These are great thoughts, thanks for leaving this comment. It's not exploitable if they don't exploit it. And yes, of course it is still exploitable even if I'm not punished for it. But the point being that I don't think he would assume I'm erring on the side of folding / having a very tight 4b get-in range. If he did know that I was folding 88 here, and thus could 3bet me with impunity as I'm always going to be folding, this is a large mistake by me, no question. 

I think the last hand of the rebuy period dynamics are key here, and definite range changers. I think that he probably would think exactly along the lines that you are from your post. That is, he would probably expect me to 4b wider since I'm essentially freerolling the allin, in the sense that I can either win the allin and double up, or rebuy and be at nearly the exact same chip count heading into the add-on. If he indeed makes this assumption, then he's going to exploitatively tighten his 3b range, to avoid 3b / folding a ton to my assumed frequent 4b.

 Of course the dynamic could play out in the opposite way in his mind. He could think think that I'd be gunshy to 4b with any width here since I'm essentially risking $200 out of pocket, along with my chip stack for the 4b. If he thinks this, he's going to 3b like crazy to exploit my tight 4b get-in range. 

I do think that the first scenario is the most common manner the psychology plays out, but I'll concede that both are plenty likely, and plenty present in practice. As such, it makes sense to default to putting my emphasis on sheer hand ranges in this situation, making your point about having a pair in OTB vs SB conflicts particularity poignant. 

My main concern is what losing the extra $200 does to our ROI. It's very possible I'm overestimating the effect this has. My current thinking is that it has enough of an impact that it should change my 4b get-in range to be tighter in spots like this. You mention the implied value of having a big stack. I think we all agree that there is some amount of value in that, how much I'm not sure. In general I think the amount of that value tends to be overrated, and especially so in this early stage of the tournament. It's true that we don't put our tournament life at risk because we can rebuy, but my current understanding and is that protecting the amount we BI for is important for our ROI and has a direct influence on this decision. Particularly if my assumption that he's 3bing tighter than normal / optimal is correct. Final note, I agree that villain is a good player.

I've really enjoyed thinking through this situaiton some more, thanks for leaving your thoughts!

I think Nick was correct with his initial comments in the vid re: risk/reward and he's not being come at by a light hand. 

Yes, villain is a very good player. He's not getting out of line there, though. Certainly not often enough to make a jam good in a vacuum. 

I also agree with this comment from Nick: 

Doubling up < the impact having to spend another $200 has on our ROI. 

And we even backed it up with some math! The math showed what we expected, that it was a close spot and the correct play is based on the exact width of his range. We need pretty favorable circumstances for getting in to be better than folding, and that's before taking into account the $200, which is significant. 

That's really cool to hear man, it's bringing a smile to my face. It's pretty obvious that your game has grown by leaps and bounds if you were a recreational player back then and are thinking about the game at this depth today. A pat on the back is in order for ya! Haha.

I disagree with you here that his range can't get tight enough to make shoving better than raise/folding. I think it can be that tight, and might actually be that tight. For starters, what do you think his 3b get-in range is? Choosing something standard like 99+ AQo+, my 88 has 35.6% equity. Sketching some quick numbers we're going to be hard pressed to show profit vs this range unless he has many 3b folds as well, which is of course the entire point of debate here! If you have any numbers that support your side please share them. It looks like it's just going to be you and I discussing this one, so it's up to us! 

I too suspect that a lot of regs fold in this spot. From what I've seen in playing the games, I feel like I never rarely see get-ins with similar hands in similar situations. Seems like I would have seen it happen more often if people were actually doing it!

I agree with you in assuming a lot of instructors make plays on-camera for the sake of protecting themselves and their image down the road. I'll admit that's tempting for me as well. But after watching Phil's videos for years now, I try and take a page out of his book. He always talks about how he's confident he can adjust, knowing that his opponents from the nosebleed games are watching and trying to figure him out. I'm definitely not anywhere near as good at Phil as doing that, and I have the added complication of having tons of opponents across many different mtt fields with no way of knowing who's watching, but I figure it's good for me to take that approach. I know it's good for the videos.  

Cheers and GL

Fair points. He's not a random nit, but as a rebuttal I'll say that many pros take on this disguise in pre ante situations, and as we're discussed, potentially moreso given the end-of-rebuy-period dynamics. Also a fair point that some players, even good pros, 3b 100% (or close) of their continuing range from the SB. I think this is becoming more and more rare, though. And I would not assume the villain in the hand is that type. To be honest I think that's something of an outdated notion, and that having a calling range in the SB is a much more sound strategy. What happens when an observant opponent notices one is 3bing their entire range from the SB 40x deep? Well, that observant opponent will now be able to make their life hell by 4betting. Suddenly the whole-range-3-bettor has tons of tough decisions to make with hands like KQo, 66 and T9s. I'm comfortable proceeding in the analysis of this hand under the assumption that the villain in this hand has a SB flatting range. It is a good note though in general, and I will also keep it in mind as I proceed here. 

Time to get down to business by taking the guesswork out of this discussion. Here is math for several different villains-range scenarios:

Super right 3b range. Value only. 68 hand combos, 100% for value / getting in pre:

In this scenario we will say the villain is a ridiculous nit! He only 3bs hands in this spot that he's willing to get all in preflop with. And his range for doing so is about the tightest one could imagine for 40bb OTB vs SB; 99+ and AQo plus. This hand range has 68 unique hand combinations in it, and is 5.55 % of total possible hand combinations. 

We need to find 3 things: The times he folds preflop and we win the amount that's in the pot preflop (PFW), the times we 4b shove and he calls (he's always calling in this example, remember) and we win (PW), and the times we 4b shove and he calls (he's always calling in this example, still) and we lose (PL).

Well, in this case the PFW is easy. It never happens. He is calling us every time we shove, so we never win what's in the pot preflop. 800 chips are commited to the pot preflop after blinds, my open, and his 3b.

PFW = 0.00 X 800 = 0

The PW and PL are a direct result of our equity in the pot, so let's find that first. Using a PokerStove-esque program, I find that our 88 has .356 equity vs the villains range of 99+, AQo+. His range has .644% equity vs us. 

When we shove, and he calls, and we win, which will happen .356% of the time, we win 4200 chips. That is the 800 in the pot, plus the villain's remaining 3400, which we barely cover. When we shove, and he calls, and we lose, which happens .644% of the time in this example, we lose our remaining 3650 in chips. 

Putting it all together into equations:

PL    = .644 X 3950 = - 2350

PW   = .356 X 4200 = 1495

PFW = 0.00 X 800 =   0    

  Total: = -855 chips   We lose 855 chips when we 3b vs a tight value range that has zero bluffs and is never folding once he 3bs. That is a large 8.5 bb we lose in the context of the hand.

Pretty tight villain 3b range. 2/3 of all his 3b combos are bluffs. 102 total combos: 68 for value (will be 3b/calling us) and 34 that are 3b folding to us. 

Now we have to make sure all of our frequencies are properly adjusted for the new inputs. Instead of him 3b / folding 0% of the time, he is now doing so 33% of the time. We must account for that. The flip side of that is that we must reduce the two instances of him 3b / calling us from 100% of the time, to 67% of the time. Note that 67% of the time if for both conditions total. So, in equation form: 

PL = .43 X 3650 = -1570           ** Notice that all decimals have been properly adjusted to add up to 1.0

PW = .24 X 4200 = 1008   

PFW = .33 X 80 = 264

Total: =               -298 chips. Now that he's bluffing a bit, we only lose 3bb on a shove here with 88. 

Totally balanced 3b range from villain. Half of his 3b combos are for value, half are for bluffs. The value combos are always 3b / calling, and the bluff combos are always 3b/ folding. 136 total hand combinations, which is 11% of total hand combinations. 

PL = .322 X 3650 =  1175

PW = .178 X 4200 = 747

PFW = .5  X 800 =    400

Total =                 = -28 chips.  When our opponent is completely balanced, we are still losing, but only by a relatively small amount of .3bb. 

Let's bring it all together. What did we learn? If our opponent is perfectly balanced, this situation isn't quite ripe for us to make money. We either need a slightly stronger hand, slightly more favorable stack depths (less deep/less effective BB), or we need our opponent to be 3bing slightly too much. Playing with this 11% of hands figure in PokerStove, I see that his 11% of hands could be as such: His value hands here, 99+,AQo+ for 68 combos, and his 68 bluff combos which could be a group such as ATo, AJo, KJo, KQo, KQs, KJs, KTs, ATs, and AJs. Or, his bluff combos could be something like this 65s, 75s, 76s, 86s, 78s, 89s, 96s, 97s, T8s, T7s, J7s, J8s, Q8s, and A2-A6s. As you can see here that is a ton of suited combinations of hands. That is just one extreme example of how he could construct his range. Now I would argue that he's playing the hands I included in my first example of his bluff range above regardless. I expect he will flat them, you noted that some players could 3b them. Can you see how helpful it is to know which type of player the villain is? If he's the type to 3b his whole continuing-from-the-SB range, then he's going to be super bluff heavy. Just playing the basic hand range that one would normally play in that situation overloads him on bluff combos to begin with. The add in the fact that he might be 3b bluffing with some suited connecting, gapper, or Ax hands, and we see that he's loaded on bluffs. This is the type of villain I'll 4b all day. I don't think the villain from this hand is that guy, and I don't think he's going wild with 3bing enough of these suited hands (or other hands in his 3b bluff range) to make my 4b profitable here. 

The end. Haha.

As an exercise to practice the math, it might be good to use this template and run some further scenarios, say when he has 2x the bluff combos as he does value combos. That sort of thing. Hope this helps. It's always useful to me to break out the ol basic poker math and apply it to a memorable hand. 

And here's the HH if you need it to check any numbers or for any reason: 

PokerStars Hand #101873224397: Tournament
#815010504, $100+$9 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2013/07/25
10:05:21 PT [2013/07/25 13:05:21 ET]

Table '815010504 11' 9-max Seat #5 is the button

Seat 1: Talerric (4090 in chips)

Seat 2: EvnomiYa (6975 in chips)

Seat 3: Elay99 (5767 in chips)

Seat 5: PureCash25 (3850 in chips)

Seat 6: CuAt69UsdSng (3900 in chips)

Seat 7: jimbojiff (2620 in chips)

Seat 8: jacktripkill (3150 in chips)

Seat 9: AMAK316 (4550 in chips)

CuAt69UsdSng: posts small blind 50

jimbojiff: posts big blind 100

*** HOLE CARDS ***

Dealt to PureCash25 [8d 8h]

jacktripkill: folds

AMAK316: folds

Talerric: folds

EvnomiYa: folds

Elay99: folds

PureCash25: raises 100 to 200

CuAt69UsdSng: raises 300 to 500

jimbojiff: folds

PureCash25: folds

Uncalled bet (300) returned to CuAt69UsdSng

CuAt69UsdSng collected 500 from pot

CuAt69UsdSng: doesn't show hand

*** SUMMARY ***

Total pot 500 | Rake 0

Seat 1: Talerric folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Seat 2: EvnomiYa folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Seat 3: Elay99 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Seat 5: PureCash25 (button) folded before Flop

Seat 6: CuAt69UsdSng (small blind) collected (500)

Seat 7: jimbojiff (big blind) folded before Flop

Seat 8: jacktripkill folded before Flop (didn't
bet)

Seat 9: AMAK316 folded before Flop (didn't bet)   

John, thanks for chiming in! The more the merrier. You post is spot on too, because in my response to liquidsword above, I worked out all the math on a few different possible villain ranges, and concluded exactly what you stated here. Thanks for the insight, and pat on the back for nailing this one. 

Oh! Good catch on those two things. First of all the 1/3 2/3 error. Yes, I meant 1/3 bluffs. But mainly, great catch on that we are relating our solution to -200 and not to zero. I had totally overlooked that major point! Thanks. Okay great, well this problem will serve as a very useful framework for us in the many similar spots that we encounter in MTTs. I think we can call this discussion a clear success!

Lastly, link to this ipoker bot thing? Lol that's crazy that they're beating 1k NL and neither the site nor the players are doing enough to stop them from entering the games. 

Hey tdub. This is a difficult question to answer, and it's for that reason that I would just flat call the initial raise. 3betting would put me in a bad spot of being potentially having to fold a hand with great postlfop value before that flop even comes around. It's important to separate the hands that you play into categories. One category is good hands that are good enough to play and you want to play postflop. Call with those hands and play them postflop. The next category is great hands you want to play, so you 3b those hands because they're clearly strong enough to justify a reraise. In order to balance out those strong hands we're reraising, we need to also raise some weaker hands in there. We could do so with hands like T9s, but why do it with that hand when we would be sad to get 4b and have to fold? Instead we can 3b a hand like 95s that's to weak to flat call, but has some value to it, such that we can 3b it. If we get 4b, we can fold and not be too sad since it's only 95s after all, a pretty poor hand in the overall scheme of things. 

Interesting thought, and I'll admit I didn't give it any thought during the game-play. I suspect my reasoning for that is that I assumed we were too shallow for that to make money. Definitely not a crazy question, as it's always good to review things you're doing that you think are standard. Like for example, me folding always in this spot.

I agree with your implied odds number that you look for in set mining spots. I am in the ~ 15:1 neighborhood as well. I'm still not convinced we have quite that here, taking into account all factors. Things like set over set, him giving up with AK AQ types, etc. I'm using this thread as a reference: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/maths-behind-calling-known-aa-88157/

Based on my preexisting knowledge, and what I'm taking away from this thread, I'm not sure the numbers work out to +EV for us hear. I've also been swimming in this topic for way too long now and may not be processing the numbers right, haha. Let me know what you think after reading the thread. 

W/ a 3bet of that sizing I think a call is pretty far superior to a 4b or fold pre-ante.  

There's 800 in the pot and 3400 in his stack, so you are calling 300 to potentially win 4200, which, at 14:1 is close to that 15:1 rule (granted I am not a huge fan of that rule of thumb tbh, esp IP as we are where his range is undefined but definitely wide in a polarized fashion weighted towards a large % of value or a seemingly more merged gii range at end of rebuy).

This also lets us construct a set of flatting hands to play IP depending on teh reg, my history vs CUat69 has him playing pretty solidly from the blinds iirc so my calling range probably isnt that wide, but I think in game its probably my 77-JJ and some JTs or KQs that I want to play IP and evaluate. Even though he's a solid player I think we print by calling and playing well/selectively agressively IP.

I agree with what you're saying about this river spot, in principle. His range crushes mine on this board, thus he's going to be peeling my x/r super wide and trying to win the pot on later streets. In practice, with the specific turn and river card that came, I can't beat a whole lot. Even of his aforementioned floats. Many are going to contain Ax. Ones that don't (and even ones that do) are going to bet the turn specifically that turn, a lot. Right? Do you feel he's turning 22-77 into a bluff here on the river? That's a reasonable thought, if he figures I can have a hand like I do have. If this is so, then yes the river should be a call.

I want to say it's as simple as I'm at near the top of my range, I should call (and maybe it is). However, I just don't see a lot of bluff combinations that can get to the river, and bet this river. 

Hey steamer. This is a good question. Both because it's a very close spot, and because this is such a common situation in MTT. The short answer is yes, I will shove this hand at times, in certain situations. I think it's profitable to shove this hand in any situation, although very slightly so. Situation where I'd be more inclined to shove this hand, and typically do so, are in turbo tournaments, and in late game situations at tough tables/with tough lineups behind. 

In turbos, there simply isn't time to do anything but take profitable spots (nearly always true. There are exceptions of course). The consequences of raise folding a hand that you can profitably shove are more severe in turbos. The reason being, you have less time to maneuver after the hand. You're going to be left with 12bb and soon to be less once the blinds rise, which isn't more than 4 minutes away. I think generally speaking more people are more willing to get it in a little bit wider. In the example from the video, perhaps in the Benjamin, the player OTB would be willing to fold 55 to my MR (MinRaise) here, whereas in a turbo, he wouldn't. Finally, we're going to be stealing the blinds less total times than in a regular speed, again simply because there is less time to do so. We're at each table far less time on average, and everything is just less on average. When we're stealing the blinds less, it's more reasonable for us to get away with a steal with ATC. So we don't raise raise fold a hand we can profitably shove. We profitably shove it, and then use a trash hand to steal, which polarizes our MR range - we have AA, KK and the like at the top of this range.

Now, to note. Constructing your ranges in such a way, totally polar opening range and just shove everything that you can profitably shove, is probably the way to go in any situation. In fact, that's the strategy I'm going to encourage you to use. It's simple, and damn near optimal, if not entirely optimal. As you see from the video, I deviate from this strategy a bit. My reasoning is that in a regular speed tourney at the mid-way stage, players aren't going to be restealing me as wide, as often. They're going to be restealing much too tight. This means that when they do resteal vs me, I can be confident that QJo is a fold vs their range. Now if there was a sharp villain behind, who realized I was raising far too often, and raising hands like QJo that I'd have a close decision with, he could punish/exploit me by reshoving extremely wide. By virtue of me using this strategy, I am without question exposing myself to be exploited in this way. However, I argue that nearly all villains aren't aware of my strategy here, and aren't exploiting me for it. The benefit to me is that when I MR, and a player reraises behind me, I can relatively comfortably fold my hand and preserve my tournament life/equity. Whereas if I had shoved and the same player called, I'd now have to showdown for my tournament life/equity with a hand that's behind the range of hands that called my shove.

The reason I mentioned late game situations initially is because everyone is keenly aware of tendencies at this stage. People are focused on the game, and actively thinking into my tendencies. Whereas in the midstages they may give my open here a free pass, and fold A8s or 55, now chances are they're going to reraise to an amount where they're commited to call my shove, expecting that they're going to make a ton of profit from me raise/folding a lot in this spot, while their hand still has fair equity vs mine the times when I do MR and get it all in vs a reraise. 

This party never stops! I'm glad you liked the series, and thanks for leaving a comment.

Your overall conclusion: It's a great, unexploitable strategy given correct range construction. It's only applied to a narrow 13-15bb stack size though.  - I agree with you here. One other benefit, is if your opponents don't realize you're doing this, you gain more EV cuz they might be calling you tighter, thinking you're shoving AA still. Although as soon as they see you minraise once, the gig is up, lol. Still exploitable though. 

A. Your reasons and observations looks great man, well done. Good detail and very sharp. One thing though, that even with less than 13bb, you can still get away with raising wide, and raise folding wide, if players behind you are not restealing enough. This is also a (fair and good) argument for minraising your whole range at many (or potentially any) stack depths, though I'm not sure which yields a higher EV. 

B. Yes, risk reward shrinks to a point to make shoving less desirable, eventually becoming a -EV option. At this point, you really have no choice, right? You've got to MR with your whole range, and call vs shoves on a case-by-case basis. I imagine you will be pretty accurate on which hands you call, so long as you identify the opponents resteal/defend tendencies fairly closely. One important thing to note - Now that you've added hands that you used to be shoving at lower stack depths to your raising range, you have to drop out some of your polarized raise/fold hands (if you want to have a perfectly balanced range). Otherwise you simply have too many combos that are folding when shoved on. Of course there are plenty of MTT tables (most of them) where you can raise wider than perfectly balanced, and exploit that fact that people aren't restealing you wide enough. I would adise you to exploit this at table in which you can, but always be aware of what a perfectly balanced range would be in X spot, and implement in when necesseray. 

Appreciate that Chavdar! Thank you. GL accepted, and GL right back at ya. 

Hello there, friend. Good post and nicely organized; I always appreciate that.

1. Eeek, but the turn, Nick! Good question. I think I'm very protected here, so I think a river CRAI from villain might happen like 1 time in 500 or something. I think the implication of the stack sizes remaining OTT - a PSB left - is that with such an easy amount to bet all in on a single street, I can easily be checking all my nutted hands here on the turn, hoping to pick off a bluff OTR, or let my opponent improve his equity enough to be able to call off when I shove the river. Especially since I can have Ahxh in my range here, I can literally have the nuts. Following this thinking, it makes no sense for villain to have a river CRAI here. Even thinking outside of pure logic, this just isn't a play that people look to make, or should expect to be profitable play. I guess my bet size is saying that I'm going for thin value with KK or even QQ. By betting this size to rep these hands, I"m hoping to get a call from the Ax suited stuff he 4b bluffs with. If he were to CRAI... Man, I dunno what I'd do. The following thought won't definitively answer that question ,but it's a fun though - Villain's Ahx hands might rather bluff-catch this river rather than value bet, but when they see me bet this size, they think they have room to bluff shove the Ah blocker. This is all pretty damn presumptuous though, and even more so when you consider he doesn't have much Ax offsuit opening from this position. 

2. You did a great job expressing your thoughts - they're very clear to me, and I think I'm following you entirely. The funny thing about this spot, is there shouldn't be any XX hands in my range! Haha. I mean, what is my range here? How do I even have a x/r range in this spot? Seems silly when I'm at such a range disadvantage. I guess the idea behind this play (x/r flop) was to take advantage of this obvious fact, while I'm very near the top of my preflop-peel range on this flop. 

Why don't I like check calling? Hell if I know, I sure do like it looking back. I think this was a dual error: one part being a conceptual lack of understanding from past-Nick, and the 2nd part being a poor job of evaluating my options (and our ranges) in-game. Check calling here works great. 

As played, I agree that betting the K turn is mandatory. It's actually a pretty good card for me I think, because it's one villain may expect me to continue bluffing on. Not sure what hole cards he thinks I have though, to make this x/r in the first place. Ya I'm hosed on the river here, and his overbet signfies that he recognizes it. He can bluff his 22-66 and QJ or whatever, and I'm in a world of hurt. I just think a lot of his floats got there. I block his T9 floats, which is an attractive hand to cbet, and then the turn and river pair his floats. I'm looking at TJQxxx combinations only. I suppose if all of those get here this way, then I should be calling river. Tough to say if that's the case or not, and I'm not certain.

Very intelligent post, thanks for the conversation. GL.