PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

10nl 6m - KK, bet or check on very coordinating turn?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 10nl 6m - KK, bet or check on very coordinating turn?

    I hadn't made any notes on the players as I was playing quite a few tables. The MP player was somewhat LAG preflop but postflop was super passive rarely betting or raising. Over 110 hands he was playing 26/22/8.6 WTSD 43 AF 0.4 Flop/Turn/River AfFq% 21/08/18 The SB player was also pretty fishy but was playing a little more aggressive. Over 101 hands he was 46/25/2.7 WTSD 43 AF 2.2 Flop/Turn/River AfFq% 25/38/29. Preflop and the flop seem pretty standard to me since I can get called by many worse hands, however the turn really coordinates the board thus scaring lots of worse hands and improving other so that they now beat us. The only hands I see calling a bet are TT/JJ with a spade surely most staright draws such as 78 will fold due to the 3 spades on board. If we didn't hold the Ks I would be more inclined to bet since a spade on the river would be really bad for us but since we do can we check back in hopes of getting river value from 1 pair hands? If we check I can think of a multitude of scenarios I don't like. For example, the MP player bets and the SB shorty shoves. Here we would be getting great odds to call and draw out on there ranges that crush our holding but with the player left to act behind I'm unsure if calling would be profitable since he could reshove meaning we put money in the pot without getting to see the river. Also if the MP player bets and the shorty folds we can't profitably call since we wouldn't be getting the correct odds to call, expecting to be behind when he bets since he's so passive. Also our implied odds would be non existant since it would be very obvious we hit when a spade hits the river. If we do check will we be folding in most scenarios when facing a bet? Unless it's really small and we get good immediate odds. Maybe I'm thinking into this one a bit much and it's just a straight forward bet for value from worse draws and 1 pair hands. But some advice would be great.
    Follow me on: Twitter

  • #2
    Why is a spade on the river bad?

    I would of thought its good to have a spade because they are less likely to have a flush? or outs to the flush


    • #3
      I would bet more on the flop. I'd bet more even if the pot was heads up, and 3way definitely calls for a bigger bet since it's more likely someone hit it one way or another. I think you should keep betting on the turn since you hold the king of spades and there are still worse hands that could call. I think it's a clear bet/fold line unless you know one of them likes to bluff on 3-flush boards.



      • #4
        Hi Mike, I was just comparing the situation to if we didn't hold the Ks and said how bad a spade river would be bad for us then. With the Ks in our hand a spade isn't bad for us since we make the flush, however we have no implied odds since when it hits both players will recognise the fact there is a possibility of a flush.

        I agree Fesk that my flop bet should be much bigger, in fact I'm not even sure why I sized it so small. I think a bet of 80c or 85c would be much better.
        Follow me on: Twitter


        • #5
          Hi Oli,

          I am betting this turn for sure... the one guy who's mildly aggressive post flop has already checked to us, and the other guy is very passive post flop and seems to be a showdown monkey at 43% so I'm not wanting to leave any value on the table from him. And when he calls, it protects the pot somewhat as well... that is, his presence makes it less likely that the SB will make a move on a bluff or semi-bluff.

          If we get raised we'll have to evaluate the value of our K high flush draw vs. the price being given, but that possibility doesn't deter me from betting again here.
          Head Live Trainer
          Check out my Videos

          4 Time Bracelet Winner


          • #6
            That makes a lot of sense Feskprins and Dave - about how the fact that the villains are loose preflop and go to showdown a lot will tend to mean that KsK is most likely ahead of most of their ranges. And the fact that the villains are passive means they're not likely to bluff. So that it ought to be EV to bet, and if reraised consider whether the price dictates a call or a fold.

            That was a neat point Dave about the table dynamic, of how villain in position is the passive one, and how the relatively more 'aggro' of the two is a lot less likely to bluff with two of them in the pot.

            Sounds like a bet-fold was the direction you were leaning too Oliver? And that was my initial instinct too. But the questions you ask are interesting - you wanna put the hand through the framework from class and do like a process analysis too?

            Gonna go play for a bit ... be back in a bit


            • #7
              okay back ... Your hand's a bit like two of the hands from class last week ... was that what you were thinking about when you were wondering if maybe a bet on the turn might fold out a lot of worse hands and tend to get called mostly by better? It's similar to the question you asked with the first hand, about whether to bet the turn if a 3rd heart appeared on the turn ( if the board were => bet). But different in that there weren't any straight draws, and the K wasn't the with the redraw. And it's even more similar to the last hand, where the turn was checked ( , board => check). But different in that the hand from class was in position so that a check behind meant being guaranteed to see the river card, since there was no risk of getting bet into. I guess in the big picture, was the framework from class designed to find spots where: 1) The villains were loose passives who would call wide, and 2) Our hand was strong, and therefore likely to be ahead of a lot of the villain's range? Because there was also that discussion during the first hand of check-calling the river, if we held JTs rather than KK (assuming the river was a brick), to keep the villain's range wider? With your question, were you sort of maybe pondering the merits of the alternative line of check-(calling) rather than betting the turn? If: (1) it might keep the villain's ranges wider, or (2) it might be easier to get more out of the villains by waiting until the river to bet? If so, I guess the questions of (1) how strong your holding was on the turn, and (2) how scary the turn card might have been for the villains' ... is that maybe a ranging issue, where we'd have to start first by figuring out what the villains' might have called the flop with, before trying to figure out what they'd be willing to continue on the turn with - like we did in class? Seems like it would be a real bear of a job to try and range the villains with this wet a board tho ... anybody feel like doing it?
              Last edited by TrustySam; Wed Jun 26, 2013, 02:01 PM. Reason: was thinking out loud again - yikes! :/ had to clarify some of the language!


              • #8
                Originally posted by TrustySam View Post
                Seems like it would be a real bear of a job to try and range the villains with this wet a board tho ... anybody feel like doing it?
                Okay, maybe it won't be *so* bad if we try and break it down like in class? Here's the pokerstove ranges for the two villains:

                Villain 1 - MP (VPIP of 26%)

                Seems like maybe 56s-98s might be more likely than K6s, K7s, K9o, A7o?

                Villain 2 - SB (VPIP of 46%)

                And maybe 22,33, 34s-56s might be more likely than K6o, K7o, J5s, Q3s, K2s?

                And then some potential holdings of the villains:

                Pair -
                Pair plus flush draw -
                Flush draw, straight draw, and overs -
                Flush draw and straight draw -
                Flush draw and overs -
                Straight draw and overs -
                Flush draw -
                Straight draw -

                2pr -
                Set -

                Is that everything? Feels like there could be more! :/ (Edit - there was more )

                Gonna go play some more ... will come back and fill in the categories with specific hands later
                Last edited by TrustySam; Thu Jun 27, 2013, 12:55 AM. Reason: added another category


                • #9
                  Okay, so let's see ... Meh, I won't bother to do it twice for each villain - hopefully it won't make too much difference? :/ Flop: Pair - 22-33, 55-77, possibly TT?, 4x, 8x, 9x Pair plus flush draw - As4s, (possibly 3s4s, 4s5s??) Flush draw, straight draw, and overs - JsTs, QsJs, Flush draw and straight draw - 6s7s, 5s6s Flush draw and overs - AsTs+ Straight draw and overs - JT, QJ Flush draw - Jx+ of spades Straight draw - 56, 67, JT, QJ Overs - JT+ (non double-spade ... lots of combos) Set - 44, 88, 99 2pr - 89 Turn: (Pair - 22-33, 55, 77, 9x, 8x?) Pair plus flush draw - 9xXs, 8xXs, overs with a spade Flush draw, straight draw, and pair - 55 and 77 with a spade Flush draw, straight draw, and overs - JT and QJ with a spade Flush draw and straight draw - A7 and A5 with a spade Flush draw, pair and over - A6 with a spade, (possibly A4 with a spade?) Flush draw and over(s) - JT+ (lots of combos, non-K) (Straight draw and overs - JT and QT non-spade Flush draw - can't think of any bare flush draws? (Straight draw - 55 and 77 non-spade) Flush - AxXs, JsTs, QsJs, 5s6s, 6s7s, (possibly 3s4s, 4s5s??) ... which maybe isn't that many combos since the 89 on the board were both spades? Straight - not likely ... Ts7s is in the sb's range tho according to pokerstove Set - 44, 99, 88, 66 2pr - 98 ... possibly 86s, 96s according to pokerstove for the sb Have to take a break - my head's swirling! Okay, back to finish umbup: RESULTS So okay by the turn, it looks like maybe: 1) There aren't as many hands in the villains' ranges that are ahead as there are that are behind, that might be willing to call a turn bet (assuming one pair and straight draws with no flush draw all fold). 2) There are a fair amount of nut flush draw hands that one of the villains could be holding, that are currently behind. That could pull ahead if the flush comes in. Or even the A. 3) There seem to be a fair amount of flush draw combos that might be willing to call the turn, that won't be willing to call the river without their hands improving? 4) There aren't that many made hands that are behind, that might still be willing to call a river bet, even if the river is a brick - is it mostly just lesser pairs with a spade? On the other hand, there's a fair number of flush combo draws, where the flush if it hits would be behind the K-high flush. Except the odds are against the flush coming in by the river. Also, Tx/Jx/Qx hands might make a pair that's still behind KK. Except that those hands also complete straight draws, which might make it difficult to get paid. And then there's those hands that are already ahead, including the nut flush, which already has KsKx drawing dead. So *some* of the time I guess by betting the turn, we'd be value-cutting ourself (is that the term?)? In sum, the ranging does seem to show that KsKx is likely ahead of more of the villains' ranges, and that there's a fair amount of worse hands that'll call the turn. Whereas there aren't that many worse hands that'll call by the river. Further, KsKx still might need to be protected from getting drawn out by AsX? So, Dave and Feskprin's rule of thumb ( that versus loose passives who call wide, a hand like KsKx is likely to be ahead, and likely to get called by worse) seems to be backed up by the ranging (hopefully, if my ranging wasn't too patchy?? ) PS So Oliver, I guess if you bet the turn and everybody folded, maybe there wasn't much more to be had on the river no matter what, and picking up the pot on the turn maybe wasn't such a bad thing? I don't know ...
                  Last edited by TrustySam; Thu Jun 27, 2013, 02:12 PM. Reason: Edit #26,397 ... still struggling to get this just right :o


                  • #10
                    reply to Sam

                    I really do not see anything we can compare between the hands, they have totally different hand strengths. I would bet this turn all the time and if we get reraised i can re-evaluate my hand. The amount they see the rivers and there preference to check alot of situations makes me feel i could have the best of it more often then not certainly at this point anyway..
                    Triple Bracelet Winner


                    • #11
                      re: 'reply to Sam'
                      Originally posted by glenn161274 View Post
                      I really do not see anything we can compare between the hands, they have totally different hand strengths. I would bet this turn all the time and if we get reraised i can re-evaluate my hand. The amount they see the rivers and there preference to check alot of situations makes me feel i could have the best of it more often then not certainly at this point anyway..
                      hi Glenn Ya, I think we all have to resort to evaluating the turn based on 'feel' or 'sense' ... because there's just no way anybody would have enough time to do full ranging at the table - it took me forever and I needed a juice break halfway through And when we analyze situations by 'feel' or 'sense', probably what we're doing is mentally trying to think back to past plays that were sufficiently analogous to the one at hand, to try to get ideas for how best to proceed? Since hands are rarely ever exactly alike? A couple of things from the first hand were actually maybe similar to Olivers ... they both involve KK, hero wasn't in position, and the turn (in the hypothetical) brought a 3rd heart. I guess the hands would be different though if you would check without the Kh in the first hand, but would bet with the Kh in the second hand? One of the interesting takeaways from the long-form ranging I thought was finding out that so many of the hands that would be willing to call a turn bet would be combo hands with the nut flush draw - like the assumption was that because the players were loose, they'd have a lot more lower flush draws. But with Oliver holding the Kh, and the 9h and 8h on the board, that wasn't actually the case. So ... the Kh in Oliver's hand maybe made his hand look a LOT different than a non-heart K, when really it was only going to be semi-helpful some of the time? Glad to see that you too agree with betting the turn umbup:
                      Last edited by TrustySam; Fri Jun 28, 2013, 03:02 AM.



                      X Cookies Information

                      We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.