You could check AA here if you wanted, along with top set. With KK an ace is bad on the turn.

With 2 opponents, I'd just bet anything but top set though. Twice as many people to have made a hand that can call, twice as many outs if we check.

They might catch up.

I like the turn shove.

A lot of what you are ahead against will hero call.

Yes you are up against sets sometimes.

I disagree that opponents with one pair will call a shove. Yes, some idiots will do that, but only such idiots would fail to consider the strong possibility of your having an overpair.

An idiot calling with A10 or some such would be making the same old mistake: going broke with one pair. So if you're up against such players ("I have top pair! How can I possibly lose???"), you don't need to gamBOOL. They'll hand you their stack any time you have their one pair beaten.

For the above reason, you don't want to be the player who hands over his stack when his one pair is beaten.

How can you disagree with a fact…We did get called by AT. And we would have been called by JJ/QQ, too. You made the justification for why we value bet overpairs in LLSNL. We get called by worse.

When did I say that it didn't or wouldn't happen? You have this annoying tendency to put words in other people's mouths and then criticize those things they never actually said--it's called making a "straw man" argument.

Simply because a play works against an idiot doesn't make it a good play. This was a SHOVE, not some smaller bet. If someone flops top pair and makes up his mind that he's never, ever, ever, ever, ever going to fold--or if someone has an overpair and has similar thoughts--then they're an idiot. "Get called by worse" is far from a guarantee and the better your opponents, the more faulty that assumption becomes.

In most of the games where I play, people don't call off their stacks with one pair. That's because the players who do that on a regular basis have never lasted long. This makes the turn shove in the situation described pointless--you only get action when you're cooked, and otherwise, you make someone who you have beaten anyway fold (and you're shutting out maybe a two- or three-outer).

If they don't call off their stacks with one pair, then they're often making a mistake. For instance, in this scenario right here, if people aren't willing to call off with 1 pair then I can push literally my entire range and print money because of how difficult it is for anyone to have more than 1 pair.

This is where studying GTO and theory concepts would help you. You don't see to understand what "good" play looks like, because stacking off with one pair in 3-bet pots isn't uncommon at all.

Pretty much what 411Heelhook said. If they're only calling off sets you should run them over.

Well, since that's not what he said...you might want to review hand rankings. Two pair, for instance, outranks one pair.

I agree that sacrificing one's stack with one pair isn't uncommon...just as most examples of bad play aren't uncommon. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Furthermore, you can't possibly know if your "bully them off of their hands" strategy is actually working. You shove. They fold. Did you just make a studly bluff and cause them to fold top pair, or did they have nothing and would have folded to even a $5 bet? You have no way of knowing. Did you "run them over" or did you "make" them fold a hand they were never going to continue playing anyway? Or, worse...did you just blow them off a hand you were beating and they would have called a smaller bet?

So the "strategy" of divining that your opponent won't call with anything but a set is GIGO. I know that people like to blather on endlessly about GTO and all those other trendy learned-sounding concepts, but the simple fact is that overbetting is overbetting. And one pair is never more than a pretty good hand after the flop.

To me, "good play" is betting with good hands, checking with mediocre hands, folding with bad hands, etc. It's illogical and unprofitable to bet huge amounts on mediocre or pretty good hands. You paint yourself into a corner, because your opponents will only call if you're beaten--unless, as I said, they're idiots and/or loosey gooseys, in which case you don't need to overplay your hands to win.

I realize that this is blasphemy and very much old-school. I also realize that admitting that one would ever do anything besides shove, shove, shove in any situation is a sign of weakness and a lack of manhood. Guilty as charged.

Yes, you are correct that is blasphemy and very much old school, and there's a reason for that. The style of play you're advocating for is the modus operandi of every 50-70 year old 2-5 regfish in the world, and it hasn't been difficult to beat in 15 years.

There are no two pair combos on this board that are part of a reasonable preflop range. Sure, they "could" have two pair, but we can assume they don't because even if we're wrong they're losing more EV preflop than they are making back from our incorrect assumption.

I was implying that it's common between two players who are playing optimally, or at least playing well. I also specifically said 3-bet pots, although it would have been more accurate to say hands where the flop SPR was small.

If it wasn't clear, by "run them over" I meant bluffing them with every bluff candidate we get to the turn with, and maybe also adding in more flop bluffs planning to double barrel. I didn't mean we should mindlessly bet KK. If you really believe they are rarely calling with worse hands you should check KK and bluff every airball or weak pair in your range.

We already assumed that they're not calling off with one pair hands, at least not often enough to make jamming KK correct. Under this assumption one of the following should be true:

1. They are folding often enough to a turn jam to make bluffing any two cards highly profitable.
2. They are folding too many hands on earlier streets, giving my earlier bluffs more EV than they can make back by snapping me off with their strong turn range.

This is how we know an aggressive turn strategy is part of an effective overall strategy, although if 2. is true then we will be even more effective by giving up most everything on the turn.

This is exactly what I meant before when I said it would help you to study theory. I don't think you know what GTO means or what it's does, because it has nothing to do with divining your opponent's strategy. I'm not even saying you should try to play anything close to GTO, just learn some basic theory concepts so you stop saying nonsense like "one pair is never more than a pretty good hand after the flop," implying it's not good enough to stack off with.

You're wrong. For one thing this line of thinking doesn't allow for bluffing large amounts of money.

It's funny that you cling to this "old school" thinking while saying stuff like only bad players will call their stack off with one pair, because your old school style only works against bad players.

Look, I get it. It's a manhood thing.

There's a reason why the "old school" is still around: it works. Yes, it won't do well against true experts. But then, what will?

And yes yes yes yes yes, I understand GTO. But 99.99% of the people who prattle on about it don't realize that there is no such thing as "optimal" play in an environment of incomplete information. There are only educated guesses. Game theory is a poor concept to apply in most live poker situations. I do realize that GTO is very very trendy.

However and whatever one may think about this game, there is one immutable concept here. That is that if you make large bets that will only be called if you're beaten, you'll lose money, and quickly at that. Therefore, a shove with KK on a dry board only makes sense if you think your opponent is stupid enough to call with one pair.

There's another factor everyone seems to be ignoring: a shove may drive out Mister One Pair, when he would have called a smaller bet. So that's yet another way an overbet is -EV.

Well, yes, I realize that it's pretty much the standard chest-thumping posture that playing "ABC" is for wimps.

You are also obligated to disparage people who play straightforward poker ('regfish"). This solidifies your credentials as one of the trendy cognoscenti.

Look, I get it. I've had about 34,715 snarky comments tossed my way:"He never plays a hand" (after I've folded every hand for two whole orbits); "Ooh, he raised, everybody fold unless you have Aces" (I have KQ and I really hope everyone takes your advice); "You must have the nut flush" (I actually have one pair, please throw away your small flush). But y'know what? At the end of the evening, I have the money, and the other folks don't.

And I don't see how all the young Turks can be simultaneously crushing the same games with their advanced theoretical concepts, but maybe it's just because the rest of us are all "regfish."

I'm not even talking about experts. Just players who notice your massive leaks and know how to exploit them.

It's still around because most players are godawful and don't punish you. Loads of strategies win. Look at GG. He kills it.

Again, what about bluffs???

You haven't established that calling with "one pair" is a mistake.

Why do I still give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trolling? If I had more sense I'd ignore you. Most of the good posters have stopped engaging with you because you're completely unwilling to learn and improve yourself, and way too arrogant for your skill level.

Whatever, you don't even address the important points of my arguments, so maybe I should be done, too.

Why is it that on the internet, anyone who expresses opinions that another person doesn't like is "trolling"? You need to stop reverting to that stupid accusation every time someone disagrees with you.

I did indeed address the important points of your arguments, but you ignored that, because they don't fit in with your point of view. That's fine--you're entitled to believe whatever you want. And you can grant me the wondrous boon of your "benefit of the doubt" or not. Who cares?

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are multiple worthwhile strategies to follow, and that your own is just one of them. FWIW, I've seen thousands of players dump their stacks because they couldn't fold one pair. But maybe you never have.

By "catch up" I mean improve their hand, but not to the point of it becoming stronger than yours. This is a common term in poker.

People are more likely to call your bets when they have a hand than when they don't. And, when they call your bet, and you show down a better hand, then you win the pot.

I'm kind of confused as to why a self-proclaimed micro-stakes player, like yourself, is even involved in this thread...

It certainly doesn't help that your opinions contradict the consensus of experts and you constantly argue with those who have more experience and knowledge than you, but that's not why I think you're a troll.

It's because you try to make every single argument about "manhood" and loads of other BS. Your posting style is so bad that you have to either be intentionally trying to get a rise out of people (a troll) or you're socially ******ed.

This is the easiest jam of your life...lol