Something different - KK - Page 3

Spook · #1 12-15-2005, 04:57 PM

If the opponent is as passive as suggested, I think I bet the flop and turn and check the river unimproved as the cheapest way to showdown and the most profitable if a heart hits.
Giving up the lead will let good hearts get free cards, and force to pay more when behind.

Alobar · #2 12-15-2005, 04:55 PM

I dont have a problem with this.

tho im not sure if this is the right opponent to do it on, sounds like you are missing out on bets when he has a heart in his hand and will call down, but is still passive enough that he isnt going to bluff at you or "value bet" worse holdings.

#3 12-15-2005, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
tho im not sure if this is the right opponent to do it on, sounds like you are missing out on bets when he has a heart in his hand and will call down, but is still passive enough that he isnt going to bluff at you or "value bet" worse holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were villain, you wouldn't *value-bet* QQ-55 here? With or without the heart? I would.

Alobar · #4 12-15-2005, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tho im not sure if this is the right opponent to do it on, sounds like you are missing out on bets when he has a heart in his hand and will call down, but is still passive enough that he isnt going to bluff at you or "value bet" worse holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were villain, you wouldn't *value-bet* QQ-55 here? With or without the heart? I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

we arent talking about you or I, we are talking about a passive villian. He will definitely call down with these hands tho (heart or no) cuz thats what passives do, so again, I dont think this is the right person to try it on.

#5 12-15-2005, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we arent talking about you or I, we are talking about a passive villian. He will definitely call down with these hands tho (heart or no) cuz thats what passives do, so again, I dont think this is the right person to try it on.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my other post which doesn't put as much stock in a good read on a monotone board. They are so infrequent & scary looking to poor hands that typically players play at least a little differently than non-threatening boards. I put much less emphasis in the read in this hand.

Perhaps OP can state whether villain was passive enough to liberally call with 77, no heart.

gehrig · #6 12-15-2005, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tho im not sure if this is the right opponent to do it on, sounds like you are missing out on bets when he has a heart in his hand and will call down, but is still passive enough that he isnt going to bluff at you or "value bet" worse holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were villain, you wouldn't *value-bet* QQ-55 here? With or without the heart? I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

he would've called down anyway with those hands

and if he's not "betting or raising enough" hes not betting KsJs on the turn

kidcolin · #7 12-15-2005, 05:06 PM

Spicymoose,

Props on all you've said. The same thoughts ran through my mind. PokerStove is very over-utilized when making post-flop decisions.

However, I don't necessarily agree with this line at face value. I'd like to know villian's WTSD numbers first. If he's the type of player who can't let go of premiums regardless of the action, I'm going to bet away. If he's folding a lot of flops, I don't mind checking one bit.

jba · #8 12-15-2005, 05:09 PM

here's why I'm not sure I like this lines ---- reverse implied odds (the 50+% of the time that we don't improve)

in other words, it seems like the bets that go in on the flop we are getting the best of it, but when villain starts leading and we're not improving we are getting the worst of it. I want to keep the initiative so that when it gets to the river and we haven't improved the decision to put in a bet or not is ours.

PokerBob · #9 12-15-2005, 05:27 PM

i don't like it.

StellarWind · #10 12-15-2005, 05:45 PM

A couple of comments on the early responses.

1. PokerStove: many of the hands I am ahead of on the flop are completely dead. They have zero outs to a draw that has pot odds to call the turn. Whether a hand like Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] folds on the flop or turn is immaterial. When doing your pot equity computations you should exclude this hand because my play isn't relevant--checking behind and driving him out with a bet have the same EV. Limit your simulation to hands that will actually call a flop bet.

Except of course that the free card may induce him to put money into the turn/river as a bluff or because he has picked up a pair or gutshot. In that case I gain because he doesn't have adequate odds to invest money.

2. A few of you want to bet the flop so you can consider taking a free card or free showdown. This makes me want to cry. Once you start betting this hand and don't get checkraised/donked your pot equity greatly increases. That's hardly a time to stop betting. The posters who want to bet the flop and keep firing have a much better case.