Could he have quads?

[kingofswing]

I've seen a couple of similar threads close to this one, but I've got a specific hand that happened the other day that isn't all that interesting, but poses an interesting question. Here's the hand:

PP25
I call UTG+1 with 44, two more limpers, raise from BB to $1, I call, everyone else calls.

Flop KK4

BB check, I bet out $5, the size of the pot, all fold to BB who calls.

Turn T

BB check, I bet out $15, BB calls.

River 3

BB pushes for $6, the rest of his stack, I call. (We both had about $25 stacks.)

Now, he flipped over KK, and to be honest looking back at it, it wasn't all that surprising. Not much information on this guy as I just sat down and didn't have any pokertracker stats for him. The way the hand played out, I think I played it right because if I put him on a big K like AK or KQ, I didn't want him to get to draw me out and make a bigger boat, but I knew that he would likely call any bet I made. So this hand is pretty straight forward.

But the question I have is what if our stacks were deeper? Against someone who I know is not a rock and only plays AA or KK, let's say he pushed the river but instead of $6, it was $50. Now assuming he's not playing KT or TT, which aren't likely considering his raise OOP and his call on the flop of my pot sized bet, do you give him credit for quads and lay it down or do you always pay him off? I mean he played it exactly like someone would play quads if they flopped them, but is that enough to make that lay down?

[BB_Specials]

I almost never give credit for quads when there are only 2 of the same cards on the table. Figure him for AK and call here. If he has KK, well, that's poker I guess.

[smann]

You'd need some awfully good information before you start putting hands like that on quads, imo. If you start fearing the much lower chance quads on similar hands, you will start to lose money on your full houses.

[amoeba]

you don't think TT is just as likely?

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen a couple of similar threads close to this one, but I've got a specific hand that happened the other day that isn't all that interesting, but poses an interesting question. Here's the hand:

PP25
I call UTG+1 with 44, two more limpers, raise from BB to $1, I call, everyone else calls.

Flop KK4

BB check, I bet out $5, the size of the pot, all fold to BB who calls.

Turn T

BB check, I bet out $15, BB calls.

River 3

BB pushes for $6, the rest of his stack, I call. (We both had about $25 stacks.)

Now, he flipped over KK, and to be honest looking back at it, it wasn't all that surprising. Not much information on this guy as I just sat down and didn't have any pokertracker stats for him. The way the hand played out, I think I played it right because if I put him on a big K like AK or KQ, I didn't want him to get to draw me out and make a bigger boat, but I knew that he would likely call any bet I made. So this hand is pretty straight forward.

But the question I have is what if our stacks were deeper? Against someone who I know is not a rock and only plays AA or KK, let's say he pushed the river but instead of $6, it was $50. Now assuming he's not playing KT or TT, which aren't likely considering his raise OOP and his call on the flop of my pot sized bet, do you give him credit for quads and lay it down or do you always pay him off? I mean he played it exactly like someone would play quads if they flopped them, but is that enough to make that lay down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you are shutting down your action with your pot sized bet on the flop. Why not give people a chance to make a second best hand they will pay off with? You already know that when you flop a full house, you are trying to get your stack into the middle against as many opponents as you can get.

With deeper stacks, I still hate leading out for a pot sized bet on the flop. And, I still think that you are probably gonna hafta get stacked because your opponent is much more likely to have trip kings than quads or K4.

[kingofswing]

I just have a hard time seeing a good player play TT this way. It makes me wonder why would he call on the flop here where I very likely have a K? At least he should raise to define my hand. The other thing is that, once he hits his full house, I obviously have at least a K, why not raise and get it all in when he knows he is best rather than risk a A or Q falling of the river and having his turned boat beat?

I think what it comes down to, is that I played this hand as if I had a K, and I would think any hand with Kx or a high pocket pair would want to define their hand so they could get away from it if possible.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
I just have a hard time seeing a good player play TT this way. It makes me wonder why would he call on the flop here where I very likely have a K? At least he should raise to define my hand. The other thing is that, once he hits his full house, I obviously have at least a K, why not raise and get it all in when he knows he is best rather than risk a A or Q falling of the river and having his turned boat beat?

I think what it comes down to, is that I played this hand as if I had a K, and I would think any hand with Kx or a high pocket pair would want to define their hand so they could get away from it if possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thought process is very weak-tight. If your opponent has TT and makes a full house on the turn, he isn't gonna bet big to stop you from drawing for an Ace or Queen. He wants you to draw as long as you are paying the wrong price. This is why good players make money in poker.

[kingofswing]

The big concern I think about betting the flop is that if he raised, he's obviously got some good cards. I know I've got the boat, but if he's got a king I'm going to get action, otherwise I'm probably not. I don't think AA is even going to put much money in there. So why not lead out on the flop for the pot when I'm pretty sure he's got a king, which he certainly isn't going to dump. I think leading out makes it possible to even get all the money on the turn.

What I really want to avoid is having an A or Q hit the turn and then having to guess whether he's got a bigger boat. I'm not too worried about that possibility, but the bottom line is that he's not going to be able to get away from KK4 flop if he's got AK. So why not bet?

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
The big concern I think about betting the flop is that if he raised, he's obviously got some good cards. I know I've got the boat, but if he's got a king I'm going to get action, otherwise I'm probably not. I don't think AA is even going to put much money in there. So why not lead out on the flop for the pot when I'm pretty sure he's got a king, which he certainly isn't going to dump. I think leading out makes it possible to even get all the money on the turn.

What I really want to avoid is having an A or Q hit the turn and then having to guess whether he's got a bigger boat. I'm not too worried about that possibility, but the bottom line is that he's not going to be able to get away from KK4 flop if he's got AK. So why not bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you "pretty sure he has a king" when you are leading the flop? This makes no sense and is completely results oriented.

"Why not bet" because he may do it for you with a king and you may make some money off of hands other than AK. You do realize that he probably doesn't have AK considering all the hands he might play this way preflop, right? Why are you making all of these hands fold? Because you are frightened that they might hit their two-outer on the turn? If having your opponent hit an unlikely card scares you this much, perhaps you are playing the wrong game.

[theben]

in your second scenario, if its a rock and wouldnt play KT or call TT on the flop, then yes i pay off 4 K's for 50 more