Why does everyone insist you can't fold Kings preflop?

[Bralynn]

I've heard it from every place I can think of. Forums, books, players, etc.

I just don't agree with it!

There are times when I'm at least 90% sure I'm against Aces preflop.

Situation such as:

-Playing at a 6 handed $100 NL table, cash game.
-Have played against my opponent for a couple hours and he is extremely tight.
-Has only shown high quality hands. We both have more than $100, such as $300-400.
-He is behind me in position. I raise, he reraises, I reraise, he goes all-in.

I've seen this situation many many times, and way more often than not, I'm correct. The other times, this player randomly decided to make a poor play like this with AKs or QQ, but it is by far more likely from my experience this player has AA.

I just think there are times when it's worth it to fold KK, yet I constantly hear from everywhere how you just can't do it.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

There are times when I'm at least 90% sure I'm against Aces preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to make a lot of money at poker.

[Bralynn]

I already do, for the limits I play.

I'm not making this thread to 'brag', and I'm not saying that I always know when someone has aces, I'm saying there are 'times' when I'm 90% sure my opponent has Aces. Those are the times I'm speaking of, where I feel like folding Kings, IS acceptable.

[Iceman]

You can...but you have to be very sure of your opponent and the money has to be very deep.

[Pepsquad]

IMO, I don't hear too many people in these forums making the statement, "You can NEVER EVER fold K's pre-flop." However, you BETTER be right 90% of the time. Because that one time you find yourself staring at $350 in the pot, muck your KK and he flashes QQ or AK - that has probably just nullified the 7 previous times you patted yourself on the back for a great laydown. All I'm saying is, just be sure. FWIW, the situation you describe is about the only way I lay down KK, and even then it's borderline.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
However, you BETTER be right 90% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm speculating that you would need to be right even more often than 90% of the time.

[theredpill5]

What about QQ ? Talking NL here small stakes , .25 /.50 NL full ring. I raised to $2 preflop in EP . I got reraised by the guy next to me that hasn't really done anything dumb since I had been sitting there in the last 25 minutes. I only play one table so I try to watch these players. He minimum raised my raise and I called with QQ . Flop is rags. I checked to him and he bet $6.50 or about the size of the pot. I folded. Correct play ? I had $50 and he had $30. Should I have just put him all-in since he only had $30 ? I need help with this because I'm finding QQ and JJ are the hardest hands for me to play since its hard to tell whether I'm beat sometimes.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

in my recollection i've folded KK exactly twice preflop in NL and he flashed AA both times.

but on the sme token i've been busted by AA when holding KK plenty of times too. it happens and despite my two folds that i did make, its not something i'm looking forward to doing everytime my kings get too much action.

[flub]

The saying is only correct in limit HE. In NL I think Doyle wrote something like the 3rd raise is as plain as newly fallen snow 'Aces'. Something like that anyway.

-flub

[Cerril]

I think that's Cloutier, not that it necessarily makes a difference. Against bad or highly aggressive players (neither of which he was referring to) it doesn't necessarily mean Aces no matter what the action is. Even if the raise and reraise are genuine, a subsequent all-in could be an idiot, and any callers might feel they're getting odds with speculative hands, or just want to be a part of a big pot.

[scotty34]

Well think of it this way. You have KK. In a full ring, there are 9 other players, and 5 others in a short handed game. The probability of another person getting AA is 1/221, so 9/221 (~4%) in a full ring, and 5/221 (~2.2%) shorthanded. I am going to use the full ring example here.

From the number listed above (whether its right or not is up for debate) of needing to be correct about 90% of the time for this to be profitable. Say you get KK 1000 times, then 40 of these times you will be against AA and can "correctly" lay down KK. 90% of that 40 is 4, so all it takes is laying it down incorrectly 5 times out of that 1000 times you get it in order to make the move -EV.

[Mike Gallo]

I do not think I have ever folded Kings preflop.

[Kaz The Original]

I know players who haven't folded kings post flop.

[theredpill5]

Scotty, I thought about your mathematics there several times and I still don't understand it. If you could explain further or if someone else could explain that further, I would appreciate it. Also, anyone want to answer my previous example about QQ ? Could it be positive EV to always call an all-in with QQ preflop? Given your example, Scotty, then someone will have AA or KK about 10 % of the time in a full ring when you have QQ. You are a slight favorite or big favorite against any other hand. Hmmmm...someone needs to make a simulation program for these questions.

[-Syk-]

[ QUOTE ]
The other times, this player randomly decided to make a poor play like this with AKs or QQ, but it is by far more likely from my experience this player has AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly a poor play if he's making you muck your Kings.

[EliteNinja]

Never muck them preflop unless you cheated and saw your opponents cards (which are AA).

[scotty34]

Yes, I see how it could have been a bit unclear. Here is the basic point I was getting at: if you are willing to fold KK preflop, there are 40 times out of 1000 (4%) where it is "correct" to do so because you are against AA. Based on the assumption that you need to be correct in your read 90% of the time to make the fold profitable, if you folded 40 times, you would need to be correct 36 times. This gives you 4 wrong folds to still be +EV in folding.

Conclusion: If in 1000 KK hands you are dealt, you incorrectly fold PF 5 times, it is costing you money.

[scotty34]

Upon thinking about this further, you will be dealt KK at the same time as an opponent is dealt AA approximately 1 in 5400 hands (1/221 * 9/221). If you never fold KK in your lifetime, how big of a leak could this possibly be?

[axioma]

your line of reasoning is completely flawed for a few reasons, not least because it does not take into account the preflop action.

if you use bayes theorem to calculate the P of your opponent having aces given the action described by the OP for inctance, you will see it is of course far higher than 0.04.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There are times when I'm at least 90% sure I'm against Aces preflop.

No offense, but according to Dan Harrington, nobody can be that sure.

[YKing]

I made up a could-be senario:
You both have a stack of $300.
Blinds $1 + $2
You raise first in making it $5 to go. (POT:$8)
He raises TO $20. (POT:$28)
You re-raise to $50 (POT:$78)
He's all-in: (POT:$358)
You have $245 left giving you 1:1.46 pot odds. Therefore you need to win 40.6% of the times to make a profit if you call.
If you put him on the following hands with a likehood of:
AA: 60%
KK: 10%
QQ: 15%
AK (any): 15%

Against these hands you win this often (i'm not sure if the following figures is exactly correct because I collected the stats from different places on internet, but it should be close in any case):
AA: 18%
KK: 50% (since it's a split)
QQ: 18%
AK: 68%

Combining these figures gives you a win % of 38.3% < 40.6%;
hence -EV.

Of coure if the raises in the beginning are larger or your stacks shallower a call in this case is correct. I were only trying to illustrate that folding KK can be correct.

Hopefully these calculations are correct, otherwise corrections are appreciated. The probabilities of opponent's hand is arbitary and not based on the acctual likehood of them.

[RJT]

The OP did not say that he is right 90% of the time. He said there are times when he is 90% certain he is right. He does not give an estimate of the % of times he is right. He is asking if it ok to fold when he is almost certain he is up against AA.

[LinusKS]

The ninety percent figure isn't right. In fact, I don't think you even need to be 50% sure -

Fer instance -

If you were 40% sure he had AA, and you figured he was equally likely to have QQ and AK the rest of the time the math would come out:

40% of the time you would have lost 9 times out of 10
30% of the time you would have won 9 times out of 10
30% of the time you would have won 7 times out of 10

.4 @ .1 = .04
.3 @ .9 = .27
.3 @ .7 = .21

Equals .52, meaning you're barely profitable.

If you move it to 45/25/30 it comes out

.45 @ .1 = .045
.25 @ .9 = .225
.30 @ .7 = .210

Or .480.

Of course, that's ignoring what's already in the pot.

You'd have to add that back in to get the true odds.

[Kaz The Original]

Come on, that action aint realistic. Making it 5 to go? Weak!

[Cleveland Guy]

Your number against QQ is backwards.

KK will beat QQ 82% of the time.

This greatly changes the odds.

[Bluegoose75]

At the risk of making making this a little too simplistic, isn't it always a good play to 'lay down' when you're 90% certain you're beaten unless you're getting 9:1 odds?

I only say this because I hear all the time in live games that 'I knew you had Aces but I just couldn't lay down my Cowboys' or something similar to that. I always laugh when people say that. If you're certain you're beat, then you should fold. If you don't fold then saying you were certain either A) makes you look like you are an idiot for not folding or B)makes you look like a liar for saying you were certain.

My point is all the probabilities in the world would indicate to me that if you're certain you're beat then you should fold. PERIOD. If you're 50% certain, you better get 2:1 odds if your 90% certain you better get proper odds, etc. So in his example he's getting (assuming starting stacks were equal and blind values are negligible compared to the 'all in bet') 1:1 odds? Then to me the answer is obviously, yes it's the right call.

The bigger question is are you REALLY 90% certain he has aces at that time?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

I just think there are times when it's worth it to fold KK, yet I constantly hear from everywhere how you just can't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I almost folded here.....

saw flop|saw showdown

MP ($249.35)
Button ($97)
SB ($167.35)
Hero ($157.55)
UTG ($118.10)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, K.
UTG folds, MP calls $2, Button calls $2, SB completes, Hero raises to $8, MP raises to $14, Button calls $12, SB folds, Hero raises to $30, MP raises to $46, Button raises to $97 (All-In), Hero raises to $157.55 (All-In), MP calls $111.55.

Flop: ($414.10) 8, 9, T (3 players, 2 all-in)

Turn: ($414.10) 6 (3 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($414.10) 5 (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $414.10
Main Pot: $293, between MP, Button and Hero. > Pot won by Button ($293).
Pot 2: $121.10, between MP and Hero. > Pot won by Hero ($121.10).

Results in white below:
Hero shows Kd Kc (one pair, kings).
MP shows 8c 4d (one pair, eights).
Button shows 5s 8s (two pair, eights and fives).
Outcome: Button wins $293. Hero wins $121.10.

[Rococo]

The main thing that everything should take away from this thread is that it usually is a bad idea in NL to put in the third raise preflop with KK, especially if it pot commits you but not your opponents. It folds out most of the pairs and high cards that you are way ahead of, and gets you stacked off when you run into AA.

[YKing]

You are right, but I've calculated with 82% in favor for KK. Just typed the inverse by mistake.

[SlowStroke]

I have folded KK pre-flop lots of times in live games.

I play in live no-limit games where there is no restriction on your buy-in amount and I always buy-in huge.

There are players in this game (like me) who buy in huge just to catch players who are not able to fold KK pre-flop, or fold second nut flushes, or fold second nut straights, or fold bottom set.

For example
1) Blinds $1 and $2
2) We both have about $1000 in front of us
3) He raises to $15
4) I re-raise to $50
5) He re-raises to $400

I know the odds of him being dealt AA is low, but the odds of him putting in that raise without AA is even lower (if he is a known rock).

I only have $50 invested and there is no reason to lose my entire $1000 just because I have KK.

I do agree that on the internet where the buy-in is limited to 50 or 100 big blinds, or in tournaments where your stack to blinds ratio is low that it is harder to make that fold. By the time you suspect your Kings may be no good it is too late, you probably already have so much in that you can't escape.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
if you use bayes theorem to calculate the P of your opponent having aces given the action described by the OP for inctance, you will see it is of course far higher than 0.04.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with that completely, however that was not the point I was making. My concluding statement was that if out of 1000 times that you get KK, if you fold 5 times incorrectly, it is -EV.

You are obviously not going to get that kind of action on all 1000 times, and you very likely are not going to fold KK 40 times in 1000 either. However, you will face heavy action vs hands such as AKs, QQ, and even AQs and JJ against poorer players. If you decide to fold KK when facing heavy action, even if you have an excellent read on the villain, the amount of times you have to be right vs. the amount you are wrong is just too great. I don't think most, if any, players are able to make that judgement with such a high degree of accuracy.

[ThePinkBunny]

You're right, and I don't know why everyone insists that.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were 40% sure he had AA

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a huge difference between being 40% sure he has AA and him having AA 40% of the time when he re-reraises. Also, if KK runs into AA 1/5400 hands, how can you possibly be 40% sure that your KK is facing AA?


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, that's ignoring what's already in the pot.

You'd have to add that back in to get the true odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe after a bet, a raise, and a re-raise, this would change things signifacantly.

[Ulysses]

Against certain players, it's very easy to fold KK pre-flop in a no-limit game. I've been 100% certain my opponent has Aces a number of times, including a couple when I had KK.

[BusterFlush]

Should a distinction be made for playing in a tournament situation and live action NL?
IMO, an argument can be made for not floding KK in a tournament situation than in a live action NL game. When real cash is involved, that third raise means more than in a tourney situation.

[pzhon]

I don't know why people keep saying you have to be 90% sure you are up against AA to fold KK. 90% convinced that someone has aces does not mean that 10% of the time someone does not have aces, you get convinced that they do. 90% convinced that someone has aces means that you now would be willing to bet 9:1 that your opponent has aces, in which case you are a huge underdog.

For simplicity, assume that you are just as much of a favorite when your opponent does not have aces as you are an underdog when your opponent does. (This is too generous, since KK is only a 70:30 favorite over AK, while it is worse than an 80:20 underdog against AA.) That would mean calling when your opponent has aces 90% of the time is like breaking even 20% of the time and being up against AA 80% of the time. Under these assumptions, with $200 in the pot, you have the odds to call all-in for another $95.

If you have bet $100 (so $200 is in the pot), and you have to call $500 more, you have to catch someone without aces 37% of the time to make it worth the call. If your assessment is that your opponent has AA 2/3 of the time, fold.

In tournament play, the stacks are usually small enough that there isn't enough room to find out you are behind. It's pretty hard to fold QQ preflop; I'd have to see a couple of big stacks collide on the bubble before I would fold QQ. It is very hard for there to be enough evidence to suggest you are up against AA rather than QQ. When the stacks are deep, there is enough room to discover you are probably up against AA.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

Live, I feel it's possible to be about 75% sure you're up against bullets. On-line, never. No way. Track your stats, mark these type of hands, you'll quickly find out that you are just remembering the frustrating times you were "right". If you are correctly saying you're "90% sure" while playing online, let me know what program you're using to cheat.

-Durka Durka

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if KK runs into AA 1/5400 hands, how can you possibly be 40% sure that your KK is facing AA?

[/ QUOTE ]

KK runs into AA significantly more often than you're suggesting here. If you hold KK, there's about a 4.3% chance that somebody else at a 10-player table holds AA.

I realize this is approximately the same thing as saying KK hits AA 1 in 5400 hands, but I think it's less misleading to factor in the rareness of your holding KK in the first place. I mean, if we're talking about the chances of KTo being out-kicked when it makes top pair, we wouldn't base our argument on the frequency with which it hits top pair, but rather on the likelihood of its getting beaten when it does.

[scotty34]

Yes, I've tried to be careful with that information in my posts on this subject. I've always tried to clearly distinguish whether I was talking about when already holding KK, or for any random hand.

The reason I used to 1/5400 number there is because I was trying to show how infrequently this situation actually occurs. It is extremely difficult to make an accurate read for a very high percentage of the time, when the sample of occurences is so small.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
The saying is only correct in limit HE. In NL I think Doyle wrote something like the 3rd raise is as plain as newly fallen snow 'Aces'. Something like that anyway.

-flub

[/ QUOTE ]

i've made a 3rd raise with QQ plenty of times.

cheers!