Not convinced KK all-in preflop up to 100BB is good idea (at $0.50NL)

[bknollenberg]

[ QUOTE ]
Picture shows fine for me.

[/ QUOTE ]
lozl pozld.

[TTStrangler]

[mdm13]

I have played 120K+ hands at 50NL (major beat I know). I have never folded KK preflop and only once have in retrospect thought I should have after a loose passive 30/3 shoved over a raise and my threebet. There are some situations where if you have a solid read that it is never AK, QQ or something like that maybe you can find a fold. Just because your kings seem to run into aces a lot doesn't mean you should start folding KK to any 4bet/shove. Today I got my AA AIPF against 77 for 160bbs. If I had kings, I'm sure some people would have folded to the 5bet in my situation but seriously, just get it innn!

[Gonso]

This is still a pretty good thread though, and I would be interested if other people's databases can paint a clearer picture.

My experience tells me that calling AI's preflop at 100bb or less with KK is certainly profitable, at least in any isolated HU situation. It obviously isn't as profitable as maybe in the micros, where people will show up with 88 and AQ (probably on a regular basis). OTOH I can't speak to 10/20 or higher.

With 100bb though, it's pretty difficult to put an opponent on a range you're not ahead of or close enough to call, especially after other bets and raises have gone in.

If your opponent's range is AA(70%), AK(15%) and QQ(15%), with no allocation for a bluff, you still have ~37% equity. The problem IMO is that it's very difficult to put someone on ranges that tight in practice.

There are cases where you can, and by all means do it if you're sure you don't have enough equity, or if it's just too close to be meaningful. [I disagree with the idea that you should take any small +EV edge no matter what, BTW. It's not a matter of variance by itself, but the effect on your image and things like that].

I think that if you're unsure about your opponent's range enough that you'd have to post a hand and ask about it, it's wide enough where KK can play for 100bb.

pow

[Paxinor]

calling all in with KK implies that you 4bet almost always

if you 4bet you will have at least put in 30 BB (most people 4bet more) therefore you'd have to call 70BB for a 200BB pot meaning you need 35% equity. you have, as stated by Gonso against a 70% AA range a +EV situation.

and without a VERY solid read there is NO WAY you can ever fold KK against a push after you 4bet him even lightly

this is acutally backed up by the data OP posted. you can have negatives up to 30 dollars and still be positive ev because 0.35*200-100 =-30 but you have to call because you are investing 70 to win an overall of 200 => 0.35*200 = 70...

so actualy what OP should say: neverthless my samplesize is way to low i should always call Kings after i 4bet for more than 30 BB

so now you know why you never fold KK to a push. there is so much dead money in the pot that he needs only a worse hand occasionally...

besides: if you fold everything to a push other than aces, there will be people pushing into you with loads of crap... and you will lose A LOT of money.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[Image of Farha sucking out for 600 BB.]

[/ QUOTE ]
What, if anything, do you think the relevance of that picture is? If anything, it is evidence that calling or pushing over a big 4-bet from a solid player isn't so great when you have KK.

[Paxinor]

i really can't belive how anyone can make a statement for folding KK preflop on ANY stakes per default.

if you are not pushing kings to a 4bet. what do you do? fold?

without a DEAD ON read you always have to call or push there is no way around it... and this is common kowledge...

of course you will find a situation where you can fold it but against 90% of the opponents you just cannot!

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
How about Winning overall with KK AIPF? Is that sufficient evidence? I can find you 100 players winning overall with KK aipf.

[/ QUOTE ]
That statistic is not directly relevant, as I pointed out earlier.

That KK is a winning hand overall does not mean you will win on average when you call all-in after a limp-reraise-push.

That AA is rare for your opponent to have does not mean it is rare when your opponent 4-bets from early position.

That you get called by weak hands does not mean passive players are pushing with weak hands.

If you want evidence that calling with KK in some situation is ok, find examples where people (not previously identifiable as maniacs) pushed with less than KK in those situations. Depending on the pot odds, you may need to find one hand worse than KK for every two times you see AA. If it's so obvious that calling all-in with KK is +EV, say at NL $100, it should be easy to find lots of these hands. Instead, people keep posting hands where someone with KK pushes, and someone else makes a bad call.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As has been discussed many times, you don't need to be 90% convinced that someone has AA to make it right to fold KK. Since you are less of a favorite over plausible worse hands (particularly Ax) than you are an underdog against AA, even a 50% chance that you are up against AA can make it right to fold against an overbet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely,

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you are wrong. This is a simple mathematical issue.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you are a fav, whether slight or not, over Ax or other hands gives your KK more equity against a villians range. Knowing someone could have a lone A should not sway you more towards folding but in fact the other way.


[/ QUOTE ]
Adding Ax hands to your opponent's range obviously should make you more eager to call. However, that's not what was being discussed. Replacing QQ with AK in your opponent's range is bad for you.

Let's suppose your opponent will only push with AA or AK. You are ahead of 8 hands, and behind 6. However, you are less of a favorite over AK than you are an underdog against AA, which means you are behind your opponent's range. KK has only 47.1% equity against {AK,AA} despite being ahead 57% of the time. It's not as dramatic as having a medium pair against a range of {TT+, AJ+, KQ}, where you are a 4:3 underdog despite being a favorite over 3/4 of the time, but the same logic applies.

AA wins 82% against KK. KK wins 74% against {QQ,AK}. If you are up against AA 50% of the time, and {QQ,AK} 50% of the time, then your equity is 46%, and you need about 7:6 pot odds to call, which you don't have against some overbets. My statement was correct.

[Paxinor]

when do you ever face overbets?? facing pot odds 7:6???

having KK and beeing pushed directly after a threebet is SO unlikely in low stakes..

OPs point was to fold KK as a default

you are making up some rare situations where it might be correct.

the "never fold KK" is a simplification of a general rule. a low stakes player WILL NOT be able to seperate the spots where to fold KK from the ones where he shouldn't as proved by OP. if you are good enough to separate them you will be on NL100 and up so it won't really matter anymore

thats why the statement exists and it should be applied by any not so good player because they do the math wrong and fold KK after they 4bet for example

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
i really can't belive how anyone can make a statement for folding KK preflop on ANY stakes per default.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said folding KK should be the default? It wastes time to attack straw men.

[ QUOTE ]

...this is common kowledge...


[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of BS is "common knowledge." A lot of the common wisdom in the micro forums is wrong. Be suspicious of anything you can't justify.

[ QUOTE ]

of course you will find a situation where you can fold it

[/ QUOTE ]
Please tell that to the many people who are convinced that folding KK preflop is always wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
but against 90% of the opponents you just cannot!

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? In many situations, you should be gleefully calling. In some, particularly at about NL $100, even without a specific prior read, you can't expect to get the cost of your call back from the pot. Is there some reason to call which is more important than money?