Dream situation for KK

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

I was actually hoping to take the pot right then


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand.

You flop a set of kings on a K-7-2 board and you want to win it on the flop?

Why?

Guy.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the pre-flop limp, as I said, that's kind of a 50/50 thing for me

[/ QUOTE ]

Your pre-flop decision is fine, especially if you won't lose your stack in an unraised pot, which I don't think will happen to you much.

[ QUOTE ]
I was actually hoping to take the pot right then and was surprised with CO called.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this at all. Why on earth would you want to take down that small pot right then with a set of Kings? I would consider that terrible.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, his count of outs was not dependent on which flush he was drawing to.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point wrt which flush draw he has, Cris. The point is that if he has a flush draw with no pair, you don't get paid. You got paid at the end because he had a pair of Queens. If he has JTs, you don't get paid. That's why pushing is better if you think he has a flush draw. Unless he makes a pair, the turn is where you get paid if he misses.

[1800GAMBLER]

Hey.

Cris is a tournment player. I don't play anywhere near an amount of tournments to be a good tournment player but when i do i usually hope to take the pot right there with this hand. Calling would be -EV for him, but i'd like to have _no_ variance. Adimttly this could be very wrong has this hand, this hand may be one of the hands i need to make EV regradless of variance.

In a ring game in which i think about long run and bankroll i hope for whatever makes me the most $s, in this case him calling.

Cris is a good tournment player, i've read lots of her(?) posts when i worked on my tournment game. I think the EV regardless of variance might be a switch needed, if her reasons for wanting the opponent to fold was to have no variance.

(I know you know everything i've typed already but i just saved you a long reply, this thread growing, and gave a lesson to someone new to NL).

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this at all. Why on earth would you want to take down that small pot right then with a set of Kings? I would consider that terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have top set with two spades on board. If someone is chasing spades, I'd like them to pay to see more. Perhaps I overbet the flop by a little, but not by all that much.

I agree that I should've pushed at the turn. I've been thinking about it all day, and realized what you said here: that he may call at the turn with a naked flush draw, but he won't at the river.

Oh well. Live and learn. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi Jay,

[ QUOTE ]
Cris is a good tournment player, i've read lots of her(?) posts when i worked on my tournment game. I think the EV regardless of variance might be a switch needed, if her reasons for wanting the opponent to fold was to have no variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words, and yes, I'm a her. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And you are right. I'm adjusting from tournament to ring play, and the old tournament habits still emerge.

Cris

[cornell2005]

another point that doesnt exactly pertain to this situation, but pertains to a situation like it:

when (if ever) is it worth it to check or bet light on the turn with the aim of leaving the flush drawer money on the river to bluff with?

for example, leaving him 120 dollars after the turn into that sized pot will take a bluff on the river out of the question if he misses. a decent player will fold it if he misses, and you lose the potential 120 dollars extra 5/6 of the time. plus, you dont lose the money you would have put in on the turn if he hits the flush.

of course there are more advantages to betting and charging him for his draw, but can anyone make the arguement that coming in weak on the turn or checking is a better play than betting as chris did if the player was aggressive and prone to bluffs after missed draws?