK wins 74% against {QQ,AK}. If you are up against AA 50% of the time, and {QQ,AK} 50% of the time, then your equity is 46%, and you need about 7:6 pot odds to call, which you don't have against some overbets. My statement was correct.