NL25 KK on Ace and FD flop

[SoCalQuest]

Because when he calls and we don't fire a second barrel, a lot villains pot the river leaving us a real dilemma.

[Profish2285]

No, we call a non heart river, checking the turn is to induce bluffs, otherwise we just bet the turn for value.

[SoCalQuest]

I don't know what villains you are playing here... Not many call two barrels without the ace here. Betting for value seems like turning our hand into a bluff.

[Profish2285]

Not me, op said villain loves to call c-bets. Against this villain I would bet flop, check this turn, and probably c/c a moderate non heart river. Most people I find do not call my c-bets with such consistency though, so I would take the standard line of checking flop for all the reasons stated before. Betting the flop here is very player dependent, but from the read provided by op, this seems to be the type of villain where a flop bet is correct.

[SoCalQuest]

Wrong. His calling range does not define his hand at all.

Earlier you said you wouldn't bet against a player that calls only with an Ace. Why not bet against that player? We know exactly where we are at against a "hot and cold" type player. Betting here does not garner any information and leaves us in a tough spot considering an Ace is the biggest part of his range.

[Profish2285]

I am not betting for info, I am betting for value. Everyone here says its okay to bet the turn for value after checking through the flop as he will pay off with less, but this villain is willing to do that exact feat on the flop. I have to be missing something here I think.

[Woody317]

I think the real question about c-betting is whether he's aggresive later in the hand.
If he's the type of player to fire big bets later in the hand i'm inclined not to c-bet. You don't want to overly inflate the pot and then be put to a tough decision.
If there's a good chance that you can get to showdown cheaply after a c-bet then that's probly the best option.

Personally I'd probly not c-bet because we're out of position (meaning checking down will look very weak making it more likely that he'll fire again). If he's that loose postflop then wait for a better spot and value bet him relentlessly.

[Nick Royale]

I think this hand can be played in quite alot different ways, which of them is best is mostly determined by how aggro villain is postflop. The more likely you think villain si to bluffraise/bluff if you check, the less inclined you should be to bet.

I don't mind checking the flop though. But given that you did you need to bet the turn 100%. He's not likely to have an Ax and you really need to charge heart draws and lower pairs.


1. Against this villain if I check the flop, I bet the turn and river for value. If you think he has a high bluffing frequency on the river (a high bet riv %?) check/calling might be better. I'm sure we have 2 streets of value anyway.

2. The other way to play it imo is to bet the flop and at least put money in one more street after that. If it's by check/calling the turn and betting the river if checked through or bet/folding the turn is a bit depending on what card comes. Given the card that came in this hand I'm likely bet/folding turn and checking the river making a decision (not necessairly folding if the fd misses).


The first line suits better vs aggro villain's, the second one vs passives. I'd need at least an af number to know which of this lines I this suits best vs this villain. But just going from his pfr and assuming he's aggro postflop I think the first line is fine.