Loose passive player suddenly takes off = wow I've got the nuts
It's brutal Harry and ridic hard to fold in 15 seconds. I definitely wouldn't think of it as a big leak btw, don't think you'll be in this kinda spot very often lol.
Lambert, you're making an assumption based on an idea that "people don't stack off light in big buy-in MTT's." That's not a read on an individual,and it's not a read on the majority of players. Yes we can say that there are some players that won't stack off here without the nuts, but are they the majority of unknown players? No. Are they the majority of unknown weak players? I don't think so.
Even if we had some specific reason to believe that this villain never gets it in without a massive hand, how are we to know that he doesn't consider QJ, JJ, 88 or 66 on this board to be the effective nuts?
I think we need steel-reinforced concrete reads, with so much money in the middle and such a massive hand, to fold in this spot. We don't have those reads, we only have an idea that some inexperienced players won't stack off without the stone colds.
Should perhaps elaborate on the weak/inexperienced aspect. They were playing almost every hand, but in a very passive manner pre flop. Limped almost every hand. Was happy to limp call then check fold. Would sometimes click it back on the turn or river (strong indicator of a weak player IMO). Would've been more alarmed had they clicked it back on that turn card. I like to think I'd have folded this live (was making some ridic folds in the Grand Prix this weekend), but in the 15 seconds or so that Sky give you I just couldn't do it. I'm not sure whether I've been coolered out the tournament or if I've perhaps unearthed an MTT leak that needs serious attention. Posted by hhyftrftdr
No.
I call. MattBates calls. TommyD calls. Yoyo calls. To have top set and only be losing to 1 very specific hand it'd be such a bad fold IMO. This is such a great opportunity to DU and start crushing the tournament.
Lambert, you're making an assumption based on an idea that "people don't stack off light in big buy-in MTT's." That's not a read on an individual,and it's not a read on the majority of players. Yes we can say that there are some players that won't stack off here without the nuts, but are they the majority of unknown players? No. Are they the majority of unknown weak players? I don't think so. Even if we had some specific reason to believe that this villain never gets it in without a massive hand, how are we to know that he doesn't consider QJ, JJ, 88 or 66 on this board to be the effective nuts? I think we need steel-reinforced concrete reads, with so much money in the middle and such a massive hand, to fold in this spot. We don't have those reads, we only have an idea that some inexperienced players won't stack off without the stone colds. Posted by BorinLoner
This is what swayed me into calling. It wasn't a clickback which I'd seen them do a couple of times, and even though I was far from loving it, I felt villain would treat the above hands as the best hand and be totally dominated by my 3 Queens.
Should perhaps elaborate on the weak/inexperienced aspect. They were playing almost every hand, but in a very passive manner pre flop. Limped almost every hand. Was happy to limp call then check fold. Would sometimes click it back on the turn or river (strong indicator of a weak player IMO). Would've been more alarmed had they clicked it back on that turn card. I like to think I'd have folded this live (was making some ridic folds in the Grand Prix this weekend), but in the 15 seconds or so that Sky give you I just couldn't do it. I'm not sure whether I've been coolered out the tournament or if I've perhaps unearthed an MTT leak that needs serious attention. Posted by hhyftrftdr
Okay, well those are better reads. I don't suppose you saw any of those hands they clicked back?
I still don't think we can fold. As I said in my other post, we can't know that their range is precisely the nuts and that they're not getting it in with weaker sets or two-pairs.
Even if we're giving them just a couple of weaker made hands, we're going to be a 98% favourite versus those hands with pot odds of 34%.
Even when they have the straight, we have nearly 23% equity. We need to say "This guy can only ever have specifically this one hand" in order for the fold to be good. We don't have that read. We have the fear of that, but fear's not a good reason to fold.
In Response to Re: Can I get away from this? : No. I call. MattBates calls. TommyD calls. Yoyo calls. To have top set and only be losing to 1 very specific hand it'd be such a bad fold IMO. This is such a great opportunity to DU and start crushing the tournament. Posted by gazza127
I'm ruling out Q8/J8 cos I just don't think they're likely enough, and I think 66/JJ/QQ if they're gonna raise would do it on the flop but we can add in them extra 9 combos (3 of each) if you like.
Absolute best if you include them all 50% of the time we have a 20% shot, 50% of the time we double.
Really wanna take that kinda gamble of busting when we could just fold and have 100+ BBs and a big edge over the field?
EDIT: In fact it wouldnt even be a 20% shot would it? Cos them having sets reduces our house outs and obv gives them quad outs
So let's give them a couple of weaker hands. 16 combos of 9T 3 combos of QJ 3 combos of 88 I'm ruling out Q8/J8 cos I just don't think they're likely enough, and I think 66/JJ/QQ if they're gonna raise would do it on the flop but we can add in them extra 9 combos (3 of each) if you like. Absolute best if you include them all 50% of the time we bust, 50% of the time we double. Really wanna take that kinda gamble of busting when we could just fold and have 100+ BBs and a big edge over the field? Posted by Lambert180
I'd be concerned if villain also had pocket Queens
So let's give them a couple of weaker hands. 16 combos of 9T 3 combos of QJ 3 combos of 88 I'm ruling out Q8/J8 cos I just don't think they're likely enough, and I think 66/JJ/QQ if they're gonna raise would do it on the flop but we can add in them extra 9 combos (3 of each) if you like. Absolute best if you include them all 50% of the time we have a 20% shot, 50% of the time we double. Really wanna take that kinda gamble of busting when we could just fold and have 100+ BBs and a big edge over the field? Posted by Lambert180
Can't do that against a passive player who likes to see a flop.
In Response to Re: Can I get away from this? : Can't do that against a passive player who likes to see a flop. Posted by gazza127
I agree they can have it pre, and on the flop, but I very much doubt they'd ever raise to this size with them. They're just too weak for your average loose/passive player to think 'wooo I've hit the world', they're still dangerous hands so he'd probably continue to call down.
In Response to Re: Can I get away from this? : I agree they can have it pre, and on the flop, but I very much doubt they'd ever raise to this size with them. They're just too weak for your average loose/passive player to think 'wooo I've hit the world', they're still dangerous hands so he'd probably continue to call down. Posted by Lambert180
Too much of an assumption. I've seen players stack off with much worse thinking its the nuts.
In Response to Re: Can I get away from this? : Too much of an assumption. I've seen players stack off with much worse thinking its the nuts. Posted by gazza127
So have I...
But in level 2 of the biggest BI, deepest stacked, slowest MTT on the site?
In Response to Re: Can I get away from this? : So have I... But in level 2 of the biggest BI, deepest stacked, slowest MTT on the site? Posted by Lambert180
Yep.
Just because its a higher BI... it doesnt necessarily change the thought process and style of play. We have to consider a range of hands.
We beat most of villains range IMO. And even if we are behind we have multiple outs. Im not folding.
Really unlucky, 100% 15 seconds is not long at all, i prob sigh call.
Either way, i don't think it's a mistake just a cooler as someone else said. It could well be other hands, but ineperienced passive player who all of a sudden shows massive strength they normally have it.
Late to this thread, and I'm certainly no authority on the matter, but as others have indicated it's just a supremely horrible situation/spot. Perfect example of when you really want a timebank on Sky Poker. I reckon I am probably calling this as well, but yeah, you just know they are holding 9 10. I think you made a 'good' call, because we should not often be folding to one specific hand, unless we have a very good reason to suspect they have it.
I agree with Larson too - as soon as those weaker players have a 'raise-****' it generally means the nuts.
20640 / 19 = 1086 3 x 1086 = 3258 3258 x 97.73% = 3184
1086 x 16 = 17376 17376 x 22.73% = 3950
3184 + 3950 = 7134
So even when the villain has only one other hand in his range, we're only making a loss of 41 chips on a call of 7175.
Admittedly it's a "tournament life"/ICM/bubble factor question, whatever you want to call it, where the chips in our stack have a higher value than the ones in the middle. However, if he can have 88, why can't he have 66 or JJ or QJ?
So we need to put him on specifically 9T and only 9T for this fold to be correct. Even if we think 9T is nearly four times more likely than other hands, it's still a call.
Those who are saying this is a good situation for a time bank: In the words of Carlo Citrone "You're snap-calling and high-fiving the dealer!"
The idea that folding here is to protect your edge is crazy, in my opinion. You're folding the second nuts just because someone raised. We have no edge if we're folding in this situation. We're going to steal the blinds a bunch of times but fold all our big hands as soon as an unknown player raises us and justifying it on the basis of the buy-in being big. That's just not good.
I gotta go now so I'll reply later but imo one important factor is being missed.
This isn't 'just a raise' and it's not just because it's a bigger BI... but this villian has raised ONE HUNDRED big blinds more than our bet! People just don't do that even the tiniest bit light.
Sixteen combos of 9T. Three combos of 88: 20640 / 19 = 1086 3 x 1086 = 3258 3258 x 97.73% = 3184 1086 x 16 = 17376 17376 x 22.73% = 3950 3184 + 3950 = 7134 So even when the villain has only one other hand in his range, we're only making a loss of 41 chips on a call of 7175. Admittedly it's a "tournament life"/ICM/bubble factor question, whatever you want to call it, where the chips in our stack have a higher value than the ones in the middle. However, if he can have 88, why can't he have 66 or JJ or QJ? So we need to put him on specifically 9T and only 9T for this fold to be correct. Even if we think 9T is nearly four times more likely than other hands, it's still a call. Those who are saying this is a good situation for a time bank: In the words of Carlo Citrone "You're snap-calling and high-fiving the dealer!" The idea that folding here is to protect your edge is crazy, in my opinion. You're folding the second nuts just because someone raised. We have no edge if we're folding in this situation. We're going to steal the blinds a bunch of times but fold all our big hands as soon as an unknown player raises us and justifying it on the basis of the buy-in being big. That's just not good. Posted by BorinLoner
Borin - I think part of a good player's edge is knowing you they are beaten. It's a gut instinct. I'm not saying you fold every time or even most of the time, but in this instance, I can certainly see why a player may do so, and I don't necessarily think that is wrong. I remember Phil Helmuth saying he folded KK pre flop when he had been re-raised at the WSOP, because he just had a hunch the other guy had AA. Turns out he was right, and that was obviously assigning a range of a single hand! Doesn't mean I would ever recommend making a habit of folding kings pre - just that there are instances when you can do so with a fair amount of certainty.
Look, sat at the table I'm sure I'd have a bad feeling about this and think there's a really good chance I'm facing the nuts.
However, I have to be 100% sure that I'm facing the nuts to fold because, even if villain can have just one or two weaker hands, this is a losing fold.
We have no reads on this individual player so there is no way we can be 100% sure that they always have precisely the nuts. That means that, even with a gut feeling that we may be behind, the fold is necessarily a losing one and is, therefore, necessarily wrong.
Good players who follow their gut are following a gut feeling that has grown from millions of hands: Making good and bad decisions and learning from each. That gut instinct is based on experience of rational decision making. So when we have a gut feeling here, it should be in agreement with rational thought. It shouldn't override it.
Live poker is a different matter. I'm not suggesting you should follow Phil Hellmuth's gameplay, in particular, but in live play we have the ability to judge our opponents' confidence. If we face a big 5-bet from a normally nervous and tight guy who suddenly looks really comfortable, we can lay down KK. None of that information is available online.
It's not a question of gut feeling. It's a question of numbers, the strength of our hand and the likelihood that our opponent can have us beat. If you have any doubt at all about that "gut instinct" then folding is bad.
Regarding the raise size: It's a turn raise to twice the pot to almost set us in. It's irrelevant that it's 100 big blinds. It's a normal raise size, relative to the size of the pot and whether it's rational for the villain to think the money is going in on this turn. If he'd raised to 5k, would you say he looked weaker, even though we only have 7k back?
Obviously we think the villain is very strong. Our reads tell us he is almost certainly never holding a draw or airball and not overvaluing one-pair. However, we don't have reads that say he can never have weaker sets or two pairs. Against his range, we just have to call. We shouldn't be worried about it, either.
Comments
Loose passive player suddenly takes off = wow I've got the nuts
It's brutal Harry and ridic hard to fold in 15 seconds. I definitely wouldn't think of it as a big leak btw, don't think you'll be in this kinda spot very often lol.
Even if we had some specific reason to believe that this villain never gets it in without a massive hand, how are we to know that he doesn't consider QJ, JJ, 88 or 66 on this board to be the effective nuts?
I think we need steel-reinforced concrete reads, with so much money in the middle and such a massive hand, to fold in this spot. We don't have those reads, we only have an idea that some inexperienced players won't stack off without the stone colds.
I call. MattBates calls. TommyD calls. Yoyo calls. To have top set and only be losing to 1 very specific hand it'd be such a bad fold IMO. This is such a great opportunity to DU and start crushing the tournament.
I still don't think we can fold. As I said in my other post, we can't know that their range is precisely the nuts and that they're not getting it in with weaker sets or two-pairs.
Even if we're giving them just a couple of weaker made hands, we're going to be a 98% favourite versus those hands with pot odds of 34%.
Even when they have the straight, we have nearly 23% equity. We need to say "This guy can only ever have specifically this one hand" in order for the fold to be good. We don't have that read. We have the fear of that, but fear's not a good reason to fold.
Yeah only cause he only plays the nuts! He probably check/folds the turn.
16 combos of 9T
3 combos of QJ
3 combos of 88
I'm ruling out Q8/J8 cos I just don't think they're likely enough, and I think 66/JJ/QQ if they're gonna raise would do it on the flop but we can add in them extra 9 combos (3 of each) if you like.
Absolute best if you include them all 50% of the time we have a 20% shot, 50% of the time we double.
Really wanna take that kinda gamble of busting when we could just fold and have 100+ BBs and a big edge over the field?
EDIT: In fact it wouldnt even be a 20% shot would it? Cos them having sets reduces our house outs and obv gives them quad outs
Can't do that against a passive player who likes to see a flop.
Too much of an assumption. I've seen players stack off with much worse thinking its the nuts.
But in level 2 of the biggest BI, deepest stacked, slowest MTT on the site?
Just because its a higher BI... it doesnt necessarily change the thought process and style of play. We have to consider a range of hands.
We beat most of villains range IMO. And even if we are behind we have multiple outs. Im not folding.
Really unlucky, 100% 15 seconds is not long at all, i prob sigh call.
Either way, i don't think it's a mistake just a cooler as someone else said. It could well be other hands, but ineperienced passive player who all of a sudden shows massive strength they normally have it.
I agree with Larson too - as soon as those weaker players have a 'raise-****' it generally means the nuts.
Sixteen combos of 9T. Three combos of 88:
20640 / 19 = 1086
3 x 1086 = 3258
3258 x 97.73% = 3184
1086 x 16 = 17376
17376 x 22.73% = 3950
3184 + 3950 = 7134
So even when the villain has only one other hand in his range, we're only making a loss of 41 chips on a call of 7175.
Admittedly it's a "tournament life"/ICM/bubble factor question, whatever you want to call it, where the chips in our stack have a higher value than the ones in the middle. However, if he can have 88, why can't he have 66 or JJ or QJ?
So we need to put him on specifically 9T and only 9T for this fold to be correct. Even if we think 9T is nearly four times more likely than other hands, it's still a call.
Those who are saying this is a good situation for a time bank: In the words of Carlo Citrone "You're snap-calling and high-fiving the dealer!"
The idea that folding here is to protect your edge is crazy, in my opinion. You're folding the second nuts just because someone raised. We have no edge if we're folding in this situation. We're going to steal the blinds a bunch of times but fold all our big hands as soon as an unknown player raises us and justifying it on the basis of the buy-in being big. That's just not good.
This isn't 'just a raise' and it's not just because it's a bigger BI... but this villian has raised ONE HUNDRED big blinds more than our bet! People just don't do that even the tiniest bit light.
Follow your gut, man
Look, sat at the table I'm sure I'd have a bad feeling about this and think there's a really good chance I'm facing the nuts.
However, I have to be 100% sure that I'm facing the nuts to fold because, even if villain can have just one or two weaker hands, this is a losing fold.
We have no reads on this individual player so there is no way we can be 100% sure that they always have precisely the nuts. That means that, even with a gut feeling that we may be behind, the fold is necessarily a losing one and is, therefore, necessarily wrong.
Good players who follow their gut are following a gut feeling that has grown from millions of hands: Making good and bad decisions and learning from each. That gut instinct is based on experience of rational decision making. So when we have a gut feeling here, it should be in agreement with rational thought. It shouldn't override it.
Live poker is a different matter. I'm not suggesting you should follow Phil Hellmuth's gameplay, in particular, but in live play we have the ability to judge our opponents' confidence. If we face a big 5-bet from a normally nervous and tight guy who suddenly looks really comfortable, we can lay down KK. None of that information is available online.
It's not a question of gut feeling. It's a question of numbers, the strength of our hand and the likelihood that our opponent can have us beat. If you have any doubt at all about that "gut instinct" then folding is bad.
Regarding the raise size: It's a turn raise to twice the pot to almost set us in. It's irrelevant that it's 100 big blinds. It's a normal raise size, relative to the size of the pot and whether it's rational for the villain to think the money is going in on this turn. If he'd raised to 5k, would you say he looked weaker, even though we only have 7k back?
Obviously we think the villain is very strong. Our reads tell us he is almost certainly never holding a draw or airball and not overvaluing one-pair. However, we don't have reads that say he can never have weaker sets or two pairs. Against his range, we just have to call. We shouldn't be worried about it, either.