One additional observation about raise sizing... I agree with yb that a smaller three-bet would have been more effective. Something in the region of 1,025 still gets the villain to fold his weakish open-raising hands and makes it easier for you to fold AK to a shove (if you're that way inclined). With his stack, he shouldn't be flatting a raise of that size, but, if he does, you're first to speak on the flop and can put him to the test! Posted by J-Hartigan
So i'm pretty much min-raising him? Surely he calls with any2? And i'm effectively pot building with ace high OOP
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : So i'm pretty much min-raising him? Surely he calls with any2? And i'm effectively pot building with ace high OOP Posted by SHANXTA
Maybe this is the crucial point, and if he only flats, you can take away AA/KK from his range.......(if he is abc, as ur OP suggested)
Its not gonna be easy playing a flop OOP in this standard of tournament.....
But I'm sure you would back yourself to do this, and feel more comfortable doing so than you would calling off your tourny pre with AK.
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : So i'm pretty much min-raising him? Surely he calls with any2? And i'm effectively pot building with ace high OOP Posted by SHANXTA
No, he shouldn't be calling with any two, because of his stack size. In the late stages of a tournament, the 2.2x raise is effective, because players CAN'T call for value with any two. Why? Because they're not deep enough to make speculative calls and look at flops. Chip conservation is key!
A three-bet of that size gives your opponent a simple decision - shove or fold. If he flats, then he's nowhere near as solid as you think he is! And yes, you'd be OOP on the flop, but having the betting lead compensates for that. You can shove a variety of flops and put him to a difficult decision for his tournament life.
Final point from me: however good the structure of this tournament is, neither of you is THAT deep.
At the start of the hand, both you and the villain have <50bbs. Now, that's a decent stack size, but once the chips start going in, it becomes VERY difficult to get away from a hand as strong as AK.
The blinds are about to go to 100/200. And, if you fold to his four-bet (which you did), you leave yourself in "Funky Stack Land" with 28bbs. Which comes back to my point about willingness to gamble and, ultimately, playing ftw...
In Response to Re: MTT Hand - Advice / Opinions Needed Please : No, he shouldn't be calling with any two, because of his stack size. In the late stages of a tournament, the 2.2x raise is effective, because players CAN'T call for value with any two. Why? Because they're not deep enough to make speculative calls and look at flops. Chip conservation is key! A three-bet of that size gives your opponent a simple decision - shove or fold. If he flats, then he's nowhere near as solid as you think he is! And yes, you'd be OOP on the flop, but having the betting lead compensates for that. You can shove a variety of flops and put him to a difficult decision for his tournament life. Posted by J-Hartigan
Yeah I have the betting lead, but i'd be shipping 4 like ~6k into ~2k
Final point from me: however good the structure of this tournament is, neither of you is THAT deep. At the start of the hand, both you and the villain have <50bbs. Now, that's a decent stack size, but once the chips start going in, it becomes VERY difficult to get away from a hand as strong as AK. The blinds are about to go to 100/200. And, if you fold to his four-bet (which you did), you leave yourself in "Funky Stack Land" with 28bbs. Which comes back to my point about willingness to gamble and, ultimately, playing ftw... Posted by J-Hartigan
This was pretty much why I think I call in a normal tourny, but left the buy in affect me here.
Gotta gamble at some point, so why not with AK with the chips there's already out there
Its kind of fitting that you choose this one particular hand to show us ur point.. but it kind of contradics itself. Basically i got a problem with ur thoughts that its best to raise someone off a hand u believe them to be bluffing, even wen u have a hand with significant value to just call, in short this is likely to be less +EV than just calling for the times they re pop u, or call with winning hands. In the said hand it kind of highlights that you can never play a perfect game because you can never dictate the oppositions next decision.
Example hand: u have 5c, 8c or watever u wanna have, basically u only have a weak holding like 8hi on the river. if u played against villains hand face up that was J 4 & the board has come 2 7 10 10 K, and villain bets the river, by ur school of thought it would be optimal to fold right? (bcos villain is ahead) .... "WRONG"- u say with some swagger how u wud raise him off instantly and he has to pass Jack hi.. Perfect Play right?.... Wrong again, what about the times he leads J hi on the riv, u 'raise his bluff', but he re pops u all in and u cannot call and have u lost X amount of chips.
So basically u can never play perfect poker, cos opponents can be too random & unpredictable.. so to reiterate the likes of beaneh, yb, etc u have to play for the optimal/most +ev play available against your best assimillation of what the opponent will do- it can not always be the perfect decision.
I hope this makes sense to someone bt prob not.. fwiw i get ironed at NLHE lol
"ur thoughts that its best to raise someone off a hand u believe them to be bluffing, even wen u have a hand with significant value to just call, in short this is likely to be less +EV than just calling for the times they re pop u, or call with winning hands"
Does this mean raising someone when u think they r bluffing is bad, coz they might not be bluffing and call u and make u look like a muppet?
That wud be a mis-read and/or poor bet sizing (u havent bet enough, bet too much, or got involved deep in a hand with a guy who cant fold) - all 3 things u can control.
and if he has the ability to 3 bet or 3 bet shove on the river on a bluff - then he's a sh!t hot player who u shud avoid playing with where-ever possible. Shake his hand.
Ill say yet again, It's logical to try and play as close to perfect as u can, obviously u arent gonna get every decision right, but why not aim to?
Ill say yet again, It's logical to try and play as close to perfect as u can, obviously u arent gonna get every decision right, but why not aim to? Posted by DOHHHHHHH
sigh.
you're playing a range of face down cards not his 'revealed hand' at the end.
lol i can imagine beaneh banging his head on his keyboard right now....
dohh imo the hand that you posted actually shows why its a lot better to call in a lot of situations with weak s/d value rather than raise if you think your opponent is bluffing. The whole point of bluff raising is to get him to fold better hands than you have right? But obviously in the example you gave this wasnt gonna happen as this villain wasn't even folding worse hands. If your raise can never fold out any hands that beat you its not gonna be +EV (unless you can get enough calls from hands even weaker than yours but then it becomes a raise for value and not to bluff).
But basically if you have a bluff catcher against someone pretty bad I would just call down so they can continue when they don't have such a great hand as K-high with a gutshot.
haha jj you'd kill em people just dont get it, some people are more feel players and it works some people base on +ev and getting pot odds etc. but i believe both plays work so there is no wrong way to some extent
I am similar to jj, just not as good go mainly on feel and if i think i can bluff someone of a better hand i will not hesitate
Comments
Its not gonna be easy playing a flop OOP in this standard of tournament.....
But I'm sure you would back yourself to do this, and feel more comfortable doing so than you would calling off your tourny pre with AK.
Its kind of fitting that you choose this one particular hand to show us ur point.. but it kind of contradics itself. Basically i got a problem with ur thoughts that its best to raise someone off a hand u believe them to be bluffing, even wen u have a hand with significant value to just call, in short this is likely to be less +EV than just calling for the times they re pop u, or call with winning hands. In the said hand it kind of highlights that you can never play a perfect game because you can never dictate the oppositions next decision.
Example hand: u have 5c, 8c or watever u wanna have, basically u only have a weak holding like 8hi on the river. if u played against villains hand face up that was J 4 & the board has come 2 7 10 10 K, and villain bets the river, by ur school of thought it would be optimal to fold right? (bcos villain is ahead) .... "WRONG"- u say with some swagger how u wud raise him off instantly and he has to pass Jack hi.. Perfect Play right?.... Wrong again, what about the times he leads J hi on the riv, u 'raise his bluff', but he re pops u all in and u cannot call and have u lost X amount of chips.
So basically u can never play perfect poker, cos opponents can be too random & unpredictable.. so to reiterate the likes of beaneh, yb, etc u have to play for the optimal/most +ev play available against your best assimillation of what the opponent will do- it can not always be the perfect decision.
I hope this makes sense to someone bt prob not.. fwiw i get ironed at NLHE lol
Hey hotpotato, alot of the jargon u use goes over my head, but will base my reply on the hypothetical hand in the 2nd paragraph.
In your hand, the other guy, is also playing absolutely perfect poker.
If 2 players play their hand, and read teir opponents hand to perfection, then who is gonna win? - whoever has the best hand each time.
If you run into a guy who has a perfect read on you, its a sick table draw, or bad table selection.
Perfection is possible, but obviously nobody is perfect, so just aim to get as close to 100% decisions right as you can.
Just the way u guys say things.
"ur thoughts that its best to raise someone off a hand u believe them to be bluffing, even wen u have a hand with significant value to just call, in short this is likely to be less +EV than just calling for the times they re pop u, or call with winning hands"
Does this mean raising someone when u think they r bluffing is bad, coz they might not be bluffing and call u and make u look like a muppet?
That wud be a mis-read and/or poor bet sizing (u havent bet enough, bet too much, or got involved deep in a hand with a guy who cant fold) - all 3 things u can control.
and if he has the ability to 3 bet or 3 bet shove on the river on a bluff - then he's a sh!t hot player who u shud avoid playing with where-ever possible. Shake his hand.
Ill say yet again, It's logical to try and play as close to perfect as u can, obviously u arent gonna get every decision right, but why not aim to?
dohh imo the hand that you posted actually shows why its a lot better to call in a lot of situations with weak s/d value rather than raise if you think your opponent is bluffing. The whole point of bluff raising is to get him to fold better hands than you have right? But obviously in the example you gave this wasnt gonna happen as this villain wasn't even folding worse hands. If your raise can never fold out any hands that beat you its not gonna be +EV (unless you can get enough calls from hands even weaker than yours but then it becomes a raise for value and not to bluff).
But basically if you have a bluff catcher against someone pretty bad I would just call down so they can continue when they don't have such a great hand as K-high with a gutshot.
I fancy my chances against ya, 9 more months ill be a 100nl reg as i promised 3 months ago.
Rub ya hands, lick ya lips a new fish is coming
I am similar to jj, just not as good go mainly on feel and if i think i can bluff someone of a better hand i will not hesitate