Simple One

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how is defending k2o +ev?

[/ QUOTE ]

stox's new book says to defend there. i also think it's really loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely borderline, not sure where we unequivically say to defend here, but ultimately two important factors are how wide is button's range and how well does he play? Also how well do you play [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[The Bryce]

Working backwards from what kind of hands I play in the BB HU I would be very surprised if defending K2o against the button was -EV (unless the button is really nittish). Sure his range is half as wide, but there's an extra half SB in the pot and K2o is a pretty decent hand (derrr, 3 bet!).

[Heisenb3rg]

Unfortunatly there are SOOO many variations of LAGtard that it's too complex to generalize situations like this without a better read other than "he's a LAGtard".

I know it sounds like a cop out , but it's true.

I've met LAG's who would bet ANYTHING here if you check to them, because it is the easiest form of bluffing, and they sense weakness. Many won't bluff raise hands that they think have barely any showdown value "A4o/K7o" because surprisngly, many are also afraid of folding the best hand.

I've also met LAG's who would check behind anything except two pair here/diamond draw here, making a bet clearly correct. Or even super LAG's who will raise 100% of their range here, making a bet even more correct [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Hypothesising the best play against the entire LAG community is going to be impossible. The only assumption I think is fair is

1. They're not folding a pair of Aces or better
2. They're bluff raising enough to make calling a raise profitable relative to the pot odds.

As a default, because the only information you have is he's a total moron I'd probabily just go with the logic of
hey im ahead of 66% of his range that will likely call me here, a bet is +EV on itself, not just as a defensive bet".

By checking. you give your opponent control of the hand and allow him to exploit you to the fullest by fluke. This is of course, given the assumption that he wont fold a pair.

While against the aggregate LAGtard check/calling MAY be better, there are some LAG's where checking here would be a pretty big mistake (one's who'll check any one pair behind). Also, betting would be barely a mistake against the ones checking favors.

Optimally, given any opponent range, how would KQ fall in hands? My guess is it's probabily very very close between check/calling or bet/folding (bet/call ace two pair hands + sets is probabily enough to leave you unexploitable by bluff raises)

Hope that was readable.

PS:

Big little offsuit combinations less than ace high suck OOP against even a 50% PFR raise unless those players suck postflop... I dont underestand how stox plays them profitbly [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'd love to see a seminar on how to play these or something :P

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

I check and hate myself immediately, he checks T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and I win the pot.

Bryce ran the hand ranges, which look roughly correct to me and suggest that I have plenty enough equity to bet, even if I "have" to call a raise. His range is quite heavily weighted toward weak aces, especially as he's a spewmonkey and would very likely have raised the flop with those rather than just calling down.

However, I think the "raw" hand ranges are slightly mitigated by two factors: (1) as Leader indicates, he might very well bet a lot of his Ax hands, since he's dumb and does not read hands very well; (2) There is a small chance that he has a busted diamond draw (I say small because a lot of the high-ranking diamonds are on the board), in which case the play is probably to check and induce a bluff.

I think betting is probably like $3 Sklansky Bucks better but I'm still not certain.