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

$15 STT: Two Hands (Both Jx Offsuit), Calling All-In Shoves on the Bubble

Old
Post
$15 STT: Two Hands (Both Jx Offsuit), Calling All-In Shoves on the Bubble - Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:13 PM
(#1)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
So, here are a few ICM-heavy hands I'd like to post for discussion. These are both from the same $15 STT, and they both involve me calling an all-in shove, with only an offsuit semi-connected jack. I don't really recall the table dynamics, but I've provided pretty general profiles of the players involved. Let me know what you guys think.

In this first hand, the player pushing appears to be a very good reg. I don't remember his stats, but he was definitely tight.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 15 Tournament, 150/300 Blinds 25 Ante (4 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button (t2631)
SB (t1400)
Panicky (BB) (t2733)
UTG (t6736)

Panicky's M: 4.97

Preflop: Panicky is BB with 9, J
2 folds, SB bets t1375 (All-In), Panicky calls t1075

Eight hands later...

In this hand, the pusher is a reg, but has very LAG stats. He runs something in the realm of 30/20.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, 15 Tournament, 200/400 Blinds 25 Ante (4 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button (t1381)
SB (t6950)
Panicky (BB) (t2816)
UTG (t2353)

Panicky's M: 4.02

Preflop: Panicky is BB with 8, J
1 fold, Button bets t1356 (All-In), 1 fold, Panicky calls t956
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:50 PM
(#2)
marvinsytan's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,453
personally,

i can never make weak calls like that

even if i know that they could be stealing with T9s still will never gamble.

for me, it's better to push rather than to make weak calls.

i can push with 72o if i just have 10BB's or less as long as it's open but i can't make a call with J high

it's better to be the pusher rather than the caller

the pusher wins the pot 2 ways and the caller you need to win the showdown
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 09:53 PM
(#3)
roomik17's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,556
BronzeStar
http://www.holdemresources.net/hr/sn...alculator.html says they are good calls... I need to work on this because like Marvin making calls like these make me puke lol
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:35 PM
(#4)
Sandtrap777's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,310
Marvin, I agree with you, it's not a call, it's a fold or a push

First hand, you're second in chips, losing this hand put you in jeopardy, so with J9o, I'd rather fold and have a chance at a better set of cards or even let others eliminate each other. Like you said this player is a good player and he was tight (TAG). I don't care about what some program says about odds, at one point you got to use people skills and logic

Second hand, there's a problem Panicky, the numbers don't add up, it says you have 2816 chips, but you go all in with 956, you should be the one with 1381. As I remember, you were sitting in 4th, on the bubble and the good TAG player again went all in and you called with J8o. Again this is not a call, but a push or a fold. Like I said in the other thread, I would of folded and waited for an Ax. So many things can happen like others taking each other out.

Thank you for posting, now if someone could explain why a decision based on calculations or by a book standard or even because ATC is the right play. Yes those are important factors, but what about human factor, knowing the other player, how many hands he has played, if I'm on a downswing min cash doesn't hurt, etc etc. Any player at any point could be holding AA, does that mean because pot odds are 3 to 1 that you should call an all in with 27o?

Anybody with logic explanation would be appreciated (JD, JWK, Dave and others)
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:55 PM
(#5)
Swaxwell's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 315
Great post Panicky.

Spots like these are so marginal and I hate them. I am eagerly anticipating a good discussion of what the best play is, especially if an ICM breakdown is given (I suck at working out maths on my own lol!).

Obviously we would much rather be the shover than the caller with these type of hands. But if our opponents also know this then calling lighter is will definitely be a good idea. I struggle with defining how light and from what opponent, so these hand are perfect examples for discussion. Somehow shoving light is so much easier than calling light.

I have no expertise to offer for these situations, but I look forward to hearing from those who do.

Last edited by Swaxwell; Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:09 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 10:58 PM
(#6)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandtrap777 View Post
Anybody with logic explanation would be appreciated (JD, JWK, Dave and others)
Check back tomorrow.
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:19 PM
(#7)
oriholic's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 751
BronzeStar
Hey Panicky!

This is an interesting spot that can be answered with pretty straight forward ICM. How wide do you think these guys are pushing?

For the J9o hand, SB to BB should be close to any two. But how wide is he really shoving? If he's shoving wider than about 57% you have a call $EV-wise. If less it's a fold.

For the J8o hand, a solid player can be expected to jam pretty wide from the button. As long as he's jamming wider than about 45% you have a +$EV call.

So it comes down to reads, and your HUD won't help you here. What does his shortstack jamming range look like? Not his VPIP/PFR/3-bet/AF, those numbers are pretty meaningless at this stage. The better these players are the wider they are jamming in these spots. So against better players I'd tend toward a call if I haven't seen a lot of shoving from them already. Have you seen them shoving a lot? Open up their other tables and observe their play there.

Since both of these breakeven points are significantly tighter than optimal shoving ranges, and assuming they are both good players (check their stats!), I like a call in both spots though it is pretty close. But be careful--a lot of these guys really are just tight and aren't actually jamming as wide as they should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvinsytan View Post
even if i know that they could be stealing with T9s still will never gamble.
It's not for the times they have T9s (a good hand). It's about when they have 92o, J4o, 83s, and similar. Optimal shove ranges here are super wide, nearing 100%. To compensate for their wider shove ranges we need to adjust our calling range by widening it.

By the way, this really opens my eyes as well. I'm often pretty shocked at how light the BB calls in similar spots, but when you take into account stack sizes and likely shove ranges, you can start calling really wide here. This doesn't mean you should always call with J8o, but in these particular spots and with these stack sizes, assuming everything else is neutral, these both look like marginally +$EV calls.


4 Time Bracelet Winner



Last edited by oriholic; Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 11:22 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:32 PM
(#8)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
For the J9o hand, SB to BB should be close to any two. But how wide is he really shoving? If he's shoving wider than about 57% you have a call $EV-wise. If less it's a fold.
Really? I thought this one was borderline when I SNG Wiz'd it, and I was assuming he was shoving any two. I'm pretty sure the optimal shoving range for the ~5bb villain in that hand would be ATC, but given the implications of calling and losing on the bubble, I thought that this would only be a call if this guy was jamming ATC.

As for my read on him, I did consider him to be a good reg, so I just assumed that the guy was jamming ATC here. I didn't really consider that he might actually be too tight to do that. Thanks for that point; I'll have to consider that more in the future.

As for the second hand, the guy was just a weird LAG from what I had seen, and he had been in a good five or ten of my games before this one. I figured that my call with better than 2-to-1 would be fine with any face card, since he probably was jamming any two.
 
Old
Default
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:58 PM
(#9)
Sandtrap777's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
............. But be careful--a lot of these guys really are just tight and aren't actually jamming as wide as they should be.
Exactly, I was watching Panicky, and this player was on 1-2 other table with him. While they were playing, I was checking all of the players stats and who was multitabling. This player was on 12 other tables and huge gains, but what surprised me was is very TAG play. When he was involve in a hand, it was a big hand. I don't think this player was shoving more than 35%

Sure he could of fooled every one with a 27 all in, but I don't think that's how he plays. So yes it helps to know the player, but what happens if the player decides to change his play.

Even if it was +EV and great pot odds, real life dictated a different result
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:15 AM
(#10)
marvinsytan's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,453
Even if it was +EV and great pot odds, real life dictated a different result
[/QUOTE]

agree

+EV or not It will be best if your the one pushing rather than calling light
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:37 AM
(#11)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
+EV is +EV. If it was a good call, it was a good call. Pushing just adds equity, but you don't always need it.

Think about it this way. If you had AA, would you call in the first hand? Obviously, yes. What about JJ? That would also be correct. QTs? Yep, but that one's getting closer to borderline. What about T5s? I think that's probably a no. But should you shove T5s in the small blind's position? Yes. What about 54s? Like T5s, that's also a shove, but not a call. So, after a certain point, there are hands that we can shove, but can't call with. Why? It's because when we're calling, we only have one type of equity: showdown equity. When we're shoving, we have fold equity, which simply adds a given amount to our showdown equity. So we can shove wider than we call, but just because calling is harder to do than shoving doesn't mean that we can't ever call.

If we were to rate the strength of a hand from 1 to 10, we could say that in this spot, I can call with a hand that's level 6 or higher, but I only need a 1 to shove. What that means is that if I'm dealt a 10 (AA), I can obviously call. But the difficult part of poker is understanding that a 6 is still a call. J9 and J8 were level 6 hands, imo, and while they were basically the bottom of my calling ranges, I think that they were both still calls. And while I may be wrong about this, my read on the TAG was that he was in fact good enough to know to shove ATC in the first hand.
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:21 AM
(#12)
Sandtrap777's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
............ And while I may be wrong about this, my read on the TAG was that he was in fact good enough to know to shove ATC in the first hand.
That's exactly my point, if everybody played by the book, poker would be boring. But there's no book or math that should dictate the way you should play. It should only be used as a guide, then you add the type of player, the notes you have on them, etc etc and then you make a judgement.

Position, starting hands, pot odds, number of outs, bet sizing, protecting your BB, etc etc, these are all items of knowledge and not a must do. For example, bet sizing isn't the same for 2NL and 200NL. Human factor is huge, so is luck.

So my question is, is this a good play because it's text book play or should human factor been used to make a decision?


Last edited by Sandtrap777; Sat Jan 14, 2012 at 03:35 PM..
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:33 AM
(#13)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
The human factor is definitely important in most cases, and it's interesting to me that it actually almost isn't important at all in this particular case from the villain's point of view. Even if I'm calling 100% of the time, This guy should be shoving 60% of hands on 4.7bb, so this is almost an ATC shove spot always, against any opponent. If he were shorter, there would be no importance in the human element at all.

From my seat, however, if the guy wasn't shoving ATC, then my call might have been wrong, making the human factor the deciding reason my call would be -EV. So it is important to correctly judge other people's playing styles, but that importance does go down as the blinds go up. But it is almost always important to some degree, and it comes up a lot in shove/fold spots.

I should note that SNG Wiz, the 'textbook' on SNG's, allows for you to modify the shoving/calling ranges of the other players at the table, so there's never really a hand history you can plug in and get an answer to without thinking about SNG Wiz's analysis critically. So reading your opponents is vital to SNG's in its own right.
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 09:49 AM
(#14)
roomik17's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,556
BronzeStar
STT's are all about the math, and the math from SNG wiz, holdemresources etc says it is +EV to make the move, so its a good long run play by PP...

Also been reading a lot on 2p2 and most regs are moving away from wiz and going with holdem resources or ICM'izer... both of those are giving better info
 
Old
Default
Harrington's Zones - for shoving range - Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:56 PM
(#15)
king_spadez1's Avatar
Since: Feb 2011
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
So, here are a few ICM-heavy hands I'd like to post for discussion. These are both from the same $15 STT, and they both involve me calling an all-in shove, with only an offsuit semi-connected jack. I don't really recall the table dynamics, but I've provided pretty general profiles of the players involved. Let me know what you guys think.
Both situations are on the bubble; I guess that’s why you submitted these hands.

The following is from Harrington on Hold ‘Em, Volume 2:

The Red Zone: M is 1-5
Your only move is basically to move all-in. Even if you make the minimum raise you are pot committed and can't get away from the hand. If your M is 3 or less then you will most likely be called by any two cards when you make your all-in raise. Small pairs and small suited connectors are again playable but only as a means to making an all-in move. You need to steal as many blinds and antes as possible and hope to get lucky if you are called (most likely you will be the underdog) or pick up a monster hand and hopefully get called.
If you are first in and sitting in a late position you can move all-in with plenty of hands; AA-22, any two cards 10 or bigger, A-x, K-x, Q-x, any suited connector, and any connector if your M is 3 or less (such as 9-8 off-suit and the like).

Hand 1:
The SB has an M of 2.5 (1400 / 550 = 2.55). With 550 dead money (1.5BB) in the pot, and being the lowest stack at the table, the SB should be shoving greater than 50% of his hands. He can rarely expect to have fold equity, but even when getting called, he’s getting better than 2:1 odds. The BB is getting 1.8:1 for his money, thus needing 35.5% equity to continue for 0EV. Factors why the BB should call are: He’s still in the tourney even if he loses (he will have 1658); if he wins, he will have a much better chance of taking down the tourney (he will have 4683); hero has 43% equity against the villain's range. The read was, the villain is a ‘reg’ and was playing tight. Any ‘reg’ villain in this situation, is following Harrington’s ‘zone’ lines, and shoving around 55% of their hands. The ONLY time I’m NOT getting involved with J9o, is if this is a weak SUPER NIT villain.

Hand 2:
Same as hand #1, now with better pot odds and better equity (considering player type, and wider range due to lower M), this is an Insta-call!
.
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:01 PM
(#16)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Thanks for the input, spadez.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roomik17 View Post
Also been reading a lot on 2p2 and most regs are moving away from wiz and going with holdem resources or ICM'izer... both of those are giving better info
Just bought it. lol
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:14 PM
(#17)
roomik17's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,556
BronzeStar
lol that figures.. the others are free though, I would play around with them all.They were having things come up where wiz says 52% and the other 2 say 35%...
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:30 PM
(#18)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Wiz does updates, so I'd hope that's something they're working on improving.
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:38 PM
(#19)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post

150/300 Blinds 25 Ante

Button (t2631)
SB (t1400)
Panicky (BB) (t2733)
UTG (t6736)

Eight hands later...

Button (t1381)
SB (t6950)
Panicky (BB) (t2816)
UTG (t2353)

WOW, things sure change fast in turbos! What was everybody else pushing/calling with (UTG and SB, button)?

I used to play a lot of STT 6-max turbos just for kicks, and remember there being a lot of '6-max coin-flips' aka the 'sandwich' ... Arag vs 67s. Or stuff like 33 vs 67s ...
 
Old
Default
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:49 PM
(#20)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Was a decently long bubble, I guess. I did lose this first hand, then suckout double-up a few hands later, I think.
 

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