Winning by not losing - Stars $10 SNG

[Ken Morris]

Among the many winning concepts illuminated by 2+2 and TPAP is that a good player can win simply by not losing. This concept, although simple, is not easy. It requires faith in the “system,” and a lot of patience. I thought the following experience might illustrate this point, and perhaps help those not already convinced.

The following occurred on TWO CONSECUTIVE HANDS, in a PokerStars $10 SNG. The names have been changed to protect the guilty.


Hero has been frustrated by poor cards, and hassled by the two unpredictable LAGs. With five still remaining, the situation looks pretty bleak.

HAND 1
PokerStars Game #398541539: Tournament #1456459, Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2004/04/21 - 18:27:35 (ET)
Table '1456459 1' Seat #8 is the button
Seat 1: Unknown (650 in chips)
Seat 3: LAG1 (2870 in chips)
Seat 4: Solid (2970 in chips)
Seat 7: LAG2 (6530 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero (480 in chips)

Unknown: posts small blind 100
LAG1: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [6d 7c]
Solid: folds
LAG2: raises 200 to 400
Hero: folds
Unknown: folds
LAG1: raises 2470 to 2870 and is all-in
LAG2: calls 2470
*** FLOP *** [6h Kc 8s]
*** TURN *** [6h Kc 8s] [Kh]
*** RIVER *** [6h Kc 8s Kh] [9d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
LAG1: shows [4s 4h] (two pair, Kings and Fours)
LAG2: shows [As Ks] (three of a kind, Kings)
LAG2 collected 5840 from pot

I’m not an expert, but I can’t imagine a 2+2er ever getting involved in this pot, much less pushing with (44) against a pre-flop raise. THINGS ARE LOOKING A BIT BRIGHTER.


HAND 2
PokerStars Game #398542660: Tournament #1456459, Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2004/04/21 - 18:28:21 (ET)
Table '1456459 1' Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Unknown (550 in chips)
Seat 4: Solid (2970 in chips)
Seat 7: LAG2 (9500 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero (480 in chips)
Solid: posts small blind 100
LAG2: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Jd Kc] (Wow, a hand!)
Hero: raises 280 to 480 and is all-in
Unknown: folds
Solid: calls 380
LAG2: calls 280 (??!)
*** FLOP *** [6h 4c As]
Solid: checks
LAG2: bets 600
Solid: folds
*** TURN *** [6h 4c As] [Qh]
*** RIVER *** [6h 4c As Qh] [9d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
LAG2: shows [Jc 7h] (high card Ace)
Hero: shows [Jd Kc] (high card Ace - King kicker)
Hero collected 1440 from pot

Anybody here think that “Solid” had a worse hand than J7o? I can almost see the smoke coming out of his ears. LAG2’s over-call tripled me up, and I managed to outlast the other short stack to finish ITM.

PS: In case someone wants to suggest that LAG2 was intentionally trying to prolong the bubble, and thus made a good play, let me point out that it was his THIRD all-in over-call of the tournament.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: In case someone wants to suggest that LAG2 was intentionally trying to prolong the bubble, and thus made a good play, let me point out that it was his THIRD all-in over-call of the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

LAG2 has 9500T, had to call 280, into a 1160 pot, and was last to act. This is very far from "all-in over call". Many players will do it with *anything* in this situation. The mistake PF is clearly by the guy you call "Solid". Why would he want to give LAG2 a chance to over-call so cheaply?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

LAG's mistake in hand 2 isn't the overcall. That's fine getting 4.14 - 1 from the pot for about 5% of his stack. What ridiculous about his play is betting at the dry side pot with nothing.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]

PS: In case someone wants to suggest that LAG2 was intentionally trying to prolong the bubble, and thus made a good play, let me point out that it was his THIRD all-in over-call of the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would prolonging the bubble with a big stack be so one could continue to bully and rack up blinds by taking advantage of lesser stacks playing very tight?

[Ken Morris]

Thanks for the comment.
Please explain "dry side" pot. It's new to me.

[codewarrior]

A "dry" side pot is one in which there is no money, therefore there is nothing to be gained by betting into it, i.e. checking down and letting the power of two hands decide if the all-in hand gets busted out of the tournament.

[redsimon]

[ QUOTE ]

The following occurred on TWO CONSECUTIVE HANDS, in a PokerStars $10 SNG. The names have been changed to protect the guilty.[ QUOTE ]




Leaving the HH #s in though doesn't protect their anonymity! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
A "dry" side pot is one in which there is no money, therefore there is nothing to be gained by betting into it

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a false statement. What is to be gained is the main pot, if you can get someone to fold their hand, rather than continue to bet into the side pot.

Right? I never understood this "nothing to be gained by betting at a dry side pot" idea. What am I missing?

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "dry" side pot is one in which there is no money, therefore there is nothing to be gained by betting into it


[/ QUOTE ] That seems like a false statement. What is to be gained is the main pot, if you can get someone to fold their hand, rather than continue to bet into the side pot.

Right? I never understood this "nothing to be gained by betting at a dry side pot" idea. What am I missing?

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a point in what you say. If big stack doesn't have any particular interest in the elimination of the all-in player (this is not unreasonable, since big stack is actually huge stack, so the bubble situation doesn't really apply to him), a bluff by him, dry-pot or not, might increase his chances of winning this whole particular pot - that's if the other live player folds. Then, he'll be facing only the all-in player. He might do it with any two cards. It's not necessarily -CEV.

However, in most SNG situations, you'll gain much more by letting the other live player a chance to bust the all-in player. So bluffing into a "dry-pot", is usually a stupid move. I must say that here, I don't see how it changes anything - especially if huge stack is only interested in winning more chips - i.e, this pot, and not in any "tournament EV" aspects of the situation.

But he probably didn't care about any kind of EV, and just bet his J7o, because he had a lot of chips in front of him.

[Ken Morris]

Thanks all for an excellent tactical lesson. Let me see if I have it:

1) The first player who called me might have done better to come in with a raise, to shut others out.
2) Because of the blinds and my short stack, the player who over-called was getting sufficient odds to play just about any two cards.
3) The second caller's subsequent bet into the "dry" side-pot increased his chances of winning the main pot, BUT also increased my chances of tripling up. If his priority had been to eliminate one additional player (me), he should have checked the hand down to increase the chances that I would bust out.

Have I got it?

Thanks again.