KK99
5-10 PLO. V1 in utg is a huge whale aggro station. V2 in straddle is a decent reg and is only 4b aces. Hero has 1.7K and they’re 6K eff with each other.
Hero in sb with KK99ds no hearts.
Pre: V2 straddles 10 utg. Next to act V1 opens to 40, folds to hero who pots 150. V2 4b to 420, V1 calls and hero calls
Flop (1270) : Kx6h5h
Hero…SPR is about 1
lol check
Big pot / small pot is irrelevant. SPR 1 is relevant. They are supposed to bet hands that have any equity vs your hand so equity denial is not a thing. You want to give a free card to one pair hands (well except AA which is supposed to be a very clear bet).
Not sure about the lol, but yeah, check, this flop is going to get bet a lot, especially when you unblock hearts. more good things can happen on turns than bad when it gets checked through
I'm pretty sure about the lol. The best possible outcome is a 3-way allin and you maximize the chances of that by checking. Flop getting checked is not 1)common and 2)a big deal even when in happens.
The mindset that hands need to be protected, especially in big pots, is absolutely demolishing your winrate. As a nice bonus weak/mediocre players stack off super wide in low SPR spots against checks, probably due to perceived fold equity.
It'd be a bit different if your hand was vulnerable against hands that cback.
People get butthurt around here over the definition of terms. Some threads even spiral out of control. I'm going to throw out the idea of "over realizing equity."
There are three players on the flop. They all have a certain equity, EV or whatever metric you want to use. Let's stick with equity. Most people talk about equity realization. I don't really see anyone chatting about "over realizing equity." But given that hero is a lot shorter than the other two players it feels like maybe the proper play for Hero is to get all in as soon as possible, meaning the flop, and let the other two players with deeper stacks battle it out. Hero goes first on the flop, techinically speaking you could say that V1 a station is staying in hand and V2 who always has AA by OP original post is staying in hand at that point, therefore it will still be three handed and Hero is realizing three handed equity at the point of going all in. Right? Later, if one of those other payers get the other player to fold after Hero is all in, then Hero has over realized has equity. Right?
Speaking of butthurt, someone or another in this section or the blog section is always complaining about being behind on EV in their tracker software. With that in mind, I would like to spend my poker career over realizing my equity.
players stack off super wide in low SPR spots against checks, probably due to perceived fold equity.
This.
You just want the money to go in, your hand doesn't benefit from fold equity, like when you have a naked NFD for example. I can see donking a naked NFD here for pot, hoping to get folds. But with top set you just want to give AA a chance to get it in bad.
This is the easiest donk jam in the world when they are that deep with each other. Checking is about as big of a mistake as you can make in this or similar situations/configurations.
When you have two posters with some authority behind them claiming strongly the opposite that's a good sign that it's unlikely to be a big mistake either way.
This is the easiest donk jam in the world when they are that deep with each other. Checking is about as big of a mistake as you can make in this or similar situations/configurations.
Agreed, and this was my immediate reaction as well: the SPR is low only for OP, but the other two are deep enough that no one is guaranteed to bet as dry aces should check behind here often enough to make leading the better play IMO.
Yeh I agree with checking being a mistake given how deep the villains are - they're like 5550 effective playing a big/awkward pot - hero's stack is not that interesting to them anymore so I could see this going check/check a lot. I might check if they were say 2k deep so bare AA could GII, but would just jam it in.
I apologize - I didn't realize they are not SPR 1! It makes the situation much less good for Hero obv and yes I think leading now becomes a very serious option.
I guess AA needs to be a bit careful on a K-high board, though it would benefit from protection. I'd presume AA would still be mostly betting so I still like checking, but dropping the lol.
I would shove the flop. Gii when you are definitely way ahead. If you were deeper, you could checkraise pot. There is a two-flush and two connected cards. It would be a disaster to give two players a free card. Most of the deck will change the nuts.
I still like check, the worst scenario is both fold, which donkjamming gives them an opportunity to do. EDIT: AA is probably not folding to a jam... I don't think AA is checking either... So in that regard it doesn't matter. Just what makes it more likely 3rd player comes along with a weak FD for example... I think check makes that more likely. In his position seeing a donkjam for pot + a call makes it easier to get away from his hands. OBV you want a dominated heart draw to come along. AA with hearts is going to call/jam anyway... Maybe naked AA even finds a fold vs. donkjam being deep with the other guy.
TLDR: a donk squeezes the original 4better with AA between the guy left behind him to act. Guy behind to act can find more folds against donk+call then vs. check + bet... So still leads to check being best for getting as much money as possible from both players.
Your opponents' hands probably have significant equity against yours. If they fold or one of them folds, it isn't a huge disaster. If someone has a wrap and flush draw (which they are obviously not folding) they could be 49% to win. I would make sure to get the money in with the current nuts.
Reading these responses I guess I shouldn't be surprised. For most people 1) logic is not easy 2) a lot of decision making is driven by fear.
Reading these responses I guess I shouldn't be surprised. For most people 1) logic is not easy 2) a lot of decision making is driven by fear.
shots fired!
you're surely aware that no-one who takes the other side of this can hear this rationally and go 'oh you know what, he's being really mean to me, so maybe he's right'. how often would you hear someone contradicting you like this and use it as an indicator that maybe you're the one that's wrong this time? this sort of language serves to shut off people's rational brains.
you're surely aware that no-one who takes the other side of this can hear this rationally and go 'oh you know what, he's being really mean to me, so maybe he's right'. how often would you hear someone contradicting you like this and use it as an indicator that maybe you're the one that's wrong this time? this sort of language serves to shut off people's rational brains.
Well, you are right, I am not exactly trying to persuade anyone. I'm trying to wake up the ones that are cognitively able to understand, but are drowning in a sea of nonsense. In vain, I know.
Again, I don't think betting is horrible. Betting because you have a strong hand and villains might have a hand that can outdraw you is.
The reason for betting here is if you bet there's 100% chance AA villain calls you - if you check there's a chance bare AA checks behind which is the majority of combos. There's also a chance if we check and AA checks the other villain might check behind hands he would call our jam with given how deep he is. Doesn't really seem close at all.
Honestly it seems a bit strange that a guy with AA always calls a pot sized bet, but doesn't put the 3rd player to a tough spot by betting if Hero checks. I don't think it can work like that.
The 3rd player should be betting many hands that can outdraw Hero's hand, because they are doing ok vs aces. In cases they both check how much equity do they have combined vs Hero? Not much. And AA should still be calling bets on the turn, no? Or are they calling the flop but giving up turns when flop is checked? Sounds like a very lucrative spot for Hero.
Yes, there are turns that might kill the action.
The reason for betting here is if you bet there's 100% chance AA villain calls you - if you check there's a chance bare AA checks behind which is the majority of combos. There's also a chance if we check and AA checks the other villain might check behind hands he would call our jam with given how deep he is. Doesn't really seem close at all.
There's always multiple reasons for betting or checking and multiple hands within someone's range that we need to take into account. Here, we also have multiple opponents to take into account. Designing our strategy around 'AA calls here 100%' - aside from being just plain wrong - is like snapping a branch off a tree and imagining you've cleared out an entire forest. Slight exaggeration, perhaps
Well, you are right, I am not exactly trying to persuade anyone. I'm trying to wake up the ones that are cognitively able to understand, but are drowning in a sea of nonsense. In vain, I know.
Point is that the fiery language minimizes the chances of anyone changing their mind. It's called the backfire effect. We're used to a fiery debate where the terms are that whoever shouts the loudest and most angrily is considered the winner, so we ramp up, but that doesn't help any of us get to the truth.
If you're not trying to persuade anyone, what are you doing here?
So even you don't read what I write? "I'm trying to wake up the ones that are cognitively able to understand, but are drowning in a sea of nonsense. In vain, I know." Maybe that is too confusing, but let's just leave it that way.
The biggest reason is of course helping myself to have clarity.
