Harrah's $75 - JJ - MP

MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
Here is a hand that I have already spent a couple hours attempting to analyze and I'm still not satisfied with my answer.

Hand:  :Jc :Js
Position: MP
Stack: 15k
Blinds: 50/100

Preflop (150) - Hero raises to 150, button calls.

Flop (450) - :Qs :Td :4c - Hero checks, button bets 300, Hero calls.

Turn: (1050) - :Qh - Hero checks, Button bets 700, Hero calls.

River (2450) - :4d - Hero checks, Button bets 1,100, Hero ?

Villain Notes:This is the villain's first hand at this table. He was a late registration.
(could possibly be a re-entry with an early bust from another table.) 50s yo white male. Jeans and t-shirt no jewelry. The dealer did not appear "know" him, she greeted players she knew by name. I never played with him before.

Post flop thoughts JJ would be the top of my marginal hand range. I decided to take a check/call strategy with JJ. The turn pairing made me more confident to call the turn bet. Thinking he would barrel a second time with any Tx combos he may have bet on the flop.

Conflicting information on river Ok, on the river, on one hand, JJ is the top of my capped range. Reasoning that, I have to call.

On the other hand, in a low stakes MTT, I doubt that the player pool would value bet thin or bluff often enough here for a good call. Reasoning that way, I have to fold, even the top of my range.

Answers

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    Why after calling turn you would fold on a river brick ?
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    Why after calling turn you would fold on a river brick ?

    There could be several reasons:

    1) In theory you are supposed to continue with 70% of your range versus an opponent betting an optimal range. So you are technically supposed to have at least 30% of your turn range end up being a fold on the river. The old concept of having to call river because you called the turn was debunked with the GTO simulations. Although no human can copy the simulations, the lesson here is that it is ok to fold some portion of your range, even on a brick.

    2) When your opponent deviates from the "70%" strategy first, you should deviate to adjust to your opponent. In general, I suspect this villain is deviating from the proper continuation strategies on the river. However, my problem is that how far off is he going and how far my deviation should go to respond to his deviation.

    3) Because he bet the turn does not guarantee a bet on the river. So there could be a portion of my turn range that has showdown value versus the bet on the turn, but not when he bets turn and river.

    You can't just blindly call off because you called the turn and the river was a blank. If he bets balanced, yes, then you have to call off. No arguments there. Low stakes live players are typically unbalanced on the river. How unbalanced is the question I am wrestling with.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 1,923 -
    Given the size of the river bet, you don't have to be right very often to call here. I wouldn't be surprised to be shown a T.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • MnpokerMnpoker Red Chipper Posts: 92 ✭✭
    First just a nick pick but pre with blinds 50-100 you can’t raise to 150 you would have to raise to at least 200. That said with JJ in MP in a low $$ MTT you need to raise bigger To about 2.5x also why did you give up control of the pot on the flop and play so passive post flop
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 15
    @MTThero : why "disagree" on a question? :'D

    Also note that the "70%-strategy" isn't one. It was a rule-of-thumb from Ed Miller in his book "1% poker" - if I remember, it was more presented as range exercise than a sound strategy. (I'm at work, I don't have the book here, I can't check)
    Also note that betting 70% range is betting waaaaay to often - But this is another topic.

    Still, river being a brick, all value hands (maybe down to TX?) and all bluff combos which fired on flop + turn should keep firing on river... esp. when river brick - story would be different if river is A, K, Q, T, 9 or 8 (for improved floated over cards, improved floated MP TX and completed OESD).
    Even better when river is 4: there then now only 1 combo of 44 Villain can have.

    Would V check the river often ? I think only if V has a merged hand which doesn't improved with river - like 88 - to realize their equity.

    So, calling turn is - to me - either calling brick river as bluff catcher, or a turn fold.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 15
    So to me, the question is not really "do we call river?" but more "do we call turn?". And deciding ON TURN how we will act on river.
    (folding flop would be too nitty)

    Considering:
    - we block the best of a merged range (JJ, JTs and JTo)
    - we block most of draws (KJ and J9s)
    - our blockers are not that relevant to blocking trips (QJ)
    - I don't expect a 66% pot bet on flop and a 70% pot bet on turn to be with a merged range (and it's too pricey for a merged range)

    I think we can easily fold turn.


    ***
    @MTThero : so, why did you call turn ?
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Mnpoker wrote: »
    First just a nick pick but pre with blinds 50-100 you can’t raise to 150 you would have to raise to at least 200. That said with JJ in MP in a low $$ MTT you need to raise bigger To about 2.5x also why did you give up control of the pot on the flop and play so passive post flop

    That was obviously a mis-type. I raised 3x preflop.
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    @MTThero : why "disagree" on a question? :'D

    I didn't disagree on whether it was a fold or call, but the reasoning was unsound.

    On another training site I subscribe to, there is a video on the "myths" of tournament poker. And that reasoning was on the list in the video.

    Calling river because you called turn or folding turn because you can't call river is not a valid concept. The turn and river bets have their own differing levels of strength. A double barrel is stronger than a flop bet and a triple barrel is stronger still.

    But anyway, I unclicked disagree even though I still think the concept is obviously an error.

  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    I developped my thought on my later post. (But I'm a cash game player, not a tourney player, strategies are somehow different)

    Mostly, my question was more for you to write down your strategy (and off-table analysis if possible) of your turn/river play more than a criticism. That's why it was strange to me to get a "disagree" on a critical question :)
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Flop: JJ is a marginal made hand. I checked the flop for pot control. With a marginal made hand you have to stop on the flop and plan out the hand. How many post flop bets is it worth? What is your checking range? How will this range make it to the river.

    So the first thing I plan out is that I have to check at least one street with JJ. Is it the flop/turn/river that I check. This hand on this board, I planned a check flop and delay c-bet on turn if it checks back.

    This is just how a hand should be planned out. C-betting just because I raised is not a valid answer. JJ on this board does not really need to bet for protection. Sure an A or K might hit, but not often enough to be afraid of it. And the reality is that I am likely only giving 3 outs away as the likelihood he has AK is reduced since he flatted preflop.

    Turn: There are two reasons to call the turn. In a balanced range, JJ is the top of my checking range on the flop. I c-bet all of my Qx combos, and overpairs. I would c-bet my 2 pairs and sets. So JJ is the very top of my range.

    If am going to check call the flop and check fold the turn with the top of my range I can be exploited terribly.

    Yes I block JT. But I don't block AT/KT/T9s/T8s which are all still live in his range and hands I beat and hands that can potentially bet twice after the Q pairs on the turn. I don't block any BDFD diamonds that double barrel.

    But the Q on the turn does change things. Because the turn blocks some of his Qx combos, thereby increasing my equity JJ.

    River: In the game I called off his bet. As Kat mentioned I though I would still see Tx combos often enough. And at the time I called I was satisfied with my call.

    However, when I got home to do my post-mortem, I started running into alot of questions and started doubting whether he shows up with a T there or a bluff "often" enough for a call.

    To me the flop and turn while I wouldn't play it 100% this way, are standard options.
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Please ignore the BDFD diamonds in the previous post. I had just got done commenting on another board and converged the hands in my head. This is not the BDFD hand.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 15
    I like your last post :)
    MTThero wrote: »
    But the Q on the turn does change things. Because the turn blocks some of his Qx combos, thereby increasing my equity JJ.
    As pointed out, I'm not a fan of JJ here. Yeah, it's surely the top of your range - still, maybe you've some meh QX ? - but I prefer to call with AT than JJ, because JJ blocks too many draws when TX unlock them.

    But you made a point too about V still having enough TX combo to fire. More than that, we can't say, because V is rather unknown and so we can't really say more about his tendencies.
    MTThero wrote: »
    However, when I got home to do my post-mortem, I started running into alot of questions and started doubting whether he shows up with a T there or a bluff "often" enough for a call.
    Also and here more importantly for you: do you think V would bet that much (on flop 66% pot size bet, on turn 70% pot size bet) with a TX combo, even ATs ?
    Especially as you're playing a tourney, where chips are more important to save than to win?

    I think this sizing is (should be) more polarized than merged. In which case double blocking OESD - the only draw - is really bad (twists V's range into more value aka QX combo).
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    I like your last post :)

    As pointed out, I'm not a fan of JJ here. Yeah, it's surely the top of your range - still, maybe you've some meh QX ? - but I prefer to call with AT than JJ, because JJ blocks too many draws when TX unlock them.

    But you made a point too about V still having enough TX combo to fire. More than that, we can't say, because V is rather unknown and so we can't really say more about his tendencies.

    I completely understand about blocking the draws and that is valid. But i would think AT has blocker problems on its own. I haven;t yet run the numbers on Flopzilla to see the difference, but AT blocks his TX combos. All of which are the second best hand I expect him to bet for value. I don't know which is really worse. Are blocking his draws or blocking his second best value hands worse in this spot?

    Red wrote: »
    Also and here more importantly for you: do you think V would bet that much (on flop 66% pot size bet, on turn 70% pot size bet) with a TX combo, even ATs ?
    Especially as you're playing a tourney, where chips are more important to save than to win?

    In tournaments, yes, chips do have a greater risk:reward value. But this is early on and the risk:reward difference while there is small in the early part of MTTs. What is more important is the value of your skill advantage. Matt Hunt did a database study and at stacks of this depth, he estimated a pros skill advatage versus an amatuer is about 10BBs/100 hands. This works out to a very small advantage of 0.1 BBs per hand. So yes, you should have a small edge in your decisions, but I beleive that many players over-estimate the size of the edge in their decisions.
    Red wrote: »
    I think this sizing is (should be) more polarized than merged. In which case double blocking OESD - the only draw - is really bad (twists V's range into more value aka QX combo).

    I don't know if you play live or online. But anyway, this was a live MTT daily at Harrah's. I have not sized up this player at all yet. Most of the players in this player pool think in this way: Is my hand good? I bet. Then their bet sizing is sometimes completely random and without thought.

    Adjusting bet sizes based on their ranges is higher level thinking which is above the player pool in this game. There are a few players here with that level of thinking, but I would estimate that is above about 90% of this player pool. So I don't know if you can make anything of his sizing here.
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Red wrote: »
    I developped my thought on my later post. (But I'm a cash game player, not a tourney player, strategies are somehow different)

    Mostly, my question was more for you to write down your strategy (and off-table analysis if possible) of your turn/river play more than a criticism. That's why it was strange to me to get a "disagree" on a critical question :)

    I misunderstood the tone of your initial comment. I did not take it as a question, but rather as a conclusion questioning my concerns about calling river using an outdated poker "myth" as the basis for your conclusion.

    I would not have disagreed with either conclusion of folding or calling, but I would disagree with flawed reasons for any conclusion.
  • RedRed Red Chipper Posts: 1,923 ✭✭✭✭
    MTThero wrote: »
    Red wrote: »
    I think this sizing is (should be) more polarized than merged. In which case double blocking OESD - the only draw - is really bad (twists V's range into more value aka QX combo).

    I don't know if you play live or online. But anyway, this was a live MTT daily at Harrah's. I have not sized up this player at all yet. Most of the players in this player pool think in this way: Is my hand good? I bet. Then their bet sizing is sometimes completely random and without thought.

    Adjusting bet sizes based on their ranges is higher level thinking which is above the player pool in this game. There are a few players here with that level of thinking, but I would estimate that is above about 90% of this player pool. So I don't know if you can make anything of his sizing here.

    I agree with you, low stakes players - and I guess cheap tourney players - aren't really smart and play very face up. And often unbalanced (usually too much value in their range).
    In a vacuum, I'd use player pool tendencies and compare Villain's actions to try to get some information. Bet sizing is an info I'd use as well - an info often looked up, unfortunately. How would act a casual tourney player in his situation? And for how much?

    I'm not a tourney player, but out of my (cash game) experience, if a player sizes more than half pot, it's usually a hand they like (as you pointed out too).
    And if the sizing increase between 2 streets (which is the case here), it usually shows a pretty strong hand trying to get all the possible value of a 2nd best. (Or sometimes a big draw... which here is double blocked.)

    Also my naive cash game observation would say: if V has TX, he doesn't want to bet often once he got check/called on flop - cash game, I could see a shy V check even a meh QX. And if he bets, he would more often size rather low (half pot? 40% pot?).

    So... does that still look like TX ? Not to me. But I've the point of view of a live low stakes cash game player :')
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    I would agree with that if the turn had not paired the Q. I think that changes the dynamic. Many players would then reason, he does not have a Q, so my T is still good. I bet. These players might not even be cognizant that I have cards. Just betting off the perceived value of the cards they hold.
  • MTTheroMTThero Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    Here are the combinations from Flopzilla.

    I used all the broadway combinations but lower than broadway I used only the suited combos. I used suited connectors and suited one gapped hands.

    Additionally, with AT, I would also have to assume JJ is going to be bet as well. If he's betting his TX, he would bet his JJ. So that is likely to affect the numbers as well. But let's see:

    With JJ:

    Flop:

    48 combinations of top pair or better.
    36 Combinations of TX
    10 OESD combinations.

    Flop Totals: 48 - 46

    Turn:

    36 combos of QX or better.
    36 Combos of TX
    10 Combos of OESD

    Turn Totals 36 - 46

    With AT

    Flop:

    46 Combos of QX+
    6 Combos of JJ
    26 Combos of TX
    20 Combos of OESD's

    Flop Totals: 52 - 46 (JJ has a slight edge in combinations on flop)

    Turn:

    32 Combos of QX+
    6 Combos of JJ
    26 Combos of Tx
    20 Combos of OESD's

    Turn Totals: 38 - 46 (Again JJ has a very small edge here)

    On both analysis of the flop and turn, JJ edged out TX by 2 combos per street of relevant hands. This is only a conclusion on the amount of combos available and not any conclusion on which of these combos the villain will bet.




Leave a Comment

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