10NL: KK overpair getting raised small on flop

No history with villain and just 50 hands or so. I assumed him to be TAG, I remember me thinking he was on the tighter side of it for some reason.
My image is TAG.

My assumptions:
- JJ and QQ are definately not always 3bet pre at these stakes.
- I'm not sure if many SC's are in villains range pre
- Draws are discounted because of the flop raise size
- I assumed it's possible with somes small frequency that AQ raises me on the flop with the 3rd player behind

I'm very rusty after not having played much for ages. Help me out on the flop play and plan on future streets if you decide to call plz.


PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button ($10.69)
SB ($9.93)
BB ($11.16)
Hero (UTG) ($10.32)
MP ($12.74)
CO ($12.66)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Khttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif, Khttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...lies/heart.gif
Hero bets $0.35, MP calls $0.35, CO calls $0.35, 3 folds

Flop: ($1.20) Jhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ilies/club.gif, 7http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...lies/spade.gif, Qhttp://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...lies/spade.gif (3 players)
Hero bets $1, MP raises to $2.50

I'd probably sigh and fold but thats because I'm an abso huge Rush nit.

Since its 6max though, I can't think that folding is an option at least not right away. I'm at least calling the flop, honestly not sure what I'd do when the turn hit though. :/

I kind of like donking into him on the turn for like 1/2 pot? Or is this just atrocious? I don't feel like he'll raise a draw again on the turn getting decent odds, he might raise AQ again if he raised it here, and pretty much anything else he raises there, beats us. 77, JJ/QQ QJs.

Edit: folding to a turn raise after leading

Stove something like 77,JJ-QQ,KsTs,AsKs,AsJs,QJ,AQ and see how you do.

I think folding is OK. Obviously I am not thrilled by it, but I am even less enthusiastic about the upcoming "blank page" I am going to face on the turn...

This is one of these hands where all your options seem wrong.

I really couldn't see myself folding here. Not without seeing the turn first.

In my opinion you really have two options. Come over the top of him big, basically committing around half your stack to the pot with the intentions of following through to an all-in if it comes to that or call and check/fold to a decent bet on the turn. Assuming the turn isn't a K.

I'd be cursing at myself as the hand played out that's for sure.

You can't call the flop to c/f the turn here. After he raises, I can't really see an instance in which he checks back unless its with a FD, but even then, he's binking his flush almost 20% of the time on the turn and another 20% on the river when he checks back. That's giving up waaay too many chances for him to draw out on us.

Like I said, I like a flat, donkbet/fold on the turn. Yes, we commit a large portion of our stack by doing so, but we also don't get fucking raped by his entire range, only the part that beats us and we get away for a lot cheaper by doing so then by just getting it in on the flop by a range that mostly dominates us.

Decent plan but:
1) you're not going to donk all the turn cards, are you? A, T, any spade?
2) what if he flats your turn donk bet? then you face the same sh* on the river with a $10 pot and $5 behind...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roid_Rage

You can't call the flop to c/f the turn here. After he raises, I can't really see an instance in which he checks back unless its with a FD, but even then, he's binking his flush almost 20% of the time on the turn and another 20% on the river when he checks back. That's giving up waaay too many chances for him to draw out on us.

Like I said, I like a flat, donkbet/fold on the turn. Yes, we commit a large portion of our stack by doing so, but we also don't get fucking raped by his entire range, only the part that beats us and we get away for a lot cheaper by doing so then by just getting it in on the flop by a range that mostly dominates us.

---

I'd call to check turn with most cards, besides a K. My reasoning behind this is if the turn brings a blank and we check to him, he is only checking back if he is on a flush draw. If he has hit that flop with something decent then he is betting out on the turn after we check almost all the time for fear that we may be the ones drawing.

If this happens then depending on what the turn brings, is our KK better than what villain is holding? Going on the assumption that he has hit that flop in one way or another and most likely isn't drawing? At this point in time you'd need to have a good read on what type of villain you're up against.

If the turn brings a spade then I think it's a good move to c/fold to any sort of decent sized bet of his. If not a spade, see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sorcery11

Stove something like 77,JJ-QQ,KsTs,AsKs,AsJs,QJ,AQ and see how you do.

---

We're doing decent against it, especially for the price we get

Quote:

---

32,670 games 0.031 secs 1,053,870 games/sec

Board: Jc 7s Qs
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.828% 43.79% 00.04% 14305 13.50 { KcKh }
Hand 1: 56.172% 56.13% 00.04% 18338 13.50 { QQ-JJ, 77, AsKs, AQs, AsJs, KsTs, QJs, AQo, QJo }

---

But raw equity doesn't help us that much I think. You're assuming AQ always raises us, which I doubt.

If I knew a little about villains play I might call and b/f blank turns, c/fing non-blanks. But as I know nothing I folded.
It feels dirty folding the top of my range.

It does feel bad and exploitable to fold, but if not folding really is better, I don't think it's by much.

At the stakes I play at, I'd rather miss value here and there than have to play 1000+ extra hands to recover a lost buy-in. You can call me a risk averse weak tight nit all you want, because that's how I play, but there is a rationale behind it. I consciously choose a low variance style, probably sacrificing some winrate in the process, for bankroll management and volume reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daviddem

I'd rather miss value here and there than have to play 1000+ extra hands to recover a lost buy-in.

---

this idea is so fundamentally flawed imo.

there are plays which are -EV, there are plays which are +EV, and there are plays which are neutral EV. i know you know this.

you're using the term "missing value". i'm taking that to mean "missing out on a +EV betting opportunity". now, basically you seem to be saying "i decided not to take a +EV betting opportunity because if the money i invest making this bet is lost (which i know it will be some non-zero percent of the time) on this one particular occasion, it will take me x amount of hands to win it back" this is completely and utterly flawed imo, barring abnormal circumstances (one of these i can think of is playing under-rolled, but that's a different discussion). the goal of a poker player is to make betting decisions with the maximum EV they can. if you're sacrificing some EV "here and there" because you don't want to grind your $5 back, how far does this go? does the EV of your betting decisions have to be greater than a certain amount for you to make them? how much? how close to neutral EV do you allow yourself to go? you say your risk-aversion is due to two things: bankroll management, and volume. if you are deliberately sacrificing +EV bets because of bankroll considerations, i'd consider playing lower limits instead of playing a less profitable style at higher stakes. once you're adequately financially and psychologically rolled to start maximising your EV, move back up. as regards volume, i don't see how not being able to play regularly (and/or not wanting to) relates to wanting to deliberately play suboptimally.

ps, the above is a response to a comment you made about a poker hand, but is in no way a response to the hand itself. ie i am not saying i prefer any one possible action in the hand. at least not in this post.

pps, this is not intended as a personal attack, but my honest response to a comment you made. hopefully it was taken as such

You're right that in a vacuum the job is to make the max EV decision at all times, be it a $0.01 better EV. However we do not live in a vacuum, we can't put in the necessary volume for ultra-high variance plays to average out, we have bankroll management considerations, time constraints and short/medium term goals (such as reaching the next stakes as fast and surely as possible within these constraints, which in itself may be more +EV than a better win rate at the lower stakes, by the way).

Let me try to explain this with an example (OP, sorry for hijack). Let's say two players play a modest 10,000 hands per month, or 120,000 hands per year. Look at the two graphs below. The first one simulates 10 possible winning graphs over 120,000 hands of a 6bb/100 winning player who plays a style with a 100bb standard deviation (a mathematical measure of variance). The second one simulates some possible winnings over 120,000 hands of a 5bb/100 winning player who plays a lower variance style with a 80bb standard deviation. Granted, the average winnings of the 6bb/100 player are higher (obviously). However, because of his high variance style, if he runs bad, he could very well end the year a slight looser or breaking even. The 5bb/100 player, even if he runs bad, will end the year at +2000bb, which is 20 buy-ins, which is probably enough to play the higher stakes next season.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...20000hands.png

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...20000hands.png

See what variance can do to you? In the real world, there is definitely a trade off to make between winrate and variance. You choose the trade off that suits you best. Investors in stocks and bonds make these exact same choices and trade offs every day. And the variance we experience every day in poker would make most of them run out of the room screaming.

i understand all of the above. it just doesn't scare me enough to start consciously giving away my money to my opponents. i understand that it is a personal preference though. thanks for going to such efforts to show why you do what you do.

oh yeah and sorry for hijacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minSim

We're doing decent against it, especially for the price we get


But raw equity doesn't help us that much I think. You're assuming AQ always raises us, which I doubt.

If I knew a little about villains play I might call and b/f blank turns, c/fing non-blanks. But as I know nothing I folded.
It feels dirty folding the top of my range.

---

I agree that AQ will not raise us that often, and he may not even raise with some of the draws that we put in his range. So now, his range will contain mostly made hands that have us beat, and we really have no way to improve our hand on the turn.

Couple this with the possibility that we will mis play the turn and river betting rounds, I think we can fold and just note it. Also, your reads that this player is a tight TAG suggests that he is not actively trying to exploit our weak-tight flop tendencies but rather he probably just has a hand this time.

you don't have the top of your range here, come on man, there are probably 10 hands and a lot of combos that have more equity than KK against his range in this spot that you're opening UTG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

you don't have the top of your range here, come on man, there are probably 10 hands and a lot of combos that have more equity than KK against his range in this spot that you're opening UTG

---

You're right, I didn't think well about this. I like my fold more and more.