It's certainly on the margin. I think my ICMizer calculations took a lot of the guesswork out of it though. We have a very good idea now of what the math says depending on how he adjusts his range. From there, it's up to the individual player who is in the BB in my shoes with T9s to decide if they want to call for what little edge that may be present. Shoving 74s here seems far-fetched to me as well, however I am certain that there are players who are doing it. And the math says that there is no range that I can call that will make them lose money by doing so. 

yea, maybe people are shoving much wider with 15-20 bbs these days. before i felt like it was mostly small pairs and broadways. havent played much lately so my game is a bit off. :-) i guess that shoving a very wide range vs me would work pretty good, cause i would call pretty tight here. something like 55+, A7, A6s, KJo, KTs. do you think that is too tight? guess it's very player dependent. but if i ever see you at the tables i will make sure not to shove wide into your bb, haha ;).

Haha! To be clear, I think very few people would shove 74s here, but it wouldn't shock me if some would. My two most important changes to the calling range you gave are to add 33 and 44. Those hands will do very well. I'd also add A50, A60, and like A4s I think. We're kind of nit-picking with these changes, but yeah I think the range you listed is a bit too tight here. 

Hey Urban, a poster below, Beldarion, opened my mind up to this spot quite a bit more. Check out his post below and my response to it for further and more accurate information on your questions about this spot. Cheers. 

Hey piter, good question. I find this spot pretty interesting, actually especially for how (relatively) simple it is. And it comes up a fair amount so it's a good spot to think about. I think in this actual case, I would have liked to have seen myself open any pair (22+) in this specific spot. I think I folded for two reasons: 1. Habit and 2. Focusing on being extra certain that I do not play too wide in any spots in this well-structured tournament. 

My point about folding out of habit from above comes from a general rule I have. I don't like to play small pairs in early position at low stack depths, because I don't think many good things happen. They hit flops very poorly when called, and aren't happy with any of their options when they face a 4b. I'd rather raise like 89s here for example. And if I'm raising lots of suited connectors here, and all of my pocket pairs, all of a sudden I'm raising way too many hands, and my opponents will likely notice, and start to 3b me more. Generally speaking, I tend to group 22-44 as "small pairs". I think of 55-77 as its own group, a more playable group of pocket pairs, that has better equity and better options facing any situation behind. Basically, I'm opening 55+ almost always, regardless of the situation, but there are a lot of spots where I'll fold 22-44. 

Hey Paul... Yeah, the more I think about this hand, and really the more feedback I receive on this hand, the more I don't like it either. I hope you can wrap your head around the math that's surrounding this spot/decision at least, as that's a separate matter from my interpretation of said math. The poster below, Beldarion, presented some wonderful information that made me realize the mathematical construct I created for this hand was extremely idealistic and biased in terms of demonstrating it to be profitable. He posts a more accurate and realistic mathematical view of the hand. Give his post a read and tell him thanks! And thank you for leaving a note here, though brief, your response is a clear vote on the correctness of the decison I made in the hand, and is noted as such. 

e: vs you this call would be pretty bad, because i would assume that you have a lot of this 9x Tx hands in your SB limping range @ 18BB ?!

Beldarion, thank you good sir! This is wonderful information. I can follow it very easily and it makes complete sense. Also, there is a poster (or two) above that will get a lot out of this information you've added to the discussion, so again, this is much appreciated, and thank you. And if I'm behind honest with myself, yeah, it makes so much sense that a lot of his weaker hands are simply in other ranges than his shove-allin-for-18bb range here. Some is simply folding and giving me a walk, some is limping as you said, some is raise folding. "The spot is pretty marginal at best case scenario but gets -EV pretty quickly" Perfect, I couldn't think of a better thing to say. 

And you're quite right - I personally would have lots of Tx and 9x in my SB limping range at this stack depth. I'd be some middle stuff and the occasional trap for protection, and raising strong hands and other middleish stuff. I'm not coming in 100% here, but I may come in wider than normal without any specific reads on villain, given risking a steal does does nothing to my stack, and villain may be hesitiant to pull some triggers given the magnitude of the situation. 

No, I think it's better to just call here. If he x/r the flop with air, he figures to turn a spade draw 1/4 of the time. I see no reason to bias him toward turning a backdoor flush draw merely because he x/r the flop. Granted turning a FD will make him nearly certain to barrel, where it's quite possible that a lot of his other flop x/r bluffs might simply give up. However I think his turn bettingrange is going to have more combos of gutshots or worse than openended straight draws + flush draws. And it's quite possible that he was 2x or 3x the combos of pure air that he does draws. So I'm happy to exchange giving him a chance to realize that equity, in exchange for giving him the opportunity to bluff off with both his stone air and his draws that miss on the river. I;m calling a card that completes a draw as well, simply because his stone air might use that as a bluff card. I'm not too worried about him hitting two pair on the river here either, because he shouldn't have much one pair that x/x the flop. He could have turned Jx I suppose, but again following my logic from about, I'mhappy to let him see the river with the trade-off that I also allow him the chance to continue bluffing. 

Cool question, Yes, I think I do flat a lot of 3bs IP, generally speaking. In fact, I'd say I call more 3bs than the average player, largely for the reasons you stated. Additionally, I"m often tempted to do so given the price I'm getting. I agree with your views on how this spot plays out broadly speaking. Was there a specific hand from the video that prompted this question? 

Ya... You make a good point - I honestly don't think that I am bluffing this spot much. Looking back, I like a check OTR, or a very small bet. But, to think of this from the opposite perspective, if this line is always value, then it's a great spot to bluff :D  Of course that is true in theory, and I am just throwing that idea out there for fun, but you are correct and I agree with you, that in practice this line is mostly value. 

Oh shoot really, I missed a zero? Dang ya, that makes a big difference - oops, my bad! Thanks for pointing that out, no one had mentioned it yet. A poster above, Beldarion made a great post about this hand that changed the way I think about this spot. Check it out! 

No, that was a great question! Honestly. I just wanted to make sure I was giving a complete answer, and since I couldn't relate your question to any hands from the video from memory, I wanted to ask if there was a specific hand in question. 

Sweet! Thanks for the glowing review, haha. I agree with you - adapting to players on the spot is perhaps the most key aspect of MTT play, and this is especially true deep in a tournament. Yeah, all of the spots here were pretty straightforward. Hopefully we'll get some more tricky ones in the final two tables! Cheers. 

Annouza, this was an awesome comment, thank you. You're the first person in quite some time to make a remark about how useful my thought process on ranging players is. I suppose it doesn't really stand out to me since it's such a habit, so your comment was a good reminder that I need to be aware of how critical this is, and always be looking to improve upon the process. It sounds like I'm on a good track though, which is great and great to hear. You know this is pretty damn tough to do on the fly. Two things help me here 1. Look over hands pre/post session. If you do this, and you start to see common spots come up, then you can form sort of habit or default though process for those situations. That way the next time they come up in-game, you're ready for them, and it's not like you have to figure out a brand new situation in 20 seconds, while playing 10 other tables. I keep a Word document open when I play, and I save interesting/tough HHs in there for review after I play. 2. Try to get a jump on ranging someone when you're in a hand. So as soon as you open the BTN, ask yourself what ranges villains in the blinds are playing. How much is SB 3bing? How much is he flatting? How much does BB defend? Etc. Then you get to the flop and you've got a head start on ranging him for this new street. How much does he x/r this flop? How much does he check/call? Etc. Of course easier said than done when playing a bunch of tables! But if you can stay tuned in to pots and the opponents you're facing, and keep an active thought process/internal dialogue going, you'll find that you can start wizzing through some of these spots. 

Yeah man - oops on that T9s! I like that you added the comment about what those 18BB actually represent: 9 opens, 4 cbets, etc. That was an awesome thought and very helpful in framing the additional risk in this decision. I'm risking 9 opens for what is very optimistically going to be a 0EV spot at best! Cheers. 

Wow, if that's true then that's huge, and makes a big difference of course. I had no idea that was the way it worked though. Thanks for pointing that out. 

Hey Alex, I'm glad you asked this question, because I think I can help the way you're viewing this spot quite a bit. I think leading 88 in his shoes would be a pretty big mistake. 

When you think about whether to check or bet, think about what your opponent will do with his range to each of these actions. In this case, if SB led 88, I might fold some air, or I might call with some of my KK overpair, or raise them, etc. However, if SB checks to me, he can capture a cbet from me nearly 100% of the time. This flop is very good for my range. I have a significant advantage over him because I have all of the overpairs in my range, 22 full (he may not have that) and 9999. I also have more 9x than he does. This range-on-range advantage makes it so I never face a x/r from the SB here. Why would he check raise when I have so many strong hands, and he's struggling to represent many strong hands himself? 

So checking to get a bet from my QTo that might fold if he leads is better than leading and making me fold that hand. Of course the worry is that an overcard might come and 88 will be difficult to play here. Well we will make decisions as they come, and be confident in our ability to do so. Granted it is a difficult spot for SB any way you approach it. Does this explanation make sense? I feel very strongly about this, so I want to make sure I explain it until you understand and agree :) Shoot me a response and/or any follow up questions please. 

Feel free to correct or add some Points.

Haha. I think I am following your thought process well. I like that you're thinking about all of these different factors: stack size, image, recent history, etc. However, I think the #1 thing you should be thinking about in any hand of poker is ranges. You need to know what your range is, and you need to estimate what villain's range is. From there you can make plays based on what makes sense with each of your ranges. You say you like to lead vs a tight/nitty player because they will not fight back with air. Well, why not check raise very small then? That way you capture and extra bet from their air, and you get the same protection from seeing a scary turn card that you get from leading (villain folds on the flop either way). 

I suppose if you were the SB player and you knew that the villain would check back all of his air, you would want to make a small lead here to fold out that air and protect your hand from the equity his air (overcards) have here. If he calls, you know he's got it, and you can check fold the turn. This will never happen in practice though. And especially on a board like this that is so good for villain to cbet, he's going to cbet nearly 100% of the time, so knowing that, you can check and capture a bet from him, and then decide to raise or call based on his tendencies. I would check call here, because a tricky villain will realize that you have very few strong hands here and play back at you if you check raise.

And don't worry about your English! It is good. And you avatar of Miley Cyrus is good as well, haha.

You're welcome, man! I'm glad you're getting something out of it, that's my job to make sure that you do :D  GL. 

Hello Markus,

This is an excellent comment. Really good stuff man, thank you for sharing. This is basically how I see this spot too, definitely not a river valuebet. Looking back, I'm amazed I thought it was such an easy valuebet in-game... oops. I think checking flop instead of cbetting is a very clever, and good idea. Honestly I think you're right, and I like checking the flop better. Cbetting doesn't accomplish tons, when villain is floating us wide and we're not able to bet the turn, because his range is protected. We could do something adventurous and use this hand as a 3barrel bluff (that is valuebetting flop usually, and even river occasionally). I think this hand does great in a flop checking range like you suggest, and I think that the fact that if we did include this hand in a flop checking range, it wouldn't change the fact that we could still build tough cbetting and checking ranges in this spot. Again, just a great comment. I like where your head's at! 

Hey Kumo, 

You're quite welcome for the video, glad you're enjoying it. Good questions man, I see 2 of these 3 spots quite a bit differently than you, so we should be able to have a good discussion here.

1. Totally agree. This was way too optimistic, and just far too reckless. As you and other have pointed out, there are much better uses for these 18BB. 

2. Too big?! I think the sizing looks pretty good. My range crushes his on this flop, so to some extent it doesn't matter how I size my bets, as long as I fire 3. However I think making it 50k OTF rather than 40k increases my FE a little big immediately from hands like AJ. Perhaps more importantly, it communicates to him sort of an ominous message (I find): that future barrels are coming. This might make him less inclined to float, or to make the occasional (rare) checkraise bluff. I also think it sets up the pot to be bigger to allow my range to apply more pressure to his range (bigger future bets into a bigger future pot) when I've got a major range-on-range advantage. If I make it too small, I give him the chance to continue for cheap, or to play back for cheap.

3. Oh man, I think this is a no-brainer call here. At least for me in this circumstance, though I imagine for most players in most circumstances. Paul and I have played a lot together over the years, and he knows I'm going to be wide top open there with my stack, and I know he's a great player who's going to 1. Recognize that and 2. Do something about it, in the form of correctly widening his shove range. He 100% has broadway hands we dominate, and we flip well, and we do just fine vs Ax. Paul is going to correctly assume that I'm opening wider than normal in this spot because there is only one reshove stack behind (him), so he'll be reshoving even wider because I'm opening even wider. Also, calling his shove and losing this pot doesn't change my stack size options at all - I'll stilll be on 40BB. This is a fistpump call for me here, and a +EV call for most I'd imagine. 

You're welcome man! I feel good about this discussion.

1. Two things. First of all, not a waste of time if you improve your understanding of this topic. That's what my time on RIO is for, so it's the opposite of a waste. Secondly, I don't mind questions like this that I consider to be "routine" or "standard", because it forces me to examine ideas that I take for granted. This is good because it's possible those ideas are outdated, are now the 2nd best option, or were never good ideas in the first place! So this is a good thing to accomplish on any and all topics in poker.

2. Keep in mind that these spots are great for learning, because they're easy to get quantifiable answers. You can assign him a range, run your equity vs it using pokerstrategy.com Equilab, and see where you stand. What I do in these spots is assign villain 3 ranges: Loosest possible shove range, tightest possible shove range, and my exact estimation of villain's shove range. This way you can see what your equity looks like on either end of the spectrum, and exactly where it is according to your most precise estimation of his range. I think you may be surprised at how wide some people are shoving in these spots. I notice a lot of part-time players end up shoving pretty wide, though pros may be shoving a bit tighter. However you likely have a much better idea of that than I do - so trust your experience, but just as I did in point number one above, keep your mind open to the fact that you could be wrong, or misinterpreting the data in some way. It's also important that you become aware of these dymanics where you're in a decison like this. They may not factor in much at your current stake, but they will at some stakes, and you're eventually going to be in those spots. Just be aware of it is all. 

Hey Marc,

Thanks for the dedicated viewership, and for chiming in with some feedback. My apologies for taking a week and half to reply. 

And it's a good question to boot! Though I think you may have mistyped somewhere along the way, so I'm going to answer the question under a couple of different conditions. Looking back, yes I very much prefer to flat this hand here vs the villain. I'm worried about getting 4b off of my significant equity, and my hand plays well on the flop. If this villain had 15.5 BBs, I would still flat I think, though it definitely gets a bit dubious when he gets to ~15BB and below. The reason is at the low stack depth I expect one's open range to become stronger, with less hands that he's raise folding. That said, I think this player will have more raise folds than most, based on my observations of his game. If he had 155 BBs, I would love to flat here. At this stack depth I'd presume him to be opening quite wide - and the wider he opens, the more hands I dominate, which bodes well for me IP. 

I hope that was a helpful and complete answer, if I've misunderstood something or otherwise missed some information, please leave a follow up question , and I'll respond in a timely manner this time around. GL.