Why does everyone insist you can't fold Kings preflop?

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
if you use bayes theorem to calculate the P of your opponent having aces given the action described by the OP for inctance, you will see it is of course far higher than 0.04.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with that completely, however that was not the point I was making. My concluding statement was that if out of 1000 times that you get KK, if you fold 5 times incorrectly, it is -EV.

You are obviously not going to get that kind of action on all 1000 times, and you very likely are not going to fold KK 40 times in 1000 either. However, you will face heavy action vs hands such as AKs, QQ, and even AQs and JJ against poorer players. If you decide to fold KK when facing heavy action, even if you have an excellent read on the villain, the amount of times you have to be right vs. the amount you are wrong is just too great. I don't think most, if any, players are able to make that judgement with such a high degree of accuracy.

[ThePinkBunny]

You're right, and I don't know why everyone insists that.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were 40% sure he had AA

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a huge difference between being 40% sure he has AA and him having AA 40% of the time when he re-reraises. Also, if KK runs into AA 1/5400 hands, how can you possibly be 40% sure that your KK is facing AA?


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, that's ignoring what's already in the pot.

You'd have to add that back in to get the true odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe after a bet, a raise, and a re-raise, this would change things signifacantly.

[Ulysses]

Against certain players, it's very easy to fold KK pre-flop in a no-limit game. I've been 100% certain my opponent has Aces a number of times, including a couple when I had KK.

[BusterFlush]

Should a distinction be made for playing in a tournament situation and live action NL?
IMO, an argument can be made for not floding KK in a tournament situation than in a live action NL game. When real cash is involved, that third raise means more than in a tourney situation.

[pzhon]

I don't know why people keep saying you have to be 90% sure you are up against AA to fold KK. 90% convinced that someone has aces does not mean that 10% of the time someone does not have aces, you get convinced that they do. 90% convinced that someone has aces means that you now would be willing to bet 9:1 that your opponent has aces, in which case you are a huge underdog.

For simplicity, assume that you are just as much of a favorite when your opponent does not have aces as you are an underdog when your opponent does. (This is too generous, since KK is only a 70:30 favorite over AK, while it is worse than an 80:20 underdog against AA.) That would mean calling when your opponent has aces 90% of the time is like breaking even 20% of the time and being up against AA 80% of the time. Under these assumptions, with $200 in the pot, you have the odds to call all-in for another $95.

If you have bet $100 (so $200 is in the pot), and you have to call $500 more, you have to catch someone without aces 37% of the time to make it worth the call. If your assessment is that your opponent has AA 2/3 of the time, fold.

In tournament play, the stacks are usually small enough that there isn't enough room to find out you are behind. It's pretty hard to fold QQ preflop; I'd have to see a couple of big stacks collide on the bubble before I would fold QQ. It is very hard for there to be enough evidence to suggest you are up against AA rather than QQ. When the stacks are deep, there is enough room to discover you are probably up against AA.

[JihadOnTheRiver]

Live, I feel it's possible to be about 75% sure you're up against bullets. On-line, never. No way. Track your stats, mark these type of hands, you'll quickly find out that you are just remembering the frustrating times you were "right". If you are correctly saying you're "90% sure" while playing online, let me know what program you're using to cheat.

-Durka Durka

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if KK runs into AA 1/5400 hands, how can you possibly be 40% sure that your KK is facing AA?

[/ QUOTE ]

KK runs into AA significantly more often than you're suggesting here. If you hold KK, there's about a 4.3% chance that somebody else at a 10-player table holds AA.

I realize this is approximately the same thing as saying KK hits AA 1 in 5400 hands, but I think it's less misleading to factor in the rareness of your holding KK in the first place. I mean, if we're talking about the chances of KTo being out-kicked when it makes top pair, we wouldn't base our argument on the frequency with which it hits top pair, but rather on the likelihood of its getting beaten when it does.

[scotty34]

Yes, I've tried to be careful with that information in my posts on this subject. I've always tried to clearly distinguish whether I was talking about when already holding KK, or for any random hand.

The reason I used to 1/5400 number there is because I was trying to show how infrequently this situation actually occurs. It is extremely difficult to make an accurate read for a very high percentage of the time, when the sample of occurences is so small.

[tripdad]

[ QUOTE ]
The saying is only correct in limit HE. In NL I think Doyle wrote something like the 3rd raise is as plain as newly fallen snow 'Aces'. Something like that anyway.

-flub

[/ QUOTE ]

i've made a 3rd raise with QQ plenty of times.

cheers!