Jump to content


Shove Over Top On River Or Just Call?


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 13 January 2009 - 10:17 PM

View Postoutsider13, on Tuesday, January 13th, 2009, 5:13 PM, said:

The limp is perfectly fine in the early levels. Raising here in a multiway pot is a spew seeing as there's a ton of flops that you do not want to see with 99 and you will be handcuffed almost every flop you don't hit a set. Better to take the cheap route because you'll often get paid off if it's a community pot and you hit the set.
I definitely agree. Vis-a-vis this, and MovingIn's advice to lead the flop even with the two overs, I tend to like the smallball approach (just read DN's new treatise on this, where he argues that there's nothing wrong with playing passively and being a "calling station", that aggression is overrated).Results: I shoved, he had KJ, gg me. I could be accused of results oriented thinking, but I do like the idea that the extra 500 in chips isn't worth as much on the positive side as the end of my tournament life is on the negative.

#22 MovingIn

MovingIn

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 817 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:HORSE

Posted 13 January 2009 - 11:11 PM

I will add that if we bet the flop, KJ or some other better hand probably raises us and we find out sooner that we're beat (and for fewer chips).

#23 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:40 AM

View PostMovingIn, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 1:11 AM, said:

I will add that if we bet the flop, KJ or some other better hand probably raises us and we find out sooner that we're beat (and for fewer chips).
This is true. On the other hand, what if the turn had come with a 9 but a blank hit the river? Then I make a decent pot with my set, as villain probably would like his top two pair. So you could look at it both ways depending on the action: if I bet the flop and get raised, I miss my chance to catch my set.ETA: In other situations, where a hand like 99 is as someone said "handcuffed" due to the presence of overcards, I've found that following the DN smallball approach and either checking behind everyone as in this case, or check-calling small bets (dumping the hand if the bets get too big) is often a good way to pick up small pots where the middle pair does hold up, without committing a lot of chips and bloating the pot. (Although in this particular case, with this many people in the hand and two overs, I probably wouldn't call much of anything if my hand doesn't improve.)

#24 outsider13

outsider13

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,132 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2009 - 07:01 AM

View PostSlackerInc, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 2:40 AM, said:

This is true. On the other hand, what if the turn had come with a 9 but a blank hit the river? Then I make a decent pot with my set, as villain probably would like his top two pair. So you could look at it both ways depending on the action: if I bet the flop and get raised, I miss my chance to catch my set.ETA: In other situations, where a hand like 99 is as someone said "handcuffed" due to the presence of overcards, I've found that following the DN smallball approach and either checking behind everyone as in this case, or check-calling small bets (dumping the hand if the bets get too big) is often a good way to pick up small pots where the middle pair does hold up, without committing a lot of chips and bloating the pot. (Although in this particular case, with this many people in the hand and two overs, I probably wouldn't call much of anything if my hand doesn't improve.)
I understand what you are saying and understand the concept, but it's really not optimal for this structure. Small ball in a 1500 chip sng with 5 or 10 minute levels will just cause you to spew chips because if you were to c/c a flop with overs, assuming the pot is fair sized, you'd be calling off a good percentage of your stack with possibly the worst hand. I've seen a ton of players play that the exact same way. Check/call the under pair, check/check turn, lead out the river only to get flatted by top pair weak kicker on the river. At this point you'd be down 25-30% of your stack.I'd prefer to take the limp for set value, dump it if I miss. Or, any time I get good hands, value bet, value bet, value bet rather than take the "safer" route. You really aren't deep enough for the safer route in sngs.

#25 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 14 January 2009 - 07:14 AM

View Postoutsider13, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 9:01 AM, said:

I understand what you are saying and understand the concept, but it's really not optimal for this structure. Small ball in a 1500 chip sng with 5 or 10 minute levels will just cause you to spew chips because if you were to c/c a flop with overs, assuming the pot is fair sized, you'd be calling off a good percentage of your stack with possibly the worst hand. I've seen a ton of players play that the exact same way. Check/call the under pair, check/check turn, lead out the river only to get flatted by top pair weak kicker on the river. At this point you'd be down 25-30% of your stack.I'd prefer to take the limp for set value, dump it if I miss. Or, any time I get good hands, value bet, value bet, value bet rather than take the "safer" route. You really aren't deep enough for the safer route in sngs.
I think you make some valid points. But I think we have to factor reads in here. Also, I almost never play anything with 5 minute levels, which turn into shovefest crapshoots very quickly IME.ETA: I'm having trouble, also, understanding why the scenario you present would lead to losing 25-30% of my stack. Let's say we go to the flop with a pot of 90 as here, but with only one opponent and only one overcard, said overcard not being an ace (those are kind of the three criteria for my playing a middle pair this way). Villain bets 50, I call. Check-check turn, lead out for 100 on the river and get flatted--that's only 150 or 10% of my stack, not 25-30%. Also, against some villains I'd check the river as well; I'd only make a blocking bet if I felt pretty strongly that was the cheapest way to get to showdown. And why in your scenario did we necessarily find ourselves OOP anyway? As DN said in the book, the ideal scenario for smallball is to be heads up against the BB (meaning heads up in the pot, not overall in the tournament--thus we are in position after the flop).ETA2: If you were thinking of a situation where the blinds were bigger (say 25/50), but with a stack still around 1500, then I'd argue that you shouldn't be limping for set value at that point anyway because you don't have the implied odds. That's a tricky and awkward stack size to find onesself with 99--I would probably just dump it UTG or in MP if someone had limped, maybe limp behind on the button if there were a couple limpers...though if the limpers were bonafide suckers or some maniac had raised preflop for the fifth consecutive hand I'd think about shovelling. Tricky spot, but in any event not a smallball scenario by any means.

#26 outsider13

outsider13

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,132 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2009 - 08:43 AM

Well, I guess it depends on stack size, and what max flop bet you'd call/pot size/blinds/etc. A lot of scenarios could affect the pot size. I just don't think it's optimal at all to play this way in this structure. The same scenario plays out with position too. Bet/call, c/c, check/bet/call. Same end result.I think it really comes down to how well you play post flop. Playing at that buyin level, making reads can be quite tough due to the level of skill so you are often way ahead or way behind. That's why I think it's better to bet bet bet so you can define your hand a bit better. Again, I'm only betting hands that I think are ahead, and not proposing to bet 99 on a KJ8.

#27 SGFULTON83

SGFULTON83

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,120 posts

Posted 14 January 2009 - 08:51 AM

View Postjmbreslin, on Tuesday, January 13th, 2009, 5:54 PM, said:

And you could also see KJ. The point is that if you shove and lose, you're out of the tourney. If you shove and win, you pull in an extra 500 chips (over calling). That extra 500 chips is insignificant in the grand scheme of the tourney, and the benefit in terms of overall tournament equity is virtually nil. It's just not worth the risk. I think calling is by far the better play here.
Let's pretend that on the river it was raised all-in instead of to 600. Are you folding here? If you are not folding to an all-in re-raise then why would we only be calling the 600 instead of raising it? If you would fold it seems puzzling to me. I understand the concept of this pot not making or breaking us in the whole tournament but it seems we want to get the most chips we can. If we get coolered so be it, it happens from time to time.

#28 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 14 January 2009 - 01:30 PM

View PostSGFULTON83, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 10:51 AM, said:

Let's pretend that on the river it was raised all-in instead of to 600. Are you folding here? If you are not folding to an all-in re-raise then why would we only be calling the 600 instead of raising it? If you would fold it seems puzzling to me. I understand the concept of this pot not making or breaking us in the whole tournament but it seems we want to get the most chips we can. If we get coolered so be it, it happens from time to time.
I see your point, but I think the logic is flawed. There are prices we will reluctantly pay because we see the alternative as worse, but where we'd still rather pay less. For instance, when bargaining over the price of a used car. There is a price, let's say $5,000, that you are hoping you can bargain the price down to. There is a price (let's say $6,000) above which you will just refuse to buy the car. But if you can't get the salesman down lower than $5500, you'll still pay it. Same applies here (although the analogy is not exact): if villain raises all in (which he would surely do if he knew how strong our hand is), our hand is too good to fold and we grudgingly call and hope we're not beat. But we don't have to pay that much to go to showdown, so just calling is worth considering at least. Now, of course in reality that's not what I did, but I'm coming around to the idea that it makes sense.

#29 Mercury69

Mercury69

    Half man! Half man!

  • Members
  • 14,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pftph!
  • Favorite Poker Game:NLHE

Posted 14 January 2009 - 01:49 PM

OMG! Really? Fist pump insta shove...
"We had all the momentum. We were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look west, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark, that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back." —Raoul Duke, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas

"Those are brave men knocking at the door. Let's go and kill them!" - Tyrion Lannister

#30 donk4life

donk4life

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 9,215 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 January 2009 - 01:56 PM

I'm sure if this has been mentioned but I think pocket 8's is a likely possible holding as well here. I can't see myself just calling here, there's many hands he's overvaluating here that we crush, I'd ship it in.

View Postakashenk, on 02 August 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

I don't mind folding out hands we beat.

#31 TrueAce13

TrueAce13

    FCP Resident Donk

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO NLHE

Posted 14 January 2009 - 02:32 PM

I guess I will say it again.... Arrrwwwwwwww Innnnnnn
Pokerstars: TrueAce13 (Willard)
FT: TrueAce13
My First Poker Blog, please read and help me get better!

#32 TrueAce13

TrueAce13

    FCP Resident Donk

  • Members
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO NLHE

Posted 14 January 2009 - 02:42 PM

Ok, So until now, I haven't really read everyone's post and just have been saying all in. Now, I have read the majority of the posts and have this to say...ALL IN! -Now alright, even though this is a sng, people still play horrendously stupid and will ship this river with a naked J many times. We have the best hand almost all the time, why not get it in now? Our hand has too much value just to flat the river. If he has a better boat, more power to him. Its a cooler, GG you.
Pokerstars: TrueAce13 (Willard)
FT: TrueAce13
My First Poker Blog, please read and help me get better!

#33 HighwayStar

HighwayStar

    Tangled up in blue.

  • Members
  • 8,103 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 14 January 2009 - 02:50 PM

I think his range is most weighted towards hands he loves on the turn. I think he's jamming 2 pair combos on the turn and slow playing 88/QT. It's a weird river check raise, almost makes me think he's bluffing.
.

#34 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:14 PM

View PostSGFULTON83, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Let's pretend that on the river it was raised all-in instead of to 600. Are you folding here? If you are not folding to an all-in re-raise then why would we only be calling the 600 instead of raising it? If you would fold it seems puzzling to me. I understand the concept of this pot not making or breaking us in the whole tournament but it seems we want to get the most chips we can. If we get coolered so be it, it happens from time to time.
I would call because our hand is too good to fold. But that doesn't mean I should push all in when faced with a smaller raise. The difference here is that he's giving us an escape route if our hand turns out to be beaten.
“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#35 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:20 PM

View PostTrueAce13, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 6:42 PM, said:

-Now alright, even though this is a sng, people still play horrendously stupid and will ship this river with a naked J many times. We have the best hand almost all the time, why not get it in now? Our hand has too much value just to flat the river. If he has a better boat, more power to him. Its a cooler, GG you.
I honestly think you guys are missing the point. Obviously Hero's hand is probably good here, as there is only one realistic hand in villain's range that beats him. But that doesn't mean you should automatically be willing to ship your chips in. You have to think about how that decision will affect your overall tournament equity. The fact that he's made the smaller raise gives you a chance to win a nice pot but to also remain in the tourney if he turns out to have that one hand. Pushing to win the extra 500 chips is simply not worth the risk of busting out. If this were a cash game, I'd say push. If this were an MTT and stacks were deeper, I'd say push. But this is neither of those situations.
“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#36 AimHigher

AimHigher

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,722 posts

Posted 14 January 2009 - 06:32 PM

View PostSlackerInc, on Tuesday, January 13th, 2009, 3:21 PM, said:

This is an area where I definitely think I need to improve my game. When I have a very strong hand (but not the nuts) on the river, and I get check-raised, sometimes I play it safe by calling and find out I could have gotten more value; other times I go for it and find out I should have played it safe after all.
I think this is a form of results oriented thinking (and something I've been guilty of myself).In the context of this example.Let's say we elect to shove and he snap calls with KJ. Does it make it a bad shove? No. Because we're seeing one example of the hands in his range. We need to look at his range as a whole and make a decision independent of the results. The same is true of electing to call and seeing QJ.Here is an idea of what I think his range is. It may be slightly narrow (because we're not including other suited jacks and T7s). I was actually surprised to see nobody mentioning QT.
	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	70.492%	  70.49% 	00.00% 				43 			0.00   { 9c9h }Hand 1: 	29.508%	  29.51% 	00.00% 				18 			0.00   { KK, JJ, 88, AJs, KJs, QTs+, J8s+, AJo, KJo, QTo+, J8o+ }
On to the hand, I think shoving is going to have a greater $EV than merely calling. Tournament equity doesn't mean not risking your stack, it means avoiding busting out on the bubble when someone else is a considerable underdog to cash and it means avoiding very marginally +cEV situations that risk our entire stack.If we value shove here, yes we are risking our entire equity, but we're also risking 99.999999% of his. We gain an equity bonus from crippling an opponent (since it greatly reduces the likelihood of him cashing) in addition to the extra tournament equity we gain from the additional chips.

#37 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 15 January 2009 - 12:49 AM

View PostAimHigher, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 8:32 PM, said:

If we value shove here, yes we are risking our entire equity, but we're also risking 99.999999% of his. We gain an equity bonus from crippling an opponent (since it greatly reduces the likelihood of him cashing) in addition to the extra tournament equity we gain from the additional chips.
Good point! Now I'm torn again.

#38 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 15 January 2009 - 06:50 AM

View PostAimHigher, on Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 9:32 PM, said:

On to the hand, I think shoving is going to have a greater $EV than merely calling. Tournament equity doesn't mean not risking your stack, it means avoiding busting out on the bubble when someone else is a considerable underdog to cash and it means avoiding very marginally +cEV situations that risk our entire stack.
Tournament equity considerations are not restricted to those two types of situations. You always have to consider how decisions that put lots of your chips at risk might affect your tournament equity. That's why there are lots of decisions that we might make in a tourney that are different from what we would do in a cash game with the same situation (usually decisions to fold in a tourney when we might not fold in a cash game). Unless you can show me the numbers, you will not convince me that pushing to get an extra 500 chips is worth the risk busting out here. I am perfectly happy to call and take the nice pot.

Quote

If we value shove here, yes we are risking our entire equity, but we're also risking 99.999999% of his. We gain an equity bonus from crippling an opponent (since it greatly reduces the likelihood of him cashing) in addition to the extra tournament equity we gain from the additional chips.
Valid point, but you'd have to factor this into the calculation. My guess is that the gain in equity from 500 additional chips and 1 less opponent in a 27-man SnG still does not offset the loss in equity from busting.
“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#39 SlackerInc

SlackerInc

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,290 posts
  • Interests:tennis, music, politics (I'm a Democrat)
  • Favorite Poker Game:Tournament No-Limit Hold 'Em (2nd: Razz)

Posted 15 January 2009 - 07:13 AM

Here's another 99 hand that turned into a monster by the river, but once again not quite the nuts, facing a villain who was representing a huge hand. I just was unwilling to believe though that villain had exactly J9, especially given that I had two of the nines:PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2.00+$0.20 Tournament, 15/30 Blinds (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comPosted Imagesaw flop | saw showdownButton (t3485)SB (t2640)BB (t3440)UTG (t1945)UTG+1 (t820)MP1 (t1320)MP2 (t2420)Hero (MP3) (t1930)CO (t1560)Hero's M: 42.89Posted ImagePreflop: Hero is MP3 with 9Posted Image, 9Posted Image3 folds, MP2 raises to t120, Hero calls t120, 4 foldsFlop: (t285) 8Posted Image, 10Posted Image, 4Posted Image (2 players)MP2 checks, Hero checksTurn: (t285) 6Posted Image (2 players)MP2 bets t180, Hero calls t180River: (t645) 7Posted Image (2 players)MP2 bets t300, Hero raises to t600, MP2 raises to t900, Hero raises to t1470, 1 foldTotal pot: t2445Results:Hero had 9Posted Image, 9Posted Image (straight, ten high).Outcome: Hero won t2445LOL at the 3-bet bluff attempt, obviously with air (or else it was a terrible fold). Did he really think I was going to fold for 300 more?

#40 outsider13

outsider13

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,132 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2009 - 07:28 AM

I like it. You see people play overpairs like this too. It's quite possible that he finally realized his big pair was no good. Or, he just sucks really bad. Probably the latter.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users