Trusting your read

[benwood]

It was probably a bad thing for you that you were right on this hand, because it is likely to cause you to make this mistake again in the future.

[Tk79]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Did you find KK or other LRR candidates that were open-raised? If you have a history of such hands, and no instances of them LRR'd, that might increase the certainty that your read was robust. On the other hand, if you found no raised KK hands, that might push those hands into the LRR category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see 7 KK hands on this player. 5 were raised, 1 was already capped to him in the BB, and 1 he called HU out of the BB against a steal raise from the button. He also continued to bet his KK on the flop 2 times when an ace came off. He checked the flop the one time he made a set of kings.

With this extra information I think I can say that Im >85% confident that this opponent has aces. At the same time I still agree with most of you that a fold was not the correct play at the time. I didnt have all this information in front of me at the time and couldnt be 85% sure in the heat of the moment.

Thx for the post ellipse

EDIT:I gotta start spending more time in the SS forum

[jat850]

This post was a pleasure (for the most part) to read. Sea Eagle and ellipse 87 did a very good job picking apart the weaknesses in this decision process called "reads." Tk79 had some good evidence to back his read. While this may be an unusual situation where the read is THAT specific to one hand versus a range of hands for the villian, it is a great post on how to weight hand reading in your decision making process. Playing live, I do not know how I could ever be that "tight" on my read in this situation, but the insight in this post about how to break the decision making process into smaller, articulable bites was great work. IMO, this is a good example of the value of this forum.