KQs, standard value betting or overplayed?

[madscout]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a read that UTG+1 limp-reraises often with nothing, then your play is fine. I want to point out that this situation is different from the hand quizzes. In the hand quiz, there were a few limpers in front of the limp-reraiser, so he has no reason to limp-reraise with AA or KK since he already has limpers he can trap for an extra bet, plus there are fewer people behind him that could possibly raise.

When someone limps up front and pulls the reraising move, there is less chance he is full of crap. I'm just saying that against an unknown, it would be irresponsible to completely discount AA or KK from an UTG limper.

Great play on the flop, pushing that equity edge. With UTG+1 still 3-betting on the flop, his hand range thins a bit more and there is a higher chance he has that overpair now.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all very good points. Would AA slowdown on the turn? KK certainly would not. QQ probably would. Is a turn raise still bad after UTG+1 just calls?

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
These are all very good points. Would AA slowdown on the turn? KK certainly would not. QQ probably would. Is a turn raise still bad after UTG+1 just calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are good questions, but don't forget about BB that suddenly woke up on the turn after preflop and flop has been capped. BB could have made a real hand here, and UTG+1 could be ahead. Of course you could have the best hand, but there is reasonable uncertainty here plus raising doesn't protect your hand, and it only gains extra value if there is a good chance you are ahead.

[madscout]

[ QUOTE ]
plus raising doesn't protect your hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it does. If you were in LP with 79s (not diamonds) and you somehow got to the turn, would you call getting 12:1 with 0-3 outs? How about if you were getting 23:1? I think the difference is considerable.

[Malcom Reynolds]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it does. If you were in LP with 79s (not diamonds) and you somehow got to the turn, would you call getting 12:1 with 0-3 outs? How about if you were getting 23:1? I think the difference is considerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those hands with 0 or 1 outs don't have odds obviously. Hands that may have 2 or 3 outs probably need to have outs discounted. With the play of BB and UTG+1, you have to mix in the chances they are drawing dead or not all of their outs are outs.

I think that while there may be a few hands that truly have 2 outs here, between discounting outs and the good chance you are drawing, I still make this a call. Just because those hands may exist doesn't mean it's likely you are up against them; there are very few hands you actually successfully protect yourself from.

If I felt there was a better chance you were ahead at this point, I'd be able to recommend a raise.

[belloc]

[ QUOTE ]
2. HAND PROTECTION/ BIG POT AGGRESSIVENESS: A raise might not numerically protect you from gutshots or aces, but they may fold anyway, which is good for you. Not all players "know the numbers"! A tactical raise here gives opponents with live outs the chance to make a bad fold. The pot is huge and so any measure that might slightly increase your chance of winning the hand cannot be awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll just comment on this one. It doesn't matter whether they know the numbers if they do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Your job is to get them to make mistakes when possible. If they call when it's correct to call (in this case, if a calling station cold calls two bets to his gutshot when the pot is big enough for it to be correct to do so), then they haven't made a mistake, even though they didn't know it. The play they make by nature turns out to be the correct play, and your raise hasn't made them make a mistake.

Yes, they may fold incorrectly to your "tactical raise". But if they're loose and passive, it's more likely that they'll just call anyway, correctly but without knowing it.

[W. Deranged]

Certainly this may happen, but you can force your opponent to choose from less attractive options. Not raising allows your opponent to call one bet, which will be a very +EV call (regardless of whether they know it). Raising forces them to choose a less profitable, if still +EV, call, or an incorrect fold.

[madscout]

[ QUOTE ]
Let them draw to the gutshot. One of their outs is filthy. With the pot as big as it is, a raise doesn't protect you from gutshots anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't see how this can be correct. If they are drawing to a gutshot, then my raise is for value if not to protect my hand.

Please explain the logic behind:

"let them draw to the gutshot (for one bet in a 23 BB pot)".

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let them draw to the gutshot. One of their outs is filthy. With the pot as big as it is, a raise doesn't protect you from gutshots anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't see how this can be correct. If they are drawing to a gutshot, then my raise is for value if not to protect my hand.

Please explain the logic behind:

"let them draw to the gutshot (for one bet in a 23 BB pot)".

[/ QUOTE ]

Cuz you may be behind anyway (as you seem to have thought) and getting 3-bet would really suck IMO.

[baronzeus]

I'd pop a raise on the river. He's playing his cards like he has an overpair between a 88-QQ.

Plus, you are less likely to get 3bet here.

Plus, you only need to be ahead like 20-30% or something for it to be right. (I think?)

[madscout]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd pop a raise on the river. He's playing his cards like he has an overpair between a 88-QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misread the action. I bet the river.