Are You Better or Worse Than Average in KK vs AA Confrontations
 

Primarily thinking in terms of limit, but it is also applicable to no-limit.

Do you think that you lose more, less, or about the same as the typical player when you have KK and your opponent turns out to have AA?

Do you believe that the better players should lose more than the average player when they have KK vs AA because of aggression that brings in more money when KK is the best hand, or do you believe that a better player might be able to use superior hand reading skills to minimize losses when KK is beat.

Re: Are You Better or Worse Than Average in KK vs AA Confrontations
 

I think it largely depends on the opponent.

Re: Are You Better or Worse Than Average in KK vs AA Confrontations
 

I lose my shirt, but the times when villian has QQ or lower make up for the times when he does have AA.

Re: Are You Better or Worse Than Average in KK vs AA Confrontations
 

I lose a lot, but it doesn't matter.

Yesterday, I lost a lot with my KK against AA and about 15 hands later (on adifferent table) I lost a lot with my AA against KK who rivered the trip. Sh!t happens!

Re: Are You Better or Worse Than Average in KK vs AA Confrontations
 

I actually think a distribution of EV in KK vs AA situations vs. player skill might actually be multi-modal (at least for limit).

A bad player will probably bowl through with kings and might even cap every street as long as there is no ace or scary possible straight or flush.

An average player will try to slowplay KK a lot more and would never cap the flop if he has an overpair, hoping to get in an extra raise on the turn.

A good player will lose more than an average player, but perhaps not as much as a very bad player, because he doesn't leak money by inappropriately slowplaying, but is capable of putting on the brakes at some point.

A very good player will lose less than a good player, but possibly more than an average player because he can slow down much earlier, and possibly even fold.

This is all relative, of course. A bad player who is weak-tight will lose less than a bad player who is loose-aggressive.