$3/$6 no limit. AK facing all in bet....

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, obviously this guy's got balls where are yours? make the call you've got a real good hand... also, why no re-raise preflop? i see no scenario where taking it to $100 doesn't make your life a hundred times easier

[/ QUOTE ]

I do re-raise with AKo more than half the time preflop. However, I like to mix my plays up, and I had reasons not to re-raise. This time I chose not to make the re-raise for the following reasons:

1. I had position which I wanted to use post flop.
2. I had not seen him make any big huge over-the-pot size bets before. As such, I felt I could get the same type of information from him post flop without it costing me $58--of course I did not anticipate the all in.
3. My AK were off suit. I'll make the re-raise more often with AKs.
4. I wanted him to be less sure of my own hand. Re-raising again will give me more information, but it also gives my opponent more information about my own hand. If I make a re-raise, I am certain my opponent will put me on AK, AA, or KK. If I just had JTs, TT, or something, I would rarely re-raise. So, I wanted to keep my play looking the same to keep my opponent off of knowing what I really had. Again, in position, I can gain more information about my opponent's holding than he can about mine for every street of betting that we have.
5. I never fold to his min. raise, so his reasons for making the min. raise have to be to build a pot with a monster hand, to deceive me, or out of pure randomness? My experience has shown me the min. raise is most often a monster hand.

Anyhow, I strongly believe re-raising 100% is not correct. You need to mix it up a bit. Thus, I think the preflop call was justifiable.

Suppose, however, I did reraise to $100, and he called. Then he moves all in on the same Kxx flop. What's your play now?

[AAismyfriend]

you guys have the same hand

[smartalecc5]

I instacall this. I woudln't be surprised to see a QQ type of hand.. no Im not kidding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Spencer C]

i would've made the call with the pot being as big as it was to begin with, and i know that it might've been a little tougher than i made it out to be, but i think there's just too many ways for him to be semi-bluffing... if you had raised to $100 and built around a $220 i think that just makes the call all the more mandatory... i suppose you end up going against AA and KK sometimes; but i think you just gotta bite the bullet in these cases so you're not getting pushed around, esspecially in short handed play; also if he flips over KQ you start jumping for joy, and i definitely think that's a possibility in this hand the way it was played... i agree with what you about the positional advantage stuff, but i think that you got all the information you needed when he went all-in just like that, i see this much more as weakness than strength... maybe it's a small margin that you're winning with this call; but top players are constantly exploiting small margins to the fullest

[Spencer C]

[ QUOTE ]
i love how all the weaktights are giving him a perfect tag range of everything beating us and nothing we beat.

this guy probably has TT-KK and is sick of getting overcarded.

a 3.7 agg factorover a vpip of 55 is maniacally aggressive. you cannot fold TPTK to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

genius

[crosse91]

does anyone else hate preflop??

[J. Sawyer]

I've seen this so many times and it's always mid or bottom pair w/ like 87 in this case

[Haiku]

I call and expect to be shown an angry TT-QQ (maybe KQ from this player)) way more than enough to make this profitable. If he had a FD or anything reasonable he'd CRAI instead of just open shoving.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KK: You're drawing dead

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY

(and he has KK here like NEVER EVER)

3 ways to have AA
1 way to have KK
6 ways to have AK
18 ways to have QQ-TT
4 ways to have 888 or 666
3 ways to have A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

... not counting the times a 50/20 player can have hands like KQ or 55 here and just be totally out of line, which is definitely happening sometimes.

Call and turn a K to be on the safe side [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Gambool

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I am giving this maniac too tight of an image, and in retrospect:

1. Against a TAG, (who infrequently moves all in) folding is correct.
2. Against a decent LAG (who infrequently moves all in), folding is probably correct with marginal -EV if you call.
3. Against a semi maniac (who infrequently moves all in), calling is probably correct with marginal +EV.
4. Against a maniac (who moves all in frequently), calling is correct.

I believe this maniac fits into the third category. Had I called, I would have gained, on average, marginal +EV, but also a lot of variance.

===

ANALYSIS:

You have to discount the number of ways that villain will have any pocket pair under QQ. After all, there are two live limpers when he makes the min. raise. Why would he try to chase out limpers with 77? You then have to further discount the non hit pocket pairs because of the unliklihood that someone would be willing to risk an all in with an under pair. I just don't see someone (even a maniac) that has not moved all in on the previous 68 hands to suddenly move all in with an under pair.

You have to further discount the under pairs because he has to fear that I have AK, and he has to believe I will call if I do (since apparently 55% of you will).

To account for the unliklihood of someone moving all in with an underpair, I am going to use poker stove numbers of just one combination of QQ to account for all the ways he would do this with 77,99-QQ. I am going to use just one combination of 88 to account for all the ways he would min. raise preflop with 88 or 66. Finally, I am going to include only 1 possibility of AhJh to account for all the ways he would min. raise with AhJh, AhTh, and KhQh preflop.

Using these assumptions, folding is correct:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

13,860 games 0.005 secs 2,772,000 games/sec

Board: Kd 8d 6h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 38.0844 % 17.14% 20.94% { AcKs }
Hand 2: 61.9156 % 40.97% 20.94% { KK+, QdQh, 8h8s, AKs, AdQd, AdJd, AKo }

On our $402 call, we expect to return $345, an EV of -$57.

To get to a positive EV, we have to get to 44.37% equity.

The above numbers really describe a decent TAG. Against this semi-maniac player, I think you have to give him more credit. Let's give a maniac full credit for AdJd, AdTd, KdQd, any QQ, and any JJ with a diamond:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

27,720 games 0.016 secs 1,732,500 games/sec

Board: Kd 8d 6h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 46.8236 % 36.35% 10.47% { AcKs }
Hand 2: 53.1764 % 42.71% 10.47% { QQ+, JcJd, JdJh, JdJs, 88, 66, AKs, AdQd, AdJd, AdTd, KdQd, AKo }

Here, we have EV of +$22 on our $402 bet.

===

If you wouldn't mind, drop a quick reply of either "agree" or "disagree" to this analysis.

[Spencer C]

disagree, what about KQo and KQ with one diamond?? that's where your real +EV comes in