KQs against a 3-bet

[boss]

I still find a check/fold quite weak in this spot. The main reason is that Id put an unknown player on a wider range than the TT+ AQs/o. Id add maybe AJs, KQs and possibly KJs or even QJs/JTs against a player that just sat down.

Even so, if Snitch's math is correct then we need 8,5:1 here to call, which is exactly what we are offered by the pot. Increasing the 3-bet range further increases our odds.

Id check/call the flop and a check/raise or fold the turn pending on the card

[Hielko]

Nice to see such an in depth discussing for a hand that seems basic at first sight.

I think folding is correct. If you are getting the right odds to call here, you shouldn't call. You are going to loose money because you are mainly drawing to hands with negative implied odds and only the backdoor flushdraw has positive implied oods. Negative implied odds mean that you are going to loose money from this point on the next streets on average, so you would need a nice overlay from the pot odds to make a call correct. Adding a small probability that he 3-bet you loose isn't enough.

[Befolder]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice to see such an in depth discussing for a hand that seems basic at first sight.

I think folding is correct. If you are getting the right odds to call here, you shouldn't call. You are going to loose money because you are mainly drawing to hands with negative implied odds and only the backdoor flushdraw has positive implied oods. Negative implied odds mean that you are going to loose money from this point on the next streets on average, so you would need a nice overlay from the pot odds to make a call correct. Adding a small probability that he 3-bet you loose isn't enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes and yes here.