Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

I'm new to this site, so let me establish that my level of expertise at this point is probably something like "Advanced Beginner." In fact, I don't even know if I should have be playing $50 buy-in NL tournaments with 60-player fields, like the one a friend got me in on this last Saturday. Then again, maybe I do know enough to be dangerous.

I guess I can't can't kick myself too much for the hand I lost most of my stack on - I had AcKc, and the flop came Tc,Qc,Kd. In post-flop betting I was reraised all-in by a strong player 2 to my right. I had him covered by a little bit, and I called immediately. He turned over JhJs, so I was feeling OK about my chances. The turn was a rag... and the river was the frickin' Ts. Nothing I can do about a suck-out like that.

Anyway. The hand I was left thinking about most was not one of the ones I played, but rather one I mucked after my stack had taken its big hit and I was looking for a place to push all-in. The table was eight-handed. After getting nothing for several hands, I was in LP when I looked down at KdQd. I think, "OK, here it is," as UTG+1 limps in. Then the guy to her left (whom I've read as an experienced and VERY aggressive player) raises all-in. The girl to the raiser's left seems to be an average player; she deliberates briefly and then calls him. She's got him covered by about 1/4 of her stack.

[censored]. Now what? I'm pretty sure at least she's got a hand, if not both of them. I agonize within (but don't flinch on the outside, of course) for a couple of moments and then lay down my suited KQ. You probably know what's coming -- he had AT, she a middle pair, she took down the pot with a set, and I would have made a straight and tripled up if I'd stayed. Argh. Thoughts?

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

Why did you lose that first hand?

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

I think you typed the first hand incorrectly, since the Ts wouldn't cost you the pot there.

In the second, this is an easy fold. Any ace is favored against you, as is any pocket pair. With a limp, a push, and a call in front of you you're usually much further behind than you were here, and even here you're not in particularly good shape. KQs is a good hand, one you should certainly steal with, but you generally don't want to be calling all-in with it.

Don't worry about the results. Cards happen.

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[censored]. Now what?

[/ QUOTE ]
To the administrator(s) and any others who care, I apologize for apparently violating the profanity policy. My bad - it won't happen again.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you typed the first hand incorrectly, since the Ts wouldn't cost you the pot there.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
Ack, I did type it wrong - it was a little late and I was trying to do two things at once (post and listen to what my wife was telling me). I meant to say the guy had TT (not JJ), and caught the 3rd T on the river.

Thanks for the affirmation about the KQ laydown - it helps as a reminder not to second-guess myself about hands that might have been.

you were beat regardless of the river
 

He floped a set.

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

First hand is a bad beat story and nobody really cares. Not trying to be harsh, but nobody wants to hear yet another bad beat story.

Second hand hard to tell without the stack sizes, but in general you don't want to be calling a raise, with a caller for all your chips w/ a KQs. If you had a small stack it may be different, but it would be an unusual set of circumstances to make that call correct.

Welcome.

-SossMan

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

If the river is a T then it is not a 3rd T.
It should be a fourth T.
He holds TT, flopped a T, then rivered a T.

I think it is a correct call against a set of Ts.
You have many outs. But you are not a big favorite even with so many outs. So I won't consider it is a bad beat.
It is normal that you lost based on probability.

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is normal that you lost based on probability

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to think it is a mystery why exactly I lost, since I can't seem to remember the cards correctly. I'm not gonna take another stab at determining what happened because I'll probably just end up with my foot in my mouth again.

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

Not gonna touch the first question as it is just an unfortunate occurance that tends to happen in poker.

But what are really thinking about on the second one? The allin from mid position obviously is not going to be a complete bluff, just because he is LAG doesnt mean that has junk. You did say that you thought the second had a hand, so why would you even consider calling, let along agonizing over it? Obviously with AK and (read dependent) AQ you have to make the call here, but KQ is one of the most overrated hands and a hand that I feel get over played.

The fact that you would have made a straight is extremely unimportant, because you cant play hands results dependent. Just because it would have been the winning hand this time, does not make calling the correct play. Just wait to better cards, or be the one to move-in... calling all-in usually reserved for top ten hands and maybe a few more (once again read and stack dependent).


Cheers,

Pat

Re: Tight-weak laydown of KQs?
 

on your first hand i dont think a strong player is going to reraise all in here with a pair of jacks. you obviouslymade teh right play.

the meat of your post: i dont see how you can call for all of your stack with an all in player and a caller. if the girl didnt call then i would call. forget the hands they actually held, you have to figure out the range of hands the likely have in this situation. the scenario you faced is probably the best scenario but not as likely as some others that you are a big dog. it is probably closer than i make it out to be but if you didnt see these hands you would think that you made the right play.

Pat