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

$16.5K 15K : FT Bubble : 55 in BB VS UTG raise+1 caller : Squeeze/Bubble/Right Play?

Old
Default
$16.5K 15K : FT Bubble : 55 in BB VS UTG raise+1 caller : Squeeze/Bubble/Right Play? - Sun Jan 05, 2014, 11:41 PM
(#1)
Marc Rae's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 505
The other week, I ended up bubbling the FT with this hand, and wanted to get some comments around my play.

UTG Villain: 20 hands, 23BB
13/7
UTG RFI 33%

BTN Villain: 30 hands, 25bb
28/15

There were 2 other shorter (15-19BB) stacked players on the other table. I'm not waiting around for a short stack to bust out just so I can FT, and rather choose my spots to pick up chips uncontested or with least resistance, so I have a manageable stack into the FT giving me the best chance at the final 3 spots.

Seeing that UTG_Villain, had raised the last few orbits from UTG, and clearly that the BTN_Villain would be calling wide here, I decided to jam pre. Considering also that if 1 of them did call then if lost, they would be crippled, at this bubble stage.

These were the reasons for my squeeze with 23BB. I mean I would make this play even with Ax or Kx or napkins (upto 28-29BB against 40+BB villains) if I they were susceptible to fold the majority of the time - during other deeper stages of a tournament.

So is this play on the FT bubble, justified as well? Or are there other (non-monetary) factors I should be considering as well?

I don't like the idea of call folding when the majority of the time I'll be seeing at least 2 overs on the flop in a multiway flop.

3 betting here I don't think is ideal, because if I get a call, then what, with around 19BB left and OOP? And raise folding to a 4b jam is my least preferred option IMO.


Thanks!

 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 03:07 AM
(#2)
Shichi-77's Avatar
Since: Jul 2012
Posts: 607
I wouldn't shove 55 here. UTG raiser is too tight . I think 99 and AQs is at the bottom of my shoving range there.
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 03:27 AM
(#3)
Marc Rae's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 505
Hi Shichi, thanks for the comments. The UTG raiser IMO hasn't been too tight as he has raised the last 3 orbits (this one being the 4th), in short handed play. He may have been tighter previously, but his dynamics had changed once we were on the bubble.


Just to note that this play is not specific to being a short stack, and I'm specifically squeezing against bigger stacks to pick up dead chips, during late stages.
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 04:17 AM
(#4)
Roland GTX's Avatar
Since: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,905
What was your table image at the time? Was there much 3b restealing going on while shorthanded? I'm trying to get an idea of how much fold equity you could expect.

Also, do you know what the average stack size was at the time? If you are way under the average stack size, I might be happy climbing the pay ladder. If winning this pot preflop gets you close to half the average stack size, then I would be more apt to take the risk in hopes of giving myself a real chance at winning the tourney.

With so few hands on the utg villain we can't be too sure of him yet. However, if he has been that nitty shorthanded it does look as if he wants to fold his way to the FT which ought to increase your fe against him. The btn will be folding most of his range to a shove I would think.

I haven't run the numbers, but your pocket pair does well enough against the Ax hands in utg's calling. I would guess you have at least 40% fold equity. With 86K (a third of your stack) in the pot, this looks like a good spot to jam. Yeah, you can afford to fold, but if you are playing to win I like your line.

I'm not a tourney specialist, so I may be way off here. Interesting spot though.

GL

Roland GTX
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 04:52 AM
(#5)
Shichi-77's Avatar
Since: Jul 2012
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Rae View Post
Hi Shichi, thanks for the comments. The UTG raiser IMO hasn't been too tight as he has raised the last 3 orbits (this one being the 4th), in short handed play. He may have been tighter previously, but his dynamics had changed once we were on the bubble.


Just to note that this play is not specific to being a short stack, and I'm specifically squeezing against bigger stacks to pick up dead chips, during late stages.
I think flipping with 17bb's at FT bubble isn't profitable.
P.S.
edited

Last edited by Shichi-77; Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:09 AM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 05:07 AM
(#6)
Shichi-77's Avatar
Since: Jul 2012
Posts: 607
As I thought , even if he opens 15 % of hand range and will call your shove with 6% and if button calls UTG with 20% and calls your shove with 8% (his calling range is wider because he has to act after UTG)
it's - EV play buy ICM, shove from TT+ .
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 04.jpg (85.9 KB, 7 views)
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 06:18 AM
(#7)
Marc Rae's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland GTX View Post
What was your table image at the time? Was there much 3b restealing going on while shorthanded? I'm trying to get an idea of how much fold equity you could expect.

Also, do you know what the average stack size was at the time?
Stats the villains would have read me as:

UTG Villain:
13/13
14 3bet
100% fold

BTN Villain:
10/10
15 3bet
50% fold

They both would not have seen me open shove yet, up to this point. And up until this point I had been quite 'quiet' as the the table was quite crazy with 9 down to the last 4 on this table. Usually, I would have twice the vpip stats and 3 bet stats at this stage short handed.

Not sure about avg. stack size but at this stage, I would have been below avg.

HTH
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 01:38 PM
(#8)
TheLangolier's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,663
(Head Trainer)
Hi Marc,

First thing is my gut instinct says we don't have as much FE as you're thinking vs. UTG. Now, with a read that he's opened the last few orbits in a row from UTG I can understand the feeling that he's using the "UTG is the new button" mantra and stealing frequently from there, increasing our FE on a shove. But, the stats are actually saying something different: 20 hands total, and 5 handed play (maybe 6 handed for some of it), so he has been UTG 3 times (this is the 4th), and his preflop raise first in from UTG is 33%, so only 1/3, prior to this hand. If this hand is counted in those stats, then it's actually his first UTG open. So I'm not sold on how much FE we truly have although certainly we have some.

Now on to the play. Firstly I am certain we can call to set mine profitably. We have to call 14K, if we use implied odds of 15-1 as a guide for profitability, we'd need to win 210K on average... there's already 85 in the middle and both villains could provide more than enough additional chips when we set up. The SPR will be low as well so it's likely that we do stack top pair or overpairs.

The fact that we can call to set mine profitably eliminates folding from consideration.

So the rest of the question is regarding squeezing... we know we can call profitably looking for a 5, but is squeezing more profitable? I think it's very hard to define because it's tied so intricately to fold equity, but I am not optimistic on how much we actually have. Not only from UTG, but also V6 can sometimes be flatting some premiums to trap, or some mid-pairs like 77 that he decides to call off with vs. our shove.

I agree on not 3b/calling off or 3b/folding, if we do this it's got to be a shove to maximize FE... starting with an 18.5bb stack the non-all in 3b's don't make much sense imo.

My preference given all this is to call. Yes we are basically set mining, but I think it's the best option in comparison:

Calling:
-Definitely profitable
-Leaves us with 16.5bb's when we do have to check/fold post flop, which retains all of our resteal fold equity for better, more well defined spots
-When we do flop a 5, we are likely to head to the final table with a top 5 stack, setting us up nicely for the end game.
-Protects our equity in the tournament, by retaining a stack that is basically equally as playable as the one we currently have, while providing a shot at a tEV changing pot for us.

Shoving:
-Maybe profitable, but hard to define since that's based on FE
-Much more volitile/higher variance
-Exposes our equity in the tournament (as is common with high variance lines).
-The exposure of our tEV comes with some benefits... folding both out and picking up 85K some undefined % of time (which gives us 23bb's, not a game changer), and getting called off by overs like AK and winning the race, in a spot we could have been bet off the hand had we just called pre.

I think the part where we call pre, and get bet off by high cards post flop, does happen a bit less often in a multi-way pot, but certainly will still happen sometimes, like when the overs flop a draw and semi-bluff (but would have missed if we were all in).

This is kind of a long winded reply, but it's just a bunch of the factors I'm thinking about in spots like this.

Cliff notes: either calling or shoving should be +tEV, one carries with it a lot more variance and has a tEV factor that is hard to define, and feeling confident I can pick good resteal spots for a 16bb stack moving forward, my preference is to take the more defined, lower variance route here.


Head Live Trainer
Check out my Videos

4 Time Bracelet Winner



 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 04:10 PM
(#9)
Marc Rae's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 505
Thanks for the comments Dave. I think in general, for me anyway, lower pockets are harder to play multiway, or even HU with shallower stacks.


Do understand the point to call here. And playing with 12-16BB is enough to play for better, well defined spots.


Let me change the scenario here... where this is a relatively higher buyin tourney (Say mid-stakes 55-162) and if you feel that the FT will be filled with players that are beyond your skill level.. would you take this spot to squeeze jam and win chips uncontested (and possibly double up) by taking the higher variance play?
 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 05:05 PM
(#10)
TheLangolier's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,663
(Head Trainer)
No, I still don't, because the lower variance line still includes double up potential. It's low risk/high reward, where as squeezing his high risk/moderate reward (moderate being a combo of increasing our stack to 23bb's by all folds, doubling up, or busting). I would be willing to take higher variance spots preflop vs. a table of experts and top level players, but this isn't one of them.


Head Live Trainer
Check out my Videos

4 Time Bracelet Winner



 
Old
Default
Mon Jan 06, 2014, 05:07 PM
(#11)
Marc Rae's Avatar
Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 505
Cheers Dave
 

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