[NL2-NL10] KK valuetowned self

    • metza
      metza
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2012 Posts: 2,220
      Full Tilt - $0.10 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 2 players
      Hand converted by PokerTracker 3

      Hero (BB): $11.22
      SB: $8.27

      SB posts SB $0.05, Hero posts BB $0.10

      Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero has K:spade: K:club:

      SB raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $0.90, SB calls $0.60

      Flop: ($1.80, 2 players) 3:diamond: 9:spade: 4:diamond:
      Hero checks, SB bets $0.50, Hero raises to $2.30, SB calls $1.80

      Turn: ($6.40, 2 players) 5:club:
      Hero bets $4.28, SB raises to $5.07 and is all-in, Hero calls $0.79

      River: ($16.54, 2 players) A:heart:

      SB shows A:diamond: A:spade: (Three of a Kind, Aces) (Pre 82%, Flop 92%, Turn 95%)
      Hero shows K:spade: K:club: (One Pair, Kings) (Pre 18%, Flop 8%, Turn 5%)
      SB wins $16.04

      Villain is not doing this without a strong hand, is not calling 3bets light.
      When the table was full he folded to 80% of 3bets, and played 19/14.

      But when he doesn't 4bet pre can I ever put him on a hand that beats me postflop?
      The flop action seems very trappy, maybe I should start playing for pot control instead...
  • 3 replies
    • BogdanPS
      BogdanPS
      Basic
      Joined: 12.05.2010 Posts: 27,588
      Hi metza,

      As you played the hand I would go all in here as well especially heads up.

      But the question is: why are we not just cbetting here?
    • metza
      metza
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2012 Posts: 2,220
      Mainly for balance. Is this wrong vs NL10 regs?

      Because often I am getting flatted on my 3bets (I 3bet a bit often especially vs nitty regs, average 11% so I get flatted very often OOP by regs)

      I do not want to cbet a lot in these spots because it is an easy way to burn money if floated because even my value range is often AK which doesn't hit very often and I find my cbets called with alarming frequency.

      If I am check-raising OOP polarized I think it is much harder to play against because I can check-raise for value as well as a semi bluff.

      A flop like 3 :diamond: 9 :spade: 4 :diamond: will not only hit my value range but also my bluffing range quite well with many draws. If they have a hand with showdown value here such as TT, they would not do well to let me see a free turn, yet can quite comfortably call a cbet in position. However, facing a flop checkraise with a range that has hands that crush them, drawing hands which also have equity vs their hand and some pure bluffs, it is a lot more difficult of a decision. If they do not have a value hand, they are folding to cbet anyway. A checkraise may even lead them to have a stab at the pot as a bluff which of course = more money than cbet.

      Are there any major logic flaws there? :f_biggrin:
    • BogdanPS
      BogdanPS
      Basic
      Joined: 12.05.2010 Posts: 27,588
      Originally posted by metza
      Mainly for balance. Is this wrong vs NL10 regs?

      Because often I am getting flatted on my 3bets (I 3bet a bit often especially vs nitty regs, average 11% so I get flatted very often OOP by regs)

      I do not want to cbet a lot in these spots because it is an easy way to burn money if floated because even my value range is often AK which doesn't hit very often and I find my cbets called with alarming frequency.

      If I am check-raising OOP polarized I think it is much harder to play against because I can check-raise for value as well as a semi bluff.

      A flop like 3 :diamond: 9 :spade: 4 :diamond: will not only hit my value range but also my bluffing range quite well with many draws. If they have a hand with showdown value here such as TT, they would not do well to let me see a free turn, yet can quite comfortably call a cbet in position. However, facing a flop checkraise with a range that has hands that crush them, drawing hands which also have equity vs their hand and some pure bluffs, it is a lot more difficult of a decision. If they do not have a value hand, they are folding to cbet anyway. A checkraise may even lead them to have a stab at the pot as a bluff which of course = more money than cbet.

      Are there any major logic flaws there? :f_biggrin:
      While your logic doesn't necessarily have flaws you are applying it at limits where people rarely ever think like that.

      Ask yourself this: Does a 10nl nitty reg look at a ck/raise in a 3-bet pot and ask about what your range may be or is their first thought the hand they have and how they can continue? Furthermore should nitty regs at 10nl expect someone like you to (another more aggro reg at the limits) to ck/raise often here?

      Nitty regs usually call 3-bets to hit, period, especially at 10nl. So cbetting against them is very profitable. If they like floating light we can barrel multiple streets.

      On a board like this a cbet can make a nitty reg fold his overcards OFTEN and higher boards get them to fold their pairs or unpaired broadways.

      So to be honest with you spend less time worrying about "balancing" and more about how you can get the max value from someones range. If villain can bet often versus missed cbet but would fold to cbets often then ck/raising makes sense.