Hand...

[spydog]

I don't think it really matters much if you call down or fold. Unlike Dane, I think he cool-calls a lot of Kings from the SB when you raise from MP. If your raise came from the Button than I would expect more 3-betting from good Kings.

My only concern is that a theme in your recent posts has been to avoid paying off with good 2nd best hands. If true, then it might start creeping into spots like this where calling down is probably a good idea in higher limit, aggressive games.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it really matters much if you call down or fold. Unlike Dane, I think he cool-calls a lot of Kings from the SB when you raise from MP. If your raise came from the Button than I would expect more 3-betting from good Kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think he can have KT, KJ, KQ (discounted 50%). I don't see a huge number of coldcalling hands that contain the flush draw. I also don't think everyone is going to play a flush draw for a 3-bet in this spot. I mean the board is king high, I raised preflop. It's not unlikely that I have a pair of Kings which most people just are not going to let go of. I think a lot of players (me included) will play a flush draw passively here on the flop. Keep the 3rd player in for equity and go nuts if you hit.

[ QUOTE ]

My only concern is that a theme in your recent posts has been to avoid paying off with good 2nd best hands. If true, then it might start creeping into spots like this where calling down is probably a good idea in higher limit, aggressive games.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a theme of my posts because I think it's what holds solid 10/20 players from being successful at higher limits. And I think many players don't even realize they are doing it. They just say, call down he'll have a flush draw here often enough.

Now in this particular hand I still am not sure what the correct thing to do is. But there is a lot of information on the table to consider and I think the right move will come out.

Krishan

[Spicymoose]

Alright, I guess it is time to come up with a real analysis. I think he could hold A6-AJ, Q9-QJ, J8-JT, T8-T9, 98, 87, 76. That is 16 combos, but I will discount a bit because sometimes he reraises with some of these hands, and sometimes he folds. I will call it 12 combos. He could also sometimes have a pair preflop. I will say 66-99, which is 24 combos, but I will discount to 20. Then there are 6 combos of 44 or 55, which I will discount to 5. Finally there are the kings, which could be K9-KTs, KJ, KQ. There are 20 combos total, but I will discount to 16.

So preflop:
12 combos of flush draws
20 combos of PPs
5 combos of sets
16 combos of Ks

If there is a 16% chance that he is check/3-betting with his flush draw, and 10% chance that he is check/3-betting with his PP, there are 2 combos of PPs, and 2 combos of flush draws.

If there is a 100% chance he will c/3-bet with his Ks or set, then there are 21 combos of hands that beat us.

Out of the 2 times he has PPs, we will win 8.5 BB 95% of the time, and lose 2 BB 5% of the time. That is a net result of winning 8 BB.
Out of the 2 times he has a flush draw, we will win 8.5 BB 80% of the time, and lose 2 BB 20% of the time. That is a net result of winning 6.5 BB
Out of the 5 times he has a set, we will lose 2 BB
Out of the 21times he has Ks or a set, we will lose 2 BB 95% of the time, and win 9.5 5% of the time, for a net result of losing 1.4 BB (note our 2 outs are extremely valueble).

Final results? (2*8+2*6.5-21*1.4)/25= -.015 BB

I hope I didn't screw up anywhere. I have edited my assumptions a few times so far. I started out forgetting he could have 44, 55, and assumed he check/3-bet his Ks 75% of the time; net result was +.75 BB. Then I changed my assumptions and said he might have kings 88% of the time; net result was +.5 BB. Then I said kings 100% of the time; net result was +.33 BB. Finally, when I put in 44 and 55 at 100% I get an almost break even result. What this means is that your assumptions change the EV of this drastically.

I think that my assumptions have been way too generous to the hands that beat us, and that in reality, this is a call down.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a theme of my posts because I think it's what holds solid 10/20 players from being successful at higher limits. And I think many players don't even realize they are doing it. They just say, call down he'll have a flush draw here often enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't found this to be true at all. If anything I had to learn to call down in some extra spots when playing above 10/20. Imo, the main thing that holds said players back are leaks in HU play (usually folding too often, not calling too often).

[Poldi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a theme of my posts because I think it's what holds solid 10/20 players from being successful at higher limits. And I think many players don't even realize they are doing it. They just say, call down he'll have a flush draw here often enough.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't found this to be true at all. If anything I had to learn to call down in some extra spots when playing above 10/20. Imo, the main thing that holds said players back are leaks in HU play (usually folding too often, not calling too often).

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree with this statement too. After moving up I have to call down a lot more because of semibluffs and more overall aggressive play. Usually I overadjust a bit and then have to fold in some spots again but at first I need to learn how to call more.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see a huge number of coldcalling hands that contain the flush draw. I also don't think everyone is going to play a flush draw for a 3-bet in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, the question is not whether you are an underdog; it's whether you are a 6:1 underdog. So you don't need villain to behave eccentrically very often to make calling correct. I think a far greater mistake to make at the higher limits is exactly this one: do not ignore the size of the pot when making a decision.

Another thing: villain was not test after the second king fell. His turn bet may just be a continuation of his flop agression. If you had him on a range of hands on the flop, some of which included a king and some of which didn't, then the effect of the second king is to reduce the chances of the hands in his range containing a king and increase the chances of the hands not containing a king. You had to have had him pretty much deadlocked on a king (or kings up or a set) on the flop for folding to be correct here. I DO think this is possible, but much more so in live play and when you really know an opponent.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a theme of my posts because I think it's what holds solid 10/20 players from being successful at higher limits. And I think many players don't even realize they are doing it. They just say, call down he'll have a flush draw here often enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a struggling 20/40'er -- 30/60'er I think you're right. I made a big step up in my 5/10 game when I was able to fold top pair on the turn, or on the river after calling one bet to see if I improved/counterfeited the raiser.

Obviously, that is a move that is much more difficult to make in a highly aggressive game where you often have much better reason to believe that your opponent might be bluffing, and I *do* think that there's so much confusion about that that it holds people back. Like you, I'm not sure what the right action is in this hand, but the fact is that I'm very close to thinking it's a fold . . . but when I'm at the tables, in the heat of play, I rarely have the presence of mind to make that decision. Because unlike the 5/10 game, my default is automatically to think they're full of crap. Or, at least, I Have Odds to call down to find out.

But here? King on the board, 3-betting-checkraising the preflop raiser? I don't think this is one of those obvious bluffin' places.

Then again, after reading ALL1N's latest post, I may never fold postflop again . . .