KK in BB in a raised pot.

connie147

Another episode of KK. Not being posted as a bad beat but the different strategy for playing it is important to me.Maybe my thoughts are results orientated, but dont we all suffer from that.

Points to note:--€150 F/O that we play every week so players are well known to each other.
7 players left with an av.stack of 12,000. Blinds 300-600 (25 min blinds).
MP player raises to 2,000(has about 8,000)(his range is 77+ AK,AQ, AJ or even A10,, button flat calls the raise(he's chip leader on 20,000),(this player would reraise here with QQ,KK,AA or AK)(so his range is ,88 99 10-10,JJ or A-Q) and Im on the BB with KK and 9,400.

Now im fairly sure at least one of them has an Ace and I dont really want to see a flop here so I ship it in. MP player folds immediately,villian on the button thinks for a while and says"im getting 2/1 on my money,I'll call".
Flop comes 3 low cards and an ugly Ace on the turn sends me packing.
(he said he put me on a smaller pair and thought he was racing).

But thats immeterial. Question in my mind on the way home was if I had flat called as well in the BB I would have been 1st to act after the flop and my all-in here was getting through as the flop was all low cards(mp had A-J).
But thats purely result orientated.
Put yourself in my position.Would you have made the same play? How often do you consider option 2(Call and push a non ace flop)?

mdwexford

id re-raise here every single time
i wouldnt want to go to a flop 3 handed

Daithio

Re raising is the only play here. You want a call of an ace, you're a fairly big favourite to win the hand then. If you flat call, an ace comes on the flop and you're gonna lose it, even if one of them doesn't have an ace. Also you might get action off a pair of tens etc that you wouldn't if the flop comes with overcards to their pairs. 100% push every time.

cardshark202

You played it fine. I would do the same every time. Pushing has by far the best expectation. There is no option 2 here IMO

gosplan

I'm not disagreeing with the advice here or anything but I really see your point.

Obviously the way to play with kings is to get it all in preflop but this strategy has a big risk factor and will see you walking a lot of the time. I guess you have to just grin and bear it and wait for the other times when you double through.

On a similar note:

I saw someone limp-raise with kings in position 1 or 2 in the fitz scalps game a while back.

As it was raised before it came back around to him, I thought he was in a way pricing people in. He limps with say two others, LP raises, gets one caller and then the guy goes all-in. Given the blinds and initial raise and call the original raiser with Aj had decent odds to call for the lot.

Now I know that he would have gladly gotten it heads up against AJ before the hand started but his play ment that it was correct for AJ to call. Do this twice in a tourney and chances are you're going home.

The way I see it he did get it all in but it's the kind of situation where say LP calls the reraise and then suddenly given the value the player behind goes with 89suited or something.

Is this one of those hand defining situations?

Anyway first card was an ace and that was it. I remember feeling sorry for the guy cause he lost a heads up with kings vrs AJ but I thought it may be poor play.

is it poor play and if so can anyone explain why?

5starpool

In the Fitz cash game this isn't too poor play. If he had made it 10 first time it came to him he would have got maybe 4 callers with god knows what. If the pot is unraised then it is a chance you take. If it is raised you can make it expensive for someone to see a flop, while still winning more than a fiver or so if everyone folds.

His main problem here seemed to be that he was not playing deepstacked enough. Somehow though, I doubt the AJ was getting correct odds to call against an EP limp-reraiser preflop. The AJ played that poorly IMO, unless it was a greater than 4-1 say to call.

gosplan

Sorry it was Friday scalps game.

Pretty sure everyone was on their first buy-in so I think the decision to Mr. AJ was whether to:

1: Fold and sit on 1/2-3/4 stack for a while trying to find a better spot
2: Call.

I could see him thinking and figured his line of thinking was that he was up against a decent pp but probably not aces.

While he was not getting the odds if he took the hand down he'd have a great stack early in the game. If he didn't then he'd rebuy.

I know it's some pretty odd logic that makes you throw in almost a full stack on AJ in a tournament though.

5starpool

Sorry, misread the part about scalps game. Unless it was a small amount back though (in which case why limp with KK) it would still be hard to justify the AJ call. I'll let Mr KK off on the deepstacked bit though.

fuzzbox

gosplan wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with the advice here or anything but I really see your point.

Obviously the way to play with kings is to get it all in preflop but this strategy has a big risk factor and will see you walking a lot of the time. I guess you have to just grin and bear it and wait for the other times when you double through.

This strategy has you DOUBLING up a lot of the time.

On a similar note:

I saw someone limp-raise with kings in position 1 or 2 in the fitz scalps game a while back.

As it was raised before it came back around to him, I thought he was in a way pricing people in. He limps with say two others, LP raises, gets one caller and then the guy goes all-in. Given the blinds and initial raise and call the original raiser with Aj had decent odds to call for the lot.

The guy with AJ made a big mistake - he did not have decent odds, and he has no idea where he stands. He will almost never be a favourite, and he is almost certainly an underdog - and often a huge underdog.

Now I know that he would have gladly gotten it heads up against AJ before the hand started but his play ment that it was correct for AJ to call. Do this twice in a tourney and chances are you're going home.

What and What?

The way I see it he did get it all in but it's the kind of situation where say LP calls the reraise and then suddenly given the value the player behind goes with 89suited or something.

We want 89s in ... he has a very low chance of beating us.


Is this one of those hand defining situations?

Anyway first card was an ace and that was it. I remember feeling sorry for the guy cause he lost a heads up with kings vrs AJ but I thought it may be poor play.[/QUOTE]

The Ace on the flop is totally beside the point.

is it poor play and if so can anyone explain why?

Mr. AJ played awfully and ensured that he got all his chips in as a pretty substantial underdog.

Hectorjelly

People often forget they get knocked out of 90% of tournaments before the money

gosplan

fuzzbox wrote:

What and What?

It's ok, I heard you the first time.
If you go all in twice against AJ with pocket kings chances are you'll lose one of them. I am not implying that if you simply limp-push twice with kings you'll go out.

i.e take a one in three shot twice and you'll probably hit.

fuzzbox wrote:

We want 89s in ... he has a very low chance of beating us.

Just wondering how you work out when to stop here. Basically if AJ and 89s are in kings are at about 50%.
Equally 45s is an underdog, do we want that in as well?
I understand that risks must be taken if you wish to go deep in a tournament but where do you stop wanting callers regardless of you being ahead.

i.e. why is it ever WRONG to limp-push with big pairs?

gosplan

gosplan wrote:

is it poor play and if so can anyone explain why?

Sorry, this referred to limping with kings. Does anyone think this is wrong?

gosplan

Hectorjelly wrote:

People often forget they get knocked out of 90% of tournaments before the money

Good point. Would you take this to the logical conclusion though.

This is kind of off the kings thing but still along the same lines.

Say you're offered an all in against 5 players where you've a 25% chance of winning. So you're getting the best of it but most of the time also going home early.

Is it correct tournament strategy to play?

(I'm discounting any stupid contrived situation that Sklansky came up with involving final tables and WSOP's Take it first hand in a large tournament, no rebuys.)

Thanks.

mdwexford

you're getting 5/1 on your money and your 3/1 to win the hand
im putting the money in every single time.

you might go home early 3 times but that 4th time your going to have a massive stack

Bandana boy

I went through a similar thought process couple of years back
After a lean spell of going out approaching the bubble on KK QQ JJ vs AX
I decided to stop re-raising/3 betting my money in pre with big non AA pairs and instead call to see the flop and seeing if i can proceed safely

I minimised my going out while ahead and getting outdrawn yeah
but also maximised my having so few chips I was all in on any 2 cards approaching the money and then going out

If you where deep stacked in the tourney i could understand holding back not wanting to run a gamble at this point but your not you are about 3/4s of the average sitting there wishing for a big hand to double yourself up
You hit it and want to minimise the return against AX and risk laying down on flop to QQ JJ TT
plus there is also the likely hood many players would lay down Ax to the reraise but on flop they wont if they hit

spectre

gosplan wrote:

If you go all in twice against AJ with pocket kings chances are you'll lose one of them. I am not implying that if you simply limp-push twice with kings you'll go out.

i.e take a one in three shot twice and you'll probably hit.

This thinking is extremely flawed. Both events are independent. The deck does not remember what happened last time. I want to get all-in preflop with KK against AJ every time.

You make the most money this way.

mdwexford

its not extremely flawed thinking at all,
i agree i dont mind being up against aj with kings
but if it happens 10 times on average you'll lose 3

connie147

Yep, most seem to agree that getting it in is the way to go.

But as this hand will be discussed tomorrow night at out next clash, what would your views be on the button players call. It was for half his stack and would have put me in the chip lead. I know a lot is read dependant, but I had been card dead since FT started and hadnt played a hand in an hour.
In his defence, he knows id be quite capable of making a squeeze play here,
although with the stacks as they are Im definately laying down AQ in his position to the reraise all-in.

spectre

mdwexford wrote:

its not extremely flawed thinking at all,
i agree i dont mind being up against aj with kings
but if it happens 10 times on average you'll lose 3

Yes it is because it should never enter your head that you will sometimes lose. It is IRRELEVANT.

So what if you lose 3/10 times? I make more money this way and that is all I care about.

Sure it would be wonderful if my opponent had 72o but that won't happen so often. KK has a big edge over AJ and I will get my chips in there every time.

fuzzbox

mdwexford wrote:

its not extremely flawed thinking at all,
i agree i dont mind being up against aj with kings
but if it happens 10 times on average you'll lose 3

It *is* flawed thinking

Firstly - you dont know that he has AJ, he might have JJ or TT or 99 and call all his chips off as a 4:1 underdog.

Secondly - you want him to call off his chips as a 2:1 underdog.

Thirdly - you can bring KK up against AJ in a tourney and lots of times you wont be all in.

mdwexford

what are you on about,
im not discussing the thinking behind the hand here or calling off chips or anything like that

spectre said the thinking is extremely flawed that if you go all in twice against aj with pocket kings chances are you'll lose one of them because both events are independant.

im saying its not because these things average themselves out and its got nothing to do with "the deck not remembering what happened last time"

fuzzbox

mdwexford wrote:

what are you on about,
im not discussing the thinking behind the hand here or calling off chips or anything like that

spectre said the thinking is extremely flawed that if you go all in twice against aj with pocket kings chances are you'll lose one of them because both events are independant.

im saying its not because these things average themselves out and its got nothing to do with "the deck not remembering what happened last time"

So what do you do ?

Think to yourself ... oh I had KK twice so far tonight against AJ and I went all in and won ... so this time I fold?

RichieLawlor

fuzzbox wrote:

It *is* flawed thinking

Firstly - you dont know that he has AJ, he might have JJ or TT or 99 and call all his chips off as a 4:1 underdog.

Secondly - you want him to call off his chips as a 2:1 underdog.

Thirdly - you can bring KK up against AJ in a tourney and lots of times you wont be all in.

I agree with point 1 and point 2 ok
but WHAT ARE U ON ABOUT IN POINT 3, how does this make a difference if your holding KK

gosplan

Alright, this is basically just going to come down to semantics as usual.

I guess what some people are trying to get across is that somewhere there's a line between getting good odds for massive all-in's and the standard tournament strategy of winning reasonable uncontested pots.

The arguemnt about Aj vrs kk is going nowhere. Clearly hands aren't dependant on previous results but clearly you'll lose one in three times. Enough said!

I'm just wondering is anyone can give their (expert) opinions on the point of massive pots when you're a favourite vrs uncontest pots where you're just taking it down.

Thanks

spectre

mdwexford wrote:

spectre said the thinking is extremely flawed that if you go all in twice against aj with pocket kings chances are you'll lose one of them because both events are independant.

No, you misunderstand. I never said this.

gosplan wrote:

If you go all in twice against AJ with pocket kings chances are you'll lose one of them

I said that taking this into account when making a decision is flawed because both events are independent.

gosplan

spectre wrote:

I said that taking this into account when making a decision is flawed because both events are independent.

Yes and you are 100% correct about this.

What I am asking is how does the fact effect one's overall strategy.

Do you always limp with kings in EP hoping to get it all in or do you consider it more sensible to define your hand?

If so, why? if not, why not? if it depends please explain why.

Apart from that its just going to come down to 'you said'...'but i said'...'but you said' blah blah blah

mdwexford

spectre wrote:

No, you misunderstand. I never said this.


I said that taking this into account when making a decision is flawed because both events are independent.

ok spectre, my mistake, now it all makes sense

Ste05

gosplan wrote:

I'm just wondering is anyone can give their (expert) opinions on the point of massive pots when you're a favourite vrs uncontest pots where you're just taking it down.

I my (humble) opinion. I prefer to be involved in big pots when I'm a decent favourite, (60% would be lovely) e.g. KK v AJ is great, then taking down alot of uncontested pots. But in general I like to do both...

gosplan wrote:

Do you always limp with kings in EP hoping to get it all in or do you consider it more sensible to define your hand?

You could just adjust your strategy, whereby a raise in EP doesn't define your hand to AA or KK. Certainly when I raise in EP, my opponents can't put me on exactly AA or KK, it's a narrow range, but also includes S/C's, smaller PP's, AK, AQ, etc. etc.

But if I think a limp has a greater expectation of someone getting All-In with me, then I'll do that. Obviously, depending on stack sizes and opponents, etc. etc. but generally I'd just raise it up as usual.

fuzzbox

gosplan wrote:

Do you always limp with kings in EP hoping to get it all in or do you consider it more sensible to define your hand?

Why on earth do you want to define YOUR hand?

gosplan

fuzzbox wrote:

Why on earth do you want to define YOUR hand?

You limp, player behind with 8's raises, player behind him with jacks goes all in, player with AK calls and it's back to you, what now??

Obviously this would be an exceptional situation but it's the kind of situation you get into every so often when you limp with big hands. You end up heads-up in a pot with good odds but a poor chance of playing on.

If you do happen to disagree with me is there any way you could possibly say why, thereby contributing or even offering advice instead of just saying 'WRONG'.

Thanks

connie147

gosplan wrote:

You limp, player behind with 8's raises, player behind him with jacks goes all in, player with AK calls and it's back to you, what now??

Obviously this would be an exceptional situation but it's the kind of situation you get into every so often when you limp with big hands. You end up heads-up in a pot with good odds but a poor chance of playing on.

If you do happen to disagree with me is there any way you could possibly say why, thereby contributing or even offering advice instead of just saying 'WRONG'.

Thanks

Dont understand the post because if the pot plays out as you describe, then your plan by limping has worked to perfection and your heads up holding KK.

The only time you have a "poor chance" is if your up against AA.(and that just sucks)

Ste05

gosplan wrote:

You limp, player behind with 8's raises, player behind him with jacks goes all in, player with AK calls and it's back to you, what now??

If I remembered to bring my x-ray specs and I could see the cards, I'd try my best not to jump up and down shouting "YESSSS!!!", while at the same time trying to hide the semi that has just erupted in my pants.

I'd then pretend to agonise over the decision and Push all my chips into the middle, hoping against hope that my act has worked and the guy with the 88 is a donkey and calls, I then focus my attention on the fella with AK, and try to wish a call out of him too.

Then I close my eyes and prey that I don't lose this 4 way pot to what basically is a 7 outer, or some mad straight/ flush.

If I win this pot I have a great chance of winning the whole tournament, if I lose then I can go home and finish off my semi... :rolleyes:

azzeretti

Ste05 wrote:

If I remembered to bring my x-ray specs and I could see the cards, I'd try my best not to jump up and down shouting "YESSSS!!!", while at the same time trying to hide the semi that has just erupted in my pants.

I'd then pretend to agonise over the decision and Push all my chips into the middle, hoping against hope that my act has worked and the guy with the 88 is a donkey and calls, I then focus my attention on the fella with AK, and try to wish a call out of him too.

Then I close my eyes and prey that I don't lose this 4 way pot to what basically is a 7 outer, or some mad straight/ flush.

If I win this pot I have a great chance of winning the whole tournament, if I lose then I can go home and finish off my semi... :rolleyes:

Now, what do you do in a real situation, where you don't know the raiser, reraiser and callers cards. What if at least one of these players is chip leader and playing like a rock. Would you ever consider laying KK here? Pot odds or neh, I might consider this under certain conditions.
The reason I bring this up is twofold.
one - you (obviously) never know any other players cards as you might in
these examples
two - I am interested in hearing peoples views on how folding the best (or almost best) hand now (with or without odds considered) benifits you in the long term, and if it should even be considered.

If I win this pot I have a great chance of winning the whole tournament, if I lose then I can go home and finish off my semi

Would the timeframe of the tourney make any difference to your decision i.e would you make this move everytime e.g 1st hand WSOP right through to the last?

Ste05

azzeretti wrote:

Now, what do you do in a real situation, where you don't know the raiser, reraiser and callers cards. What if at least one of these players is chip leader and playing like a rock. Would you ever consider laying KK here?

It depends on alot of things, including the actual stack sizes, I'd consider anything, but it's unlikely I'd ever fold KK here. I'd also very rarely limp with KK in a tournament, so this kind of situation doesn't arise too often for me personally. But when speaking in these general terms, I'd suggest never folding KK Pre-flop and players should be OK

azzeretti wrote:

two - I am interested in hearing peoples views on how folding the best (or almost best) hand now (with or without odds considered) benifits you in the long term, and if it should even be considered.

When you refer to the best hand, are you referring to holding the hand that is the favourite to win the pot. How can folding the best (or nearly best) hand with no regard to the odds, ever be of a benefit in the Long Term, maybe I'm missing the point, because this part seems a bit mad??

azzeretti wrote:

Would the timeframe of the tourney make any difference to your decision i.e would you make this move everytime e.g 1st hand WSOP right through to the last?

If I was getting offered 4:1 and I was roughly a 40% favourite (or 2.5:1) to win the hand, I'd basically take it everytime no matter where or when it was...

There are obvious examples of where I mightn't such as on a Satellite Bubble, or other similar exceptional circumstances but in general these are the spots players need to be looking for. The problem and difficulty arises in correctly identifying them.

azzeretti

Ste05 wrote:

It I'd also very rarely limp with KK in a tournament

Agreed, I wouldn't either

Ste05 wrote:

When you refer to the best hand, are you referring to holding the hand that is the favourite to win the pot. How can folding the best (or nearly best) hand with no regard to the odds, ever be of a benefit in the Long Term, maybe I'm missing the point, because this part seems a bit mad??

Well, in the above example, if there were only 4 people left (inc you) in the tourney and 2 were all in against the chip leader, it may well benifit you to not get involved, even if you had the best hand.(EDIT: Or is my logic flawed here?) This is an extreme example but there may be similar instances.

I wasn't suggesting I would lay down a 2-1 shot when getting 4-1 in every scenario.

Ste05

azzeretti wrote:

Well, in the above example, if there were only 4 people left (inc you) in the tourney and 2 were all in against the chip leader, it may well benifit you to not get involved, even if you had the best hand.(EDIT: Or is my logic flawed here?) This is an extreme example but there may be similar instances.

Well in this example, the payout structure might make a difference, but we could basically tie up 1st with this hand?? We win and we are a massive lead going into HU play. If you're playing for first (as you should be), then my money goes in here. The CL against 2 all-in's will have a very wide range normally.

However if this was a Satellite and we're on the bubble, say there's 2 or 3 seats available then this is an instafold. Because calling does nothing for you ... we win the same by folding as we do by calling, but without the risk.

fuzzbox

gosplan wrote:

You limp, player behind with 8's raises, player behind him with jacks goes all in, player with AK calls and it's back to you, what now??

Obviously this would be an exceptional situation but it's the kind of situation you get into every so often when you limp with big hands. You end up heads-up in a pot with good odds but a poor chance of playing on.

If you do happen to disagree with me is there any way you could possibly say why, thereby contributing or even offering advice instead of just saying 'WRONG'.

Thanks

I dont recall just saying "WRONG".

I asked you why you would want to define YOUR hand. What benefit do you believe that you get by defining your hand to your opponents?

In the situation you describe above, I get all in.

gosplan

I'm not saying you'd have to stand up and announce kings, just saying that there seems to be some point in making it known that you've got someway decent cards.

Generally you raise to either build the pot or drive people out.

Limp reraising will build the pot well but you may slip up on driving people out.

This is all I've been trying to get across.

Do you always limp with kings and aces from early position?

I'd do it occasionally with aces but I don't like doing it with kings, I think it's a riskey ploy.

I'm not claiming to be correct here or anything, just my opinion.