TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
If BTN’s range is truly that tight, then this is probably a fold, but that would be an incredibly tight range for BTN to have in this spot. It’s certainly true that the limper can have a limp/shoving range, but you have a blocker to the most likely hands someone might limp/shove with for trapping purposes (AA, AK).
I expect the BTN to have hands like 77-88, KJo+, JTs+ in their range at least some portion of the time here. If the limper is pretty loose, they can probably be wider than that in the knowledge that there simply isn’t going to be much limp/shoving going on at all. I think just slamming it in there with AJs is fine here for 26bb effective, especially since you have everyone else covered by so much.
February 8, 2017
Is this the final table? Regardless, I think I’m jamming here something like ATs,AJo,KQs,99 if not a bit wider. I like jamming with big cards better than medium pairs because of blockers and expecting EP traps to be big pair heavy. Having both players covered is a great reason to widen our range somewhat, and it is entirely possible button is pretty wide if he is attacking a weak limper, which he should be when guaranteed position post-flop. If I’ve never seen MP1 limp over a reasonable (~50 but ideally >150 hand) sample, then I am wary of a trap and would expect BUT to be tighter as well (if both players have been at the table for awhile). That being said AJs is probably still in my jamming range, but it might be better as a fold.
Even if UTG thinks they are trapping, I see players make this play with 88-TT often enough that I don’t think we’re always crushed by their limp-calls.
How do people feel about making a ~9bb 3bet planning to call off vs. any jam but fold if both players shove? Kind of awkward but I never expect to be in decent shape if both are willing to get all in, and think we can fold even if it is a chipEV math mistake. I think we may cap our range, at least in villains’ eyes (whether or not we are actually capped), to having less QQ+ when we jam.
February 8, 2017
almofadinhas said
I will have to check my ranges, Ginger and DDD thinks BTN is wider than I thought. I will try to find similar situations at this room.
This is somewhat player dependent and (at least in my case) based on population reads at slightly higher stakes on a different site. It’s possible BTN range is quite tight here, but hard to imagine many players are folding suited Broadways and hands like A9s against an UTG limp so, unless you expect BTN is limping behind with those hands, its safe to assume you are ahead of a healthy portion of their range. It’s not a mandatory shove, considering that you may never be doing better than a flip when your shove gets called, but you have an opportunity to pick up >5bb uncontested, which should happen often enough to make the shove very profitable.
I don’t really like it at 20/25bb effective when you’re OOP for postflop play, but an argument could be made for flatting AJs here. You’ll keep a lot of dominated hands in both players’ ranges, and will be able to get into some very profitable post-flop situations. The downside of flatting is that you’ll end up in many 3 – 4 way pots where you’ll often have a choice between 1) folding a lot of equity vs. range or 2) putting more chips into the pot out of position with very little clarity. I think this option is probably better at the micros than it would be against tougher fields, but I’m not in love with it either way.
I think it’s very hard for shoving AJs to be a mistake here, but I can’t say with any certainty that it is the 100% best way to play your hand.
February 8, 2017
almofadinhas
3betting and folding for both… interesting actually, if both GII means we are way behind usually. Would this strategy be better if it was FT? ICM related…
ICM is less important for you when you have all three villains covered by 2x or more, but should affect villains’ decisions quite a bit, so still important to consider. In general, it should motivate you to be more aggressive, but also more conservative when calling shoves (and especially 3/4 bet shoves), as villain’s ranges for risking tournament life should be tighter near final tables (or on the bubble).
I think this makes the approach of 3betting to ~9bb even more appealing when ICM is heavy, because BUT range for shoving over UTG should be quite tight. I think BUT may be ~$EV breakeven to GII with hands as strong as AKo and JJ, although I don’t think many players are folding AQs or TT.
You’ve gotten me curious, so I’ll run some scenarios for 14 players left and 7 players left through ICMizer to simulate each player’s perspective, and let you know what ranges I come up with.
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
DuckinDaDeck said
I think we may cap our range, at least in villains’ eyes (whether or not we are actually capped), to having less QQ+ when we jam.
We only cap our perceived range, we don’t necessarily cap our actual range. I think if we’re jamming our stronger hands too (which we probably should be, since doing anything else looks incredibly strong here) then that’s not something we need to worry about.
I guess 3-betting to 9bb and calling it off with a plan to fold to two shoves is okay, but it just seems unnecessarily tricky. BTN can, and should, flat your 9bb 3-bet pretty frequently in a spot like this, and then what happens? You’ve given up an opportunity to deny equity to a lot of hands.
I don’t think it’s necessary to play anything other than a push-fold strategy here, to be honest. When you have the other players out-chipped so much, it’s just so easy to punish them with ICM here as you get deeper into a tournament that we benefit massively by being the one who puts in the last bet.
February 8, 2017
almofadinhas said
Looking foward to your analisis.
Hey dude, I’m still working on this, started with a staking stable and I’ve been grinding pretty much 24/7 to hit their volume targets (it’s about twice what I’ve normally been playing). Between that and reinstalling my operating system, studying time (outside of session reviews) has temporarily gone from 10+ to 0 hrs per week.
This spot is still really interesting to me. I played a similar spot yesterday with the small 3bet approach and exactly the problem theginger45 described happened, both players flatted. I got lucky and flopped the NFD which backed into runner-runner Broadway after getting ATs in on Q94 vs button KQo. If I’m not being results oriented, I agree that max equity denial with big ICM pressure is going to be the more profitable approach long term. When you occasionally get it in way behind you’ll still have equity, and enough chips behind to be competitive the times you don’t suckout.
February 5, 2015
Well, the Riceman has considered this spot, and has arrived at the definitive answer. Please be seated my students, and prepare to be awed:
Forget about running equity percentages, and considering merged 3bet shoving ranges, and equilibrum hoo-haa nonsense considerations. (I have written a hugely respected treatise on the implications of equilibrium hoo-haa nonsense considerations in Heads-Up Hyper Sit n’ Gos, published by Hooper & Collins).
The approach the considered scholar will take to this spot is really quite straightforward:
Firstly, I consider the possibility that the open-limper is limping with a mind to shoving to a raise, or rather, to limp-calling-a-shove…ie bluff-limping. Hey! I coined a phrase. This I consider by analysing his stats.
Secondly, I consider the raiser’s stats. Is he super-tight? Extremely passive? If so I might hesitate here. Or is he a reg.? (Or with reg-ish stats)? Or just an average Joe who is neither here nor there with no outstanding stat. trends?
Once I have discerned that our raiser is neither extremely passive nor super-tight, and I have seen that the limper has an open-limp range, the final piece of the jigsaw is simply to push all your chips in to the middle and with utter glee old boy.
I notice you say that you have “no notes” on the villains. I presume this also means that you have no significant stats. also. In this case, I still shove my chips in the middle with glee, but I am at least open to the possibility that I might end up with egg on my face from an open-limped AA or KK fro m UTG.
In summary, although the limp-jam (or limp-call-to-shove) is sometimes utilised in my games, I rarely see it. I tend to ignore limpers in this kind of a spot, and just consider the raise. Which, with AJs here, you are way, way ahead of.
Frankly, to the Riceman’s advanced mind…this is clearly a shove.
February 5, 2015
Almo said:
“I laugh so hard on that opening! Hope you don´t get mad …”
No old friend I don’t get mad…you’re supposed to find it amusing…I’m a joker through and through…
Almo said:
“I don´t use a HUD to play (it annoys me)”.
Interesting. You know, I don’t understand how someone can be competitive in today’s online environment without a HUD. I’m not saying it’s not possible…I just don’t get it though. I have heard Bigdog berate the use of HUD’s. I particularly remember one pod where he said that he started losing when he incorporated a HUD, so he abandoned it altogether.
I don’t know man, I expect there are lots of winning regs who crush without a HUD. I just can’t help wondering how much more they’d crush if they were able to incorporate a HUD in to their game…
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
The Riceman said
Almo said:“I laugh so hard on that opening! Hope you don´t get mad …”
No old friend I don’t get mad…you’re supposed to find it amusing…I’m a joker through and through…
Almo said:
“I don´t use a HUD to play (it annoys me)”.
Interesting. You know, I don’t understand how someone can be competitive in today’s online environment without a HUD. I’m not saying it’s not possible…I just don’t get it though. I have heard Bigdog berate the use of HUD’s. I particularly remember one pod where he said that he started losing when he incorporated a HUD, so he abandoned it altogether.
I don’t know man, I expect there are lots of winning regs who crush without a HUD. I just can’t help wondering how much more they’d crush if they were able to incorporate a HUD in to their game…
HUD usage is all about the player pool you’re playing in.
If you play high stakes MTTs where you’re up against the same opponents every day, you’re only playing a few tables, and maybe you even know most of your opponents personally from having played live with them, you’re unlikely to need a HUD – you’ll have an accurate understanding of their tendencies even without looking at any numbers at all. The only major benefit of using a HUD at these levels is the ability to gain a really in-depth understanding of an opponent with whom you may have played perhaps 10k hands or more – a sample size at which you’ll really be able to pick out specific insights that you wouldn’t get just from using your intuition.
But if you play low-stakes or mid-stakes MTTs and/or play more than around 4 tables at a time, it’s absolutely suicidal to play without a HUD. You simply won’t have any reliable info to go by, because you won’t be able to pay close enough attention to each opponent, nor will you have a reliable degree of experience to fall back on against each individual player.
Having said all that, if you’re inexperienced in using a HUD, then attempting to rely on it can be a mistake. Your HUD should be as basic as possible to begin with, and then increase in complexity as your capacity to use it effectively improves. Over-reaching is likely to harm your game, as you get bogged down in largely-irrelevant stats instead of theory.
The reality of today’s online MTTs is there are almost no winning regs who play without a HUD. The vast majority of the players who play high enough to where a HUD is not super necessary would still need to use one if they played in larger player pools against unknowns.
February 5, 2015
I love you Matt. And the reason I love you is…I am beginning to think like you. (I love me also!).
We are merging in to a solitary human poker-minded being. I’m good with this, I hope you are. In truth though, I expect you have drawn the “short straw” in this particular deal.
February 5, 2015
Yeah almo…just start out with the 4 stats, VPIP, PFR, 3bet, Flop Cbet. I really think it will benefit you.
almo said
“ I still have to try this “basic as possible” and have it showing only when mouse is over it”. You know you can change the opacity setting on the HUD?
I have a great HUD setup that I’d be glad to share with you…I adopted it from a SNG training site I used to belong to years back. To my mind, it is still simple.
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
The Riceman said
I love you Matt. And the reason I love you is…I am beginning to think like you. (I love me also!).We are merging in to a solitary human poker-minded being. I’m good with this, I hope you are. In truth though, I expect you have drawn the “short straw” in this particular deal.
Hahahaha, I love you too Riceman.
February 5, 2015
almo said:
“Edit: Found the opacity thing, I will try that tomorrow, but it just keep the opacity the same, it doesn´t get better to read if i hover mouse over it, I have HM2 if anyone knows how to make it please let me know.”
I don’t think it’s possible to change the opacity of the “mouse hover box” or whatever it’s called…the opacity just changes the see-through-ness of the standard overlaid HUD. So, for instance you have your 4 HUD stats present at all times on the position of each player giving you their individual stats, then it is also possible to hover the mouse over a stat to bring up the black box.
This black box will only appear if you move the cursor over the HUD, and in fact it gives a detailed breakdown of the stat, street by street, or position by position for the player in question, which is very useful in game. For instance, your HUD might only show villain’s Total 3bet %, but if you bring up the black box it will also tell you villain 3bet% for each position…ie you can see that he 3bets from the blinds more than usual.
February 8, 2017
Long overdue, but I ran this through ICMizer finally. I had to fudge the details a bit to get it to run smoothly (ICMizer does not like limps), so I can’t do meaningful future game simulation.
If we were 7 handed, ICMizer wants to shove 27% of hands. Using a 16/12/8.5% payout structure, UTG should call JJ+,AK and BTN can call TT+,AQs,AK. We can apply a lot of ICM pressure as all the other stacks at the table are shorter. That being said I’m not really expecting folds from TT or AQo. With those hands calling ICMizer wants to shove 23.2%: 33,A2s,A5,K8s,KT,QTs,QJ,JTs
If we tighten up to hands that are +0.05% EV we can shove 55,A5s,A8,KTs,KQ
It’s not terrible to be a bit more conservative, but we’re probably giving away too much by not shoving at least 77,A9s,AT,KQs.
Using same chip total distributed randomly at 2nd table, 14 handed is a fair amount different. UTG can now call 99,AJs,AQ while BTN can call 99,ATs,AQ,KQs (AJ and 88 are borderline but ICMizer wants them to fold).
Every suited Ace is at least a break-even shove, but sticking to +0.04% EV hands we get 66,A8s,AT,KJs,KQ
I doubt we want to be shoving tighter than 88,ATs,AJ,KQs.
This is all assuming a relatively tight ISO range from BTN of 31%. Some players will tighten up a lot with ICM pressure, which makes our looser shoves bad, but unless UTG is only limping a nutty range and/or BTN is overly tight, shoving AJs is going to be very profitable.
February 8, 2017
I phrased that poorly, what I meant is that some BTN players will ISO much tighter than 31% with a deep-stack behind them in heavy ICM situations. For example, if BUT isolates only 19% of hands, AQo is a breakeven shove and AJs is -0.06% EV.
That being said, it’s really hard to predict this tendency (and very tempting to overestimate likelihood of BTN being overly tight), and with the table covered I think we prefer to err on the side of over-aggression, so I don’t know why I bothered to mention that.
almofadinhas said
Shoving ~27% on FT to apply ICM pressure seems crazy to me right now, I am probably losing some spots to make those shoves; I thought the ranges were bigger, but not that much.
I don’t think the goal should be to shove 27% as we benefit very little from +0.01% EV shoves considering how much variance they bring into our game. They also rely on estimating villain ranges perfectly. The +0.05% EV shoves make up 14.5% of hands, which is probably a better target. That gives us some leeway in estimating ranges and slightly less variance. Against softer lineups, going even tighter is okay, but the 9% range I gave (77.A9s,AT,KQs) is still a bit nitty.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
71 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
sdmathis89
ne0x00
adrianvaida2525
Anteeater
Laggro
Philbro
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12007
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1