$3.40 NLHE STT Turbo: Hit TP in BB

[pat3392]

$3.40 NL HE STT Turbo: Hit TP in BB

poker stars $3.00+$0.40 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t15/t30 Blinds - 9 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Hero (BB): t1230 41 BBs
UTG: t1630 54.33 BBs
UTG+1: t1640 54.67 BBs
UTG+2: t1650 55 BBs
MP1: t1245 41.50 BBs
MP2: t1775 59.17 BBs
CO: t1465 48.83 BBs
BTN: t1395 46.50 BBs
SB: t1470 49 BBs

Pre Flop: (t45) Hero is BB with Q:diamond: T:club:
3 folds, MP1 calls t30, MP2 calls t30, 1 fold, BTN calls t30, 1 fold, Hero checks

Flop: (t135) 3:club: T:diamond: 4:club: (4 players)
Hero?

Not sure what's the best play here. Checking is a option since I'll gain the most information and can slow down if a K/A/club peels, I'd prefer it more if there isn't a flush draw though.

Betting is an option too, but it is tricky if I get called. It seems that way I'm opening myself up for being outplayed

 

[WiZZiM]

lead out 3/4 pot, play from there. checking leaves you in no mans land for the rest of the hand.

 

[pat3392]

lead out 3/4 pot, play from there. checking leaves you in no mans land for the rest of the hand.

What's the plan if I bet 3/4, 1/2 callers and the turn is a K/A?

 

[WiZZiM]

1 caller, bet/fold probably. 2 callers, check/fold probably. Depends on how the villains have been playing, i might check/call some down or whatever. I don't know if it's the best way to go, but it's the option i would select, i don't like checking the flop too much, i hate it when it gets check around, and i cannot narrow a players range down much when he just bets at it, could be anything from Ax, to a PP to complete junk.

 

[Rldetheflop]

I also dont like checking here. No one has shown any real strength pf so I would just throw out a 120 spot. You are probably not getting flatted by hands that have you beat.

I think you are picking up the pot enough times here to not worry about the times you have to lose your lead bet.

 

[pat3392]

i cannot narrow a players range down much when he just bets at it, could be anything from Ax, to a PP to complete junk.

The problem is though whilst we may have a better idea of their range, we will have to put in less money to find out for sure what he has. It seems that betting this 4-way OOP is not the best play, I think I prefer a check then a call/call if someone bets, or a check/bet if it is checked and the turn is safe.

I'm really not sure if it is best but I think it is; building a pot OOP with a hand I'm not sure about is probably not the best play

The thing is too, if they have something like JT they will probably bet/call regardless. *shrug* Maybe I'm too passive of a player

I also dont like checking here. No one has shown any real strength pf so I would just throw out a 120 spot. You are probably not getting flatted by hands that have you beat.

I think you are picking up the pot enough times here to not worry about the times you have to lose your lead bet.

I'm not worried about losing my lead, I want to make the best play, there's a difference. Picking up the pot may not be best

 

[Rldetheflop]

why would picking up the pot here not be best? you have a marginal hand but probably the best hand right now. Take it down!

 

[pat3392]

why would picking up the pot here not be best? you have a marginal hand but probably the best hand right now. Take it down!

Because it will force out many hands that we beat. What's the purpose of betting? Is it a bluff? That would be silly since we have a lot of equity. Is it a blocker? Again it would be cheaper to just check. Is it for protection? That's a good reason to bet, but nevertheless if we bet, get a caller and a K/A peels we are going to be in a trickier spot than if we simply checked; we may give them a free card but I think it makes further streets easier to play imo. Is it for value? If they are bad enough to limp JT/T9/T8 then they are probably bad enough to bet here so the money is going in regardless. We are missing out on value from small PP and A-rag hands though.

So when you say 'take it down" I assume you are saying that we need to protect our hand? The problem in this particular situation is I think it makes the hand harder to play. What happens when we get called? Do we fire another bet on the turn when the pot starts to get big? Or should we show weakness and check, opening ourselves up for being outplayed. What do we do if it's 3ways?

I'm not sure what's the best play but I think checking here is best, even if that leaves us in no mans land. If it was 3 way I'd go for a bet, but once we get 4+ players checking and evaluating with a medium strength hand out of position is probably best.

Is there something I'm missing out on here?

 

[Rldetheflop]

Because it will force out many hands that we beat. What's the purpose of betting? Is it a bluff? That would be silly since we have a lot of equity. Is it a blocker? Again it would be cheaper to just check. Is it for protection? That's a good reason to bet, but nevertheless if we bet, get a caller and a K/A peels we are going to be in a trickier spot than if we simply checked; we may give them a free card but I think it makes further streets easier to play imo. Is it for value? If they are bad enough to limp JT/T9/T8 then they are probably bad enough to bet here so the money is going in regardless. We are missing out on value from small PP and A-rag hands though.

So when you say 'take it down" I assume you are saying that we need to protect our hand? The problem in this particular situation is I think it makes the hand harder to play. What happens when we get called? Do we fire another bet on the turn when the pot starts to get big? Or should we show weakness and check, opening ourselves up for being outplayed. What do we do if it's 3ways?

I'm not sure what's the best play but I think checking here is best, even if that leaves us in no mans land. If it was 3 way I'd go for a bet, but once we get 4+ players checking and evaluating with a medium strength hand out of position is probably best.

Is there something I'm missing out on here?

Yes we are betting to protect our hand that is probably best but easily beaten by the river. I think checking opens us up to being outplayed more than betting does. Is your plan to check raise here if villain bets? If so then you guarantee playing a big pot with a marginal hand which is something we definitely dont want.

You keep mentioning value. Value is relative to the strength of your hand. We have a marginal hand so we gain marginal value from taking a small pot with our marginal hand.

 

[pat3392]

Yes we are betting to protect our hand that is probably best but easily beaten by the river. I think checking opens us up to being outplayed more than betting does. Is your plan to check raise here if villain bets? If so then you guarantee playing a big pot with a marginal hand which is something we definitely dont want.

You keep mentioning value. Value is relative to the strength of your hand. We have a marginal hand so we gain marginal value from taking a small pot with our marginal hand.

A check raise? Definitely not! Imho a hand that is good for a check raise should be very polarized in strength because if I check raise here with my QT I'm essentially bluffing, never bluff with a hand that has showdown value. Oh and a hand with draws is good as well.

The plan with checking would be to check/call every street unless there's a reason to fold, such as timing tells, a bunch of callers, huge bet etc. If it is checked around and the turn is safe then fire out the bet.

I could quite easily be wrong here, but it seems to me that you have this preconception that making the opponent fold = success, so whenever you bluff and they fold you feel very satisfied but in reality, they will fold a part of their range and call you with the other part, and it's silly to make them fold the part that you already beat. Not sure if this is true or not, just something I used to do when started out, bluffed with A high and other silly things

So you're saying since we have marginal strength we should be wanting our opponents to fold? Maybe we should, I'm not positive either way.

 

[pat3392]

skip till the end if my tedious line of thoughts bore you

Ok I'm sick of this speculating crap, let's work this one out:

They all limped here, no reason to think they have anything strong. MP1 probably wanted to play but it was too weak to raise, MP2 probably liked his hand too and the BTN could have all sorts of crap, I see lots of people limping almost ATC here because of position, like 80% or something, that may be more of a live thing though.

Flop: (t135) 3♣ T♦ 4♣ (4 players)

Ok, so what hands could play when there is action? This is going to be extremely subjective so point anything you consider incorrect

33-88, 6T-AT, QJ, KJ, A3, A4, A2, A5, 56, 34, 45, Ac (2,5, 6-T)c, Kc( 6-T[I'll assume they will raise two suited cards over T pre])c Qc(7-T)c Jc(7-T)c

Ok then, which hands would bet themselves if checked to?

33, 44, 6T-AT, 34


If they were bad enough to limp 6T then they'd probably be bad enough to bet with it, players who do these limps don't think of it as a T with a garbage kicker, they think of it as top pair.

A lot of players are passive with their draws so I don't think they'd bet stuff like 45/ Ac 2c

I just realized that I'm assuming no one is trying to trap with AK/QQ-AA....


I think this range would bet every street, with the possible exception of T(6-9) if there's a few callers or a scared card


It would be a mistake to assume that they have no bluffs in there range so let's add QJ/78

QT against:

33/44 6%
34 30%
T6-TJ 80%
KT/AT 16%
QJ/78 13%
Whole range: 62%

That number is wrong though because they are more likely to have say KT then T6 and I'm not sure if propokertools factors in that it's more likely to have AT then 33 due to combinatorics.

So, it seems if villain bets we can safely call down



Ok now the hard one, what if we bet.

So here's the calling range: 33-88, 6T-AT, QJ, KJ, A3, A4, A2, A5, 56, 34, 45, Ac (2,5, 6-T)c, Kc( 6-T)c Qc(7-T)c Jc(7-T)c

That's a ton of hands...


Now that I look at it it seems clear that a bet is best simply due to the amount of drawing hands in their range.

I think that by checking we gain more information but lose value, so basically it's the conservative play. This is of course assuming that the players are fairly bad. Against competent STT players their calling range would crush QT so we'd be bluffing them really. What could they call with? They'd probably fold 55-88 reasoning that someone probably has a T in a 4 way pot. I can only see them playing with Qc Jc, Kc Jc, AT, 33, 44



So I think the best play here is player dependent. If the majority of players are loose then a bet is needed, if they are tight then a check. If a loose player(s) calls then probably fire again, if the tight player does maybe fire again to charge the draws but be cautious of a strong hand

 

[WiZZiM]

woah, your putting a lot of thought into this. In sng's we want to make decisions easier so we can multitable more, so it's good to fall back on a default play, my default play here is to lead out and try to take it down right now, i don't want action here, i checked my option out of the BB because i had no interest in the hand, once i flop top pair, it rates to be the best hand, and i'll lead out hoping to win it right there, plus we pick up loads of value from bad tight/passive players who will call down to the river with A3 type hands.

If im called, then i have a few options on the turn, check/call, bet/fold to a raise, or check/fold. all valid options depending on what type of opponant im up against.

I like betting because checking allows another villian to take control of the hand and take initiative, and also, he gets to decide how much to make it. While betting, we take initiative and control of the betting, plus we are repping a lot of strength, betting out into 3 players.

So yeah, generally, if the turn blanks i'm firing another barrell, if we are still called, then im shutting down on the river (Before you say it opens us up to being "outplayed", well so does checking the flop and allowing villains to bet with whatever junk T or Ax type hand they may hold, then if they bet turn we're going to probably have to fold.)
However if the turn is a bad card, well, we can still bet out, figuring that the card is unlikely to have helped, sort of turn our hand into a bluff of sorts, or we can just check and see what villain does. we can probably check/call an aggressive player, and check/fold to a passive one who isn't likely to be betting without strength.

Anyways i'm not the best player postflop here, so i hope someone comes in to kick my arse, but my default play here is to lead out at it, and re-evaluate turn based on callers, and my thoughts about how those callers play. At the end of the day, we're not going to be playing a big pot with this hand, it's early, all we want to do really is get to the next hand, and get into the midgame, where we pick up most of our equity in the tournament.

 

[Rldetheflop]

A check raise? Definitely not! Imho a hand that is good for a check raise should be very polarized in strength because if I check raise here with my QT I'm essentially bluffing, never bluff with a hand that has showdown value. Oh and a hand with draws is good as well.

The plan with checking would be to check/call every street unless there's a reason to fold, such as timing tells, a bunch of callers, huge bet etc. If it is checked around and the turn is safe then fire out the bet.

I could quite easily be wrong here, but it seems to me that you have this preconception that making the opponent fold = success, so whenever you bluff and they fold you feel very satisfied but in reality, they will fold a part of their range and call you with the other part, and it's silly to make them fold the part that you already beat. Not sure if this is true or not, just something I used to do when started out, bluffed with A high and other silly things

So you're saying since we have marginal strength we should be wanting our opponents to fold? Maybe we should, I'm not positive either way.

Well I dont think you should characterize my play so generally. Yes in this hand I do consider taking the pot right here a success. We are oop with a ton of scare cards possible on the turn and we are 4 handed.

Since you have so little respect for my opinion, I just thought you should know that I have played almost 5k stt with an ROI of 11%. Now this is not me swinging my junk around as I am sure there are plenty of players with more games or higher ROI but I think it is pretty solid so my opinions do have merit. Obviously I have leaks in my game, we all do. That is one of the reasons I post here not only to help those with less experience but also to spot leaks in my own play.

 

[WiZZiM]

Anyway guys, not to dismiss this thread or anything, but it's a spot that won't net us a huge amount of equity either way, we will either win a small pot or lose a small one, if we start playing big pots in these situations, then it becomes leaky.

I do understand the validity of checking and what your saying, but against 3 opponants it's just a little too risky for this to be checked around to the turn, with so many hands hitting any jack k or ace, and perhaps even a stray flush draw or low Ax straight draw. Some of these hands will still give us action with a bet, but i'd rather thin the field now on the flop, rather than have it check around. against one opponant i may take the check/call line, but with so many, and any over pretty much killing the hand for us, i'm leading to thin the field and get perspective on the hand. And also for value, we probably have the best hand here, so betting flop/turn, maybe checking river could be a decent play against a bad opponant. Also charging for draws is another reason i guess. But overall, what i've found at this level, is that players 'generally' will be loose/passive in this spot, so they may just check down with some sort of pair/missed flush draw, making our decision easy a lot of the time, but you will counter the bad loose/aggressive ones too, for which it may be best to just let them bluff us, instead of risking a fair chunk of our stack.


But yeah, overall, i think i'd be putting this energy and effort into getting really good shoving/reshoving/calling ranges in mid/late game. Than worrying about spots like this in a STT, which don't really influence anything much long term.

 

[pat3392]

Well I dont think you should characterize my play so generally. Yes in this hand I do consider taking the pot right here a success. We are oop with a ton of scare cards possible on the turn and we are 4 handed.

Since you have so little respect for my opinion, I just thought you should know that I have played almost 5k stt with an ROI of 11%. Now this is not me swinging my junk around as I am sure there are plenty of players with more games or higher ROI but I think it is pretty solid so my opinions do have merit. Obviously I have leaks in my game, we all do. That is one of the reasons I post here not only to help those with less experience but also to spot leaks in my own play.

oh no sir you have it wrong, the reason why I'm saying all this is because I do respect your opinion

 

[pat3392]

But yeah, overall, i think i'd be putting this energy and effort into getting really good shoving/reshoving/calling ranges in mid/late game. Than worrying about spots like this in a STT, which don't really influence anything much long term.

Very true, still though it's for curiosity