I really am supposed to go broke

[Bet-and-win88]

I just played my usual NL ring game online (I don't like online poker because my edge of reading my oppenents drops down).
Stacks both about 200
I get dealt KK UTG+1 9 handed, blinds 1/2 and see UTG limping. I make it 12 (pretty loose callers out there and this raise is necessary to get heads-up), 3 folds and MP (don't know the exact position) calls without any hesitation. My read was that he played his big hands preflop slow. I've played tight so far and only raised with premium hands and I think you knew that. So this instant call made me suspicious. Wouldn't he reraise with JJ, QQ, AK to isolate me? Everybody folds except the BB.
Flop: 555
BB checks and I make it 35, MP calls instantly, BB folds.
And at this point I was pretty sure he got aces out there. He would have reraised his high pairs and broadways except AA (and KK) and he wouldn't call an almost pot-sized bet with two overcards or a middle pair.
I check the turn, he checks behind.
I check the river, he checks behind and shows Aces.
(strange check there)

I don't want to analyze it any further but I'm pretty sure, that I have some problems with my gut instinct. Everybody is supposed to go broke on that hand but not me. It isn't my weak-tight attitude because I can play very aggressively when necessary.

I had always a very good gut instinct and it was rarely wrong, but in these situations I can't decide whether I'm blessed or cursed.

[SplawnDarts]

You did the right thing and got the right result, for the right reasons.

What's the problem here? That hand was played very well. Just because someone thinks you OUGHT to go broke doesn't mean you really should.

[Bet-and-win88]

Right, but why can't I value-raise to get paid off?
With this flop and no ace out there you can also fold kings preflop because you fear aces! Harrington says it's longterm -EV and I think many else do.

[SplawnDarts]

Not sure I follow. You made a very convincing argument your opponent held AA. If that was your reasoning at the table, then your conclusion has to be that you're WB and need to check/fold. Which is what you did.

There are lots of situations where people say you "ought" to go broke, but very frequently they're wrong. There's no benefit to going broke here - it's straight up -EV.

You should be thrilled this guy gave you two free shots to hit your 2-outer. By playing it right you turned a 92% chance you go broke into a 8% chance you bust him. That's f'n great, not cause for alarm.

[Bet-and-win88]

I simply mean, that I'm not sure it was played correctly. I followed my gut instincts and some not really proven reads and play check/fold on the turn and river with the second best hand. Next time I am wrong and it costs me a lot of money not to bet for value down the road with these hands. So I'm not sure if a good gut instincts can compensate these losses.

[KinkyKid]

The weird part about this hand is that the guy with AA, who supposedly knew you played very tightly, puts you on having a five in your hand. Which is a little weird. Thats the only reason I can see for his god awful checks on turn and river. Or you made the hand up to look good to an internet forum, and then put it in the one place you wouldn't be laughed out of. I think you should go tell BBV about your read.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply mean, that I'm not sure it was played correctly. I followed my gut instincts and some not really proven reads and play check/fold on the turn and river with the second best hand. Next time I am wrong and it costs me a lot of money not to bet for value down the road with these hands. So I'm not sure if a good gut instincts can compensate these losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you've basically getting at is the two fundamental lines of thinking winning players employ.

The first is to be an averager. This is the method Harrington advocates (since you mentioned him). It relies heavily on hand range math and generally doesn't try to excessively narrow that range. It tends to make lots of "uncertainty calls" and presumed value bets in uncertain circumstances.

The second line of thinking to be a detective - trying to narrow the range of possible hands down as far as possible by logical deduction, and if that still leaves you with a questionable decision, look for additional (thin) information to bias it one way or the other. This line of thinking relies heavily on reads and player history because there's almost never enough info in the betting to definitely determine what your opponent has.

The play you made was fundamentally a detective play, and a VERY good one, but it seems like you wished you had made the averager play and bet the turn (and maybe river).

I think that's the exact wrong mental road to take. Most top players are detectives, not averagers. I am as well, although I'm not a top tier player. I believe the detective approach is fundamentally stronger because when you get the right info you can make absolutely sick plays. However, sometimes there's just not enough info to be a detective, and that's where averaging still has value.

I know you're upset about this hand for some reason, but I think it's a good candidate for a "When I knew I could play" hand.

[Black_Angler]

No you really did the right thing, you had the right read.
If you were checking and didn't know WHY, then you would have reason to be concerned. But you had a good read, and more importantly you TRUSTED your read. My problem is that I have great reading skills, I just don't always trust them. Which is why NL drives me up the fkin wall and I usually stick to Limit [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

On another note, to me (and I am far from a NL expert) it was this player playing poorly. Checking Aces on the turn to trap you on the river, PERHAPS. But when you check the river, he HAS to push it or at least make a good sized bet there to make some money on his hand. He gave you a free river on your two outer and a free showdown. The real question is, if he makes a good sized bet (half the pot, let's say) do you FOLD? That might be the real reason you didnt go broke, because he didnt bet it [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


DW

[Bet-and-win88]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's the exact wrong mental road to take. Most top players are detectives, not averagers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this approach much more and will try to sharpen those skills.

[ QUOTE ]
The weird part about this hand is that the guy with AA, who supposedly knew you played very tightly, puts you on having a five in your hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't get that.
Maybe he thought I was betting with a couple of high cards and won't pay him off, but even then ...

[ QUOTE ]
Or you made the hand up to look good to an internet forum, and then put it in the one place you wouldn't be laughed out of.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm serious.

[ QUOTE ]
The real question is, if he makes a good sized bet (half the pot, let's say) do you FOLD? That might be the real reason you didnt go broke, because he didnt bet it

[/ QUOTE ]

There were two ways to go broke:
1. Betting for value to get all the chips on the river.
2. Calling his value bets.
At least I avoided the first one, but I can't say if I wouldn't have called a nice pot-sized bet on the river. If he shoves I tend to trust my read, but if he gives me around 2:1 I just have to call.
You're right, this would have been the real test and as I have proven often enough, I call despite of my gut instincts and reads.
"I know I'm beat, but ..."

[justscott]

gut instinct = "common sense" its not magical...