UGLY 30/60 bellagio hand

[bicyclekick]

Great Belagio 30/60 game at about 5 or 6am. not so good asian guy who's short stacked limps utg(this doesn't mean much of anything.)

super lag boarderline maniac gambler guy raises in mlp. He'd raise pretty much any 2. Last hand he raised Q9o was utg.

I 3 bet K/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/images/graemlins/spade.gif in CO-1 and a decent asian guy on the button makes it 4 bets (doh!) blinds fold utg calls, mp says "I know you're just going to cap it so I will for you" (I've been showing down good cards so far and playing well.)

Flop comes K/images/graemlins/spade.gift/images/graemlins/heart.gif4/images/graemlins/heart.gif

checked to mp who bets, I raise, button 3 bets, utg c/r all in 4 bets, mp folds. Hero ?

Does hero call the 2 more bets essentually chasing another K or Q that may or may not be good, along with the backdoor flush? It's likely the button will cap, too. So you really have to think about 3 more bets.

[Nate tha' Great]

Heads up against the Button you have:

9% equity against TT (3 combos)
7.5% equity against KK (1 combo)
13% equity against A /images/graemlins/heart.gif K (2 combos)
18% equity against AxK (6 combos)
19% equity against A/images/graemlins/heart.gif A (3 combos)
23% equity against AxA (3 combos)
48% equity against A/images/graemlins/heart.gif Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif (1 combo)

For a weighted average of about 17% equity.

I'm assuming that you commit yourself to calling the turn when you call the flop. If that's the case you're getting an effective 5:33.5 on the flop + turn call, which means that you need about 13% equity to call. HOWEVER the damned all-in player complicates things since it's likely that

a) He holds some of your outs,
and/or
b) He holds a redraw against your redraw

Arbitrarily I'm guessing that it's appropriate to knock about 25% of your win percentage as a result of UTG's presence, which knocks you down to 12.75%.

In other words, this is a seemingly momentus decision in a $1000+ pot that realistically comes down to the price of a cocktail or so in terms of expectation. Quite honestly it depends on whether you feel like gambling or not. It doesn't matter very much what you do.

[Garland]

I'd take a cold hard look at the pot and ask myself one question before you consider folding:

"Do I like money?"

By my count, there's 31.5 small bets in the pot and they are asking you to pay 2 bets for 31.5:2 (and maybe implied 3 for 32.5:3 if you assume button will cap) with top pair, good kicker with backdoors to not only a flush, but a straight as well!

If the pot swells to this point, I'd say fine, let button take control, but call him down. But don't you dare let your cards hit the muck until button shows you a winning hand at the showdown.

Garland

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Quite honestly it depends on whether you feel like gambling or not. It doesn't matter very much what you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming your numbers are correct, that's true if those are the only potential hands. If you think the button is capable of raising the flop with QQ or JJ here, a fold could be disastrous.

With over 10-1 odds even assuming a cap from the button, this isn't the time to make a good laydown. I think seeing the turn is imperative, even if you plan on folding without improvement.

[Nate tha' Great]

Because I'm a dork, I decided to look in a little bit more detail at the way that UTG's presence impacts Hero's decision.

Case 1: Assume that Button will only have played his hand this way with the hands that hands I described in my initial post: TT, KK, AK, AA, AhQh.

Hero has 18% equity against this combination of hands heads up against the Button.

If UTG has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif X /images/graemlins/heart.gif, then Hero's equity is reduced to 8%.

If UTG has K /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Hero's equity is 14%.

If UTG has A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif, Hero's equity is 17%.

If UTG has 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, it is 13%.

If UTG has A /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif, 7.1%.

If UTG has flopped a set, 6.9%.

If UTG has total crap like 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif, Hero's equity remains at roughly 18%.

Let's assign a single weighting to all of the combinations except the last one (UTG has junk), which we'll assign a triple weighting to.

Against that parlay of UTG/Button hands, Hero's equity is 13.2%. Let's assume furthermore that:

1) Button will always cap the flop and bet the turn.
2) Hero will always call the turn.
3a) Hero will only play the river if he improves.
3b) Hero will make an average of one extra BB on the river if he hits his hand (so he's getting an effective 5:35.5).
4) Rake + tip costs the Hero $5.

Throw all this stuff into an EXCEL spreadsheet, and the flop call makes the Hero $10. It's that close.

Case 2: Assume that the Button will *occasionally* overplay a hand like QQ. To be more precise about it, we will assign 1.5 combinations of QQ to the Button. Note that Hero is now obligated to call the river, so he's now paying an effective 7:35.5 for his calldown.

Hero's equity heads up against Button now increases to 23.7%. UTG's presence reduces it to 18.5%, using the same assumptions as before.

In this case, Hero makes $25 by calling down.

However, if Button would *never* play QQ/JJ this way *and* Hero is committed to calling down the river, this is a bad parlay for Hero and costs him $42.

To summarize ...
1) Hero only calls river if he improves. Makes $10 on average.
2) Hero always bets/calls river, Button sometimes overplays hand. Hero makes $25.
3) Hero always bets/calls river, Button never overplays hand. Hero loses $42.

As I've said already, it's an extraordinarily close decision, but it does seem that Hero probably ought to pay the price on flop and turn and then faces another tough decision on the River if he hasn't improved.

[mplspoker]

Backdoor straight and backdoor flush. Have to see turn. No question in my opinion. Unless you get a draw or two pair on fourth street can't call more than 1 bet. My opinion....

[afish]

Preflop: I'd fold. Three betting with KQ in an aggressive game is a recipe for disaster. If you were confident you could get it heads up with the maniac, it might be ok. But you already have an early limper, so that isn't likely. I also think that you have to consider folding to the five-bet. The risk of being dominated here is huge.

Flop: Call the four bet and hope for improvement on the turn. I think it is a close decision, and my rule is to call when you have a close decision in a big pot. Note that the fact that you have a close decision when you got an almost perfect flop for your hand shows the merit of folding preflop.

[OrangeHeat]

I'm not too fond of the preflop action - I prefer to go after maniacs with a little stronger hand.

Flop is simple - BIG POT, I have some chance of winning it, I call down.

Orange

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not too fond of the preflop action - I prefer to go after maniacs with a little stronger hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a stronger hand, you can start to go after the normal players. KQ is plenty to go after a maniac IMO. Sometimes you'll see them 3 bet w/ 10-6, K-3, J-4 etc. And most maniacs are very adept at spewing chips postflop when they have almost no chance of winning.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
With a stronger hand, you can start to go after the normal players. KQ is plenty to go after a maniac IMO. Sometimes you'll see them 3 bet w/ 10-6, K-3, J-4 etc. And most maniacs are very adept at spewing chips postflop when they have almost no chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is already action before the maniac from early position - this changes things greatly.....

Orange

[mmcd]

The limper was a bad player. If the early limper was a nit who would not limp utg w/o having KQ beat, this obvioulsy changes things, but with a bad player limping you could easily have him dominated (Kx, Qx) and at worst he has a shitty suited ace or a small pair for essentially a coinflip. Also, a tight player would probably fold when it comes 3-bets back to them so you isolate the maniac and get an extra sb of dead money in the pot.

[ChicagoTroy]

How are you making these calculations?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
How are you making these calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]

Built an EXCEL spreadsheet and ran some twodimes sims. I did learn something from the time I spent in corporate hell.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a tight player would probably fold when it comes 3-bets back to them so you isolate the maniac and get an extra sb of dead money in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The player is almost all-in - he is not going anywhere. Puttting 3 bets in the pot with KQo against a caller and a maniac is not goot.

[ QUOTE ]
you could easily have him dominated (Kx, Qx) and at worst he has a shitty suited ace or a small pair for essentially a coinflip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limpers and maniacs get good cards too. Youy are not dominating many hands at all. Even if they have mediocre hands you are not dominating them - from twodimes:

pokenum -h kh qs - ad 2d - tc th
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Kh 418330 30.52 948665 69.21 3759 0.27 0.306
Ad 2d 437728 31.93 929267 67.79 3759 0.27 0.320
Tc Th 510937 37.27 856058 62.45 3759 0.27 0.374

pokenum -h kh qs - ad 2d - ah jc
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Qs Kh 519127 37.87 846314 61.74 5313 0.39 0.380
Ad 2d 302517 22.07 1006674 73.44 61563 4.49 0.243
Jc Ah 487547 35.57 821644 59.94 61563 4.49 0.377

You do not want to be putting 3 bets in on coin flips against maniacs.

Orange

[Philuva]

You are giving a bad player who LIMPS and a maniac who raises way too much credit with their range of hands if you are not willing to 3 bet them with KQo.

[ChicagoTroy]

OK, for a split-second I thought you could make these calculations real time, in a game, to that degree of accuracy. It created a feeling similar to cashing in next to the guy who was cashing in for PLO last night for 15 times the buy-in.

Good exercise though. It probably sharpens your instincts when you play live and are confronted with a similar situation.

BTW, I think tomorrow is a go for Harrah's if you're game.

[OrangeHeat]

Depends I guess. Even if they have mediocre hands - it is a small edge at best. If one of them has a pair of 2's your a dog to start. Especially since the limper is guarunteed to see a showdown since he is almost all-in.

I like it better if I am the button and don't have to say doh when the button calls/caps.

Orange

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, for a split-second I thought you could make these calculations real time, in a game, to that degree of accuracy. It created a feeling similar to cashing in next to the guy who was cashing in for PLO last night for 15 times the buy-in.

Good exercise though. It probably sharpens your instincts when you play live and are confronted with a similar situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no fricking way that I could calculate this in real-time at the table. But, yeah, I think it's helpful to verge on being anal-retentive with an exercise like this now and again. If nothing else, it confirms that a lot of the tough decisions really are very close in terms of EV, which ought to be refreshing in a sense.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I think tomorrow is a go for Harrah's if you're game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you a buzz tomorrow then, take care...

[mikelow]

Fold.

And I would have folded preflop. KQo just doesn't play well
in this game.

[Clarkmeister]

Contrary to everyone else apparently, I think this is a good and routine preflop 3-bet.

[ChicagoTroy]

Glad to hear it. I wouldn't have even thought about not 3-betting a player of tht description. The post saying fold had me wondering if I had a huge leak. (I probably do, but it's not here)

[JimRivett]

Hello Dave,

I'm not so sure that in this case it is a "good and routine 3 bet". My reason being that you have a "short stacked Asian guy" utg and it would not be unusual for him to go all in, thus committing more of your chips. A big part of what you do here depends upon the read(s) you have on your opponents. I don't see much wrong with a fold here, with raising being the only other option.

Jim

[OrangeHeat]

The thing I don't like about three betting here is that you are almost guarnteed not to get the maniac heads-up and the asian guy is committed to a showdown.

Take out the asian guy or put me on the button and I like it better. Meh - it's probably one of those decisions that is +/- a little EV depending on your poost-flop play.

Orange

[andyfox]

And still routine when it's two more bets back to you?

[RED_RAIN]

Preflop - I like the raise against a maniac, once you get 4 bet behind, you can count on more than likely Ts-As or AK or at least AQ.
Flop - on this action I think I'm behind either AA, QQ, or AK at worst. I would fold. The side pot you are building is going against the person I consider you are likely most behind.

[Clarkmeister]

Yup. The guy is raising with any two cards. I'm in late position. No way am I folding a relative monster like KQ.

[Clarkmeister]

Jim,

I don't think it's as necessary to get headsup as most people seem to.

[andyfox]

It may be a monster relative to Mr. Any-Two-Will-Do. What about relative to the solid 4-bettor on the button?

One thing: it sure looks bad when you put in 3 bets and then don't see the flop. At least it would here in L.A. Maybe in Vegas it's standard. And then to talk about it for the next three rounds. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

I'd probably have folded for 2 more bets pre-flop. Sounds ridiculous, I know, but I like the initial 3-bet and then like folding for two more.

On the flop, no way I'm quitting now in this massive pot with top pair and backdoor draws. With the one guy down to the green, and the manicial player now out, I know the turn can be relatively cheap if one (or both) of my draws are still live.

[Clarkmeister]

Andy,

The guy on the button can roll over two aces as he 4-bets and you should still call for 2 more.

[obi---one]

I think the raise or fold before the flop is debateable. I personally would call before the flop. But I don't believe a raise is a bad play. I just don't like to raise a dominated hand, unless I feel the person is weak then i can three bet any two cards because it doesn't matter what I have, I am playing the player.

On the flop, how can anyone be thinking about folding? The pot is huge. mp doesn't sound like that much of a maniac if he is folding the flop after puting in the first bet on the flop. You are probably behind but it is possible to be beating hands like qq and jj so call the flop and call down unless something changes. Save you good laydowns for pots under 1200 during the daytime.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally would call before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the one choice that is not debatable - calling is not an option.

Orange

[Clarkmeister]

"calling is not an option"

Sure it is. I think it's better than folding.

The forum likes to get a little carried away with the "raise or fold" idea.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally would call before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the one choice that is not debatable - calling is not an option.

Orange

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is, although I think raising is a better choice, with folding a distant third. I think folding this hand would be giving up too much.

[OrangeHeat]

I am not a raise or fold guy - BUT with a hand like KQoff if you are going to play a maniac and a limper you certainly want to clear out the blinds if you have any chance too.

In this case I would put raise/fold before call.

Orange

[andyfox]

K-Q will outdraw A-A about 13% of the time. It costs you $60 for the other $590 that figures to be in the pot (by my sometimes fuzzy math) after the others call. Figuring I still have to beat the other guys, it doesn't seem like such a clear call to me.

[obi---one]

I don't understand why everyone on this forum thinks that raising and folding are the only way to play this game. I don't like to raise with kq because I can't decide if it is a big hand or not, kinda like ak but a couple of notches down. kq is only a big hand if the person or persons in the hand with you also have a king or queen in their hand with a worse kicker. IF they don't, your hand is not that strong. If you get in a pot with a manaic and a k or q hits the flop then i will be ready to throw three bets around. Before that i will just call in a full game, and that includes before the flop unless I am in late position. Some of my favorite pots are when I have kq in an unraised pot and I hit. Someone in late position will raise when you hit you pair and they will have a worse kicker and then you will win a big pot, but if i raised before the flop they wouldn't even call.

[OrangeHeat]

I never said raising or folding is the way to play this game.

In THIS case you do not want company with your KQ against the maniac and the soon-to-be all-in limper.

Orange

[obi---one]

Why, do you think king high will hold up unimproved against two people?

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy on the button can roll over two aces as he 4-bets and you should still call for 2 more.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if button rolled over two kings as he 4-bets, would you still have to call 2 more? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Garland

[OrangeHeat]

No - but the hand (kq) has a better chance of holding up against 2 than it does against 3 or 4.

Pretty basic.

Orange

[obi---one]

No - but the hand (kq) has a better chance of holding up against 2 than it does against 3 or 4.


If you don't think you can win unimproved why three-bet. you have a good hand and position, why not see the flop.
I hope the button calls with kj and the small blind calls with q8suited....
but that is just how I have decided to play kq lately. like I said i don't think three betting is a mistake, I just wont play it that way and i have been having success with my style. I think the only non-debateable play preflop is fold.

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing: it sure looks bad when you put in 3 bets and then don't see the flop. At least it would here in L.A. Maybe in Vegas it's standard. And then to talk about it for the next three rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Los Angeles you couldn't 3-bet and have it two more back to you.

[OrangeHeat]

[ QUOTE ]

I hope the button calls with kj and the small blind calls with q8suited....


[/ QUOTE ]

What if they call with AT and 44? I would hope they call with hands that do not de-value mine - however hoping does not guaruntee they will have bad hands.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think you can win unimproved why three-bet. you have a good hand and position, why not see the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why three-bet with anything besides big pairs then?

Orange

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think you can win unimproved why three-bet. you have a good hand and position, why not see the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why three-bet with anything besides big pairs then?

Orange

[/ QUOTE ]

Small pairs AK and AQ also win unimproved frequently. Also (although this situation is different with the all-in player) many hands can win unimproved just by virtue of being the preflop raiser/3-bettor. In certain tighter games, I'll often raise bad-playing limpers with random hands because of this.

[Gabe]

Hi Clark,

I’m not saying I disagree with you, but I’d like to hear more of your thoughts regarding the call of two more pre-flop.

I think we can assume you’ll win the pot about 18% of the time. We can also assume that he’ll have to take one off for 1-bet on almost every flop, even A 6 2. In fact on an A 6 2 flop the best play may be to raise if the maniac bets. I agree that just calling may be better on the Ks Th 4h flop. (How’s that for counter intuitive?)

Anyway, like I said I’m not disagreeing with you, but you will be putting in future bets at 1-1 or 2- 1 at best. You’re real effective pot odds may be between 3 to 1 and 4 to 1.

Also if you have the time, could you explain the your thoughts on the guy on the button turning over AA? Do you think it would be better if everyone were all-in when he did this?

Gabe

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
"calling is not an option"

Sure it is. I think it's better than folding.

The forum likes to get a little carried away with the "raise or fold" idea.

[/ QUOTE ]


I like Clarkmeister's point here.

Correction: BOTH his points. It's not against everyone, but SOMETIMES it's fine to call.

This I think is one of those times. Call that flop for the extra, see what happens on the turn.

Not to mention, going back in time, when you have a guy raising with any-two-will-do, I'd prefer to 3-bet with KQ-o since it will many times get you heads up, in position, and most likely a big favorite.

No, granted, if it's Mr. Tighty Tighty raising UTG and he only raises with AK Aces or Kings, sure, fold it away -- but this is NOT one of those situations.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Clarkmeister]

If I beat the aces it's probable I beat anyone else, no?

10-1 on a 7.5-1 shot. Good enough for me. Not to mention all of those ever-popular metagame considerations.

[Clarkmeister]

10-1 in a 4-way pot is too good to fold. Decent 4-bettor on the button doesn't necessarily have us over a barrell. Sure he could have AA and KK, but QQ and AK are hands we really want to call against, and JJ and TT are hands we give up a lot against if we fold. I think that given an obvious re-isolation of a maniac, there could even be more hands that this player may 4-bet with like 99 and AQ that we must call against also. The presense of an idiot in the hand helps add value also since we at least have position on him which we could leverage against the 4-bettor at some point.

[DcifrThs]

personally, i fold for the extra two preflop...

the reason i do so is that the "decent playing" guy wouldn't 3 bet YOU, bicyclekick, with less than KQo...he may 3 bet or 4 bet the maniac, since he's decent and can recognize that...but if you are playing correctly in this game with a maniac (playing really only top cards and only occasionally isolating the maniac ...moreso if the table allows it) then your play will be respected and you can mitigate future losses in the hand by folding this likely poor holding preflop for $60. yes you've put in $90...yes you're getting 8.66:1...but do you really wanna take it? you know you're likely ahead of the maniac and maybe even the guy who just called 3 cold UTG. but the decent playing guy has you clobbered and has absolute position on you (if you had a hand that could withstand some pressure and was easy to play...i.e. 66- albeit thats a big gamble in this situation, then i'd take the 8.33:1, but i wouldn't have raised the maniac with it in the first place).

either way fold it preflop and avoid the conundrum that is invariably headed your way b/c there is no flop you want to see right now other than AcJsTd (and even then you'll be drawn out on when he's got a set, or even halved when he's got QQ/KK enough of the time that even FLOPPING THE NUTS, isn't a sure thing with that hand).

just my thoughts...im posting as much as possible tonight since i haven't for a long time so i apologize for my lack of brevity.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
To summarize ...
1) Hero only calls river if he improves. Makes $10 on average.
2) Hero always bets/calls river, Button sometimes overplays hand. Hero makes $25.
3) Hero always bets/calls river, Button never overplays hand. Hero loses $42.

As I've said already, it's an extraordinarily close decision, but it does seem that Hero probably ought to pay the price on flop and turn and then faces another tough decision on the River if he hasn't improved.

[/ QUOTE ]

nate,

you done good, sir.

good analysis. i won't add anything but just repeat that this whole rigamarol (increased variance by playing at all past the flop with only a minorly small increase in EV (1/6 of a bet) ) is what we should be aiming to avoid in a game such as this one...just wait for a better hand preflop...

ihaven't gotten past these few posts so i hope the preflop play isn't already been or being discussed...but it should be a fold imo.

oh, one quick thing...the 2nd post you put up nate you didn't include AKs in your "list of hands the button would play this way"...that may change things a bit to the detriment of the hero.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Contrary to everyone else apparently, I think this is a good and routine preflop 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

fine but do you call the 2 back knowing you're in bad shape...i'll stick with my 3 bet/fold getting 8.33:1 here and only relative position thanks.

-Barron

[Clarkmeister]

And kick yourself when he rolls over JJ.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Andy,

The guy on the button can roll over two aces as he 4-bets and you should still call for 2 more.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're getting 8.33:1...KQo may have equity against aces that amounts to more than the requisite pot odds equation, but when it loses and has to call down it will end up being -EV...i don't even feel i have to get into the nitty gritty math to purport that.

when you win, you win a huge pot...but you win so rarely with the given action and player descriptions that it is more than offset by the times you must call and play "like everyone else" to use mason's parlance a lot of the time due to the size of the pot.

ANDYFOX, however, brings up an image issue that cannot be totally brushed aside. if you 3bet and fold, you'll decrease your future action enough that calling to see a flop may be pushed to a SLIGHTLY +ev play...but im still not excited about it.

also, yea i call if i KNOW he has two aces...b/c then i can just fold 100% of the time when behind...but its never that easy to play KQ against possible hands such as TT/JJ QQ etc. when the pot size warrants calls and you make the disastrous play and fold.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
If I beat the aces it's probable I beat anyone else, no?

10-1 on a 7.5-1 shot. Good enough for me. Not to mention all of those ever-popular metagame considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]

i originally counted 8.33:1 effective odds to see a flop. you're 10:1 is correct but you don't KNOW the exact cards the button holds. i fold here a lot. even every time i think. the ONLY reason i'd push it to a call is andy's and now apparantly your point about "metagame" considerations.

you're only considering "10:1 on a 7.5:1 shot"... of the 1/8.5 times you win you won't win enough to cover and surpass the times like these youc all down and lose. plus you increase variance by a very large degree relative to the amount you gain in EV...maybe this is where"great" players make their money relative too "good" players but i think this is a losing proposition...

-Barron

[Clarkmeister]

It's not 8.33-1. The button and UTG are guaranteed to call, the blinds folded. 590-60, or basically 10-1.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that given an obvious re-isolation of a maniac,

[/ QUOTE ]

this is where i think i disagree with you 100%...

DECENT players aren't GREAT/GOOD enough to reisolate.

you are clark, but that button isn't you...in fact, i'd weight the "decent" button's hands much more highly toward the top hand groupings for that reason. hes not great, he's not good, he's decent. decent players don't think enough about a player like bicycle kick 3 betting to isolate and have enough confidence in their game to reisolate 4 bet even on the button. treat him as a decent player in your analysis.

-Barron

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I beat the aces it's probable I beat anyone else, no?

10-1 on a 7.5-1 shot. Good enough for me. Not to mention all of those ever-popular metagame considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]

i originally counted 8.33:1 effective odds to see a flop. you're 10:1 is correct but you don't KNOW the exact cards the button holds. i fold here a lot. even every time i think. the ONLY reason i'd push it to a call is andy's and now apparantly your point about "metagame" considerations.

you're only considering "10:1 on a 7.5:1 shot"... of the 1/8.5 times you win you won't win enough to cover and surpass the times like these youc all down and lose. plus you increase variance by a very large degree relative to the amount you gain in EV...maybe this is where"great" players make their money relative too "good" players but i think this is a losing proposition...

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a close decision against AA and KK. It's a bad fold against the hands that have us drawing to 3 outs. It's a disaster to fold against TT and JJ. Weight the range of hands and you simply must call. I have over 28% equity against that very reasonable range of hands.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not 8.33-1. The button and UTG are guaranteed to call, the blinds folded. 590-60, or basically 10-1.

[/ QUOTE ]

i see that now and responded accordingly...read my more recent posts...i.e. 2 minutes ago lol

-Barron

[Clarkmeister]

Decent Asian guy is different than decent typical weak white vegas local. And even the weak vegas locals in the 30 game are going to re-pop you with JJ and TT here. Decent Asian guy definitely does.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
And kick yourself when he rolls over JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

i still think he has JJ and TT fewer times than you give him credit for...unless i weight a "decent" player's ability/tendencies far to low (tight) in which case i'm dead wrong and you must call.

-Barron

[andyfox]

Your argument is a good one. I would have folded for two more here. (I can remember two occasions where I raised with K-Q and it was two more back to me; I folded both times, but I was sure, and correct, that the 4-bettor had either A-A or K-K.)

But I still think there's a lot to be said for folding. Poster said it's a great game. Seems to me that putting in 5 bets pre-flop with K-Q, sandwiched in between a maniac and a solid player isn't part of what makes it great. While it is indeed possible that the 4-bettor is doing so with weaker hands than under "normal" conditions since he may put you on an isolation 3-bet, he's definitely going to 4-bet with a 4-bet hand. We've already tried to leverage the idiot without success; if the 4-bettor realized this pre-flop, he's not going to forget it at some point later on.

Regards,
Andy

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a close decision against AA and KK. It's a bad fold against the hands that have us drawing to 3 outs. It's a disaster to fold against TT and JJ. Weight the range of hands and you simply must call. I have over 28% equity against that very reasonable range of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re-read the post. There is a T on board, meaning if he had TT he'd have a set.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a close decision against AA and KK. It's a bad fold against the hands that have us drawing to 3 outs. It's a disaster to fold against TT and JJ. Weight the range of hands and you simply must call. I have over 28% equity against that very reasonable range of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re-read the post. There is a T on board, meaning if he had TT he'd have a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re-read my post (or more correctly that subthread). We are talking about the decision to call 2 more bets preflop.

[bicyclekick]

I see. My appologies.

[RED_RAIN]

Wow, can't believe you fold this preflop against a maniac preflop. Boo

[bicyclekick]

I folded on the flop.

The button turned over AA and UTG turned over AK with the A of hearts.

Turn was a K, river was a Q.

I would have won the hand. I was drawing live to those 3 queens.

I love the great discussion and I'm glad I could provide a hand that gets people thinking.

[Clarkmeister]

"I was drawing live to those 3 queens."

I think that's a pretty easy assumption on the flop.

It is a big pot
I can still win if I hit
I do not ever fold

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have won the hand. I was drawing live to those 3 queens.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you folded, you were also drawing live to a nine and jack or an Ace and jack. On the turn you also had some tie outs to go with your Queen winners.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

It is a big pot
I can still win if I hit
I do not ever fold

[/ QUOTE ]

While it looks like one
Those lines not a haiku make
Try harder next time

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have won the hand. I was drawing live to those 3 queens.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you folded, you were also drawing live to two hearts, a nine and jack, or an Ace and jack. On the turn you also had some tie outs to go with your Queen winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running hearts would only have given him the sidepot.

FWIW, the fold was correct from a FTOP perspective.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have won the hand. I was drawing live to those 3 queens.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you folded, you were also drawing live to two hearts, a nine and jack, or an Ace and jack. On the turn you also had some tie outs to go with your Queen winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running hearts would only have given him the sidepot.

FWIW, the fold was correct from a FTOP perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Running hearts? Who said anything about running hearts? Some crazy voodoo is going on here, as my original post clearly says nothing about running hearts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(Yeah, I somehow overlooked the "Ace of hearts" line when I originally scanned the results)

[andyfox]

Two more, fold pre-flop;
But if I, like Clark, had called,
Take one off--see turn.

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have won the hand. I was drawing live to those 3 queens.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you folded, you were also drawing live to a nine and jack or an Ace and jack. On the turn you also had some tie outs to go with your Queen winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the good news. The bad news is that even if you hit your queen, the actual hands have redraws. There's also the issue that you may be drawing close to dead on this flop sometimes.

I have a real problem with the preflop 3-bet. If you could isolate and get the hand heads-up, I think 3-betting is a fine play here. If you were suited, I wouldn't think it were that big a deal. But with an UTG limper (who is probably pot commited due to his short stack) and a raiser, the chances are slim that you've got the best hand (between the players already in and those behind you who will sometimes play). You are facing an aggressive middle position raiser, so you are going to have to catch by the river, or fold fearing that it isn't worth cracking a bluff with KQ-hi for a side pot.

Three betting multi-way with KQo is an exploitative play, and should only be done when you've got a very solid read on your opponents.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[andyfox]

Poster did have a good read on his opponents. UTG was short-stacked and not a good player and only limped. Now a maniac raised. I'm not throwing away K-Q here which is likely a better hand than theirs. Sure, it's possible the button or one of the blinds has a better hand, but by 3-betting they'll likely throw away a lot of those "better" hands (e.g., smallish pocket pairs, A-J, A-xs). So then you're left up against two bad players who likely have worse hands and who play badly.

[SA125]

n/m

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Poster did have a good read on his opponents. UTG was short-stacked and not a good player and only limped. Now a maniac raised. I'm not throwing away K-Q here which is likely a better hand than theirs. Sure, it's possible the button or one of the blinds has a better hand, but by 3-betting they'll likely throw away a lot of those "better" hands (e.g., smallish pocket pairs, A-J, A-xs). So then you're left up against two bad players who likely have worse hands and who play badly.

[/ QUOTE ]


From the original post:

not so good asian guy who's short stacked limps utg(this doesn't mean much of anything.)

super lag boarderline maniac gambler guy raises in mlp. He'd raise pretty much any 2. Last hand he raised Q9o was utg.

I guess my definition of a good read is different than yours. Of course the UTG limper isn't always going to have a strong hand, but it's certaintly not the case that his limp "doesn't mean much of anything." It means that the player has a hand which probably beats his overall looseness range.

Now consider the preflop raiser. He may be aggressive, but that's not good for you in general. And he may have relativly loose raising standards, but just how loose are they? Raising with a top 26% hand UTG is a far cry from raising with any two.

This is a fairly common mistake a lot of people make. It's clear that the original poster is underestimating the strength of his opponents holdings. He is dicounting their holdings in order to increase his perception of how playable his own hand is. Clearly he does not have a good read on what's going on here.

As for playing KQo in this spot, without knowing very specific information about my opponents, I think it is a fairly significant mistake. Compare this to the general situation: when you have a reasonable player limp UTG, and a resonable player raises the UTG limper, KQo is toast. No buts about it.

What is it about this particular situation that pushes KQo from being toast, to being a routine 3-bet? As the original poster has described it, I just can't see moving KQo from clear fold to clear three-bet.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[bicyclekick]

Do I have to draw you a colorful picture or can you just trust that I had enough information to be confident in my reads?

Just trust me, the utg guy limping didn't mean anything, he would have limped with 87o and anything else that players that play 87o utg...The maniac guy had been going crazy, raising maybe 50% of the hands. At least 35%. Nah, as I think about it more...50% sounds about right.

KQ > both players hands almost every time.

I still think a case can be made for cold calling, though.

[RED_RAIN]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think a case can be made for cold calling, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think so too.

[ QUOTE ]
Do I have to draw you a colorful picture

[/ QUOTE ]

Draw the freaking picture art boy! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

"it's certainly not the case that his limp '"doesn't mean much of anything'."

-I have to take the poster, who has been playing with the guy, at his word. I took his meaning to be the guy doesn't necesssarily have much of a hand, as a more typical player would, having limped UTG. The guy doesn't play so well. He's short-stacked, precisely because he doesn't play so well. Now he limps. He's most likely got something between an OK hand and pee-pee-ca-ca. [Thanks to Tommy Angelo for learning me this techiincal terminology.] I'll take K-Q with position against his hand.

"Now consider the preflop raiser. . . he may have relatively loose raising standards, but just how loose are they?"

Again, I take poster at his word: he says "He'd raise pretty much any 2. Last hand he raised Q9o was utg." That's specific evidence of his raising "standards." I'll take K-Q with position against his hand too.

Poster has been playing in the game. And yet you conclude that "clearly he does not have a good read on what's going on here." I think he's indicated very good reasons for feeling his K-Q may well be the best hand here.

I don't see the pre-flop raiser's aggressiveness as necessarily bad for me with K-Q. With the 3rd guy nearly all-in, he's going to have to consider that there's a side pot. And I have position on him, so I'm in position to benefit if he overagresses.

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to take the poster, who has been playing with the guy, at his word.

[/ QUOTE ]

As do I. The problem with his word is that there are internal contradictions. Even for a bad player an "UTG limp" != "doesn't' mean anything" and "Raised with Q9o UTG" is not evidence that "he could have any two." This indicates to me that he doesn't have a good read on the situation and/or opponents.

But the other question is still on the table. What is it which is swinging KQo from a clear fold to a clear three-bet here. Well, maybe you don't think KQo is a clear fold in the general situation. Who knows.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I have to draw you a colorful picture or can you just trust that I had enough information to be confident in my reads?

Just trust me, the utg guy limping didn't mean anything, he would have limped with 87o and anything else that players that play 87o utg...


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are illustrating my point. You first say that the limp "didn't mean anything". You then say that the poor player will play about 40-50% of his hands under the gun (87o and better). There is a huge difference between a top 50% hand and a random hand. You are still discounting their hands far too much.

[ QUOTE ]
The maniac guy had been going crazy, raising maybe 50% of the hands. At least 35%. Nah, as I think about it more...50% sounds about right.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, now you are saying that the person who was not quite a maniac was raising with 50% of his hands. If that were the case you should be able to come up with examples of him raising limpers with hands like J5s, and A2o, and Q7o.

Once more, raising with a top 26% hand is not an indication that he raises with the top 50% of hands. It might well be that he was raising half the time. But it could also be that he was getting good cards too. If he was raising bad cards, cards much much worse than Q9o, then say so.

My point isn't that you're wrong. You may very well be right. But it's unclear what you are right about since there are internal inconsistencies in your description of the situation.

Again, the default play here is a fold, and I think there is a significant chance that you are over-reading your opponents because you want to get in there and mix it up with them.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[mmcd]

Bad (as in loose) player limps, and semi-maniac raises.
You have position on both of them.

That is all that is necessary to turn KQ from a fold to a 3-bet.

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, you are illustrating my point. You first say that the limp "didn't mean anything". You then say that the poor player will play about 40-50% of his hands under the gun (87o and better). There is a huge difference between a top 50% hand and a random hand. You are still discounting their hands far too much.


[/ QUOTE ]

Playing 87o UTG in a 30/60 game is attrocious. I don't care what % of hands it's better than, the point is, a player who will limp with shitty hands limped utg with a hand that is almost always worse than KQo. The chances of it being better than KQo (which it actually was in this hand) sits no higher than 5%. This guy blew. He only had 9sb in front of him when the hand started.

The previous orbit the pf raiser raised almost every hand. The only hands I got to see were the A4o and the q9o(which was this orbit), and my intuition tells me that he's probably raising with tons of similar garbage, almost all of which my KQ is better than. He told me after the hand he had QTo. Not that it really matters.

I really don't understand your brain malfunction. It IS CLEAR what is going on in the situation and no, there aren't any internal inconsitencies. Perhaps raising any 2 isn't quite spot on, but jeezus, raising q9o UTG says something about a player. Enough that folding KQo to his raise would be a pretty good MISTAKE.

[droidboy]

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying. Most of what you just wrote is correct. But it doesn't keep your original post from being internally inconsistent.

Cheers,

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[JimmyV]

I disagree with Andrew as well.