King-low suited, different boards, bad players

[ellipse_87]

HPFAP, 163:

K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] LP, 4 limpers, you limp.

Sklansky says if someone leads and gets a call, you should fold when the flop comes K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], but "get involved" when it comes K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

Yet, the action in the second hand is a stronger indicator that I'm behind (although both are dicey). Why am I less willing to fold when I get stronger evidence that I'm behind? Is it that we can discount the semi-bluff in the first hand, either because the field is so crowded or the "bad" players don't know how to semi-bluff? Or is it that our 2-pair outs are tainted?

[RiverDood]

In the second hand, action can be coming from anyone with middle pp's such as 77-99 (and maybe even 33-55), hoping that no one has Kx and that all unpaired overcards will fold. Their bets are defensible, but we beat their hands.

Not so in the first case. Anyone with 77 or lower isn't likely to bet this. Anyone with TT-QQ would have raised preflop. If they're betting, they most likely have Kx, an OESD or a flush draw. Toss in any two of those, and we're in trouble.

Also, in the second hand, we've got 1.5 outs on the runner-runner diamond flush and 0.5 out on the double-gutshot straight. Throw in three more outs for the 5, and we've got enough scraps to justify seeing the turn cheap even if we're unsure whether the K is good.

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
If they're betting, they most likely have Kx, an OESD or a flush draw. Toss in any two of those, and we're in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what makes me say that we have a greater chance at being ahead with the first hand--all the draws that are leading this flop or calling ahead of us. We should be more reluctant to fold the more likely it is that the bettor or caller has only 32-35% equity, no?

I really hate calling with either of these flops.

I'm mainly confused because the example is supposed to be illustrating Sklansky's point that there are plays you can make against bad players that you normally wouldn't make against good players. Thus, calling with K5s in anticipation of making superior decisions after the flop.

But given that the opponents are bad, it's hard to read any meaning into their post-flop actions. A bad player will bet middle pair into that first flop as often as he will an underpair on the second flop. I really don't see significantly greater prospects for putting bettor and caller on a hand for one flop as opposed to the other, except to say that there are more semi-bluffs in the first flop.

I suspect what it comes down to is this: This is a marginal play, where only a slight increase in our opponents' equity can mandate a fold. On either flop, we don't know if we're ahead. However, on the second flop, on those occassions when we are ahead, we have greater equity than when we are ahead on the first flop, given the 2-1 shots (OESD's/fl.draws) that are surely out there on the first flop.

Therefore I'm beginning to think that it's the likelihood of being sucked out on, when we are ahead, that collapses our equity on the first flop and leads to a fold.