KK (couldn't think of a snazzy title)

[Richie Rich]

[ QUOTE ]
why did you flat call his flop c/r? I would usually push (or fold, if I have a read). Calling may or may not be good, but I'm curious to hear reasons for doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you strongly suspect that villain is only on a flush draw, when is he getting better odds to push -- on the flop or (after a blank falls) on the turn? IMO, this clearly explains why hero only flat-called the villain's c/r on the flop, but was willing to push after a non-heart fell on 4th street.

[GimmeDaWatch]

I agree with Pfunk's post in that the play of villain looks very much like a set to me. Limp call/raise from EP is far more often small/medium pairs than AJs or QQ-AA in my experience. As for Wayfare's post, I think some people play sets the way you mentioned (including me), but villain's line doesnt seem out of the ordinary as well. Also, I think alot of players dont wanna give their opponent credit for nearly as much with a flop raise and so villains line might work better in some situations. As always, its just a judgement call when to lay down your overpair or not, but if you've been running bad with your big pairs lately what can you do?

[muzungu]

Richie-

I don't feel like doing a lot of math right now, but I think the biggest problem with that plan is that hero is already in for 1/2 his stack. If a third heart comes on the turn, villain pushes, and hero folds a winner when getting 3:1 on the call, this is a huge disaster.

Furthermore, there are a lot more ways for villain to have a small overpair than there are for hero to have big hearts. Lets say villain would raise AA-QQ preflop, and isn't going to call a raise with a weak Axs. This leaves:

Villain has JJ-88: 24 ways.
Villain has AQ-AT [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]: 3 ways.

If we assume villain is equally likely to c/r with these two hands (which seems reasonable) then it is 8 times more likely that he has a small overpair.


So this alone seems sufficient to reject that plan. In general, this sort of betting action (call the flop and bet on a turn blank) is more common when stacks are a lot deeper (say, only 25% of your stack is in the pot) and when it is more likely that they are on a draw.

-muz

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why people say they'd rather have 64s on the button than AA UTG in high level play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Which people are you talking about?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
this is where my online play needs some help....i primarily play either the 5-10 at the bike or the 10-20 at commerce, and it seems easier for me to get away from the overpairs in the live game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're beat much more often in the live game than online with this kind of action. You also often have a lot less opportunity to make good decisions online given the short stacks and lack of live reads. I definitely go bust w/ one pair a helluva lot more online w/ than live.

[Jon Matthews]

With a big pair on this board I overbet the pot. Any action I get is from a strong hand usually, and since he's UTG and had ample odds to call for a set preflop, that's what I will suspect. If I have any sort of a read on the player I'll lay this down (i.e. that I'm sure he's not just playing back at a possible AK).

I've learnt this from my mistakes at making these overbets and not laying down to similar action.

I think it's a little easier when you're out of position. For example you are UTG with KK, make a standard raise and are called in MP/LP. Then an overbet you make on a T high board is flat called or raised by the pot. Since you're UTG (or relatively EP) he's gotta have some strength to be making these moves, and more often than not he does. I don't think a fold then is -EV unless he's LAG.

Jon.

[Legend]

Here is my take:

Given the size of the pot after hero calls the check raise on the turn
relatively to the stacks size, I think it is fair to assume that in
most cases the hand will go to the showdown while both players are
all-in, so the decision hero has to make on the flop is whether he is
willing to bet $446 in order to win $661. He is getting ~ 1.5 to 1
and therefore should be correct at least 40% of the times to make
this play profitable.

If Villain has AA, 22, 44 or 77 he has about 91% chances of winning.
If Villain has QQ, JJ, 1010 or 99 hero has about 91% chances of winning.
If Villain has an ace high flush draw he has about 44% chances of
winning.

Obviously villain could have other holdings, such as 56 of hearts which
gives him 53% chances of winning by the river, or a complete bluff, but
the real question here is how often Villain will make this play with
a set compare to a smaller over pair and a flush draw.

If hero thinks Villain is equally to have any of the above holdings
then calling has positive EV.

However, if hero thinks that Villain will make this play with a set
at least half of the times I believe hero should fold.

50% is about the break even point. If for example Villain has a set
50% of the times, a lower over pair 25% of the time and a semi
bluff 25% of the time, then the call equity is:

9*0.5 + 91*0.25 + 56*0.25 = 41%

Making the call slightly profitable but by a very small margin.

I believe that an unknown on-line player who makes this play will have a set at least 50% of the times.

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why people say they'd rather have 64s on the button than AA UTG in high level play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Which people are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

The comment was made by coltrane in a thread called "Deep Stack Theory" from a week or two ago. A couple people, including Tommy, said that they agreed that this was sometimes true.

ML4L

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why people say they'd rather have 64s on the button than AA UTG in high level play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Which people are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

The comment was made by coltrane in a thread called "Deep Stack Theory" from a week or two ago. A couple people, including Tommy, said that they agreed that this was sometimes true.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's a world of difference between "people saying they'd rather have 64s on the button than AA UTG in high level play" and people saying that scenarios exist in which that is true. Sure, there are scenarios in which I'd much rather have two cards and the button rather than a premium hand UTG. But when it comes to what I'd generally prefer in the biggest games I've played in, I'll take AA UTG over 64s on the button all day long.

Context is so important in these types of discussions. Taking a comment like that (I haven't read that thread, but I have a pretty good idea of what Tommy and other good players probably said) out of context and turning it into a poor broad generalization is not helpful to the people who are trying to learn here.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, there are scenarios in which I'd much rather have two cards and the button rather than a premium hand UTG. But when it comes to what I'd generally prefer in the biggest games I've played in, I'll take AA UTG over 64s on the button all day long.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Diablo,

What sort of situation would you prefer having a low/medium drawing hand in when facing a raise pre-flop where you feel your opponent does have an overpair? For the sake of argument, let's assume this is a 10-20 live NL game and not online.

Thanks

Lawrence