Just a bad beat right?

[crockpot]

when it gets to him, there are 14 small bets in the pot, and two people will almost surely call behind him making it 16. it costs him 2 bets to call, 7:1 current odds and probably better if two call behind him. even in the worst-case scenario where you reraise, SB folds and BB caps, he will still get 19:4, better than the 4.1:1 he needs to call with the nut flush draw.

if you automatically fold a four flush for two cold bets on the flop, you aren't correctly incorporating the size of the pot into how you play a hand. of course, it helps that he is drawing to the nuts; i might fold a very low flush draw here. i have an essay on considering the pot size at my website, and Mason Malmuth has written some excellent stuff on it in his Poker Essays books. you should know to always consider the odds you're getting, especially with a drawing hand.

[blackaces13]

Limping in LP with a suited king isn't that bad PF is it? I often limp with such hands in Party .5-1. Granted he was the second one in the pot which isn't so great but if he can reasonably expect the button and both blinds to come along without a raise then I think he's gettting his money's worth here.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Limping in LP with a suited king isn't that bad PF is it? I often limp with such hands in Party .5-1. Granted he was the second one in the pot which isn't so great but if he can reasonably expect the button and both blinds to come along without a raise then I think he's gettting his money's worth here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is. You're making a lot of assumptions if you are counting on every remaining player to come in.

Also, even if you have the requisite limpers already in, I've been thinking about K-x suited a lot since Joe Tall mentioned in a post that he doesn't play it. And the more I think about it, the more I think that A-x suited is much better than K-x suited. So give me a real good reason to jump in with K-x suited--like a lot of limpers.

--Zetack

[blackaces13]

I look at it this way, and I'm sure this a BAD way to look at it but I'm good at rationalizing things to myself that may be harmful. Unless someone in the hand has the ace of your suit AND has another card of that suit in their hand, then Kxs IS Axs. As long as we're agreeing that almost all the value of the hand comes from flushdraws or 2-pair or better.

The more I think about it the less that makes sense since there could be a 4-flush on the board. However I still think Kxs has a lot of value in LL hold 'em. And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I look at it this way, and I'm sure this a BAD way to look at it but I'm good at rationalizing things to myself that may be harmful. Unless someone in the hand has the ace of your suit AND has another card of that suit in their hand, then Kxs IS Axs. As long as we're agreeing that almost all the value of the hand comes from flushdraws or 2-pair or better.

The more I think about it the less that makes sense since there could be a 4-flush on the board. However I still think Kxs has a lot of value in LL hold 'em. And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but given that almost all of its value comes from its flush potential, you really need the players in to make shooting at the flush worthwhile.

Also, with these long shot hands, the more good longshot things you can add to the main one, the better. A-x makes two straights instead of one and one of em is the nuts and if your kicker is 2-5 then an A-5 straight is very likely to be the best straight too. (If you think this isn't worth something, well I lost twice last night with KK when the final board had 2-5 on it, and one of my opponents in each hand had a random ace.) And pairing your ace is just flat out better than pairing your king, and two pair will probably be top 2 pair.

Oh, and you already covered this, but K-x suited is vulnerable to a four flush on the board.

And this may be seldom applicable point in micro, but Ace high is a way better finishing hand than king high.

--Zetack

[Ed Miller]

And it is true that unless another player has Axs in your suit, which is very rare, then your hand is ALMOST like having Axs.

This is TOTALLY wrong. I address this specific misconception in my book.

[StellarWind]

The reason you should avoid 72s is not because the resulting flushes get cracked by bigger flushes. It is because flush potential is almost never enough to pay the bills. Axs needs to scratch and claw its way to +EV by winning hands every way possible. Having Kxs instead hurts you in many ways:

1. Not improving and losing to someone's high card ace.

2. Making a pair of kings and having an overcard ace appear on the board.

3. Making two pair and losing to aces up.

4. You have K5s and make trip fives. You lose to A5.

5. You can't make a wheel.

6. Yeah, losing to an ace-high flush, often with extra flush-suit cards on the board. Somewhat unusual but very expensive.

This list could go on for a while. #2 is by far the worst, but the point is that wherever you go with Kxs, you find aces ripping off your pots. It really adds up. You don't just lose the profits from these pots, you also lose the money you spent playing them, the value bets/raises you don't make because you don't trust your hand, and the winning hands you fold because you don't trust your hand.

The only good thing about Kx vs. Ax is that fewer people play kings. It matters somewhat less that your kicker is no good.

[ojc02]

LP has the equity to cap the flop, with 4 ppl in RAISING has greater EV than calling in this situation, folding in his situation would be absolute lunacy.

Calling was the correct move intially because he doesnt want to drive out hero and SB but he should definitely have capped for value when it got back to him.

[mvoss]

I'd bet the turn, but the c/r looks got too. I'd also just call the river.

[tor]

*grunching*

I think you played it fine.