Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Strategy => Topic started by: RioRodent on August 28, 2012, 23:32:23 PM
-
[Disclaimer - I"m not too good at remembering these sort things two days later, so some of the bet sizes may not be totally accurate.]
Everyone still has close to starting stack (15k), I only know two people at the table - neither of which are involved in this hand. I had only shown one hand, the first of the tournament, which was AKo and had not been getting out of line or playing lots of hands.
Blinds 25/50
I open to 150 in MP with KK.
German team player [Santo?] directly on my left 3bets to 750.
BB thinks and makes what looks [to me] like a reluctant call.
I 4bet to 1800.
Santo calls.
BB makes what looks like an even more reluctant call, after a bit more thinking.
Pot appx 5400
Flop 234 rainbow
BB quite quickly leads out for 4000 and looks much more comfortable.
I should .................
-
had not been getting out of line or playing lots of hands.
Ha ha - good one Alan.
-
had not been getting out of line or playing lots of hands.
Ha ha - good one Alan.
I put that bit in for your benefit... it is however true!
-
.......Reluctantly fold. You have 1 pair and will need to play for stacks with it if you want to continue, which you don"t want to do in level 1.
This is an awful spot for you with 2 players seemingly happy to treat a deepstack like a turbo. what ever the BB has, you should be happy in the knowledge that he will donk off what ever chips he picks up with this hand. If he has made a set then it is terrible to call a 3 bet then a 4 bet with 22-44 (or anything else for that matter). If he is overplaying an overpair then good luck to him...
I would have probably just flatted the 3 bet and played a smaller pot to be honest but I can see why you 4 bet, given the action before you. (it is just horrible for you that BOTH called the 4 bet)
-
.......Reluctantly fold. You have 1 pair and will need to play for stacks with it if you want to continue, which you don"t want to do in level 1.
This is an awful spot for you with 2 players seemingly happy to treat a deepstack like a turbo. what ever the BB has, you should be happy in the knowledge that he will donk off what ever chips he picks up with this hand. If he has made a set then it is terrible to call a 3 bet then a 4 bet with 22-44 (or anything else for that matter). If he is overplaying an overpair then good luck to him...
I would have probably just flatted the 3 bet and played a smaller pot to be honest but I can see why you 4 bet, given the action before you. (it is just horrible for you that BOTH called the 4 bet)
I have nitty tendencies so I"d agree with this.
I would have played for pot control pre flop and just called the 3 bet, just because it is horrible that they both call the 4 bet - but because of how deepstacked they are, they are almost always going to call the 4 bet. I think every hand that beats you is in their range"s and is only marginally balanced out by the other pocket pairs you"re still beating.
If they do both have a pocket pair that you"re beating then it"s a mistake to fold, but if one of them is beating you then it"s a much bigger mistake to call and commit your stack - for obvious reasons.
-
This hand is over for you imo. This ain"t the EPT - it"s likely that he has hit hard if he is betting that strongly on the flop. No doubt he shouldn"t be there, but he is.
-
Meh I think we beat more hands that beat us but at this stage I think I just nit it up and fold. I mean he shouldn"t have a set but you never know what lengths people will go to with 300bb starting to flop a set. Plus people love to play aces this way pre and then panic post flop and spoil the deception.
In game when I don"t understand WTF people are doing I tend to call down and expect to see Jj/QQ as much as anything else but I have learnt not to take off at this stage, therefore might only 4bet pre if I know they are going to call or 5bet with worse.
So fold, probably
-
FOLD unfortunately.
Some players will call with pairs and connecters here trusting on the implied odds they think they will get if connecting especially when your 4 bet defines a massive hand that may/will pay off.
For what it is worth I am never flatting here the 3 bet. I would however have raised considerably more with the 4bet to price out the small pairs and suited connecters. Say upto 3.5k or 4k so if they call now they are making the mistake and as long as an ace doesnt flop I am sticking them in. Just my way.
-
I think if you are going to 4bet you should make it slightly bigger but it is interesting know whether you were folding to a 5bet.
I"ve changed my mind, I probably call as played
-
How often does the reluctant call turn out to be a hand like 77/88/99 that then feels happy when the flop comes low? Also, do we really believe the BB would donk lead almost full pot with 22,33,44 in a three way 4bet pot, where someone is highly likely to c-bet?.... I think I probably get it in here, and expect to be ahead of a smaller overpair a lot of the time.
Preflop, I 4bet much bigger.... raising to 1800 doesn"t do anything other than bloat the pot which we are then having to play for out of position against the German guy.
-
i would fold now and hate it, also i wouldnt click it back pre because you are not gonna get folds from a guy who can 3 bet 5x lol. But that is just my opion i would rather call the 3 bet pre. I never see the need to play massive pots 1st few levels when you can loose a big chunk of stack. And if you do win a big pot, i dont think it changes the flow much because everyone is deep anyway.
P.S when i first wrote this for some reason i thought u had AK, but tbh i still stand by what i said even though i can see you had kk.
-
I think i re raise to about 2500 here pre, looking to get the pot built as i have the 2nd best hand in pokers :D
On the flop, i honestly believe that we will be looking at a smaller overpair so much of the time. What are the odds of hitting a set? Not much. So i generally stick it right in his eye in this spot and think we take the chips most of the time.
-
... as i have the 2nd best hand in pokers ...
but it"s not really is it? It"s the 2nd best hand preflop - where does it rank on the full scale?
-
How often does the reluctant call turn out to be a hand like 77/88/99 that then feels happy when the flop comes low? Also, do we really believe the BB would donk lead almost full pot with 22,33,44 in a three way 4bet pot, where someone is highly likely to c-bet?.... I think I probably get it in here, and expect to be ahead of a smaller overpair a lot of the time.
Spot on, BB can have 22+ AQ+ and read dependent even ATs. But when he donk leads for 4k it"s again very read dependent, he can be trying to protect his overpair or on rare occassions he can be a good player inducing, though the betsize is a little large for that purpose.
Given the donk lead adds to the already weighted probability of more overpairs than sets, I"m never folding here.
Preflop, I 4bet much bigger.... raising to 1800 doesn"t do anything other than bloat the pot which we are then having to play for out of position against the German guy.
Bloating the pot is good for KK, the smaller 4b also induces a spaz with QQ- and can tempt all 22+ to set mine incorrectly. 1800 is a little small though, offering 8/1 implied odds, I prefer ~2200 which lays a paltry 7/1.
I would however have raised considerably more with the 4bet to price out the small pairs and suited connecters.
Price them out yes but these are the hand types we have most equity against. We don"t want them to fold.
-
... as i have the 2nd best hand in pokers ...
but it"s not really is it? It"s the 2nd best hand preflop - where does it rank on the full scale?
Lovely selective quoting there John. I had mentioned the word Pre hadnt i??
-
... as i have the 2nd best hand in pokers ...
but it"s not really is it? It"s the 2nd best hand preflop - where does it rank on the full scale?
Lovely selective quoting there John. I had mentioned the word Pre hadnt i??
you did, but it"s all a bit pointless since you never have KK
-
the donk lead adds to the already weighted probability of more overpairs than sets
Hmmm, I can see that. Gonna have a think.
-
If they do both have a pocket pair that you"re beating then it"s a mistake to fold
Can"t argue with that.
if one of them is beating you then it"s a much bigger mistake to call
Or that.
-
... as i have the 2nd best hand in pokers ...
but it"s not really is it? It"s the 2nd best hand preflop - where does it rank on the full scale?
Lovely selective quoting there John. I had mentioned the word Pre hadnt i??
you did, but it"s all a bit pointless since you never have KK
Good point well made, i would have probably flopped a straight.
Definately shove.
-
If they do both have a pocket pair that you"re beating then it"s a mistake to fold, but if one of them is beating you then it"s a much bigger mistake to call and commit your stack - for obvious reasons.
Player A: Folds the best hand sometimes, gives up lots of equity when marginally behind and sometimes when ahead. Is never in a spot where he gets it in bad and gets lucky.
Player B: Is aggressive, seldom folds and gets it in bad sometimes, he embraces variance and is always there when it"s his turn to get lucky.
Q: Which player has more chance of winning tournies?
-
If they do both have a pocket pair that you"re beating then it"s a mistake to fold, but if one of them is beating you then it"s a much bigger mistake to call and commit your stack - for obvious reasons.
Player A: Folds the best hand sometimes, gives up lots of equity when marginally behind and sometimes when ahead. Is never in a spot where he gets it in bad and gets lucky.
Player B: Is aggressive, seldom folds and gets it in bad sometimes, he embraces variance and is always there when it"s his turn to get lucky.
Q: Which player has more chance of winning tournies?
Player C - the player who doesn"t get knocked out before the first break then starts getting aggressive when winning pots , doubling up and knocking players out really makes a difference
-
I think if you are going to 4bet you should make it slightly bigger but it is interesting know whether you were folding to a 5bet.
I"ve changed my mind, I probably call as played
Yes, It was my intention to fold to a 5bet from the German... I wasn"t anticipating a 5bet from the other guy.
As stated earlier my memory for hand details is atrocious, it may have been that the Germans 3bet was slightly less or that my 4bet was slightly more... my usual starting point for re-raising is somewhere in the region of 3x the raise.
In my mind the BB"s range is pretty much all pocket pairs other than AA and KK. With 22 - 44 the least likely... does he see the flop with these? (I don"t)... does he lead out big on the flop with a set? (I don"t usually when I"m not the raiser). I"m thinking 99 - JJ is more likely.
I have no idea what he might think I have, I have never played with him before and I have no reason to believe he has any clue who I am or how i play. He wasn"t Irish or from Portsmouth, so I doubt that John Murray had been filling his head with nonsense about me being a loose player!
I don"t think the German guy is a factor any longer, I don"t believe he has seen a flop with 22 - 44 and I think he would have got it in pre with AA.
I think I"m most likely ahead and decide to call, fully expecting the penny to drop and for him to realise that I do actually have AA or KK and for him to check the turn to me.
German folds.
The turn is a J.
BB immediately looks down at his chips, moves a few of them around, appears to do a quick count and announces all-in.
This time I do fold. He doesn"t show.
-
I am with the callers here, because of the donk lead. If he has a hand that is beating you why would he not play for a check-raise? If he checks, it is very unlikely to be checked twice behind, so a check is surely the obvious play with AA or a set.
I know strong players sometimes donk their sets for just that deception, but it looks much more like TT to QQ to me.
Interesting spot.
-
In Brendans question, i would say player B is more likely to win more tounrys.
-
Fold.
I mean it sucks but what are we beating that plays like this? If this player was somebody like Dan Owston or John Murray (ie Somebody who knows how to properly represent a hand on the right board and also knows you are capable of folding then we have a harder decision - and it"s still a fold). As it we have an unknown player who has cold called a 3-bet which is strange, I guess he could have QQ or JJ trying to keep it cheap, maybe AK? It really looks like that kind of hand or even some SC. When you make a 4-bet he should be able to put you on a decent hand like the one you have. I would have made the 4-bet 3K myself. When he cold calls again I really think he is on a pair. The flop comes down and is silly and suddenly this player who wanted to keep the pot small preflop and should know you have a really good hand suddenly seems to want to play for stacks. If he has QQ or JJ why so cautious pre to take off now, his hand has not really changed and it does not seem like you have AK, he should know you have a big hand. I just don"t see a hand we beat as that likely here. People just don"t play like this in APAT's very often. I think he has got a set (things are usually exactly as they seem at this stage).
As played fold flop. Especially given your reads.
NB If you are not folding I think you get shown a set a LOT here. I also think you have to make a decision on the flop, you play for stacks or fold, if you call the bet on the flop, when he ships the turn you insta call.
-
If they do both have a pocket pair that you"re beating then it"s a mistake to fold, but if one of them is beating you then it"s a much bigger mistake to call and commit your stack - for obvious reasons.
Player A: Folds the best hand sometimes, gives up lots of equity when marginally behind and sometimes when ahead. Is never in a spot where he gets it in bad and gets lucky.
Player B: Is aggressive, seldom folds and gets it in bad sometimes, he embraces variance and is always there when it"s his turn to get lucky.
Q: Which player has more chance of winning tournies?
Player C - the player who doesn"t get knocked out before the first break then starts getting aggressive when winning pots , doubling up and knocking players out really makes a difference
I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.
Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.
-
Fold.
I mean it sucks but what are we beating that plays like this? If this player was somebody like Dan Owston or John Murray (ie Somebody who knows how to properly represent a hand on the right board and also knows you are capable of folding then we have a harder decision - and it"s still a fold). As it we have an unknown player who has cold called a 3-bet which is strange, I guess he could have QQ or JJ trying to keep it cheap, maybe AK? It really looks like that kind of hand or even some SC. When you make a 4-bet he should be able to put you on a decent hand like the one you have. I would have made the 4-bet 3K myself. When he cold calls again I really think he is on a pair. The flop comes down and is silly and suddenly this player who wanted to keep the pot small preflop and should know you have a really good hand suddenly seems to want to play for stacks. If he has QQ or JJ why so cautious pre to take off now, his hand has not really changed and it does not seem like you have AK, he should know you have a big hand. I just don"t see a hand we beat as that likely here. People just don"t play like this in APAT's very often. I think he has got a set (things are usually exactly as they seem at this stage).
As played fold flop. Especially given your reads.
NB If you are not folding I think you get shown a set a LOT here. I also think you have to make a decision on the flop, you play for stacks or fold, if you call the bet on the flop, when he ships the turn you insta call.
See my opinion is generally the polar opposite of all of that, and you think about the game a hell of alot more deeply than me.
I honestly think that we are shown anywhere from 99-QQ here the vast majority of the time.
I think that, even more so recently, this is the type of hand that people are showing in APAT's. It has a reputation of being a Nitfest, but i think that has changed somewhat recently.
Qucik question... you say people just dont "play like this" at APAT's (or words to that effect. OK then, so DO people call a raise and a re riase with 22,33 or 44 pre in that case? I"m not too sure they do.
-
If they do both have a pocket pair that you"re beating then it"s a mistake to fold, but if one of them is beating you then it"s a much bigger mistake to call and commit your stack - for obvious reasons.
Player A: Folds the best hand sometimes, gives up lots of equity when marginally behind and sometimes when ahead. Is never in a spot where he gets it in bad and gets lucky.
Player B: Is aggressive, seldom folds and gets it in bad sometimes, he embraces variance and is always there when it"s his turn to get lucky.
Q: Which player has more chance of winning tournies?
Player C - the player who doesn"t get knocked out before the first break then starts getting aggressive when winning pots , doubling up and knocking players out really makes a difference
I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.
Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.
Who is more likely to win?
Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes
Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.
Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?
-
Fold.
I mean it sucks but what are we beating that plays like this? If this player was somebody like Dan Owston or John Murray (ie Somebody who knows how to properly represent a hand on the right board and also knows you are capable of folding then we have a harder decision - and it"s still a fold). As it we have an unknown player who has cold called a 3-bet which is strange, I guess he could have QQ or JJ trying to keep it cheap, maybe AK? It really looks like that kind of hand or even some SC. When you make a 4-bet he should be able to put you on a decent hand like the one you have. I would have made the 4-bet 3K myself. When he cold calls again I really think he is on a pair. The flop comes down and is silly and suddenly this player who wanted to keep the pot small preflop and should know you have a really good hand suddenly seems to want to play for stacks. If he has QQ or JJ why so cautious pre to take off now, his hand has not really changed and it does not seem like you have AK, he should know you have a big hand. I just don"t see a hand we beat as that likely here. People just don"t play like this in APAT's very often. I think he has got a set (things are usually exactly as they seem at this stage).
As played fold flop. Especially given your reads.
NB If you are not folding I think you get shown a set a LOT here. I also think you have to make a decision on the flop, you play for stacks or fold, if you call the bet on the flop, when he ships the turn you insta call.
See my opinion is generally the polar opposite of all of that, and you think about the game a hell of alot more deeply than me.
I honestly think that we are shown anywhere from 99-QQ here the vast majority of the time.
I think that, even more so recently, this is the type of hand that people are showing in APAT's. It has a reputation of being a Nitfest, but i think that has changed somewhat recently.
Qucik question... you say people just dont "play like this" at APAT's (or words to that effect. OK then, so DO people call a raise and a re riase with 22,33 or 44 pre in that case? I"m not too sure they do.
Yeah, good point and good post
Generally no, so that"s why it is a good point. He seems to have got stuck with it though. He has called what feels like a small bet of 750 given stack sizes and then been laid odds to call again to the four bet against two players who seem to have big hands. It actually does not make sense that he has 22-44 he at all. It"s just I think he does anyway.
This just feels like a weird spot that does not make sense anyway, we have a player who wants to keep the pot small pre, who now wants to play a big pot. Bet sizing is also worth noting here, I think and that bet feels REALLY strong, it does not feel like QQ to me. QQ makes sense preflop
If we are going with our reads also I don"t see why 99-QQ would be uncomfortable pre-flop and then happy on the flop though, their hand did not improve although it does beat AK now, but why are they trying to fold out AK, QQ should be check/calling (or check/shoving) the flop if it has got this far (which tbh it shouldn"t have). A set would be hoping you can"t get away from your overpair and donking to induce a shove. I may be over thinking this situation of course but everything about this hand, feels like we are beat. It is one of those situations where you are really not sure how you can be beat, you just are. Usually I find when I ignore this and call off anyway (which happen all the time *lol*) I lose :-)
I CAN see the argument that he SHOULD have a smaller overpair a lot more often than a set here and in your average online tournament I probably call with the intention of getting all-in on the turn whatever it is. APAT's still play a little tighter than most other tournaments I am familiar with though.
This might seem strange as I am sure I have spent the last six months telling everybody who will listen, and a few people who didn"t actually want too, that if we see a good spot early (even a marginal one) that we should take it and our tournament life etc does not actually make too much difference at this point. I still stand by that, however I don"t think this is a good spot.
What would be interesting is if any of the updater"s can remember many people getting all-in with hands that one pair beats here. I doubt it happens very often and this player seems to want to get allin.
-
-
-
Going to respectfully disagree with the above.
Certainly some weak players will call because they do not have the nerve to push and their hand is too good to fold, and then give up when another barrel comes. Good players can often smell that and exploit it.
This is true in some situations but this is not one of them. We are being asked to put one third of our stack into the pot on the flop. It is not realistic to expect him to give up on the turn that often especially after the super strong donk bet. If we call on the flop then we are expecting a shove on the turn and we should be snapping it off as we are basically putting him on a smaller overpair. As far as some players calling because they do not have the nerve to shove, calling is a better play than shoving in this spot. Also it smells nothing like weakness to me, more like the opposite not a spot to try and exploit.
However I think it is quite a legitimate option, in position, to pay for another street and re-evaluate based on the extra information. The float shows strength, and a lot of players would shut down in BB"s spot here if they do not have it. It is clear from the post that he studied the BB carefully, and felt there was now enough evidence of strength to get away, with a decent fighting stack.
The evidence was the same on the flop, what we expected to happen has happened. We should be calling IF we call on the flop (which I don"t think we should). We should only be calling the flop to call the turn and NEVER EVER fold no matter what the turn is.
-
I like the maxim of "play big pots with big hands" and think we should fold the flop - but I completely agree that if you"re not folding the flop then you should be expecting the rest of your stack to go in.
If you"re going to fold to leave yourself with a decent fighting stack then you should be doing it on the flop. Paying to see another street and then re-evaluating with extra information isn"t a bad concept in general but I don"t think you should be paying over a quarter of your stack to get that extra information.
-
I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.
Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.
Who is more likely to win?
Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes
Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.
Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?
How about Player A"s plan, what is it?
-
I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.
Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.
Who is more likely to win?
Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes
Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.
Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?
How about Player A"s plan, what is it?
It"s irrelevant - given vaguely equal talent then whoever doesn"t adapt to their circumstances isn"t going to do as well as those that do.
Obviously if you"re much better than your opposition you don"t need to worry about adapting to the circumstance to beat them - but most of us, most of the time, don"t have that luxury.
-
I disagree John, yes Player C will cash often but he will only turn a small profit imho. He will very seldom have a large stack approaching the bubble and will often point to losing flips at crucial times. Player B will also lose the odd flip but they won"t be terminal as they"ll usually be for a small percentage of his stack.
Oh and btw for more on Player C, see Player A.
Who is more likely to win?
Player A: has a way he thinks will win at poker - he sticks to this plan, he plays like this all the time, he never changes
Player B: changes how he plays depending on the stage of the tournament, the size of his stack, the size of his opponents stack and on how his opponents are playing.
Are you really suggesting that never changing your approach is a better way than moving through the gears?
How about Player A"s plan, what is it?
It"s irrelevant - given vaguely equal talent then whoever doesn"t adapt to their circumstances isn"t going to do as well as those that do.
Obviously if you"re much better than your opposition you don"t need to worry about adapting to the circumstance to beat them - but most of us, most of the time, don"t have that luxury.
It"s not irrelevent if part of the plan is to adapt to the circumstance to beat them. But you must adapt correctly!
Sticking to a plan is not wrong if the plan is sound.
My original point though is, if your plan is to wait for the nuts, folding in marginal spots, you will end up regularly surrendering large amounts of equity and never allow yourself a chance to get lucky ( steal some of your opponents equity ).
-
...
It"s not irrelevent if part of the plan is to adapt to the circumstance to beat them. But you must adapt correctly!
Sticking to a plan is not wrong if the plan is sound.
My original point though is, if your plan is to wait for the nuts, folding in marginal spots, you will end up regularly surrendering large amounts of equity and never allow yourself a chance to get lucky ( steal some of your opponents equity ).
Well quite, but despite saying that part of one"s plan could be to be adaptable you still seem to be implying that you there are only 2 ways of playing - which was the main issue I had with your original multiple choice to start with.
-
...
It"s not irrelevent if part of the plan is to adapt to the circumstance to beat them. But you must adapt correctly!
Sticking to a plan is not wrong if the plan is sound.
My original point though is, if your plan is to wait for the nuts, folding in marginal spots, you will end up regularly surrendering large amounts of equity and never allow yourself a chance to get lucky ( steal some of your opponents equity ).
Well quite, but despite saying that part of one"s plan could be to be adaptable you still seem to be implying that you there are only 2 ways of playing - which was the main issue I had with your original multiple choice to start with.
My two examples were either end of the spectrum John, a spectrum that includes far too many playing styles to mention. As with most examples, mine focus on extremes to make a point, does"nt necessarily ignore the many varied styles in between or suggest that I am ignorant to their existence or merits.
I will add though, the key factor in adapting is assessing the field and adjusting accordingly, in some scenarios the correct adjustment is to nit it up but I dont think that is correct in this event barring some extreme table draw scenario.