Anatomy of a Sunday Million (4 of 5)
Posted by Nick Rampone
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 20 Comments...
@Nick, I completely agree with your whole view on game flow - I play lots of hu and it's the small +EV spots in mtts like picking out blind steals after BB has just won a pot etc, that make nice stack builders. With the A7 hand, I think I prefer 4b jamming - what would you have at the bottom of your 4bet jamming range there?
With QJ, what do you think about x/c flop and lead (small - 400kish)/call turn? I think villain's checking back most of his non - Q range on the turn and probably river, so could we get value from any T and any pp there or is villain folding regardless of what we do?
cheers.
1. It applies maximum pressure to the opener. He now knows that he has zero fold equity vs me (I'm allin). So he has to assume I have a hand strong enough to commit all my chips. That could narrow his range for continuing significantly, especially in a spot like this. He no longer can bluff, or do things light, because his only option is to call all in.. And you need a strong hand to do that!
2. It prevents me from making an incorrect decision later in the hand. I'm not sold on this one at all, so please let me know what you think. I'm thinking that if we make a small 3b, and he 4b all in, two things could happen where we'd make mistakes. We could assume his range is way too narrow and make an incorrect fold vs his shove, or we could assume his range is way too wide and make an incorrect call. A mistake in this fashion would be devastating at this point of the tournament. On the other hand, we as poker players get paid to make decisions, and the best decision makers get the biggest salary. So we shouldn't be afraid to make a decision here. I guess what I'm arguing here is that we shouldn't not take a course of action just in the name of not having to make a decision (necessarily). If 3bing small and deciding from there is better than shoving because it allows us to make better decisions more often, than we should do it, even if making those decisions is difficult.
3. Traditional stack size restrictions. Another reason for my choice to shove here without much of a second thought may be the way 20 bb stacks have been played traditionally in MTTs. Historically, there hasn't been much 3b / folding with that stack, or even a ton of raise folding as recently as 2-4 years ago. So maybe I just let years of habits take over here, and didn't give enough conscious attention to the new things that I've learned, to the more recent developments in MTT play. This is something to take careful note of in all spots - no auto pilot!
Let me gather my gather my thoughts here a little bit and come back to this, this is a really interesting and crucial consideration in my view.
On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter to an extent. If we think that his range for cold calling our allin = his range for 4b our small 3b all in, then it doesn't really matter what we do - because we're getting it in vs the same range! I also think that a shove might look a bit stronger vs the opener OTB just given my read on the importance he places on "all-in".
@BRniez. Hey thanks for chiming in man, I love your thoughts. Your first point is counter my initial thought that I wrote just above this. And I think that's a really sharp observation, noting that we folded getting 1.9 earlier so the villain (a pro) behind us might notice that and be capable of playing (4betting) a wider range to exploit me here. If that's true at all to any degree, it increases the value of choosing to shove over a smaller 3b. Along those same lines, maybe with the initial openers short stack depth, us 3bing small might indicate to him that we have a hand that's only strong enough to call a 8-10 bb shove. I don't really think that's true though, because he would probably expect us to make that small 3b size with our AA too.
Cool man, it's nice to get some validation on my game flow approach / ideas. I think having that sort of knowledge and intuition and being able to combine it with a more scientific, game theory type of approach, will make for the most effective decision making.
I always struggle with this, with defining an exact 4b range. Of all the times I'd played with this player before, and during the final 4 tables, I hadn't seen any indication that he was making a ton of moves. I mean obviously as a pro player he's making some, at some point, but I felt in this spot that his 3b range OTB wasn't as wide as most players. I'm not too confident in that assertion, but it was my feeling at the time. Given that, and the overall situation, hmmm. In the tightest of circumstances, one thing I like to think about is what's the bottom of my opponents 3b call range? Here it's 77 or 88, and like ATss. So I would probably start my 4b range in that area, so I at least give myself a chance to have flip equity vs portions of his range, and just a closer equity gap in general. So, I mean that means I'm playing pretty damn tight to 4b in this spot. I'll say 77+ and ATo+
Cool idea for playing this QJ, but to me that seems to have all the benefits of CR on the flop, with a couple minor drawbacks added. Check call on the flop lets him realize one more card of equity, which isn't good since we have an equity advange. Especially on a texture like this. A lot of the cards that will improve his equity will do so in two ways: 1. To a hand that beats ours. Like a broadway card that fills a gutshot, or an A or K that makes a higher pair 2. Improve his hand's equity, but not to enough where he'd want to stack off. Say like a 8 hits and he has A8. He has improved the equity of his hand, but he's not really beating our likely hands (Qx and Tx), so he won't put too much more into the pot. Therefore, turn cards can only improve his equity and standing in this situation, and not ours. That's the main reason, but another is that there just isn't much air we could check call with. Not even much that's marginal. I don't think he would be more likely to bluff a turn lead than he would be to bluff a flop CR. Granted I don't think he's likely to bluff either. Maybe it's possible though the he makes his 8 with A8 and calls a 400k turn lead. I don't know though, I'm dubious that he'd even continue in that spot, and I don't think it will ever be often enough to justify letting him realize that one extra card of equity, and all the times that will cost us the pot. I hope that answers that hand clearly, if not please ask a follow up! And let me know what you think of my thoughts, as they're just that - thoughts - and not facts.
Cheers
Great vid as all so far, i loved the way you changed pace for last 2 tables and picked to play same time tighter with hands that were to be dominated at spots ( A8 i think it was ) but in same time is great to see how you found spots where you can play wider, based on reads and positions, and insight on how you came to those reads and thinking process behind is is great for us to learn from you how to make grounds for a good creative play :) thanks loads, no questions this time
Cheers
Do i need to get rid of that habit~ as in get in habit to always have focus :S ?
You say at times you have this low focus. How often would you say? Does it ever happen at cash game tables? I mean it could be possible that MTTs are not for you. I'm not saying that you can't beat them, but how much do you enjoy them compared to tables? If you're always getting bored and wanting to be playing cash games, then just don't play the tournies in the first place. Just go straight to cash and only play tournies when you have a definite feeling or desire to play them, focused, all session long. If you only lose focus once in a while, then I would say you have to find a pattern and see as early as you can when you're not focused or might be easily prone to losing focus. Then you can fix the problem before it starts costing you money :D
For me yes this happens too. It used to happen to me a lot, not not very much at all, but still sometimes. I think you would have to be a robot to not lose focus, or get distracted, or not be enjoying what you're doing (playing tournies) at some point during some session. I've gotten so much better over the years at noticing when I'm feeling that way. Maybe I will wake up one day planning to play a MTT session all day, but notice as I'm eating breakfast or something that I really don't want to play that day, or have other things on my mind that will prevent me from focusing totally on my MTT session. On days like that I just won't play. I used to try to play through it, and never had good results doing that. There's no shame in taking a session off if you're not ready to play. After all, you're only costing yourself money if you do. Just be honest with yourself and be observant of how you're feeling at all times :)
I never feel that at tables :) but when i dont play tourneys few days 10 days i start to miss it and when i get back i enjoy it :)
Ill try take your advise and observe how i feel and skip few days or a day if i get lowfocused, i just wondered is it me only :)
That is a good word to use by the way, and I do know exactly how that feels. I think it's nearly every poker player goes through.
Good luck in your games :)
I'm glad you asked about this because I didn't spend any time in the video talking about it and I think it's a great question. Cheers.
Your comment addresses one of my biggest issues with poker, and video-making for that matter. This isssue is an almost OCD level of analysis, that ends up doing more to scramble the decision making process rather than simply and solve it. Even if it's just a simple paragraph, it's refreshing to hear from someone that they have success operating in a much more decisive fashion. Throwing in the perspective of a pschology and cash game background, and you got me listening!
One point of clarification though. Do you mean that MTT players tend to look at a ton (maybe too much) minute information before making a decions in a high variance spot in general, or that they try to find information or twist it that will support making the high-variance decision itself? If it's the latter, you're basically saying that I will structure my thought process and information analysis to make a high variance decision, rather than to make an impartial one, or to conciously take the conservatively route. I can see this being true in my own mind, and within many poker players as well. I think it's natural to want to take the high variance route a lot of times because it's more fun. We will get more enjoyment out of it than we would conciously taking a careful course of action, or making a purely analytical decion. It's more fun in large part because the rewards are bigger for this course of action. We can win a bigger pot by taking the high variance route. We get greedy and lose discipline, we rush things. instead of playing the tourament with pace, now we're biasing our decion making process to produce a high variance route as the proper course of action in order to get our stack in better immediate position to final table the tournament. I used to struggle with this immensely, and I know that this sort of bias clouds my thought process today ever so slightly. Which hand was this in reference to by the way?
Just to kind of briefly expand on this thought. Where do we draw the line of analyzing? How much analysis is too much, and how do we know when we've crossed this mark?
Good to know that the QJ hand is standard across NL disciplines at this stack depth.
Thanks again for the comment! I really enjoyed it and it really got me thinking. Fun stuff man, cheers.
I guess u expect someone necessarily asks u about A8o hand and donk from SB on AKT at 32:00. Here I am :)
So, in general I agree with u that this line looks very very suspicious, especially when he bets really large (about 67% of pot, which is pretty much bet in general for this late stage I guess), But in the meantime we have seen many ridiculous 3x raises from this guy and we can fairly define him as a fishy player and probably not like a pro. Based on my experience I think that fishy players can lead this flop with very wide range, any broadway, any ace, just pure bullshit. Concerning his strange sizing - I guess he probably just clicked it to 3 bb and didnt put any sense in that stab. Another argument for not to be scared is that leading this flop with the nuts have not very much sense (despite the fact he could lead this flop with the nuts indeed), cause It fits our opening range pretty much and he could expect us to cbet it nearly 100% of times).
So in conclusion I want to say that we have a pretty mandatory call at this point at the flop with the hand as strong as our in my opinion. And then reevaluate situation on the turn, especially when we have position and comfortably can look what he's gonna do further.
I like how you bring up his bet sizing. I focused a bunch on hand ranges during the video, and not much on bet sizing. That is very sharp that you notice that he's using the bet-clicker to click to exactly a 3 bb bet size. When I think about what his bet size tells me about his hand, what it looks like to me, my first thought is that it looks weak. If he has a strong hand, doesn't he want me to stay in (by using a smaller bet, or a check call/raise)? Stacks are shallow, so why bet so much on the flop when he'll have no problem having < a PSB left on the river? I have two problems with this. The first is that my definition of a strong/weak hand is often very different from an amateurs definition of a strong/weak hand. I've seen it explained to me in the chat box of online tables and in casions as well, " I was trying to protect my hand". The most extreme example of this would be that he has the nuts in this situaiton (QJ) and he wasnts to proctect his hand from a potential flush draw, or I suppose a full house. I mean that seems completely silly and paranoid to me, but I have seen that happen many many times. I have also seen it happen many times with a weak two pair in this spot. I find that much more reasonable, becasue any broaway card could improve my hand to a better two pair or a straight. These players also will bet big to proctect there hand. They will protect it not only by betting, but by betting big. The second problem is that they might not be thinking that deeply at all. I mean your analysis of that flop hitting my range is spot on, but he might not recognize that. And even if he recongizes that, he might not act on it. And even if he acts on it, he might decide to bet instead of check call/raise, thinking that okay this guy has to have something, I'll bet and get paid, no way I'm going to let him check back for a free card. What I'm ultimately trying to say is that it's very difficult to know for certain what this player thinks with this little imformation. There are so many possibilites as you can see.
From what I have seen of his tendencies, and from what I estimate his range to be to flat in the SB there, and from my experience of seeing leads like this, I felt that folding was the optimal play. I still feel that way too. Let me throw a few other thoughts in here. Your logic of him thinking this is a good board for me works both ways, so be aware of this. If he thinks this board hits me, then his lead is unlikley to be a bluff. Why would he bluff into a board that he thinks I hit? I also think that you're being too general when you label this player and respond to his actions. You say "based on my experience I think fishy players can lead a ton of hands here, including bullshit" I 100% agree with this, and that has been my experience as well. My issue here is that we've narrowed this player down a bit. He's not just in the super-broad "Fishy player" catergory. He's a less experienced player with poor preflop sizing fundamentals, but basic board recognion. He 3xs pre = bad preflop sizing. But don't forget! He also folded to a lead from the blinds after 3xing UTG. that means two things for us! One that he thinks that leads are strong. Or that he's playing his cards only. If he thought the lead was weak, he would have raised. Since he folded he must think the lead was weak. Or, he didn't think about the strength of his opponents hand at all. Rather he just looked at his cards, saw that they did not match very well with the board and folded. This isn't completely conclusive, I mean he could think that this lead was strong, and then choose to lead himself, knowing it's a bluff but wanting to represent strength. However, I think on the whole, based on this one hand alone, that I can comfortably assume that he's more likely to lead strong than most. Boy we got deep into this one, I would love to hear what yout think about me getting down to these tiny details and making decions off of it. I'm pretty confident in doing these things, and I think this ability is one of the things that sets me apart in poker.
Thanks for commenting on my last two videos man, I really appreciate the thoughtful, detailed feedback. Good luck man!
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.