Aussie Millions Main Event Hand
Posted by James Obst
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 31 Comments...
I think you can just bet an amount that he feels uncomfortable raising his draws over/comfortable calling them. I'd either go with the livepro classic 10600, or 10K straight. They're big enough to keep your range looking strong and small enough for him to peel with marginal draws. He's also probably seeing the river with all his Jx and Qx hands. Bomb every river and expect him to fold >60% of his range to a 3/4 PSB.
Sure, it sucks when he x/jams turn, but I find it incredibly unlikely that it costs us more equity than 7.5 BBs
Additional considerations include increased focus (winning this pot will mean a rush of adrenalin as opposed to more deflation) which leads to better decision making, the message a shove here that works (or even what happened) sends to the table about getting involved with me, and basically everything else I tried to explain in the video. It's more a video for explaining how to think about such situations, noone will know what size cEV sacrifice is worth it in any situation better than yourself since you know your table and where your head's at. I also know I can play a lot more productive of a game if I have a big stack and room to exercise my perceived edge over a table.
I know you're advocating bet-betting still which allows us a similarly good chance to win the pot, but I did feel in play as I explained that if I bet a not-huge size again he'll call once more without looking at my stack, and could just as easily (or easier with pot odds) rationalise a call on bricks with a J/Q (for a strong player this wouldn't be the case), plus we now let him call and hit all his draws and even afford him the chance to bluff hearts with 9Ts and the like (and we allow him to sometimes crai with draws on the turn, a disaster for us). The benefit of checking as against shoving/bet-betting is we don't risk our tourney life and we have more immediate cEV, but I do feel the multitude of tournament considerations make this a worthwhile play for me, or at the very least bring it to the point of a very unclear decision.
I like your overall meta reasonings behind it. I feel that meta aspects are more important than most, and I am surprised how little they are talked about. However, you being concerned with short term momentum seems to me the equivalent of an elite athlete concerned with a couple game slump. You are Andy fking McLeod. A good chunk of the money you make in your poker career is going to be from soft, large field, high buyin tournaments. You should have the confidence and swag at the table to be comfortable and content with the hand to hand results. If you simply relax and play your game, you will strike fear into the table regardless of the hand to hand swings.
The reason I think this is a massive botch is because you completely go away from your reasoning with 66 in the prior video that I think defines your style. You have the option to take a lower variance line that preserves your tournament life and ability to realize the massive ROI you have in this field. Instead, you take a super high variance line vs an opponent who doesn't seem to be in the folding mood.
Your main concern in this video seems to be the idea that betting flop and checking turn turns your range face up to your opponent. This is a legitimate concern and something that should always be avoided if possible. It seems to me that you don't elaborate much how you expect this big stack, loose, fold-averse opponent to react to your shove. It seemingly telegraphs your range to him as AK still, or AKhh, AThh.
The option of betting flop checking turn seems the attractive and optimal play in this spot. You get to to realize your equity and you aren't risking much. You have a long day ahead of you with position on a big stacked fish in a live 10k. Phil G mentioned in a previous vid that "waiting for better spots" is overused in the poker community, but I think it's a spot that it definitely fits to a tee. To lose this opportunity due to an unnecessary high variance play that really doesn't make much sense to begin with is a minor tragedy.
I'm obviously guessing as to how often he'll fold a pair in this spot, given it's 40k into 21 in a 10k I can't just assume he's calling 100% of jacks, indeed I'm hoping he folds a lot of them. I'm obviously hoping he reads it as AA/KK/AQ that wants to shut the hand down on a draw heavy board, but recognise he is not someone who'll necessarily do that. I felt there were going to be a lot of draws in his range and weaker jacks in play, this analysis was both for the benefit of viewers and for myself; I would have expected to get a fold more than 42%.
What you say at the end of your first paragraph is interesting - I don't have the same table presence as an Ivey or Antonius, so I'm not about to strike fear into opponents who don't even know me (not sure how many of these guys would have, certainly not BigStack) if things aren't going my way. As I replied before, I'm going to have to adjust further by playing a lot more snug/less hands (we'll still be in a good spot given the big stack, but not nearly as good as if we were deeper and he was playing worse)... sure, maybe at some stage I go on a run and develop a good image again (and this is a valid point), maybe I don't though.
I acknowledged the 66 hand and the possible contradiction in the vid, but I would argue this is far less cut-and-dry. In that hand we knew for sure about how many chips we were foregoing and it wasn't many, and the tournament conditions weren't about to change much regardless - plus the structure of the NFG is nothing special. This tourney has 90min levels day 1, 120min day two. If we do win this pot we're either going to be over 100bb deep or like 175bb deep vs the tilted chip leader. It's still a nice spot if we're 67bb deep against him, but it's so much better if we're >100bbs deep AND he's in the mood to give it all away (and we can play more hands, if we lose this pot it will be harder for us to even iso him). For me to justify the play I would have to have quite a bit more implied equity than the 4500 chips, but I'd like to see a compelling explanation for why I couldn't have that, then I'll happily concede. It's not like if I pass on this I'll for sure get a nice spot vs him in the next hour or two (might bust to someone else first too).
"You should have the confidence and swag at the table to be comfortable and content with the hand to hand results." - I somewhat agree with you if we're talking cash games, but in tourneys more so hands are not played in vacuums, they're critical to how future hands will play out. Sure I try my best to address each hand on its merits and evaluate the dynamic, but that doesn't change the fact that every dynamic has an impact on your profitability.
Another thing to consider is that should we win this pot and be able to raise more in the future, from that point our non-showdown line will head sharply north - low variance chipping-up is I guess the perfect scenario for a tourney player and has been discussed at length in the forums. Should we lose it I feel we'd have to be playing on average much bigger pots from that point until something changed.
You could simply fold to any bet on a king river. At worst your expectation is then 0 on those occasions, and for that to be the case villain would have to bet the king 100% of the time, which is obviously unlikely in the extreme.
What i wanted to ask you , how much time did you take in live game to make such decision that you found to be optimal at the time, and did longer timing maybe urged the bigstack to call off?
Also i would like to ask , after all that many maths presented in video, while you were thinking abouth his range what he would fold call off etc... how much of that is maths and how much just rough approximate was goung through your hand at time of hand played.... im asking because all i can come up with at moment is approximation
Very nice play, i liked it, thank you for sharing your decision making in very important pot .
You just got done stating that your image is shot, and that your opponents will be trying to play hands with you. Given that this guy has over 200k in chips, and that he sees you 3bet the button... my guess is he's probably calling a huge majority of the hands he flatted UTG with. Because a) he's already a loose player, b) your image is shot and he probably thinks you're light a lot (which you are), c) he's got over 200k in chips and could care less about the 3k more it's going to cost him to see the flop, and d) he's probably less than scared of you, and in fact probably welcomes playing a big pot with you regardless of being out of position.
So that said, I think you need to include MANY more hands in to his range. I wouldn't be surprised if he showed up with any suited Ace, any suited connector or 2-gapper, KJo for sure, and possibly a few more hands like QJo, JTo, and a few more hands like that.
Just check back this turn. You used math to show it's the highest EV play. It is. It's also the lowest variance play, which has value as well.
You keep saying also, that he's going to put you on AK. Well guess what, shoving looks like you still might have AK or a heart draw, and you're trying to get him to fold a Q or J. Sure he won't love calling you, but he has the chips to - and sounds like he's the type of player who might.
So in your video, towards the end, you start talking about your "mentality" and getting "momentum" back on your side. First, let's be real. Your image is shot, and you haven't had a hand for hours... you've just bled chips off making aggressive plays and steals (probably) that didn't work out. Your opponent, whose stack is so big he probably can't see anyone at the table, and hasn't made a big fold since 3 years ago.... is just about the worst person to make this move on, in a spot where he's going put you basically on the hand that you have.
I've been in this exact situation many times in my career... I play a pretty aggressive style and I try to pick up a lot of pots, and I've found that 100% the best way to deal is not to try and show the table who's boss by rocketing off my whole stack on a big bluff right after I've just bled 50% of my former stack's chips over the last hour or two being aggro and playing good attacking poker (but just running bad and losing pots). Generally people think you're probably somewhat tilty now, and that you're going to be playing more aggressive to win your chips back. Surprise them with good poker! Do what they don't expect! You don't have momentum, you lost it... and you can't just take it back. Sometimes you have to go with the flow, accept what the cards are giving you, be a little humble, and try to pick better spots.
All of the metagame factors specific to this hand are screaming, don't semi-bluff here. Yet you seem to have this quixotic idea that you need to show the table that you're not going to be scared of anyone, and you're going to try to take pots down. Well guess what, you've been doing that by trying to win oodles of pots over the last few hours (and going from 90k to 40k) and 3betting here with KTo OTB against an UTG open. etcetera, etcetera. So just check this back, take the highest EV play, realize your equity, maybe you win the river and he makes a bad payoff... and live to steal another day. You've already been showing the table you aren't scared of anyone and that you won't be pushed around. Part of poker is playing off your image - so here you know this is your image - a shot bluffer, yet you make the play. I just heard now you got called by AJ... I'm not surprised he didn't fold a jack, and I basically predicted it in my discussion previous to this.
This is I think the most fundamental thing I have to say: Don't create your image in poker, use your image. You know what your opponent thinks about you already. Sweet!! You are so hung up throughout this video discussing how you need to make this play in order to change your image at the table, that you forget about the hand you are playing! Your image is that of an over-aggressive player who has been trying to steal a lot of pots with nothing and bled out half your chips. Remember that. Embrace it. It's who you are in this moment. Don't try and create something, use what you are to play. It doesn't mean you shouldn't bluff at all - it does mean don't pick out spots that are definitely -cEV against loosey guys with massive chip stacks where you're repping a bluff to him, then go ahead and bluff with exactly the hand you're repping. Don't be surprised he called you with a jack. You should have expected it. Remember this for next time, consider it a lesson learned imo.
You go on to say, "There is a huge EV difference between building a large stack or having an average stack... based on focus." ... well there's also a huge EV difference between having a stack and having no stack, busto style. Hence why protecting your stack in low-skill fields like this has value, as you discuss in your other video - yet throw out the window here.
Honestly, I think you were tilting during this hand at the table - I'd think very hard about your emotional state and do a very honest self-examination.. I don't agree with your justifications for the play as discussed above, don't agree with the play either. I don't even agree with your ranges and thus 100% of the math. I think the bluff was more than -4k cEV, and probably decently more considering he didn't fold a jack! If I'm coming off too harsh, it's only because I'm just trying to be honest and firm (mostly because you have continually defended it against multiple other people posting the same objections) - and I apologize if in this firmness I've been offensive.
Your whole argument seems to hinge on that my intention with this shove is to get him to fold a jack, which was really missing the point of the whole video - to break down his range, see how much of it is likely draws, how much are jacks and queens. Yes, I need him to fold some jacks for this to be the right play. Him calling AJ after 5mins+ hardly proves he's 100% to call any jack. As an aside, there's a decent chance he 3bets some AQ/AJs combos pre, which I failed to include in the vid (complexity and can't use these math programs myself yet), which would bring the EV closer once more.
"First, let's be real. Your image is shot, and you haven't had a hand for hours... you've just bled chips off making aggressive plays and steals (probably) that didn't work out." I mean, lol? When I say I've been bleeding chips I just meant I was once at 90 and am now at 50 without any big upswings in between. Maybe my diction needs work. If you'd like to actually know how I lost those chips shoot me a PM and I'll give you a hand by hand breakdown, not about to include bad beat stories in my vid. I must admit I find it quite amusing also that you hardly spent a sentence addressing my tournament situation considerations that I've cited in my justifications continuously - other than to say I don't have momentum and it's not something you can take back. I mean I don't want to get offensive myself but I find this to be a staggering comment, I would suggest winning a 20k+ pot without showdown well and truly gets me back on the road towards having momentum. If you think it's a stupid and irrelevant concept in MTTs/poker, we'll have to agree to disagree. Momentum and how people react to momentum plays a role in just about anything competitive, it's human nature.
What I'm really looking for in these comments is constructive criticism (I felt runitrunit's critique was a lot more considered and complete and I welcomed those comments) about the quality of the video (math amendments, things I can do better), suggestions for future videos etc. Lectures about how to adapt to an aggressive image and how to self-evaluate are probably better off elsewhere. Thanks for the interest in the vid all the same.
I think James correctly evaluated opponents range and hand, though as above said ill quote and is very nicely said : hasn't made a big fold since 3 years ago , but there is no big hand here in question but second pair , and most of us think for big ammount of chips opponent will find a fold on a mediocre holding, that said, its usually not happening though reason and common logic dictate it and with opponent who wants to be a hero caller and is loose and already put you incorrectly on wrong hand maybe optimal was to check see rvr and take it from there, better safe then sorry is very true sometimes
Im amazed as well what people actually cant fold but is simply fact we have to include in weighting our decisions towards something
My belief in that spot would also be that opponent holding jack should really really fold and i like the push because it addresses common sense of an opponent who doesnt have a strong holdingm ,but apparently mistake play with happy outcome
and to add to evaluating turn decision value~ compared to try win pot there or see river with realised equity, additional weight beside opponents fold equity and semibluff value of his hand that can improve to nuts, should be added impossiblity to represent that we have stronger hand on river if we didnt bet on turn, so any such play wouldnt have any value on river
right play~ in particular turn has nothing to do with outcome~ so im not sure how you will ever get agreement on what was right there since both plays have arguments for and against
it is much player image and opponent dependable, and with those 2 components i cant see how can ever get an agreement on those 2 factors
~ Im sorry to pop in your argument i hope you 2 dont mind im very interested in what would be right in that spot, because is very common spot that happens in many tournement games
~ i chose many times not to do aggro thing and find myself doing avarage results too often and yet they do give result at times that im not satisfied with, but i may add that since i decided to push the edge towards more aggro results are damn aweful so im looking for correct solution in such spots as well ( hopeu dont mind its 5=10 buyins ) principle is same, im looking forward reading your argument more :)
In my mind, this is the same logic you are using to justify this play. You're saying that because a bad poker play will help you win a pot in an very aggressive manner, it's worth doing because it will gain you momentum.
Now I understand that my thought experiment is a bit ridiculous... but it's just a theoretical idea I'm putting forward to make a point. I'm telling you I find this reason to be wholly unconvincing as a reason to make a poker play. There are plenty of +EV ways to be aggressive and attack in poker to win... especially against weaker players. Part of our job as professionals is to try and find as many as possible, to constantly be thinking about the way people are playing, adapting, and finding +EV aggressive ways to win. That creates momentum as well, but does it in a way that's +EV in the long run.
An example would be the following: You've been opening pots, and someone to your left has been 3betting you with a reasonably high frequency. You can decide to adjust and start 4betting this person with a higher frequency. Against many opponents this helps regain momentum because when they see you're willing to 4bet them, they will back off and 3bet you a little less frequently with weak hands. Yet, you can then discuss what hands you're going to turn in to 4bets (for value, using card replacement, etc...) ... and what frequency you'll do it with... and these 4bets are often +EV plays based on immediate fold equity, fold equity on future streets by gaining the betting lead, tailoring your range vs. your opponents 3bet%, etc... It helps you fill out your range also so that when you have a truly strong holding (Aces?), you might get more action from an opponent who expects you to have many other hands... and so forth. Basically that there are plenty of +EV reasons to make these adjustments and plays, and that momentum is something that comes as a result of this adjustment. And that in general, when you are playing aggressive and picking up pots (and aren't running really terribly), you will have momentum by the very nature of how you are playing, the result that's having, and how other players experience this.
Let me critique your response, first going back to your own words at the beginning of the video:
"I have been dwindling and my image isn't good." "When you've been bleeding away chips, I think the impression is that you're a bit vulnerable, that you're going to be bluffing more than you should, that other people are going to be calling you down... that they will be wanting to play hands with you basically. So I thought it was important to turn that image around. The way to do that is to win a bunch of hands in a row." ~ direct quote from you. (this stuff around 4-5 minutes into video)
You're basically disagreeing with every reason you later go on to make this play in my opinion here with this metagame analysis. This is the stuff I based my previous post on. DUCY I'm trying to make the point I'm making now? You have been bleeding chips, your image is a bit vulnerable, and your opponents think exactly these things. ***You even say they think you'll be bluffing more than you should!!!*** (I feel like this deserves the ! chess notation here) So why play in to it? This is my point. You don't have a good image to be bluffing lots right now, and this is a spot where I'd want a good image in order to bluff this player in this situation on this turn spot. Why? Because I'd want him to fold a jack or weaker. If I thought I could get him to fold a jack or weaker, the bluff is clearly profitable and I'd feel great firing a second barrel. If I think he's calling with a jack because he's really loose or because he thinks I'm a huge bluff-sack, then I'm going to be a lot less likely to bluff. Especially in a super high variance spot for my tournament life... something you yourself argued in a previous video has additional value, especially in a large field with lots of weak players.
First, I disagree that the hands I added to the preflop calling range will make it closer. Most of those hands are not in his flop calling range. Axhh is not folding at any point in the hand imo, and is likely to cr flop or call down (including turn). Almost all if not all of the suited connecters and one-gappers that I wanted to include that you didn't already include are folding to your flop cbet, and thus it's irrelevant to discuss them on the turn. I also wanted to add KJo and QJo, QJo cr flop probably so let's ignore that one - and KJo is another hand that I want to put in the "let's not bluff it for the litany of reasons I listed above" category.
You state that if you were insecure about this hand you wouldn't of posted it. Well I don't think you should be insecure about the hand, I just don't think you played it optimally. There's nothing personal about that. Whenever I post a hand or video, I more than welcome any constructive criticism saying that I played a hand bad and explaining why. That's how I figure to get better. To me that's infinitely more important than any other reason for doing this.
You keep going back to that you *don't know* if he will fold a jack, and you're dismissive of all my points as somehow I've divined that he will mystically call, probably by hearing the results first. The whole point of my post is not that I know he will fold a jack. It's that a) he's got tons of chips b) he's loose and calley c) your image is shot (a few more...)... These are all reads you gave! Based on these reads I don't want to TRY to get this opponent to fold a jack, which makes up a reasonably large part of his range on the turn that c/c flop... and the part of the range that we would theoretically be trying to bluff to make a bluff +EV in this hand. That's my point. I don't know that he won't fold it, but since I don't want to try to get him to fold it - i don't think we should bet again. And my point is based on all the factors YOU'VE stated about your image, your opponent, and even how the people at the table will be reacting to your image based on the last level of play... I just don't think it's worth trying. And it's not worth trying because you've given the outline of an opponent who's likely to call us down here with a jack. And I find all the ulterior reasons (momentum in this case) outside of the hand to be justifications you are making to make a bad play. You could use momentum any time to justify the more aggressive action in a spot... I just don't think this is the right way to think about momentum in poker either. I'm not trying to claim that momentum doesn't mean anything. But you are trying to create momentum using a bad spot. This is my point. That's what I used the thought experiment above to prove, and what I was trying to say in my last post.
And last, if you're going to agree to disagree with me about the merits of the turn play - but still obstinately think that you're play is the best play... I'm willing to put money where my mouth is. Let's agree on some people and have them read what we've written or something like that, and bet on whether or not they think checking back or shoving the turn is the better play. I'm here on Runitonce to discuss poker, analyze poker, and argue about what plays are better or worse. I've enjoyed your videos, and after watching a 50 minute video of yours based on one hand, I simply disagreed with the play you chose, so now I'm debating it with you. I'm sorry you don't seem to think that's the point of what you do.... that you'd rather a simple critique about your video style or the like, than an actual poker critique about the hand. But that's where I'm coming from. We can always bet on it.
When you've been losing pots for a while yes people will imagine you're a bit tilted and more prone to bluffing, and will want to play with you more. What that doesn't translate to is "if I bet nearly 2xpot all in I will get called by 100% of second pair combos". I agree, if my image was that of a nit this play would probably work every time vs Qx, Jx, as it is, it won't work as often. The analysis took that into account at all stages, that's why I conditioned he'd call with all queens and some jacks.
You do realise "momentum" is just one of the tournament situation benefits I've cited out of a plethora of others? It's not the most important one either. When I made the play at the time, I would have guessed the EV difference would be a lot closer given I suspected he'd probably fold 50% or more. After the analysis I'm left with the quandary of how much cEV to give up in this moment. It's not about me stubbornly defending a play I made because I don't want to have been wrong, believe it or not I'm a very harsh self-marker and how I learn is by constantly critiquing myself as I play (as my previous videos have shown). What I feel there is here is strong situational merit towards taking a vacuum fairly large -cEV play, and you're ignoring almost all the reasons I've cited for that.
He's folding A-low of hearts that isn't A6hh, he's putting me on AK at worst for heaven's sake. I'm sorry I described his tendencies as vociferously as I did because you've taken them too far. As I said, I do really hate that I'm in this position on the turn. I'd really prefer some insight along the lines of "maybe we shouldn't have bet flop if this is the decision we'll be faced with", or some analysis on how many chips we figure to be profitable in the future given the situation we've explained. 150(?) hands left to play for the night and we'll have the stack to play with freedom against a tilty big stack, that could realistically be worth x chips, etc. Hand analysis rarely works when outsiders decide they can read a fictional player better than the person offering the reads.
edit: Just to address your main point specifically: You seem to think it's never or seldom worth making -cEV plays to suit tournament conditions. Out of interest if this was proven to be a, say, -200 cEV play, would you agree with it? What's the inflection point in your opinion to where this becomes not worth it? In theory our preflop 3b and flop cbet were both profitable, so we've been forced into this spot in a way. I acknowledge what you're saying about there being profitable ways to regain momentum, certainly I should still have a lot of value in this tourney if I check back and lose; and if I shove, get called and lose that value is gone. But we're not guaranteed to chip back up if we do check/lose, we're not guaranteed to find good spots to 4b or to make the aggressive and +EV plays you're citing. We're only playing on this amazingly profitable table for the rest of the day, and in that sense we need to be stressing the importance of trying to maximize our future profitability for the next 5-6 hours given our profitability will be much lower on future days. So I feel we need to address each situation considering these things rather than just looking solely for vacuum cEV plays only. Would you agree?
I don't think momentum really works how you seem to think it works. I feel like the fact that you 3bet this hand preflop against an UTG and contested the pot accomplishes most of what you want to accomplish from a momentum perspective. You found a nice spot to attack a pot with a hand you technically didn't have any business doing it with, to make an aggressive play and put loads of pressure on your opponents. It makes you tough to play against, puts the fear of god in your opponents on your button, and might have worked out with a nice non-showdown win. It put you in a good spot where you iso'd the fish, getting the raiser to fold (recognizing some key reads about him in order to do so) against a relatively weak range (fish's range) in position. That was a super nice +EV play that is far from standard with KTo. It gave you a great chance to take down the pot... he just hit a great flop with AJo and now isn't folding. So let's move on to the next hand. (BTW as played if you check back turn, he almost certainly pays off the 9 river fwiw.)
I don't think it should be used as a reason to make -cEV plays. You've already created a situation where players are adjusting to you. In fact, to quote you: "They'll adjust such that if you start playing optimally you're in a more profitable situation than you were before, that's my point." - you have created this spot. You're now going to get called a lot more if you make a hand. You're going to get paid off a lot more in routine spots where your opponent thinks you can have bluffs, semi-bluffs in your range, and they can beat those hands. You're going to get lots of action if you 3bet preflop and your opponents have a good holding. By playing light and aggressive a lot, but not showing down hands or winning pots, your opponents think your bluffy, and now you will win loads of chips when you make hands. I live in this zone on a regular basis based on how I play in both tournament and cash games... but especially some tournaments because they are filled with weaker players who generally the best way to exploit them is aggression... and I feel like one of the most critical things for me is knowing when I need to start making hands or just slow the F*** down because my image is "shot" and I'm not going to get anyone to fold anything reasonable.
It seems that you want to change this somehow, but you can't. It's how your opponents see you in this moment, and you can't change it by not showing down hands. In fact a hand like this only reinforces it (3bet utg opener with KTo to iso the fish, shove turn with k-high open ended). The whole idea I'm espousing is that you have created this image through your play, and now your opponents see you this way - so just use it, embrace it, and realize if you make top pair you can get 3 streets against many opponents who will be calling you down super light (or other such spots). That's awesome in it's own way. Sometimes when you play aggressively but your opponents to fold, bc they can't call you down - and maybe ocassionally you show down the winning hand... it's an even better situation where your opponents think you're possibly being overly aggressive, but aren't sure - and it seems like you have hands. This is probably the best situation... because they aren't sure you're bluffing, they aren't often ready to play very light vs you.... but you can't just create this situation, you have to recognize it when it happens. Poker isn't about creating your reality, it's about accurately perceiving your reality and adjusting to it.
I obviously play basically every hand of every tourney with the image we've discussed, I have a fair idea of how to handle it, how my opponents react to it and when to slow down - this was never really about that, since I've acknowledged throughout there's a real chance he'll call me lightly. I disagree with you about momentum. Momentum to me is when things are going your way (ie. in poker, you're chipping up quickly). If I lose this pot on top of the chips I have lost prior I couldn't be further from having momentum. I feel strongly that when you play hands after having just won a, or multiple, big pot(s), the dynamic is different from a normal hand. People often change their frequencies (decide whether or not to 3b light) based on if you simply had just played the hand before - it has an effect on the psychology of the situation. MTT hand dynamics change so greatly from hand to hand (cash it's more of just an isolated hand-by-hand scenario, although not completely), I'm not sure you fully recognise this given as far as I know you don't play many tourneys, online at least.
I also feel strongly that having people want to get out of your way is a much more profitable dynamic to be in than to be paid off more when you make hands and your opponent(s) make worse hands. One way or another, they can't just be exactly equally profitable dynamics to play in. The former you get to win a huge amount of small pots (and be on top of the meta-game such that you can play the big pots better than your opponents), the latter you have to wait and wait until you get that good setup, in which case you have a better chance of winning a big pot. Should I have lost this big pot, I would have had to play closer to the latter dynamic (as I had been for the last 1/2 hour or hour (compared to my usual), this was a selective play to try to stay in the game), if I won I feel I would have gotten away with a lot more in future, been able to iso the big stack more, etc. Yes these situations can change very quickly, and it's only a space of time on day 1, but it still matters, more so here especially because we only have 5-6 hours remaining on this dream table and we want to be involved and to make it count.
To make an example of my own, say when I register I am given the option to either take my seat draw at an average strength table where I get to realise my average day 1 EV, or I'm told I can flip for being at a table where everyone is chip dumping their whole stacks to me - but if I lose the flip I'm out without playing a hand and lose my buy-in. It's vacuum -EV if no hands are played, but you'd be mad not to take the flip because all of a sudden my potential ROI is hugely above my normal ROI. Anyway, good discussion see you for the next installment :).
well what james is saying though is of course not that his play was -cev, just that the immediate chip ev was negative, but he thinks the aggressiveness will make up for it in the long run in the future by ppl folding to his opens more or giving up on flops more often because they are afraid to face huge overbets on future streets not knowing what to do then with marginal hands.
Basically by jamming there on the turn you are putting fear into the other players, this to me at least is the main argument for jamming turn. I am not saying though im convinced jamming is better than checking or vice versa, but i def see the logic behind the jamming play because putting fear into other players through certain plays that not always are optimal in immediate chip ev is something i do too from time to time if I am really convinced the play will have a big enough effect on the future behavior of other players against me. Its true that your shove doesnt look convincing here but the main idea for me seems to be that if the immediate ev isnt too bad because the guy has enough draws etc in his range still then the play could pay out in other ways.
I mean fear certainly does have an effect on the behavior of people, otherwise politicians and companies wouldnt use it that much through various forms of media for their own interests, but thats another topic.
Unfortunately the effect isnt really measurable while the immediate ev is easily measurable, which i like though, its nice that not everything in poker you can simply calculate.
I completely agree with your metagame reasoning. If you can be deeper with position on the fish your theoretical ROI skyrockets. However, if you just check back the turn and end up losing the hand it's not like your theoretical ROI plummets to the same degree. If you check and lose you're still 65BB deep in a absurdly slow structured tournament. The fish will still be on your right for the remainder of the day. You still have the image of being full-of-sh*t and very likely to be paid off by everyone at the table. Most importantly, you're still in the tournament.
I don't agree with you saying he's going to fold some jacks and call with others. If he's capable of making this call he's going to make it with any jack he called the flop with (AJ, KJ, JT). He's clearly to the level of thinking that your sizing is not balanced, that you would try and extract more value with made hands by making a smaller bet. It's not online so he doesn't have the luxury of easily knowing the pot/stack ratio but we can assume he knows that your shove is an overbet. I think that in his mind an overbet polarizes your range and possibly based on game flow he thinks you are almost never for value with this sizing.
You asked for comments regarding video content:
Especially because this is a live hand (as opposed to online) I think you should have gone in to much, much more depth about your table image and previous hands (because those dynamics are infinitely more important live versus online). Have you overbet any streets before (value or air)? How often have you been 3betting? How often have you been in 3b pots vs the big stack villain? What hands have you ben able to show down? That would have solidified your reasons for making this play. You vaguely go over the fact that you've been involved in pots but haven't been winning many of them. There should be more information given about gameflow dynamics that relate to this particular hand. For example had you overbet the nuts on the river and been able to show the hand, this play gets far more credit, regardless of your otherwise spewy image.
FWIW, I enjoy videos like this much more than videos where the author clicks through the hands and acts as a Pokernews reporter.
I have been a member of most of the training sites at one point but feel this site has fantastic instructors as well as having the likes of Brian and Benjamin making comments which are equally useful.
I am like a 2 year old child when it comes to Math as didnt attended school lessons that often!
I have a good understanding of pott odd's, equity etc, but Im much more of a feel / game flow player...... and my 2 bobs worth on the hand........ it looks so much like a draw / desperation shove the way the hand is played.....I I could not see you playing the top of your range in this way so its hard to imagine a player folding top / 2nd pair. Especially a player who has not got the mtt life on the line.
Many thanks
Ben
I see that your turbo MTT's is in better shape, so maybe you should tech only them at this moment?
No offence, but I think that it isn't fair from the side of coaching website vs. it's customers. This is appalling to say the least...
there are more options than check back or jam the turn. it seems incomplete to just compare EVcheck v EVjam+future meta and not consider smaller bet sizing EV. you had the entire decision tree in CREV so why not use it to calculate EV of different turn bet sizes?
also wanted to point out the parlay of jamming, getting called, and winning is ~8%. so 8% of the time we put ourselves in a +EV situation IP deep with tilting fish. now we have another parlay - if we play another ~5 hours until day ends we are only going to see 100-150 hands so our chances of another big pot with fish is limited by number hands we will play. so our over all "future implied tilt odds" are certainly less than 8%. i don't know how to really quantify this but as a cash game pro there have been many times when i had the god seat and played 5 hours without being able to capitalize on the situation
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.