Quick Question with KK

[Scotch78]

No table reads. PT says VP$IP of 36.56%, 81.25% from SB; .83 total aggression--around 1.3 for flop, turn and river.

PokerStars 3/6 Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP folds, CO folds, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls.

Flop: (4.33 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls.

Turn: (3.16 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">BB raises</font>, Hero . . .

[NLSoldier]

Are the three people who said fold serious? Id like to hear some reasoning from someone who voted fold.

[TJD]

I was going to vote call, but just so I could attempt an answer to your question, I voted fold instead [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Aggression total is low and aggression on turn is also low.

In my (limited) experience, players with these numbers normally only make aggressive moves when they are pretty sure they have the best hand.

Sure, they may consider TPTK as the best hand in this circumstance but to be THAT aggressive on the turn normally needs 1.7+ (or thereabouts). Assuming the player is not f**g about on this occasion and that the PT stats are based on enough hands, he probably has 2 pair or more.

Since one of the pairs is on the board, a 1.3 er will be afraid of a higher PP or a 2 so a CR would be out of line. He would also have decided not to RR PF with AQ and not bet or CR the flop with TPTK. He probably has you beat with just 2 outs.

I suspect THAT is why people voted fold (or maybe they are just wusses [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

As I said, I would call and expect to lose but would pay to be able to confirm my views on this player and to be able to add info to his notes. However, if I already had a real good read (which we don't), I would fold.

I would NOT reraise against a 1.3 er; but then again I AM a wuss!

trevor

[Rah]

Definitely raise, then check/call on the river if it's being capped. There are a lot of guys out there going berserk with nothing as soon as the board pairs. Yesterday, in a similar pot, I was holding QQ for the full house when a guy capped holding an unpaired ace.

[TJD]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of guys out there going berserk with nothing as soon as the board pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - bless 'em [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I raised PF the other day and some guy called me all the way to the river on a twice paired board with 8 high kicker. I must have a really LAG image [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

However, most of them have higher aggression numbers than 1.3 on the turn. It is of course quite possible that this guy is not only passive but also a complete idiot.

As I said, I am a wuss! For me it feels better to take note of what little evidence I have when making a decison rather than judge every player by the same standards.

I think it is maybe just a question of style.

Reraising here is trusting your judgement and backing it; well done, I do not criticise that.

I suppose I just prefer to make the judgement that is most obvious to me at the time. In this case I would think thre was a good chance I was behind and would minimise my cost to find out someting about this player. If he was in my notes as very aggressive and a bit "tricky", I would reraise in a flash.

I am frequently wrong but following my own gut feel seems more "true to self"

When I have another few dozen K SH hands under my belt, I may have a different view.

trevor

[Scotch78]

Since I would call it down even if he capped the turn, I figured a smooth call would save me two bets when he has a deuce and gain me a river bet when he's bluffing. As to slowplaying the queen . . . that is one of the few reads I am good at making, and he hadn't slowplayed any hands so far. I actually posted the hand to see how many people would raise, but in hindsight, I think I would fold. His VP$IP-SB is way too high, and my lack of any read tells me he's probably not a tricky player (I would have noticed if he was). Which actually gives me an idea . . . if I haven't noticed anything tricky about a player after a decent number of hands, I'll respect his action a little more on scary boards. As to the results . . . the great dane had a 42s.

Scott

[spider]

I voted call. I think a small pair is just going to call you down most of the time rather than check-raise. The turn check-raise is probably not a bluff. But if it is a bluff, it's a pure bluff that will fold to a re-raise so nothing is gained with the raise.

So pretty easy call to me, and I don't mind showing the table that I won't fold KK to a small pair on the board. Change KK to AK and both raising and folding look more reasonable, depending on the read.

(Edit: I'm also assuming here that with 81% VP$IP from SB, that he is auto-calling from BB and could have a 2 as easily as an ace.)

[tripdad]

if i am BB and defend with QJ or something else with a Q, i would check/raise the turn as well. with opponent's numbers...he is not a complete idiot, you need only worry about 22, 55, and A2s here. with only 3 hands i'm really worried about, i think this is a clear 3-bet.

i guess my opinion could change if you told me something important about the villain other than stats.

cheers!

[kiddo]

Yep, calling down is good against a pretty loose-passive. This is a good post because it shows that those saying: "You got to raise this turn because he could have a lot of other things then...." are sometimes wrong. Being aggressive is good, but understanding your opponent is also good.