KK against a calling station

[seano34]

Yep I didnt read the hand properly

[fretelöo]

Well, let's see.

Let's assume he "bluffs" 20% of the time. Let's include here also those times where he c/r us with A8 on the flop and "value-c/r" the turn as he still puts us on AK.
The other 80% we loose.
Out of the 20% "bluffs", he'll bet the river 50%. Sometimes he thinks he's value betting his 2pair, sometimes he feels he should fire a third barrel.
If he admits defeat and just checks, he'll call a bet 35% of the time.

So that leaves us with:
behind: .8 * - 2BB = -1.6BB
ahead: .2 * ((.5 * 11.75) + (.35 * 11.75) + (.15 * 10.75)) = .2 * (5.875 + 3.525 + 1.6125) = 2.2BB

So, if those figures ar reasonable, it is right to call down. However, they are probably somewhat optimistic.

[Absolution]

I thought this was a mistake after I played it. I'm pretty sure he had a piece of this, but that turn card was an excellent bluffing card. I think I should have checked and induced a river bet.

[DrModern]

I'm still confused about the meaning of your read, Absolution. I'd probably call down if he's the "action junkie" type, which seems to fit with him playing every hand and sometimes being aggressive. Though I don't think this is quite what a "calling station" is.

If he were a true calling station I'd probably bet-fold the turn.

I'm not sure I see the rationale behind checking behind the turn to induce a bluff. Villain could have a 4-flush hand here, and we don't want to give a free card to that. It also gets less value from the times he has JJ or A8.

If the turn card is a good bluffing card, and you know villain will often try to bluff you on it, then bet-call has to be better than check, no?

[Absolution]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still confused about the meaning of your read, Absolution. I'd probably call down if he's the "action junkie" type, which seems to fit with him playing every hand and sometimes being aggressive. Though I don't think this is quite what a "calling station" is.

If he were a true calling station I'd probably bet-fold the turn.

I'm not sure I see the rationale behind checking behind the turn to induce a bluff. Villain could have a 4-flush hand here, and we don't want to give a free card to that. It also gets less value from the times he has JJ or A8.

If the turn card is a good bluffing card, and you know villain will often try to bluff you on it, then bet-call has to be better than check, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you play short-handed? This guy plays every hand, generally raises his good hands only, but has these random runs of aggression. That's fairly typical for short-handed calling stations.

[DrModern]

Yeah, I play a good bit of fish-max, actually. I don't really recall players like that but then again I haven't played in like 3 weeks.

[ciscociskers]

grunch

wow, if he plays every hand i'm at least calling down, i'm not surprised if he's doing this with air

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see the rationale behind checking behind the turn to induce a bluff. Villain could have a 4-flush hand here, and we don't want to give a free card to that. It also gets less value from the times he has JJ or A8.

If the turn card is a good bluffing card, and you know villain will often try to bluff you on it, then bet-call has to be better than check, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the villain is an obvious calling station that won't raise without a good hand, then he likely has the Q here and you can fold.

If the villain will play back with more hands and is capable of bluffing, then checking behind this turn is better. I would be thinking that he has a hand like top pair or so after the PF raise and the flop c/r. While you don't want to give a free card to a flush, it is not as terrible to take a free card in a shorthanded pot as compared to a multiway pot.