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!
Final table in tonights £2.20 deep stack - advice please.
i was the short stack & just wondered if i made the right move or not. i tried to steal the pot by shoveing all-in but it backfired when i got a call from the chip leader.
- should i have folded and waited for a better spot?
- was the chip leader correct in calling, aye?
after thinking about this hand, i'm still in doubt as to whether i made the correct move or not. could someone put me out my misery please? haha
Thank you
Mick
- should i have folded and waited for a better spot?
- was the chip leader correct in calling, aye?
after thinking about this hand, i'm still in doubt as to whether i made the correct move or not. could someone put me out my misery please? haha
Thank you
Mick
| oynutter | Small blind | 3000.00 | 3000.00 | 90223.75 | |
| stacksy | Big blind | 6000.00 | 9000.00 | 137380.00 | |
| Your hole cards |
| ||||
| theace810 | Fold | ||||
| aegis11 | Call | 6000.00 | 15000.00 | 239377.50 | |
| 88MickyC | All-in | 73925.00 | 88925.00 | 0.00 | |
| oynutter | Fold | ||||
| stacksy | Fold | ||||
| aegis11 | Call | 67925.00 | 156850.00 | 171452.50 | |
| aegis11 | Show |
| |||
| 88MickyC | Show |
| |||
| Flop | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
| Turn | |||||
| |||||
| River | |||||
| |||||
| aegis11 | Win | Three 7s | 156850.00 | 328302.50 | |
Comments
i think IMO i feel more comfortable making this play in this situation so i'll probably continue to make this move.
Thank you for your comments.
Mick.
Shove is a good play for 12bb's but the call before from the big stack is your problem.
I take it he's the big stack though i can't see one players stack size. If he is a thinking player he will be considering what happens if he calls and loses or calls and wins. One puts him in a very commanding place on the table and the other loses approx 25% of his stack but still in 2nd place. This should be a consideration. He expects to be behind but has a hand which has fairish equity versus a 12 BB shove. You don't make any statements about the way players are playing or previous dynamics with this player but i see nothing wrong with his play whatsoever. There is consideration called Block theory which simply put is stating take the chance with less equity so that you can get a distance between yourself and others then bully. In other words by winning thisone, you will win a lot more uncontested pots.
I wonder what range you feel he calls with and he thinks you push with. Try it and stick it in pokerstove. It's a good way to know whether the mathematics of your bet is correct but unfrtunately the maths is only as good as the assumptions you make. Nice one for the Ft.
i didnt comment on the other players playing styles because this was only the 4th or 5th hand at the final table and the only one of the final 5 who i'd played with previously in that tourny was "stacksy" other than that, i didnt how the others had been playing....
when i made the move, his stack was the only thing i was worried about but rather naively, i didnt think they'd call almost 70K unless they had a decent hand.
Although, as you pointed out, if they lost that hand, he would still be in the top 2 with a decent stack so looking back at the hand, i can see how they might be thinking and how their calling range in that position would be a lot wider than normal.
i'll certainly be paying a lot closer attention to stack sizes in the future and maybe, if i'd been at the table longer and knew how the Chip leader (aegis11) was playing thn it might have effected my way of thinking.
Thanks again for your comment profman.
Mick.
Your opponent's play is terrible and having a big stack does nothing to redeem it. This idea of block theory does not prescribe calling off huge chunks of your stack with the worst hand, just to gamble that you might win and get a double up. It's extremely -EV play. Sorry profman.
However, we're not really supposed to be looking at your opponent's play, we're supposed to look at yours Micky. I think the shove is fine and against a limp, generally speaking, you're going to get this through a huge proportion of the time. It would be nice to know more about your opponent and about your own image. If you knew that he was the type to limp-call with a wide range like this then the shove is a bad one but, readless, most of the time players aren't willing to call 12BB with hands that they've limped with.
Your image is the other element: If you've been shoving alot, good players will widen their range to call you and poor players will call you out of frustration. If that was your image then this shove is not great.
Nice that you disagree and you know i respect your opinion a lot. I'm just pleased to be able to put forward an opinion which i still feel has merit to some degree.
As a right of reply....Block Theory does purport trying to put a block of chips between you and your rivals by taking a slightly -ve gamble o that you can afford to take a hit by playing a wider range consequently. Poker is a game of strategy and players adopt different one's to counteract other players, don't they. That word 'slightly' may be the sticking point.
When i've looked at say calling a 10bb stack and remember he has something in the pot already, then Ax, K5+, Q8+, JT is acceptable. block theory talks about adding the restof the kings, Q5+ and J8+ to that range. So i agree 97s is a poor hand but, on the other hand, personally i'd prefer the suitedness and 1 gapper than any Q5....wouldn't you?
Its just a theory and a way of looking at the decision makingprocess from the limpers point of view too. Note, he'd still be 2nd in chips if he loses, Oynutter a successful player may be under pressure then, and the calers stack size still allows him to play. It was just a way of looking at the risks and rewards from another perspective instead of +ve and -ve Ev.
Interesting though eh? Must admit its not my cup of tea but my play is a little naive anyway. Cheers fella
The point about rather having 97 to go all-in pre-flop with than Q5: I'd much rather have Q5 than 97. Q5 is a better hand than 97. 97 is a better hand to play deepstacked, going to a flop than Q5 because it has the potential to make a big hand with which I can stack my deepstacked opponents. But if we're getting it in pre-flop, give me the Q5. It will beat the 97 more often than not and even if we're facing a shove from an unknown range, I'd still rather have the stronger hand. At least then if he turns over JJ, TT or 99, I've got a 30% chance.
All of this is missing the point, though. We shouldn't be limping with any hand at all and we shouldn't be entering a pot with anything like 97 or Q5 at this stage, knowing that our opponents still to act are short and are liable to shove. If we have 97, then we certainly can't call for 12BB, just on the off chance that A) our hand is live and we're not facing a pair 77+, or better 9x or 7x hands, and
If our opponent turns over his hand and shows us that he has K3, then we'd have to call with our 97. However, against our opponents shoving range, even with 1BB invested, we can't make an argument for the call being profitable. We have to think that he's shoving with almost any two cards to make this the case and we can't know that unless we've played many times against that opponent... Of course, if we know that about our opponent - that he is going to shove ATC over a limp - then we have no reason at all to play the 97.
Whatever we think about our Micky's shoving range, our play with the 97 is pretty dreadful.
This idea of block theory is just an obvious benefit of having a chip lead. However, gambling knowing that you're behind is not a way to build that chip lead. If we raise, then are shoved on holding a hand that is likely to be behind, then we can make a call that is marginally -EV if the fringe benefits of winning that pot are going to be greater than the negative consequences of calling and losing. For example, table dynamics can change and we may be able to manage our position and ladder to heads-up while simply maintaining a large chip lead, by allowing the other players to squabble amongst themselves. Generally, the benefits of simply folding and maintaining our chip lead are going to be far greater.
You have to say, though, that passive play such as limp-calling with weak hands cannot feature in any winning strategy, either long or short term.
We aren't considering the 'long term'. We're considering table dynamics and creating an optimal strategy. If i can think, "yea, the situation will favour me so much moreif i call and win than the change in my circumstances if i call and lose then i'm making an assessment for THIS FT not the long term. The theory is put forward as taking the chance by balancing an unexpected win and the power you would gain with the amount you would lose and the situation you would revert to. The theory isn't about having a chip lead Borin. Its more to do with having a block of chips between you and the next player so you can play wider and take the hit.
"If something is -EV then it's bad and if it's +EV it's good"
Don't get me wrong, maths i love. I taught it for many years but poker certainly has more to it than a mathematically good bet at higher levels. Yes we justify our plays by saying it had +Ev . I was just trying to put an alternative spin on things. In the books of WTiHAAT there are plays considered which give three +ve Ev's but it not the highest Ev that's necessarily taken as things like 'staying in the T' are considered so a more conservative approach may be taken.
By the way, i don't think you should be limping at these stages or entering pots with 97s but on the other hand i was trying to point out that the limper may call on him and see it as in his favour as part of a strategy he wishes to pursue at that time, on that FT, for the above reasons. I was on the Ft of the 10 hdd Orfordable last night and on the last two tables there was a lot of limping. We respond to what's happening around us. That's all. He's not doing it every time he has 97s and a 12 BB stack pushes. That's what expected value shows....ie ad infinitum what this set of conditions will achieve. It may be that 97s is far too weak but the theory still exists to take a -Ev 'punt'. I've seen an article as i say which says widen the calling range to include Q5 which is something NOT normally done for the percieved beneficial reasons of block theory.
I was only regurgitating it.
TBH in this particular hand i wouldn't have shoved with this hand partly because of the limper behind because i'd suspect he was slowplaying a monster. After all he shouldn't be limping! That's what i would do but maybe through experience and improvement then i may do. Thats what forum's and constructive argument is for. And yes 97s is too weak a hand the theory suggests to call with too. Good stuff Borin...enjoyed it.
PS I'll see you at thetables with my 97s against your Q5o. Yes 47%: 53% but what's a few percent between friends eh. Ha. GL All the best.
I tend to agree with what you say....he probably wasn't thinking of block theory, whatsoever.
However, i do disagree with your premise about taking -EV decisions for precisely the reasons that T's are weighted heavily to the top three places at times. I won't repeat the theory but it's aim is to gain an even better situation with what he sees as an acceptable risk. If we all approached the game in the same way then it would be very boring wouldn't it?
With further reading i did say that 97S(dont forget the "S" as its a 3% equity swing!) isn't actually in the widened range suggested by the theory but this is what a forum talks about, isn't it. It was an interesting discussion anyway and at least it just stopped a procession of "terrible play by opponent" posts for which i generally tend to agree for the limp Personally i wouldn't have shoved though because of the limper. Cheers m8.
"it just stopped a procession of "terrible play by opponent" posts for which i generally tend to agree for the limp "
There's no doubt that you aer successful players but please read ALL of my posts if you are going to comment on one. There was a progression in the discussion and yes 97s is NOT in the range that block theory suggests, i admit now. . I'm getting to the stage where i regret putting a different view as it seems to offend. I'm happy to be wrong as i can learn but just lambasting it then not putting reasons isn't helpful guys.
Yes, i want to read your posts B as you are obviously a good player but if you are highlighting one of my posts then please read the others too and make an overview of them ALL.
As i put on the one before yours is highlighted at the top of this and then exactly that is written. Is it a rub down by B ans W, i wonder?
PS Bearly, i do wish you well on your sojourn into the pro world and i did contribute on your threads showing support but caution too. I look forward to your comments on the soon to be introduced discussion on Block Theory.......
PS Block theory is not my idea. Far from it. My play is far too basic to consider it but why don't you good players find some articles and have a discussion. In fact, that gives me an idea........mmmmmm!
your not that short
also I have not even heard of this block theory, all I know that best senserio is always 40% unless the shover has lower prs.
Stick shovers range in pokerstove verus 97s and see what it says....
Taking slightly -EV spots and risking 25% of your stack, well you just have to look at what your equity is versus oppo to actually determine if it's borderline - and we only talking about being down 2-7% verus range.....
Funny one because why would you take slightly -ev spots for 25% of your stack when it doesn't increase the gap between you and the rest of the field....
Again 97s is too weak i now admit but what about if he had a hand he'd normally not call the shove with but the theory says maybe like Q5. Thoughts...
You should probably remove the opponents name from the hand history
Think it depends on what you think oppo shoving range is versus your own hand.
Then I suppose you have to do some calcs on your stack verus the rest of the field stacks, probably ICM based
Would heavily depend also on how deep we are into an MTT
There is some weight in your argument if we taking marginal spots for sure, where we can give up some equity in the hand to actually gain a bigger chip lead versus the cons of maybe only dropping 1-2 places in the field.
If we ignore the guy has limped and someone open shoves btn for 12bb then it's a diff scenrio.
Then we have to think about oppo shoving range, and how our Q5 would stack up against it.
Obviously our equity would change depending on who the shover is.
Still think your looking at at least 43% equity versus shovers range, and I do say range !! )
I'll try to find the article and put a post up. It certainly seemed interesting and a little different. If you start to use it then i claim 50% of your winnings though...lol