Tough bubble hand

Amaru · 12-12-2005 1:27am #1

$10 STT on PPP. 4 left, the usual 3 get paid. CL is in the SB, and is very aggressive, raising and reraising a lot of pots. Several hands earlier, i called him down for half his stack with second pair, where he was bluffing with Q high. He regained a significant chip lead again in the few hands leading up to this one. This hand, i get dealt AK in the BB.

$10 - NL - 9 Seats 5966660-47 Holdem No Limit 150/300
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Hand Start.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 1 : amallin has $1,180
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 2 : Shiloh00711 has $7,480
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 7 : Amaru has $5,740
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 9 : luckyboy30 has $3,600
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : amallin is the dealer.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Shiloh00711 posted small blind.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Amaru posted big blind.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Game [47] started with 4 players.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Dealing Hole Cards.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 7 : Amaru has Ad Kd
[Dec 11 17:26:02] : luckyboy30 folded.
[Dec 11 17:26:02] : amallin folded.
[Dec 11 17:26:03] : Shiloh00711 called 150
[Dec 11 17:26:06] : Amaru raised 300
[Dec 11 17:26:08] : Shiloh00711 called 300
[Dec 11 17:26:08] : Dealing flop.
[Dec 11 17:26:08] : Board cards [5s 3h 2c]
[Dec 11 17:26:09] : Stakes: 150/300 Current level: 5 Next level in: 7 min.
[Dec 11 17:26:10] : Shiloh00711 checked.
[Dec 11 17:26:11] : Amaru checked.
[Dec 11 17:26:11] : Dealing turn.
[Dec 11 17:26:11] : Board cards [5s 3h 2c Ks]
[Dec 11 17:26:14] : Shiloh00711 checked.
[Dec 11 17:26:17] : Amaru bet 1,000
[Dec 11 17:26:20] : Shiloh00711 called 1,000 and raised 5,880 and is All-in

Do you call or fold with TPTK here?

De Deraco · 12-12-2005 1:33am

call every time

Sinfonia · 12-12-2005 1:38am

i call too

valor · 12-12-2005 8:43am

raise more preflop
bet the the flop
and autocall his all in

padser · 12-12-2005 9:56am

If you are going to call a raise why bother betting 1000? Why not just move all in and get the folding equity? The only reason i can think of to bet 1000 is to
a)try to extract a call from him he wouldnt make to an all in (which is a bad idea as it gives him the option to make a strong play and leave you wondering where you stand, )
b)see if you are in front with the intention of folding if you are not.

I cant see what your are beihind to other then 55 or maybe K5 or A4 (all played v badly). The 1000 looks like a weak bet so maybe he simply senses weakness and thinks you can be pushed off the hand. For me its a call almost every time. Folding leaves you with 3500, you can prob still make the money but you need to be winning STT for it to be worthwhile imo.

Edit * I mis read orginal post when writing this. edited below.

Ste05 · 12-12-2005 10:18am

1) Bet an extra BB pre-flop,
2) Bet the flop, 400 - 600 (make this your standard continuation bet from here whether u have it or not - risking the minimum to win the pot - let other people risk their whole stack playing back at you, if you have it - knock them out, if you don't - fold - easy decisions)
3) Don't over bet the turn like this. The pot is 600, why are you betting 1000 into the CL??
As it's played out, you'd have to rely on the whole previous history of the tournament and how every hand worked out to make the right decision here.
But this is exactly what you don't want to have to do, you want to give yourself easy decisions to make, do the exact same play when you have a good hand as you do when you're stealing,

padser · 12-12-2005 10:30am

padser wrote:

If you are going to call a raise why bother betting 1000? Why not just move all in and get the folding equity? The only reason i can think of to bet 1000 is to
a)try to extract a call from him he wouldnt make to an all in (which is a bad idea as it gives him the option to make a strong play and leave you wondering where you stand, )
b)see if you are in front with the intention of folding if you are not.

I cant see what your are beihind to other then 55 or maybe K5 or A4 (all played v badly). The 1000 looks like a weak bet so maybe he simply senses weakness and thinks you can be pushed off the hand. For me its a call almost every time. Folding leaves you with 3500, you can prob still make the money but you need to be winning STT for it to be worthwhile imo.

Sorry, i misread the original post. I thought the raises were 3000 pre flop. Not 300. Im actually inclined to fold here. And id agree you should def have bet the flop. pot sized bet.

Amaru · 12-12-2005 2:06pm

I've been check raised for everything i have after over betting the pot, and only one person so far has advocated folding?!

Ste05 · 12-12-2005 2:25pm

Amaru wrote:

I've been check raised for everything i have after over betting the pot, and only one person so far has advocated folding?!

Was there a reason why you didn't bet the flop?? Or why you over bet the turn??

Without more info, it's hard to come to a decision...

Rnger · 12-12-2005 4:48pm

At this stage of the STT I almost always bet 3xBB total whether im stealing or have a hand. If i was the villian here i could have any two cards, because your raise indicates you have a hand and if i hit the perfect flop i will get paid more than likely. Otherwise i could just bet you out of the hand, the villian had a perfect chance to bet on the flop with all the low cards and leads me to believe he may be trapping you... but since this is a $10 sng on ppp id be inclined to call

ditpoker · 12-12-2005 4:57pm

Amaru wrote:

[Dec 11 17:26:17] : Amaru bet 1,000
[Dec 11 17:26:20] : Shiloh00711 called 1,000 and raised 5,880 and is All-in

Do you call or fold with TPTK here?

what did you do in the end?

MrPillowTalk · 12-12-2005 7:43pm

I think you are probably winning here more often than not, but its very close, you let him see the flop too cheaply. Given your description of villain and his play prior to this hand I would be inclined to think that if you are the better player to fold and get your chips in against him in a better situation.

Against an aggresive player like this you really have to make them pay to outdraw you, in future 4bb bet preflop.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 12:45am

ditpoker wrote:

what did you do in the end?

Originally, i was going to put this in the "bad beat/wow" sticky, in this case focusing on the wow part. I'm actually the villain in the piece, and here's how the hand played out

$10 - NL - 9 Seats 5966660-47 Holdem No Limit 150/300
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Hand Start.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 1 : amallin has $1,180
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 2 : Amaru has $7,480
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 7 : Shiloh00711 has $5,740
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 9 : luckyboy30 has $3,600
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : amallin is the dealer.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Amaru posted small blind.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Shiloh00711 posted big blind.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Game [47] started with 4 players.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Dealing Hole Cards.
[Dec 11 17:25:58] : Seat 2 : Amaru has As 4c
[Dec 11 17:26:02] : luckyboy30 folded.
[Dec 11 17:26:02] : amallin folded.
[Dec 11 17:26:03] : Amaru called 150
[Dec 11 17:26:06] : Shiloh00711 raised 300
[Dec 11 17:26:08] : Amaru called 300
[Dec 11 17:26:08] : Dealing flop.
[Dec 11 17:26:08] : Board cards [5s 3h 2c]
[Dec 11 17:26:09] : Stakes: 150/300 Current level: 5 Next level in: 7 min.
[Dec 11 17:26:10] : Amaru checked.
[Dec 11 17:26:11] : Shiloh00711 checked.
[Dec 11 17:26:11] : Dealing turn.
[Dec 11 17:26:11] : Board cards [5s 3h 2c Ks]
[Dec 11 17:26:14] : Amaru checked.
[Dec 11 17:26:17] : Shiloh00711 bet 1,000
[Dec 11 17:26:20] : Amaru called 1,000 and raised 5,880 and is All-in
[Dec 11 17:26:25] : Shiloh00711 called 4,140 and is All-in
[Dec 11 17:26:26] : Showdown!
[Dec 11 17:26:26] : Seat 2 : Amaru has As 4c
[Dec 11 17:26:28] : Seat 2 : Amaru has As 4c
[Dec 11 17:26:28] : Seat 7 : Shiloh00711 has Kd Ad
[Dec 11 17:26:28] : Amaru : haha
[Dec 11 17:26:28] : Stakes: 150/300 Current level: 5 Next level in: 6 min.
[Dec 11 17:26:33] : Board cards [5s 3h 2c Ks Jc]
[Dec 11 17:26:33] : Seat 2 : Amaru has As 4c
[Dec 11 17:26:33] : Amaru has Straight 5432A
[Dec 11 17:26:33] : Seat 7 : Shiloh00711 has Kd Ad
[Dec 11 17:26:33] : Shiloh00711 has Pair: Kings
[Dec 11 17:26:33] : Amaru wins 11,480 with Straight 5432A

The reason i didn't put this in the sticky is because it illustrates something which i consider to be one of the most basic tenets of tournament poker, but after Iago and NickyOD's threads in the last couple of days, and the responses to them, apparently most people don't share my view.

As stated by several of the posts, the AK played the hand horribly. He min raised from the BB, then didn't continuation bet the flop, and then put an overbet in on the turn. However, this is not his biggest mistake. His biggest mistake, to me, was this:

He got involved in a big pot with the chip leader on the bubble.

This is a cardinal sin to me. First of all, look at the stack sizes. One stack has less than 4BB, and was very happy to get blinded away while he waited for the Aces that were never coming. Secondly, look at the AK's stack. He's second chip leader, with a very favourable 19BB. If he'd bet the pot on the turn, and then thrown his hand away when i check raised him, he'd still be second in chips, albeit not by much. Instead, he chose to get involved with the one person at the table who could leave him with nothing for the tournament. Does this not seem like a fundamentally bad idea to anybody else? The other 2 can't really afford to not to get into pots with the CL, because they need the chips, so your choices are to get into pots with them and put pressure on them, or let the CL get involved in pots with them, which either decreases his stack, or moves you into the money. They're both favourable outcomes.

The other interesting this about this hand is that people just cannot seem to fold top pair at his level. Iago made reference to the reason why its so easy to make money with these players a couple of days ago, and it really resonated with me. Before, i used to wait for solid hands, and get people to get all their money in with top pair and then outkicker them. Then i figured out there's a much easier way to do it. So now i just play a lot more hands(usually as cheaply as possible), and when i turn 2 pair or better, i get it all in the middle, and somebody with top pair will always call the huge overbet. Because somebody almost always calls, i'm getting huge implied odds to play trash. It's not that big of a crime to fold top pair, and if you're going to play a big pot, i makes more sense to have a big hand.

I want to get some feedback from people on what i've written before i write anymore on this.

Hectorjelly · 13-12-2005 1:03am

Limping utg with A4o is a cardinal sin.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 1:05am

I have a reason for this, and i'll get to that eventually. It's the same reason i check the flop.

Any opinions on what i've written?

RoundTower · 13-12-2005 4:22am

padser wrote:

If you are going to call a raise why bother betting 1000? Why not just move all in and get the folding equity? The only reason i can think of to bet 1000 is to
a)try to extract a call from him he wouldnt make to an all in (which is a bad idea as it gives him the option to make a strong play and leave you wondering where you stand, )
b)see if you are in front with the intention of folding if you are not.

This is a terrible misapplication of the term "folding equity". The reason you bet here is to get called by a worse hand, not to push out a hand that is ahead or that could profitably call a small bet. I think both players misplayed the hand. That said, if I had played the AK like this, I would call against a very aggressive player who is "raising and reraising" (or even just betting and raising) a lot.

RoundTower · 13-12-2005 4:29am

Amaru wrote:

Any opinions on what i've written?

Internet SNGs are funny in that they reward you massively for creeping into 3rd place. So you should avoid risking going out on the bubble, much more than you should in a "normal" tournament. But there is a limit to what edges you can pass up in order to squeak into the money, and in this case you can do almost as much damage to him as he can to you (he will be very short stacked if he doubles you up). So why not get involved in a big pot with the chip leader when you have a big hand?

Ste05 · 13-12-2005 10:10am

RoundTower wrote:

in this case you can do almost as much damage to him as he can to you (he will be very short stacked if he doubles you up). So why not get involved in a big pot with the chip leader when you have a big hand?

I agree with you there Roundtower. I'd say try not to steal as much off him compared to the shorter stacks, but you can't be afraid of someone just because they have more chips then you. If you've left his BB alone for an orbit or two, try taking it and see what he does. I always use around the bubble for probing to see how my opponents short handed game is and I'm trying to set myself with the image I want for later, and to set up for a run at first place.

Done right it's easy to set up an image of being a bit loose and aggressive, and by controlling the table you can massage pots, so you risk the minimum, whereas your opponent knows he's risking his whole stack if he plays on in the hand. You may not be willing to play for his whole stack, but he won't know when this is.

I've certainly found this kind of controlled aggression is much more effective and profitable than limping with rubbish and hoping to hit. Although TBH, I'm not sure I've tried the auld limp into lots of pots hoping to hit, since I started playing years ago.....

Amaru · 13-12-2005 12:44pm

RoundTower wrote:

This is a terrible misapplication of the term "folding equity". The reason you bet here is to get called by a worse hand, not to push out a hand that is ahead or that could profitably call a small bet. I think both players misplayed the hand. That said, if I had played the AK like this, I would call against a very aggressive player who is "raising and reraising" (or even just betting and raising) a lot.

I don't think i misplayed the hand for one very good reason, the guy was a calling station. This hand was uncharecteristic of me because i usually always raise with an A short handed, I almost always bet the flop, and i almost never check raise. I was playing aggressively, but nowhere near maniacal. However the Q high hand several hands earlier was significant. I was betting strongly into him because i knew he didn't have top pair(i was betting my flush draw), but he just couldn't fold if he had any piece of the board. He bet when he had top pair, called when he had something else, and folded when he had nothing. My table image was perfect for this hand after the Q high hand as he'd actually typed "BLUFFER" into the chat, and a few hands later encouraged somebody to "CALL HIM" on a raggedy flop, whereas they went out with an underpair to my top pair.

With these 2 things in mind, now look at the hand. I don't bet my Ace because if i only turn a 4, i won't be able to bluff him off the pot if he has any piece of it. Now if i do turn an Ace, i can still probably win a nice sized pot, even if i haven't built one, because he can't fold. Now when he min raised i put him on a medium pair, or some broadway(incidentally, i never even considered AKs because of the raise). When the flop came down, if i bet that, and he has no piece, i've potentially lost a lot chips, because he'll autofol. If he bets, and he will if he has that medium pair, i can just check raise him then. It's also a rainbow flop, so no one card on the turn can hurt me. I don't think slow playing is a bad move here. When the turn comes down and he bets, i know he has a king, probably KQ or KJ(like i said, i never figured AK), so now i can check raise him for everything knowing that he's still going to call. He didn't even consider folding, it was an insta-call.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 12:49pm

RoundTower wrote:

Internet SNGs are funny in that they reward you massively for creeping into 3rd place. So you should avoid risking going out on the bubble, much more than you should in a "normal" tournament. But there is a limit to what edges you can pass up in order to squeak into the money, and in this case you can do almost as much damage to him as he can to you (he will be very short stacked if he doubles you up). So why not get involved in a big pot with the chip leader when you have a big hand?

If the chip leader has shown himself to be a better player than you, or at least to be a very competent player, then you should be very careful. By all means play a small pot, but you need a big hand to play a big pot. Here, he has top pair top kicker, but if a normally aggressive player checks to you twice, and then check raises you for everything, you have to at least evaluate how strong your hand is. This hand is probably not a great example because of the raggedy flop, but i was looking to see how many people considered the stack sizes, not the cards, when giving their answer.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 1:24pm

Ste05 wrote:

I agree with you there Roundtower. I'd say try not to steal as much off him compared to the shorter stacks, but you can't be afraid of someone just because they have more chips then you. If you've left his BB alone for an orbit or two, try taking it and see what he does. I always use around the bubble for probing to see how my opponents short handed game is and I'm trying to set myself with the image I want for later, and to set up for a run at first place.

Done right it's easy to set up an image of being a bit loose and aggressive, and by controlling the table you can massage pots, so you risk the minimum, whereas your opponent knows he's risking his whole stack if he plays on in the hand. You may not be willing to play for his whole stack, but he won't know when this is.

I've certainly found this kind of controlled aggression is much more effective and profitable than limping with rubbish and hoping to hit. Although TBH, I'm not sure I've tried the auld limp into lots of pots hoping to hit, since I started playing years ago.....

This approach only works if the chip lead isn't a good player. A good chip leader will put the pressure back on you, making you think you're playing for your whole stack/tournament life. If you can get the American Poker Championship, you'll see Ivey do this a lot. At the start, 10 left, 9 get paid, Paul phillips has a big stack too. They get involved in a pot when there's people who are extremely short stacked. Phillips tries to keep the pot small because of this concept, but Ivey keeps putting the pressure on, making big raises which represent large portions of Philips' stack.

As far as the tight aggressive style, i used to play this up until about a month ago, but i felt you're passing up a lot of big edges by not out playing people with trash. This isn't play any 2 and hope to catch a lucky flop, this is positional play and picking on weak-tight opponents(like i said, don't take this hand as an example of it, it's very uncharecteristic). If you can get away from a hand cheaply, i think this is a very effective style of play, as evidenced by people like Negreanu, Hansen and Farha.

MrPillowTalk · 13-12-2005 1:52pm

I think there is some merit to your theory that seeing flops cheaply trying to catch a big hand as you will more often then not get paid at this level.

However your statement that his mistake was to get involved with the other big stack on the bubble is fundamentally flawed, its true that big confrontations with the big stacks are unadviseable on the bubble however with a hand as strong as AK he should be avoiding the big confrontation by making sure you dont get a value shot at his chips. If I get AK four handed with no obvious signs of strength from my opponents then there is only one way Im playing it . . . . . . fast. If someone wants to try and outdraw me they can pay for the privelage.

Also playing this style will lead you to create habits that will ultimately cost you money as you move up in limits and the opposition stop paying you off. I havent played 10stts in a long time but if this is the standard of play then the style you advocate can probably be a winning one, however it will be quite high variance i.e. if a bare ace flops there then you will have to have a shot at the pot, in that scenario you at best are going to lose circa one third of your stack just finding out your behind a better ace. I believe that the best option when tackling games at this level is to play TAG poker, let your superior hand selection win these small stts for you, play your strong hands fast not giving up any edge by offering attractive odds to your opponents.

Ste05 · 13-12-2005 2:05pm

Amaru wrote:

This approach only works if the chip lead isn't a good player. A good chip leader will put the pressure back on you, making you think you're playing not just for your whole stack, but for your whole tournament life. If you can get the American Poker Championship, you'll see Ivey do this a lot. At the start, 10 left, 9 get paid, Paul phillips has a big stack too. They get involved in a pot when there's people who's extremely short stacked. Phillips tries to keep the pot small because of this concept, but Ivey keeps putting the pressure on, making big raises which represent large portions of Philips' stack.

Well normally you won't be playing against Phil Ivey, and you'll know well before what standard of player the CL is, so as I said you probe and find out more information about his short handed game. Or just avoid his BB without a premium starting hand, to begin with, when he plays back at you, teach him manners and tell him to fold in future. How you do this is up to you.

And then you adjust to his style. I try to constantly adjust my game to take account of my opponents. But I try and make the CL afraid of me, either because it looks like I'm a maniac, or whatever, but he will avoid me because I'm the only one who can damage his stack. But just following one simple rule can avoid alot of this, i.e. if he has voluntarily entered the pot before you and you have no money committed nor have very good cards just avoid him.

Amaru wrote:

As far as the tight aggressive style, i used to play this up until about a month ago, but i felt you're passing up a lot of big edges by not out playing people with trash. This isn't play any 2 and hope to catch a lucky flop, this is positional play and picking on weak-tight opponents(like i said, don't take this hand as an example of it, it's very uncharecteristic). If you can get away from a hand cheaply, i think this is a very effective style of play, as evidenced by people like Negreanu, Hansen and Farha.

Who said anything about tight, it's 4 handed, I doubt many people are waiting for their turn with the Aces??
My problem is with all this limping. You refer to Daniel N, Sammy Farha, Hansen, etc. however, I don't really think their styles are comparable to a solid $5 or $10 On-line STT Bubble strategy. These players may like to see alot of cheap flops, BUT they then rely on their reading skills to outplay their opponents.

The major problem I have with this style is all the limping, why are you trying to minimise losses the whole time instead of trying to maximise winnings. But if this strategy works for you then so be it. But it certainly wouldn't suit my style of game.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 2:16pm

I think there is some merit to your theory that seeing flops cheaply trying to catch a big hand as you will more often then not get paid at this level.

However your statement that his mistake was to get involved with the other big stack on the bubble is fundamentally flawed, its true that big confrontations with the big stacks are unadviseable on the bubble however with a hand as strong as AK he should be avoiding the big confrontation by making sure you dont get a value shot at his chips. If I get AK four handed with no obvious signs of strength from my opponents then there is only one way Im playing it . . . . . . fast. If someone wants to try and outdraw me they can pay for the privelage.

You haven't told me why my theory is fundamentally flawed, you only told me that he played the hand incorrectly, which has already been established. Also, i'd like to point out that this isn't "my theory" per se, i've seen this reiterated hundreds of times before by very good tournament players.

And trying to see a lot of flops cheaply does not only work at low level STT's, like i said, some of the best tournament players in the world play this style. If you have good instincts and a good ability to put an opponent on a hand, but have no trouble throwing your hand away, then this is a very profitable style of play.

I believe that the best option when tackling games at this level is to play TAG poker, let your superior hand selection win these small stts for you, play your strong hands fast not giving up any edge by offering attractive odds to your opponents.

Like i said, TAG poker can be an effective style, but you're passing up on a lot of edges, some very big, by limiting yourself to good starting hands, especially if you feel you can outplay your opponents. However, i actually think only knowing how to play TAG will cost you money as you move up the limits, as smart opponents will stop paying you off. At the end of the day though, it's 2 sides to the same coin. Both styles are effective, its just how and when they're applied.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 2:32pm

Ste05 wrote:

Well normally you won't be playing against Phil Ivey, and you'll know well before what standard of player the CL is, so as I said you probe and find out more information about his short handed game. Or just avoid his BB without a premium starting hand, to begin with, when he plays back at you, teach him manners and tell him to fold in future. How you do this is up to you.

My point wasn't about watching out for Phil Ivey sitting at your STT, it was about your strategy only being good until a certain limit. Moving up the limits, people figure out how to play the big stack/chip lead more effectively, and i'm trying to condition myself for that, and also put that style into practice. Iago posted this exact scenario the other day, where the chip lead put him to a decision for his tournament on a coinflip.

And then you adjust to his style. I try to constantly adjust my game to take account of my opponents. But I try and make the CL afraid of me, either because it looks like I'm a maniac, or whatever, but he will avoid me because I'm the only one who can damage his stack. But just following one simple rule can avoid alot of this, i.e. if he has voluntarily entered the pot before you and you have no money committed nor have very good cards just avoid him.

You say the CL should be afraid of you because you're the only one who can damage his stack. Can you not see the application of the theory here? If the chip leader is afraid of you, then he's not playing the chip lead correctly.

Who said anything about tight, it's 4 handed, I doubt many people are waiting for their turn with the Aces??
My problem is with all this limping. You refer to Daniel N, Sammy Farha, Hansen, etc. however, I don't really think their styles are comparable to a solid $5 or $10 On-line STT Bubble strategy. These players may like to see alot of cheap flops, BUT they then rely on their reading skills to outplay their opponents.

The major problem I have with this style is all the limping, why are you trying to minimise losses the whole time instead of trying to maximise winnings. But if this strategy works for you then so be it. But it certainly wouldn't suit my style of game.

You're mixing up 2 different conversations here. My loose, see a lot of flops style of poker isn't for when you're short handed/on the bubble. Its in the early levels, when its inexpensive to see flops. You also assume i'm limping with every hand, when that's not the case either. In an unopened pot i'm raising with a WIDE range of hands from mid/late-late position. Here's where your instincts come in. If there's a lot of callers behind you, you have to figure out if you're behind or ahead, and what you can represent. I'm not relying completly on "lucky" flops, although this is one of the advantages of playing almost any 2. You rely on good instincts to play this way. You're not trying to "minimize losses", there's just a huge amount of reward compared to very little risk playing hands like these in the early levels, especially against people who can't fold top pair, or worse sometimes.

Iago · 13-12-2005 2:35pm

I posted about STTs before but I can't remember how long ago and I can't be bothered searching so apologies if you feel you've read this before, you probably have

For me STTs are about time and money, both are commodities that I use to calculate the worth of Poker to me as opposed to going out, or watching football or going to the gym etc. As a result in the early stages of an STT I'm more than willing to play hard and fast and have a go at racing players for chips. I'll take almost any shot at a hand where I feel I'll be 50/50 or better on and I'll force you to make a decision for all your chips if I believe I can get you to call me preflop.

At the same time I don't play any two cards I get and I still pick my opening hands very carefully, I don't subscribe to the seeing lots of flops cheaply in STTs. Consider it this way, if you see 5 flops at the first level in an stt (depending on which site you're playing on) you could have lost anything between 5-10% of your stack without anything to show for it. What happens when you hit level 2 or level 3?

My theory is simple, if I lose I fire up another table and I haven't lost that much time. If I win I've doubled up and I can almost autoplay to a money finish and play aggressively if I want to take 1st place (which I always do) If 50% of the time I'm almost guaranteed an ITM finish then over time this will prove to be a profitable strategy. If I lose 50% of the time then I've saved myself a huge amount of time by not playing tightly and then finishing just outside the money anyway, so for me it's a win win situation.

Once I double up, or if I've not had the chance to double up, and we're down to the last 6 or so, or up to say level 4 of blinds, it's all about an ITM finish from there. Depending on what the table has been like for the first 4 levels, I'll play aggressively and steal blinds and min/double bb raises. Or I'll play passively and look to outplay players postflop, at this stage my target is generally the bigger stacks, they haven't got comfortable yet and they can fold and wait for other chances against me.

When you get down to the last 4 then making the money is key, sneaking into 3rd is a hell of a lot better than busting out in 4th and as a result I tend not to get involved in pots where there has been action in front of me. I play very few marginal hands and I look to trap by switching back to a slower style than I've been using before.

While I agree with the principle behind Amarus statement in that you should avoid tangling with the big stack on the bubble, I don't agree with this particular application. In the case I posted up I was faced with a decision for all of my chips preflop. I raised and was re-raised by the CL, I stand by the initial raise, the question then becomes whether or not I want to take a race at that stage of the tournament, obviously I didn't.

In the hand Amaru has provided, I think that the preflop raise was far too small. Had he raised to 600/750 would you have called as quickly? I think it was a bad call anyway in that your expectation from that hand is pretty much zero unless you get a miracle flop.

You got your miracle flop so now what, the initial raiser checks into you, and you check behind. He should have bet 1/2 Pot ~ Pot and you should definitely have thrown out a small bet once he didn't.

On the turn, he has to believe he's ahead and fires out a bet to show that. You come over the top with an all-in and he presumes wrongly that you don't believe he has the K and that you're trying to bully him off the pot in a situation where the relative stack sizes and remaining players allows you to do this with almost any hand. He has to have a very strong holding to call you in this position. So maybe he thinks you're bluffing and he calls and pays the price. There's no way he can put you an A4, a set is a possibility, but it's equally likely that you're holding Kx or and up and down straight draw and playing for folding equity as well as the opportunity to outdraw him.

As it turned out, the way you played the hand based on your read of his reaction was fine and it had the desired effect, so you can't complain. But playing A4 like that will get you in more trouble over time than it will get you out of.

In general terms I think trying to avoid the CL when it's down to the bubble is a good strategy but it depends on who the CL is, how they got the chips and what you're holding. If you had AA or KK would you get involved with the CL? What about QQ-JJ, AKs on a flop of K Q 8?

It's all very subjective and while stack size is very important in these decisions there are other factors to consider. I don't believe it's always a sin to take on the CL in a bubble situation, but I would agree that it's a big mistake not to consider stack sizes and probability before you do so.

Amaru · 13-12-2005 2:46pm

Like i said, this hand isn't perfect, i just thought it was interesting that others didn't share my view when yourself and nicky posted, and this was the next immediate example that came up.

Also, as previously stated, i'd almost never play a hand like this, it was purely read based.

In general terms I think trying to avoid the CL when it's down to the bubble is a good strategy but it depends on who the CL is, how they got the chips and what you're holding. If you had AA or KK would you get involved with the CL? What about QQ-JJ, AKs on a flop of K Q 8?

It's all very subjective and while stack size is very important in these decisions there are other factors to consider. I don't believe it's always a sin to take on the CL in a bubble situation, but I would agree that it's a big mistake not to consider stack sizes and probability before you do so.

This is very true, its not a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions to this, especially how competent the CL is. But in general, i think it's better to win a small pot off the chip lead. Exceptions to this are when you have a big hand, like AA-QQ, but you need to have a sizable chance of winning before you try win a big pot off him.

And no, if he'd played the hand anyway correctly, it probably wouldn't have played out the way it did. As it stood though, with the way he was playing, it was only a matter of time before somebody took all his chips.

MrPillowTalk · 13-12-2005 11:35pm

Amaru wrote:

You haven't told me why my theory is fundamentally flawed, you only told me that he played the hand incorrectly
QUOTE]

I never said your theory was flawed I said exactly the opposite in fact, what I said was your statement was flawed, your statement advocated not playing AK four handed, In my opinion THIS is flawed.

As regards successful players who play this loose style, yes there are many and you are absolutely right in stating that if you are too selective in your hands then at higher limits better players will stop paying you off. Perhaps my post was unclear what I am trying to tell you is that the loose style can be profitable at your level of play HOWEVER my experience has shown me that at such a low level TAG poker is more profitable and offers you less variance on your investment.

As regards increasing limits I think successful players play neither style exclusively but rather learn to adopt to particular game conditions i.e. if a table allows you to run over it then by all means do, however poker is not a competition to see who can run over the table.

Ultimately I stand by my earlier posts point in that you are putting too much at risk in this pot i.e. an ace flops there and you are at best going to lose 30% plus of your stack.

Amaru · 14-12-2005 12:05am

My statement was not to pass on AK short handed, or anything like it. It was that if you are going to put your tournament life on the line, then you have to make sure you have a hand that is very strong. The cards are not the important thing here, the stack sizes are.

Ultimately I stand by my earlier posts point in that you are putting too much at risk in this pot i.e. an ace flops there and you are at best going to lose 30% plus of your stack.

How? I can't control the cards that are dealt, so he has me out kicked no matter what way i play. I haven't put anything into this pot but 450 of my 7500 chips. This is all i stand to lose, unless i make some sort of huge mistake. Unlike him, i'm not a complete donkey, so i'm not going to overbet the pot on every street while he calls me, desperately hoping that my kicker is good. If he's calling, i'm slowing down. I have no trouble throwing top pair, weak kicker away if there's too much action.

MrPillowTalk · 14-12-2005 12:18am

If an ace flopped you would think you were ahead, in order to find out you were behind it is going to cost you a bet or a raise and even then you will probably take a look at the turn if he is as you describe him ie a calling station.

Amaru · 14-12-2005 12:20am

If you're going to play trash hands, the first thing you have to learn is when you're behind. If you raise from middle position with something like T8 off, and there's callers behind, and you don't know when to slow down, you'll lose your stack very quickly. Controlling pot size is also vital. I'm not worried about giving up my chip lead here though, because if it happens, it happens, i still feel like i can outplay enough people to get it back.

Tough bubble hand

Comments