|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
KQ multileval wierdness
hand occured between two friends of mine on our trip to the borg last night. Hero, who mainly plays party 2/4 and has a weak-tightish image, open raises utg with KQo at 3/6. villain, a solid player who regularly multitables 200+15's but has played a lot of limit before and knows how hero plays 3-bets from utg+1. folded to a fish in the small blind who semi-coldcalled 3, bb folds, hero calls.
flop is raggedy undercards, no real draws to speak of, and hero has no meaningful backdoors. what's your plan for this hand? it seems like we discussed this for way too long during the car ride home. i'll add my thoughts in after the discussion starts so as not to influence responses. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
Maybe CR the flop.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
::le sigh::
i guess i'll get this question out of the way first. what range of hands do you put villain on? i'm thinking something like {ako,aks,aqs,AA-JJ,TT(50%)} though aqs and tt are iffy. you still want to trap both of them for 2 bets each on the flop with no pair/no draw? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
Well, if your read is that the villan is a very aggressive player, he could be trying to isolate. Putting in a CR might make him feel he's been trapped if he whiffed the flop. A CR has a lot of fold equity against this guy.
The SB I'm not too worried about. Since he's a loose-passive player, he could have just about anything, including a low suited conector. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
Hero, who mainly plays party 2/4 and has a weak-tightish image, open raises utg with KQo at 3/6.
Does it make sense to try to to isolate this guy if you don't have a strong holding? He opened from UTG!!! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
I think that's the worst option. IMO,
check/fold > check/call >>> bet/call >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>check/raise |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
[ QUOTE ]
I think that's the worst option. IMO, check/fold > check/call >>> bet/call >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>check/raise [/ QUOTE ] Could be. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
check/call for 1 sb, fold turn UI would be my line but that's just me. if it was 2 back to me, i'd just dump it and move on.
not much you can do here. betting out is likely to get you raised in one or both spots, which you obviously don't want. check/folding wouldn't be terrible but you could be getting like 12 to 1 to peel one off and i probably would just for table image. check/raising is spewing here. check/call. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
[ QUOTE ]
check/call for 1 sb, fold turn UI would be my line but that's just me. if it was 2 back to me, i'd just dump it and move on. not much you can do here. betting out is likely to get you raised in one or both spots, which you obviously don't want. check/folding wouldn't be terrible but you could be getting like 12 to 1 to peel one off and i probably would just for table image. check/raising is spewing here. check/call. [/ QUOTE ] this was pretty much my opinion at the time. hero, in a bout of obviously misapplying ssh, bet out intending to call a raise from sp in hopes of "cleaning up outs". unfortunately, she has very few to begin with, and a lp blind is unlikely to fold a reverse-dominating hand. while the c/r suggested above has slightly more merit than the line hero took, i hate them both. c/c vs c/f is close, imo. i lean toward c/c for image considerations. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: KQ multileval wierdness
I don't mind having a weak/tight image. Or a LAG image. Or really any image. Just so I'm aware of what image I have.
I do think that betting out is better than a check/raise here though. But yes, both of those options pretty much suck. |
|
|