Standard Line with KK? (long post)

DavidC · #1 07-16-2005, 10:20 AM

Edit: Damnit, I know Miller made a post about this at some point too... Anyone want to forward me a link? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

--------

Not 100% micro content, but oh well...

Villain is a tight raiser (15/7 ish) after maybe 15-25 hands... basically I know he's tight, but that's about it.

---

Paradise Poker 5/10 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
1 fold, UTG+1 raises, 2 folds, Hero 3-bets, 5 folds, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (7.40 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG+1 bets, Hero raises, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (5.70 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero checks.

River: (5.70 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
UTG+1 bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 7.70 BB

---

Here's my thoughts:

AFAIK: The standard 2+2 line, for villain to play, if villain has AK/AQ, is: Check-call, Check-call, bet... to prevent me from taking the free showdown.

So villain has deviated from the line thus far, indicating that he's a non-2+2er, or that he doesn't have an ace.

On a two-tone flop, where the ace is suited to another card, he can have either an ace or a four-flush (but not both), which is different than a two-tone flop where the ace isn't suited (where your opponent can get really aggressive if he has top pair with even a decent kicker and a four-flush).

Probably the most rotten board is something like AJx, where the Jx is suited, and your opponent leans on the gas and you have AK... you can make a lot of mistakes by failing to charge a dominated pair flush draw, or by paying off a set. So this board isn't too bad for me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyways, on the flop, after villain bets into me, I have a few lines that I can take:

1) Fold
2) Call, fold.
3) Call, call, call.
4) Raise, check, call.
5) Raise, bet, check.
6) Raise, bet, bet.

#1 I don't like, although I honestly feel that against an ABC player, it's not a horrid line, as long as you do it maybe once a week tops. I really would dislike not getting to showdown though...

#2 Is far worse than #1. It's weaker, more expensive, and looks like more of a donk play to your opponents than #1.

#3 Costs 2.5 BB, doesn't teach opponents any respect, and is more expensive than need be.

#4 This is what I did, and is probably wrong. In a moment, I'll compare this with #5. Both this line and #5 cost only 2BB, which makes it cheaper to show down than line #3.

#5 Seems to be the standard 2+2 line, and probably for good reason.

#6: Costs 3BB. Spews all over the place. Not good unless you're vs a laggy guy (in which case it's by far the best line available).

--------------------------

Comparing the lines #4 with #5:

Firstly, if you play #5, then you have to fold to a river donk bet, which sucks.

If you play #4, then you encourage a bluff? Probably not.

If you play #4, you fail to charge flush draws.

If you play #4, your opponent feels more confident about value betting the river, making the last play of the hand a rewarding experience for him.

If you play #5, then his "weak" check is a non-rewarding experience for him: the last thing he remembers about the hand is a mistake that he made.

If you play #4, you look weak. If you play #5, you look strong.

Playing #5 encourages action when you have the AK in the future.

If this is a rainbow board, then there's a very small chance that the board will develop into something that the villain will "bluff" with (while holding ATs or JJ for example). This bluff from the opponent is a costly thing, because it prevents you from getting to showdown...

This is why I took #4 in this case. I didn't want that flush card to hit the board and then have to fold to TT making a bluff. I would prefer to just let the board land as it may, and ensure that I still get a showdown for the same price.

On a rainbow board, I take #5 every time.

...

Questions:

A) Should I have taken #5 this time?

B) If I take #5, should I fold to a donk bet on the river if it's a flush card? How about if it's a non-flush card?

C) Is there anyone who's willing to fold this on the flop!!?

D) Does calling on this flop indicate a monster to an opponent, evoking a turn check from him (in which case I think we can bet the turn and river anyways...)?

MrWookie47 · #2 07-16-2005, 10:43 AM

I usually take #5 as a default, although I don't generally consider all the Pavlovian stuff about your opponent.

Dieter01 · #3 07-16-2005, 10:46 AM

I think I would go with line number 5. Basically The main reason is not to fail charging a flush draw.

Assuming you take line 5... Should the third club fall on the river and he bets, I would fold. There are not many hands left that he might have been following you with up until now that you can still beat.

I would not fold this heads up on the flop, no way.
I don't think he will put you on a monster if you call the flop, to me that sounds a little too fancy.

KingOtter · #4 07-16-2005, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK: The standard 2+2 line, for villain to play, if villain has AK/AQ, is: Check-call, Check-call, bet... to prevent me from taking the free showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... if I were villain, and I had AK/AQ, I wouldn't be check/calling. I'd be betting and raising.

KO

KingOtter · #5 07-16-2005, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Questions:

A) Should I have taken #5 this time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like a good line to me.

[ QUOTE ]
B) If I take #5, should I fold to a donk bet on the river if it's a flush card? How about if it's a non-flush card?

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably wouldn't fold, although I don't think an A would just bet the river after being raised and bet into on the turn. Maybe some crazy 2-pair, or if it was a flush card, the flush.

[ QUOTE ]
C) Is there anyone who's willing to fold this on the flop!!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the read is accurate yet, except that you know what he isn't. A LAA/LAG. If he was 15/7 after 100 hands I might be tempted to fold, but heck, you have KK! And he could have JJ/QQ, too. Since he ended up betting the river it looks like he does have an Ace to me... AQ, perhaps. Or JJ.

In other words, I don't fold the flop unless I've got a real good feeling/read about how he plays.

[ QUOTE ]
D) Does calling on this flop indicate a monster to an opponent, evoking a turn check from him (in which case I think we can bet the turn and river anyways...)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never. It could mean a flush draw, which is not a monster.

KO

MrWookie47 · #6 07-16-2005, 11:04 AM

If I had AK, betting and raising would be good because there's a huge chance your just WA. But with AQ, there is a very real chance you're behind AK, or that you'll just make KK-JJ fold. The standard WA/WB would be OK.

DavidC · #7 07-16-2005, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would go with line number 5. Basically The main reason is not to fail charging a flush draw.

Assuming you take line 5... Should the third club fall on the river and he bets, I would fold. There are not many hands left that he might have been following you with up until now that you can still beat.

I would not fold this heads up on the flop, no way.
I don't think he will put you on a monster if you call the flop, to me that sounds a little too fancy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree on the calling NE (Edit: NE = "not equal"... I'm a geek) monster thing... I'm not sure what hte hell I was thinking there. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

How about if a blank hits and he donkbets the river?

Also, the pot's going to be something like 6.25bb when he bets the river, so it may not be a good idea to necessarily fold if he donkbets on a flush, but if he donkbets on a blank we could be in trouble. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

DavidC · #8 07-16-2005, 11:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I usually take #5 as a default, although I don't generally consider all the Pavlovian stuff about your opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more fun than playing your cards, trust me.

The drawback is that isn't necessarily true, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Quite the drawback, I admit.

DavidC · #9 07-16-2005, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK: The standard 2+2 line, for villain to play, if villain has AK/AQ, is: Check-call, Check-call, bet... to prevent me from taking the free showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... if I were villain, and I had AK/AQ, I wouldn't be check/calling. I'd be betting and raising.

KO

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a line, adopted at the 2/4+ tables, against tight, aggressive raisers, solely when it's HU on a fairly tame board (and solely when you're oop).

KingOtter · #10 07-16-2005, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK: The standard 2+2 line, for villain to play, if villain has AK/AQ, is: Check-call, Check-call, bet... to prevent me from taking the free showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... if I were villain, and I had AK/AQ, I wouldn't be check/calling. I'd be betting and raising.

KO

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a line, adopted at the 2/4+ tables, against tight, aggressive raisers, solely when it's HU on a fairly tame board (and solely when you're oop).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah-hah... must be why I haven't heard of it yet.

KO