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. Here's a great example of just such a dilemma:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $5.00+$0.50 Tournament, 10/20 Blinds (8 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP2 (t1740)
MP3 (t1460)
Hero (CO) (t1400)
SB (t1480)
BB (t1500)
UTG (t1480)
UTG+1 (t1500)
MP1 (t1480)

Hero's M: 46.67

Preflop: Hero is CO with 9, 9
2 folds, MP1 calls t20, 1 fold, MP3 calls t20, Hero calls t20, 2 folds, BB checks

Flop: (t90) K, 8, J (4 players)
BB checks, MP1 checks, MP3 checks, Hero checks

Turn: (t90) 9 (4 players)
BB checks, MP1 bets t40, 1 fold, Hero raises to t160, 1 fold, MP1 calls t120

River: (t410) J (2 players)
MP1 checks, Hero bets t200, MP1 raises to t600, Hero...?

I tend to shove this all day long. If he shows up with Jacks full, it's just ul.

Hmm. Does anybody else feel this hand was played really strangely by villain? He flat calls the raise on the turn and then check raises the river. Surely if he had KJ or a straight he would have to bet the river? There's no way he could be sure that you wouldn't check behind him if he had KJ and with a straight he'd either want to know where he is with a bet or he'd simply check/call. Not sure what to do but I'd probably end up shoving. Did you call?

For some reason I was thinking with no reads the first instinct given ther action that villan shows up here with KJ or Jx more often than not ..... but again I say this with no given reads no previous hands played vs villan (ie is he always showing up with the nuts ...... ) my initial thought was KJ or Jx.... Any thoughts? this is given the screwy play at these stakes (I have seen plenty of screwy plays at this level)

I don't think I bother shoving the river but that's because in SnGs I tend to come down on the side of preserving chips rather than extracting max value. I'm happy to take the 1200 chips if I have him beat rather than risk busting out. The gain in equity from extracting another 500 chips does not offset the loss in equity from busting.

Shove

The fact he check raised suggests he's quite trappy (or just bluffing) but being trappy here could mean AJ/QJ/QT/JT/88, all of which pay off a shove. KJ/J9/J8 also make some sense. I'd lean away from J8/J9 though.

I ship it all-in, if villian has us beat then so be it.

That's an interesting point. So if I take the conservative approach and call (I'm not going to tell what I did in this hand just yet), and I've got villain crushed as it turns out, I shouldn't necessarily be really upset that I lost value, because maybe over the long run I'm better off never busting there.

And btw, last night I had a true "chip and a chair" sequence where I came back from 20 in chips to over 1000, so I definitely hear you there. (I didn't actually cash, which would have made it a better story...but still!)

In $5 tournies people always overvalue their holding. Villain could have like a straight or just trips. I might shove here since he probably can't really put you on a full house the way you played your hand. If he has you, he has you. In a tourney I look to accumulate as much as I can and I don't mind shipping it here.

A call is fine though.

There's definitely a difference in what to think if this is a SnG or an MTT. MTT this is closer to shipping because you want to accumulate chips. In a Sit n Go the call seems perfectly reasonable, as you will have a strong stack.

You shouldn't be upset at all. In my opinion, the mentality of "shove and if he has you beat that's bad luck" is cash-game or MTT thinking, not SnG strategy. If you look at the arguments from an equity perspective, they're pretty convincing that taking early risks to double up in a SnG is bad for your tournament equity. It makes sense in cash games where you can just reload and where every decision is a pure ev calculation, and in MTTs where you have to take risks to accumulate chips, but not in SnGs.

It's a 3-table SnG, which plays more like a STT than a MTT.

Thanks, I missed that heading before. My point was general anyway, so hopefully it's useful to OP

I usually play these very tight, wait for good spots to steal/shove/reshove. But I still might shove the hand on the river.

I agree. I'm as tight as they come, even in 6max stt's early on. I still say I shove this spot, only because you'll see QT or Jx a lot. Your hand is very disguised here.

hello all! my first post on these forums

i think this is a clear shove because there are a ton of hands you beat that could still be raising that river, and I would chalk it up as a cooler if he shows up with a higher boat.
my guess is you lost the hand and he flipped KJ or something similar, and I really think thats results oriented thinking to be questioning getting it in on this board.
on a side, i think you should always be raising this hand pre, as the limping ranges in these low limit sngs are pretty horrendous and in the long run it is going to be +EV to try and iso raise when you'll probably be in position for the hand.

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.

ARRRRRRRRRR ENNNNNNN

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.

This is one of those multiway flops you need to lead in position. We have plenty of chips relative to the pot, and can afford to thin the herd a bit. This also gives a healthy turn lead more strength. I don't think KJ or QT's going anywhere :/ I think this line's more consistent with trip jacks, though.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

OMG! Really? Fist pump insta shove...

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.

I guess I will say it again....

Arrrwwwwwwww Innnnnnn

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

Good point! Now I'm torn again.

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.


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.

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.com



saw flop | saw showdown

Button (t3485)
SB (t2640)
BB (t3440)
UTG (t1945)
UTG+1 (t820)
MP1 (t1320)
MP2 (t2420)
Hero (MP3) (t1930)
CO (t1560)

Hero's M: 42.89



Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 9, 9
3 folds, MP2 raises to t120, Hero calls t120, 4 folds

Flop: (t285) 8, 10, 4 (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero checks

Turn: (t285) 6 (2 players)
MP2 bets t180, Hero calls t180

River: (t645) 7 (2 players)
MP2 bets t300, Hero raises to t600, MP2 raises to t900, Hero raises to t1470, 1 fold

Total pot: t2445

Results:
Hero had 9, 9 (straight, ten high).
Outcome: Hero won t2445

LOL 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?

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.

LOL, yeah.

On the original hand, I am in complete agreement w/jmbreslin. The extra 500 chips absolutely does not justify the shove.

You're a smart, smart man.

To me the clear choice is a call. You're risking your tournament life for a fraction of the current pot during the 1st level of blinds. If you win, you're in relatively good position to the remaining players (and as already said, no better off if you're +500 more chips at this stage). If you lose on a call, you're harmed, but not disabled for the rest of the tournament. If you lose on a shove, you're out. End of story.

I miss Looshle.

QFT

nits.

And it should be noted, as we see from the second 99 hand that turned into the second nut straight, that if we shove we don't always get the extra 500 chips (if villain has air or some busted draw or whatever). On the second hand, though, I think I have to ignore the far less likely danger of J9, don't you think?

Idk wat to say.

Raise pre, you always have limpets beat. You can limp sometimes but I raise here over 90%.

You lose to one hand on the river. If you can't put your stack in on the river, you can't win at tournaments.