AA vs KK 5 handed (1 Viewer)

This is why I prefer limit games, I don't want to build up my stack for 5 hours and then drop it all on one hand. In no limit, I would think on the second hand I would be betting my top pair with a flush draw out there, and definitely slowing down on that turn card, even with a nut flush draw and one card to come. As was said previously, I think checking there is just "trapping yourself," I tend to try to shut it down on the flop with one pair or at least get some information. Of course, the villian had a good drawing hand and hit his draw, so the result is likely the same.
 
If you are dealt kings, the probability that the player to your left has aces is:

C(4,2) / C(50,2) = 6/1225

or 0.49%
​
This is in a heads up situation only.

Obviously this increases as more players are added to the game, but at 6 handed the chance of a villain holding AA while you hold KK is only 2.445% and 9 handed that only increases to 3.9%

Link to math: Poker Math

Poker is situational of course, and as I said previously there are some circumstances where you might consider folding, but they are very very far and few between. I can appreciate your anecdotal evidence, but over the course of a million hands you are going to lose more money folding KK than not.
 
DRacula said:
If you are dealt kings, the probability that the player to your left has aces is:

C(4,2) / C(50,2) = 6/1225

or 0.49%
​
This is in a heads up situation only.

Obviously this increases as more players are added to the game, but at 6 handed the chance of a villain holding AA while you hold KK is only 2.445% and 9 handed that only increases to 3.9%

Link to math: Poker Math

Poker is situational of course, and as I said previously there are some circumstances where you might consider folding, but they are very very far and few between. I can appreciate your anecdotal evidence, but over the course of a million hands you are going to lose more money folding KK than not.
Click to expand...

The trouble with your math isn't that it's calculated wrong, but that it's presented agnostic to the action.

Take the 6-handed figure for example. Call it 2.5% just to have easy numbers. All it means is that, of all the times you have KK, you have a 1 in 40 chance of running into AA—before you know anything about the action.

With more information from the action, that number changes by a great deal. Add a 3-bet from Old Man Coffee who only ever 3-bets with QQ+, and P(AA when you have KK) goes from 2.5% to about 46%. Against some players, any 5-bet ramps P(aces) to 100%, though more often the signal to fold KK comes from multiple tight players getting into a blowout. Though there's a good chance one of them doesn't have aces, in the case that he doesn't, the other almost certainly does, and the combined probability of one of them having aces is massive.

Yeah, these situations only come up about 1 time for every 40 times you have KK, but over a long sample, you'll get KK plenty of times and have a fair number of opportunities to avoid getting a deep stack in as a 4:1 dog. It pays to be attentive and not cling to bad advice like "never fold KK preflop."
 
Jimulacrum said:
The trouble with your math isn't that it's calculated wrong, but that it's presented agnostic to the action.

Take the 6-handed figure for example. Call it 2.5% just to have easy numbers. All it means is that, of all the times you have KK, you have a 1 in 40 chance of running into AA—before you know anything about the action.

With more information from the action, that number changes by a great deal. Add a 3-bet from Old Man Coffee who only ever 3-bets with QQ+, and P(AA when you have KK) goes from 2.5% to about 46%. Against some players, any 5-bet ramps P(aces) to 100%, though more often the signal to fold KK comes from multiple tight players getting into a blowout. Though there's a good chance one of them doesn't have aces, in the case that he doesn't, the other almost certainly does, and the combined probability of one of them having aces is massive.

Yeah, these situations only come up about 1 time for every 40 times you have KK, but over a long sample, you'll get KK plenty of times and have a fair number of opportunities to avoid getting a deep stack in as a 4:1 dog. It pays to be attentive and not cling to bad advice like "never fold KK preflop."
Click to expand...


I agree with you on this. The never fold kings preflop argument is definatley flawed. In the above situation I thought that he could have QQ or AK suited as well as AA or KK. The KK and AK being less likely since I was holding Ks. I felt like he probably had AA, but i went with it anyway and called.

I can distinctly remember two big pots in the last 2 years where i felt like i should fold the ks preflop. I ended up calling both times and getting stacked by AA. In both of those situations, I felt like the player I was against could possibly, (maybe, hopefully) have another premium hand that I was ahead of. Against a few players i play with, in the same situation, I would fold and know for sure I made the right play.

There have been a few other times where I ran into AA where there was really no getting away from it. Against loose/overly aggressive players, or just against very good players that could potentially 4 bet with a variety of hands. These situations truly are coolers. Especially if you are the one 4 betting, and you have a big enough portion of your stack in there already.

I use to be in the never fold KK pre flop camp, but I'm coming around. Hopefully next time I will be good enough to make the lay down.
 
Also this game was 5 handed and I had been playing very aggressively. So that factors in also.
 
A preflop five-bet is a rare thing in most games. First Hero and the villains have to be deep enough for the last bet to be significant and second there needs to be a willingness to stack off 200bb+ preflop, which for most players is never less than QQ+, AK but often exactly AA plus a rare KK. Presuming that no one is drunk/drugged or on monkey tilt. Even the LAGs tend not to "bluff" all-in for 200+bb because the risk isn't worth the reward AND because post flop aggression puts more pressure on an opponent (because we know the strength of preflop hands better than the strength of post flop hands)

This logic applies to short handed games too. Sure, the first couple of bets can be light, and should be. But at the end the huge bets means huge hands.

In this specific hand, Hero has some betting "tells" to help make the fold. A 3-bet "min raise" followed by a 5-bet 2x pot jam is a five alarm fire bell. (It was a bad "sleepy" decision by villain to 5-bet here ) While the risk of this villain holding exactly AA started out at 200+ to one, the cumulative information of the two raises changed everything.

It is really too bad this thread started revealing the outcome. We got two pages of discussion with the results known. I imagine a much more lively and interesting discussion would have resulted if villain's hand were not disclosed until the end of the thread.
 
Jimulacrum said:
The trouble with your math isn't that it's calculated wrong, but that it's presented agnostic to the action.

Take the 6-handed figure for example. Call it 2.5% just to have easy numbers. All it means is that, of all the times you have KK, you have a 1 in 40 chance of running into AA—before you know anything about the action.

With more information from the action, that number changes by a great deal. Add a 3-bet from Old Man Coffee who only ever 3-bets with QQ+, and P(AA when you have KK) goes from 2.5% to about 46%. Against some players, any 5-bet ramps P(aces) to 100%, though more often the signal to fold KK comes from multiple tight players getting into a blowout. Though there's a good chance one of them doesn't have aces, in the case that he doesn't, the other almost certainly does, and the combined probability of one of them having aces is massive.

Yeah, these situations only come up about 1 time for every 40 times you have KK, but over a long sample, you'll get KK plenty of times and have a fair number of opportunities to avoid getting a deep stack in as a 4:1 dog. It pays to be attentive and not cling to bad advice like "never fold KK preflop."
Click to expand...

Again, you are using examples that cannot be quantified. For every OMC 5 bet that “has to be aces” there are recreational players that don’t understand relative hand strength and overplay AQ/AJ.

The examples you’ve used are similar to “the roulette wheel has landed on black 5 times in a row, it has to land on red next”

Maybe you play with a lot of weak tight ABC players, where this exploitable strategy works.
In tough games OMC and tight/aggressive players mix in bluffs to balance their range.

As I said above, if you will cash higher in a tournament by folding because of other players being all, than by all means fold. In very deep stacked games, elect to call instead of shipping.

The purpose of my original post was that too many players believe in “monsters under the bed”.
Too many players fold K high flush because villain “has to have” A high flush.
It’s not bad advice to never fold KK, you like to over fold, I’ll elect to over call.
 
colter ripton said:
I agree with you on this. The never fold kings preflop argument is definatley flawed. In the above situation I thought that he could have QQ or AK suited as well as AA or KK. The KK and AK being less likely since I was holding Ks. I felt like he probably had AA, but i went with it anyway and called.

I can distinctly remember two big pots in the last 2 years where i felt like i should fold the ks preflop. I ended up calling both times and getting stacked by AA. In both of those situations, I felt like the player I was against could possibly, (maybe, hopefully) have another premium hand that I was ahead of. Against a few players i play with, in the same situation, I would fold and know for sure I made the right play.

There have been a few other times where I ran into AA where there was really no getting away from it. Against loose/overly aggressive players, or just against very good players that could potentially 4 bet with a variety of hands. These situations truly are coolers. Especially if you are the one 4 betting, and you have a big enough portion of your stack in there already.

I use to be in the never fold KK pre flop camp, but I'm coming around. Hopefully next time I will be good enough to make the lay down.
Click to expand...

I used to be in the fold KK/AK pre flop camp, and then when I started to improve and get better (make more money in cash games, have a 32% ROI @ MTT) and definitely when I started playing higher stakes I started folding them less and less. Different strokes for different folks.
 
DRacula said:
I used to be in the fold KK/AK pre flop camp, and then when I started to improve and get better (make more money in cash games, have a 32% ROI @ MTT) and definitely when I started playing higher stakes I started folding them less and less. Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...

I have never folded KK preflop, but I'm starting to think that in some cases it can be the correct play.
I play the biggest games at my local casino, and im a winning player. I dont waste my time with MTTs because I dont get to play that often, and a winning night at the cash game I play is worth alot more than finishing 1st in an MTT. The biggest cash games at my casino are 2/5, 1000 max buy in or 75 percent of the biggest stack. These games play huge and are some of the toughest 2/5 games I have ever played in. I have played in quite a few casinos and their 2/5 game is never as big or tough as the ones I play in at home. Our 2/5 game is filled with good players, and you have to mix it up and open or 3 bet with a wider range so your holding isn't polarized. For example, one of our local 2/5 players just finished 11th in the wsop main event.

This was actually a 2/3 game, but when a 2/5 game isn't running it is filled with the same cast of characters as the 2/5. This particular villan isnt typically in the bigger games, but I have played with him before and he is a pretty tight player. A 5 bet from him is definatley polarizing. He would literally never have JJ or worse in this spot. QQ is a possibility , I think, but I'm not positive about that either.

I agree that it is almost always the wrong play to fold KK pre flop. In this case I dont know if I could find a fold against the same player in the exact same spot next time. I do think however that a 5 bet from a tight player for 200bbs is about as close of spot as you can get to fold or call. It's why I posted the thread in the first place. In the moment I felt like I was beat, but decided to call anyway.

This has happened twice in the past year or so, with a big pot pre flop where I held KK and thought I was beat. Both times I was shown aces. There have been plenty of other spots where they were definatley just coolers. I believe that this isn't one of those spots, and I could have possibly found a fold.

I kinda just wish this thread would die..... lol but every couple of days someone comments on it.
 
DRacula said:
The examples you’ve used are similar to “the roulette wheel has landed on black 5 times in a row, it has to land on red next”
Click to expand...

Explain to me specifically how the examples I've given are similar to this ridiculous gambler's fallacy.

What I'm actually doing is explaining how ranging opponents works based on observations of their tendencies. OMC is a specific player type. He doesn't mix it up. He doesn't balance his range. There are some other players who do not balance their ranges at all, and these are specifically the kinds of players who allow you to get away from KK when they have AA. Yes, for every OMC, you might have a bunch of recreational players and a couple pros, but you make your decisions with the knowledge of which actual opponent you're up against.

So you don't pepper OMC's 5-betting range with all the random bluffs and "favorite hands" that the rec player might make because he's drunk and clueless, nor do you add the advanced 5-bets that high-stakes pros employ to deliberately balance their ranges out. You take OMC for what he is, just like you take the rec player and the pro for who they are (and you probably never fold KK against them).

And of course there are other cases where there isn't necessarily an OMC, but you're up against a combination of players and actions such that it's very unlikely that AA isn't out there among the pool of hands you're facing. But this is again sound analysis based on player tendencies, ranging, and mathematics, not gambler's fallacies like red being "due" in roulette.
 
Jimulacrum said:
Explain to me specifically how the examples I've given are similar to this ridiculous gambler's fallacy.

What I'm actually doing is explaining how ranging opponents works based on observations of their tendencies. OMC is a specific player type. He doesn't mix it up. He doesn't balance his range. There are some other players who do not balance their ranges at all, and these are specifically the kinds of players who allow you to get away from KK when they have AA. Yes, for every OMC, you might have a bunch of recreational players and a couple pros, but you make your decisions with the knowledge of which actual opponent you're up against.

So you don't pepper OMC's 5-betting range with all the random bluffs and "favorite hands" that the rec player might make because he's drunk and clueless, nor do you add the advanced 5-bets that high-stakes pros employ to deliberately balance their ranges out. You take OMC for what he is, just like you take the rec player and the pro for who they are (and you probably never fold KK against them).

And of course there are other cases where there isn't necessarily an OMC, but you're up against a combination of players and actions such that it's very unlikely that AA isn't out there among the pool of hands you're facing. But this is again sound analysis based on player tendencies, ranging, and mathematics, not gambler's fallacies like red being "due" in roulette.
Click to expand...

A much better reply to the roulette wheel comment than the "LOL" that I typed out and then deleted.
 
Jimulacrum said:
Explain to me specifically how the examples I've given are similar to this ridiculous gambler's fallacy.

What I'm actually doing is explaining how ranging opponents works based on observations of their tendencies. OMC is a specific player type. He doesn't mix it up. He doesn't balance his range. There are some other players who do not balance their ranges at all, and these are specifically the kinds of players who allow you to get away from KK when they have AA. Yes, for every OMC, you might have a bunch of recreational players and a couple pros, but you make your decisions with the knowledge of which actual opponent you're up against.

So you don't pepper OMC's 5-betting range with all the random bluffs and "favorite hands" that the rec player might make because he's drunk and clueless, nor do you add the advanced 5-bets that high-stakes pros employ to deliberately balance their ranges out. You take OMC for what he is, just like you take the rec player and the pro for who they are (and you probably never fold KK against them).

And of course there are other cases where there isn't necessarily an OMC, but you're up against a combination of players and actions such that it's very unlikely that AA isn't out there among the pool of hands you're facing. But this is again sound analysis based on player tendencies, ranging, and mathematics, not gambler's fallacies like red being "due" in roulette.
Click to expand...

Your examples are based on exceptions rather than the norm. It’s a player that you have history with and have seen enough of their play to make (what you think are) EXTREMELY narrow and accurate ranges for. Their appearance is an OMC. They can never be bluffing. This pretty much only happens during live play and at low stakes.

What about when it’s the first hand at a new table of tournament and you have no reads or history with any of the players?

What about playing online without a HUD?

Your gamblers fallacy is the assumption that villain always has AA. A good understanding of ranges isn’t telling yourself villain can only have one possible hand.

Most of this discussion has been Level 1 strategy. If folding will get you a higher ITM finish, then fold. Be cautious of putting your 200+BB stack all in preflop against several tight players. Ad nauseam. As with all things in poker it depends.

Statistically speaking you are going to have the best hand with KK an overwhelming majority of the time. You are going to be incorrectly folding the best hand more often then you should, and I will be over calling more than I should. You can’t win pots by folding. You can’t hit a 2 outter by folding.

As an aside, if you ever find yourself in Southern California there will always be open seat at my game for you.
 
DRacula said:
Your examples are based on exceptions rather than the norm. It’s a player that you have history with and have seen enough of their play to make (what you think are) EXTREMELY narrow and accurate ranges for. Their appearance is an OMC. They can never be bluffing. This pretty much only happens during live play and at low stakes.

What about when it’s the first hand at a new table of tournament and you have no reads or history with any of the players?

What about playing online without a HUD?

Your gamblers fallacy is the assumption that villain always has AA. A good understanding of ranges isn’t telling yourself villain can only have one possible hand.

Most of this discussion has been Level 1 strategy. If folding will get you a higher ITM finish, then fold. Be cautious of putting your 200+BB stack all in preflop against several tight players. Ad nauseam. As with all things in poker it depends.

Statistically speaking you are going to have the best hand with KK an overwhelming majority of the time. You are going to be incorrectly folding the best hand more often then you should, and I will be over calling more than I should. You can’t win pots by folding. You can’t hit a 2 outter by folding.

As an aside, if you ever find yourself in Southern California there will always be open seat at my game for you.
Click to expand...

Yes, my examples are the exception rather than the norm, just like folding KK preflop is the exception rather than the norm. It has only come up for me five or six times in something like 15 years of playing NLHE. It's almost never correct against unknowns at a new table or anonymous players online. It's an unusual play that relies on particular circumstances.

I'm considering the probability that someone has AA based on reasoning. That's not a gambler's fallacy and is not even remotely related to counting black spins and expecting a red spin at roulette. Once in a great while, someone has AA 100% based on his actions. More often, it's a combination of factors, and there's a great enough probability of AA to make the fold.

Statistically speaking, you'll have the best hand with KK about 97.5% of the time in a 6-handed game given that you have no further information. But you get a lot of information after the cards are dealt out. Even in many cases where you feel you "can't" fold KK, you're not ahead an overwhelming majority of the time.

But apparently you have your conclusion already, so I'll make this my last post here.
 
You guys do know that you are basically in agreement and are just bickering at this point.
 
navels said:
You guys do know that you are basically in agreement and are just bickering at this point.
Click to expand...
That's not the way I'm reading it. One guy says he's never folding KK, and the other says he's folding KK when it's appropriate based on the info at hand. That's not agreement in my book..... :D
 
BGinGA said:
That's not the way I'm reading it. One guy says he's never folding KK, and the other says he's folding KK when it's appropriate based on the info at hand. That's not agreement in my book..... :D
Click to expand...

You’re not a very good reader then
 
Sorry, but that's exactly what was said. Own it, bro.
 
BGinGA said:
Sorry, but that's exactly what was said. Own it, bro.
Click to expand...

Read my first post in this thread.

Read every single post I’ve made in this thread that has included examples of when it is acceptable to fold. The only one I haven’t included is when villain flips over his hand before you call and it’s AA.

I’m sure you’re all successful poker players and you are entitled to opinions as much as I’m entitled to mine.
 
BGinGA said:
I did.

Yep, I had it right.
Click to expand...

Picking and choosing excerpts to push your narrative, nice.

There’s really nothing left to debate, as I said before you are all entitled to your opinion. May I see all of you at a poker table in the near future
 
BGinGA said:
That's not the way I'm reading it. One guy says he's never folding KK, and the other says he's folding KK when it's appropriate based on the info at hand. That's not agreement in my book..... :D
Click to expand...
That does not mean they are disagreeing.

I am also not ever folding KKs preflop. I agree with @DRacula that "It's almost never correct against unknowns at a new table or anonymous players online. It's an unusual play that relies on particular circumstances.", the latter of which I think is @Jimulacrum's main point, is it not?

The roulette wheel comparison is obviously a total mischaracterization and only serves to throw gasoline on the fire. Both sides are now selectively quoting and acting all outraged, basically derailing an otherwise interesting thread with pointless bickering.
 
I am at Windy City meetup and early on last night I was dealt kk in a cash game. @Jeff neighbor who is unknown to me raised to 6 in early position and I made it 16. Folded back to him and he shoved all in quite dramatically. I tanked for a second, thought of this thread and called. He had aces and I lost.
So the above is proof you should fold kk preflop almost always to a shove (joking on this part).
 
mike32 said:
I am at Windy City meetup and early on last night I was dealt kk in a cash game. @Jeff neighbor who is unknown to me raised to 6 in early position and I made it 16. Folded back to him and he shoved all in quite dramatically. I tanked for a second, thought of this thread and called. He had aces and I lost.
So the above is proof you should fold kk preflop almost always to a shove (joking on this part).
Click to expand...

What were stack sizes?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

ngmcs8203
Playing against a donk lead on a paired board flop
Replies
12
Views
361
ngmcs8203
ngmcs8203
ctestb
How do you play against bad players?
Replies
24
Views
543
NotRealNameNoSir
NotRealNameNoSir
RagingAZN
What can I shove here?
Replies
15
Views
506
MichaelBubly
MichaelBubly
vVCrayon
ZOOM 25NL 5 Handed - UTG W/KK
Replies
5
Views
518
Gunnar
Gunnar
JMC9389
PAHWM: Q10 in the big blind
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
Jimulacrum
Jimulacrum
Back
Top Bottom