Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr
LOL. I have a crazy notion for you.....can you imagine a player who plays a math based game AND has really good reads? I wonder what kind of a player that guy could be?
Personally, I play a very read based and massively exploitive game while trying to get better at the math side of things which Ive improved on quite a bit in the past 1500 or so hours.
Why in the world would you say "Oh well, the guy almost has to have AA here but whatever, its only 180BBs"? If he has AA 95% of the time and QQ 5% of the time, you lose a lot of money. If your reads arent very good, then your math isnt going to bail you out.
You're right, but getting 3-bet by a passive player who as described has lost a few buyins and is not angry about it, is not enough for you to say he has AA 95% and QQ 5% of the time. Villains who only 3-bet with AA and nothing else also are the kind who never play 5/5. I'm questioning your read to immediately weight him to 95% AA when you get 3-bet. Of course you could certainly be right, but if you're not right 100% of the time, then you're playing KK wrong. Are you right 100% of the time with your reads? More importantly, is OP right 100% of the time with their reads?
Of course, you find out by 4-betting and if you get 5-bet you can fold. However 180bb effective stacks with a 20bb 3-bet, means that you're 4-betting to at least 60bb and therefore investing a 3rd of your stack, which means you can't fold to a 5-bet shove. Just call it off pre if 5-bet.
KK is a strong made hand. Made hands lose value when more cards come. Why are you letting QQ-, AK, etc., see a cheap flop? Mandatory 4-bet pre. I'm mandatorily calling a 5-bet shove pre, but you could find a fold there.