You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
tough spot for JJ
craigcu12
Member Posts: 3,960
| craigcu12 | Small blind | 75.00 | 75.00 | 3143.75 | |
| crazykaron | Big blind | 150.00 | 225.00 | 12572.50 | |
| Your hole cards |
| ||||
| chicknMelt | Fold | ||||
| hurst05 | Raise | 325.00 | 550.00 | 3815.00 | |
| bosswite | All-in | 2340.00 | 2890.00 | 0.00 | |
| craigcu12 |
Comments
I'm calling/reshipping here unless I think they're a big nit.
bosswite has the perfect 3 bet shoving stack and could have any small/medium pair or Ax.
I'm guessing hurst has been opening a lot so even more reason for bosswite to shove lighter.
Get it in.
Edit: Its only a tough spot if as Lambert says bosswite has been mega tight.
sorry I thought I had added that
the wasn't very much shipping being done before this one not with this guy the other one was raising a lot.
if I was so poor which I do feel I was I guess my MTT confidence is so low at the minute
We need to look at some of the subsequent hands, though:
The J7 hand:
We should be shoving pre-flop. Our opponent has limped from the small blind and we have 11BB. As I said in another thread the other day, this is a great spot to get it in. So often we add nearly 20% to our stack and we're unlikely to be dominated even if we are called. The villain has such a weak range for limping here (unless we have reason to believe otherwise) that he'll fold a huge proportion of the time.
On the flop we have an up-and-down draw and our opponent bets small. Again, we can shove here and exercise our fold equity. We don't want to be calling here, missing the turn and folding. We want to get it in where our equity is at its highest and where we have maximum fold equity.
On the turn, again our opponent leads small into us. Having picked up a pair it wouldn't be too bad just to call, with the showdown value we've picked up, but we choose to min-raise. Why? Are we min-raising for value, hoping to be called by worse or are we bluffing, hoping to fold out better? I don't think we'll be called by much worse for our raise to be for value and, if we're bluffing, does the min-raise achieve that? Min-raising is very rarely a good idea post-flop.
Definitely shove pre-flop. Failing that, shove the flop.
The A7 hand:
Pre-flop in the big blind, we've seen two limpers so why are we raising to 90? I like that we're raising as we probably have the best hand but we need to raise more. We know that our opponents aren't limping for 30 intending to fold for 60 more, so why not raise bigger? We can win the pot more often pre-flop with a raise to 150 or so and, if we do get a caller, that gives us better value when our c-bet gets through. Raising as small as we have just means going multi-way to a flop, out of position to one of our opponents.
We actually get a really good flop to c-bet. Three-handed we're looking for dry boards like this one to c-bet because it makes our decisions pretty easy and most limp-callers are going to be quite honest with their play: They'll call or raise if they have something and will fold if they don't. So a c-bet here would be a good idea.
Why are we betting so small on the turn? If we have a pair, are we betting 60? I don't mind betting relatively small since it's tough to get our opponents to continue without a pair, but I wouldn't be betting less than 120 here. We don't want to invite someone to re-bluff us by betting so meekly.
On the river I think we should bet for value. We've made a full house so why are we checking? We shouldn't expect our opponent to bet behind us with much worse, but they can call us with a Queen or worse pair. Value bet here.
The 22 hand:
Facing the jam we're getting pot odds of 40% but we will never be a favourite and some of the time we'll be a 20% dog. This is certainly a -EV call. We should really just fold this and retain our fold equity for future hands. Even with our short stack, it's better to just fold and jam the next hand on the button with almost any two cards.
with this being a SB that has a bigger stack does that signal the chance of a weaker hand being more likely more likely? that was in part why I didn't fancy doing the shove here because with the last time I shipped preflop he actually showed AA
with hand 3 what would you say is the smallest pocket pair that should be calling a jam and is it the fact that their is 6 cards with the hands such as AK-AJ and KQ that enables them to be called.
Call with 22 and you're just never ever in good shape with the exception of when he shoves A2. They will have 2 overs (so flipping) practically 100% of the time and some of that time their 2 overs will be a PP so you're crushed, and 22 isn't even a favourite against some hands with 2 overs.
Download something called Pokerstove (it's free) and put in a rough range of what you think he'd shove (I'd imagine with his stack maybe something like 22+, A2+, K9+, Q9+ maybe a few SCs like JTs. Then see the difference between the equity we have with 22 compared to the equity we have with 66, or compared to the equity when we have A9 or w/e.
In the hand with J7, when our opponent limps, what kind of range do you think he has? At the time, did you think "He's always come in for a raise before. Why's he limping now?" Or did you think "He's always limping in this situation. There's nothing unusual in that."?
You must not view checking your big blind when it's limped to you as your default decision. It's just like any other action you'll take in poker: You should be justifying why checking is better than raising.
You'll know as well as I do that 99%* of limps are not made with monster hands. Unless you have specific reason to think otherwise, that's a reasonable assumption to make. When someone makes-up from the small blind, their range is likely to be even weaker than a limper in another position, since they're getting half-price on the call.
So if we make a habit of raising any limp in these blind vs blind situations, we're making a +EV play. That might change as we gain history with our opponents.
*Arbitrary numbers ftw