60/40 imo.
The kk Vs All In Dilemma
- Thread starter woomera_skp
- Start date
- Tagged users None
60/40 imo.
Congratulations, you have correctly handled the 1 hand in 5000 when you have KK and the other guy has AA. It's going to come up, maybe once in 170 hours. Now just figure out the other 4999 and you too can be a pro - but watch out, in 22 of them, you will have KK and the other guy *won't* have AA.
- Banned
- #53
That is some epic maths you have there paxmaniac.
Lets put it this way. You are facing a massive nit, who raises one in ten hands or less. Once he 3 bets you, you know he is only playing really good hands, something like QQ+ AKo+ maybe AQs. You decide to come over him with your Kings (mistake) and he shoves all in.
Lets say he will do this with AKo+, KK, and AA. There are 8 possible AK he could have, 1 possible KK, and 6 possible combinations of AA he could have. And the fact is that he may not even do it with AK at all. This is breakeven at best(and i suspect a small loss).
Sure against your random donkey you can call, but that isn't what this discussion is about.
Lets put it this way. You are facing a massive nit, who raises one in ten hands or less. Once he 3 bets you, you know he is only playing really good hands, something like QQ+ AKo+ maybe AQs. You decide to come over him with your Kings (mistake) and he shoves all in.
Lets say he will do this with AKo+, KK, and AA. There are 8 possible AK he could have, 1 possible KK, and 6 possible combinations of AA he could have. And the fact is that he may not even do it with AK at all. This is breakeven at best(and i suspect a small loss).
Sure against your random donkey you can call, but that isn't what this discussion is about.
I've folded it pre once at a 25nl game where a the worlds biggest nit 3-bet me from the CO and the world's second biggest nit 4-bet cold from the SB.
Would have def have stacked off against one of them 100bbs deep. In summary you have to have a pretty good read on an opponent to lay down KK.
I hear it's rigged anyway.
Would have def have stacked off against one of them 100bbs deep. In summary you have to have a pretty good read on an opponent to lay down KK.
I hear it's rigged anyway.
In fact, he specifically said that the table was playing "like bingo".
If the stacks are very deep, and the guy is a huge nit, I'd definitely think about folding or calling to setmine. I said as much in my very first response in this thread.
A couple of years ago when I was playing free roll poker I would have got KK about 8 times within approx a 2 month period and about five or six of those times the person I was against had AA. I honestly couldn't believe my (bad) luck.
Any regarding the KK before the flop, I would feel more at ease if there are at least two people who calls a persons raise. The reason being is That at least two people will at least an A and a picture Card each, diminishing the chances they have AA at the same time diminishing the chances of them hitting an A on the flop. I would just call their raise and make an appropriate decision on the flop.
Any regarding the KK before the flop, I would feel more at ease if there are at least two people who calls a persons raise. The reason being is That at least two people will at least an A and a picture Card each, diminishing the chances they have AA at the same time diminishing the chances of them hitting an A on the flop. I would just call their raise and make an appropriate decision on the flop.
woomera_skp
Team Captain
woomera_skp
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #59
I would love to see you Snap calling a $2k Stack with kk,lol Its not fear if i feel like gambling i would call a $1.2k pot with 7,8 SUITED and not care one bit,Sometimes Its the satisfaction of reading your oponent correctly.
woomera_skp
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #60
looool Do you think Someone with a big stack would re-raise you and shove his whole stack with 22 times out of 23 times Not having AA????we talking about $2/3 Table here not omaha $5/$10/$10 lmao.
woomera_skp
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #61
Thank you very much
This guy would only shove with very good hands,Like you put it Either AA,KK, or QQ but based on his stack and mine and we played together few times he wouldn't shove that much and expect me to call with A,Q..A,K..J,J'S AND Under...he would hope i would make a mistake and call with QQ and really push me to the boundry With K,K...But he must've felt i either had QQ or KK to shove on me.I have never seen him shove and show anything Less Than K,K Over $700-$800,QQ Once with $280 Because he just bought In,Now $2k+ From My raise of over $100?Alarm bell went off.The question is What If i had AA??? he would never risk his stake Unless he Got it.
woomera_skp
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #62
That's the point of my thread...The problem is if your openent smell you got KK then they will shove on you to get maximum $$$ , Therefore Laying Down KK Is not a bad thing sometimes.
FishCreekBandit
All Australian
- Sep 8, 2010
- 743
- 2
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
His argument was cursory, but the gist is right.
(Aside:
1.1 If I'm assuming that you are disagreeing with his gist [i.e. evolution --> visual-based attraction], and you are not, then point that out and we wouldn't disagree.
1.2 Main point is that when you disagree with something in someone's argument, people will assume you disagree with their whole argument.
And, rightly so -- most people who disagree vehemently with something in someone's position disagree with their position in general. So, to distinguish yourself from them, if it turns out you don't disagree with their whole position, you must provide a caveat explaining so.
1.3 And, my caveat: I don't disagree with you w/r/t the cursory nature of his details. I agree with you -- those need refining.
But since I'm operating on the premise that you disagree a large chunk of his viewpoint, due to the principles explained in 1.2, I'll proceed from there.)
1.4 But, yeah, your point (#3) doesn't at all refute his initial claim, if it's meant to do that.
We have two wholly distinct entities:
[the fact that attraction is men is a largely visual phenomena] = [A]
[the specific nature of the ideal visual aesthetic] =
[A] is just the way it is. No changing that anytime soon.
But is highly, highly variable, drawing for influence from factors geographic (hint: read any account of what's considered attractive in other countries, most notably remote villages), generational, and cultural.
1.5 So you can say "you are saying that 30 years can't change something, but look here, 30-50-whatever years ago, people liked fat women. Things have changed in 30-50 years, so that refutes your initial point."
(I'm assuming that's what you are implying, correct me if you are trying to make a different point.)
And, to that, the answer is simple: [A] and are totally different things. He's not talking about . So there's no contradiction.
1.6 What men are attracted to, visually, can change generation-to-generation; that men are attracted by what's visual won't from change generation-to-generation.
(And at this point, I can anticipate a certain breed of flimsy-argument maker [not you] saying "but men are also attracted to smell and touch and *gasp* personality." And to those people: reread my post and you'll see that I never said "only" what's visual.)
---
The notion that men are shallow when they care about looks: one of those insidious means of sugarcoating, a purely postmodern phenomena, that society (esp. feminazis) likes to coddle itself with -- imagine a world where anyone who judges you based on your looks is shallow! The end of Does This Dress Make Me Look Fat and all looks-based insecurity! And it works the other way too. Men are quick to label women as bitches, only-liking-bad-boys, and all other sorts of mis-truths, to avoid addressing their own insecurity/laziness or to deal with pain.
Both labels, of course, being nothing more than nice little white lies with cute narratives. Quixotic notions. Wishful thinking. Pipe dreams.
---
[edit: meh, my rhetoric, as of late, has been, at times, unintentionally surging and scathing ; although I sort of care about the topic, I don't care anywhere near as much as I might seem to; even though my tone indicates otherwise, I'm certainly not an ideologue {i.e. not even close to being entrenched in these viewpoints (and some I've adopted quite recently), I can be persuaded otherwise}. Translation: "oops I might have sounded like an ***hole, I don't mean it."]
(Aside:
1.1 If I'm assuming that you are disagreeing with his gist [i.e. evolution --> visual-based attraction], and you are not, then point that out and we wouldn't disagree.
1.2 Main point is that when you disagree with something in someone's argument, people will assume you disagree with their whole argument.
And, rightly so -- most people who disagree vehemently with something in someone's position disagree with their position in general. So, to distinguish yourself from them, if it turns out you don't disagree with their whole position, you must provide a caveat explaining so.
1.3 And, my caveat: I don't disagree with you w/r/t the cursory nature of his details. I agree with you -- those need refining.
But since I'm operating on the premise that you disagree a large chunk of his viewpoint, due to the principles explained in 1.2, I'll proceed from there.)
1.4 But, yeah, your point (#3) doesn't at all refute his initial claim, if it's meant to do that.
We have two wholly distinct entities:
[the fact that attraction is men is a largely visual phenomena] = [A]
[the specific nature of the ideal visual aesthetic] =
[A] is just the way it is. No changing that anytime soon.
But is highly, highly variable, drawing for influence from factors geographic (hint: read any account of what's considered attractive in other countries, most notably remote villages), generational, and cultural.
1.5 So you can say "you are saying that 30 years can't change something, but look here, 30-50-whatever years ago, people liked fat women. Things have changed in 30-50 years, so that refutes your initial point."
(I'm assuming that's what you are implying, correct me if you are trying to make a different point.)
And, to that, the answer is simple: [A] and are totally different things. He's not talking about . So there's no contradiction.
1.6 What men are attracted to, visually, can change generation-to-generation; that men are attracted by what's visual won't from change generation-to-generation.
(And at this point, I can anticipate a certain breed of flimsy-argument maker [not you] saying "but men are also attracted to smell and touch and *gasp* personality." And to those people: reread my post and you'll see that I never said "only" what's visual.)
---
The notion that men are shallow when they care about looks: one of those insidious means of sugarcoating, a purely postmodern phenomena, that society (esp. feminazis) likes to coddle itself with -- imagine a world where anyone who judges you based on your looks is shallow! The end of Does This Dress Make Me Look Fat and all looks-based insecurity! And it works the other way too. Men are quick to label women as bitches, only-liking-bad-boys, and all other sorts of mis-truths, to avoid addressing their own insecurity/laziness or to deal with pain.
Both labels, of course, being nothing more than nice little white lies with cute narratives. Quixotic notions. Wishful thinking. Pipe dreams.
---
[edit: meh, my rhetoric, as of late, has been, at times, unintentionally surging and scathing ; although I sort of care about the topic, I don't care anywhere near as much as I might seem to; even though my tone indicates otherwise, I'm certainly not an ideologue {i.e. not even close to being entrenched in these viewpoints (and some I've adopted quite recently), I can be persuaded otherwise}. Translation: "oops I might have sounded like an ***hole, I don't mean it."]
The question is not whether someone will do something screwy 22 times in 23. The question is whether someone will do something screwy (by overvaluing QQ or AK or running a pure bluff) 1 time in 23. I have already agreed that *if* the player is a nit, and *if* the stacks are very deep, you need to be very careful (maybe even fold).
The point about 1 in 5000 hands is that there's really not much point wasting too much thought on it. If you consider how often you have AA, the other guy has KK, *and* the guy is a nit, *and* both of you are deep stacked, we are probably talking once in 30000 hands, or maybe once in 1000 hours of live poker.
They are only going to smell KK if you are such a nit that you only 3bet big pairs. And if that is the case, you should be far more worried about small pairs flatting you and stacking you when they hit a set.
Back from a holiday, and this stuff goes down 
Anyway, I thought I multiquoted more posts but this will do for now.
Depends on the range ldo. Vs a range of just AA, KK and QQ, you should always call since you are exactly 50% vs that range, and the money already in will be more then the rake per hand.
I tend to call all 3bets these days when SPR's will be less then 3 or so (folding some ldo but never 4betting. But thats only against the smarter players in general.
I had someone bag me out for calling off $400 more effective with 7h5h into a $100 pot or so vs a maniacal monkey with 28o. The board was 235 fwiw. I lost the hand, but I was the fish ldo.
Raising around 1 hand in 10 is hardly nittery. I would guess that is something like 88+, ATs+, AJo and KQs. I know a lot of people that raise less then that that would be never known as nits.
As mentioned, you never mentioned nittery to start with.
This is pretty much spot on. Unless they have a PFR of something like 1 or so with a 3! of .4 or something its always a stackoff situation HU.
Against a range of AA-QQ its a snap call given dead money.
Also, I wouldnt 4bet in the first place vs a limp raise, just flat to flop a set, and by flop a set I mean call down like a fish with an overpair for stacks.
Pax wins internet again.
Anyway, I thought I multiquoted more posts but this will do for now.
Depends on the range ldo. Vs a range of just AA, KK and QQ, you should always call since you are exactly 50% vs that range, and the money already in will be more then the rake per hand.
I tend to call all 3bets these days when SPR's will be less then 3 or so (folding some ldo but never 4betting. But thats only against the smarter players in general.
I had someone bag me out for calling off $400 more effective with 7h5h into a $100 pot or so vs a maniacal monkey with 28o. The board was 235 fwiw. I lost the hand, but I was the fish ldo.
Raising around 1 hand in 10 is hardly nittery. I would guess that is something like 88+, ATs+, AJo and KQs. I know a lot of people that raise less then that that would be never known as nits.
As mentioned, you never mentioned nittery to start with.
This is pretty much spot on. Unless they have a PFR of something like 1 or so with a 3! of .4 or something its always a stackoff situation HU.
Thank you very much
Against a range of AA-QQ its a snap call given dead money.
Also, I wouldnt 4bet in the first place vs a limp raise, just flat to flop a set, and by flop a set I mean call down like a fish with an overpair for stacks.
Pax wins internet again.
- Banned
- #67
FWIW I (try my best to) only call KK+ for most all in situations.
I don't recall folding KK preflop any time recently, but I honestly have no idea. Then again I play ****ing nanostakes so the only time I would consider it is against the nittiest of the nits of that level, who are still pretty damned nitty. I just don't see them shoving queens, and only AK if they are bad (alot of people do it just because AK looks good from my experience)
I don't recall folding KK preflop any time recently, but I honestly have no idea. Then again I play ****ing nanostakes so the only time I would consider it is against the nittiest of the nits of that level, who are still pretty damned nitty. I just don't see them shoving queens, and only AK if they are bad (alot of people do it just because AK looks good from my experience)
FishCreekBandit
All Australian
- Sep 8, 2010
- 743
- 2
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
In cash poker im stacking off with Qs around 80% of the time with that 20% being for the nits around. Of course online this is a lot different and id be more near the 55-60% mark.
Greatest thing about cash is if you lose a flip that you are ahead in % wise you can always just rebuy
Greatest thing about cash is if you lose a flip that you are ahead in % wise you can always just rebuy
- Banned
- #69
Greatest thing about cash is the post flop play for mine. I don't play many MTTs though, as easy as they seem to be.
Will try to never play a 9/10 man sng again as well. IMO the edge you can get in those games is tiny, and the return is too variable.
Will try to never play a 9/10 man sng again as well. IMO the edge you can get in those games is tiny, and the return is too variable.
FishCreekBandit
All Australian
- Sep 8, 2010
- 743
- 2
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Different beast, SNG are purely a volume based game.
Post flop is a dark cold place
Post flop is a dark cold place
One reason people play AK aggressively least some of the time, is to fold out smaller pairs. When he shoves AK and you fold 88 or JJ, he owns you. There are only 6 combinations out of 1225 which beat AK preflop, so shoving is seldom a major mistake.
- Banned
- #72
I don't think its a major mistake either, but the only reason i see for shoving AK is to balance your range. People will put all their money in with it without realising that its not actually that strong pre flop unless you are often being called by queens or lower, or smaller aces.
It plays freaking awesome post flop.
EDIT: I'll add that I do think it is a mistake though, because when you bluff with it you light your equity on fire. May as well shove with 84o and play your AK slow pre-flop so you can use it post flop.
It plays freaking awesome post flop.
EDIT: I'll add that I do think it is a mistake though, because when you bluff with it you light your equity on fire. May as well shove with 84o and play your AK slow pre-flop so you can use it post flop.
I agree and disagree. AK plays extremely well preflop, and if some LAG 4bets me, I'll 5bet all-in all night long, especially if I'm out of position.
You are right that AK plays very well postflop, and gets a lot of value from weaker aces and kings that are dominated. Where AK can be problematic is where a lot of money has gone in preflop, but not enough to commit the players. If a loose player 4bets you, you are much better off making a committing 5bet than to just flat call out of position with a big pot.
- Banned
- #74
I agree with you. Sometimes its very good to call a 3 bet with AK though, but you are spot on that it doesn't play great in 4 bet pots, particularly out of position.
It does depends on stack sizes as well obviously.
woomera_skp
Team Captain
- Thread starter
- #75
I agree with ^^^^.
