$109 NLHE MTT Deep Stacked: $ : athh

J

jjb76

Rising Star
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Total posts
2
partypoker, $50 + $5 - Hold'em No Limit - 3,500/7,000 (900 ante) - 6 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

Hero (UTG): 522,992 (75 bb)
Player2 (MP): 480,573 (69 bb)
Player3 (CO): 271,810 (39 bb)
Player4 (BU): 185,878 (27 bb)
Player5 (SB): 142,770 (20 bb)
Player6 (BB): 948,916 (136 bb)

Pre-Flop: (15,900) Hero (Hero) is UTG with T A
Hero (UTG) raises to 14,000, Player2 (MP) calls 14,000, 1 fold, Player4 (BU) calls 14,000, 1 fold, Player6 (BB) calls 7,000

Flop: (64,900) 5 K 4 (4 players)
Player6 (BB) checks, Hero (UTG) bets 21,417, Player2 (MP) calls 21,417, 2 players fold

Turn: (107,734) Q (2 players)
Hero (UTG) bets 72,181, Player2 (MP) folds

Total pot: 107,734
Hero (UTG) wins 107,734
 
J

jjb76

Rising Star
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Total posts
2
k8hh

partypoker, $500 + $30 - Hold'em No Limit - 800/1,600 (200 ante) - 6 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

Player6 (UTG): 104,528 (65 bb)
Player1 (MP): 128,776 (80 bb)
Hero (CO): 86,800 (54 bb)
Player3 (BU): 75,096 (47 bb)
Player4 (SB): 107,000 (67 bb)
Player5 (BB): 99,600 (62 bb)

Pre-Flop: (3,600) Hero (Hero) is CO with K 8
2 players fold, Hero (CO) raises to 3,520, 2 players fold, Player5 (BB) calls 1,920

Flop: (9,040) Q 6 J (2 players)
Player5 (BB) checks, Hero (CO) bets 4,972, Player5 (BB) calls 4,972

Turn: (18,984) J (2 players)
Player5 (BB) checks, Hero (CO) checks

River: (18,984) 4 (2 players)
Player5 (BB) checks, Hero (CO) bets 12,719, Player5 (BB) folds

Total pot: 18,984
Hero (CO) wins 18,984
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
10,303
Awards
1
Hand 1 ATs

I dont work with solvers, but if I have understood anything at all, then we are supposed to check this hand in a 4-way pot. I am also not to thrilled with the turn barrel. Yes we picked up a gutshot, but he called us on the flop with two players left to act behind him, so he should not have something like 5X or 66-JJ, that might fold to a second barrel.

Hand 2 K8s

Everything here looks really good to me. We have position in a heads-up pot against big blind, so we are certainly allowed to C-bet the flop wide. On the turn we picked up a flushdraw, but overall its a better card for his range, and we dont want to get check-raised off our equity. So I like checking back here. On the river we brick, and we certainly have hands, that want to bet for value when checked to, so we are allowed to bluff with some frequenzy as well. K8 dont have much showdown value, so it seems like a decent enough candidate to bluff.
 
FernA9ndo

FernA9ndo

Rock Star
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Total posts
361
Hand 2

bluffing on the river and in position, hard to decide but it was checked on the turn and 4 of clubs on the river completed a flush. He is folding some hands that we are losing.
 
T

TriszPoker

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Total posts
78
I have to agree with fundiver, first hand is borderline for me, do not see enough combos folding after flop call, second hand in my eyes was really well played.
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
Hand 1

We are definitely checking here OOP multiway. We are facing 3 different ranges and when we get called by one villan, we have no idea where we are in the hand, and when called by 2 villans or more - its a nightmare. I know we are UTG and have alot of Kx in our range, so do some of the callers behind, as well as some middling pairs that just can't fold in position to a single bet on such a dry flop. We get alot of honest responses multiway and blindly cbetting range here will effectively light chips on fire for you long term. The only good thing is when the Q comes, not only does it give you a gutshot broadway draw - but more importantly it's a great bluff card to actually get those middling pairs to fold and will likely polarize our villan to a Kx, or possibly a strong Qx hand. So by barreling turn we get those middling pairs to fold, and then we can decide whether or not to shut it down going into rivers.

Learn these multiway spots - tons of players are making massive mistakes here - studying these will net you tons of chips long term. Few rules of thumb multiway -- we are checking OOP overall around 82% of the time, only cbetting overpairs, 2 pair, middle and bottom sets. We have no bluffs OOP multiway. We only raise 2 pair or better multiway, and again, when we raise we have zero bluffs.


Hand 2

The cbet vs the BB defend range is more than fine here, standard and I like it alot. When the turn pairs the 2nd or 3rd card on the flop, its a GREAT spot to double barrel - puts a ton of pressure on top pair holdings and gets alot of folds. I would double barrel turn with a large bet of 60% or more, and with the intent to triple off the river when the flush comes in. Why? That's how we get a Qx to fold and we have no showdown with K hi.

As played, I don't like the bet-check-bet line. What are you representing here? A flush? A Qx hand you decided to pot control the turn with? You certainly don't have a J, you would've value bet - your Qx isn't very strong, or you would have value bet turn...most flush draws are unpaired and will continue firing turn to build a pot if they hit, and to give themselves a nice spot to bluff if they miss. So all in all...your story doesn't make sense.

What are you trying to get to fold by doing this? If I were your villan here, i would call you off with any 6x and all the middling pairs as well like 77s, 88s, 99s, etc. --- and if I had a hand with no showdown value, after you check turn I am bombing river when the flush comes in - and if you do have a Qx hand, I will make your life miserable and even if you don't fold, you will at least be considering it.

At the end of the day, your story has to make sense. Villan could've floated flop with T8, 9T, 89, KT, AT, etc - its not always a pair or a flush draw - don't fear the reaper. Understand betting sequences, what they will tell you about ranges, pick your spots and play the game.

In a nutshell that's all I did here - i deduced if I were your villan that your turn check means a weak Qx or middling pair at best, and if I have showdown value I am bluff catching - and if I do not have showdown I am leading river with a large bluff of my own targeting those holdings and better hi card hands that I cannot showdown against.
 
Collin Moshman

Collin Moshman

Poker Expert
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Total posts
1,317
Awards
3
I agree with others on not c-betting in hand #1, but do like your turn barrel a lot like Jon Poker says. I think your smallish c-bet keeps Villain in with a wide range and he should fold most hands worse than KX when you barrel the turn with higher % sizing.

Hand #2 is interesting. I think you can rep a hand like TT going for value on the river. I'm probably giving up a lot of the time here but I do like your bet, particularly against an opponent capable of folding.
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
Hand 1

We are definitely checking here OOP multiway. We are facing 3 different ranges and when we get called by one villan, we have no idea where we are in the hand, and when called by 2 villans or more - its a nightmare. I know we are UTG and have alot of Kx in our range, so do some of the callers behind, as well as some middling pairs that just can't fold in position to a single bet on such a dry flop. We get alot of honest responses multiway and blindly cbetting range here will effectively light chips on fire for you long term. The only good thing is when the Q comes, not only does it give you a gutshot broadway draw - but more importantly it's a great bluff card to actually get those middling pairs to fold and will likely polarize our villan to a Kx, or possibly a strong Qx hand. So by barreling turn we get those middling pairs to fold, and then we can decide whether or not to shut it down going into rivers.

Learn these multiway spots - tons of players are making massive mistakes here - studying these will net you tons of chips long term. Few rules of thumb multiway -- we are checking OOP overall around 82% of the time, only cbetting overpairs, 2 pair, middle and bottom sets. We have no bluffs OOP multiway. We only raise 2 pair or better multiway, and again, when we raise we have zero bluffs.


Overall this is solid advice/analysis. I think your "rules of thumb" are a bit rigid considering I have found (in MTTs up to $20, so not a buy in of this size) many spots to employ the 2BB steal multi way, when I notice the table is playing WAY TOO TIGHT post (too much fit or fold, without even considering the bet size). I think this is a product of regs overtabling and not paying attention to the details. :)
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
Overall this is solid advice/analysis. I think your "rules of thumb" are a bit rigid considering I have found (in MTTs up to $20, so not a buy in of this size) many spots to employ the 2BB steal multi way, when I notice the table is playing WAY TOO TIGHT post (too much fit or fold, without even considering the bet size). I think this is a product of regs overtabling and not paying attention to the details. :)


Probably not. If you pay attention even the spazzy players slow down when they are multi way. Simple GTO 3 way solver has us checking OOP multiway over 80% of the time, we only raise 2 pair or better, and we have virtually no bluffs ever multiway. These are 3 key points that have shown themselves across at least 150 Sims by now. The guy who runs the Sims for our study group has seen probably about 500+ sims so far and I know these few key points to be true. Havnt picked up on any other patterns or nuances of multiway situations yet aside from the IP player is supposed to bet 30% pot on almost every single flop when action checks to them.

The point is we are supposed to play super tight and super cautious multiway because we are no longer dealing with a single villan range as in heads up pots - we are dealing with multiple ranges and so this changes everything for us.

For instance, if we have a gutshot straight draw - heads up we are supposed to call for a bet of half pot or less -- when we are multiway we don't call ANY bets with a gutshot. We check/call 2nd pair a ton heads up -- we snap fold 2nd pr if we are facing a bet with any players left to act behind or with a bet and call in front. Hell, we are supposed to fold the weakest top pair combos with a bet and call in front of us...flop comes A9J and we have A8s - we snap fold to a flop bet and a call in front of us -- how many of you are doing this?

Point is, when facing multiple ranges our raw equity diminishes and with card removal the math beind what is a profitable call and what is not drastically changes. Matt Affleck did a webinar on the subject talking about the math behind "cubed ranges" and such. Very in depth, complex stuff.

Anyhow, you just shouldn't be betting OOP multiway - players are going to overfold sometimes because they are supposed to, that doesn't mean betting OOP is an exploit. You will find yourself losing more chips than you will gain by doing this long term. Guys like me will know you aren't supposed to bet OOP multiway, float you ridiculously to take it away on turns, or raise you on flops to polarize your range. Knowing what you are SUPPOSED to do and deviating will cause me to deviate and exploit you constantly. If you play back at me, that's fine...as long as it works 4/5 hands I'll keep applying pressure until you break.

In conclusion, I'm trying to offer you insight and proper playing strategies direct from solvers like PIO and simple 3 way GTO -- if you choose to ignore what these programs and the highest level players in the game are doing today - thats on you. Learning how to play OOP both heads up and multiway has changed my game by leaps and bounds. It can do the same for you if you open your mind and just look into the subject matter.
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
Ooooh - and I wanted to mention - I generally play 5-6 games at a time - but on certain days when I am doing well and not busting I will have 10 or 11 tables going...and I still notice fools deviating preflop bet sizing - I notice fools taking weird betting actions post flop, etc. I manage all of those table, still find time to focus and take notes. So any serious reg is not just preoccupied from multi tabling and over folding - they are more than likely just playing good poker.

Sometimes we are going to fold the best hand. Who cares? If I play too passively in a multiway pot and I fold the best hand and lose 6bb I don't care...I will get it back later in the game because I know I have an edge on the player field.
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
Probably not. If you pay attention even the spazzy players slow down when they are multi way. Simple GTO 3 way solver has us checking OOP multiway over 80% of the time, we only raise 2 pair or better, and we have virtually no bluffs ever multiway. These are 3 key points that have shown themselves across at least 150 Sims by now. The guy who runs the Sims for our study group has seen probably about 500+ sims so far and I know these few key points to be true. Havnt picked up on any other patterns or nuances of multiway situations yet aside from the IP player is supposed to bet 30% pot on almost every single flop when action checks to them.

The point is we are supposed to play super tight and super cautious multiway because we are no longer dealing with a single villan range as in heads up pots - we are dealing with multiple ranges and so this changes everything for us.

For instance, if we have a gutshot straight draw - heads up we are supposed to call for a bet of half pot or less -- when we are multiway we don't call ANY bets with a gutshot. We check/call 2nd pair a ton heads up -- we snap fold 2nd pr if we are facing a bet with any players left to act behind or with a bet and call in front. Hell, we are supposed to fold the weakest top pair combos with a bet and call in front of us...flop comes A9J and we have A8s - we snap fold to a flop bet and a call in front of us -- how many of you are doing this?

Point is, when facing multiple ranges our raw equity diminishes and with card removal the math beind what is a profitable call and what is not drastically changes. Matt Affleck did a webinar on the subject talking about the math behind "cubed ranges" and such. Very in depth, complex stuff.

Anyhow, you just shouldn't be betting OOP multiway - players are going to overfold sometimes because they are supposed to, that doesn't mean betting OOP is an exploit. You will find yourself losing more chips than you will gain by doing this long term. Guys like me will know you aren't supposed to bet OOP multiway, float you ridiculously to take it away on turns, or raise you on flops to polarize your range. Knowing what you are SUPPOSED to do and deviating will cause me to deviate and exploit you constantly. If you play back at me, that's fine...as long as it works 4/5 hands I'll keep applying pressure until you break.

In conclusion, I'm trying to offer you insight and proper playing strategies direct from solvers like PIO and simple 3 way GTO -- if you choose to ignore what these programs and the highest level players in the game are doing today - thats on you. Learning how to play OOP both heads up and multiway has changed my game by leaps and bounds. It can do the same for you if you open your mind and just look into the subject matter.


But if everyone played like this ^ wouldn't it be wise to lead smallish and watch everyone fold who missed?
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
In conclusion, I'm trying to offer you insight and proper playing strategies direct from solvers like PIO and simple 3 way GTO -- if you choose to ignore what these programs and the highest level players in the game are doing today - thats on you. Learning how to play OOP both heads up and multiway has changed my game by leaps and bounds. It can do the same for you if you open your mind and just look into the subject matter.


Also, with all due respect the only change I've seen in your game has been a $1,700 downswing, so your "product" can't be that great. :eek:
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    49.9 KB · Views: 12
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
If everyone stuck to the GTO strategy technically none of the players involved would be exploitable...but the minute you step out of line - you become exploitable.

Yes in situations where you KNOW players are being overly conservative, you can exploit by turning up your aggression a bit -- just know that if anyone adjusts to you, that whole scenario is out the window.

Basically what I'm getting at here, is if you get to navigating these spots properly, and you are ranging your villans correctly - the game becomes easier and you either risk chips with good insight into your situation, or you conserve chips while others squander. Both attributes are vital to making deep runs in tournaments
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
If everyone stuck to the GTO strategy technically none of the players involved would be exploitable...but the minute you step out of line - you become exploitable.

Yes in situations where you KNOW players are being overly conservative, you can exploit by turning up your aggression a bit -- just know that if anyone adjusts to you, that whole scenario is out the window.

Basically what I'm getting at here, is if you get to navigating these spots properly, and you are ranging your villans correctly - the game becomes easier and you either risk chips with good insight into your situation, or you conserve chips while others squander. Both attributes are vital to making deep runs in tournaments


And I'm saying beware of the doctrine of GTO/solver/whatever poker, making you too rigid. I'm a step ahead of you guys already. :)
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
Also, with all due respect the only change I've seen in your game has been a $1,700 downswing, so your "product" can't be that great. :eek:


And with all due respect my swing is normal - and I am winning over 15bb/100 on Chico even with this swing. Lord knows how much on global (alias bansheeguy) and I'm winning over 17bb/100 on ACR. So my sharkscope graph means dick to me lol. A 300 game downswing isn't good, but by no means is it beyond the realm of normal. Typical response from a results oriented standpoint.


Edit :: apologies to the OP for being out of line and acknowledging the pissing contest. I got tied up in someone who's clearly missing the point altogether and deviated from the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
And with all due respect my swing is normal - and I am winning over 15bb/100 on Chico even with this swing. Lord knows how much on global (alias bansheeguy) and I'm winning over 17bb/100 on ACR. So my sharkscope graph means dick to me lol. A 300 game downswing isn't good, but by no means is it beyond the realm of normal. Typical response from a results oriented standpoint


But wait...you rely so heavily on data to explain why your game is so good. Why ignore the data of playing 1400 MTTs with $0 profit?

Seems a bit like cherry picking to me. :)

Rely on data to tell you what to do, but ignore data when analyzing if you've done right?
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
And with all due respect my swing is normal - and I am winning over 15bb/100 on Chico even with this swing. Lord knows how much on global (alias bansheeguy) and I'm winning over 17bb/100 on ACR. So my sharkscope graph means dick to me lol. A 300 game downswing isn't good, but by no means is it beyond the realm of normal. Typical response from a results oriented standpoint.


Edit :: apologies to the OP for being out of line and acknowledging the pissing contest. I got tied up in someone who's clearly missing the point altogether and deviated from the topic at hand.


No pissing contest, just clarifying your misleading "advice."
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
And I'm saying beware of the doctrine of GTO/solver/whatever poker, making you too rigid. I'm a step ahead of you guys already. :)


To that I would say prove such a claim. If you are better than the Doug Polks, Nick Petrangalo's, Ben CBS and Matt Afflecks of the world - id love to have some insight into what that strategy would be.
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
To that I would say prove such a claim. If you are better than the Doug Polks, Nick Petrangalo's, Ben CBS and Matt Afflecks of the world - id love to have some insight into what that strategy would be.


That's what I'm trying to do. :)
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
But wait...you rely so heavily on data to explain why your game is so good. Why ignore the data of playing 1400 MTTs with $0 profit?

Seems a bit like cherry picking to me. :)

Rely on data to tell you what to do, but ignore data when analyzing if you've done right?



I'm profitable long term via my poker tracker results and my combined results across 4 online platforms. I cashed for over 17k total last year and profited close to 4k with an ABI just under $7. If you want to derive everything you need to know about it from my Chico graph sample - thats fine. I just think a 400k sample database is more accurate and more in line with what I am looking to achieve.

Again, you are focusing on the results as most players do - and I am focusing on the long term - ie: my bb/100 win rate -- which will showcase my overall performance, help me sew up leaks and I will play proper BRM, I will eventually win because math doesn't lie - and I will continue to grow.

Bottom line, if you play well, and you have the data/information to backup how well you are playing - grind on proper BRM, then you will win over the long term. It's just math
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
That's what I'm trying to do. :)


First you said you were already a "step ahead of us" because we are too rigid - and now you are working on it? I'm confused...which is it? And if so, do you have any data to back such a claim and any insight into such a strategy?
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
To that I would say prove such a claim. If you are better than the Doug Polks, Nick Petrangalo's, Ben CBS and Matt Afflecks of the world - id love to have some insight into what that strategy would be.


Grab my sharkscope stats (for all my names listed in my profile) and run them in your software and tell me if I'm good. :)

Or tell me if I'm a Doug Polk. *I hope I'm not*

OK, all fun aside here is my point.

If you looked at my stats, you know I'm good.

If you looked at any of my others posts, you know I'm trying to share my poker knowledge and help others develop into better players.

This process helps me/my game too.

Fully adhering to a system or style of play, even if it is "unexploitable" makes you exploitable. Multi-tabling too much makes you even more exploitable.

My advice to you is to step away from what I call the "rabbit" mindset. It's a reference to rabbit from Winnie the Pooh. You are too ensconced in every little statistical detail of what "optimal" poker is, forgetting that poker constantly changes. You also may be missing some other blatantly obvious spots that you are not taking advantage of, because you are too concerned with the details of how to play specifics hands/ranges. Sometimes tournaments are so easy that the "poker" doesn't even matter. Sometimes it really is too easy. :)

P.S. This "rabbit" mindset comes from the book, "The Tao of Pooh" written by Benjamin Hoff. Do yourself a favor and read this book! :)
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
First you said you were already a "step ahead of us" because we are too rigid - and now you are working on it? I'm confused...which is it? And if so, do you have any data to back such a claim and any insight into such a strategy?


Not, "I'm working on it" but "I've been trying to tell you."
 
Jon Poker

Jon Poker

Legend
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Total posts
1,324
Grab my sharkscope stats (for all my names listed in my profile) and run them in your software and tell me if I'm good. :)

Or tell me if I'm a Doug Polk. *I hope I'm not*

OK, all fun aside here is my point.

If you looked at my stats, you know I'm good.

If you looked at any of my others posts, you know I'm trying to share my poker knowledge and help others develop into better players.

This process helps me/my game too.

Fully adhering to a system or style of play, even if it is "unexploitable" makes you exploitable. Multi-tabling too much makes you even more exploitable.

My advice to you is to step away from what I call the "rabbit" mindset. It's a reference to rabbit from Winnie the Pooh. You are too ensconced in every little statistical detail of what "optimal" poker is, forgetting that poker constantly changes. You also may be missing some other blatantly obvious spots that you are not taking advantage of, because you are too concerned with the details of how to play specifics hands/ranges. Sometimes tournaments are so easy that the "poker" doesn't even matter. Sometimes it really is too easy. :)

P.S. This "rabbit" mindset comes from the book, "The Tao of Pooh" written by Benjamin Hoff. Do yourself a favor and read this book! :)


My point is - the strategy devised by the programs the top players in the world seems to be incorrect, via your opinion. That's what I am getting.

Yes, if you get of line vs a GTO player and they do not adjust, you can cause them to over fold and you will exploit them -- what I am saying is, if you zig - a good player will zag -- so when you deviate from conventional GTO strategy, you become exploitable - whether your villan takes advantage of that or not is another subject. This is not personal opinion, these are game theory facts.

I don't need to research you to see how "good" you or aren't - I don't care. My focus was on conversation only and not turning this into a results thing. If you want it to be a results thing - Jeff Boski is a good example. He employees alot of these said strategies and I'd say his ACR results are fairly strong for someone using strategies you say are less than optimal.
 
jordanbillie

jordanbillie

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Total posts
3,405
Awards
3
My point is - the strategy devised by the programs the top players in the world seems to be incorrect, via your opinion. That's what I am getting.

Yes, if you get of line vs a GTO player and they do not adjust, you can cause them to over fold and you will exploit them -- what I am saying is, if you zig - a good player will zag -- so when you deviate from conventional GTO strategy, you become exploitable - whether your villan takes advantage of that or not is another subject. This is not personal opinion, these are game theory facts.

I don't need to research you to see how "good" you or aren't - I don't care. My focus was on conversation only and not turning this into a results thing. If you want it to be a results thing - Jeff Boski is a good example. He employees alot of these said strategies and I'd say his ACR results are fairly strong for someone using strategies you say are less than optimal.


Good luck!

I'll be around if you ever have questions.
 
Top