You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Question for Mr Hartigan on EPT Berlin.
Was watching EPT Berlin last night and I wanted to ask James about a bit of his commentary in a pretty significant hand.
Prior to this I'll brown nose a little and just state for the record that over the last few years Mr Hartigan has become, by far, my favourite commentator.
The hand was the Wilinofsky AA vs Bijgaart A9 on flop of Ac9c2.
You make an interesting comment of "I'm tempted to call that an incredible fold, or am I just being results orientated?"
The latter part of this question, is it a bit of a que to the "playing every hand in a bubble/vacuum" mentality?
I really lean towards the former part of the statement. The impression you give from the commentary is that Wilinpfsky is being super active, so folding top two to him would then be bad generally. However, as you say in the hand, he's just never really bluffing there plus will be folding Apic's to the action. But the way the action plays, Bijgaart check raising two opponents hard, yet still being 4bet jammed on when Wilinofsky knows Bijgaart is likely to be committed, just speaks for so much strength.
Bijgaart puts it perfectly "I'm just not beating anything", and he's right given the way the action plays, plus he very much know it. Its an incredible fold really, he has to make Wilinfskyfor a set.
I'm not a big fan of the playing in a vacuum scenario, I have always favoured using every scrap of info at your disposal to make a decision. When all signs point north, its silly to go south.
So just in your own words (if you dont mind), what exactly did you mean with the latter part of the highlighted statement?
(This is aimed at Mr. Hartigan, but if anyone else wants to weigh in feel free.)
Prior to this I'll brown nose a little and just state for the record that over the last few years Mr Hartigan has become, by far, my favourite commentator.
The hand was the Wilinofsky AA vs Bijgaart A9 on flop of Ac9c2.
You make an interesting comment of "I'm tempted to call that an incredible fold, or am I just being results orientated?"
The latter part of this question, is it a bit of a que to the "playing every hand in a bubble/vacuum" mentality?
I really lean towards the former part of the statement. The impression you give from the commentary is that Wilinpfsky is being super active, so folding top two to him would then be bad generally. However, as you say in the hand, he's just never really bluffing there plus will be folding Apic's to the action. But the way the action plays, Bijgaart check raising two opponents hard, yet still being 4bet jammed on when Wilinofsky knows Bijgaart is likely to be committed, just speaks for so much strength.
Bijgaart puts it perfectly "I'm just not beating anything", and he's right given the way the action plays, plus he very much know it. Its an incredible fold really, he has to make Wilinfskyfor a set.
I'm not a big fan of the playing in a vacuum scenario, I have always favoured using every scrap of info at your disposal to make a decision. When all signs point north, its silly to go south.
So just in your own words (if you dont mind), what exactly did you mean with the latter part of the highlighted statement?
(This is aimed at Mr. Hartigan, but if anyone else wants to weigh in feel free.)
Comments
I havent seen hand and dont know stack depth (could youy post rough stacks and action in hand?), but my overriding question would be
.
why is he checkraising top two if he thinks only better continues?
I watched it again and I think he gets the read because Wilinofsky goes all quiet when he directly challenges him, he even says "You must have aces!"
Wilinofski was very chatty up to the point of the checkraise and I think he gave it away by shutting up, very good read.
I think he gets the tell after the checkraise and therefore he is able to fold in this special circumstance, I don't think results oriented is a factor here as it's a clear tell he acts on, the way he folds it shows it is an unusual move for him.
He's never putting him on A's pre, why would he as the hand plays? But the layered betting can only mean one thing here really, Bijgaart having good enough instincts to realise it.
I think its just a perfect example of a player using all the info at his disposal to make a very difficult, yet correct decision. I dont see how he can call, given the action. He KNOWS he's not winning when the layered 4bet goes in, it just takes time for him to get used to it. Its a very very good fold.
Grantorino, you'd have to see the dynamic and how the action plays. His three bet is spot on, his fold is very diciplined. He goes from betting for perceived value/protection to getting the wrong kind of info.
If he acts on some massive tell he has on villain, thats prob fair enough
Wilinofsky AA call from the button (Chip leader )
Bijgaart A9 Hearts call from BB (medium stack)
Flop Ac 2c 9s
Bijgaart Check
Hakim bet 93k
Wilinofski Raise to 193k
Bijgaart Raise to 530k (1/3rd of his stack)
Hakim Fold
Wilinofski Raise All in
Tank time!!
Wow, Wow wow wow he says
"Such a big hand but I can't beat anything"
"Aces, you could have aces"
"The first time ever I don't know what to do"
"I hate myself"
" You show if I fold" - Wilinofski is silent
"Talking all the time and now you are not saying anything" - This is where he gets the tell, because Wilinofski heard him say "Aces you could have aces" he goes quiet and this is the tell for me
Wilinofski now makes some small talk and I reckon that seals the fold
Dave
The problem I have is if he has top two and he raises with these stacks surely its for value? Hes really unlikely to get flatted so surely if hes not calling a shove he shouldnt be raising. Its hardly that important to protect his hand
If he gets a big tell of villain and hes pretty sure hes reading it right he can fold, if thats what amybrs talking about using the information I guess thats ok . But when he says "I'm not beating anything" then if this is the case he shouldnt raise in the first place imo. What reason is he raising for?
Your making a pretty snap judgement of players making it down to the top 4% of field. He has to raise there 3 handed. Your massively oversimplifying a complicated spot bud.
Thanks Mr Hartigan. In your own time. Was just dead curious as it seemed such a nod to the purists I had to ask!
I've never been a believer in stacking off in these spots without really looking at the action, whereas I know many people snap it. Your comment seemed to be a medley of both approaches and was really interested to your thoughts.
No rush bud.
I think when he checks and it goes bet, raise into him its a horrible spot.
Why does he have to raise?
Why is flat pre, flop top 2, check/cold 3bet/fold ~50BB deep a good line?
If you can justify the raise/fold then fine, dont just say oh he has to raise and folding then is incredibly brilliant
My point is why raise with a strong hand if you are folding to further action? I think tbh it would be easier to justify it here than in a lot of spots but Im still not sure I like the line
I would imagine the results based thinking comment is to do with is that a good fold against villains range here not just the hand he happened to have this time. It may be a good fold, but again my quetion is if its a good fold why is he 3betting in the first place?
If your a big fan of letting cards come off cheap three handed or not betting for value then yes, i guess flatting flop is fine. But if your interested in protecting your hand and extracting value three handed then the c/r 3bet is fine. There's no way he can know what bad shape he's in till the 4bet comes back when he's mostly committed. If he hadnt of 3bet there he goes broke at the turn, the 3bet on flop being the only thing that allows him to get away.
What your saying can be all well and good, but checking oop then flating a raise then re-raise is also off form. Particularly as there is more than enough chips in pot to be happy with approaching FT, plus being oop on furthar streets vs fillers and action killers.
This thread isnt about picking apart the hand, its not the clinic. It really is a bit arrogant to armchair analyse here bud
You said anyone could weigh in, I commented on what I thought was a strange line from a pro, ie raise/folding a very strong hand with shallow stacks. Its only an opinion, feel free to agree or disagree. Its nothing to do with arrogance, I am aware the guys in the hand are all far better players than me. As for armchair analysis , its a poker forum what do you expect, and also what are you doing when you say its a good raise and an incredible fold?
Anyway, let James comment and let thread move on. GL
Grantorino and I have spoiken on this in PM, and I have to agree that his questions very clearly highlight the issues within this hand, so I really oughtn't to have been so grouchy.
Grantorino wanted to discuss this hand in detail, now tha you've answered i'm happy to do so. My only real argument on the hand is Bijgaart has to bet for value vs a better A in this spot. Opener is mostly insignifivant, as he cant really call a raise and re raise after opening, so it just leaves Wil band BIJ. Wil def re raises Apic here so Bij re raising top 2 here is fine IMO as otherwise we give opener odds to call. Any paint turn really makes us question our hand. I 3 bet here everytime, yet I understand Grantorino's POV. We are only betting to call all in or folding/flatting behind.
But Wil can be raising light enoughj here that a 3 bet means a healthy addition of chips approaching FT, without playing on furthar streets, When Wil 4betys when Bij is committed, a bluff really is in the super low end of his range with the 4 bet, plus I dont think he's playing Apic pre or post this way.
So I dont think this hand can be put in a EV+ bracket, due to there being such a flood of info contained in the hand, being layered bets and live reads.
This shouldnt be an auto stack off IMO, the way the action plays. I know Grantorino has strong online linss in regard to betting value/iinfo, but this is the exception that proves he rule that I tend to speak of.
Based on the way the action plays, I think this is a very difficult, yet clear fold. But grantorino is right to highlight the points that he does.
I think James Hartigan has just proven why he is commentator for the EPT, PCA and Sky Poker amoungst other tournaments.
James i salute you sir!
I also applaud you giving us background information that was not seen on the telle. As you stated we see so few hands that are shown and so many people then think, oh thats how you play poker. I think you've proven here that, that is not always the case.
Now enough sucking up lol.
The first bolded part is where I disagree, where is the value when he 3bets if hes folding to a shove?
The second bolded part is may be ok, but if this is your plan you may as well have 63o, and obv we are getting no value with top 2.
Tbf Im not sure the way the action panned out that there is much value to be had, the bet and raise in front means your hand is going to be viewed as very srong whether you flat or raise
Have to go might post a little more on this later
Yes it is a -EV play but every play has to be taken on it's own merit, of course most players go bust there but they don't have the info that Joep had from playing for hours at a live table. It was a great fold due to the instincts gained from live reads, if this was online he goes broke!
It is similar to the read Moneymaker had at PCA broadcast a few weeks ago and Romanello also a few years back, surely you can't bracket it a -EV play if they constantly make the correct play.
Great response from James and top debate from AmyBR and Grantorino, have enjoyed your posts guys.
Dave
I will add that if Wil has Apic here he likely re raises flop. So Bij is 3 betting (IMO) to extract value, force out opener and pick up the pot when Wil is 3 betting light, which he had a tendancy to be doing.
We are approaching FT at this point, as strong as Bij believes he is, I'm sure he's happy to pick up the pot then and there.
The lines you've highlighted Grantorino: 1st one, when he 3bets he's about 100% certain he has the best hand. Its only when the 4 bet puts him in he is forced to reassess his strength. This is one of the key differences between online and live play IMO. Bij is able to take all the time he needs to peel the hand back, look for information and listen to his gut. You pretty much are stacking off online without the added layer of info (as someone else said). He doesnt 3 bet with the intention of folding, am pretty sure he thinks its the end of the end. But your only getting played back at slim there, as selectively Laggy as Wil had been, a bluff or Apic really isnt going to be in his playbook that often. As i said before, this isnt about EV-/+, its simply about trying to make a critical decision in an important spot. I truly dont think he was ever calling, live read or not. No matter what Wil did, Bij was folding, down to the action. The live tell merely helped him along.
Think I pretty much answered your second highlighted part in there
Yeah JockBMW. I remember thinking the same thing you post as I heard Hartigan's commentary. I was tired but went to bed thinking "I must ask Mr. Hartigan about that in the morning". It being great that I was able to do so. Also great input on the Liv Million euro girl doc James. Very few people would be that frank in that spot, which made it very enjoyable
Answer these questions/points for me clearly, they relate to the parts I bolded in your post
1. How is he betting for value if he is folding to a 4bet (Im assuming he gets flatted close to never and if he does its prob as strong as 4betting anyway)
2. He should be assessing before he 3bets, what hands villain likely fold, what hands villain likely continues with. If he doesnt like his chances against continuing range he cant raise for value
And I dont get this its not about +EV stuff. If you think 3b/f is the most +EV move here go for it, otherwise go for something else. You can use all the info about this individual spot inc reads, live tells etc
Amybr, I'm not sure I even hate raise folding here that much cos if we flat its going to be tough get more action anyway and we prob give up 2 free cards while not increasing our chances of getting paid when ahead that much. It does turn the 4th nuts into a bluff though, and all we are doing is protecting our hand we are not getting any value.
Your Questions then.
1) Betting for value. With a opening bet and raise from a semi spewbox, how do you play top 2? Do you flat pricing in opener with wide holdings? Do you fold? No on both. Do we want to play oop 3 handed and a filler or action killer to hit the turn? No. Is it likely that Wil raises with Apic there, yes. Does opener have to be at the utter top of his range to jam a cold 3 bet? yes. So when he bets, he is betting pure value, with a side order of protection, vs a semi spewy wil and cbetting opener. His bet is for value until he is 4bet. Wil has been playing wide open enough and is stacked enough to call or 5bet with Apic or combo club draw. As I said, when he c/r 3 bets he is doubtless that he has the best hand, but not wanting to continue in the hand oop 3 handed approaching FT, which flatting would have resulted in. 3bet folding would have been furthest from his mind, but you cant simply ignore the 4bet. Wil knows Baj doesnt have a 1pr hand, but also knows he's pretty much committed. Bij knows that Wil knows this. This is a big factor of the fold IMO.
2) Where alot of what you say in this question makes sense in general, I have to disagree in this spot. Am sure Bij assessed prior to 3 bet, but wil has been playing so wide and raising light, plus flatting A's pre, he has to juice up the pot. Yes its as much about protection as value here, but pot has inflated to a degree that risking letting one come off is not a good option, plus as you say, unlikely and significant action on later streets from hands he's 3bet called by. Approaching FT this pot is well worth having without and tricky moves on later streets or risk association
I would never really follow a line of 3bet f either. But they are sat deep enogh here for Bij to KNOW he's beat and put his hand down. He knows instinctively that he's on the wrong side of a cooler the second the 4 bet goes in. So why stack off? It would have been an awful call IMO the way the action plays.
What I mean by not being an EV spot is that you cant club this hand in with a general rule of thumb poker. This stacked this deep I think it would be appaling to stack off when the 4bet goes in. You cant simply apply the best in long run mentality with this much on the line and this much informaton. Theres no point doing whats best in this spot over 1000000 hands when your read is so strong, backed up by the info.
I agree do what is best for this individual hand.
He is not betting for value if he doesnt think worse continues. Hes only 50BB deep also I think? Correct me if wrong. I know thats not bad in a tourney but its not exactly hugely deep esp with antes in play. If I have stacks wrong it changes everything obv
"His bet is for value until he is 4bet" value from what? what worse hands continue?
Im not argueing about whats the best line for him to take, I dont know much about both players perceived ranges. What I am saying is that he cant 3bet for value if he is folding to a 4bet (unless he gets flatted a lot, but that seems highly unlikely with these stacks)
If I have stacks completely wrong a lot of this doesnt apply
You dont think Wil has the potential to spew or get creative with AK/Q there? He cant 3bet preparing to lead fold, c/f turn . Cant really flat behind wil's raise. Wil easily holds Apic so flatting top two behind, going three to turn is needlessly risky. Bij being sure he has best hand bets for value vs Apic and protects against the out draw., but mostly is happy to pick up pot there. I understand exactly what your saying, he is betting for perceived value there, never thinking he cant continue, hoping to be called or jammed on by the big A that raised opener by semi Lag. Wil potentially easily mis plays Ak or turns a AcJc into a 5bet semi bluff jam. Its ok to reassess in this spot imo.
But as I have always stated, you cannot just ignore the information available. He likely intended to 3bet call furthar action, but this doesnt mean you should ignore your instincts. Often your gut knows more than you do.
villain can have worse when he 3bets. That doesnt mean hero can vbet
when you want to bet or raise for value the question you ask is what range raises or calls your bet? If you are not ahead of the range villain continues with you cannot bet for value. In this case as flatting seems really unlikely bij cant bet for value unless he is happy to call against villains shoving range.
The only info I can see him getting after he 3bets is a tell from villain. He has already decided how he fares against his 4betting range. Sure he can think back thru hand but he had the same info before he 3bet
I have never in any of my posts said to ignore any of the info. You never should live, online or whereever
He may want to bet here for other reasons, I accept that as its an unusual and tricky spot
There are plenty of hands wil continues with and spew 5 bet jams. It just so happens in this instance he has the nuts and opponents instincts are tuned to see it. So EV wise the fold is TECHNICALLY bad, but thats part of what makes it so great. In that Bij has to overide his decision making process.