Did I play this right?

[Revolver123]

I just sat down at this table. 0 reads on the villain.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Hero (MP3) ($6.25)
CO ($7.35)
Button ($4.93)
SB ($8.32)
BB ($6.90)
UTG ($4.83)
UTG+1 ($0.60)
MP1 ($10.17)
MP2 ($7.70)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K, K
4 folds, Hero raises to $0.20, CO calls $0.20, 3 folds

Flop: ($0.47) 5, 4, Q (2 players)
Hero bets $0.40, CO raises to $0.80, Hero raises to $2.40, CO raises to $7.15 (All-In), Hero calls $3.65 (All-In)

Turn: ($12.57) 8 (2 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($12.57) 9 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $12.57 | Rake: $0.60

With all I've read on this site I figured getting it all in on the flop with no reads on the villain would be my best play here.

[kb coolman]

I would have 3bet AI, but that's just me. I dont' see any problem with your line, and I'm not laying down an overpair on this flop. Even with a 3% range, Stove still gives you proper equity to call here.

[Revolver123]

Out of curiousity, how did you input that into pokerstove with no range on the villain?

[bigspenda73]

crazy how you can just sit down and buy in for $6.25 like that

hand looks fine

[Revolver123]

Bought in for $6 actually.

[Sasquach991]

Out of curiousity, how did you input that into pokerstove with no range on the villain?

Type in 3% in Pokerstove for villian

[Stacks]

umm... Why would we use pokerstove's 3% range of 99+, AKs in this instance? Do you really believe that villain will raise/shove with 99-JJ, AK here?

[kb coolman]

umm... Why would we use pokerstove's 3% range of 99+, AKs in this instance? Do you really believe that villain will raise/shove with 99-JJ, AK here?

At $10NL? This is a level, right?

[dev]

umm... Why would we use pokerstove's 3% range of 99+, AKs in this instance? Do you really believe that villain will raise/shove with 99-JJ, AK here?

At $10NL? This is a level, right?

No. The action after the flop should adjust your range here pretty significantly.

[kb coolman]

umm... Why would we use pokerstove's 3% range of 99+, AKs in this instance? Do you really believe that villain will raise/shove with 99-JJ, AK here?

At $10NL? This is a level, right?

No. The action after the flop should adjust your range here pretty significantly.

Ok, but a random 3% input into stove isnt' exactly what I'm looking at here, because it only accounts for pairs 99+ and Big slick....no Q combo's he'll stack off with here with TP. So let's look at a more likely range:

ext results appended to pokerstove.txt

41,580 games 0.001 secs 41,580,000 games/sec

Board: 5s 4d Qd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 46.283% 45.15% 01.14% 18772 472.50 { QQ+, 55-44, AQs+, KQs, AQo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 53.717% 52.58% 01.14% 21863 472.50 { KcKs }

[Stacks]

umm... Why would we use pokerstove's 3% range of 99+, AKs in this instance? Do you really believe that villain will raise/shove with 99-JJ, AK here?

At $10NL? This is a level, right?

No. The action after the flop should adjust your range here pretty significantly.

Ok, but a random 3% input into stove isnt' exactly what I'm looking at here, because it only accounts for pairs 99+ and Big slick....no Q combo's he'll stack off with here with TP. So let's look at a more likely range:

ext results appended to pokerstove.txt

41,580 games 0.001 secs 41,580,000 games/sec

Board: 5s 4d Qd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 46.283% 45.15% 01.14% 18772 472.50 { QQ+, 55-44, AQs+, KQs, AQo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 53.717% 52.58% 01.14% 21863 472.50 { KcKs }

This is all I was saying. Sasquatch recommended typing 3% into pokerstove as villains range, and that produces a range of 99+, AKs. There is no way that is villain real range here.

[Sasquach991]

I was answering the question of How you enter it into pokerstove. They only reason I knew that was watching Spenda's vids
Disclaimer: I make no claim to whether 3% is an accurate number as I suck at poker.

[LawDude]

Since you have no reads, a reasonable range on that flop is any overpair, QQ, 55, 44, plus Queen-Broadway. Perhaps the second raise eliminates TPTK (perhaps not, though), which leaves AA, KK, and the 3 sets. That's not a great situation.

Given that you just sat down, I might fold it here. It's the sort of situation where you really need a read as to whether this player will shove with TPTK or some other weak hand.

However, I also agree with the other commenter that you could have gone all-in in response to the initial flop bet, because at that point Villain's range is wider.

[dev]

Since you have no reads, a reasonable range on that flop is any overpair, QQ, 55, 44, plus Queen-Broadway. Perhaps the second raise eliminates TPTK (perhaps not, though), which leaves AA, KK, and the 3 sets. That's not a great situation.

Given that you just sat down, I might fold it here. It's the sort of situation where you really need a read as to whether this player will shove with TPTK or some other weak hand.

However, I also agree with the other commenter that you could have gone all-in in response to the initial flop bet, because at that point Villain's range is wider.

Folding top pair is against the law at .02/.05. You should know that, Lawdude!

[LawDude]

Dev:

That's probably not a bad assumption. My tendency is to play as more of a nit until I get some reads, because I figure that I'd rather make a mistake that misses out on a pot I could have taken down and costs me a small amount of money than make a mistake that puts me against an opponent who has me beat and costs me a large amount of money.

But if your experience at a particular stakes level is that most players will behave in a particular manner, I suppose there's nothing wrong in assuming that unfamiliar players will conform to that behavior.

[dev]

TBH, It's like that at a lot of stakes, but for different reasons I think.

At the higher limits, people stack off with top pair because their opponents are getting agro with less. At lower limits, I think it tends to be more like people are 1 tabling and bored, they hit top pair and go with it. In the middle it's probably a mix of the two.

I play teetering on the edge of lagg and tagg, so even regs are finding ways to stack off with TP against me, and occasionally they're right.

At any limit, if you're a reg and you haven't seen a player before, I think it's best to assume they're your average donk. In this case I think I stack off with KK at any limit. It's a 2-tone board with a possible straight draw, my 100bb stack is finding it's way into the middle.

[LawDude]

I see where you are coming from. Because I do my serious play live, I see all sorts of players, and an unfamiliar player is almost as likely to be a tight-aggressive or a nit as he or she is to be a fish. So I try not to make stupid mistakes when I have just sat down. It's more profitable to wait until I have identified people's tendencies.

Online, perhaps people are more predictable. When I play online, I play at pretty low stakes, and I do see lots of loose players in both limit and no-limit.

[dev]

It's funny how people always say online players are better than live players (on online poker forums anyway, I wonder why...)

I think in general live players will respect big bets a bit more. They worry a lot less about pot odds and a lot more about "Damn, that's a pair of Nikes he just bet into me!" If you have a decent poker face, or are good at manipulating your opponents into calls or folds, you can be a significant winner live and a loser online.

/End digression

If online players are more predictable, it's because we have more experience playing with them. We play a lot more hands with them.

[LawDude]

If I were to generalize (and my poker philosophy is to resist generalizations except where I have a lot of evidence), I would say that your average low stakes no-limit live player will call too many small bets and fold to too many big ones. (In limit, it's a little different-- while some players fit the same pattern, others will call too many raises as well.)

So in a live NL game, when you raise 4BB+1 for each limper into someone, perhaps they aren't thinking about the Nikes (seriously, you'd be amazed how many family pots I've ended up in with pocket aces because not one player folds to a standard pre-flop raise). But when you shove 60BB, they may start thinking about making the rent rather than whether they have the best hand.

[dev]

So in a live NL game, when you raise 4BB+1 for each limper into someone, perhaps they aren't thinking about the Nikes (seriously, you'd be amazed how many family pots I've ended up in with pocket aces because not one player folds to a standard pre-flop raise). But when you shove 60BB, they may start thinking about making the rent rather than whether they have the best hand.

This is exactly what I meant by the nikes comment. I play in a regular 1/2nl game where the standard raise is to $17. Nobody is even paying attention until they have to put $100+ into the pot.