$250 NLHE MTT Deep Stacked: $$250 NLHE MTT Deep Stacked: QQ Shove on Flop (live) - correct play?

[NWPatriot]

$250 NLHE MTT Deep Stacked: $$250 NLHE MTT Deep Stacked: QQ Shove on Flop (live) - correct play?

Situation: Live $250 tournament, 105 players, 20 left, 15 paid (very close to bubble) - first place pays $5900. I have ~80K chips and villain has ~120K chips (a few hands before this I had the 120K and he had the 80K as I previously folded my draw to his large bet).

Blinds: 1000 - 2000 -2000BBA, 30 minute levels

Preflop:
Hero (me) SB: I bet 6K with QQ (about a pot size bet)
Villain BB: raises to 15K, I call (villain plays well, and his bets are always larger than the rest of the table are making)
My logic with a call is, I want to see a flop that has no A or K before I commit my stack.

Flop come Tx9X6X.
Hero: check (my plan is a check raise because I KNOW villain will make a large bet for me.
Villain: he doesn't disappoint and bets 20K.
Hero: I snap shove my stack w QQ
Villain: he makes the call for about 45K into a pot that has ~100K.
We turn over our cards and he has TJo and I show the QQ.

Villain is getting about 2:1 for his money, but loses 4/5 times. I KNEW i got it in good and did. I think he KNEW he was behind, but made the call anyway, based on his stack.

When I was at 120K, I could have folded my way through the bubble, but i decided to play to win.

Should I have shoved preflop (may not have mattered as we were probably getting it all in anyway)?
I wouldn't consider this a slow play, but i really hoped for a fold to my shove. Was this a reasonable line?

 

[eetenor]

NL is about the players.

Situation: Live $250 tournament, 105 players, 20 left, 15 paid (very close to bubble) - first place pays $5900. I have ~80K chips and villain has ~120K chips (a few hands before this I had the 120K and he had the 80K as I previously folded my draw to his large bet).

Blinds: 1000 - 2000 -2000BBA, 30 minute levels

Preflop:
Hero (me) SB: I bet 6K with QQ (about a pot size bet)
Villain BB: raises to 15K, I call (villain plays well, and his bets are always larger than the rest of the table are making)
My logic with a call is, I want to see a flop that has no A or K before I commit my stack.

Flop come Tx9X6X.
Hero: check (my plan is a check raise because I KNOW villain will make a large bet for me.
Villain: he doesn't disappoint and bets 20K.
Hero: I snap shove my stack w QQ
Villain: he makes the call for about 45K into a pot that has ~100K.
We turn over our cards and he has TJo and I show the QQ.

Villain is getting about 2:1 for his money, but loses 4/5 times. I KNEW i got it in good and did. I think he KNEW he was behind, but made the call anyway, based on his stack.

When I was at 120K, I could have folded my way through the bubble, but i decided to play to win.

Should I have shoved preflop (may not have mattered as we were probably getting it all in anyway)?
I wouldn't consider this a slow play, but i really hoped for a fold to my shove. Was this a reasonable line?

Thank U 4 posting.

We have 40 bb's and should be playing a 40bb tournament strategy.

All of our actions in NL are player driven but you seem to be concerned with getting sucked out on, not on getting max value from a weak player.
If this player calls 4 bets preflop with J10 off, we want to shove preflop. What if this flop
came Axx this player could have bet you off your QQ with J10 or he check folds if you bet the turn. Both are disasters.

On the flop why are we snap check raising hoping for a fold? You said you decided to play to win or go out so why a fold? Why not call if there is a chance they will fold AK they have 23% equity. You said play for the win- you want double ups when you have QQ here. Playing to win means allowing the villain to stack commit themselves. Which means taking actions which look weak not strong.

Luckily in this case despite your wanting folds incorrectly, this villain just did everything they could to make your plays look good.

So what is the learning point here. At 40 BB's we want to play for stacks with QQ. If we have to slow play than that is what we do. If we can check raise get it in that is good too. We do not worry about AA KK or suckouts when we have 40 BB unless the player is soo tight they only play AA KK AK for 3 bets. That means that villain does not 3 bet JJ -1010 - AJ suited etc.


Hope this helps

 

[mara2259]

Not sure if I can give you advice. I don’t play at such limits, but in my opinion you played your hand very well against an aggressive opponent. Preflop push would most likely end in a blind win.

 

[NWPatriot]

Awesome, thanks for this response, and for providing some new insights for me. I would like to walk through some of your comments if you don't mind. I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to have a better understanding of where the flaws are in my thinking. Thanks for reading.

All of our actions in NL are player driven but you seem to be concerned with getting sucked out on, not on getting max value from a weak player.

You are right, I realize that I have not been able to shed my "value based strategy". I know I need to, and I take my small share of non-value pots, but they are always small. In fact, I keep copious notes on all my tournaments and when I did my post-mortem notes on this tourney I wrote to myself "probably played my cards too much", which for me means I need more player and situation focus.
Yes, I am very concerned about being sucked out on, especially near the bubble. Is your comment a "cash game" input or a "tournament" input. I can definitely understand that in a cash game, we must play our +EV spots everytime. In a tournament, especially near the bubble, I am not sure that an identical strategy is best.

If this player calls 4 bets preflop with J10 off, we want to shove preflop. What if this flop
came Axx this player could have bet you off your QQ with J10 or he check folds if you bet the turn. Both are disasters.

I am not a fan of being all-in for my tournament life with just a pair. QQ looks fantastic, but it is fairly vulnerable to all sorts of invisible holdings. Yes, I ended up allin, but only after 72% of the cards were known. I know that my equity did not improve after this flop, but if an A or K come, my equity would have dropped dramatically (from +80% as is, to about 55%). 55% would be a coin flip - not good enough when I was in great shape with 2x avg stack at the bubble.
For me, I like any fold, which I didn't get. If I had shoved pre-flop over his 15K raise, I would have been happy with a fold and winning 20K worth of chips (10bb). Again, i think pocket pairs work great in cash games because we are happy to win 5/6 times. In a tournament, 5/6 gets you to the rail when the 1/6 comes (and it WILL come sooner or later).

On the flop why are we snap check raising hoping for a fold? You said you decided to play to win or go out so why a fold? Why not call if there is a chance they will fold AK they have 23% equity. You said play for the win- you want double ups when you have QQ here. Playing to win means allowing the villain to stack commit themselves. Which means taking actions which look weak not strong.

Yes I would have gladly accepted a fold, and that is what I wanted. My stack would have increased by 50% (+40K) from where I started the hand. Essentially villain and I would have swapped stack sizes. Of course, I was 95% certain I was ahead, so a call wasn't the worst thing, but I would have preferred that he realized his potodds were not good enough to support his 20% equity - he had to know he was behind at this point, and I am pretty sure he knew he was - I gave him enough clues.
Yes i could have slow played to extract value rather than apply pressure. I just preferred to not get to showdown with a pair.

Luckily in this case despite your wanting folds incorrectly, this villain just did everything they could to make your plays look good.

Thanks, I will need to study up some more to change my paradigm concerning "wanting folds" and "wanting calls". In my head, if I don't have a set or better, I want folds (maybe top 2 pair or better). Otherwise, I am happy to extract as much as possible. It sounds like I need to evaluate these thresholds. (Of course, these are board dependant thresholds.) Again, does this threshold get tweaked when playing cash vs. tournaments?

So what is the learning point here. At 40 BB's we want to play for stacks with QQ. If we have to slow play than that is what we do. If we can check raise get it in that is good too. We do not worry about AA KK or suckouts when we have 40 BB unless the player is soo tight they only play AA KK AK for 3 bets. That means that villain does not 3 bet JJ -1010 - AJ suited etc.

I guess, in the end I agree, as we did get it in. I had never played with this player before, and he had just moved to this table maybe an hour before. I did not put him on a very tight range, but I did know that if we were both in the hand the pot would be huge.
It sounds like you are OK with getting it all in, maybe how it got there was not how you would have done it. Hindsight, about the only time he was possibly going to fold would have been a preflop shove - since he had me covered, he may have called with TJo anyway.

Obviously, I lost the hand, or I wouldn't be second guessing my play. Turn 8x, River Tx - for trips - basically a 2 outer. A Jx would have given me a straight, and a 7 would have given both of us a straight. I would have had 15% of the tournament chips if not for a damn 2 outer - I hate this game - but what can I do? the only result that would have helped me was a villain fold. I was not going to be able to keep the stacks from going in after the flop.

 

[eetenor]

Hand strength vs villains strength

Awesome, thanks for this response, and for providing some new insights for me. I would like to walk through some of your comments if you don't mind. I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to have a better understanding of where the flaws are in my thinking. Thanks for reading.

You are right, I realize that I have not been able to shed my "value based strategy". I know I need to, and I take my small share of non-value pots, but they are always small. In fact, I keep copious notes on all my tournaments and when I did my post-mortem notes on this tourney I wrote to myself "probably played my cards too much", which for me means I need more player and situation focus.
Yes, I am very concerned about being sucked out on, especially near the bubble. Is your comment a "cash game" input or a "tournament" input. I can definitely understand that in a cash game, we must play our +EV spots everytime. In a tournament, especially near the bubble, I am not sure that an identical strategy is best.

I am not a fan of being all-in for my tournament life with just a pair. QQ looks fantastic, but it is fairly vulnerable to all sorts of invisible holdings. Yes, I ended up allin, but only after 72% of the cards were known. I know that my equity did not improve after this flop, but if an A or K come, my equity would have dropped dramatically (from +80% as is, to about 55%). 55% would be a coin flip - not good enough when I was in great shape with 2x avg stack at the bubble.
For me, I like any fold, which I didn't get. If I had shoved pre-flop over his 15K raise, I would have been happy with a fold and winning 20K worth of chips (10bb). Again, i think pocket pairs work great in cash games because we are happy to win 5/6 times. In a tournament, 5/6 gets you to the rail when the 1/6 comes (and it WILL come sooner or later).


Yes I would have gladly accepted a fold, and that is what I wanted. My stack would have increased by 50% (+40K) from where I started the hand. Essentially villain and I would have swapped stack sizes. Of course, I was 95% certain I was ahead, so a call wasn't the worst thing, but I would have preferred that he realized his potodds were not good enough to support his 20% equity - he had to know he was behind at this point, and I am pretty sure he knew he was - I gave him enough clues.
Yes i could have slow played to extract value rather than apply pressure. I just preferred to not get to showdown with a pair.

Thanks, I will need to study up some more to change my paradigm concerning "wanting folds" and "wanting calls". In my head, if I don't have a set or better, I want folds (maybe top 2 pair or better). Otherwise, I am happy to extract as much as possible. It sounds like I need to evaluate these thresholds. (Of course, these are board dependant thresholds.) Again, does this threshold get tweaked when playing cash vs. tournaments?

I guess, in the end I agree, as we did get it in. I had never played with this player before, and he had just moved to this table maybe an hour before. I did not put him on a very tight range, but I did know that if we were both in the hand the pot would be huge.
It sounds like you are OK with getting it all in, maybe how it got there was not how you would have done it. Hindsight, about the only time he was possibly going to fold would have been a preflop shove - since he had me covered, he may have called with TJo anyway.

Obviously, I lost the hand, or I wouldn't be second guessing my play. Turn 8x, River Tx - for trips - basically a 2 outer. A Jx would have given me a straight, and a 7 would have given both of us a straight. I would have had 15% of the tournament chips if not for a damn 2 outer - I hate this game - but what can I do? the only result that would have helped me was a villain fold. I was not going to be able to keep the stacks from going in after the flop.

Thank U 4 responding.

I will take this one question at a time as there are a lot of aspects to cover for all your questions.

Firstly.
Regarding playing based on hand strength based on a linear strength model. Ie AA is better than 99.

Playing your cards first VS villains first, situations second and cards third.
In NL your cards matter least. It is your range vs your villains range. So A2 and AK and 56 suited have similar strength vs a player who plays J10 and folds when they miss and never folds when they hit-just an example.

We should play our hands based on the hands relative strength vs opponents and in certain situations. That is what a squeeze play is. You raise not on hand value but on fold potential.


So QQ vs this villain is an all in preflop or a slow play trap. If the villain was soo tight that a 3 bet was AA KK only, QQ is a fold because the relative strength of the QQ changes.
So we are always adjusting the strength of our hands vs the villains ranges and the way that villain plays their range.
So vs a villain that plays top pair J10 on 10xx board JJ QQ KK AA A10 K10 Q10 all have similar value at -40BB ish on that flop.

My point is we must apply this villain first- situation second -cards third approach to each hand we play.

In the hand you played. You had a weak villain and 40 BB's in a tournament and QQ. So folds are not what we want. Weak villains are our bread and butter. We play to get their stacks with all our hands but we certainly expect to get their stacks often when we have QQ.

Our actions are not based on how far a head are we, but are we ahead?
When we are ahead we want to get our villains to commit their stacks. We win at poker by having the equity advantage and getting as much money in as we can when we do. If you repeat this situation over and over you will win more tournaments than if you do not.

Next post I will answer your bubble play question in more depth but the above sentences let you know what my stance is.

Hope this helps

 

[NWPatriot]

...Playing your cards first VS villains first, situations second and cards third...My point is we must apply this villain first- situation second -cards third approach to each hand we play.

In the hand you played. You had a weak villain and 40 BB's in a tournament and QQ. So folds are not what we want. Weak villains are our bread and butter. We play to get their stacks with all our hands but we certainly expect to get their stacks often when we have QQ.

Our actions are not based on how far ahead are we, but are we ahead?
When we are ahead we want to get our villains to commit their stacks. We win at poker by having the equity advantage and getting as much money in as we can when we do. If you repeat this situation over and over you will win more tournaments than if you do not...

Thanks.

I have worked with ranges and frankly have had a hard time applying them. I think I can put my opponents on a range, but I always fall back on "my hand vs their range", rather than "my range vs their range". So you are right, my thought process is "cards first, situation second, ranges last (validation step essentially)"

Since the villain had me covered, I was never getting him to commit his whole stack, at most it was 2/3 to 3/4 of it. Maybe this matters not, but it certainly would have been better for me if I had him covered.

You said: "Our actions are not based on how far ahead are we, but are we ahead?" I have seen so many suckouts and have gotten outdrawn so many times, that my natural response is to be more careful when I am marginally ahead, rather than being miles ahead. Obviously it is much easier to play when you are miles ahead, and much tougher to play these in between and vulnerable hands. I feel that if I lose my stack with a marginal hand, then it is my own fault for putting myself in that situation.

So my goal is to try and learn how best to manage variance - I know I can't eliminate it. It is killing me - my last 5 tournament bustouts have all been river cards - this means I am getting it in good and getting toasted. The only way to really stop this is to get folds and not get to showdown. But this is probably a topic for another thread.

Great dialog, thanks for your time. Obviously, if I were a pro, I wouldn't need the help or even ask the questions. Keep it coming. You are giving me good stuff to consider.

 

[eetenor]

Suckout Tilt

Thanks.

I have worked with ranges and frankly have had a hard time applying them. I think I can put my opponents on a range, but I always fall back on "my hand vs their range", rather than "my range vs their range". So you are right, my thought process is "cards first, situation second, ranges last (validation step essentially)"

Since the villain had me covered, I was never getting him to commit his whole stack, at most it was 2/3 to 3/4 of it. Maybe this matters not, but it certainly would have been better for me if I had him covered.

You said: "Our actions are not based on how far ahead are we, but are we ahead?" I have seen so many suckouts and have gotten outdrawn so many times, that my natural response is to be more careful when I am marginally ahead, rather than being miles ahead. Obviously it is much easier to play when you are miles ahead, and much tougher to play these in between and vulnerable hands. I feel that if I lose my stack with a marginal hand, then it is my own fault for putting myself in that situation.

So my goal is to try and learn how best to manage variance - I know I can't eliminate it. It is killing me - my last 5 tournament bustouts have all been river cards - this means I am getting it in good and getting toasted. The only way to really stop this is to get folds and not get to showdown. But this is probably a topic for another thread.

Great dialog, thanks for your time. Obviously, if I were a pro, I wouldn't need the help or even ask the questions. Keep it coming. You are giving me good stuff to consider.

Thank U 4 responding.

Ok forget everything else we have to deal with suckout tilt. If you are adjusting your play to not get it in good because of suckouts we have to change that mindset first before any strategies can be studied and applied.

None of the best tournament players worry about suckouts. Why because you cannot. It is beyond our control. If it is beyond our control then we cannot game plan for it. When we adjust for suckouts it is always to play our hands weakly. Weakness other than for trapping purposes is terrible in poker.

What seems to have happened to you is the pain of losing in the short term has you focused on the short term. NL tournaments are about losing many and winning some. A study of online NL tournament crushers found that they made most of their money in only 5% of the tournaments they play in.

Why because they are playing to win. What does that mean to you?

To great tournament players winning means getting all the chips in when you have any equity advantage. They want to get to final tables not to min cash.

With that said I understand your pain. I understand why you "feel like a dog that has been kicked to much"

I to feel this way at times. I as well make the mistake of not being "Constantly Optimistically Aggressive".

What happens is we begin to play emotionally not rationally. That is not good.

I have in my possession two ebooks from Jared Tendler. "The Mental Game of Poker" Vol 1 and 2

These books are great. They cost nothing compared to the value you will get back at the tables. I just looked up vol 1 you can get it for $10 in paper back. Buy these books read them and when you have questions reach out to me and we can discuss them.

Fixing Suckout tilt will make you thousands of dollars. Right now it should be your number one area of improvement.

Hope this helps

 

[scubed]

Should I have shoved preflop (may not have mattered as we were probably getting it all in anyway)?
I wouldn't consider this a slow play, but i really hoped for a fold to my shove. Was this a reasonable line?

On 40 big blinds effective I think Hero should 4-bet shove preflop.

In some notes I took from a webinar with Alex Fitzgerald I wrote down the following range as a 4-bet shove preflop: TT+ AQs+ Ako (50 combos or a 3.77% frequency).


Recognizing that there are ICM consideration, I don't know if a 4-bet shove is correct.

 

[NWPatriot]

On 40 big blinds effective I think Hero should 4-bet shove preflop.

In some notes I took from a webinar with Alex Fitzgerald I wrote down the following range as a 4-bet shove preflop: TT+ AQs+ Ako (50 combos or a 3.77% frequency).

Recognizing that there are ICM consideration, I don't know if a 4-bet shove is correct.

Sounds logical. From an ICM perspective, my stack at the bubble here may have been worth $1200. Which is significantly more than the $0.00 I recieved. So, if I shove and he folds, my ICM improves a small bit. If he calls, I end up in the same spot - either at $0.00 or at $2500. In hindsight, I should have been happy with the preflop shove. I tricked myself I guess (again).

 

[NWPatriot]

Ok forget everything else we have to deal with suckout tilt. If you are adjusting your play to not get it in good because of suckouts we have to change that mindset first before any strategies can be studied and applied.

None of the best tournament players worry about suckouts. Why because you cannot. It is beyond our control. If it is beyond our control then we cannot game plan for it. When we adjust for suckouts it is always to play our hands weakly. Weakness other than for trapping purposes is terrible in poker.

What seems to have happened to you is the pain of losing in the short term has you focused on the short term. NL tournaments are about losing many and winning some. A study of online NL tournament crushers found that they made most of their money in only 5% of the tournaments they play in.

Why because they are playing to win. What does that mean to you?

To great tournament players winning means getting all the chips in when you have any equity advantage. They want to get to final tables not to min cash.

With that said I understand your pain. I understand why you "feel like a dog that has been kicked to much"

I to feel this way at times. I as well make the mistake of not being "Constantly Optimistically Aggressive".

What happens is we begin to play emotionally not rationally. That is not good.

I have in my possession two ebooks from Jared Tendler. "The Mental Game of Poker" Vol 1 and 2

These books are great. They cost nothing compared to the value you will get back at the tables. I just looked up vol 1 you can get it for $10 in paper back. Buy these books read them and when you have questions reach out to me and we can discuss them.

Fixing Suckout tilt will make you thousands of dollars. Right now it should be your number one area of improvement.

Hope this helps

So, I have been hit by the little known "suck-out tilt" disease. I think you are probably right. What makes me think I am so smart that I can overcome this disease with logic?

I took a look at a video by Jared. Good stuff. I have never thought about there being tilt away from the table, but it makes logical sense. My definition of tilt was always visible at-table behavior. There are 2 videos by Jared based on his book. Thanks for the tip.

We will have to agree to disagree about getting it in with even a slight advantage. If I am a 55%-45% favorite, I do not believe that all-in risk for such a high variance play will get me very far in a tournament. Knowing that it only takes a single allin loss to be done. Cash game players maybe can take this slight edge all day long, but because tournaments require that you string your allins together in successive wins, this tells me we must have a different strategy in a tournament.

Thanks for your time eetonor. This is the first time I have tried to get specific feedback on a specific hand here at Cardschat. It has been quite valuable. I know there are a million suckout stories and I sincerely was seeking to know if I played it OK or not. Though it may have sounded like it, this wasn't just about whining about a bad beat. I think we agreed that getting it allin was the right move, so I can take solace in that. We do have different ways to go about it and different logic for making it happen, and this has definitely given me something to work on. Thanks again.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

this is a standard get it in preflop spot. stacks are shallow enough and your hand is strong enough that nothing else really matters.

also, your thinking of "see a safe flop without and A or a K" is the wrong way to think. here is how to use ranges (you were saying you were having a hard time applying them) what hands might villain 3bet you with? maybe something like TT+ and AQ+ for value. now....if you see a safe flop without an Ace or a King and you try to get your stack in now, which hands in villain's 3bet range are going to call you? do you think AK will call a big CR now that it has missed the flop? most likely AK will not. the hands that will call you are the hands that crush you. KK, AA and any flopped sets. your idea to play it safe actually guarantees that when you get it in you are in pretty bad shape. if you aren't willing to flip for 40bb with a really strong hand then tournament poker probably just isn't for you.

also, to your point about being 5 away from the money....as ICM pressure increases it is actually LOWER variance to get it in preflop. we are less concerned about making worse hands fold than we are about just taking down the pot. calling and seeing a flop is actually much higher variance as a hand that might have folded preflop can outflop us and we will stack off.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

also wanted to add....when we see that the villain is 3b a much wider range than TT+ and AQ+ what does that tell us? it tells us he can 3b hands like JTo with impunity against us because we are not 4betting even close to wide enough. He is PRINTING money vs players like you who won't rip QQ for 40bb.

His adjustment should be to 3bet even wider until people start over 4betting him. and guess what....very few players ever adjust into "OVER 4betting" territory. they tend to just be frustrated and mutter vague threats "just you wait until I have a hand" then they finally 4bet shove with AA and the guy folds. he can easily fold very strong hands to your 4bet shoves that he would call me with. Because you only 4bet KK+ he can just fold JJ,QQ and AK all day long. That is a very bad outcome for you in the long run