Playing KK vs. a limp-reraiser

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dear god man, checking this turn is suicide...

Who is going to bet your hand for you?

[/ QUOTE ]
How about the player to your left who was described as "the table maniac"? This is a great spot to trap the field for two bets on the turn. When it checks around, the free card rarely costs you the pot. Anybody with outs to beat kings up wouldn't have folded the turn anyway. The only real question is which line gets more money in on average and in this spot, it's the check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bobby,

You make an excellent point. I hadn't realized that UTG was the table maniac.

If he is in fact that, the limp reraise needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, if he is such a maniac, isn't it worth considering betting and hoping to get raised, so we can three-bet? Or does this become a bet-control issue, in which case we don't want to open ourselves up to putting in 4 bets on the turn?

[AlienBoy]

I would have bet that turn - I'm surprised the check raise worked, I find they rarely work when I need them to, and I'd be afraid of losing value - besides, betting out, you *may* have received additional bets from UTG, or MP1 may have raised for you, giving you a chance to check the river.

AB

[five4suited]

Looking at the pf action, and assuming your assessment of the skill level is correct, I've got to think that mp1 has A5 or A7 suited, or perhaps TT, JJ, QQ or AA. I could see ace-suited getting in for 3 pf (personal prejudice), or maybe he was going to be the limp reraiser but the maniac beat him to it, lol. Anyway, you beat 3 of those 5 hands. I could see the avg. player betting the turn with an overpair or "putting you on AK" and betting A7, but not three-betting in fear of trip 5s, a bigger overpair or a flush draw. The river raise to me means overpair or trip 5s.

Since you only beat 3 of the 5 hands chk/caliing the river is the way to go, no? 2x you'll lose 2 bets and 3x you'll win 1 bet if you bet out, so your ev is slightly negative.