Sitting in a nitty, ten-handed $2/$5 game that isn’t even really worth playing but I’m out of the tournament and waiting for the $5/$10 to start so what else is there to do but collect hands to discuss with the good people of Thinking Poker Nation?
Villain ($725) is a very young guy, probably like 22, who I think is a professional of some sort. He seems to be a casino fixture, which means he must play a lot of $1/$3 because bigger games run infrequently and mostly on the weekends. He usually plays $2/$5 when it’s running but I don’t think I’ve ever seen him at $5/$10, and we have little if any history together. He initially bought in for not much more than the minimum $200, but I’m pretty sure he added a few hundred on at some point, as I don’t remember him winning enough big pots to have $500 profit. Early in the session he played two pots, neither of which went to showdown, which made me think he was likely overvaluing hands. He’s been quiet for the last two hours, though.
Hero has $950, and I’ve actually been quite quiet and well-behaved myself. I showed down Aces in the two biggest pots I played, and mostly I’ve just been folding and reading on my Kindle. Villain is definitely friendly with people I play with regularly in the bigger game, though, so it’s possible that my reputation has preceded me and he has some assumptions about me that aren’t entirely based on our time together at this table.
The hand in question begins with a limp from UTG. A MP player limps behind, Villain limps in the HJ, the BTN limps, SB completes, and I have QQ in the BB. There’s currently $30 in the pot, and I put $40 on top. UTG calls, MP folds, and then Villain makes it $320 with $405 behind. Action folds back to Hero…
What’s your play? Post your thoughts and comments here. I’ll do my best to respond throughout the week, and I’ll be back on Friday with my own thoughts and the results.
Overbet on the limp/re-raise + no raise in the front has me putting him on a very tight range. I exclude AA, KK, and QQ because of the lack of raise on the two limpers. I doubt he limps behind in his position with those. I don’t see him doing this with any unpaired hands worse than AK, and possibly not even with AKo, so really his range is {AKs, JJ-XX} with maybe some fraction of AKo combinations. How low of a pocket pair does he make this play with is somewhat irrelevant since the lower XX is, the better our hand is versus his range. However, I’d say XX==TT, and if you paused and shoved the rest in, I’d be shocked to see him show up with anything other than AKs, JJ or TT, and I expect a call very close to 100% of the time.
Brief thoughts:
That raise size makes me think he wants to end his future decision-making. I’m happy to move in here. He will have AA or KK sometimes, but I think this will frequently be something like TT that thinks he has something like an unexploitable shove given what’s in the middle already.
There’s much more that could be said about this spot, and I certainly don’t think one should never fold QQ before the flop in these games, but I don’t think this is time to make an exploitive fold.
Nate, would you agree that if he were UTG or UTG+1, that only then folding may be an option?
Sure; that makes sense–though it also makes a big difference that the first $40 call is there in the pot, which it usually wouldn’t be. The biggest difference is that a guy like the one described might not limp some of those committing hands the first time around (99-JJ especially).
Again, I do agree that it’s closer in that case.
I have a question :
Do you look like a nit bot at this table Andrew ?
Two choices here because of what he is supposed to know about you :
– He has a lesser hand than yours and expected this raise by you considering all the limpers before him and the way you play.
He knows by doing this huge raise (saying he is committed) he is maximizing his fold equity against the (probable) wide range you are supposed to raise the limpers with. If you do reraise, and we are right, he knows he will be ahead or flip with his hand which I imagine is AK, 99+ or fold if he wants to reduce variance even though I don’t think he will fold because of the horrible table image he will get.
This move is profitable because of the wide raise/fold range you are supposed to have and how frequently he is supposed to win that money. Added bonus is the unpredictability it will add to his range. But really, a good player is supposed to raise everybody a lot of times with precisely sheisse in this hand, in your position, which would be a very good ground for this play.
– He has a better hand than you, is on a higher level than I actually thought of and thinks he will induce a reraise with precisely AK/QQ or KK (perhaps JJ).
That is quite creative, that’s also supposing that he knows you quite a bit or thinks you are a nit bot who won’t reraise anything but QQ and KK all-in everytime he is doing that.
I think the 2nd solution is more improbable because of the lesser range you are supposed to have and after all, the many times you will just fold with a lesser hand. This is not the EV+ route considering your range and what we all know about you.
It’s also quite creative and I don’t know if a live Villain is able to do this kind of plays.
Because of this I would reraise all-in with your actual hand and if he shows AA or KK, curse half in french, half in portuguese while giving him a mental middle finger for his creativity.
Perhaps the 2nd part is a bit off-track. When I think about it, he is also raising that much to make you fold hands as strong as QQ which, if he doesn’t know you much is what a nit can fold.
You wanna laugh ?
Yesterday, low stakes Zoom table. I raise from the button with AQs and a 220BB stack for 3BB, SB calls, BB raises to 60BB with a 190BB stack, it’s folded to me.
I don’t know a thing about the guy but the average Joe tries new stealing tricks from the BB and this one I already categorized as weak at this Zoom level.
I think again about my post here and say to myself that he can have anything in this spot since he must think that his fold equity is huge here.
I think that AQs is at least flipping here and muster the courage to call… to get shown 38o!
I don’t see how we can fold and Villain isn’t folding worse no matter what we do. So, I think we are trying to maximize against hands like AK, 99, and random bluffs.
I think we’re too likely to get folds if we raise again pre.
On the flop we want to leave plenty of room for Villain to bluff and we want to get called by his weaker holdings. But, I don’t think we want to check and give free cards to overcards. So, I would bet stupidly small, maybe 1/4 pot. We should get calls from worse hands and induce bluffs and still have plenty of action left to get the rest of the stacks in.
Villain has almost half his stack in; I wouldn’t worry about getting too many folds if we jam.
Maybe someone addressed this below, but if villain folds with a shade over 400 bucks in the pot, and we have QQ, that is in fact better for us than if we got action from AJ.
When he folds we are +415 (if there is no rake preflop)
When he calls we are equity*(725*2 + 40+15) -685 So even if our equity is 70%, that would work out to 0.70(1505) – 685 = +368.5.
If we look at the case of having 80% equity, 0.80(1505) – 685= +519.
So we make more money the times we get action from JJ-, but not when we get action from AQ/AJ type hands. We lose a ton of money when AK goes with it as opposed to folding. That is, when AK folds, we have an EQUITY BONANZA!
Sometimes there is so much money in the pot taking it down without confrontation has a huge premium. 0 variance when he folds fwiw and you don’t show your hand (which is nonzero benefit as AB is a reg in these parts — many live players might assume his range for example is only KK/AA if they don’t see his hand.)
Therefore I think the case for calling is quite poor, inducing from his potential continues has quite low value overall.
I am not saying I know what to do, but I think we can take calling off the table.
I agree with what seems to be the consensus of his ranger here:
In these spots, where the back raiser is in position and had limpers in front of him, he almost always raises with small/medium pocket pairs to isolate and/or take down the pot.
If he had been UTG with no one in the pot before him, then the biggest pairs are going to be a huge part of his range.
Only the absolutely trickiest lo/mid stakes players will overlimp IN POSITION with KK, AA, or AK.In this spot I think his range is capped at JJ, and he probably has 77-JJ most of the time.
i would flat call and let him c bet the flop, c/r all in and or lead the turn if he checks back the flop. If you ship here I think he can get away from the bottom of his range, but if you flat, he will turn his whole range into a bluff on the flop.
Don’t forget about the UTG player, who originally limped, then flatted AB’s raise with folks to act behind. What do we know about him? What is his stack size? That flat is either very strong or very speculative. Since AB doesn’t describe him, maybe I am focusing on somebody who ended up folding, or I misread the hand?
If not for UTG, I would ship on villain, because as noted above, I think he would have already reraised with AA and KK. I think the best villain has is AK here.
But, would UTG flat AB’s raise with AA or KK? If he was trying to limp/reraise, he now has a great spot to reraise AB and he didn’t. AK makes some sense.
Although I would wager our intrepid reporter is the best of the bunch at post-flop, I don’t see how calling can be correct. Hero needs to go with his hand or make a hero fold. I am concerned UTG is up to something, but I would declare all in without even looking up from my Kindle, cause that’s how da boss does it.
Very good point. You’re right that UTG had not folded as of the Hero’s preflop decision point, and I guess it’s a bit of a spoiler that I don’t really talk about him. In fact his history is quite relevant, as he did flat my UTG raise with KK when he was UTG1.
I would ship it in. Villian does not want to play his hand and just sees this as an opportunistic situation to semi steal.
In order for him to have AA or KK there are a number of unlikely things that all need to line up for this to happen. First he would need to over limp late position with AA or KK which is unlikely. Then he would need to disregard the size of the pot and overbet them against someone who it looks like may just be stealing from the many limpers. Knowing his bet will almost always cost him any further action.
Granted this would be a very sneaky way to play them, but seems totally unnecessary and unlikely. It just seems much more likely he limped with a pocket pair. And he now sees a semi bluff opportunity he isn’t willing to pass up. This is based on the assumption that he is a good player. I would put his range all the way down to any pocket pair, 98suited+, and any broadway cards combination. Basically I think his range is still close to the same limping range he has for late position. I don’t think you can narrow his range based on his overbet, because there is a very real possbility he’s just making a move.
I would ship it in and cross my fingers. If he is a good player, which you said he is. Then this seems like a very poor way to play AA or KK, it is poor because it only works on the very few occasions you have maybe exactly QQ/JJ/AK. And even then, he would need you to stack off with those preflop. Which in itself is unlikely. Just too many poor reasons for his hand to be AA or KK.
Also first time poster here. Very much enjoy the site and information. Thanks!!
Nice post, welcome and thanks for participating! I like a lot of what you said, just want to point out that I didn’t exactly say Villain was a good player, I said he was a professional who seems to play mostly in 1/3 games and bought in short when he first sat down at 2/5.
I agree with the consensus, that he can’t have AA or KK here. I would be somewhat worried about the UTG but Andrew’s disregard of him in the discussion leads me to believe that UTG folds, likely holdings AK or JJ-88. I also agree that if we ship it in, we get a call 100% of the time.
So the question really is, to reraise all in or call and play the flop? Only argument I can see for calling is 1) if we are reasonably sure he has an ace; and 2) we plan on folding the flop when an ace hits. I include AK as well as many suited aces in his range but also many pocket pairs so I think an ace hi flop puts us in a tough spot where he can play against us perfectly. Thus I would favor moving all in, expecting a call almost always, and getting it in good most of the time.
I only hope my disregard of the UTG player is not a mistake.
It’s a mistake in the sense that when you’re actually playing this situation you won’t know that UTG is going to fold. These exercises will be most valuable to you if you try to think about how to play the situation rather than how to read between the lines of my post!
Fair enough. In that case, I’m a bit scared of the UTG player and I don’t like playing scared. So his presence still in the hand makes it a much tougher decision for me. I still think his range is AA-88 and AK. If we flat the MP reraise, I have to believe the UTG will fold all but the top of his range. I can see him calling our raise with AA or KK here so I still look at that as a big possibility. Is there a case for flatting preflop and then folding the flop? I have a very hard time making that play. I guess here I would lean towards going all in preflop, both to try and push out the AK that UTG may hold as well as to prevent myself from playing poorly on the flop. (Not a good reason, I know!) But mostly because I think QQ is good most of the time here and so all in will be a profitable play.
Also — first time poster but I read this blog all the time, just wanted to say thanks for doing this!
My disregard of UTG stems from the fact that he flat called the second time. He got what he would’ve wanted with his plan had he had AA (“PLEASE PLEASE SOMEONE RAISE ME!”). He would have now made it $150+ to go over Andrew. People don’t play double tricky at this level, especially nits. They make their first tricky play, after that it’s straightforward.
Therefore, no re-raise of Andrew’s $40 means no AA.
Utg could be setmining with low to mid pockets. No one has shown great strenght up to that point. A bunch of limpers, and then the BB who could be trying to steal the pot. The table is nitty, so hes propably not expecting another reraise.
With AA, and KK he doesn’t want the 4 other limpers calling. He could have A-high, or 9Ts+. A-low or mid would be folding in my oppinion. But mostly I think pockets.
I would not flat in this situation. Licke said before, villain cant have AA or KK. Why scare everybody away with this overbet. I would even tacke out AK. My range 99 to JJ, AJ, AQ.
Shuving is imo the best. Get it in now while you are still ahead.
If you call and an A or K drops you wont feel good betting.
The same goes for the villain. If an A or K drops and he has TT? You would be ahead, but I doubt you will get his whole stack. But if he has the A he will call, and you lose most of your stack.
I prefer shuving
I’m 4 betting all-in here.
We don’t know much about villain but his limp/reraise looks very fishy.
A player might limp a big hand hoping to reraise in EP or MP but villain was in the HJ. How often does he limp a big hand there? My guess is almost never.
Also, if he really had a big hand, why is he making such a big reraise? If he had KK or AA, wouldn’t he want to get called? One can never be sure since you can always look at things both ways but my guess is that he’s making a big reraise now to either try to steal the pot or he has a medium pair and would like to end the hand right here.
I don’t think there is much chance he has KK or AA here. I’m guessing he has one of those hands no more than 10% of the time.
The rest of the time, you’ll be up against AK, a lower pair or an outright bluff.
Whichever of these choices ends up being his actual hand (if it gets shown down), it is clear to me that we can’t consider folding and pushing all-in is +EV against his range. We might get a call from JJ or TT. If he was bluffing he loses the chance to outflop us and if he has AQ or AJ we’re happy whether he calls or folds. If he has AK, we’d rather he folds but we’re about a 57% favorite so we’re getting our money in good.
I’d like to make a case for folding:
After villain’s 3bet, the pot equals $425. Villain has $405 left in stack or just under a pot size bet behind. On just calling, we are getting ~1.3:1 so we will need to have ~43% equity to profitably call.
Assuming we are push/fold mode, we will be risking effective stacks, $725, to win $830. We will be getting 1.14:1 when called and needing about 47% to break even.
I would also like to talk about what villain did not do which was just call. Assuming no one else raises behind villain and everyone calls, villain would get 6:1 on just a call by putting in $35 more to win $210. This is a pretty sweet deal IMO. Villain chose not to take this deal and instead chose to risk his entire stack. Villain at this point has 145BB. I don’t believe there is anything in description that makes it clear the would risk his stack with a med pocket pair or AK as so many have suggested.
I am not sure I am as convinced everyone else is that villain never ever ever has AA or KK. I don’t see anything in the description that necessarily rules it out. Villain is described as a $1/$3 or $2/$5 regular who bought in for a short stack of $200 at $2/$5 or only 40BB. I have seen plenty of players at casinos who love nothing more than to buy in for shortish stacks, wait for a big hand and an opportunity to ship it in. If villain has managed to increase his stack, he may feel this is the best way to play it. Maybe it is unlikely but I would not be so quick to rule out all 8 combinations of AA and KK. Just because we would not play a certain hand a certain way does not mean that no one will.
I think in the end we must decide how much variance we want in our game. We have very little invested in this pot at this point having only put in 8BB of our 190BB stack or 4%. Assuming calling is not an option, we will be risking $725 or 145BB . This is 18x what currently have put into this pot.
Assuming we have bought in for $500 we have been able to double our stack being “mostly quiet” and “well behaved” having only shown down pocket Aces twice. If this is a nitty/tight table and there will likely be much better spots. We are not playing a tournament with a tough field where we would embrace a risk-loving strategy like the one advocated by those say “ship it!”. Our edge has come from making better decisions post flop than our opponents. Why suddenly introduce a large amount of variance when it does not play to our strength?
At a table where there has been significant 3bets/4bets, fine, I am all for going with it. I would suggest this is not a table that necessitates introducing so much risk. I say fold and keep reading our kindle.
Very nice post, I’m glad someone has taken up the banner of defending a fold. The only thing I’ll quibble with is that you frame it in terms of variance rather than EV. What does it matter if there will be better spots? Losing this pot doesn’t prevent Hero from taking advantage of those spots. If you can put Villain on a range where getting it in pre is -EV, then there’s a case for folding. You’ve made some good arguments for why that could be the case. But if your argument is that Hero is ahead but should fold anyway, then Hero should just not be in the game at all IMO.
The amount of the pot contributed by Hero is no longer relevant. Once the money is in the pot, you shouldn’t care where it came from. If you think that UTG’s call is functionally dead money, then you should be just as interested in fighting over that as you are over the $40 Hero contributed.
The “better spots argument”t is perhaps the weakest part of my argument. What I was trying to say is that villain’s range is a lot more difficult to determine than otherwise suggested. If we can somehow conclusively eliminate AA/KK from villain’s range than I am happy to make a +EV decision.
Perhaps I am incorrectly using variance and risk too interchangeably but I will try do a better job of explaining my thought process.
In investing the concept of the efficient frontier suggests that “a combination of assets is efficient if it has the best possible expected level of return for its level or risk”. At the poker table, we are not buying assets with various levels of return/risk but making betting/folding decisions that have various levels of reward/variance. My point is that given the difficulty I believe exists in determining villain’s range, it is difficult to assess the level of risk we are taking on.
Admittedly this is not a perfect analogy as when we invest we are essentially assuming a “finite bankroll” as oppose to decisions at a poker table where we should be appropriately bankrolled for a game so that we can make as many +EV decisions as possible.
The “better spots argument”t is perhaps the weakest part of my argument. What I was trying to say is that villain’s range is a lot more difficult to determine than otherwise suggested. If we can somehow conclusively eliminate AA/KK from villain’s range than I am happy to make a +EV decision.
Perhaps I am incorrectly using variance and risk too interchangeably but I will try do a better job of explaining my thought process.
In investing the concept of the efficient frontier suggests that “a combination of assets is efficient if it has the best possible expected level of return for its level or risk”. At the poker table, we are not buying assets with various levels of return/risk but making betting/folding decisions that have various levels of reward/variance. My point is that given the difficulty I believe exists in determining villain’s range, it is difficult to assess the level of risk we are taking on.
Admittedly this is not a perfect analogy as when we invest we are essentially assuming a “finite bankroll” as oppose to decisions at a poker table where we should be appropriately bankrolled for a game so that we can make as many +EV decisions as possible.
Thank you for your feedback!
Raphael–
I like your post. I agree that it’s a mistake to say that Villain will never have AA or KK. I also like your point that he passed up a potentially calling spot by reraising.
I think that this does make hands like 77 less likely, as they are convenient set-mining hands in this situation. Hands like JJ and TT, however, are not pure set-mines here, and Villian might well feel uncomfortable making decisions with those on various flops.
I’m not sure that AK is very likely given the first overlimp, but I don’t think it should be completely discounted. I also think that sometimes Villain will have decided to commit with unpaired hands weaker with AK. Add it all up and I like the action Hero can get on a shove, even if he’s going to run into KK and (less often) AA sometimes.
I’m going back-and-forth on this a lot. Like everyone else, I can’t imagine villain just calling two limpers w/ AA or KK. At the same time, the size of villain’s re-raise is really surprising. It’s seems excessive and makes me think either he is desperate for you to fold or he’s desperate to get all the money in. In the end, I think “desperate to get the money in” doesn’t fit with the original over-limp. Limp, then re-raise hoping for a call or shove would be a very hopeful plan for villain, since he needs you to have a big pair or AK, or really big cajones.
“Desperate for you to fold” makes more sense, especially if he’s frustrated at having been quiet for the last two hours. Still, it doesn’t look like a great play. If my math is right, he needs 90% folds for this to be a profitable bluff. I suppose if he thinks you’re raising w/ 30% of hands and shoving w/ only 3% of hands (which is like TT+ and AK), that kind of makes sense, but this seems like a pretty high-risk, low-reward kind of play from villain and potentially a big mistake since it’s going to be hard for him to fold when you do shove.
Given that last sentence, I’d probably shove here. He’ll be looking at 2.5-to-1 on a call, so I’d be surprised if he folded much of anything that he could have gotten here with. If you just call and then check the flop so he can continue the bluff, there’s the chance he won’t continue and the chance that he’ll out-flop you, and I can’t imagine folding on any board. So rather than guess if we’re ahead after the flop, I’d rather get money in when I feel confident I’m good and just accept it when he folds.
Hi Aaron, thanks for the comment. I think your 90% number is off, though. Even if Villain were going to fold to a shove, he’s risking $320 to win $110 that’s in the pot, so he’d need everyone to fold 320/(320 + 110) = .744 or about 75% of the time to show a profit. As you say, though, he probably isn’t folding to a shove, which means that we also have to factor in his equity vs people’s shoving ranges. Basically if he doesn’t have a “value hand” then he’s semi-bluffing and you need to add fold equity + showdown equity to get the EV of his raise.
Ah. Like others, I was forgetting about the UTG caller. Hopefully if he was sitting on my left with cards, that wouldn’t actually happen. 🙂
It’s mostly my fault for not talking enough about him in the OP.
As described, I’m with the people who want to stick it in. But this does seem like a good spot to look left and then limp AA if you pick up that someone is strong and going to make a raise.
I hope you didn’t give anything away Andrew by getting excited about your QQ!
matt
Im really really torn on this one.
since you mentioned it was a nitty table can we assume that SB/BU aren’t the exceptions to that rule? if villain had some reason to believe that a raise was coming then its a cool spot to over limp AA if say the button was habitually raising limped pots, however given the general nittiness of the table i think that its pretty unlikely. Especially given that if he suspects you of being very aggressive/good but you are in a relatively unattractive spot to raise an extremely wide range, both because you are OOP and because you get to see a flop without reopening the action.
when he back raises its extremely unlikely he has a pure air ball and is planning to raise/fold, and most speculative hands are eliminated by the aggression.
however the reads given by Andrew regarding him buying in short and topping up, swell as being a 1/3 regular makes me think its reasonably unlikely that villain would elect to stack off with TT/99 in the bigger game for over 150bb (which is 2.5bi at his regular game) when given the alternative of calling and hoping to spike a set.
on the flip side the sizing indicates a hand that isn’t really worried about killing action so much as fearing post flop decisions and just trying to end the hand. which points towards AK/TT/99 hands.
so basically I’m really torn on how to weight the villains range, I don’t think the table conditions are very likely to lead him to over limp hands better than ours, and his sizing is consistent with hands worse than ours. But the aggression doesn’t really fit with a 1/3 regular playing in a bigger game who initially bought in short.
Its been mentioned above but UTG is also due some consideration, but I just assumed Andrew looked left and saw him preparing to muck.
I am also definitely buying the extra material
I think given the description of the villain – who has been tight for a couple of hours, ended the pots he did play early, often plays 1-3, and bought in short – I am inclined to think he is somewhat scared money, or at least scared to play post flop with deep money behind. Given the action on this particular hand with the size of the raise making sure he is committed (and sending that message to his opponents “go away unless you want to put all your money in”) I think his most likely hand is AK. After AK I would say he could reasonably have JJ-KK, and of course AA – but with the raise size etc I would discount AA at least somewhat. With AK fitting the action best and having the most combos, and with JJ and the other QQ also being possible we can’t fold here. Shove.
What I’m not sure about is whether your $40 on top bet would look more like a limp steal or big hand to the table and villain in particular. My thought is that $30 would be sufficient as a limp steal (if it gets people to fold, less risk than $40), so maybe the $40 bet would look more like a big hand. But maybe this bet size seems standard for either. The out-sized, seemingly pot committing raise size seems suspicious however. I would say given his description he would be capable of a re-steal, especially against someone he would view as capable of stealing, so I would say that it is more likely that this is a bluff than a value raise. I think in position calling might be an appealing option, but given that he might feel priced-in and think you could re-bluff I vote for re-raising all-in.
“What I’m not sure about is whether your $40 on top bet would look more like a limp steal or big hand to the table and villain in particular. ”
Can’t it be both? I mean, it’s never a pure “steal” in that I’m never going to have 72o. I’m just raising some % of my strongest hands, and with some I’m more eager to get folds than others. If I had AJs here, would you consider that a limp steal or a big hand?
I wouldn’t consider AJ a big hand – but I would consider it raising for value and not a bluff if you did raise with it here. If the raise size would induce folds at the table, then why wouldn’t you do it with 72o sometimes?
My point is that you can’t draw such a sharp distinction between value hands and bluffs this early. With this many limpers, it’s unlikely that everyone will fold so often that I could profitably raise with literally anything. It’s more like semibluffing. The profitability of my raise will depend on how often I get folds plus how well my hand performs post-flop when called (and to a lesser extent how it plays when a 3-bet, because I don’t expect that to happen often). When I’m “bluffing” here it would be with something like KTs, where I’d rather get folds but still have a lot of playability when called.
If Andrew commits to memory the UTG flatting KK to a raise previously the Villain should remember this too. Villain passed on raising the first time and is now passing on a call for a multi-way pot 3 handed. If the UTG is capable of flatting a big hand here then the Villain should now be concerned about that play too. Is the Villain’s big raise a product of ensuring the UTG isn’t priced in on a three way pot? If the Villain raised to $220 range he could find himself in a big pot three handed and not enough info returned from the amount of money he put into the pot. So did the bet grow to $320 so this pot would not end up three handed on the flop? I think the Villains hand does not include AA/KK, the table is tight and the UTG can be tricky so we would have seen a raise earlier. The late raise reduces his range to me, to AK or pairs 88 to JJ. If I’m the Villain in position I would rather not take one of those paired hands into this pot three handed. An abnormally big raise could either give him a clear fold decision or end the hand right there, and more importantly to the Villain, eliminate the likelihood of having to play this hand against two opponents. I think we’re ahead of the villain and must now evaluate the UTG call. I’m comfortable shoving against his range too.
A couple of thoughts:
Just because UTG previously flatte a raise w KK does not mean that the will only flat with KK. In this case UTG would be flatting a 3bet, not a single raise so the situation is quite different. I dont think we can infer that UTG has a big hand just because the previously flatted with a big hand once before.
I am not sure I agree with your line of thinking with regards to the phrase “not enough info returned from the amount of money put into the pot” I understand that you are discussing the villain’s potential line of thinking and not necessarily yours, but I would caution against assuming opponents are putting money into the pot “for information’s sake”.
You say that the table is tight and villain has already committed half his stack. Wouldnt this mean the is less inclined to stack off with 88 to JJ?
UTG is actually flatting a single raise, though it’s much larger than the first one and, results notwithstanding, less likely to get re-raised. So I agree that he isn’t too likely to have a monster here, though that deserves more consideration than I gave it in the ASAP.
I like what you say about Villain betting for info.
I’m not sure I understand the last comment. Are you saying he’d fold JJ after making this raise with it? Or just that he wouldn’t make this raise with JJ in the first place? The latter sounds more plausible to me than the former.
You are right about it being a single raise and not a 3bet but as you said, given that you are raising 5 limpers, UTG should react differently than if you raised 1 or 2 limps.
Regarding my last comment:
Given that the table has been generally tight (including you in your description), villain should have a more narrow value range of hands he is willing to stack off with. I believe villain would elect to call with hands too good to fold but not good enough to stack off with (88-TT,AJs/AQs). Obviously there can be any number of other hands villain would just call potentially getting 6:1.
Perhaps it was a mistake to include JJ in that category. I do not believe if villain would raise/fold JJ.
I’d say exactly the same thing about 88. He might choose not to 3bet it, but if he did, I can’t imagine he’d fold it to a shove at this point.
Anecdotal evidence: This situations happens at my 1/3 game more often than it should. Way more often than not, the villain holds aces or kings. I also see this occasionally in low stakes online tournaments and it’s always a value heavy range (that dominates queens) that I would fold queens every time and never really feel exploited.
First time poster,
And thanks for the podcast!
You didn’t mention any physical details in regards to the way villain limped and back raised. Was he nervous as he raised? Or did he give off any physical information that you could interpret?
Thanks for commenting! There was nothing remarkable about his demeanor one way or the other.
Your raise size doesn’t look like AK or AQ to me…more like a pair.
I think Villain might have been watching videos 🙂 and is getting “tricky” with an AX suited hand.
His raise size looks like he wants to end the hand.
I make it 280 on top of his 280+40 so 580 and try to ignore the fact I know what his stack size is.
Give him the chance to say “I guess I got to go all-in”.
People seem so much more likely to put money in bad when they can shove vs call (even when they know you can’t fold more then 1/100 times).
“Your raise size doesn’t look like AK or AQ to me…more like a pair.” I realize some Villains may think this way, but I hope you realize that I’m not going to be that easy to read with bet sizing. See my comment above (or maybe it’s below) to Botswana Nick: it’s dangerous to read too much into a bet size without any actual observation or evidence to back it up. The same goes for your assumption that Villain has Axs – that seems to me to come out of left field.
I agree on bet sizing. I know you are not easy to read, just not convinced Villain knows.
As for AXs
-villain discounts AK/AQ
-he has seen you have AA 2x already,discounted AA in his mind(silly yes but also true imo)
-He thinks you will fold everything but JJ’s +
-He knows you will raise super wide and thereby folding 90% of the time
-AXs is something people limp
-He knows he has to call if you shove, AXs is a throw away hand that has equity vs JJ,QQ,KK
-does he really raise so big with AA/KK knowing he is like never getting paid.
but ya this is feeling more and more like hands where I convince myself he can’t have it and he flips over AA/KK and I say to myself, of course he had to have it 🙂
I’m a bit late to the party but I’ll add my thoughts. I am with the near-consensus that I happily ship in this spot, I’ll try to focus on things that haven’t been said by others too much.
My first thought after seeing villain’s line is that, yes AB’s reputation has almost certainly preceded him. This is an unconventional line so we need to consider how exactly AB’s possible crazy image is impacting villain’s range. The two possibilities are 1) Villain is trapping with what he considers a big hand, thinking that AB will have a hard time passing up a raise with a wide range, 2) villain wasn’t specifically trying to induce a raise from AB, but once he sees the raise, he (probably correctly) puts hero on a wide range and decides to try to take down a now juicy pot in a spot he thinks hero (and UTG?) will often fold to a big raise. If AB’s reputation hasn’t preceded him (ie villain is treating him like a standard player), then this line seems very strange but I would think his range is similar to scenario 2), where he sees what he thinks could be a squeeze and is trying to punish said squeeze with the top of his range.
Scenario 1) is the only time villain can have all his combos of AA and KK. If he isn’t specifically anticipating a raise here, he just isn’t going to limp behind AA or KK very often because most players are terrified of letting these monster hands get to a flop 5 or 6-handed. This isn’t to say he never ever has AA or KK, but if we can discount them then we can happily ship QQ. So let’s focus on scenario 1) because if we are sure this is what is happening, it is the only time we can consider a fold.
Even if we think he is specifically trapping anticipating a raise, I think we still have a plus EV spot to ship here. If villain thinks AB will raise wide, then I think he has at minimum JJ-TT and some AK in addition to his AA and KK, which is all we need to get to slightly +EV, and he likely has a few worse hands in there as well like 99, AQs, 88, etc. So I think absolutely worst case scenario we have neutral to slightly +EV, and likely we have an extremely +EV spot.
One final comment, on the near-consensus that villain is never folding to a shove here. It makes me think of a rule from Ed Miller’s crushing small stakes NLHE book (forget the exact name): Never commit a large percentage of your stack and then fold……..unless you are bluffing. I agree that since villain put in such a huge raise I doubt he ever folds, but I wouldn’t be totally shocked if every once in a blue moon, he was actually raising with the very bottom of his range thinking he will get a folds almost always. He should have at least a few bluffs in his range right? I would feel better about this if the raise was to 1/3 of stack instead of 1/2, and if we knew he was a very good and very aggressive player. Either way it doesn’t change our decision.
The reason for that bluffing exception is that post-flop it’s possible for your bluffs to be drawing dead against a shoving range. Preflop, it’s really hard to find hands that don’t have 25% equity against even a very strong range, so it’s basically impossible to make a good fold with half your stack in the pot pre-flop.
I think the key here is that Andrew has been “quite quiet and well-behaved” and that the table is a “nitty, ten-handed… game that isn’t even really worth playing.” For that reason, villain doesn’t seem to have any reason to think that there is a good chance that one of the four players behind him is going to raise. As a result, an overlimp with AA-KK seem really unlikely from a Villain who appears to be “a professional of some sort.” Since he appears to be a $1/$3 regular and given his overall line here, he may not be that good, but this is such a basic point that even a bad reg would recognize this as a bad spot to go for a limp/3bet with KK+.
It’s possible that Andrew’s reputation precedes him, but I would not make an adjustment on that speculation without some solid evidence to back it up.
I also agree that the back-raise looks more like it is seeking a fold than a call, which is additional evidence that villain doesn’t have the top of his range. I would expect villain to have a hand here, but more like {QQ-JJ,AK}. This also consistent with Andrew’s other read, that he may be overvaluing hands.
Against {QQ-JJ,AK}, hero has 62% equity and even if we widen the range to include half the combos of KK+, hero has 53% equity against {KK-JJ,AK}. So either way it’s a profitable shove. Even in what I view as the worst case scenario, villain has {AA-JJ,AK}, we still have 47% equity, so a shove isn’t a big mistake (especially considering the dead money in the pot).
I haven’t mentioned UTG at this point, but I agree with the sentiment above that he is very unlikely to have KK+. To the extent that he was looking to limp/3bet, he would have 3bet after Andrew’s raise – especially as he has no reason to believe that anyone behind him would 3bet Andrew’s raise. He probably has a decent hand (i.e., Ax or a pocket pair like JJ or lower), but I would expect him to fold to the 4bet pretty much always – and when he does call, it’s a good thing.
Because of the foregoing, I don’t think hero should fold. I wonder a bit about whether a call here may be a decent line, since I expect AK to combinatorically be a large part of villain’s range. Calling with the intent to call a very likely shove on any flop that doesn’t have an A or a K might have some merit. Or it might be pretty bad – I don’t have the time to ponder this. My initial reaction is that flatting has a good chance of letting UTG with good odds and playing a hand oop vs. two villains doesn’t seem attractive. I am inclined to shove, but this might merit some consideration by better poker minds than mine.
I guess with Friday approaching a few things need to be cleared up in my view. I haven’t read every word above but most of them.
Villain wants to end the hand/ villain doesn’t want to make another decision
The fact that this psychological phenomenon is being observed, to whatever degree, in villain’s bet size, does not abnegate, as those who don’t want to cut and run from this spot want it to, the potential for them holding KK or AA. In fact, often people are in a very big rush to end hands with the nuts or near nuts or especially vulnerable nuts, and AA preflop can fall into two of those categories.
Andrew’s fearsome table presence, or villain’s reluctance to give Andrew the ability to maneuver, could easily have impacted their raise size. Villain could just as easily want to “end the hand” with AA. Because ending the hand is about preventing pain, the pain of making a costly mistake after a period of time in which there is tension in one’s mind. That is what people really don’t like doing, feeling that tension, and then blundering, and losing to an inferior hand to boot. Raising to this size makes all that go away. So anyways, in sum, reading the bet size as wanting to simplify decision making, end the hand, or whatever the case, may well be spot on, but that doesn’t mean villain can’t have KK or AA.
Villain overlimped too far from UTG to have KK/AA.
This is wrong I am sure empirically (because there have been recorded and observed examples to the contrary, both in this thread and in my experience playing live) but I also think rationally.
Players love to trap. But that doesn’t mean they know what the best spots to trap are nor do they affix some sort of trapping formula that disallows them from trapping in a certain spot. Trapping is more about a feeling they get when they squeeze their cards. “I want to trap someone, lose a tiny pot or win a big one!” Its not as much about the nuts and bolts of the situation, even neglecting the notion that they probably don’t see this situation the same way we do, from a third person perspective.
So simply because it is a “poor” situation to trap, I don’t think that means anything. Villain who gets the urge to trap could just as well trap because it is a poor situation “they will never expect this.” That awful line of logic is pervasive among poker players. I always hear players who say “I do the opposite of what people expect.” So you fold AA pre? I mean that kind of logic just doesn’t hold up. But people adhere to it, often, and in all kinds of situations. This could be one for this player … no one would expect me to limp KK here, so I am going to.
Then we arrive at the problem of not having pocket kings in our hand. This is very significant. Well no shit Gareth, you say. But the doubling of combinations that have us in jail matters a lot in terms of the certainty we need to have to put the money in. As has been touched on in this thread, the larger the bet size our opponent makes, the less often, ie the stronger range, we need to look them up with, by rule. That applies to preflop and villain has committed their entire stack, in effect. If villain’s range here is AK QQ+ here we should fold and putting the money in is a reasonably large error. Then if we weight combinations within the set of AK QQ+ to something more reasonable, I think a reasonbly large error is going to turn into a disaster.
I’m not so quick as to dismiss folding AA pre as you are Gareth. For one thing, folding AA pre helps us balance our open folding range, keeping opponents guessing. Secondly, Tommy Angelo did it once, maybe twice.
Only open fold the offsuit pocket aces combos though.
Basically, in sum, I think we are weighing a few events of unlikely probability.
Event 1: villain overlimps in this spot and then takes the line they did. What has happened before our eyes is an event of very small probability.
Event 2: Villain overlimped in the first place with KK/AA.
Event 3: Villain overlimped in the first place with {not QQ+AK} and is now losing their mind for no apparent reason. And when calling is a viable option, having a reasonable price in a reasonable position (in position postflop that is).
All three of these events have small probabilities. Yet Event 1 has already happened.
I think when we weigh Event 2 against Event 3 it is going to become quite a bit more clear how far away our QQ is from the nuts. We are not a favourite against JJ+ AK, we are 47.37%, and I could run the math but with the dead money in the pot we aren’t going to be making much money, if any, against that range.
So I fold here if I am on my B+ game or better.
I see your point, and indeed my first instinct here is to fold. My considered view is not to fold, though.
I agree that we can’t just conclude from AA/KK being unlikely given preflop that they’re unlikely simpliciter. But we also can’t conclude from the fact that anything worse than QQ is “losing his mind” (if that’s even true) that we have a fold here.
First, is Villain really lighting *tons* of money on fire if he’s committing here with 77? Calling is probably better, and of course putting in $700+ is risky given that Andrew is a good player, but there’s $150 in the pot after Villain’s $40 call…
Second, the view opposed to yours isn’t just “QQ is good! Move in!” I’ve given specific hands (JJ and TT especially) that could quite plausibly play like this. A lot of these grinding pro types view JJ and TT as limp-behind hands but realize that they have good equity against aggressive players. I played a funny hand recently that involved someone limping behind with TT and then calling $400 more cold from me (there were other raises between us!). I don’t think there’s much of a gap between this strategy and the sort of strategy Villain in this hand could be pursuing with JJ and TT.
Again, I don’t doubt that we’re up against AA and KK here sometimes. I also agree that it’s quite false that Villain never overlimps AA or KK here. But it takes more than bluster to show that we don’t have good equity in this spot.
I don’t see any bluster in my or others comments above as far as I’m aware. Maybe I am missing something. It seems like 2 claims were being made 1 villain couldnt limp KK-AA once X limps in front and 2 because they are experiencing, or may be experiencing, some kind of fear/trepidation, they also can’t have KK, AA or more generally the nuts. I think clearing up those misconceptions is important to making progress in the analysis, whichever side we argue.
Now bluster, I’ll show you bluster!
Actually it is too early here for that and I am still without my morning espresso. Your first point is well taken. I wouldn’t emphasize this point were I arguing for folding! I think anything worse than QQ here is losing its mind in the sense of not being a sensible play for value with a hand that has value. That’s how I typically use that expression, when someone takes a hand that has value and plays it like it is the nuts instead. I’m not saying that the player in question should get express service to the ship of fools where they will spend the rest of their lives, though we would see some mighty careful poker playing were that the case.
Second point, the view opposed to mine is not “QQ is good! Move in!” That’s why I state our equities versus two ranges, QQ+ AK and JJ+ AK. I think some, if not much, of the allure in not folding doesn’t fully appreciate, or doesn’t have an exact reference point, to what our equity is with QQ v JJ+AK and that equity being 47% has always struck me as nonintuitive.
Your case about how some players such as this might view TT/JJ is compelling though. Esp with that whole “jacks always loses” belief that many share in some degree. At this point I feel like our equity won’t be sufficient given the stack depth in play. All the arguments that lead up to that conclusion just make their case to my intuition and experience, which collects them and spits out a yay or nay. I think I’m still folding here.
Shouldn’t we give some weight to his range? Is he as likely to play AK this way as JJ-KK, and is he as likely to play JJ-KK this way as he is AA?
Also, isn’t there a non-zero chance that he is losing his mind with 88 or some other strange hand? With dead money in the pot it is hard to see shoving being a losing play here.
Yes definitely. I mean I think any way we approach his range there is going to be more weight given to different combinations of pairs and to unpaired hands especially AK, than the full list of combinations. I mention that a little bit in the last paragraph of my first post in this chain. But getting into the nitty gritty of that is reasonably difficult.
Like you said, there is a nonzero chance (much better than nonzero!) villain has 88, no matter what view one take’s of their range.
All fair points. Also my comment was more blustery than yours.
One way to characterize your view (perhaps unfairly) is: when a villain of this general type puts this much money in, the default assumption is that he’s fully loaded. And, as you point out, even if “fully loaded” means AA-JJ, AK, we’re not doing as well as one might think.
I think that’s not a bad way to think about these hands (even if how you’re actually thinking about it is more sophisticated). But I do think we have to discount AA twice: once given that it didn’t raise the first time and again because it raised so big. A further problem is that tendencies to do these are often negatively correlated, so we have two unlikely and perhaps negatively correlated events that have to have occurred for the Villain to have AA. Now, overlimping JJ is also perhaps a nonstandard play, and raising this big with it too, but these are (IMO) less unlikely events taken individually, and (also IMO) they arise from *positively* correlated tendencies. Similar comments apply to TT and maybe even AK.
FWIW, my first instinct was folding, my first considered view was shoving, then as I thought more I almost came around to a fold, but as I think about it even more I really want to commit. Mobius Dumpling has convinced me that calling is worth considering if we’re willing to commit.
Nate – calling is not a compromise :0
Ha!
Seriously, though, MD’s points on the subject are interesting.
Only read to here so far.
I like how you put this, with the three unlikely events. I just come out differently on my conclusion. I think doing this with {AA,KK} is the most unlikely, and I add to event three that {JJ-88,ATs-A2s (or at least ATs-A9s)} are all very likely. So in your shorthand, Event 3 is far more likely than Event 2, thus shove.
I just have a few questions before I construct my strategy and analysis for the hand in play.
1. How did the table react to open raises? Were they mostly flatting or folding?
2. Why do you say the young man might be a professional? You stated that hes a regular but does that necessarily mean he is a pro??
Well no shit Gareth.
Question to Andrew: did you look at your cards before villain overlimped?
Another question: is there a player, say the BTN or CO player, which raised 70% of the time or more when it limps to him like in this hand?
If the answer to both questions is no, then I’m definitely getting it in, either by shoving pre or by flatting pre and shoving almost any flop. If you did look at your cards, and there’s some chance that villain picked up that you’re interested in your hand and that you’re going to raise if it gets to you, then I can see a case for folding. Similarly, if there’s a super-active BTN or CO, then I again see a case for folding.
If the answer to both questions was “no”, then I think this can almost never be AA or KK, and that this is JJ *very* often: he’s limping it behind for all the reasons that people play weirdly with JJ, but once you raise, he doesn’t feel like calling, so he decides to commit. This is way more probably than the alternative explanation, that he overlimped AA or KK hoping for someone to raise behind him.
Once we know that villain has mostly a range of medium pocket pairs (predominantly JJ), AK, and the odd AA-KK and that we’re happy getting it in preflop, we need to decide if we rather flat preflop. We know that the money is going in against AK preflop anyway, but that villain might find a fold sometimes with JJ and lower pocket pairs. If we know that villain always folds JJ preflop but calls with AK preflop, then there might be some value for seeing a flop, even if we decide to shove any flop: villain will always be priced in to call OTF with his AK so the result of the hand when villain has AK would be the same as if we had shoved pre, and villain will presumably always call OTF with JJ when it’s an overpair, which is better than his folding JJ preflop. It might be even better than this to shove any flop without an A or K, but to try to play intelligently when an A or K flops, knowing that we’re in a way-ahead/way-behind situation and that we’re totally not afraid of stacking off against AK, but would like to get as much value as possible from villain’s JJ. But, on balance, I usually just shove here pre.
I love this from Mobius Dumplings:
“If we know that villain always folds JJ preflop but calls with AK preflop, then there might be some value for seeing a flop, even if we decide to shove any flop: villain will always be priced in to call OTF with his AK so the result of the hand when villain has AK would be the same as if we had shoved pre, and villain will presumably always call OTF with JJ when it’s an overpair, which is better than his folding JJ preflop. It might be even better than this to shove any flop without an A or K, but to try to play intelligently when an A or K flops, knowing that we’re in a way-ahead/way-behind situation and that we’re totally not afraid of stacking off against AK, but would like to get as much value as possible from villain’s JJ. But, on balance, I usually just shove here pre.”
If we think V might fold JJ-88 to a preflop shove then I can see calling here. But I doubt he folds, so I still like shove best.
If his range is TT+, AK, which seems reasonable, then you are flipping and chopping up the limps.
We can somewhat discount some of the stronger hands in this range due to his position behind the other limpers.
If he thinks you would do this as a bluff (maybe he heard this from his 5/10 friends?), he could even be doing this with hands like 99 and AQ.
Continuing seems profitable, but we have to decide between calling and shoving. Shoving may push out the hands you are ahead of and strength his continuing range. Calling keeps those hands in and may induce them to shove on the flop.
By default, I like a call here and a check call on the flop.
This is a slightly different situation, but I have been contemplating something I see from $1/$3 players regularly. They get it in in spots where you expect to be flipping a lot (like say if you had AKs here) and agree to run it multiple times.
Essentially, they are just making a high variance play to get heads up, agreeing to reduce that variance, and then chopping up the dead money from all the limpers.
Not saying that this is the best strategy here, but I have seen spots where there is a straddle that 5 people call with trashy hands that cant take that kind of heat. They’re just giving money away in these raise/re-raise pots.
Grunch.
Does V have any reason to think you or others after him will raise? From the history given, it appears not. V in HJ, this is an unlikely place to limp/RR with AA or KK. Only likely if H, SB or BTN are very likely raisers. That said, this could look like a steal attempt by H. Seems likely V is re-stealing. But he should have some reasonable hand, like mid pp or suited A-middlin’. So H should at least call, assuming my answer about V not being likely to hold AA or KK. The problem with calling is we don’t know which of those two types of hands V has, so we won’t know whether we are ahead otf. We pretty much know we’re ahead right now, so raise. Given 3bet size, go AI. Expect a call from either hand type, mid pp or AXs.
I think in game I would clearly shove as this line makes no sense as a bluff nor a value hand from a thinking players perspective. The question i suppose we should ask is wether or not he is more likely to do this as a bluff or for value.
As a bluff i dont see why he wouldn’t just raise preflop with hand such as suited connectors or with marginal broad way card. It would get tons of fold in a nitty game and even if it didn’t work preflop he still has a change to steal on the flop or turn in good position or extract value for weaker hands than his KJ,KQ, type hands. I suppose he could be turning his suited aces or small to mid pairs into bluffs after your raise, but those hand are better off seeing a flop multi way for set mining and nut flush draws agressively in position.
So I think his range is more value heavy and ill tell you why I think so. You mentioned earlier that the game was nitty and that this player had been possibly overvaluing hands and also being quite quiet for the last little while. So consider this from his perspective; He picks up JJ+.AK and realizes that he’s been perceived as tight for the last little while and if he raises he is giving away a lot of information ( he thinks) about the strength of his hand. We know that he of course does not have to have a tight range in the spot he’s in but maybe because he actually has a hand he fears others will be suspicious and give him credit for a hand? Its a tight game after all that he might have just decided to play sneaky with JJ+ , AK hoping for a raise from be hind or a safe flop that he can extract more value from than by playing straight forwardly. Of course we know that playing big pairs multi way is just asking to get owned but maybe hes willing to take that risk for a big pay off because no one will put him on those hands postflop if limped around. Perhaps this is an example of a hand he is overvaluing.
I think calling is by far the worse as it invited utg to call ( although unlikely) to call getting a fair price and we would be out of position against two opponents where on almost all flops we would be stacking anyway due to the low spr. So why invite a fairly probable strong hand to the pot?
I think folding is worth considering but just a little bit. In the end I just shove and believe it is almost always the best play.