Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Poker Education & Beginners Questions / Old Hand Analysis Section /

Should I Have Folded to This 3-Bet Shove?

 
Old
Default
Should I Have Folded to This 3-Bet Shove? - Sun Oct 23, 2011, 07:32 PM
(#1)
ILuvPoker77's Avatar
Since: Sep 2011
Posts: 84
Background: It is very early in a SNG, in this hand I am the SB and the BB is someone I have not played with before.

I am dealt AQs and decide to raise over several limpers, adjusting the size of the raise to compensate. Then, the BB shoves over me.

The reason I called was that, because of the position in which I made the raise, I thought HE thought I was just stealing and didn't have much of a hand, and therefore was shoving light in defense, not expecting me to call.

Was this sound reasoning, or should I have given him credit for a premium hand, since I didn't know him, and had never stolen blinds from him before?

 
Old
Default
Sun Oct 23, 2011, 07:46 PM
(#2)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,788
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
any steal in the first few levels of an mtt or sng is normally going to be trouble. I'd wait on that until some of the maniacs are gone. In the first level of one, I'd want QQ+ to be calling an all-in.
 
Old
Default
Sun Oct 23, 2011, 08:16 PM
(#3)
oriholic's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 751
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvPoker77 View Post
Background: It is very early in a SNG, in this hand I am the SB and the BB is someone I have not played with before.

I am dealt AQs and decide to raise over several limpers, adjusting the size of the raise to compensate. Then, the BB shoves over me.
I'd probably call. Most of the time at these low level buy-in SnGs players are willing to get it in with much worse than AQ. Now if you knew he wasn't that type then maybe not, but I've seen far too much Ax, any two broadways, any pair, and even suited trash and total trash here to fold AQ. Yeah, he had AK, but might he have done the same with 33 or QT or even 95s?

Quote:
The reason I called was that, because of the position in which I made the raise, I thought HE thought I was just stealing and didn't have much of a hand, and therefore was shoving light in defense, not expecting me to call.

Was this sound reasoning, or should I have given him credit for a premium hand, since I didn't know him, and had never stolen blinds from him before?
I'm not giving credit for him thinking that hard. Not this early. Not to mention you're not stealing his BB (you're raising limpers) and trying to steal the blinds at this stage is worthless. By the way at this level buy-in and this early, people aren't really "shoving light" as much as they are "shoving bad". The difference lies in the reasoning.
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 24, 2011, 05:50 AM
(#4)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvPoker77 View Post
Background: It is very early in a SNG, in this hand I am the SB and the BB is someone I have not played with before.
Early in SNG play, especially single tables, you should try to play a tighter game and get involved in smaller pots when you might have smaller edges.
There tends to be a "sorting out" period in early stages of those small field events which lends itself well to avoidance of large chip swings unless you have similar large equity edges.

This is largely true because a mere double up does not confer upon you as much chance to ITM or WIN the event, as the LOSS of 75% or 80% (or even 100%) of your stack hurts your chances to ITM or win. Obviously a double up does increase your ITM or win chances even in the early stages, but having those chips early on does not GUARENTEE your ITM or win; a loss of most of your stack in the first few levels makes it almost a guarentee you will NOT ITM though...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvPoker77 View Post
I am dealt AQs and decide to raise over several limpers, adjusting the size of the raise to compensate. Then, the BB shoves over me.
Nothing wrong at all with your decision to raise over the limopers with your AQs in the SB.
Your sizing choice was good (3BB raise, plus 1BB for each limper), and it is an amount which expresses appropriate strength for oyur hand value without "sticking" you to the pot overly much. All in all, this is a very "standard" play to make.

When the BB shoves over you, that is when your decision becomes less standard, and more critical to your survival.

Break down what you "know" about your situation:

1) If you FOLD you will have 1360 left in your stack (68BB)
2) If you call and WIN, you will 2900 in your stack (145BB) and you will have 7 opponents remianing (8 total runners with you), with 3 of you getting paid.
3) If you call and LOSE, you will have 120 left (6BB), and will have very slim chances of recovering to make it ITM.

This probably leads you to realize:

Folding makes you the 2nd shortest stack at the table, but your chip stack still allow plenty of "play" to accumulate more.
The loss of your 120 raise would not cripple you at all, as a single pot played between ANY of the stacks, and not even an all-in pot, can turn the lowest chips stack into the chip leader.

If you win you get a huge early chip up, but this chip up does not make you a "lock" to get to the money.
All the remaining stacks at the table have enough that if you make a "mistake" and double them, returns you to an AVERAGE STACK.
Getting 1 player closer to the moeny is good for your ITM/Win chances, but is not really HUGE yet, as you still have to wade through a lot of opponents.
The best part of a double up means that any signle double you might GIVE will not cripple our ITM/WIN chances if you double now.

If you LOSE however, you are almost certain to miss making the money.

See how the risk/reward sides of these possibilities are NOT "equal"?

Consider...

If you were seated at a NL cash table, and you were presented with a 50.1% chance to win a 1 to 1 return for 50% of your chips, there would be reasons to accept this tiny "edge" every single time. Over the course of 1000 times of being in this situation, you'd likely win 501 times, and lose 499 times, and you'd book a profit. If you LOSE, you simply reach into your pocket and re-load your stack; the loss has not hurt your FUTURE win potential at all. With your re-loaded stack, you can re-coup your loss (and possibly more) on a single hand.

In a tournament if you are putting 50% of your stack at risk on that tiny edge and you LOSE, you cannot re-load (in most structures). The LOSS of half your stack means you must now win 1 all in hand just to return to the same stack size you had before you lost. This argues that in tournament play, you want to PASS UP smaller edges the deeper your stack is relative to the blind, because the loss of chips hurts you MORE than the additional chips help. (Note: the shorter your stack becomes in relation to the blinds, the less likely you should be passing up even small edges).

Now that we have established that 50.1% chance to win is not worth taking if a loss cripples us, how do we estimate what IS an acceptable edge to take?

That is very complex, and the best I know how to come up with that number is by "feel".
I first consider my perception of my relative "skill" versus my opponents; the greater my likely "skill edge", the less likely I want to be to take smaller edges.
Then I consider how much I have comitted to the pot; the smaller my current investment, and the smaller the pot, the more willing I am to fold smaller edge situations versus big chip moves.

For me, I am not calling this unless I am 60/40 favorite against his likely range this early. To me, the negative effects of a loss are simply too great, and the benefit of a win are too small, to want to take that chance without a STRONG edge by calling. Later on, I am likely to take much less of an edge, after a chip up increases in benefit for me, but now...no. 60/40 is the bottom end for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvPoker77 View Post
The reason I called was that, because of the position in which I made the raise, I thought HE thought I was just stealing and didn't have much of a hand, and therefore was shoving light in defense, not expecting me to call.

Was this sound reasoning, or should I have given him credit for a premium hand, since I didn't know him, and had never stolen blinds from him before?
It may or may not be "sound reasoning" here, but it is certainly something you SHOULD be thinking about...

Mike Caro has a saying that I like a lot: "When in doubt, always consider 1 more factor."

If all you thought about was what you put out here, that he MIGHT be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, then you probably didn't use everything you could have to make your decision. You've only looked at one side of the range of possibilities, and are relying on "luck" to make THAT side hat is at work in the hand.

Even if you thought: "Hmmmm, he might be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, and I have AQs which is a pretty strong hand."
You'd better off...

If you had thought: "Hmmmm, He might be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, and I have AQs which is a pretty strong hand. AQs is strong because the only hands that are worse than a race for me are AA/KK/QQ and AK, and against any of those except AA I have at least 28% or so chance to win."
You'd be even better off...

If you had thought: "Hmmmm, He might be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, and I have AQs which is a pretty strong hand. AQs is strong because the only hands that are worse than a race for me are AA/KK/QQ and AK, and against any of those except AA I have at least 28% or so chance to win. I am relatively new to poker, and I have trouble winning in some spots with hands like draws or small pocket pairs, so if I am in a race here and win, that win affords me some protection for later mistakes I might make."
You'd be even better off
(Note: I do not know if you have other "leaks" or what they may be, but if you factor those into your willingness to take an early race, it can help you).

If you had thought: "Hmmmm, He might be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, and I have AQs which is a pretty strong hand. AQs is strong because the only hands that are worse than a race for me are AA/KK/QQ and AK, and against any of those except AA I have at least 28% or so chance to win. I am relatively new to poker, and I have trouble winning in some spots with hands like draws or small pocket pairs, so if I am in a race here and win, that win affords me some protection for later mistakes I might make. i have also seen him make 3 big over raises on other hands already, so he really cannot have a great hand EVERY TIME."
Then you are REALLY REALLY better off...

So what I'm driving at is pretty simple: When you are un-sure of what to do, the MORE info you have, and the more info you USE to forumlate your decisions, the better off you are. so the QUALITY of your reasoning is really a function of the DEPTH of your reasoning in un-certain situations.

For THIS SPOT...

I cannot really say whether the call was good or not for you.

For me, I muck this in a flash.
If I am behind I just saved a ton, and if I got bluffed, I figure I can find a better spot to stack this donk later on.

I have to realize that my personal risk acceptance threshold of a 60/40 advantage over the shover's range this deep means I must feel he will jam about a 20% range here to get my equity where I want it.
That 20% range includes such "stellar" shove hands as A4s, A9o, K8s, Q9s, and any pp 66+.
Unless I have "proof" the jammer is a total donk/moron/aggro-fish from his prior actions, I do not want to accept the chance he is on a TIGHTER range than this.
I can race for my SNG "life" plenty when I have 15 to 20BB, I do not need to do it at 75BB.

...but that is just me, for YOU it might be different.

Last edited by JDean; Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 05:53 AM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 24, 2011, 01:30 PM
(#5)
ILuvPoker77's Avatar
Since: Sep 2011
Posts: 84
Wow, thanks everyone!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
any steal in the first few levels of an mtt or sng is normally going to be trouble. I'd wait on that until some of the maniacs are gone. In the first level of one, I'd want QQ+ to be calling an all-in.
Yes, I think this will be my policy from now on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
Most of the time at these low level buy-in SnGs players are willing to get it in with much worse than AQ....I've seen far too much Ax, any two broadways, any pair, and even suited trash and total trash here to fold AQ. Yeah, he had AK, but might he have done the same with 33 or QT or even 95s?
Yes, I've seen a lot of those things too, but I had no way of knowing at that point whether he was a donk or a decent player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
Not to mention you're not stealing his BB (you're raising limpers) and trying to steal the blinds at this stage is worthless.
Good point. (facepalm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
Early in SNG play, especially single tables, you should try to play a tighter game and get involved in smaller pots when you might have smaller edges....

See how the risk/reward sides of these possibilities are NOT "equal"?...

In a tournament if you are putting 50% of your stack at risk on that tiny edge and you LOSE, you cannot re-load (in most structures). The LOSS of half your stack means you must now win 1 all in hand just to return to the same stack size you had before you lost. This argues that in tournament play, you want to PASS UP smaller edges the deeper your stack is relative to the blind, because the loss of chips hurts you MORE than the additional chips help. (Note: the shorter your stack becomes in relation to the blinds, the less likely you should be passing up even small edges).
Superbly stated, compelling reasons to fold in this situation. Thank you SO much for taking the time to explain it so well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
Now that we have established that 50.1% chance to win is not worth taking if a loss cripples us, how do we estimate what IS an acceptable edge to take?...

Mike Caro has a saying that I like a lot: "When in doubt, always consider 1 more factor."

If all you thought about was what you put out here, that he MIGHT be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, then you probably didn't use everything you could have to make your decision. You've only looked at one side of the range of possibilities, and are relying on "luck" to make THAT side hat is at work in the hand.
True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
If you had thought: "Hmmmm, He might be bluffing because he thinks I am bluffing, and I have AQs which is a pretty strong hand. AQs is strong because the only hands that are worse than a race for me are AA/KK/QQ and AK, and against any of those except AA I have at least 28% or so chance to win.
Yes, I was factoring these things into consideration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
...I am relatively new to poker, and I have trouble winning in some spots with hands like draws or small pocket pairs, so if I am in a race here and win, that win affords me some protection for later mistakes I might make."
You'd be even better off
(Note: I do not know if you have other "leaks" or what they may be, but if you factor those into your willingness to take an early race, it can help you).
Yes, I am new to poker, and yes, I do make mistakes, but lately I have had really good results building my stack in tournaments, and staying ahead of the blinds and antes, by playing "normal" poker rather than getting it all in pre.

I usually only tend to get it all in pre if my M value is less than 8. Of course, I will call shoves with a bigger stack if I have AA, but if there are more than 2 others in already, I may not call even with AA, because the variance increases so much in a multi-way all in confrontation.

Anyway, by using a combination of mixing up my play, feigning weakness or "fit-and-fold" play when stakes are low so that my bluffs are more convincing when I do bluff, having a few more plays in my repertoire than just ABC, having the guts to win pots with sheer aggression against some opponent types, learning which opponents to be wary of and in what ways, and continuously improving my "intuition" and ability to read players and situations, I am doing really well lately, compared to how I was playing just a short time ago.

I have more than tripled my bankroll in the last 8 days or so, never entering any event that costs more than $1.50. Even if I factor out the "big" win in the FPP tournament, I have still increased my bankroll by 2.5x.

And I don't think it's ALL due to variance, or an "upswing" -- there is frankly just a huge difference in my results ever since I re-evaluated a few factors and changed a few key aspects of my play...in fact I really think I need to write a blog post about what changes I made and why I made them.

I am not saying ANY of this to brag, but more to indicate, probably in far more words than are necessary, that I really DON'T need to take huge risks early on to double up...I am finding that most of the time I am more than capable of building my stack without doing that. Yay!!!!

But all this in fact makes my call in the hand being analyzed here even more atrocious, because I really didn't *need* the pot!!!

One of the many leaks still remaining in my game is my tendency to get annoyed at people in certain situations. Getting 3-betted is one of those situations. I don't know why it irks me like it does, but I've got to get that under control. I busted out of a premier qualifier tourney today as bubble girl due to calling a 3-bet all in that I shouldn't have, simply because I was irritated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
For me, I muck this in a flash.
If I am behind I just saved a ton, and if I got bluffed, I figure I can find a better spot to stack this donk later on.
I think this is clearly the right choice.

Last edited by ILuvPoker77; Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 01:39 PM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 24, 2011, 04:00 PM
(#6)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILuvPoker77 View Post

Of course, I will call shoves with a bigger stack if I have AA, but if there are more than 2 others in already, I may not call even with AA, because the variance increases so much in a multi-way all in confrontation.
This is likely a "mistake" except in VERY LARGE field MTTs.

There is a common "mis-perception" about how many players AA should be played against.

There has been research which shows that in an all in situation, AA makes the MOST profit if it is in a multi-way pot between between 4 and 5 players.
It will, of course, lose MORE OFTEN in those multi-way situation, but the additional amount to be won off-sets the greater frequency of loss.
This does not mean you should be HOPING for larger multi-way pots when you have AA, but it does means you should not be overly "scared" to play it when facing 2 or 3 opponents either.

If you look at the benefit derived not from a DOUBLE UP, but from a triple or quadruple up, the risk/reward balance in terms of how likely that HUGE chip up will take you to ITM at least is worth being a slight net UNDER DOG to the field. Obviously if you were only looking at a possible double up, you wouldn't want to go as a net under dog, but a 35 to 40% chance to triple or quadruple looks pretty darn good.
 
Old
Default
Mon Oct 24, 2011, 04:24 PM
(#7)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
I ran a poker stove sim for AA in a multi-way all in spot versus 4 opponents.

I applied a 20% range to the 1st player in the pot vs the AA, a 15% range to the 2nd, a 10% range to the 3rd, and a 5% range to the 4th player.

I used a monte carlo analysis, which is not a math analysis but rather runs X number of hands to see how often each range wins. I did use 40.1M hands for the sim to ensure there was not a big skew due to small data sample size.

This is the equity results:

20% range = 10.291% equity
15% range = 10.00% equity
10% range = 10.732% equity
5% range = 12.239% equity

AA = 56.739% equity...

That is for a QUINTUPLE UP...

Obviously, a lot of these ranges "cross over" one another, and rob each other of outs. but I was guessing before I ran the sim that AA would have aobut 35% to 40% equity, not be an actual net FAVORITE on the field...

this is what came up when I ran AA versus 4 RANDOM RANGE hands:

AA = 55.858%
Each of the 4 opponents an a random range is between 11.38% and 11.31%.

NOTE: because a monte carlo simulation is not calcing based on the math, but is rather simulating 40.1M hands, there is a small variation in equity. Effectively though, the sample size is large enough that the equity difference between the hands is virtually nil.

It is really not very surprising that the chances of AA goes down versus truly random ranges, because those ranges have less cross over, and do not rob as many outs form each other.

This does illustrate that AA all-in pre flop versus even 4 players is still a net FAVORITE to win a HUGE pot.
 
Old
Default
Tue Oct 25, 2011, 03:48 PM
(#8)
ILuvPoker77's Avatar
Since: Sep 2011
Posts: 84
Thanks for the info on AA in multi-way all-ins, JDean. It may change the way I deal with those situations in MTT's.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com