NLHET&P is an excellent book for a lot of reasons. It was also written in 2006; I think the game has changed somewhat in the past 10 years.

Limping in pre isn't specifically why OP got felted here; the hand itself was a total cooler, and in fact he played the flop, turn and river just fine. And I think we'd all agree that there are rarely 'absolutes' in poker. Given the right circumstances and a proper plan in mind, sure - you can play any hand from any position you want, and maybe it won't be a massively -EV play. K4s, 72o, whatever.

But as a general (not absolute) rule, I stand by my comment: Limping in with K4 behind practically the entire table is just burning money - especially when short-stacked (based on how the OP wrote the hand history it seems he only had about 90BB which reduces post-flop maneuverability). You negate whatever positional advantage you have by playing a crap hand against the entire table - how happy are you putting money in the pot if you hit a K? I'd be far happier to limp in with, say, A4s; at least we have two shots at a nut draw (flush, wheel).

I'd vastly vastly vastly prefer raising here - in fact, since we are on the button, my preference would probably be raise > fold > limp. Raise pre, and thin the field and play the hand in position when you can play off your opponents' ranges and board texture; at that point your cards are practically irrelevant. If you're not comfortable doing that, throw the hand away; your win rate will thank you in the long run.

I read through the answers and it seems to me that most people like the turn bet. Can anyone elaborate why is this turn bet fine?

Turn bet is terrible.

That is what I was thinking as well, but it looks like many people approve of it

Disagree. We bet to either get better to fold, or to get value from worse. A better hand is probably never folding, but we can absolutely get value from worse.

Forget about the results of this actual hand - not betting here and letting another spade or other scare card roll off, killing the action, is wasted value.

If you're not going to bet your two pair here on this board, don't play K4s.

Once we get two callers OTF, we're way behind on the turn. Just because Vs both checked doesn't mean they are not misplaying a flush here.

Its not being results oriented. Its taking a rational look at V's range.

Not playing K4s would be fine, TBH. Even playing it from the button in a limped hand is marginal at best. When you do get your flush, many times folks are not going to pay you off.

Of course we bet OTF, but after getting too calls there with obvious flush draw we have to evaluate the turn. From my experience if you get two callers on a board with a possible flush draw (in a 5 way limped pot), usually one of them is after that flush, but let's say that none of them was on a flush draw and the flush card comes on the turn. Now do you really think that any of these guys is going to continue on a three spade board with a hand that gives value to our two pair? Are you saying that naked King is going to pay you off here or some lower two pair combo maybe?

Seriously? You think we're behind because we got two callers on the flop in a multi-way limped pot on a K45 board? MUTB much?

Do you think KQ/KJ/KT/K9/QJ/JT with a spade is folding? Do you think 45/47/57 is folding? Do you think pocket 6s or pocket 8s are folding?

Practically half the deck is a scare card: either we get a four-flush board, or an over card to second pair, or a very straight-y board. Are you check/calling or check/folding the river?

We played K4s in a limped pot against half the table and got the best possible flop we could hope for. If you're scared to bet because a third flush card hit against two players...seriously, don't play K4s.

I do think that all the kings are folding here unless we have some really specific opposition. So basically we have to have a complete fish here in a hand with us to justify that line. I don't know about the games you play in, but where I play even the fish has improved over the years (those unable to improve at least a little, just disappeared) At least this is the case for most of them, there are sometimes some notoriously bad players popping up, but usually a table will consist of good and bad regulars, but very few of them are total noobs to the game.

The river play will be not so troublesome after checking the turn and it will depend on the villain's tendency and/or our history. The thing is after that spade turn I am not looking for three streets of value any more, but rather one or two as a bluff catcher (also villain dependent).

Turn bet is terrible

Turn is a bad bet. River is trivial.

Turn bet isn't terrible. Jesus this forum is filled with nits. It's for value against a TON of hands that can continue to call us down.

Obv, we know from the river that no one had the Ks. But imagine if we check the turn and V has KsQx? You don't think he's calling another bet? And we have a redraw to a boat and we have position. I might not have bet quite so big, so if that's what makes it terrible to you guys, fine. But I think checking and giving a free card is bad. It's not like we have 1 pair here.

+1.

Raise nice and big here too, something in the 35-50 range. And I would lean toward the higher side of this...

How likely are these hands given that the opponents check/called the flop? Most of these hands *probably* wouldn't play it that way (although with LLSNL of course anything is *possible*).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Given that Villain checked the nuts not once but twice, I'd say the odds are pretty damn high.

Checking the nuts is hardly equivalent to not betting+ a TP+ hand on a drawy board.

I can see the value of the turn bet against the hand ranges you describe. I just think it's highly unlikely villains have those hands given the way they played the flop.

GimoG

You think this Villain is thinking 'I'd better extract value with TP+ on a drawy board'? Seriously?

Villain checked the turn with the nuts when most of the deck on the river was going to kill his action, then just calls. He then checks the river with the nuts with a four-flush board. If any other card other than Ks (or 4s) had hit, do you think Hero is betting his two pair on that board, or do you think he's checking behind? Villain should have been thinking about extracting value before the board killed his action; instead he played trappy and lucked out into one of only two cards hitting the river that Hero would pay him off.

I can absolutely see this Villain playing like this with the range I noted above.

Limping in with K4 aside, I think the player betting this turn for value is more likely to be a winning player than the player that decides he's beat and goes into check/call mode.

No, I'm thinking the overwhelming vast majority of the players at this level bet their TP on the flop for fear of getting sucked out on, and definitely put in more action with better than TP (such as 54). ETA: I also think the overwhelmingly vast majority of the players at this level slowplay their ~nuts, which is another reason to check back the turn.

Gwe'regoingtohavetoagreetodisagreetothelikelihoodo fthosehandsshowingup,imoG

So true, it's a cooler, you played fine. I had 10 9 live(unraised), flop 9 9 10, turn K, river X, lost my stack yesterday to K 9. So it goes sometimes...

gobbledygeek, yeah - we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Yes, at these levels the majority of players might slowplay the nuts, but the majority of times we're in this situation, the player doesn't have the nuts - he's likely to slowplay any hand he thinks is super strong, like a set of 4s or 5s or the nut flush etc. Or maybe he's calling with a draw (exactly what he did on the flop, btw).

Too many hands we still beat for me to simply check this back.

what if you had KK in OP's hand? still not going broke because it's a limped pot?

no, I would go broke! The theory is moot when you hit a monster, ha ha!!!

K4 really isn't different than KK. Not like it's an underboat. We have Kings full of 4s. We lose to the SF, K7 and K5. Not a ton of combos.

Well, if he had KK, he now has quads, so he specifically only loses to the straight flush...and yes, I've lost with quad Kings to a straight flush. That's not the bad beat, the bad beat is there was no bad beat jackpot at that casino....

It wouldn't have been a limped pot, unless you are advocating limping in with multiple other limpers with KK...

The meaning behind the saying isn't "never go broke...", it's, don't lose your stack when your opponent could literally have ATC because a limping range can be so wide.

This hand is such a cooler...people encourage wide range play to see cheap flops in just about every post, one way or another. Here, the hero saw a cheap flop with his suited K, and flopped almost his best case, 2 pair. It is very plausible that he put one of his opponents on a K. Since the K didn't come until the river, it's also plausible that hero thought KT, K9, K8 were the Vil's hole cards, and his turn bet was extracting value from the draw they pick up on the turn. This is a tiny range to put a Vil on, I know, but the thought process has merit, especially in the moment without going over every possible Vil line...

I can find fault in re-raising the river, but really, kings full is a really strong hand! In the moment, it could feel like the nuts. We're splitting hairs here about how this hand played out...