|
 Originally Posted by Renton
a good villain never pushes 4 stacks without the nuts here, because he has just as much to fear about hero. Both's players' play in this hand is extremely consistant with KK.
Depends how good this villain is, exactly. Hero's lead-out on the flop is right out of Super/system... flop a set against a raiser out of position, and lead out to get paid off. Yet despite the fact that Brunson wrote about this forever ago, it's still not a common move at most levels of no limit. A lot of pretty good players still fall back on the check-raise because it's so easy, and when someone re-raised you before the flop, you know you're getting another good-sized bet out of them no matter what the flop is, if you check.
So if villain is solid but not advanced, he sees a guy betting into him, thinks to himself "He's got a good pair, maybe AK or KQ" and then comes over the top of him with his AA. That's common. ...But for 4 buy-ins? Maybe not so much. That does seem a little too heavy to be strictly a protection bet. But then again, why is he betting so hard if he has the nuts, and has no good reason to put his opponent on a monster as well? He doesn't know hero has a set of jacks - why push so hard with a set of kings? He would scare off QQ and even AK here most of the time. Only JJ is near-guaranteed to give him action. His bet is very risky if he has AA, but strangely over-aggressive with top set.
I think you could make a compelling argument either way, depending just how good we're going to say he is, hypothetically. If it was Barry Greenstein, I think I'd fold the jacks. If it's just your average pretty good player on the internet, I think it's a close decision.
|