How many re-raises before you fold KK?

[AKQJ10]

No, that's the same thing Gordon says. The fourth raise is usually aces.

Incidentally, a lot of people erroneously call raises reraises at times so that's why I wanted to clarify.

[SplawnDarts]

It's interesting that this has changed over time. I seem to recall a comment by TJ that at one time in NL holdem a re-raise was often AA or KK, and the seccond re-raise was 99% AA.

I believe that, with relativly tight players who know eachother's ranges, and will only (re-)raise for value (ie. when they have an edge on the portion of their opponent's range that they believe will call), this is precisely correct.

However, now, with the proliferation of LAGs, the first raise often times means they got 2 cards. The seccond raise means a conventionally playable hand with the better end of 2 to broadway or a pair. The third raise means strength against 2 to broadway/pairs ie. AA, KK, QQ. The 4th raise means strength against that range, which is usually AA. However, play so deep that a fourth raise happens before someone decides to move in is rare in my experience.

[AKQJ10]

Interesting point, Splawn. Shouldn't this be approaching some sort of equilibrium where a reraise is "out of line" at precisely the game theory-optimal frequency?

I mean, if my opponent just "knows" my reraise means KK, AA then I'd be stupid not to reraise every so often with AJ and try to push him off of a JJ overpair. Not so often that he catches on, of course.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting point, Splawn. Shouldn't this be approaching some sort of equilibrium where a reraise is "out of line" at precisely the game theory-optimal frequency?

I mean, if my opponent just "knows" my reraise means KK, AA then I'd be stupid not to reraise every so often with AJ and try to push him off of a JJ overpair. Not so often that he catches on, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]



I don't know, but it's interesting speculation. Let me see if I can work it out.

Actually, scratch that. It's probably too difficult to think about in game theory terms. The ToP optimal randomized bluff/call strategy was worked out on the end where there was no chance of the hands changing values. Here things aren't so pretty, and there's an implied odds/outplay issue looming large.

I can tell you how I think about it without game theory, however. I find it's rare in practice that you can profitably bluff into a raised pot before the flop in deepstack NL because pot odds make it expensive & implied odds and uncertainty often dictate that your opponent call or push. As a result I'm pretty much working the value side. My entire strategy is based on observation and explotation of opponent tendencies, ie. getting out of the way of tight raises and calling or re-raising ones that appear to be light or complete air. The good thing about that is that since different opponents have different tendencies, and some of my decisions will be based on reads rather than cards anyways, it APPEARS that my preflop play is randomized. I think that's all I really need to satisfy the game theory side of it for practical purposes.

The idea of not (re-)re-raising except with extreme strength, to then set up the re-raise bluff may be attractive against theoretical opponents, but it probably just makes you a nit in practice. You're far too likely to have your theoretical masterpiece of a fake-AA bluff called by some drunk guy or maniac who completely missed the low rate at which you re-raised over the last 6 hours. Furthermore, you've set up a bluff you can only use once in every several hundred hands or so (how often do you get the chance to re-re-raise for value???), lest the increased frequency tip off your opponents that you're now mixing in some bluffs. In my opinion there are so many better places to put your effort and analytical talent that I don't even worry about it.

Obviously, when stacks get sufficiently short, everything I said becomes wrong\irrelevant and most every time you open the betting you have no idea if you're value betting or semi-bluffing.

[Alfil]

Probably when the re-raises reach the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop.

[monkover]

it depends...

[ninner]

i was playing a tourney in pokerstars and i was heads up ..and i had KK and went all in....he had 22..and on the flop a 224 was shown...talk about the luck

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
i was playing a tourney in pokerstars and i was heads up ..and i had KK and went all in....he had 22..and on the flop a 224 was shown...talk about the luck

[/ QUOTE ]

holy [censored] you waited almost 2 years to make THAT post???

[Big Bend]

Can we discuss this in more practical terms? Say a 10000 BB stack..

$1/2 NL game, 2 players, each has $20000.

Guy with KK does first raise to $6, AA reraises to $18, KK does 3rd raise to $54, AA reraises to $162, KK reraises to $486... then AA raises to $1458, KK makes it an even $4500, AA goes all in.

At this point I fold my KK. Hell I prob fold when AA jacks it to $1458.

I guess the stacks weren't deep enuf on HSP for Farha to fold KK to Greenstein's AA.

L8r... BB

[GiantBuddha]

[ QUOTE ]
However, now, with the proliferation of LAGs, the first raise often times means they got 2 cards. The seccond raise means a conventionally playable hand with the better end of 2 to broadway or a pair. The third raise means strength against 2 to broadway/pairs ie. AA, KK, QQ. The 4th raise means strength against that range, which is usually AA. However, play so deep that a fourth raise happens before someone decides to move in is rare in my experience.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there are players who's raise means "I was dealt cards and I decided to play them." Reraising this player means "I want to play too, and my cards are actually good." Once someone besides a nit reraises, you've got to figure you're going to see a flop. At 100BB deep, the second raise is often around 10BB, so there's still room for implied odds, etc. Once you see a third raise, that person's gotta figure there's not much outplaying someone after the flop. It's become a question of who's got better cards.

The change in preflop play I think comes a lot from the popularity of tournaments, and the fact that a lot of people see "crazy" all-ins preflop, but don't understand that it's because the stacks are relatively short. They take low M play and apply it to a deep stack ring game situation, not understanding that it's a totally different situation. In turn, many good players observe this and take advantage by loosening up their own raising standards.