$2/$5 with KK (2 Viewers)

[dannyssteez]

Preflop you can raise a little more given the limper, also just exploitatively I assume people will over call regardless. Postflop just bet yourself, you can get all the money in reasonably with 2 bets. You'll get coolered some of the time but there's more that you beat. Even against two-pair you have okay equity.

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

Ironic - I just read the first post again - forgot I responded to it previously.

Hand Details:

Since I raised Pre and villain did not reraise - I can eliminate AA from his range.

With the low flop and stack sizes, I would jam flop. If he hit a set, I will loose the opportunity to fold to a set, this I know, but my hand and range is much stronger than his range, and if he hits a set, I will loose anyway.
that's poker - sometimes you just gotta pay.

If I did bet 75 on the flop and he raised to 200 - I most likely would fold, but again the chances a flopping a set are small considering my overpair.

One could say he might have JJ or QQ and be betting an overpair on the flop thinking I have AK or AQ. Possible, but if you are thinking that - you should just jam the flop anyway.

Here is some Math -

With an SPR around 2.5, one-pair overpairs like KK go way up in value, especially heads-up in a 3-bet pot. You are not in a deep, elegant, “one pair is just a bluff catcher” situation. You are in a compressed stack spot where strong overpairs are often commitment hands.

Why Low SPR matters
When SPR is low:

• There is not enough money behind to make fancy folds routinely with strong one-pair hands.
• Draws and pair plus draw hands have huge incentive to continue.
• If you are likely ahead, you usually want to put the money in before ugly turn cards arrive.

That’s exactly this hand.

What happens after the raise​

You bet $75, villain raises to $200.

Now:

• Pot = $412
• You have $260 left

So after the raise, your effective SPR is basically:

260 / 412 \approx 0.63

That is tiny.
Once SPR drops under 1, the hand is basically in the red zone:

• there is more money in the pot than behind,
• one strong made hand should usually be prepared to play for stacks,
• and “call to re-evaluate” often becomes fake sophistication!

Poker has a lot of spots where calling is really just procrastination dressed as strategy. I may have gotten this right based on results, folding if I bet 75 on the flop then raised to 200, but I would never bet 75 on the flop.

You might say I could be right - for the wrong reason - which is true - but that is where reads and player tendicenies factor into the equation, but the math says - play the math, which is to Jam the flop and if I did not jam flop and only bet 75, and villain raised to 200 - the Math says - you still go all in anyway...

But reassure yourself - the SPR Math says to jam flop anyway, so the math in this case if correct - jam flop - SPR has spoken and your decision on the Turn and River have already been made.

Although - I don't know what I am talking about...

Flame away - as I say...

 

[JustinInMN]

So I have already seen the result so I am sure this opinion is influenced.

But I do want to mention my fascination with ranging both hero and villain here.

Hero 3-bet an open raise and a cold call. So I don't feel like hero's range is super wide, maybe TT+ and AK, AQ, maybe AJs, ATs, KQs if super-aggressive.
Villain has cold-called 3-bets pre. So I don't feel like he ever has a premium preflop. Three-bet cold calls are so rare, but I when I see them, I usually see a middle pair (77-JJ), and sometimes a mid-high suited connector (98s and up) or he best offsuit aces (AK, AQ), and maybe, occasionally, if super loose, some suited aces (ATs for sure, maybe A9s and A8s as well.) In short, a loose player calling 3-cold is not able to let go of something he perceives as "fun" to play but not good enough to 4-bet. Something he was definitely planning to call the open raise with, but is being too stubborn to fold to a 3-bet.

All that to say, even though both ranges are rather narrow, I think villain's may in fact be wider, and that I think this flop is better for villain's range than hero's range. The only "nutted" hand hero ever has here is TT. I don't think hero ever has 88 or 77 or a straight or two pair. Villain on the other hand can have all the sets for sure, a lot of pair+straight draw hands, maybe even some two pair hands, and I wouldn't completely discount J9s for the flopped straight either. Villain probably has some air here as well.

All that is to say, I don't think I hate bet-fold as a hero line here. Especially characterizing villain as loose-passive, if he raises a decent hero bet here, he is telegraphing he can beat one pair as a passive player. I don't give loose-passive players credit for bluffs or semi-bluffs too often.

But because he is passive I do feel checking this flop as hero is probably too weak because villain does have some air and some one-pair hands that hero is better than, so we might pick the pot up now or give villain a chance to make a loose to horrendous call by betting here. I don't mind a bet sized to try and get calls from a passive player's weakest holdings.

I really don't like a flop shove as hero though because we are almost never called by anything that KK can beat, and I think we are always called by two pair plus. I don't think loose passive players make big laydowns. Maybe best case the shove gets called by a Tx. But I think that's a small portion of villain's calling range, considering his overall range is far nuttier than hero's

So I think I like the flop but, but I think if we as hero are raised, even if KK is the 3rd best hand we have on this flop, I don't think this is where we make our stand to bluff catch against a villain that I would assume never bluffs.

(EDIT: Oh well, guess this thread was nearly a year old and recently raised up.)

 

[Tight_Lay_DOWN]

All that is to say, I don't think I hate bet-fold as a hero line here. Especially characterizing villain as loose-passive, if he raises a decent hero bet here, he is telegraphing he can beat one pair as a passive player. I don't give loose-passive players credit for bluffs or semi-bluffs too often.

But because he is passive I do feel checking this flop as hero is probably too weak because villain does have some air and some one-pair hands that hero is better than, so we might pick the pot up now or give villain a chance to make a loose to horrendous call by betting here. I don't mind a bet sized to try and get calls from a passive player's weakest holdings.

I dont really hate bet fold except for the SPR raito.

But dont assume you bet flop and the villain raises, giving you the chance to Fold. You need to consider, you betting flop and the villain smooth calling with a set - (now you could put villain on a set, maybe AT, KT or other ten, etc, and the villain is putting you on AK AQ AJ and you missed the flop and the villain thinks his AT or KT is the best hand and you are just C-betting), then on the turn hero is betting all in anyway (probably) (or if hero checks the flop and is then folding to a bet by the villain, but why would hero fold with an overpair, (could villain be bluffing, or the villain Betting with an AT, KT, hero gets stacked from the villain set anyway.)

"you are not too deep for a 2/5 game only 335 ish behind, and I love pressure, with 135 in the pot - of course - I would lead out and jam all-in with these stack sizes. Your Pot commitment point is so close to anything you bet and get called, so when the turn arrives - you are already pot committed, no matter what comes out, so make that bet now instead of later. Since you have no experience or formal range to apply to this player, then all the Decision tree info goes out the door."

That is what I love about this game - some many options...(but try to consider many actions (options) the players can make as opposed to a fewer actions (options) a player can make.

 

[JustinInMN]

You need to consider, you betting flop and the villain smooth calling with a set - (now you could put villain on a set, maybe AT, KT or other ten, etc, and the villain is putting you on AK AQ AJ and you missed the flop and the villain thinks his AT or KT is the best hand and you are just C-betting), then on the turn hero is betting all in anyway (probably)

True, to examine the bet and call situation, it is certainly worth considering that villain can do this with a set. But if we are defining the villain as loose passive, the part of the calling range that's near the nuts, assuming it exists as all, still cannot make up a large percentage compared to the massive amount of loose calls in his range. I wouldn't fear getting beat by a tricky smooth call occasionally and would still lean toward shoving safe turns here.

To consider the pot geometry of a bet-call action on the flop, that would leave a turn shove closer to 1-1 SPR. (A bet of 75 as in the previous suggestion would bring the pot to 285 if called and hero's stack down to 280.) I prefer this sizing myself compared to a 2.5x pot shove on the flop.

But I'll admit, I have a bias against 2x pot shoves in general. I usually find there's more to be won and less to be lost with other bet sizes. With 2x shoves I fear giving an otherwise loose villain the one possible path to a fold where there are other sizes where he would call.

All that said, I suppose an exception would be an exploitive play where I am near the nuts and I know there are villains in the pot capable of calling that size with medium to weak hands. But to your point, I suppose those conditions are another way to interpret possible actions of loose-passive villain.

 

[jhwang]

Preflop too small, as played bet 1/2 pot on flop and GII on any raise and most runouts. You're 80bb deep.

 

[JMGill12]

Against passive, calling station opponents, you just have to value-own yourself when you have a good top pie or better and they have it/get there. Anything else and you are missing out on so much value. I think you go geometric here, which is about $90 or so, and jam all turns that aren’t an ace, because that’s the only card that might kill your action against the hands you’re beating, not because we’re particularly concerned about him getting there too often.

Even slowing down and not jamming a J is giving him way to much credit.