|
|
#1
04-20-2005, 08:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Villain has KK out of position (long)
Please keep in mind that I'm just learning the game, so I don't know the "standard" plays that you would make with certain hands yet. Therefore my reverse hand reading (deception) may be wildly incorrect.
--- Scenario: Both of you have 100x bb stacks. (25 standard open raises)Villain in EP and Hero in MP on a rull ring table. Villain is a solid player. Hero has AA and Villain has suspected KK. --- Hand and Questions: Villain opens to 4xbb. Hero raises to 10xbb,... Question #1: What do you think here... a standard raise brings you to 16xbb, why would you raise less than that? ...Villain re-raises to 25xbb (1/4 of his stack and 3/4 of the pot)... Question #2: What do you think of this raise? Again, it's only a 3/4 pot raise. Why is this good or bad for the villain to do? This raise clearly communicates his hand as either KK or QQ, right? Alright, so #3, how should hero proceed? --- Discussion of Question #3: We have a few options: If we push, he folds. If we raise back enough to commit him to the hand without giving him odds to hit his set, say 1/3 of his remaining stack, he folds. If we call, he's getting slightly less than correct odds to pursue his set, since he's betting 15bb on a 35bb pot with a chance of getting 75bb more in there if he hits. With the rake, getting 7:1 here isn't good enough. However, he doesn't KNOW we have AA. We could have AKs also, and we could have KK (which if he had QQ he wouldn't know). Since we're not getting correct odds to chase a set, either, we have to have AA/KK/AKs to call him, which makes his job much easier. Furthermore, he doesn't have to hit his K or Q to take down the pot, he just needs to hit a K or a Q on the flop, without an A hitting, and he wins, since we'll have to give him credit for the set if he plays it well, unless we get committed. This favours the hero raising half the pot (1/3 his stack, and giving opp 3:1 odds, and clearly not enough to call) in order to basically blunt the force of his bluffs on the flop. Assuming we call in and the opponent is willing to put us on hands like QQ/JJ (if he has KK) or JJ if he has QQ, as well as AKs, then we have a little more flexibility. We can represent AK by making an overbet on any flop that has two suited cards and is ragged with J or a T on it. In this instance, we're representing representing a set, which will let him put us on AK, and push in his chips with KK/QQ. If there's two suited and it's not ragged, we should just pot it with our "AKs". Maybe a little folding equity, and if we're called, we're good anyways, unless he pushes the turn and makes us pay the extra 1/4 pot... Hmm... should you just go all-in with AKs if you hit a four-flush? (This is where my limited knowledge of standard plays is hurting me). If the flop is even more ragged, and lowwish, then he'll probably check to us, and we will represent QQ by potting it or 3/4 potting it, and then checking through the turn and calling his river push. Do you guys think that we can narrow his holdings down to KK/QQ based on this action? Do you guys think that he can put us on JJ or AKs based on the action, if we call his weird bet? The stack sizes here lead pretty much to commitment by whoever acts first, as far as I know... anyone care to comment on this point? If so, representing certain hands could be a lot less involved here, so much as getting the opponent to step first. --Dave. 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
