Sanity Check

[Gator]

I like to go into PT and replay specific hands that cost me my stack. I try to figure out what, if anything, I should have done different.

Here’s one.

First hand of a $50 PP SNG

Seat 1 SB $10
Seat 2 BB $15
Seat 3 Calls $15
4,5,6 All Fold
Me, in Seat 7, raise to $60 with AhKc
8, 9, 10 fold
SB, BB, UTG all call $60

Flop 4h As 2s

SB goes all in, Seat 2 and 3 fold.

I call. Likelihood I found a maniac outweighs likelihood I’m beaten (from my experience). Does anyone get away from this hand?

SB had 44 for the set. I don’t have regrets. Should I?

[Irieguy]

Interesting... SB actually played the hand brilliantly because it is likely that you have an ace, and likely that you will talk yourself into calling, since 2 pair or a set should check the flop in front of you.

I like the amount of your preflop raise, though I've started raising just a bit more in that situation to try and shake the limper if a blind calls. After the blinds call, UTG should call with just about anything... certainly anything worth limping with in the first place.

I think the SB push means a weak ace at least 75% of the time. But here's the problem: let's say you are way ahead 75% of the time... you will still get outdrawn by a weaker ace 29% of the time. So, you are behind a quarter of the time, and you will get outdrawn a quarter of the time. That doesn't seem like a very good situation to be in on the first hand of a SNG for all of your chips. As a winning player your total tournament EV should be much greater with 940 chips on hand 2 than the sum of being either broke or doubled up at the same point in time.

I think it's a very difficult, but very clear fold.

[hummusx]

A weaker ace will draw out on you 29% of the time? Isn't that a little high? I'm thinking that number should be quite a bit lower.

[golFUR]

Could be a style thing but I'd have played the AK heavier preflop. Probably raised to 80, perhaps 100. Would the 44 still call? Probably.

On the flop, he flips all in and you guess maniac before set... Here I'm not certain. I definately have the ability to call bluffs and bad bets, I average maybe three of them every three SnGs correctly, one every three incorrectly. I have to guess, and its just a guess, that I'd fold and show. If he was a maniac it'd do him no good, probably harm, he'd feel improperly unbeatable. It'd let everyone else know that I wasn't raising frivolously, that I'm capable of laying down in return for continued play. Most importantly, I'd still be there for another hand. Added benefit that later on some other goon is sure to try to bluff me hoping for same result, for some reason those are sooo easy to sniff out, I end up getting my chips back and then some...

Were you wrong to call though? IMO, heck no. Impossible to say without being seated and looking at it, I'd probably make that call close to 50% of the time. In my case I happen to not mind being shortstacked, I like broadcasting certain info I can use later and I mumble to myself constantly "is this nutty? is this nutty?". Top pair top kick on a board w/ a straight against someone who called my PF raise... I dunno, I got burned by so many sets when I was learning that I am always looking for them.

I think also what makes me say I'd fold is that you were the one who raised, he only called. When the A came out he had to give you credit for it, at least partial credit. I'm guessing that is why he went all in instead of trying to slowplay his set, he figured you for an A and a call...

[La Brujita]

Muck this trash preflop. Oh wait...

In a normal poker tournament you would muck this post flop but given the way the PP 50s play early I call as well.

You are nearly drawing dead and the set open pushes? That is where I type interesting play when I really mean you suck.

That's my two cents. I don't know if this takes me off the good list or puts me on, I have a hard time keeping track these days.

[caretaker1]

I agree. If my math is correct, the chance of catching at least one of the undercard with two to come is:

1 - (44/47)(43/46) = approximately 12.5% (this estimate does not include the small chance that the undercard and your card will hit at the same time)

[adanthar]

I don't know. If he has notes on you from other tournaments as a solid player, I like this play.

The fact that 90% of the time this is KQ or A9o makes this play much better than it normally is, IMO.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the SB push means a weak ace at least 75% of the time. But here's the problem: let's say you are way ahead 75% of the time... you will still get outdrawn by a weaker ace 29% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get 29%? According to twodimes, the strongest lower Ace is A5:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=457884
pokenum -h ah kc - ad 5s -- 4h as 2s
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing As 2s 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Ah 664 67.07 302 30.51 24 2.42 0.683
5s Ad 302 30.51 664 67.07 24 2.42 0.317

Then comes A3:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=457887
pokenum -h ah kc - ad 3s -- 4h as 2s
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing As 2s 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Ah 673 67.98 293 29.60 24 2.42 0.692
3s Ad 293 29.60 673 67.98 24 2.42 0.308

Yes, these Aces will draw out on AK 30%+ of the time...but what about these:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=457876
pokenum -h ah kc - ad qs -- 4h as 2s
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing As 2s 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Ah 798 80.61 165 16.67 27 2.73 0.820
Qs Ad 165 16.67 798 80.61 27 2.73 0.180


http://twodimes.net/h/?z=457877
pokenum -h ah kc - ad js -- 4h as 2s
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing As 2s 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Ah 798 80.61 165 16.67 27 2.73 0.820
Js Ad 165 16.67 798 80.61 27 2.73 0.180

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=457879
pokenum -h ah kc - ad ts -- 4h as 2s
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing As 2s 4h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kc Ah 798 80.61 165 16.67 27 2.73 0.820
Ts Ad 165 16.67 798 80.61 27 2.73 0.180

Etc...

So, approximately....2/9 have 35% chance of sucking out, but 7/9 have only a 20% chance....multiplying it out and rounding up, I get about 24%. My 35%/20% estimate is generous, so I suspect the real chance of sucking out is closer to 22%.
This figure assumes that the villain is equally likely to hold any of the lower Aces. Since he's actually probably more likely to hold AQ-A9, the estimate should be revised further downward.

This doesn't, however, take into account that the villain could have A4 or A2. Maybe that's how you arrived at your 29% figure? If so, I may be wrong. However, I took "lower Ace" not to include two pair.

[woodguy]

Ugh.

I have seen insane players alot in the $50's as well lately so I can see why you called. (looked like he had a flush draw to me)

Now, that being said.

You have a call of 940 for a pot 1200 ~ 1.28-1 with TPTK and no draws except a runner runner boat or a set of A's and you still have essentially a full stack. Gotta grit yer teeth and muck.

Even if he doesn't have the set he's betting 940 to win 240, therefore he's not smart and you will beat him later when a better opportunity presents itself.

(even if he is smart and was trying to be tricky by representing the flush draw, its still not a good bet regardless of whether or not you called)

Then again, I've been called stupid twice today while playing so what the hell do I know? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

regards,
woodguy

[SlowStroke]

I would have called also.

My experience is this - if the small blind really had a hand he would go for a check raise, or bet what he thinks you might call.

When they move all in like that - it is most often a bluff or a draw that he does not want you to call.

But sometimes they have a big hand. Nothing you can do about that, just keep playing the percentages.

[dethgrind]

Looks like roughly 15% of the time a weaker ace will beat you, depending on whether he has backdoor draws (http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b=as+2s+4h&d=&h=ah+kc%0D%0Aad+ts) or not (http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b=as+2s+4h&d=&h=ah+kc%0D%0Aad+td). So if you could confidently put him on a weaker ace 75% of the time, you'd actually double up at least .75 * .85 ~ 64% of the time. This assumes he beats you no matter what the other 25%, which is pretty much true if he flopped a set or a straight, but not if he just has two pair. Then you've got reasonable outs.

I think a lot of people will disagree with this, and I'm not too sure myself, but I suspect the vast majority, if not all posters here would be best off taking that 65%+ chance of doubling up on the first few hands. From what I understand, this early in the tourney, chip EV and $EV are pretty much linearly related, i.e. doubling chips roughly equates to doubling $EV. You'd have to be an excellent player for that not to be true.

Correction: the weaker ace could have a gutshot as well (as ilya pointed out), which gives him a better shot at drawing out on you. This changes the numbers a bit.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
(even if he is smart and was trying to be tricky by representing the flush draw, its still not a good bet regardless of whether or not you called)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think it still wasn't a good bet if he was being tricky with a set?

[stupidsucker]

Id like to say I would lay this down occasionaly, but the truth is, I probably call this every time. Is it proper to lay it down? I think it makes you open to too many bluffs if you do, but I am willing to hear any argument.

[Irieguy]

That's why later, I said "a quarter." I'm not sure my point changes very much if the true weighted average of all weak aces turns out to be a few points different.

[Dominic]

I'm torn...so it depends on the texture of the table...if I have notes on a number of the players at the table and I'm confident against them, I fold this hand and play on...

If I have no real notes on the table I call...if I lose, I'm out in 10th and I can start a new SNG immediately...which will hopefully help my hourly rate! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(even if he is smart and was trying to be tricky by representing the flush draw, its still not a good bet regardless of whether or not you called)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why do you think it still wasn't a good bet if he was being tricky with a set?


[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO I think the best way to maximize a set in this case is a check raise. A very basic play, but effective none the less.

Most times his push will not get called, especially at the $50 level and he has gained nothing by his push.

The PF raiser will probably bet, and with 2 flush cards on board will probably bet the pot.

The set can then check raise (check raise all in if he wants) and take the pot down there.

The poster unfortunately called the bet, but most times the push from the SB, especially when no one is PC'd, will just result in the table folding.

The only callers will usually be the other two over sets.
So this can be the case where you will only get called if beaten.

In essence, he's betting 940 to win 240, and putting his whole stack at risk in the process which is not good poker.

regards,
woodguy

[ilya]

Good points, woodguy. Thanks for your response.
Although I don't play the $50s, I think you're probably right that the push won't get called with inferior hands often enough at that level. I do think this is (maybe marginally) one of those situations where the right play depends on the SnG level.
Specifically, I think that at the $10s the push is a pretty good play as it's likely enough that you will be called by top pair. I think so because I was getting called so often on my flop semi-bluffs at the $10s that I more or less gave up the play.

[woodguy]

For me this is just based on history.
Every month or so I will grind through all my loses in SnG's to check for leaks. (usually enough to keep 3 plumbers busy)

During one of my grinding sessions I looked at what I was calling all-ins with. Calling all in's with TPTK was successful for me 34.7% of the time, so I haved tried to avoid that spot. (this was mostly from $30's and a few $50's)

Its still all situational dependent, but knowing what my history is factors into my decsion making process.

regards,
woodguy

[woodguy]

I agree with your point about the $10's, pushing all in at that level can be like putting a bleeding hamster in piranha tank, someone's gonna bite. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

regards,
woodguy

[ilya]

mmmmmmm, bleeding hamster /images/graemlins/ooo.gif