|
|
 Originally Posted by nish81
IMO you need a stronger hand to call than you do to bet with
This is pretty much true. And the reason is because of fold equity. When you bet, you not only have your equity in the pot as a way to win, but you also have the wonderful benefit of having your villain fold some % of the time, thereby relinquishing all his equity in the pot.
Originally Posted by nish81
so you might be getting some value out of a c-bet.
I certainly think so in most cases. For instance in hand #1, if we bet most villains are calling Ax, Jx, QQ type hands. They are likely raising their nut hands (AA/JJ/AJ/66), and either calling or raising their draws (FDs, Gutshots). So when we bet here, we get value for all of his Jx, QQ, draws, etc type hands that will call.
It's certainly not going to be a very pleasant situation on future streets if you cbet and he calls. As you are likely c/folding most turns/rivers. However, it's also not going to be a very pleasant situation if you check the flop either. Either you are going to have to guestimate his bluffing frequency, and make some HEROish calldowns, or get bluffed off of the best hand often, and not getting much value when ahead (as most worse hands {Jx, QQ} check behind this flop, but would call a bet).
Originally Posted by nish81
plus if it's HU, he only needs to fold about 1/3 of the time for you to make money out of this, assuming you lose every time he doesnt fold, and you might get some marginal hands to fold
It depends on your betsize how often he needs to fold to have your bet be profitable. If you bet 1/2 pot, then he needs to fold 33% of the time, so yes you are correct here.
However, I have a problem with your last bolded statement. That's the thing.. We don't want him to fold marginal hands, as most marginal hands are worse hands than KK. If we are betting KK here, it's because we believe their is value in betting. That is we believe we have >50% equity against villains calling range, and therefore choose to bet. We want all of his marginal hands to continue. Although, I do agree that him folding those hands, such as 6d7d that we are ahead would not be a bad outcome for us.
However, if we bet 1/2 pot, him calling a hand like 7d6d, which has 23% equity against us btw, would be more beneficial to us than if he folds. Since if we bet 1/2 PSB, he will need 25% equity to call, and he doesn't have that equity, and is therefore making a mistake.
So basically we need to be aware of what we are intending to do. We aren't betting to "rep" the ace, or "define our hand". We are betting for value here, and if we don't have value in a bet here, then checking is going to be the correct play (with us soulreading his bluffing frequencies, and either folding or calling).
I'd like to point out that I would be more likely to bet KK on an Ace high board if I'm OOP. Even if it's the same board, against the same villain. Not because there likely still isn't value to be had in the flop bet, but because their is likely more value to be had from either bluff catching later streets, or vbetting later streets. OOP it's really just not a great spot no matter your action (in most cases).
**Disclaimer: I'm not arguing that betting is >>> checking. I'm just saying they aren't likely all that different in EV in most instances. And that it does still depend on the villain and his calling/betting tendencies. If he's the type to call down lightly, then betting will be +EV. If he's the type to bet any two when checked to, then check/calling is likely best.
|
Question about Renton's "KK when an ace flops" lin
, K
, J
, 6
(2 players)
Reply With Quote
