A hand Entity and I talked about
 

And regardless of the results I still disagree with him.

I open raise red JJ UTG+1. An LPP cold calls in MP1 and a player with TAGggish 17/9 stats after 100 hands 3-bets from the SB. A LAG BB calls two and I cap. Everyone calls.

Flop: (16 SB) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MP1 folds, SB 3-bets, I call.

Turn: (11 BB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB bets, I raise, SB calls.

River: (15 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB checks, I

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to sum it up. he'll payoff with AA (6 ways) 100% of the time, so he'd need to check-raise KK (3 ways) 100% of the time for us to break even with a bet-call line. if he c/r's KK less than 100%, betting the river makes $$.

bet-folding aside.. but you'd have to be quite confident he isn't fps'ing it up to lay this one down to a c/r.

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn (which would make us more confident in KK over AA here). i must be missing something.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason and I had almost this exact same exchange a minute ago. I agree with silky.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss that there is a Q on the board as well? 3-betting this turn with AA is not solid poker.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Villain is beaten by an additional 3 combos of QQ on the turn. While jason himself might play KK the same way as a set here (calling flop 3 bet and popping the turn) I don't think most players would and a villain with decent hand reading and a bit of fear might read jason's flop/turn play as indicating his AA is now drawing.

edit to say: damn, Rob types fast.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Q turn vs a blank is what kills AA's turn 3-betting potential.

edit: I type slow, but at least I can read 2p2 at work again, eh Entity [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]