KJs in SB vs. button raise.

TripleH68 · #1 10-20-2005, 01:35 PM

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Button is 18/11/2.1. Hero is tight 15/8/2ish.

Is KJs worth a play here in $3/6?
If it is does anybody reraise preflop?
Do you like the check-raise on the turn?
What is villain 3-betting with here?

Preflop: Hero is SB with K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
6 folds, Button raises, Hero calls, 1 fold.

Flop: (5 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero calls.

Turn: (3.50 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero raises, Button 3-bets...

Thanks.

brettbrettr · #2 10-20-2005, 01:38 PM

If I'm playing I'm 3 betting. A lot of it depends on his ASB #'s, but I think I'm mostly playing.

I think you're behind on the turn to a set or an overpair, but I call down.

Dagger78 · #3 10-20-2005, 01:38 PM

3 bet pre-flop and lead the flop, barring that I'd tend to bet/call the turn and river.

W. Deranged · #4 10-20-2005, 01:39 PM

1. Reraise pre-flop. You want the initiative going into this battle. Your hand plays reasonably well against the range of villain's stealing hands.

2. The flop is sort of interesting. You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel. It's much nicer to be entering the pot with the initiative as you give yourself a chance to win without improving.

3. Turn check-raise is good I think. You should probably call down, because top pair is very strong in a battle like this.

What I've found is that many opponents simply expect you to try to take the pot from them in heads-up battles like this, and will dig in with next to nothing.

Nick Royale · #5 10-20-2005, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Statement:
In a situation like this, where we need an overlay from villain checking the the river behind to peel on the turn, it can never be correct to check/call the river (UI).
True/false?

W. Deranged · #6 10-20-2005, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Statement:
In a situation like this, where we need an overlay from villain checking the the river behind to peel on the turn, it can never be correct to check/call the river (UI).
True/false?

[/ QUOTE ]

My original comment applied to whether we should call on the flop, though the "Nate tha Great Concept" applies in both situations.

The answer to your question is basically "true." On the turn in such a situation where we'll hope villain will check behind, built into the plan is the fact that we DON'T have the correct odds to simply call down the turn and the river. The idea is, though, that we may be able to proceed past the turn without either: a) strict "drawing" odds to win by improving out hand; b) sufficient equity to merit down calling the turn and the river. The reason we may be able to is because we can add a small amount of equity to the equity we have from strictly drawing to improve our hand; that small amount of showdown equity is realized in those situations where villain checks the river behind.

A way to think of it is like this: On the turn our equity has two pieces, a "drawing" piece (d) and a "showdown unimproved" piece. We can further subdivide our "showdown" piece into two parts: a "villain bets river" (b) part and a "villain checks river" part. (c)

Usually these turn decisions are approached from two points of view. Either d is big enough that we can pay a bet to draw to improve and fold unimproved, or d + b + c is big enough that we can call on the turn and the river and showdown. The key point is that there are certain situations where our hand has moderate showdown value but not enough to call a river bet with. In some select situations, a call on the turn might be merited even though d is not big enough to call and hope to improve AND d + b + c isn't big enough to call down two bets. The call is merited because d + c is big enough to call and hope the river gets checked behind.

[Note: c is a function both of the strength of our hand and the likelihood villain checks behind; if villain is unlikely to check behind the river, c is a very small number.]

Nick Royale · #7 10-20-2005, 02:28 PM

Thanks, I like your posts.

W. Deranged · #8 10-20-2005, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I like your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate it... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

brettbrettr · #9 10-20-2005, 02:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be over-applying the concept from Nate's post. I think its important that we've seen villan check the turn in this spot when we peel, not hope he checks.

W. Deranged · #10 10-20-2005, 02:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be over-applying the concept from Nate's post. I think its important that we've seen villan check the turn in this spot when we peel, not hope he checks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely see your point. If villain will never check this is a bad peel.

The real lesson I get from the flop decision in this hand is that it is very bad to have to be playing this hand without initiative. Check-calling the flop here is almost certainly never better than very slightly +EV. Without the chance to win this hand unimproved this hand becomes nearly worthless once the flop comes.