Sucked out on two hands in quick succession am I doing something wrong?

CononthepokerCononthepoker Red Chipper Posts: 37 ✭✭
Both these hands were from a 6-max tournament in my local casino, £37 buy in, 20k starting stack we are on level 15 blinds are 600/1200 with 300 ante, my stack is 135k, there are 22 players left and the bubble bursts at 10 players.

First hand:

I am in the BB with :6c :9c

The player to my left (villain) is a competent recreational player, he hasn't been doing anything crazy and has shown up with the goods every time he has raised pre. He has a stack of around 95k

He raises to 2550 which is a strange-ish sizing at only just over 2x it is folded round to me. His pre-flop raising range is very strong 10-AA, AK, AQ and thats about it. Against this range I am clearly crushed so raising is not an option, i prefer a call here over a fold. The pot is already 4950 and its only an extra 1350 to see a flop and close the action.

From watching this player he C-bets almost 100% of the time and has not done any tricky action so I can see a flop, see what develops and take it from there.

Flop is :6s :9d :Ah

I cant ask for a better flop really but i check relying on the inevitable C-bet coming, the only combo I'm worried about here is AA and with only 3 combos of this I crush everything else. My initial plan is to check raise, maybe all in depending on how much villains bet is.

Villain bets 15k, I know that he will never fold top pair to a shove and I am getting value out of all his Ax combos, he will also likely call a shove with QQ+. I elect to just get it in here rather than peeling a turn. I shove and villain calls.

He tables :Kc :Ks

Turn is: :Tc

River is: :As

THAT SUCKS!!!!!

so I now have about 40k which is 30 BB I take some deep breaths and compose myself...

I think we have about two rounds of play with nothing but junk, in this time the blinds increase and are now 800/1600 with 300 ante and i'm now on the BB with:
:Ks :Js

I have around 35k and just over 21 BB we are now down to 17 players

A loose aggressive player in the CO now raises to 25k, I have seen this player raise to this amount with 44, 88, 89s and QQ so his range is pretty damn wide. I would say 22+, 89s+, A10o+ and K10s+

I decide that against his range I am pretty strong so shove, its folded around to him and he insta-calls and tables :Ah :9d

The flop is: :Kc :Jd :Qh

Turn is: :4d

River: :Ts

YAY HE GETS THERE!!!!

Now clearly both times I am the favourite on the flop and my real question is is there anything wrong you can see in my plays here, should I be getting it in here? Playing it safer to "get in the money" may be some peoples views but this style of play just doesn't fit with me. I don't play tournaments to get in the money, I play to finish top 3 or better. How do people deal with suck outs like this? I have had a recent run of terrible luck, getting it in when massively ahead and then losing on the river, I mean i want people to call my all ins when they are behind but when you lose those 20/80 sort of run outs again and again it really starts to knock your confidence...

Comments

  • morel huntermorel hunter Red Chipper Posts: 152 ✭✭
    "Sucked out on two hands in quick succession am I doing something wrong?"

    Yes, you are doing something wrong. You are questioning optimal plays made by you. You got your money in good both times. What more can you ask for?

    Variance is the nature of this game. It is up to each individual on how they are going to deal with it. GLHF (Good Luck Home Fries)
  • tagliustaglius Red Chipper Posts: 280 ✭✭
    You got your money in good when the money went all in, but it could still be valuable to question your decisions before that point. Calling from the BB with 69s when you're definitely behind is the first thing I would look at.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 9
    Chris C wrote: »
    His pre-flop raising range is very strong 10-AA, AK, AQ and thats about it. Against this range I am clearly crushed so raising is not an option, i prefer a call here over a fold.
    Calling is your worst option. Folding is probably best given the range you've assigned to this player. You better have some stellar post flop skills if you're going to win this pot very often.

    The KJs hand is perhaps a little suspect as well. You have a 35k stack and this player makes it 25k--they aren't folding to you. When they open, they just might be aware of the short stack behind them looking to get it in. So, they may drop hands like 98s from their opening range and instead open hands that they are comfortable calling a jam from you with. So, if you think you're getting the money in good PF with KJs against their range, you're not looking deeply enough at this player's range. You're ignoring the landscape on which they are basing their decisions.



  • keith ckeith c Red Chipper Posts: 91 ✭✭
    While you have great hands and you got it in well from one perspective (once we see the flop+) it looks like a suckout on the river. But pre flop choices matter.

    As @bigburge10 says, with their bet they're saying I'm calling no matter what So you should put them in the top of their range. How does KJ suited compare to a PP or As s/ns ? IMHO you are deciding if you want to race to stay ahead or not. You just lost the race(s).
  • SliverOverlordSliverOverlord Red Chipper Posts: 242 ✭✭✭
    Hand 1: Pre I think you should be calling here. With antes and small raise you can flat pretty wide. Getting it all in OTF isn’t great IMO, just because the only bluffs you can have are 87 and 6x, I’d just call and lead jam any non board pairing turns, if you think he’s calling so wide. Sucks the A paired.

    Hand 2: He didn’t suck out if you’re getting it in pre. You got it in behind, and lost as you should ~60% (my math isn’t great) Not saying it’s necessarily a bad play, but you should be expecting lots of variance in that spot
  • Zero CoolZero Cool Red Chipper Posts: 128 ✭✭✭
    Chris C wrote: »

    He raises to 2550 which is a strange-ish sizing at only just over 2x. The pot is already 4950 and its only an extra 1350 to see a flop and close the action.

    Villain bets 15k,

    blinds increase and are now 800/1600 with 300 ante and i'm now on the BB with:
    :Ks :Js

    A loose aggressive player in the CO now raises to 25k

    Wait, so you think that a just over 2x open size is strange but a 16x open size and a 3x pot bet on the flop are normal? Tread very carefully if you ever play anywhere else.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Zero Cool wrote: »
    Wait, so you think that a just over 2x open size is strange but a 16x open size and a 3x pot bet on the flop are normal? Tread very carefully if you ever play anywhere else.
    16x...nothing to see here:)

  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here. On the flop he makes it 3x pot which is weird so im thinking AQ or AK on a A96 board. Don't think he is folding so jamming is fine. I would probably flat and check raise turn but either way money is going in ahead. Surprised he called off with KK on Axx.

    Hand #2 is questionable shove. Definitely bottom of a reshove range given there is no FE. Say villain made it 4k pre and you jammed for 20k then there is more of a discussion and a better play. You can do a stop and go. Call 25k and shove 12k into 50k on the flop regardless of what comes. I would likely pick a better spot and just fold here.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 229 ✭✭✭
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.

    Mathematically, it probably makes sense. But, IMO, not at the table.

    Why?

    First of all, for the implied odds to be worth it, you need two things. (1) V has to pay you off when you hit; given a draw-heavy hand, that's far from a guarantee; and (2) you need real fold equity for a draw-heavy hand to maximize its value.; given V's range, the FE is likely much lower than you would want or need.

    The most likely options are check-folding to the flop c-bet or check-raising on a semi-bluff. Absent the FE, the check-raise is almost entirely bingo poker at this point, so you'd just be gambling with a good chunk if not all of your stack. It's barely defensible in a cash game, and, IMO, it makes far less sense in a tournament.

    The likelihood of the desired outcome is so low and the cost of any outcome so high (except for the wasted money in a post-flop check-fold), that I'm not getting anywhere near this hand.

    Let's put it more simply: If you think that V has a monster hand, it's going to cost you most or all of your stack to try to suck out on him. And this tight a V would often know how to fold if/when a draw hits. Save your money: you'd end up putting in good money to chase after the bad.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.

    Mathematically, it probably makes sense. But, IMO, not at the table.

    Why?

    First of all, for the implied odds to be worth it, you need two things. (1) V has to pay you off when you hit; given a draw-heavy hand, that's far from a guarantee; and (2) you need real fold equity for a draw-heavy hand to maximize its value.; given V's range, the FE is likely much lower than you would want or need.

    The most likely options are check-folding to the flop c-bet or check-raising on a semi-bluff. Absent the FE, the check-raise is almost entirely bingo poker at this point, so you'd just be gambling with a good chunk if not all of your stack. It's barely defensible in a cash game, and, IMO, it makes far less sense in a tournament.

    The likelihood of the desired outcome is so low and the cost of any outcome so high (except for the wasted money in a post-flop check-fold), that I'm not getting anywhere near this hand.

    Let's put it more simply: If you think that V has a monster hand, it's going to cost you most or all of your stack to try to suck out on him. And this tight a V would often know how to fold if/when a draw hits. Save your money: you'd end up putting in good money to chase after the bad.

    You can't say there is no FE and also say villain won't pay you off when you hit. Its one or the other. Im sure 80% of the time you will likely miss the board. 20% of the time you will hit top pair or a good draw. Which at 3:1 making up another 5% shouldn't be that hard.
  • Jónas SJónas S Red Chipper Posts: 186 ✭✭✭
    edited November 12
    Good points so far, as always, but I'd like to add one thing:

    Regardless of whether you got it in good or bad, you're tilted with the outcome -- that itself is going to result in bad decisions and can be avoided. It's very hard to improve and fix leaks when we're not thinking clear due to tilt.

    I recommend listening to @Gazellig and @DrTricia 's podcast, "Poker on the mind", or Tricia's (previous) and Elliot Roe's podcast "The mindset advantage podcast". It's a great way to learn how to fix the most serious issues related to tilt in a relatively quick manner if you apply the tips. If time allows then check some of Tricia's pro videos here or check on books related to the issue. There's also plenty of content out there if you look for it.

    It's great that you're asking for advice but in order to implement strategy one must be able to detach himself from results and don't feel entitled to anything.

    I hope you to take to heart what has been said here above in the comments, and work on your game from the pro videos. With time you will understand which moves are right and which are wrong, although it can sometimes be debated upon but in general there's an optimal line in each situation if we can make the right assumptions. Still, It's more important to be able to maintain a steady game-plan that you believe is correct at each given time and don't go off-road when things don't go our way. Living a tilt-free live is the key to being able to maintain that.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    You can't say there is no FE and also say villain won't pay you off when you hit. Its one or the other. Im sure 80% of the time you will likely miss the board. 20% of the time you will hit top pair or a good draw. Which at 3:1 making up another 5% shouldn't be that hard.
    You don't just win when you catch 20% of the time. It's not like this hand smashes the board 20% of the time--it's catching a medium or small top pair hand (6 or 9), one which may not beat any of the pairs in V's range, or it's catching a flush draw or straight draw. This hand does hit, but it also doesn't hit hard.

    You can certainly find some fold equity across many boards. The hard part is if Hero is willing to attack on those boards. Can Hero find the stones to check jam on a T98sss board or something similar? If so, then maybe we have something here.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.

    Mathematically, it probably makes sense. But, IMO, not at the table.

    Why?

    First of all, for the implied odds to be worth it, you need two things. (1) V has to pay you off when you hit; given a draw-heavy hand, that's far from a guarantee; and (2) you need real fold equity for a draw-heavy hand to maximize its value.; given V's range, the FE is likely much lower than you would want or need.

    The most likely options are check-folding to the flop c-bet or check-raising on a semi-bluff. Absent the FE, the check-raise is almost entirely bingo poker at this point, so you'd just be gambling with a good chunk if not all of your stack. It's barely defensible in a cash game, and, IMO, it makes far less sense in a tournament.

    The likelihood of the desired outcome is so low and the cost of any outcome so high (except for the wasted money in a post-flop check-fold), that I'm not getting anywhere near this hand.

    Let's put it more simply: If you think that V has a monster hand, it's going to cost you most or all of your stack to try to suck out on him. And this tight a V would often know how to fold if/when a draw hits. Save your money: you'd end up putting in good money to chase after the bad.

    You can't say there is no FE and also say villain won't pay you off when you hit. Its one or the other. Im sure 80% of the time you will likely miss the board. 20% of the time you will hit top pair or a good draw. Which at 3:1 making up another 5% shouldn't be that hard.

    Not sure if I was unclear or if you misread.

    There is little FE on your semi-bluffs.

    And this might not be a V who pays you off when you hit.

    Two very different things.

    Say the board comes a remarkable 8c7c X. And you check-raise as a semi-bluff. FE is low -- a very poor outcome for a semi-bluff.

    Then, say that your straight or flush hits and you make your follow-up bet. Odds are that you're not getting paid off.

    So, V will call at the right times (when you're on your semi-bluff) and fold at the right times (when you have made your hand) often enough that the times that you win end up being for far too little money to make these series of moves profitable.
  • tripletiretripletire Red Chipper Posts: 229 ✭✭✭
    I believe it needs to be said again, this is all because of how tight we perceive villain's range. As soon as we know we're up against someone opening 10%+ from UTG, these types of hands will become easy defends.
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.

    Mathematically, it probably makes sense. But, IMO, not at the table.

    Why?

    First of all, for the implied odds to be worth it, you need two things. (1) V has to pay you off when you hit; given a draw-heavy hand, that's far from a guarantee; and (2) you need real fold equity for a draw-heavy hand to maximize its value.; given V's range, the FE is likely much lower than you would want or need.

    The most likely options are check-folding to the flop c-bet or check-raising on a semi-bluff. Absent the FE, the check-raise is almost entirely bingo poker at this point, so you'd just be gambling with a good chunk if not all of your stack. It's barely defensible in a cash game, and, IMO, it makes far less sense in a tournament.

    The likelihood of the desired outcome is so low and the cost of any outcome so high (except for the wasted money in a post-flop check-fold), that I'm not getting anywhere near this hand.

    Let's put it more simply: If you think that V has a monster hand, it's going to cost you most or all of your stack to try to suck out on him. And this tight a V would often know how to fold if/when a draw hits. Save your money: you'd end up putting in good money to chase after the bad.

    You can't say there is no FE and also say villain won't pay you off when you hit. Its one or the other. Im sure 80% of the time you will likely miss the board. 20% of the time you will hit top pair or a good draw. Which at 3:1 making up another 5% shouldn't be that hard.

    Not sure if I was unclear or if you misread.

    There is little FE on your semi-bluffs.

    And this might not be a V who pays you off when you hit.

    Two very different things.

    Say the board comes a remarkable 8c7c X. And you check-raise as a semi-bluff. FE is low -- a very poor outcome for a semi-bluff.

    Then, say that your straight or flush hits and you make your follow-up bet. Odds are that you're not getting paid off.

    So, V will call at the right times (when you're on your semi-bluff) and fold at the right times (when you have made your hand) often enough that the times that you win end up being for far too little money to make these series of moves profitable.

    Your assuming the villain always makes the correct calls and folds? Hard to believe as 90% of people suck and the other 10% don't play perfectly either.

    For example
    Flop 966cc
    How does villain know if you have a flush draw, trips, or boat?

    He's left guessing like the rest of us.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 773 ✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.

    Mathematically, it probably makes sense. But, IMO, not at the table.

    Why?

    First of all, for the implied odds to be worth it, you need two things. (1) V has to pay you off when you hit; given a draw-heavy hand, that's far from a guarantee; and (2) you need real fold equity for a draw-heavy hand to maximize its value.; given V's range, the FE is likely much lower than you would want or need.

    The most likely options are check-folding to the flop c-bet or check-raising on a semi-bluff. Absent the FE, the check-raise is almost entirely bingo poker at this point, so you'd just be gambling with a good chunk if not all of your stack. It's barely defensible in a cash game, and, IMO, it makes far less sense in a tournament.

    The likelihood of the desired outcome is so low and the cost of any outcome so high (except for the wasted money in a post-flop check-fold), that I'm not getting anywhere near this hand.

    Let's put it more simply: If you think that V has a monster hand, it's going to cost you most or all of your stack to try to suck out on him. And this tight a V would often know how to fold if/when a draw hits. Save your money: you'd end up putting in good money to chase after the bad.

    You can't say there is no FE and also say villain won't pay you off when you hit. Its one or the other. Im sure 80% of the time you will likely miss the board. 20% of the time you will hit top pair or a good draw. Which at 3:1 making up another 5% shouldn't be that hard.

    Not sure if I was unclear or if you misread.

    There is little FE on your semi-bluffs.

    And this might not be a V who pays you off when you hit.

    Two very different things.

    Say the board comes a remarkable 8c7c X. And you check-raise as a semi-bluff. FE is low -- a very poor outcome for a semi-bluff.

    Then, say that your straight or flush hits and you make your follow-up bet. Odds are that you're not getting paid off.

    So, V will call at the right times (when you're on your semi-bluff) and fold at the right times (when you have made your hand) often enough that the times that you win end up being for far too little money to make these series of moves profitable.

    Your assuming the villain always makes the correct calls and folds? Hard to believe as 90% of people suck and the other 10% don't play perfectly either.

    For example
    Flop 966cc
    How does villain know if you have a flush draw, trips, or boat?

    He's left guessing like the rest of us.

    I'm not making assumptions. I'm trusting the OP:

    "The player to my left (villain) is a competent recreational player, he hasn't been doing anything crazy and has shown up with the goods every time he has raised pre."

    And I'm sure as hell not banking on flopping a boat in order to make a play profitable. :)
  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    tripletire wrote: »
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    96s completing from the bb is fine and you would be over folding if yout not calling around 60+% of hands here.
    I probably don't fully understand this reasoning, so bare with me please. Defending 60% of hands in the BB in this scenario is for MDF--to prevent a player from auto profiting with any two cards. This raise is coming from UTG and OP has assigned a very strong range to this player. So, why must we defend such a wide range in this situation? I can understand defending if the raise came from the BTN as their range is more likely to be two blank cards, but from UTG, I just don't get it.

    Even against a fairly strong range, we can and should be defending any hand that plays well with how large the antes are and our likely above average ability to realize equity against passive opponents. The range we've given him in this spot makes this a losing call though

    @bigburge10
    I use to think the same way about folding vs a tight range. Once @tripletire started sharing his knowledge i looked more into it. Johnathan talks about it in his book(s) as well. He actually says something like 80% but i tightened it up to around 60% for a bigger edge. You also have to consider stack depth. I believe they are pretty deep for a mtt around 80bb (bb = 1200). So flatting a min raise getting over 3:1 with 96s should be +ev with the implied odds.

    Mathematically, it probably makes sense. But, IMO, not at the table.

    Why?

    First of all, for the implied odds to be worth it, you need two things. (1) V has to pay you off when you hit; given a draw-heavy hand, that's far from a guarantee; and (2) you need real fold equity for a draw-heavy hand to maximize its value.; given V's range, the FE is likely much lower than you would want or need.

    The most likely options are check-folding to the flop c-bet or check-raising on a semi-bluff. Absent the FE, the check-raise is almost entirely bingo poker at this point, so you'd just be gambling with a good chunk if not all of your stack. It's barely defensible in a cash game, and, IMO, it makes far less sense in a tournament.

    The likelihood of the desired outcome is so low and the cost of any outcome so high (except for the wasted money in a post-flop check-fold), that I'm not getting anywhere near this hand.

    Let's put it more simply: If you think that V has a monster hand, it's going to cost you most or all of your stack to try to suck out on him. And this tight a V would often know how to fold if/when a draw hits. Save your money: you'd end up putting in good money to chase after the bad.

    You can't say there is no FE and also say villain won't pay you off when you hit. Its one or the other. Im sure 80% of the time you will likely miss the board. 20% of the time you will hit top pair or a good draw. Which at 3:1 making up another 5% shouldn't be that hard.

    Not sure if I was unclear or if you misread.

    There is little FE on your semi-bluffs.

    And this might not be a V who pays you off when you hit.

    Two very different things.

    Say the board comes a remarkable 8c7c X. And you check-raise as a semi-bluff. FE is low -- a very poor outcome for a semi-bluff.

    Then, say that your straight or flush hits and you make your follow-up bet. Odds are that you're not getting paid off.

    So, V will call at the right times (when you're on your semi-bluff) and fold at the right times (when you have made your hand) often enough that the times that you win end up being for far too little money to make these series of moves profitable.

    Your assuming the villain always makes the correct calls and folds? Hard to believe as 90% of people suck and the other 10% don't play perfectly either.

    For example
    Flop 966cc
    How does villain know if you have a flush draw, trips, or boat?

    He's left guessing like the rest of us.

    I'm not making assumptions. I'm trusting the OP:

    "The player to my left (villain) is a competent recreational player, he hasn't been doing anything crazy and has shown up with the goods every time he has raised pre."

    And I'm sure as hell not banking on flopping a boat in order to make a play profitable. :)

    You trust the OP after the player stacked off with KK on Axx as a competent player? Strong range pre sure. Postflop skill doesn't send off any alarm bells as a competent player. Also just cause someone is a nit and only raises TT+ AK+ doesn't make them competent. Sounds more like scared money to me. If villain stacks off kk on Axx that sounds like we just need to hit to win vs him and he is not folding at all.
  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 13
    Austin wrote: »
    You trust the OP after the player stacked off with KK on Axx as a competent player? Strong range pre sure. Postflop skill doesn't send off any alarm bells as a competent player. Also just cause someone is a nit and only raises TT+ AK+ doesn't make them competent. Sounds more like scared money to me. If villain stacks off kk on Axx that sounds like we just need to hit to win vs him and he is not folding at all.
    We don't know how V perceives OP's image. Based on this play, he's either comfortable getting all in with KK on Axx against OP or he's emotionally attached to his hand. We don't know. Should/can we lean a certain way?

    Let's say that OP's image is wild. In that case, they have zero fold equity and max implied odds, but will be forced to make a hand with 96s. When 96s connects, they double, when they miss, they either check fold or make a play and lose a bunch of chips.

  • bigburge10bigburge10 Red Chipper Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭✭
    Austin wrote: »
    You trust the OP after the player stacked off with KK on Axx as a competent player?
    Was just thinking...this is one of those situations where it's difficult to tell if V is a genius or a fish. It's possible that V is an excellent hand reader and for whatever reason, has been able to eliminate many Ax hands from OP's range. Recently, I've heard of a hand from an excellent player: MP limp, Hero raises KK. Flop is Ax5h6h. MP check raises flop, Hero 3 bet jams, MP calls and Hero fast rolls his hand knowing he's good, and he was. Who knows? Maybe this is the MP player posting the hand and has the board a little mixed up:)

    But you're right. We probably shouldn't assume V is a competent player based on the player pool. However like Lloyd Christmas says, "So, you're saying there's a chance."

  • AustinAustin Red Chipper Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭
    bigburge10 wrote: »
    Austin wrote: »
    You trust the OP after the player stacked off with KK on Axx as a competent player?
    Was just thinking...this is one of those situations where it's difficult to tell if V is a genius or a fish. It's possible that V is an excellent hand reader and for whatever reason, has been able to eliminate many Ax hands from OP's range. Recently, I've heard of a hand from an excellent player: MP limp, Hero raises KK. Flop is Ax5h6h. MP check raises flop, Hero 3 bet jams, MP calls and Hero fast rolls his hand knowing he's good, and he was. Who knows? Maybe this is the MP player posting the hand and has the board a little mixed up:)

    But you're right. We probably shouldn't assume V is a competent player based on the player pool. However like Lloyd Christmas says, "So, you're saying there's a chance."

    Small chance. Ax5h6h is different than A96r.