Being honest about situations

[ekky]

As the title suggests, this is primarily about being honest to yourself about the situation you are in, be it a cash table/sng/multi.. although it primarily applies to MTT's.

I was observing/helping a friend in a tournament today, which I feel encapsulates the point perfectly:

Scenario:

Blinds 1/2k

Stacks.. Hero 47k
Villain 53k

Situation in the tourny.. in the money and fast approaching the final table.

Hero's hand: 9/9
position: Big Blind

Villains hand: not yet..
position: Small blind

The action was uneventful, folded around to the cutoff.. who made it 3.5k. The small blind just smooth called... and hero made it 10k even.

Cut off instantly folded, and small blind went all in.

Hero instantly called.

I asked hero what his thinking was, and he said something like this:

"well, I put the person on a range of AK--AQ.. and any pair, therefore I am a big favorite against that hand. I am getting a pot overlay, so I insta-call"

I was watching ardently WITH him, and the SB had folded every blind steal, and his only showndown hands were AA/KK/AK/AA

In short, the small blind was not playing here without AA/KK/QQ/AK and maybe JJ.

When it came to hero's call... the pot was 3.5 + 3.5+ 10 + 47 = so he had to call 37k to win 64k.. getting 1.72/1.. meaning he needs 36.6% equity for this move to be ChipEV neutral, not getting into the discrepancies of the value of chips won vs chips lost.

His actual equity was about 33%.. and if you think the range of the SB is too tight? trust me... the applied range is almost too loose.

In short, it was a bad call given the correct assumptions.

now... the main thrust of this post, was about the range he applied... and made his range FIT the pot odds.

He saw that he was getting good odds, and decided that he wanted to take part in the action, and rather then be objective, and issue a correct range of hands for this person who was tighter then a <insert example>, he decided to almost fabricate a range, to suit:

a) his hand
b) the pot odds

After he lost the hand (the guy had AA naturally) he said again "oh well.. i was ahead of his range of hands" and used that to convince himself it was the correct move.

Given an objective analysis of the scenario, it was clearly an incorrect play... .but in his post tournament analysis, he made the cardinal sin of making his estimates fit his situation.

This is not an isolated example however. This behaviour is rampant. Its the single most common reason (in my opine) why people make it to a certain stage in a tournament and then *blow up*. They lose the objectivity that is essential, in order to make correct decisions.

The math of poker is USELESS, unless you are objective, and apply objective and accurate ranges for your opponents.If you are one of the people who makes the range fit the situation,you are fooling yourself, and your bankroll.

Any poker situation can be governed by math, as long as you apply stipulations and situational considerations. If these are incorrect, then your subsequent play will also be incorrect.

So, whilst I re-read this wittering and wonder what the point was, my message is:

always be honest about the situation you are in, and more importantly, dont let the situation alter your estimations of your villains hand ranges/folding liklihoods otherwise whilst the application of math mite be correct, the usefulness of it is null.

I would agree. Well put.....

[CardSharpCook]

A very good post Ekky, and something I still do sometimes. This weekend I was playing a NL tourney and was nearing the money. I had about 2/3 the avg, but enough to afford one more laydown. I made a steal raise with KJo from MP3 and the BB pushed. As I insta-called, he flipped AK. My mother (playing this at home), who has never played holdem, but has watched over my shoulder for a total of maybe 5 hours, said, "Now why did you call that? If you had folded you still would have had a decent stack." I lamely replied, "well, I folded the last three times they played back, I figured I had to call this time." Even my mother, who has never played the game, knew the correct move and yet I, a professional poker player, did not make it.

Very embarrassing.

CSC

[ekky]

[ QUOTE ]
Even my mother, who has never played the game, knew the correct move and yet I, a professional poker player, did not make it

[/ QUOTE ]

heh. I know this feeling all too well. My father will sit next to me and kibbitz my play, and when i decide to engage my "fancy play syndrome" outfit, he has more then a few choice words offered in my direction.

Most times he is rite, and I played it like a donkified punk!

If I could only control my urges to gamb000l, and practise what I so often preach, poker would become a lot more profitable for me.

[Conor]

Great post, and one which really hits home. I've been beating myself up over donkish plays that I have been making in spite of a heavy lump in my chest telling me "you are so boned." Especially in these 88-TT situations.

[bruce]

Great post!

About the only hand villian could have was AA. I don't care how oddly he played the hand, but given your description what else could he have? In spots like this
where you know villian has a particular hand screw the
math! FOLD!!!! I can do anything to tweek numbers and
make this a calling situation, but sometimes you just have
to forget about odds, ranges, images and just fold. About
the only thing I got out of TJ's book was that in round
1 in the main event when they push all in and you have
king king they always have ace ace.

Bruce

[WillMagic]

It should be noted that your friend's primary mistake was his reraise.

But in regard to your main point...it is worthwhile, but awkwardly expressed. Here is what you said:

[ QUOTE ]
dont let the situation alter your estimations of your villains hand ranges/folding liklihoods

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation? The situation is everything in poker! The situation is the action on previous streets, the pot size, your cards, your reads, your idea of what your opponent thinks you have, everything. So unless the word situation means something very different to you than it does to me, you most definitely should let the situation define your opponent's range of hands.

I think what you meant to say is don't rush into making big calls just because you are getting sizable pot odds. Put your opponent on a range of hands and DO THE MATH. That is a valid point.

Will

[ekky]

[ QUOTE ]
The situation? The situation is everything in poker! The situation is the action on previous streets, the pot size, your cards, your reads, your idea of what your opponent thinks you have, everything. So unless the word situation means something very different to you than it does to me, you most definitely should let the situation define your opponent's range of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]


Right. Once I re-read this I knew that I had made a bit of an error in elucidating what my intentions were. As you say, the situation is ALL that matters... and as long as you appraise it objectively, you will be ok.

your other quote: [ QUOTE ]
I think what you meant to say is don't rush into making big calls just because you are getting sizable pot odds. Put your opponent on a range of hands and DO THE MATH. That is a valid point.

[/ QUOTE ]

is what I was really getting at.

Ascertain a range of hands, and then do the math. Dont do the math and then figure out a range of hands, because the human trait is to figure out a way to call, rather than a way to fold.

If you do the math and then do the ranges, you will TOO often come up with an excuse to call..even if it is clearly false.

[Isura]

Nice post. This post got me thinking about an AQ hand that I believe I played badly tonight (just posted it too).

[ekky]

yes I saw that.

I think it all boils down to justification. If you can reasonably justify the ranges... then naturally you will be ok.. but when yu dont justify them.. but let them affect your playing standards.... thats when the errors occur