KK vs aggro nit

[weknowhowtolive]

I reread some of the stuff I said and I'm not meaning to come off as a know it all. I'm trying to relearn the game and I want to understand why people would play this hand the way they state and why a check is more +EV than a C bet. And so far I really just dont see how you increase your value by checking into an ace with an underpair OOP.

[davidyang]

[ QUOTE ]
A tight, straightforward player is usually not going to call your bet with less than a pair of aces or the straight flush draw;

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So why would you want him to fold? Checking allows villain to make more mistakes, while betting while we're behind or ahead will make him play perfectly.

[weknowhowtolive]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]So if you allow your opponent to know what you have here, how do you expect to make more money?

"Every time you play your cards differently than if you could see your opponents cards, you lose"

If I can see my opponent has KK here, and he checks the flop when an ace comes, I'm betting the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although it makes it a little more obvious what you have, this allows villain to think that he can push you off your hand now. When we check the flop, we're doing so with the intention of calling regardless. When you add up the turn check and near PSB on the river with our seemingly transparent KK, it just doesn't seem like a bet villain would make if he had an ace. So, IMO, I would call in this spot on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]But you cant see what cards are going to come on the turn and the river. you are blindly checking with KK against an ace after you raised PF.

Seriously this doenst make sense. If you could see villains hole cards and he had an Ace, you're going to call the turn regardless?

[davidyang]

[ QUOTE ]
I reread some of the stuff I said and I'm not meaning to come off as a know it all. I'm trying to relearn the game and I want to understand why people would play this hand the way they state and why a check is more +EV than a C bet. And so far I really just dont see how you increase your value by checking into an ace with an underpair OOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely fine. I never took your posts in a negative way. We're all trying to learn. Honestly, I think this is one of the more interesting topics I've seen in the micro forums.

Also, I don't think a Cbet is TERRIBLE here. I just think that it can be more profitable to check in this situation against this opponent.

[davidyang]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously this doenst make sense. If you could see villains hole cards and he had an Ace, you're going to call the turn regardless?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I meant we're checking the flop with the intention of calling the flop ONLY. Then we re-evaluate on the turn. With villain's check, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that he has an A. If he bet the turn I might lean towards a fold, b/c I don't see this particular villain betting the flop AND turn with a hand we beat.

[Emperor Norton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A tight, straightforward player is usually not going to call your bet with less than a pair of aces or the straight flush draw;

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So why would you want him to fold? Checking allows villain to make more mistakes, while betting while we're behind or ahead will make him play perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. How perfectly do you play? Checking gives our opponent the opportunity to make a mistake; it also gives us the opportunity to make a mistake. Given our positional disadvantage, it seems entirely possible that the balance of mistakes will come out in his favor if we check/call. If we had position, or we had a strong read on how villain plays, checking might have a greater expectation than betting. I just don't think that's the case here.

[weknowhowtolive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I reread some of the stuff I said and I'm not meaning to come off as a know it all. I'm trying to relearn the game and I want to understand why people would play this hand the way they state and why a check is more +EV than a C bet. And so far I really just dont see how you increase your value by checking into an ace with an underpair OOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely fine. I never took your posts in a negative way. We're all trying to learn. Honestly, I think this is one of the more interesting topics I've seen in the micro forums.

Also, I don't think a Cbet is TERRIBLE here. I just think that it can be more profitable to check in this situation against this opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]Good. I didnt mean them negatively, and i agree, i really like this topic.

Here is my idea of how this would work, played from villain.

Hero raises preflop OOP. I call. Flop comes Axx. Hero checks. I feel i can safely represent an ace here without looking at my two hole cards.

Hero raises preflop OOP. I call. Flop comes Axx. Hero bets 2/3 pot. KK doesnt seem as likely into an Ace. Im now on my heels playing against a raised pot preflop which could easily be AK/AQ.


I DO see how #1 is more profitable IF you think you're actually ahead as hero. But...you probably arent. If he bets, you pretty much need to fold because you are probably up against an ace based on the PFC.

Just how I see it. I think I might be wrong.

[weknowhowtolive]

Ok lets look at this slightly different. Lets look at it in terms of pot control.

Does a c bet here on the flop allow you to play a smaller pot on the following streets vs a check?

[davidyang]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is my idea of how this would work, played from villain.

Hero raises preflop OOP. I call. Flop comes Axx. Hero checks. I feel i can safely represent an ace here without looking at my two hole cards.

Hero raises preflop OOP. I call. Flop comes Axx. Hero bets 2/3 pot. KK doesnt seem as likely into an Ace. Im now on my heels playing against a raised pot preflop which could easily be AK/AQ.


I DO see how #1 is more profitable IF you think you're actually ahead as hero. But...you probably arent. If he bets, you pretty much need to fold because you are probably up against an ace based on the PFC.

Just how I see it. I think I might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple of things that I have a problem with in your examples. First, in the original OP, villain raises and hero 3bets, which is significantly different then the situation you gave. That's part of the reason why I think an A is unlikely b/c a lot of combos of Ax will fold preflop except for AK and possibly AQs or something. This is talking about strictly what I perceive villain to have preflop.

Another problem I have with your examples is that you focus primarily on the flop. However, we gain more information in the OP, because the villain checks behind on the turn. Yet even more evidence suggesting that villain does not have an ace. If our KK is so transparent, why not get value from a hand that is highly unlikely to improve and will be in an extremely difficult spot with calling a raise on the flop AND turn. Then the huge bet on river, IMO, just does it for me, and I would call thinking he's on a bluff.

Against, a standard donk, I think a Cbet might be ok, b/c his range is a lot wider than the villain in this hand. However, having a bit of a read on villain here, and regarding him as at least somewhat decent, I think this allows him to make a mistake that he wouldn't have made otherwise had we just Cbet.

[weknowhowtolive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is my idea of how this would work, played from villain.

Hero raises preflop OOP. I call. Flop comes Axx. Hero checks. I feel i can safely represent an ace here without looking at my two hole cards.

Hero raises preflop OOP. I call. Flop comes Axx. Hero bets 2/3 pot. KK doesnt seem as likely into an Ace. Im now on my heels playing against a raised pot preflop which could easily be AK/AQ.


I DO see how #1 is more profitable IF you think you're actually ahead as hero. But...you probably arent. If he bets, you pretty much need to fold because you are probably up against an ace based on the PFC.

Just how I see it. I think I might be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a couple of things that I have a problem with in your examples. First, in the original OP, villain raises and hero 3bets, which is significantly different then the situation you gave. That's part of the reason why I think an A is unlikely b/c a lot of combos of Ax will fold preflop except for AK and possibly AQs or something. This is talking about strictly what I perceive villain to have preflop.

Another problem I have with your examples is that you focus primarily on the flop. However, we gain more information in the OP, because the villain checks behind on the turn. Yet even more evidence suggesting that villain does not have an ace. If our KK is so transparent, why not get value from a hand that is highly unlikely to improve and will be in an extremely difficult spot with calling a raise on the flop AND turn. Then the huge bet on river, IMO, just does it for me, and I would call thinking he's on a bluff.

Against, a standard donk, I think a Cbet might be ok, b/c his range is a lot wider than the villain in this hand. However, having a bit of a read on villain here, and regarding him as at least somewhat decent, I think this allows him to make a mistake that he wouldn't have made otherwise had we just Cbet.

[/ QUOTE ]My mistake on the betting.

I dont have a problem with the hand as played. After the check on the flop I think everything is fine after that.

My question lay with the single play... the flop check.