Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Texas Hold'Em Tournament Section (MTTs & STTs) /

$1.5 SNG: Limped Pot, Full House on River, Advice on River Action

Old
Default
$1.5 SNG: Limped Pot, Full House on River, Advice on River Action - Sun Dec 25, 2011, 05:16 AM
(#1)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Very early in the tournament. I've recognized the villain as probably loose/passive, but I haven't solidified nor better specified that read yet. I'm looking for advice regarding my river action in particular.

To summarize the action, I overlimped 33 which flopped a set, and I flat called a flop bet in hopes of keeping other loose players in the pot, making it much easier to extract value later in the hand. I also wanted to keep the pot small enough to give me an easy turn fold if a third heart fell. I turned a boat, and made a smallish raise in hopes of keeping the other villain in the pot. Perhaps I should have raised bigger, but I felt that a flush draw was a comparatively large part of his range, and I wanted to lay him odds to draw.

I'll let you guys discuss the river. Thanks for your help!

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 1.5 Tournament, 10/20 Blinds (8 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP2 (t3030)
Panicky (CO) (t1490)
Button (t1470)
SB (t1710)
BB (t1300)
UTG (t1500)
UTG+1 (t1500)
MP1 (t1500)

Panicky's M: 49.67

Preflop: Panicky is CO with 3, 3
UTG calls t20, UTG+1 calls t20, 2 folds, Panicky calls t20, 1 fold, SB calls t10, BB checks

Flop: (t100) 8, 3, A (5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets t60, 1 fold, Panicky calls t60, 2 folds

Turn: (t220) A (2 players)
UTG bets t80, Panicky raises to t300, UTG calls t220

River: (t820) J (2 players)
UTG checks, Panicky bets t400
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 10:04 AM
(#2)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Pre Flop: No problem this deep, easy fit or fold hand.

Flop: No huge sense to raising immediately, not when you'd probably only price out draws that checked oop.

COULD try a smallish raise in hopes of only getting calls from value hands that would tend to draw against your set; sure you could. But if no one has a strong value hand (A/middle+, 2 pair), chances are you'd drive out hands that are worse than yours.

Not driving out those hands (the couple potential draws) increases your risk of loss of course, but with the pot so small right now (a bit under 10% added chips for you) there is not reason not to try massaging a bit more out of these opps if you can get it.

Turn: Love the raise; love the sizing.

The massage to build a pot with checkers money did not work on the flop, so now you are HU.

Your only remaining customer has fired 2 bullets after limping UTG, so there is a real chance he holds an A. If he DOES hold an A, he is certainly ready to pay for a raise.

You have preliminarily put him on passive play, so I gotta ask, why do you think he is flush drawing on a reasonable % of his range?

This sniffs a lot more like an A that is betting if this guy has shown passivity, not a flush draw.
By nature, passive players do NOT semi bluff very often, especially oop. Of course your read is not fully formed, since it is early in the event, so it is impossible for me to say "you are wrong, flush draws are rarely ever here", but I doubt I let the un-formed nature of a read like yours here REALLY effect my raise sizing much, ya know? I think I'm raising like this is an A or an 8 that might think I do not have an A when the board paired.

The reason why I say I like your raise sizing choice is that you really do not do a heckuva lot in the way of "trickiness" because you THINK there might be a flush draw here. Consider...

- The amount you raise is only laying 2.7 to 1 for a flush draw (if he is on that); this means you are still inviting that hand to call, but denying the 4 to 1 odds he needs to call on that IF YOU WERE NOT BOATED.

I put that in caps because while it might "feel" your raise is deceptively small, it really isn't at all.
A standard would be to raise 1.5 times the bet (200 to go), and 2.5 times the bet (280 to go); you made it 220 to go. That is right in the wheel house of a standard raise.

The BIG benefit of that is you can be making this on a LOT of hands yourself, anything from a big A/face to a hand like 44/55/66 to "attack" the UTG's well under half pot turn bet. By acting in a standard manner with you raise, and thereby widening YOUR potential range here, you have done a LOT to get him to make a "mistake" in calling.

Since you are on a boat, this is excellent for you.

COULD you have raised a tiny bit more, maybe 60 chips max more? Yeah, but why? The amount you picked is great in my opinion, as it builds the pot making hands like JJ/TT (pp bigger than 88) feel un-comfortable about sticking around. I would think THOSE are more likely in a UTG limper's range, and those are the hands you do not want to feel un-comfortable about sticking around...

River:

Right around Half pot (just as you did) sniffs just about right to me after villain checks.

- Your read is too un-formed to try a tricky small bet in hopes he pounces.
- If he is on 99/TT/JJ/QQ, he probably has to go with HIS read that you just hold an 8 and at least call the river.
- If he holds an A, he is certainly calling at least.

Obviously, after launching that half pot river bet, if the villain jams better you are going to HAVE to call; you are just too deep to do anything else. But unless this guy is uber passive, it is pretty un-likely that jam range consists ONLY of better hands, and the betting throughout here does not really suggest he is THAT passive.

If he does not call the half pot river value bet by you, chances are good you were right all along and he was drawing. That doesn't mean your bet on the river isn't spot on though, it just means sometimes it takes you getting lucky enough to have the villain catch enough to call a river bet when he chases. That either happens, or it doesn't...

...but what is totally within your control is sticking to a very solid betting line, in hopes of extracting very good value from a strong hand, and that definately seems to be what you did throughout here.

Good hand.

Hope it helps.

-JDean


Double Bracelet Winner

Last edited by JDean; Mon Dec 26, 2011 at 03:06 PM..
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:15 AM
(#3)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
You have preliminarily put him on passive play, so I gotta ask, why do you think he is flush drawing on a reasonable % of his range?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
Flop: (t100), UTG bets t60... Turn: (t220), UTG bets t80
His first bet look like he hit the board in some way. His second is smaller and could be a blocking bet for a draw. My first impression was that he was tentative about his hand (that behaviour easily fits a moderate underpair, as well), but I wasn't drawing any hard conclusions. Honestly, I didn't put as much thought as I should have into my turn sizing (or my river sizing). I don't think my attention was all there.

I pegged him as loose/passive because he open limped at some point. I've actually been surprised at how often players who run 32/4 in the $1.50 SNG's are actually very aggressive postflop. It's possible he's just very loose pre, and a bad LAG post.

Regarding my river bet, you seem to think it shouldn't be smaller because inducing probably wouldn't work. How about bigger? It occured to me afterward that if he was ever going to call, it wouldn't be with a busted draw. It would be with a pair or trips. If trips were a large part of his range, then a half-pot bet seems like it might have been missing a lot of value.
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:28 AM
(#4)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Your river value bet is a tricky spot without reads no matter what, insofar as it will engender a lot of second guessing if you get to see his cards on showdown...

Since your reads are un-formed though, due to the early point in the event, I'd really prefer the half pot sizing because it is going to tend to get you paid in the widest range of circumstances.

Sure, if your read were stronger, you could try a MORE exploitative value bet, and make your sizing bigger, but doing that without info may well shut out hands like TT/99 etc that might CALL the smaller sizing in hopes you do not have the A yourself...see?

For myself, I prefer to try exploitative plays only when I am working on more solid info, and will accept a more optimal play, one that works in a wider set of circumstances, until I have the info I need to be more exploitative.


Double Bracelet Winner
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:36 AM
(#5)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
It's not that I'm trying to be exploitative, it's just a ranging issue. If he has trips here a lot, then I can actually overbet-shove and get called a lot, which might be worth more in the long run than betting small to trap the moderate pairs which wouldn't call an overbet-shove. In the case of him having a bare FD, it doesn't matter what I bet because he never calls.

You're right that betting smaller is the safer route and the one most likely to pad my stack, I'm just not sure it's the most +EV decision. And even if it isn't and overbet-shoving is the best decision in terms of cEV, since STT's favour low-variance plays, I'm wondering whether or not that means I should generally go for the safer, lower-variance +EV approach.
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:44 AM
(#6)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,814
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
trips are in the opp's range, but so is 8x or Jx of hearts.

I think your bet size is about right for the river.
If you bet more, while an A will call it, 8x would fold to a larger bet and so would Jx of hearts.

I think you're better off with a bet size here that multiple hands in the opp's range would call, instead of going for one that only trips (or worst case a full house) would call.


Super-Moderator



6 Time Bracelet Winner


 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 12:00 PM
(#7)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Yes, it is a matter of ranging.

But when you begin to apply your ranging to help configure your bet sizing, you move into an exploitative vs optimal sort of decision. Example:

Let's say the only hands he might hold and call anything on are an 8, a J, pp TT/99, QQ, an A.
All lesser hands he is folding, all better hands he is jamming.

Let's further say that since your reads are un-clear, you think he will call a bet on an 8 only if it is 1/3rd pot or less.

TT/99 he will call somewhere between a 1/3rd and half pot bet.

A J or QQ he might call a bit more than half pot, but probably not call a 60%+ bet.

On an A he will call a full pot bet, all the way to his whole stack.

Since you WANT to get paid, your decision revolves on a vague sense of how often he might have each hand.

If he is likely to have an A a good bit of the time, then yeah you should make your bet bigger than half pot. But since his bet sizing decreased, there is a chance he is also on LESS than an A.

Since you want to get paid, you really want to select a sizing that will tend to get paid off the times he is on less than an A as well...

I'd not like to bet just a 1/3rd pot without a read that he might "attack" a small bet sizing as a bluff, because that leaves a bit too much value out there.

I'd not like to bet 2/3rds all that often, because the only hand he has can pay that would be an A. If I were more sure of his play patterns, and that surety says he has an A here a LOT of the time, then I'd prefer a 2/rds to pot bet...

...absent that info though, a Half pot bet gets called by the most hands, without leaving a ton of value on the table.

The definition of optimal play is not "best play"; it is the play which will tend to be a good one in the widest number of circumstances. So an optimal bet is one which might give up some top end value potential in order to gain you SOME value more often.

When I lack specific and detailed info to steer me more toward greater value extraction, I prefer to get paid off SOMETHING at least in the most situations as possible.

See?

As for "safer", there is no safe way here when you hold a boat.

If he jams over your half pot bet, you are too deeply invested NOT to call.
there is also too much a chance he is just jamming on trips not to call.
So folding would be bad for you if the villain jams.

The total idea of my suggestions that your half pot bet was very good is that it will get paid off by less in the most circumstances. giving up top end value potential is fine if trying to get that top end potential results in your not getting ANY extra value...


Double Bracelet Winner

Last edited by JDean; Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 12:02 PM..
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 12:06 PM
(#8)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Alright. Was curious.
 
Old
Default
Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:48 PM
(#9)
joy7108's Avatar
Since: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,286
So did the villian have an Ace?? Just curious, cause their whole betting pattern was saying aces to me.

I've been trying to improve my reads, I tend to overcredit my opponents.

 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 26, 2011, 03:16 AM
(#10)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
I just looked at HEM to find out. Apparently, I wasn't paying attention to the outcome.

He had A5o, for trip aces, no kicker.
 
Old
Default
Early Stage STT Play - Mon Dec 26, 2011, 01:01 PM
(#11)
king_spadez1's Avatar
Since: Feb 2011
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
Very early in the tournament. I've recognized the villain as probably loose/passive, but I haven't solidified nor better specified that read yet. I'm looking for advice regarding my river action in particular.
I don’t want to over analyze this hand. I’ve done this in the past, and it’s fun to see how deep you can get on any particular hand. To be a better player, hands like this are a must to analyze; when faced with them, you’re prepared to react in a more confident manner. There are always so many variables, and so many ways of playing the hand, many of which may be correct. I like your point that STT’s lean toward small variance plays, as opposed to the AI shoves and over bets. Both will come into play during different stages of the match. But deep stack, early stage of tourney, you don’t need to coin flip! Neither do you need to stack off an opponent, who, by the way, may be trapping the trapper.

With the chip stacks shown, it looks likes you didn’t even play a full orbit yet. You can’t really have any read on your opponent. Your PF limp was standard; I like your play. On the flop: UTG leads out with a 60% pot bet and you smoothe call, a call is fine. The turn fines you IP HU to a smallish bet; it looks like a blocker bet. But, depending on the villain, this could mean a myriad of things (need more info). I like your raise, but not your sizing (too high). You’re putting yourself in a position that might get you into trouble (committing) when facing better hands. Plus, the villain may be folding a lot of hands that you beat (even the flush draws, that you want in the hand).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
The amount you raise is only laying 3.7 to 1 for a flush draw (if he is on that); this means you are still inviting that hand to call, but denying the 4 to 1 odds he needs to call on that IF YOU WERE NOT BOATED.
Maybe it’s too early in the morning for me, but JDean sees this as giving the opponent 3.7:1 odds; asking him to put 220 more into a 600 pot is 2.7:1.

On the river, the villain checks, and you make a value bet. I would bet a little less here, trying to get the maximum of ranges to call. Play up to this point makes it seem like you are committed, so I don’t think the (normal) villain would shove unless he has you beat (but we don’t have a read on this villain’s type). I assume your plan was to call a raise or shove, because you have him covered and it wouldn’t cripple you.

Personally, I like to play more conservative, deep stacked; especially without any reads. There’s a lot of tourney to play, and maybe better opportunities to increase your stack.
.
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 26, 2011, 03:11 PM
(#12)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by king_spadez1 View Post


Maybe it’s too early in the morning for me, but JDean sees this as giving the opponent 3.7:1 odds; asking him to put 220 more into a 600 pot is 2.7:1.


.
This was a typo. When you divide 600 by 220 you get 3.7, and I typed that in when I should typed 2.7 to 1.

It still doesn't change the point in the overall statement, that Panicky denied odds, but made a bet that appeared inviting to a lot of chaser types. 2.7 to 1 requires only about a 37% chance to hit in order to break even. A lot of chasers think this is "close enough" to the actual 19% or so chance he has to continue...


Double Bracelet Winner
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 26, 2011, 03:11 PM
(#13)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
double post


Double Bracelet Winner
 
Old
Default
Mon Dec 26, 2011, 06:06 PM
(#14)
marvinsytan's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,453
i love hand analysis

just helps me a lot even by just reading

reading all our teachers have to say plus the OP really add something to my poker brain
 
Old
Default
Loss of 'Flush Drawers' to Raise - Mon Dec 26, 2011, 09:56 PM
(#15)
king_spadez1's Avatar
Since: Feb 2011
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
This was a typo. When you divide 600 by 220 you get 3.7, and I typed that in when I should typed 2.7 to 1.
Let me preface my response by stating that, ‘I appreciate and respect your knowledge of the game’. Your evaluations include not only answers to questions, but also contain poker math, stats, and at times questions for the ‘poster’. I’ve gotten so much from your evals, as well as, new ways to look at certain situations. Your responses obviously take quite a while for you to put together. Kudos to you, and Poker Stars for offering such a great service for free.

As to my earlier quote, that pointed out an error (typo), with the pot odds offered to a possible flush draw: The only reason I brought it up, was because, the actual odds offered might fold out these draws (which in this case, you don’t want to fold out). Thus, your eval would change in accordance to the correct pot odds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
It still doesn't change the point in the overall statement, that Panicky denied odds, but made a bet that appeared inviting to a lot of chaser types. 2.7 to 1 requires only about a 37% chance to hit in order to break even. A lot of chasers think this is "close enough" to the actual 19% or so chance he has to continue...
It’s true that there are players that would ‘chase’, facing ANY bet it this situation. But, you will definitely lose some ‘flush draw’ callers with this size raise (in relation to pot). A problem some players seem to have, is that they don’t give enough credit to unknown micro-stake players.
.
 
Old
Default
Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:52 AM
(#16)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
True...

But to be honest, given the info the OP put up, I am not really thinking that person, a PASSIVE player, is all that likely to be leading on a flush draw. If they were more aggro, sure that is a bigger chance, but versus the minimal read info available, it doesn't seem a large part of the range really...

Turns out the hand held was the MOST LIKELY hand, a rag A, from the results. That fits in quite well with a passive callers "likely to hold" range for the actions here...

I'll be honest, the entire thought line of the OP re: a flush draw being there is a bit of a "red herring" to my way of thinking. Given the REST of the info he had, it really wasn't a huge part of the range, therefore I really like his bet sizing on the turn.

It is really just a side note that given 2.7 to 1 odds, someone on a flush draw MIGHT chase with 1 to come is pretty moot really.

King_Spadez1, your statements here really do add a lot to this conversation though. Consider...

The OP asked me if I thought half pot was a good bet if an A was a BIGGER part of the range. I answered that if we had the info that an A was a bigger part of the range, then a bigger bet would be called for. But we didn;t have that info, so a more optimal bet, one that will get called by more hands overall to give SOME value is a better chance...

YOUR statements here, that half pot is too big to really elicit flush draws to call, is the FLIP SIDE of this.

We'd really want to have better read info than we have to risk being MORE INVITING to flush draws to bet less than half pot. Of we make a smaller bet without that more solid read, we run the risk of leaving too much money on the table if the villain holds a rag A or a hand like QQ.

So again, a good raise amount is largely a function of looking at an OPTIMAL amount, one that will tend to be called by the widest possible number of hands, because we want SOME value.

It all comes down to bet sizing is really a function of your reads: if you read the opponent as more likely to hold an A in this spot, you bet more. If you read him as more likely to hold a flush draw, you bet less.

But here we had no really solid thoughts, so in that case, holding a full house that he WANTS to get paid something on, the OP is probably best off most often to bet as he did: in the middle for around half pot.


Double Bracelet Winner
 

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