KK can i call here profitably?

[anibalk]

Hi, i don't like how he play the hand, in NL10, of course.

Re-raise pre-flop.
Raise flop.

I think this play is better play player with no reads in NL10, and you can get some idea if he has scared A's.

One question about this:

[ QUOTE ]

I think the flop check is fine, basically. I mean, you have no idea what Villain has, but he doesn't know what you have either, and the check does at least allow Villain to convince himself that his QQ or TT might be good after all -- which is fine, so long as he follows up with callable bets like he did.

Also, raising preflop and then checking after flopping a monster is a thing that a lot of players like to do, so I would be a little wary here, while also hoping I can get to showdown.

If we knew Villain would immediately checkraise his top pair and better hands in response to a flop bet, then there would be something to be said for betting now instead of checking and trying to negotiate two more streets before showdown. But we don't know that, and I think the flop check is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

¿You think check in flop is good for players in NL10?
In flop, with position, if we don't bet we don't have information.

Bet Flop. if he call we can scared a monster (maybe set, A's ...), if he fold is not bad, if he re-raise i like fold

What do you think about this, i know is very standar, but we are in NL10.

PD: sorry for my poor english.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
¿You think check in flop is good for players in NL10?
In flop, with position, if we don't bet we don't have information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I admitted that, but as some compensation, Villain doesn't really have any information either and might misinterpret our check.

If we bet, there's no guarantee the "information" we get will come immediately or will be reliable.

We're in one of those situations where we're much more likely to get called by a better hand than a worse one. But, at the same time, I don't think a call actually means we're beat since Villain could still have, say, QJ or a stubborn QQ or TT or 99.

It's a difficult situation, since we don't want to put a lot of money in anymore (now that we've flopped an overcard), but we might be better off putting the money in that we do as a caller rather than as a bettor.

Plus, checking does get us one street closer to showdown, with a smaller pot than there would be on the turn if we had bet the flop.

As for NL10, I don't really know how that limit plays specifically.

[anibalk]

ammmmm, OK!!!
is better control the pot size small, for take it in turn.

Thanks.

[Nogatsira]

Ugly passive hand
3bet preflop, bet the flop after he checked it to you and then re-evaluate the turn.
As played, call down his TJ

[Waingro]

Yes, call river. You have told him you don´t have much so he might be betting 88 or whatever. Apart from pf which an abomination you played it well.

[nebben]

Without looking at the responses, I 3 bet this flop every time. I bet about 2/3-1/2 the pot on the flop, and shutdown to anything but pretty small bets on turn and river. As played, it seems like a big part of villains range could be weakish aces (AT-A2) on the flop, and I fold river because I don't think 2-1 is enough given the UTG raise, and the turn and river bets.

[nebben]

I don't think the check is that bad. Especially in NL10, players here will call your bets with any ace. Given that you didn't reraise pf, it lets you put money in on the turn against a range that includes hands that you beat. If he raises pf, you call and you bet the ace, he is, if he is at all reasonable, going to call mostly with hands that beat you. There aren't a ton of draws out. If you check, he bets the turn with hands that he is trying to represent as an ace too.