Huge Preflop spot in a live 1/3 game

osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 46 ✭✭
Venue: Harrah's Joliet

Game: 1/3

Effective Stack: Hero $300

Button Straddle is on for $17 (yes it is that juicy of a game)

SB: Folds
BB: Folds
Main Villain UTG: Flats 17 (stack $1k)
Hero UTG +1: Raises to $75 with :JD: :JS:
Villain UTG + 2: flats $75 (stack is $330
Folds to original villain UTG who shoves


Hero?

Relevant reads and questions:

1. Beyond using the all in preflop spreadsheet, how should I think about ranging villain UTG?
2. How does having a villain behind influence my decision?
3. This felt like a squeeze play, and I had seen main villain 3-bet AKo earlier, so I believe that he is at least as wide as AKo, but I have no idea if he's trapping with AKo.
4. How weak can I call this with based on the dynamics?

Thanks for any and all feedback.

Comments

  • Jordan PowerJordan Power Red Chipper Posts: 393 ✭✭✭
    Okay so lets say for argument sake V is doing this with AK and QQ+. We are a 64-36 dog against this range. (Although to be fair, a larger proportion of the player pool IMO is only doing this with KK and AA, but lets stick with the slightly wider range for the sake of argument).

    Based on some quick math, looks like you need just over 36ish percent equity to continue. I would check my math though just to be sure. So if we think V is doing that with that range, we seem to have slightly less than the required equity to continue. However, we need less if we think V2 is going to call behind us.

    However, if you can find more combos that orig V would do this with, you may indeed have the required equity to call.
  • adamzerneradamzerner Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    I'll address the second question first, because it seems like a logical way to approach this spot. If you call, the guy behind will only need 33% equity to call. Normally that should be pretty easy to find, but against such strength, maybe not. If he puts you guys each on TT+/AK, QQ+ should be his only calls, even with those pot odds. If he ranges you guys on something wider like 77+/AJ+, now JJ+/AKs are his only hands that can call. But a good part of the JJ+/AKs range is probably reraising you instead of flatting.

    So I think that we can mostly assume that V2 should be folding a lot behind. Of course, that doesn't mean that V2 will make the fold! It looks like we don't have any reads, so I'd go by population tendencies and say V2 is likely to fold. people do like to see flops, but versus huge shoves like this I think people wisen up with stuff like 66 and KJs.

    Now we move on to looking at how we do versus V1. On the one hand, stuff like QQ+ shouldn't be possible because he should be raising them initially. But on the other hand, a squeeze also seems unlikely, because when so much money goes in to the pot, they usually aren't bluffing. And because your raise looks very strong. And V2s call is also pretty strong.

    It looks like there's about $470 in the pot, and you need to call $225 more. So you need at least 32% equity to justify calling. If V1 is shoving QQ+ and A3s-A2s - about a 2:1 value to bluff ratio - you've got 33% equity. If they're shoving A4s as well, now you have 38% equity. If it's only A2s, you have 27% equity. So it looks to me like if they are capable at all of bluffing, you've got a call, because if they are capable they're probably doing it with more than just one hand (eg. A2s). But if you think they just would never be bluffing here, it's a fold. I don't have a great sense of what people do here, but I think that if I'm readless I would assume Villain isn't capable of bluffing and elect to fold.
  • osirus0830osirus0830 Red Chipper Posts: 46 ✭✭
    edited April 2
    Thanks to both of you for the great feedback. I really got a lot of value about how I should be approaching spots like this, because I was quite lost in this spot because it is just so uncommon.

    Results:

    Hero calls. Villain 2 calls. Board comes

    :JH: :QH: :7H: :5H: :QS:

    Hero scoops main with boat. Villain 2 scoops side pot. Villain 1 had :AC: :KC: . Villain 2 had :QC: :TC:

    I won a big pot, but at the time it felt like it was either break even or slightly negative EV. This is incorrect, but I called to really set the tone for the session that even though I'm tight, you can't just bomb me off of my equity. I'm not at the point where I'm ready to loosen up my game, but I will defend at what I have determined to be correct frequencies, so if I think that something is at least breakeven, I tend to call just to show down that I will get it in without the nuts. Thanks for all of the feedback. I do appreciate it.
  • adamzerneradamzerner Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    Weird that V1 decided to flat initially with AKs. I've always been confused by those sorts of limp-raise sorts of lines.

    As for the thought process of not wanting to be taken advantage of, and defending at the correct frequencies, I wouldn't approach a small stakes game like this as a default. Most small stakes players are way too passive and won't be exploiting you, so I would make them prove it before you adjust to a balanced approach.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,583 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There are some conflicting messages in this hand that need to be acknowledged, if not sorted through. Just the fact that there are inconsistencies raises enough doubt in my mind that I'm probably calling.

    With such a big straddle, it has the effect of
    a) already putting some money in the pot worth fighting for, and
    b) greatly reducing the stack sizes from 100 "BB" to about 17 "BB".

    For both of those reasons, the value of high cards goes up, and therefore there's really no need to slowplay big pairs or big cards such as AK. And yet UTG did. It was fairly predictable what Villain 2 did - he played his hand like he was weak, and yet at the same time he kept putting money in with it. Either way with that inconsistency you're OK - he probably should fold and he might, putting significant dead money in the pot, or calling and adding more money to the pot when you're the favorite over him. Note that in hindsight against the actual hands, you don't really care greatly if Villain 2 calls or not (if he's going to play that way, i.e. bad). If he stays, you've got 38% equity while putting in 33% of the money, and if he folds, you've got 56% equity while putting in a little less than 50% of the money (because of Villain 2's original dead money).

    So rather than worry about whether Villain 2 is going to call in this situation or not, it shouldn't be a really big factor in your decision because he's always going to have some hand strength similar to this - something kind of wishy/washy where he's not really sure what to do. AQ and JTs fit this description as well, and hands like those don't change much in the equation.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 4,583 ✭✭✭✭✭
    osirus0830 wrote: »
    if I think that something is at least breakeven, I tend to call just to show down that I will get it in without the nuts.

    That is a good idea.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file