Folded AK to raise PF (Standard??)

[Albert Moulton]

Please use a converter.

If I read the action right, then somebody open raised from MP for 5bb, then it was folded to hero with AKo in the blinds who folded.

In general, I would recommend reraising to 15bb, and if called by the original raiser and no one else, then betting at least 20bb at any flop as the default play. Occasionally, in the same heads up post-flop situation after you reraise, check/calling the flop when you hit top pair and leading the turn can be good too.

I would not recommend just folding except that you said, "player is playing 40/2 over 100+ hands." I still think reraising and leading the flop is pretty good. But folding vs a guy with a 2% pfr probably isn't terrible.

I wouldn't just call.

[Baja15]

There are several players i would fold AK to a raise from but they all have stats like 11/1 or 14/0.5 over a large sample. FWIW i also fold KK to a reraise from these guys. But a 40/2 player is a donk not a nit, the raise does not always mean a big hand. Often these guys limp with their Big hands because they just love to slowplay.

Just Re-raise to 3x the original bet and go on from there. If they shove then you should probably fold, but it won't happen very often

[Steelerman]

Interesting thread. As an aside, I've played about 5K hands with this particular villain at NL25. He plays 19/6 over that sample is down a few buy-ins. Just goes to show you that 100 hands isn't enough to peg someone.

[sobos]

Maybe this villain hit a stretch of good cards and is really a 40/.5. Why do you assume (unless you know the hands he's played) that he's really looser, not tighter, than 2?

[jaydreb]

Folding AK here seems pretty weak, but I guess it's not a complete disaster.

[Johnes Benjamin]

FWIW I played a 60/3 guy yesterday who raised UTG and showed down 59s.

[Hklm8383]

i agree with the fold

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with the fold

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[GiantBuddha]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this villain hit a stretch of good cards and is really a 40/.5. Why do you assume (unless you know the hands he's played) that he's really looser, not tighter, than 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there's a lot more people who raise 4% of their hands than .01% of their hands. Regression towards the mean, or something? It's the same reason someone running at 8PTBB/100 over 25K hands is more likely to be a break even player than a 16PTBB/100 poker god (I'm not saying OP is a break even player, just that he's more likely to be running hot than cold).

As an exercise in the usefulness of sample size, try the following: Play 10 100 hand sessions (either multitabling or in series). Look at your stats from each session. I run about 14/10 most of the time. Playing ten tables, a few were in that ballpark, some were more like 12/8 or 17/15, one table was 24/20, and one was 5/0. 5/0! That was over 95 hands. Actually, just forget the exercise and go back and look at 100 hand samples of your own play. The results may surprise you.

[sobos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this villain hit a stretch of good cards and is really a 40/.5. Why do you assume (unless you know the hands he's played) that he's really looser, not tighter, than 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there's a lot more people who raise 4% of their hands than .01% of their hands. Regression towards the mean, or something? It's the same reason someone running at 8PTBB/100 over 25K hands is more likely to be a break even player than a 16PTBB/100 poker god (I'm not saying OP is a break even player, just that he's more likely to be running hot than cold).

As an exercise in the usefulness of sample size, try the following: Play 10 100 hand sessions (either multitabling or in series). Look at your stats from each session. I run about 14/10 most of the time. Playing ten tables, a few were in that ballpark, some were more like 12/8 or 17/15, one table was 24/20, and one was 5/0. 5/0! That was over 95 hands. Actually, just forget the exercise and go back and look at 100 hand samples of your own play. The results may surprise you.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that villain's PRF range is 2% + a certain standard deviation that depends on the sample size. The deviation will be large since the sample size is small. So yes, it's more likely that villain's range is 3% than 1%, but it is not more likely (ignoring all other factors like the fact that he's a 40 VPIP) that his PRF range is >2 than <2.