Mario, thanks for pinch hitting for me on this one! You knocked it out of the park. The crucial thing here Tom (everyone) is that I'm trying to rep AK here. It's the only unpaired hand I can have here postflop, because it's the only one I'd 3b preflop. If I check this board 3 times, my line maintains continuity and credibility in repping AK. If I bet the river, I think I do a pretty damn good job of repping a slowplay that's afraid to check the river and potentially miss out on value. 

I'm basically reiterating Mario's thoughts here, but I'll try to add a couple of my own. I could definitely expect a lot of villains to fire the turn here with overs+gutshot or better here. It makes sense logically, especially considering my most likely hand here is AK - one that should fold to a bet. However, I find that a lot of players talk a bigger game than they walk in spots like this. Rather than bluff shove all in on the turn, I see guys check this spot back a lot and try to realize their equity. Basically it's easy to identify a good bluff spot on paper, but in the moment, with pressure, with consequences, etc, players will often take the safe route. As a result, I expect this player to have nearly all of the air in his range still by the river, vastly increasing the value of me checking on the river. 

Of course Tom, thank you for taking the time to comment in the first place! You know it's funny you mention that, that you forgot about previous action earlier in the hand. I remember when I was starting out, and even a few years into playing poker, that I would make mistakes like that too. I call them continuity mistakes. Once I got good at looking at the entire hand as one big picture, I was able to see what the smaller details meant more clearly, and it ultimately made me into a strong hand reader. A lot of this is practice, and a lot of it is being locked in focus wise in-game (or in-video-watching). Cheers and GL.

Hey Mario,

Nice reply. What you said makes sense to me and thanks for writing it out. 

-Tom

To complete the HH: hauptschule: shows [Kc Ks] (a pair of Kings) = hero.

No problem about sharing the HH here for discussion. Organization is a good thing, but what's more important is getting the material out there, anywhere, so it can be discussed and you can get better. Unfortunately, that's not why you posted this hand. However, you're going to get that result anyways! Talk about getting more than you bargained for. 

I'm getting exactly 4.25:1 here preflop. Even if that wasn't the exact number, it's always going to be close to that when you're in the BB and face a raise from a single opponent in the pot. I have you opening OTB 9/19. Your stats are slightly on the tighter side in general, though. However, it's nearly impossible for you to be raising a range tight enough for me to not be able to make money vs it by calling this hand getting these odds. 

To answer your original question, no. No, a fold isn't optimal here. All other assumptions you made on the incorrect assumption that folding here is optimal are invalid by default (if they weren't already).

Look man, no one likes taking bad beats. But you cannot react this way to them. Instead of getting emotional about losing this pot, what else could you have done? When I see an established good player/ pro (a definition for which I qualify for myself) make a play that seems bad, it makes me think. It makes me question what I know about that situation, and consider the fact that I might not fully understand that topic or concept. I'll examine it carefully, and research it until I've reconfirmed my original thought, and concluded that skilled opponent in question here was actually the one making a mistake. Or, I'll discover that I was making a mistake, and I didn't even know it. I think you would do well to approach these spots with an open mind rather than a rash emotional reaction. I hope this is helpful for you. GL.

Hello Mario! As for my playing style, I do agree with you that I tend to think more "outside the box" than a lot of players. I don't think a lot of things are standard. A better way to say this is that I just don't see the advantage of thinking something is standard. With this way of thinking, you may limit the scope of your thinking, and may miss a good alternative.

However, I think my game is more fundamental than you think. The 88 hand for example, I realize a lot of players would auto-shove there, saying it's "standard". For me, I question how good of a play that is. Versus that opponent, a very good winning player for years and years, who is on the tighter side, I just don't think he's opening as wide as people would assume he is in that spot. Just with his stack, everyones stack, and the turbo structure, I think he's being more careful/tight with his opens there. I don't have fold equity, so I am getting called 100% of the time.

 Now the question becomes how does 88 fare vs his range? I just gave him the top 10.5% of hands to see what the numbers came out to, and I have 45% equity vs that range with 88. With the money in the pot, it's just about a neutral EV play. (plus players behind me can wake up with hands). I think I can find a better spot. Too often players see "okay I have 8bb, I need to make a move now. Okay I got dealt 88, boom I'm allin no matter what". I just think that's the wrong way to think about the situation.

As for shoving 18bb vs EP with A4s. There is certainly a time and a place for that, and I have that move in my game. I don't do it often, it cannot be a "standard" reshove. The specific example isn't that important. What is important is your idea, for Paul and I to review each other. I think that is a good idea and I would be game for doing something like that. I have my next few videos planned out (ftops), so maybe after Wcoop? Remind me then and then Paul and I can get serious about this idea and see what we can do.

This question isn't silly, and it isn't stubborn. It's actually a very important topic that needs to be given more attention. I'm actually really happy you brought this up, and pointed out my mistake. 

And a mistake it is! You listed great reasons why: 1. We have no FE. 2. We're facing a 4x from a villain who is more than likely raising that amount based on the strength of his hand, rather than as some ploy to disguise his hand strength or the fact that he's short and essentially on a shove or fold stack. You noted that we're flipping at best here, and I definitely agree. 3. We're not desperate. We have time to get a shove through, and our stack is deep enough that we have FE vs players behind when we do shove.  

What this is chalked up to is human error. I mean, given all of these considerations we're talking about, it's a clear fold. And I had / knew / assumed most of these things in the moment too, yet I still shoved. I'm not sure what the proper term for this choice/behavior is, but it's some sort of error in judgment. More specifically, an error in ignoring my better judgement and the facts at hand. 

What's ironic is that I typically pride myself on being able to think outside the box and fold hands in spots that others deem as "standard" (I like your use of standard with quotes!). There was an example in this video where I folded 88 from UTG1 with 7bb facing a 16bb UTG minraise. I'm somewhat embarrassed by the fact that I made such a simple error here with the 77. Thank you for pointing it out and bringing it up for discussion, because as I said, I think it's an important and under-disucssed topic. 

Yes, I interpreted the tone of your response to be angry because of the bad beat. I apologize if I was wrong there. In my defense, I made sure to include legitimate analysis as well as an emotionally charged rebuttal in my response! More analysis, less emotion below. 

I'm certain about the nature of your 2nd post though: You asked great questions. Let's break it down! I included your stats as sort of a baseline for estimating your range. I used the term "tightish" to illustrate that even if my opponents range is tight(ish) in this spot, I can still make money by calling here. This is the power of pot odds. In fact, the wider my opponent's range here, the better it is for me. Here are some numbers to support that statement:

64o vs the top 20% of hands (I can't imagine anyone raising a tighter range than this OTB!): 64o has 31.1% equity vs 68.9% equity for the top 20% of hands.

64o vs the top 47% of hands (which is what my HUD has you raising OTB over 19 hands. This 19 hand sample is in no way conclusive, and TBH I didn't even reference this statistic in-game. I knew that it would be almost impossible for you to be raising a range that I couldn't profitable peel against, and my postflop decisions are pretty fit or fold at this stack depth): 64o has 33.4% equity while the top 47% of hands has 66.6% equity. 

64o vs ATC: 64o has 38% equity vs. 62% equity for ATC. 

Taking the worst case scenario for me in the above examples, which is the first one where my 64o is up against a super tight range of just the top 20% of hands, we can see that upon evaluating my equity with my pot odds, I'm showing a clear profit.

When one is getting 4:1 preflop, they only need 20% equity to continue in the hand. Our equity worst case is 31.1%, so in the worst-case scenario for this spot, we're still making clear money. 

A couple more notes. I'm not claiming (necessarily) that defending ATC is profitable here or in similar spots. I'm claiming that defending 64o is. 64o is significantly stronger than 23o, for example. Running some quick numbers, it does appear that 23o has the proper equity vs these ranges based on pot odds. Hmm, maybe I don't fully understand the power of pot odds either!

When we're defending this hand it's not a question of the villains position, but of his range. Sure position can help us define his range a little bit better at times, but in today's game, much of the time players are raising wide from every position. But provided that the raise size is the same as this example (min), we can use the same framework for determining which hands we can profitably peel here. We just need to estimate our range, and examine the equity our hand has vs. that range. So yes, I will peel this hand vs an UTG min raise if I feel his range is wide enough to give me the proper equity, as it relates to my immediate pot odds. 

I hope this helps. Let me know if it's unclear in any way, or if you have follow-up questions. GL.

Nice, these are really good questions as well. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to understand this concept fully. Let me see if I can help.

Part 1 - You make a great point. We're not always going to win when we realize our equity. That is, us flopping a pair, or a straight draw, or any equity strong enough to get all in, does not tell us how often we win the pot, in and of itself. The way I handle these situations is to use my preflop equity, and my hands playability on a variety of flops, to estimate if peeling preflop will be profitable overall. I think these estimations are good baselines, and in the ballpark of what's optimal. I concede that I haven't undertaken the rigorous mathematical analysis that is required to produce exact numbers in this situation. However, I am comfortable enough with my existing knowledge to make plays like this. I'm confident I'm making money by doing so. A side benefit is that I'm making myself more difficult to play against, which is an ideal I try to build my game around.

A final note on this section. Yes there are times we check fold, and times we check / get in and lose, but there are also times we CRAI and he folds, winning us the preflop pot plus a cbet. There are times when he check gives up and we can make a small stab on the turn to win the pot. I think the math tends to work out respectably for us, though we certainly have the worst of it. Our hand is worse than almost any hand in his range, and we're OOP (largely mitigated by low SPR). Again, I harken back to our 4.25:1 preflop, and the leniency this give us in having to win this pot - we don't have to win it much at all.

 Part 2 - This is a really good observation. If I'm peeling wider, with more hands toward the bottom of all hold em hands, how do I balance that range, and what does it do to my get-in preflop range? As for the 8.5 bb stack depth in the current example, more accurately grouped into the "no fold equity on a shove" stack size group, here is my rule of thumb: If I have a hand preflop, like say ATo, and I determine that there are no flops I would check fold, I'll just get it in preflop to ensure that I get the maximum amount of chips in preflop with my equity advantage (a hand like AT is almost guaranteed to be ahead of any OTB opening range with antes like this). I can't think of a flop where I'd check fold with AT, as on any flop it seems like it will have adequate equity vs OTB's range to continue. Perhaps a hand like A9 might be the cutoff here, as I might be able to find folds on QJ7 or something. The exact hand where we call or fold isn't important here, what is important is the concept. I think I maximize my EV by playing my ranges this way.

As for stack depths where we do have fold equity on a reraise allin, I do have a push range as well. I don't think it's fair to call it a push/fold range, because I will be doing some peeling at all stack depths. There are situations BB vs OTB or Bvb where one can have fold equity on a shove with as little as 10bb. When this fold equity is factored into the equation, it's an important variable that changes ranges. However, this is less true for me than it is for many of our peers. I don't have an exact system worked out for the precise hands I shove at each certain stack depth, but here are my general considerations. I think about my hands playability. Hands like 44 are more likely to get shoved than KJs for this reason. I think about my opponents range, and how my exact hand matches up vs his range as a call, and as a shove. I use those estimations in combination with my pot odds to determine my play. It's also important to note that my ranges are constructed exploitatively here. That is, I'm trying to take advantage of my opponents range in a spot, not make sure my ranges are always balanced. This leads me to generally call with poor hands that still have enough equity given pot odds (64o type stuff), and still shove many of my strong hands that dominate his range, AJo KQs. Pot odds give me the right to call here with poor hands, and there's no way he can play his range to make this a losing play (*to a degree, this isn't always {or usually} true for me defending ATC). Basically, calling is just a bit of extra EV that's laying out there that one can pick up, without having to change their current ranges too much - just simply add a calling range from hands that you'd usually fold. 

I think you're astute to note that a lot of these concepts apply to SB play as well. Pot odds are pot odds, regardless of position. However, there are a couple of other factors here that make a big impact, that make calling 64o here in the SB a losing play. The main thing is that the BB will be coming along often. He has great odds preflop, and he should / will be taking advantage of them by calling with a wide range preflop. While the equity of his range isn't particularly mighty, it's a third equity that's vying for the pot. Cutting a pie into 3 pieces is automatically going to make less pie for each person than if it was cut into two pieces. In this case, his piece of pie isn't huge, but it isn't small either. He'll have in the 25-30% ish equity in the pot with his range here, I'd purely guess. This is a significant hurdle for us in and of itself. Now let's think back to something you mentioned in your first point, the fact that we'll flop some equity, but it will be 2nd best equity to another player. Now we're at risk of this happening vs two opponents. The last piece of this is that we're in the worst position. Again, not a huge deal since the SPR is so low, but definitely a negative on the balance sheet that is this situation. Consider that almost every flop is going to go check, check, OTB cbets fairly often. Now we're faced with an allin of fold spot, with the BB still to act behind with essentially his full range. A hand like QTo or something become a more attractive candiate to peel the SB with since 1. it has more raw equity. 2. it dominates the BBs range and some hands in OTBs range and 3. It flops the best equity, while another opponent flops 2nd best equity that's good enough to stack off with, fairly often. 

I hope all of this helps! I hope it at least gives you some food for thought on the game and your different options in playing your hand and range at different stack depths in the presence of great pot odds. Let me know if I can clarify any of this for you or if this spawns new questions.

Gl. 

Hey man, thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you're enjoying a few of my videos. I know it's tough to stay in and study when it's nice out - the key is to find the right balance. Also, it's never too late to leave a comment. I'm happy to respond whether you ask a question the day after it's released or two months later. It's all the same, it's all learning. 

1. I don't see myself folding 99 here. A lot of the same reasoning applies, except that I've got one more hand for sure that I dominate in his range, 88, as opposed to the other way around if I had 88 (his 99 now dominates me). It's a small difference, but often times that's all you need to tip the EV scales in these spots. After all, there has to be a cutoff somewhere. I think I can fold with AJs, although it sounds/feels dirty, lol. But let me put it this way. You're in no way making a grave mistake by getting any of these hands we're talking about allin here. I would also note that I expect Belabacsi to have one of the tighter ranges you'll ever come across in that spot. Disclaimer -- I don't know his game that well to be able to give a money back guarantee with that statement. but it is the assumption I'm currently operating under vs him until he gives me a reason to think otherwise. Point being, vs a lot of players you're making tons of money shoving these hands vs. 

2. Thanks. I feel good about this one too. His range is just so air heavy that I'm obligated to give him the chance to bluff, as unlikely as him bluffing might be. I'm nearly certain this player would valuebet any Q that's QJ or better. You're right though, some more passive players will make the mistake of checking back here. Of course I'm at the top of my range in this hand when I get to the river, but I also get to the river this exact same way with so many bluff-catching one pair hands, that value betting Qx is mandatory.

3. Exactly. I have a tough seat to be open-tons-of-hands guy. Additionally, I want to reduce my variance here. I like where I stand vs the field, and I like the structure - it provides me plenty of time to operate. I tend to get tighter as those things get more favorable for me. Also, consider this. Let's say I raise a ton of hands, start getting played back at, then I'm going to have to play back at that, whether it's peeling 3bs OOP, 4bing a lot, or anything else. I'm confident in my decision-making in those spots, but the fact is it's tons more variance, and it's a lot more difficult. Basically the more tough decisions you make, the more likely you are to make one of them wrong. I feel I can minimize those simply by playing tighter ranges. Really it makes sense anyway you look at it. The other half of this idea is that if I establish a tight image, over and over again, for a period of time that matters, like an hour or two, that's a lot of "credit" I've built up for myself. I can cash in that credit in crucial spot, like making a big bluff on the final table bubble, or in a good spot at the FT. Basically, if I play tight, I stay out of trouble without really costing myself much, though I'm likely leaving a small (potentially more) amount of chips on the table. If I play tight, I also add a weapon in my arsenal which is a big bluff down the stretch that's going to get a lot of credit. Of course I could still make said big bluff if I was playing loose the entire time, relying on things like my hand/opponent reading to determine it's a good spot, while also expecting the added pressure of the situation to play to my benefit. But I think my credit here becomes very important, and translates into a significantly higher success rate. I also am in position to make this bluff a lot more often, as my tighter / lower variance approach has me remaining in my seat longer than I otherwise would. Wow, I thought that was going to be a short answer, hah.

4. This villain is thinking of the situation, not merely looking at his cards. This spot is also similar to my Q8dd hand. In both cases I'm trying to rep a weak hand / the weakest part of my range by checking. Generally speaking, this is a good way to induce bluffs. If you opponent reads the hand, (as you're setting him up to do) and finds that you're weak, well then he's likely to bluff. Furthermore, we've already established that his range is really wide, with tons of air. Both of these factors make this a pretty clear check. The only downside is we miss value (potentially - he still has to call) from his weak one pair hands. I think this is a small portion of his range, and a small consequence in the face of big opportunity. 

I think I see what you're getting at, and I actually tend to agree. I think this line is best used vs better players, with mediocre players 1. Not taking the bait / playing too passively on the river and 2. Making moves earlier in the hand. That said, I can still see them spazzing / reasonably bluffing me off AK on either the turn or the river, especially if they have 8 outs or better to AA on the turn. 

Hello Yoren. I apologize for taking two weeks to respond to your comment. I was focused on closing Wcoop off strong, and then I went on vacation :) 

My reasoning in this hand has a far less precise mathematical basis than yours does. Admittedly, such precision with math in spots like this is a weakness of mine. It's actually extremely useful for me to see the exact amounts of chips we're making here by shoving pre. I'm intuitively aware that we're making money reshoving ATs here vs almost any reasonable range, but the exact amounts we profit are new knowledge for me. I don't have an estimate for you in terms of a specific number for the EV I expect to make in flatting here. 

I have a few reasons for flatting preflop. Firstly, I never get eliminated from the tournament. Not exactly great science, but in a field this soft and a structure this decent, I'm using this line of thinking a lot. Secondly, I'm getting great preflop pot odds. This means two things. One, that I'm going to make a ton of money with this hand by peeling at this price preflop. Two, that I'm going to want to peel a lot of hands here preflop, and it's nice to have a hand like ATs here to strengthen my range. 

As for postflop, the flop peel is definitely loose and debatable. In my mind I was thinking that I had enough equity / showdown value currently with the strength of my hand relative to the board to continue. Granted, I still have to dodge two more streets as well as navigate vs potential bets from the villain. A lot of scenarios play out where it's just tough for me to get to showdown with the winner. In spite of that, I felt that I had enough equity at the 3.5:1 flop price I was getting to continue. I don't think people semibluff draws that weak as much as one would think, or as much as one would. I'm referring to the gutters and one card flush draws you referenced. My thought on the river was that I had showdown value and was facing a villain who was likely to err on the side of calling rather than folding, so I opted to try and show down. Your point about me being at the very bottom of my range is a very good one, and I now agree with you, I should have bluffed with this hand. It's a pretty basic error on my part. I did a poor job of prioritizing what are the most important considerations were for me OTR, and me being at the bottom of my range is the most important. 

Thank you for the thoughtful comment! Let me know if you have any follow-up or further questions. Cheers and GL. 

Hello Heisenberg. My apologies for the slow response here. This is a good question, and I'm surprised I don't get asked it more often. The way I see it, you have two options when coming up with a labeling/color system. 1. Is you do it based on the stakes and number of tables that a player plays. One of my main goals here is to separate pros from amateurs. That makes a huge difference in how you play a hand, so it's important to know before the cards are dealt.  For example, I'll have labels like "Elite top level pro, capable of anything" or "Average low/mid stakes grinder". My goal here is to generally get an idea of what stakes someone plays, and how many tables they're playing. From there I can make some pretty accurate assumptions on how they'll be playing.

 2. Design a system based on specific tendencies. Maybe you have a color for people who steal a lot in late position. That way you can quickly look up, see that color, see that player raising the button, and know it's a good spot to 3bet with more bluffs. 

My system started off more as number 1, but it has sort of become a combination of both. Also, now I find myself labeling players with a color that goes beyond what the definition I wrote for the label contains - I've sort of expanded the system in my mind without changing it in writing. Plus at this point I have a pretty good feel for almost the entire player pool, and specific notes on players. So a lot of times, I'm feeling like I'm making pretty good decisions based on my specific opponent. That takes a lot of game-play and a lot of work in labeling players. A lot of work, lol.

A couple other things to touch on here. I'm constantly changing my labels on players based on new information. Also, I think it's crucial that you get specific notes on players. I put a lot of emphasis on taking notes on players. I will stay on my 5 minute break and go through the HH replayer to take notes, I will be taking as many notes and as detailed of notes as I can in-game, and I will sometimes go through HEM at the end of a session to take more notes on guys. Be as specific as you can, and develop a shorthand system of writing so the notes are easy to read in the middle of playing 10 tables. 

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any clarification questions or follow up questions. GL.