Eeek. I'm with Jac here in the sense that quite a number of people have given info to help you better analyse this spot - you say that nobody has said anything that you hadn't already thought about - what you are thinking about before making your actions is not mentioned in the hand history except that the player in question hasn't been aggressive, and that it's a bounty hunter. When getting feedback, sharing how you're thinking is important, in fact it's the only thing that matters if you're wanting to learn!
A few things that came up that you didn't state, but say you'd already thought about 1. Pot odds facing the 4 bet 2. Are you assigning a range to the opponent (both open and 4-bet)? 3. Pre-flop is where you want to focus (the spot is purely pre-flop but think hhy is asking you to think about your first action)
You haven't interacted with any of these comments before concluding that you're happy with your play because you've got some conflicting feedback. Even if the end answers differ, you'll learn way more (or at least something!) by considering the parts of the puzzle that lead to the conclusion.
I said it was an excellent play. Hmm, sorry - it was silly o'clock when I wrote that (the time I'm most likely to write something, um, silly).
Here are my thoughts then.
If the player opening is tight, how does this manifest itself? So, what range is he likely to open from HJ, and how do portions of this range react to your 3-bet? Are you value betting against his range if he's continuing with everything that is better than 99? If you're bluffing here why are you choosing 99 to bluff with?
9's are just a hand that don't play well post-flop. It would almost be a lost cause if it didn't hit.
When he opens, the effective stack size is large enough to play in position down the streets and call. 99 is strong enough that it doesn't need to 'hit'. Your raise size asks him to shove or fold (ok, he does something else which we'll come to!), so for me you've already decided to call off a shove - otherwise you might as well 3b fold any 2 cards here since 99 doesn't interact with his tight opening range.
Once the 3b has gone in, you can look at the next action in isolation. The values in the hand history don't help, but it's a misleading spot in terms of pot odds anyway.
at 75/150, it goes 300, 900, 1650 at this point it's 750 to call, into a pot of 2775, so 3.7 to 1. BUT! opponent is leaving 1880 back here - if we think they shove flop 100% of the time (I've seen some strange plays but 4-betting non-all in from a 22bb initial stack to check fold flop would be something!), then actually we only realise our equity if we put the rest in, so it's effectively 2630 to call into a pot of 4665 (1.77 to 1). You need 36% equity, which 99 never has here. You scrape the equity required if you include AKo but even then it's a very high variance play, and likely there are better ways to accumulate chips than to go with this. If we're considering this we might as well shove ourselves rather than call.
I haven't included the effect of the bounty, because you haven't noted the value of it.
So, in my opinion (which, bear in mind should have less weight than other opinions here) the fold itself in isolation is ok. The huge issue with the play is that you've turned 99 into a bluff here without considering the range of the opener.
Apologies if this is obvious, but the value of collating different views and opinions isn't to work out whether your end action was correct or incorrect, it's to develop your thinking. The best thing you can do for your game is to develop the skill to be your own analyst, then when you present your thinking it will be easier for you to spot areas for improvement.
I didn't post my thought process behind the hand probably out of laziness if I am quite honest . Effectively, it wasn't a hand I was expecting a full blown analysis, I just wondered what others would have done in this spot as a GTO play. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the feedback and am taking it on board. But point taken, and I will post my thought process in more detail going-forward.
There's something troubling me about this though. You mentioned "The huge issue with the play is that you've turned 99 into a bluff here without considering the range of the opener", and I can completely see why you've reached that conclusion.
Linked to this point, but slightly off-topic, what's the etiquette on this forum about discussing notes and reads etc? The reason some of my responses on this hand have been a bit vague is because I have very specific notes on this player which led me to play like I did. However, as the player's name is visible, it doesn't really feel right to go into them in any detail. Is it fair to effectively make my notes on a specific player visible to everyone?
I guess there's a difference in analysing the hand as a GTO spot, and as analysing as an exploitative play. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this now, I'm just starting to ramble. There's a point in there somewhere, maybe.
I didn't post my thought process behind the hand probably out of laziness if I am quite honest . Effectively, it wasn't a hand I was expecting a full blown analysis, I just wondered what others would have done in this spot as a GTO play. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the feedback and am taking it on board. But point taken, and I will post my thought process in more detail going-forward.
There's something troubling me about this though. You mentioned "The huge issue with the play is that you've turned 99 into a bluff here without considering the range of the opener", and I can completely see why you've reached that conclusion.
Linked to this point, but slightly off-topic, what's the etiquette on this forum about discussing notes and reads etc? The reason some of my responses on this hand have been a bit vague is because I have very specific notes on this player which led me to play like I did. However, as the player's name is visible, it doesn't really feel right to go into them in any detail. Is it fair to effectively make my notes on a specific player visible to everyone?
I guess there's a difference in analysing the hand as a GTO spot, and as analysing as an exploitative play. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this now, I'm just starting to ramble. There's a point in there somewhere, maybe.
I suppose what I am saying here is that while I feel I can defend my play with some validity, it would rely on me effectively making notes on the opposition public, which in my mind feels wrong.
Nevertheless, from a purely GTO perspective, I understand that the PFR was wrong as the common play. As I did identify the player was non-aggressive, his raising range is quite likely to have range advantage over my hand.
Seems a bit pointless to post the hand then really if you saying you have specific reads as to why you played the hand the way you did.
Yeah, I've subsequently realised that I should have at the very least worded the question better. I was basically looking to poll whether or not people would raise, call or fold in that spot (as played), which was answered by everyone already.
I'll be more careful in the future with the descriptions around my hands.
Mini's £10 Bet vs @cal69 (shown 2nd below): Played: 18 - 20 Buy-Ins: £153.50 - £169.50 Cashes: £15.49 - £29.50
This hand was a bit horrible.
Pre: Raise 2.5x from MP, that's my usual raise size at the 50/100 level. Pretty standard play I think. Called by the opponent who I know is a very good player, and based on some other hands I felt like he may just be calling in position to try and exploit me.
Flop: Fairly dry flop and most of the time I would c-bet here, but I elected to play with a little caution against someone I know is good.
Turn: Checking and still playing with caution. I feel like this was the big mistake in the hand. I should have bet here and then shut it down on the river if I recieved a call. Given that I felt like he was trying to exploit me, a K could certainly be part of his range, but even so I should have bet here. I'm sure I would have done if it were a player I didn't think was as good. The check-call is particularly bad play. I should either be betting or check-folding.
River: Brought it on myself. Deep down when he shoved I felt like he probably had a six, but I couldn't get off it. I mean, an ace is certainly part of his range there. I would have thought through the hand combinaitons, but I'm not yet quick enough to do that within the time Sky give. A6, 66, 76, 65 = 54 combinations vs AA-A2 = over 54 combinations. Although, that would be a call to chop rather than win the hand. I'm not sure if that changes things, but as far as I can tell this call was correct?
I won’t give a full blown analysis of the hand, as you’re probably not looking for one, but calling off a 4x river overbet hoping for a chop is not great. Not great at all.
I won’t give a full blown analysis of the hand, as you’re probably not looking for one, but calling off a 4x river overbet hoping for a chop is not great. Not great at all.
Actually in this instance I wouldn't mind a full analysis if you're up for it. I believe my big error here was on the turn, although you could also argue that it happened on the flop. Not sure on the river really. He has more hands in his range that I'm not losing to - but not winning against either.
I won’t give a full blown analysis of the hand, as you’re probably not looking for one, but calling off a 4x river overbet hoping for a chop is not great. Not great at all.
Actually in this instance I wouldn't mind a full analysis if you're up for it. I believe my big error here was on the turn, although you could also argue that it happened on the flop. Not sure on the river really. He has more hands in his range that I'm not losing to - but not winning against either.
Your biggest error here is certainly river. Turn you should just fold. If he has a hand like QJs you are supposed to get bluffed sometimes. Why are you so convinced he shoves an ace for 4x pot on the river? I'm sure you wouldn't just shove an ace here so why are you so sure he would? When he's value betting you would think he is going to choose a size that can get called by a worse hand. How can he ever get called for this size when you don't have a straight? His sizing choice here is an exploitative play designed to get an ace to pay far too much. And I think he will expect you to have an ace often here.
BTW if you think the best case scenario is a chop, you are risking 4190 chips to win back 625 chips when you are right. When you are wrong you lose 4190 chips. That is a terrible trade off.
From these positions the only 6 he can really get to the river with as played is 66. But this is a such a highly specific line that 66 is probably the only hand he ever does this with. I don't know how but the stars have aligned and @hhyftrftdr has blindly stumbled into playing his hand to absolute perfection.
I won’t give a full blown analysis of the hand, as you’re probably not looking for one, but calling off a 4x river overbet hoping for a chop is not great. Not great at all.
Actually in this instance I wouldn't mind a full analysis if you're up for it. I believe my big error here was on the turn, although you could also argue that it happened on the flop. Not sure on the river really. He has more hands in his range that I'm not losing to - but not winning against either.
Your biggest error here is certainly river. Turn you should just fold. If he has a hand like QJs you are supposed to get bluffed sometimes. Why are you so convinced he shoves an ace for 4x pot on the river? I'm sure you wouldn't just shove an ace here so why are you so sure he would? When he's value betting you would think he is going to choose a size that can get called by a worse hand. How can he ever get called for this size when you don't have a straight? His sizing choice here is an exploitative play designed to get an ace to pay far too much. And I think he will expect you to have an ace often here.
BTW if you think the best case scenario is a chop, you are risking 4190 chips to win back 625 chips when you are right. When you are wrong you lose 4190 chips. That is a terrible trade off.
From these positions the only 6 he can really get to the river with as played is 66. But this is a such a highly specific line that 66 is probably the only hand he ever does this with. I don't know how but the stars have aligned and @hhyftrftdr has blindly stumbled into playing his hand to absolute perfection.
Now that I'm looking at it with fresh eyes, It's beginning to sink in just how dumb that river call was by me.
My theory about his thought process was:
Flop: Haven't hit, check behind. Turn: He was the pre-flop aggressor, and hasn't bet post-flop, maybe I can take this with a bet. River: He has shown no post-flop aggression, I can steal this with a shove.
His huge river shove is very polarising which I guess meant I partly convinced myself it could be air. But, point taken about the size of the shove compared to the pot from a strong player. I feel like the line above could be valid for a less experienced player though?
Up until the turn, he could surely be holding something like A7 or A8 though, right? With the bet on the turn being an attempt to steal after I showed no post-flop aggression.
I am slowly learning that just because you think someone is bluffing, doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the call. This seemingly catches me out on occasion.
Comments
A few things that came up that you didn't state, but say you'd already thought about
1. Pot odds facing the 4 bet
2. Are you assigning a range to the opponent (both open and 4-bet)?
3. Pre-flop is where you want to focus (the spot is purely pre-flop but think hhy is asking you to think about your first action)
You haven't interacted with any of these comments before concluding that you're happy with your play because you've got some conflicting feedback. Even if the end answers differ, you'll learn way more (or at least something!) by considering the parts of the puzzle that lead to the conclusion.
I said it was an excellent play. Hmm, sorry - it was silly o'clock when I wrote that (the time I'm most likely to write something, um, silly).
Here are my thoughts then.
If the player opening is tight, how does this manifest itself? So, what range is he likely to open from HJ, and how do portions of this range react to your 3-bet? Are you value betting against his range if he's continuing with everything that is better than 99? If you're bluffing here why are you choosing 99 to bluff with? When he opens, the effective stack size is large enough to play in position down the streets and call. 99 is strong enough that it doesn't need to 'hit'. Your raise size asks him to shove or fold (ok, he does something else which we'll come to!), so for me you've already decided to call off a shove - otherwise you might as well 3b fold any 2 cards here since 99 doesn't interact with his tight opening range.
Once the 3b has gone in, you can look at the next action in isolation. The values in the hand history don't help, but it's a misleading spot in terms of pot odds anyway.
at 75/150, it goes 300, 900, 1650
at this point it's 750 to call, into a pot of 2775, so 3.7 to 1.
BUT! opponent is leaving 1880 back here - if we think they shove flop 100% of the time (I've seen some strange plays but 4-betting non-all in from a 22bb initial stack to check fold flop would be something!), then actually we only realise our equity if we put the rest in, so it's effectively 2630 to call into a pot of 4665 (1.77 to 1). You need 36% equity, which 99 never has here. You scrape the equity required if you include AKo but even then it's a very high variance play, and likely there are better ways to accumulate chips than to go with this. If we're considering this we might as well shove ourselves rather than call.
I haven't included the effect of the bounty, because you haven't noted the value of it.
So, in my opinion (which, bear in mind should have less weight than other opinions here) the fold itself in isolation is ok. The huge issue with the play is that you've turned 99 into a bluff here without considering the range of the opener.
Apologies if this is obvious, but the value of collating different views and opinions isn't to work out whether your end action was correct or incorrect, it's to develop your thinking. The best thing you can do for your game is to develop the skill to be your own analyst, then when you present your thinking it will be easier for you to spot areas for improvement.
I didn't post my thought process behind the hand probably out of laziness if I am quite honest
There's something troubling me about this though. You mentioned "The huge issue with the play is that you've turned 99 into a bluff here without considering the range of the opener", and I can completely see why you've reached that conclusion.
Linked to this point, but slightly off-topic, what's the etiquette on this forum about discussing notes and reads etc? The reason some of my responses on this hand have been a bit vague is because I have very specific notes on this player which led me to play like I did. However, as the player's name is visible, it doesn't really feel right to go into them in any detail. Is it fair to effectively make my notes on a specific player visible to everyone?
I guess there's a difference in analysing the hand as a GTO spot, and as analysing as an exploitative play. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this now, I'm just starting to ramble. There's a point in there somewhere, maybe.
Online: Buy-Ins: £566.74 / loss of £58.92 from 83 MTT's / 7 FT's / 4 Wins
Live: Buy-Ins: £380.00 / loss of £280.00 from 7 MTT's / 0 FT's / 0 Wins
Q2 2020:
Tournaments: 29
Buy-Ins: £219.40
Cashes: £297.01
FT's: 7
Wins: 3
Mini's £10 Bet vs @cal69 (shown 2nd below):
Played: 15 - 18
Buy-Ins: £126.00 - £148.00
Cashes: £11.74 - £27.70
Nevertheless, from a purely GTO perspective, I understand that the PFR was wrong as the common play. As I did identify the player was non-aggressive, his raising range is quite likely to have range advantage over my hand.
I'll be more careful in the future with the descriptions around my hands.
Online: Buy-Ins: £566.74 / loss of £58.92 from 83 MTT's / 7 FT's / 4 Wins
Live: Buy-Ins: £380.00 / loss of £280.00 from 7 MTT's / 0 FT's / 0 Wins
Q2 2020:
Tournaments: 49
Buy-Ins: £351.44
Cashes: £399.22
FT's: 11
Wins: 3
Mini's £10 Bet vs @cal69 (shown 2nd below):
Played: 18 - 20
Buy-Ins: £153.50 - £169.50
Cashes: £15.49 - £29.50
This hand was a bit horrible.
Pre: Raise 2.5x from MP, that's my usual raise size at the 50/100 level. Pretty standard play I think. Called by the opponent who I know is a very good player, and based on some other hands I felt like he may just be calling in position to try and exploit me.
Flop: Fairly dry flop and most of the time I would c-bet here, but I elected to play with a little caution against someone I know is good.
Turn: Checking and still playing with caution. I feel like this was the big mistake in the hand. I should have bet here and then shut it down on the river if I recieved a call. Given that I felt like he was trying to exploit me, a K could certainly be part of his range, but even so I should have bet here. I'm sure I would have done if it were a player I didn't think was as good. The check-call is particularly bad play. I should either be betting or check-folding.
River: Brought it on myself. Deep down when he shoved I felt like he probably had a six, but I couldn't get off it. I mean, an ace is certainly part of his range there. I would have thought through the hand combinaitons, but I'm not yet quick enough to do that within the time Sky give. A6, 66, 76, 65 = 54 combinations vs AA-A2 = over 54 combinations. Although, that would be a call to chop rather than win the hand. I'm not sure if that changes things, but as far as I can tell this call was correct?
Called by the opponent who I know is a very good player
First time Plumpy has ever been called that.
@hhyftrftdr
I won’t give a full blown analysis of the hand, as you’re probably not looking for one, but calling off a 4x river overbet hoping for a chop is not great. Not great at all.
Anyway, let's not derail Peter's tough river decision.
Have never had this level of concentration deficit or indifference. Think I may have over-played recently.
Tomorrow may well be a rest day.
BTW if you think the best case scenario is a chop, you are risking 4190 chips to win back 625 chips when you are right. When you are wrong you lose 4190 chips. That is a terrible trade off.
From these positions the only 6 he can really get to the river with as played is 66. But this is a such a highly specific line that 66 is probably the only hand he ever does this with. I don't know how but the stars have aligned and @hhyftrftdr has blindly stumbled into playing his hand to absolute perfection.
My theory about his thought process was:
Flop: Haven't hit, check behind.
Turn: He was the pre-flop aggressor, and hasn't bet post-flop, maybe I can take this with a bet.
River: He has shown no post-flop aggression, I can steal this with a shove.
His huge river shove is very polarising which I guess meant I partly convinced myself it could be air. But, point taken about the size of the shove compared to the pot from a strong player. I feel like the line above could be valid for a less experienced player though?
Up until the turn, he could surely be holding something like A7 or A8 though, right? With the bet on the turn being an attempt to steal after I showed no post-flop aggression.
I am slowly learning that just because you think someone is bluffing, doesn't necessarily mean you have to make the call. This seemingly catches me out on occasion.