$11 NLHE MTT: KQ fold to 3 bet?

[Dubstep]

PokerStars - $10+$1|2800/5600 Ante 700 NL - Holdem - 8 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

UTG+1: 33.8 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, hands: 15)
MP: 24.57 BB (VPIP: 30.77, PFR: 30.77, 3Bet Preflop: 14.29, Hands: 26)
MP+1: 47.34 BB (VPIP: 40.00, PFR: 26.67, 3Bet Preflop: 22.22, Hands: 15)
CO: 67.06 BB (VPIP: 13.33, PFR: 13.33, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 15)
BTN: 94.73 BB (VPIP: 27.78, PFR: 22.22, 3Bet Preflop: 11.11, Hands: 18)
SB: 21.15 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: -, Hands: 4)
BB: 170.13 BB (VPIP: 26.67, PFR: 21.43, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 15)
Hero (UTG): 29.9 BB

8 players post ante of 0.13 BB, SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 2.5 BB) Hero has K:club: Q:heart:

Hero raises to 2 BB, UTG+1 raises to 6 BB, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold

UTG+1 wins 6.5 BB

 

[horizon12]

Yes, its fold, in flop we will be in OOP , and dont think what we here have more equity ( vs pairs or domination ) so better fold...

 

[WiZZiM]

Yep easy fold here. Utg open and utg +1 3bet is pretty strong play by the villain.

 

[trent32la]

Fold every time, UTG+1 is only 3betting AJ+ TT+ and you will be OOP. Stacks aren't deep enough to call w/ KQ

 

[rumsey182]

no no no,.. 30BB effective this hand flops plenty fine flatting is very easy here,. there are cases shoving over top could be marginally ok,.. (better if we are dealing with like 24-26BB effective) but im not folding without a read

 

[WiZZiM]

Not sure I agree rumsay. I think since hes 3betting a utg opener we can just let this one go. If he did this on the co vs our mp open then yeah im with you. Just cant see many people 3beting in these spots that light. Could be wrong here thoigh

 

[horizon12]

no no no,.. 30BB effective this hand flops plenty fine flatting is very easy here,. there are cases shoving over top could be marginally ok,.. (better if we are dealing with like 24-26BB effective) but im not folding without a read

here only fold , work with pokerstove vs diferent range hands, and you will see what here fold..

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

no no no,.. 30BB effective this hand flops plenty fine flatting is very easy here,. there are cases shoving over top could be marginally ok,.. (better if we are dealing with like 24-26BB effective) but im not folding without a read

I disagree. This is an easy fold, IMO.

Now, if I was the button and the BB raised me id probably flat and see a flop in position. If it was blind vs blind I might 4bet shove.

As it is 3bet in early position is a VERY strong range and KQ is not doing very well against that range. Let's pretend that range is TT+ and AK/AQ we have 27% equity. If we extend that down to 66+, AK, AQ and AJ we now have 34% equity. It's hard to imagine them having a wider 3bet range than that.

Keep it simple and just fold and wait for a better spot.

 

[RamdeeBen]

Snap fold here his range for a 3b from positions is pretty strong plus he seems quite tight even tho it's only 15 hands it's enough to fold here. If someone told me I had to pick a hand defend here i would much prefer defending a hand like 78s than a hand we are very likely dominated with.

Later positions like say co vs button this can be a defend.

 

[rumsey182]

i think we are discounting how well KQ flops tbh and the value of being able to c/r on a decent amount of flops

 

[RamdeeBen]

i think we are discounting how well KQ flops tbh and the value of being able to c/r on a decent amount of flops

We open UTG, a player who hasn't played a single hand in 15, 3B's from UTG+1. I think you're way overestimating how well KQ plays vs this particular player in this spot, make this BTN vs CO, defending seems correct but it's soooo unlikely this isn't a strong range given the actual positions.

As I said before, 78s would play a LOT better here as we would likely have all live cards if we had to pick KQ or 78s vs this guy, we should always go for 78s. Say the flop comes K high or Q high, you can never be happy calling more than 1 street if he barrels. It's very likely AK/AQ/JJ+ all of which plays much better than calling KQ and our hand is just a massive reverse implied odds hand to play here.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

We open UTG, a player who hasn't played a single hand in 15, 3B's from UTG+1. I think you're way overestimating how well KQ plays vs this particular player in this spot, make this BTN vs CO, defending seems correct but it's soooo unlikely this isn't a strong range given the actual positions.

As I said before, 78s would play a LOT better here as we would likely have all live cards if we had to pick KQ or 78s vs this guy, we should always go for 78s. Say the flop comes K high or Q high, you can never be happy calling more than 1 street if he barrels. It's very likely AK/AQ/JJ+ all of which plays much better than calling KQ and our hand is just a massive reverse implied odds hand to play here.

I couldn't agree more

 

[rumsey182]

We open UTG, a player who hasn't played a single hand in 15, 3B's from UTG+1. I think you're way overestimating how well KQ plays vs this particular player in this spot, make this BTN vs CO, defending seems correct but it's soooo unlikely this isn't a strong range given the actual positions.

As I said before, 78s would play a LOT better here as we would likely have all live cards if we had to pick KQ or 78s vs this guy, we should always go for 78s. Say the flop comes K high or Q high, you can never be happy calling more than 1 street if he barrels. It's very likely AK/AQ/JJ+ all of which plays much better than calling KQ and our hand is just a massive reverse implied odds hand to play here.

we both actually made the same mistake,.. we made assumptions about the raiser.

We have 15 hands, so the HU stat means nothing


My assumption was, we can c/shove favorable flops profitably and the overlay of the flop cbet ( assuming we get one) is enough to make up for equity preflop


I still think it can be profitable ( but i can't make these assumptions in a vacuum)

also to your worry about reverse implied odds,.. I'm not shoving when we flop Kxx or something like that, generally i would be trying to let his range be as wide as possible

The c/shove would be more on j10x boards or 910x boards where our draw is more to a nutted hand. It wouldn't be the goal to just flop a pair, it would be to have enough equity when i run into a massive hand and collect a nice sized pot when he doesn't ( assuming i can make underpairs and such fold to an extent)

Like plenty of flops i would still just c/f,.. but that is fine if i made up for it in other permutations of the flop

Let me ask you this: do you ever have a range for calling villains range then if you don't call KQo?

 

[WiZZiM]

Since these type of spots dont really happen that often. I think you can easily get caught up in range vs range equities. It doesnt happen often ao lets just nit it up vs an obviously strong range instead of taking thin long term edges which may or may not show long term profit.

I would think long term that calling in this spot with kq may be close to a good play. But theres no question its thin and likely is not a spot where we are going to be making a lot of money either way. For all these reasons I fold. Interested to hear your thoughts rumsay.

 

[rumsey182]

Since these type of spots dont really happen that often. I think you can easily get caught up in range vs range equities. It doesnt happen often ao lets just nit it up vs an obviously strong range instead of taking thin long term edges which may or may not show long term profit.

I would think long term that calling in this spot with kq may be close to a good play. But theres no question its thin and likely is not a spot where we are going to be making a lot of money either way. For all these reasons I fold. Interested to hear your thoughts rumsay.

thin and profitable is still +ev

the better you are, the more you can make thin decisions and likely still be on the +ev side (by definition)

not saying i am, just saying in general

 

[WiZZiM]

Yes but the point is. Its plus ev a very small amount of the time. And since it happens so infrequently it might be best to just nit it up and forget about the plus ev spot.

I mean overall the ev we get here is never going to amount to much in this one spot alone. But it could be a lot more of a negative ev play since there isnt much in their range that we dominate.

I just think that dropping this spot and maybe raise 1 percent more buttons is going to show more of a differance to the bottom line.

These are just my thoughts. I really dont know if im right about this but would like to find out.

 

[WiZZiM]

Anyone want to do some ev calcs on it? I woukd but I have no computer...

 

[rumsey182]

Yes but the point is. Its plus ev a very small amount of the time. And since it happens so infrequently it might be best to just nit it up and forget about the plus ev spot.

I mean overall the ev we get here is never going to amount to much in this one spot alone. But it could be a lot more of a negative ev play since there isnt much in their range that we dominate.

I just think that dropping this spot and maybe raise 1 percent more buttons is going to show more of a differance to the bottom line.

These are just my thoughts. I really dont know if im right about this but would like to find out.

if it is net +ev, it is net +ev. It can either be neutral,. +ev, or -ev. There is no +ev some of the time or not

"just nit up" is not logic, so please stop basing your logic on that.

we don't have to dominate peoples ranges to make it +ev, plus we can make people fold some of the time too.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

tournament equity/EV is different than simple +EV

I'm not going to use the dreaded term "ICM" because then people start telling me "that only matters in SnGs and the Final Table" so, fine I won't say that.

But I will say that it is often wise to pass up marginally +EV spots in a tournament where each chip you lose is worth more than each chip you gain.

Especially when you are not even sure if the play is +EV to begin with. And especially if it reduces your stack size so that you cannot play in a better+EV spot later (because we can't just "top up" whenever we experience variance).

Also, even if it is slightly +EV you may never ever achieve a sample size necessary to realize the "potential" long term gain. If you are a tourney grinder who chases nice structures on the weekends, you may only play 30 big tourneys a year. It could take a lifetime of soul crushing variance to realize a tiny profit on a move like this.

Which is why 90+% of the tourney veterans who replied to this thread said "easy fold"

 

[Aces2w1n]

I let go of KQo when I was 3betted... strong table though ... same theory as missjacki. its just not worth winning a lil bit to lose a lot

unless ofc we get a perfect flop and he cant let go of his AA then its pay day.

 

[rumsey182]

tournament equity/EV is different than simple +EV

I'm not going to use the dreaded term "ICM" because then people start telling me "that only matters in SnGs and the Final Table" so, fine I won't say that.

But I will say that it is often wise to pass up marginally +EV spots in a tournament where each chip you lose is worth more than each chip you gain.

Especially when you are not even sure if the play is +EV to begin with. And especially if it reduces your stack size so that you cannot play in a better+EV spot later (because we can't just "top up" whenever we experience variance).

Also, even if it is slightly +EV you may never ever achieve a sample size necessary to realize the "potential" long term gain. If you are a tourney grinder who chases nice structures on the weekends, you may only play 30 big tourneys a year. It could take a lifetime of soul crushing variance to realize a tiny profit on a move like this.

Which is why 90+% of the tourney veterans who replied to this thread said "easy fold"

when your far away from the money ( no idea if we are or not in this hand) cEV basically overtakes tournament equity in terms of importance, and visa versa in late stages with high blinds.


To your lifetime statement: isn't that true with anything in poker? The important thing is if you add something in that is profitable, it should long-term increase profitability.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

when your far away from the money ( no idea if we are or not in this hand) cEV basically overtakes tournament equity in terms of importance, and visa versa in late stages with high blinds.

I disagree with this. cEV and $EV are not opposites or competing goals; they are 2 different ways of measuring the same spot but $EV is ALWAYS the primary goal. One is a general measurement and the other is a precise measurement. Like measuring water in cups for cooking, and in milliliters for chemistry.

But because early in the tournament $EV is closer to cEV than at any other time in the tournament; and because cEV is relatively easy to figure out and $EV is quite difficult to figure out, many players just choose to ignore $EV early in a tournament. That doesn't mean the difference is gone...it's just that the difference is small enough not to worry about UNLESS you are talking about one of these barely profitable spots. If the cEV is +1 chip off a starting stack of 10,000 then this is a move we can pass on because the $EV will be lower than that. At the and of the day, $EV is really all that matters.

To your lifetime statement: isn't that true with anything in poker? The important thing is if you add something in that is profitable, it should long-term increase profitability.

No. The bigger the edge you are pushing the lower the sample size required to realize the profitability of that move. It takes very few tourneys to see that jamming with AA preflop is +EV because the edge is so huge.

 

[WiZZiM]

JackI I think you are basically saying what im trying to say. Sure it might be a profitable spot. But if it nets us only 50 chips net its going to make us even less in terms of dollars. If this type of spot came up more often then sure taking that small 50 chips is way more worrh it since it happens so often.

So yeah.. nit it up..

 

[rumsey182]

JackI I think you are basically saying what im trying to say. Sure it might be a profitable spot. But if it nets us only 50 chips net its going to make us even less in terms of dollars. If this type of spot came up more often then sure taking that small 50 chips is way more worrh it since it happens so often.

So yeah.. nit it up..

it is hard to qualify ones edge honestly thou tbh bc it doesn't always correlate to ROI bc of how much variance is involved

generally speaking i think people over estimate their ( Dunning–Kruger effect) is a great example of this but the problem is plenty of competent people in poker are ego driven and refuse to admit potential weaknesses.

 

[Everybodylovesdeuces]

I would say in general this is not a profitable play. However there may be some certain time against certain opponents where a flat (or even more rarely a 4-bet) is a better play. But you need a dead read on them to do this and have some mean post-flop skills cause you're going to be in a big pot oop. A fold will at least keep you out of trouble. I always say when in doubt, find a better spot.