2016 Aussie Millions $100k - Ivey vs. Sammartino
Posted by bdon22
Posted by
bdon22
posted in
High Stakes
2016 Aussie Millions $100k - Ivey vs. Sammartino
The hand: https://youtu.be/xEre87X1URE
Saw this video and thought it would be interesting to generate some discussion on whether or not Sammartino should have called Phil's 2x river overbet shove with the nut straight. Here's my take on it. Obviously I've made a lot of assumptions and I don't play MTT's or high stakes at all so please correct me if my ranges/assumptions/math is off.
Phil shoves 135k into a pot of 70.3k (roughly 2x the pot) so this means he's allowed to have 66% value hands and 34% bluffs (135/205.3). Therefore Sammartino must defend with 34% of his range else he be exploited.
Sammartino's line:
Pre-flop: call
Flop: check/raise
Turn: bet
River: check
Sammartino's range:
Pre-flop is too wide to really go into detail but the main point is I think TT always 3-bets and 88 3-bets often (50%). Also T8 may not call the raise unless suited. Combination wise this gives: 33(6), 88(3), T8s(3) = 12 combos of full houses by the river.
By the river, he probably never checks with a full house since he loses too much EV when Phil checks back with a flush. Therefore his river checking range barely (if ever) includes a full house.
He doesn't have many strong flushes either. Hands like AKhh, AQhh, AJhh, KQhh, QJhh would all re-raise pre-flop since Phil is stealing from the button. This leaves only a few flush combos in his range: A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A9, Q9, Q7, Q6, Q5, J9, J7, 96, 76, 65 = 15 combos (assuming he plays somewhat reasonable hands).
So if Sammartino needs to defend 34% of his range after he's checked, in order to not be exploited, he must expand his calling range into non-full house territory.
He has a few hands in his flop check-raising range that can reasonably give up on the river: any Ace or King of hearts hand with or without a pair: Ah3x-Ah9x, Kh3x-Kh9x = 38 combos. But let's say he wants to bluff with some portion of these to balance the times he bets with a full house. Since he has 12 full houses, at a 2:1 value:bluff ratio, this means he bluffs with 6 combos leaviing 32 combos of Ah/Kh hands to check fold with.
Other strong hands in his checking range are: 96 suited w/o hearts bottom straight (3 combos), and trip 7's that bluffed flop with a heart and now backed into showdown value (let's say 20 combos of Qh7x/Jh7x/97/76). He can check these hands and win vs. Phil's overpairs.
.: total combos that check on the river = 67
34% of 67 = 23 combos. Recall we only actually have 15 combos of flushes. So this proves we need to extend our calling range into non-flush hands.
As for which hands are best to call with, we want to use hands that don't block Phil's bluffing range. If we can expect Phil's most likely bluff by the river to be a busted flush draw, then we don't want any hearts in our hand to maximize the times he's bluffing. So J9ss seems to be a really good bluff catcher in that sense.
Loading 6 Comments...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ1zrRVrKTg
Nice analysis!! I'm usually not a fan of saying we need to defend x% or call x% because everything is so situation dependent, but this was good!
San Martino's check on the river allows Ivey to make this play. Totally caps his range, he has no more strong flushes, absolutely no sets (even less likely due to flop c/r in my opinion). Notice how fast Ivey shoved after the check, if San Martino had went for thin value, Ivey would've fake tanked at least a bit to balance his harder decision time. Anyway, that check allows Ivey to shove incredibly wide. I don't even think its completely polarized, I would suppose Ivey could be shoving all flushes as well. He has many different combos of value that beats a straight. San Martino would probably not agree since he decided to call with his straight, which is basically a bluff catcher as played. San Martino probably leveled himself into thinking that it was a full house or air, and decided to make the call. I wonder how much history there is between these two, and if that played into it as well.
When I analyzed the hand, I found it very hard to find combos of bluff type hands that make it to the river like this (for Ivey). The only hands that make any sense are the ace of hearts with one pair, even more likely if it was a 7. Would Ivey shove a 7 though?? I am not convinced he would. In my mind, I thought it was a fold. I would also like to say I am not a professional and have never played against Ivey so its pretty meaningless.
If Sammartino shoves QJhh then he should shove A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A9.
If Ivey perceives Dario to almost never check any Jh+ flush, then he can use an all-in bet sizing with Qh+ flushes, which makes the argument that not having hearts decrease in importance.
Also, Ivey is unlikely to put three bets in with a naked flush draw except if it is the Ah and has something to go with it, given implied odds.
Blocking no hearts or boats makes this a bad bluff catcher. Ivey value betting range for 2.35x pot is so narrowed that blocking effects have a much higher impact on his value betting than on his bluffing range.
you guys stated some solid evidence. i can't refute much and agree with some things said. But what if our poker sense says Phil Ivey has our straight beat nearly 100% of the time? Then we call with j9ss and exploit ourselves in fear of being exploited. Pots like these seem to have more of a poker feel often times to me, "feel" lol(say it in your Screech Power's voice: "feel. feel. feel."). it can be there though, those over bets, sometimes you just know. really knowing your villain probably helps a little, poker's fun, it's still deep.
there's gotta be evidence behind the feel though
Is being perfectly balanced necessary in MTTs? I thought this was more a cash game concept applied to iterative play and not situation dependent as you find in MTTs. Phil doesn't need to bet x% bluffs or y% value hands, he just has to exploitively over bet when he thinks he can get called by worse or fold out better. Reducing this level of play to blockers and frequencies seems obtuse to me.
Be the first to add a comment