$Freeroll NLHE MTT: 99 14bb in utg push?

[ammje]

Hello friends, was playing League CC in homegames, I have doubts about this move was the right move ?, I hope their views.

I was in UTG with 99 14BB at the table had 8 players, I decided to push, you believe that this hand was fold, limp, or ?.
gI

https://www.boomplayer.com/29184915_261AD3D1E3

 

[lilu80]

In turbo and standard tournament push here is OK and I push with 77+ in turbo. But remember this is league tournament with slowly blinds. Players here usually are tight and in this when others villains here show you with their stack, they should have better cards and this move more often will be EV-. It's worth taking into account in the league games. I play here bet to 1000 and fold when villains AI. In league more players will play more solidly than in the standard freeroll tournaments in this level, because they play for the team and everyone tries to play well.

 

[williamsc99]

the push is ok but you could have gone from raising I think it would be a lot quieter

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

it's a push all day long.

never limping or raising or folding

to illustrate just what a fistpump shove this is: snapshove says:

55+
A8s+
A5s
AJo+
Q9s+
J9s+
T9s

 

[Matt Vaughan]

I want to try to bridge the gap here:

In turbo and standard tournament push here is OK and I push with 77+ in turbo. But remember this is league tournament with slowly blinds. Players here usually are tight and in this when others villains here show you with their stack, they should have better cards and this move more often will be EV-. It's worth taking into account in the league games. I play here bet to 1000 and fold when villains AI. In league more players will play more solidly than in the standard freeroll tournaments in this level, because they play for the team and everyone tries to play well.

it's a push all day long.

never limping or raising or folding

to illustrate just what a fistpump shove this is: snapshove says:

55+
A8s+
A5s
AJo+
Q9s+
J9s+
T9s

I don't agree with Lilu's action - raising small and then folding. That's going to be burning chips, and 99 doesn't play well enough in a bloated pot when short stacked to make this preferable to jamming.

But I also am not sure we should be going with snapshove here either. I think with 14bb all our actions from UTG should be either shove or fold, and 99 should DEFINITELY be a shove. When later position players call us we are often doing very well. And even when we are up against AQ and AK we are in really good shape to double.

However I don't think hands like Q9s are a jam from UTG in this field NECESSARILY. But they could be. If players are calling off "too tight" then my inclination would actually be to jam a bit wider, rather than narrower, than Nash. And if they are calling off too loose, with hands like QJ, KQ, etc, then we'd probably want to start eliminating some of the Q9s hands that are often dominated and relying more on pairs and the bigger hands ourselves to print when they call too wide.

I think Lilu's response to facing tighter opponents is misguided. We don't need to jam tighter against tighter call off ranges, because our opponents just won't pick up big hands often enough. However big hands DO come around more often than we think, so if I think I can exploitatively fold tighter in EP so that I can jam MUCH wider in MP and LP, then I might start to make that my strategy.

However a hand like 99 is just too good. It is always going to be in my open jamming range from every position.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

I want to try to bridge the gap here:





I don't agree with Lilu's action - raising small and then folding. That's going to be burning chips, and 99 doesn't play well enough in a bloated pot when short stacked to make this preferable to jamming.

But I also am not sure we should be going with snapshove here either. I think with 14bb all our actions from UTG should be either shove or fold, and 99 should DEFINITELY be a shove. When later position players call us we are often doing very well. And even when we are up against AQ and AK we are in really good shape to double.

However I don't think hands like Q9s are a jam from UTG in this field NECESSARILY. But they could be. If players are calling off "too tight" then my inclination would actually be to jam a bit wider, rather than narrower, than Nash. And if they are calling off too loose, with hands like QJ, KQ, etc, then we'd probably want to start eliminating some of the Q9s hands that are often dominated and relying more on pairs and the bigger hands ourselves to print when they call too wide.

I think Lilu's response to facing tighter opponents is misguided. We don't need to jam tighter against tighter call off ranges, because our opponents just won't pick up big hands often enough. However big hands DO come around more often than we think, so if I think I can exploitatively fold tighter in EP so that I can jam MUCH wider in MP and LP, then I might start to make that my strategy.

However a hand like 99 is just too good. It is always going to be in my open jamming range from every position.

yes I agree with you that we shouldn't follow tools like "snapshove" or any other preflop charts to the letter. But when deviating we essentially only want to deviate on the bottom end, meaning dropping a few hands from the bottom or adding a few hands to the bottom depending on the tightness or looseness of your table.

so my point, in showing that range was to illustrate that 99 is nowhere near the bottom.

But also, with the Q9s example....the amount of fold equity we have is immense and just because we get called by a hand that dominates us does NOT mean we have lost. that's the beauty of being the jammer. You can win with fold equity or you can win by hitting your hand. when you combine the 2 you have a very strong move. Lilu makes it sound like the players will call very tight....let's say they are only calling with a range of JJ+ and AK and AQs. that is a 3.27% range. with 7 players left to act that means 79% of the time nobody has one of those hands. the 21% of the time we are called we are in bad shape but we STILL win 28.5% against the range that calls us

At some point the shove calculators keep telling you to shove in spots where a raise fold or raise/call strategy is better. but for me, 8 handed and UTG 14bb is squarely in the shove range. if my table is "easy" I'll start to have raise folds at about 16bb.

 

[ammje]

Thank you very much for your advice, friends, I read everything, and thanks for the range of hands, Jacki, help me in the future.
Congratulations on Platinum Pass you win, Jacki, GL.

 

[JBGoode]

The only way I dont shove this is if it's the final table and there is someone with like 3 BBs left in thier stack.... because I know I'm gonna level up in the next few hands.... if I'm the low stack, or everyone is over 7 or 8 BBs. I'm shoving here all day long.

 

[Matt Vaughan]

yes I agree with you that we shouldn't follow tools like "snapshove" or any other preflop charts to the letter. But when deviating we essentially only want to deviate on the bottom end, meaning dropping a few hands from the bottom or adding a few hands to the bottom depending on the tightness or looseness of your table.

so my point, in showing that range was to illustrate that 99 is nowhere near the bottom.

But also, with the Q9s example....the amount of fold equity we have is immense and just because we get called by a hand that dominates us does NOT mean we have lost. that's the beauty of being the jammer. You can win with fold equity or you can win by hitting your hand. when you combine the 2 you have a very strong move. Lilu makes it sound like the players will call very tight....let's say they are only calling with a range of JJ+ and AK and AQs. that is a 3.27% range. with 7 players left to act that means 79% of the time nobody has one of those hands. the 21% of the time we are called we are in bad shape but we STILL win 28.5% against the range that calls us

At some point the shove calculators keep telling you to shove in spots where a raise fold or raise/call strategy is better. but for me, 8 handed and UTG 14bb is squarely in the shove range. if my table is "easy" I'll start to have raise folds at about 16bb.

Great point - I am definitely MUCH closer to your initial response, but wanted to at least give some credit to the idea of adjusting to table dynamics.

For specifically the Q9s example, I think we are actually in agreement, so let me phrase a bit better this time.

When our opponents are calling much too tight, we have so much fold equity that we actually want to widen our jamming range, not tighten it. We print by jamming many hands, in particular ones that block their calling range (generally anything with a broadway in it) and I suppose in theory we could "balance" our range differently by jamming even more suited single broadway card hands and removing some of the low pairs or something.

But what I was specifically noting with the Q9s in my previous post was about, instead, if our opponents call too much. And noting that a lot of times the hands that people tend to call down too much with or "add on" to typical calling ranges (particularly in late position or last to act) are broadway hands that dominate the bottom end of our Nash jamming range. We also have LESS fold equity in these situations, making it more efficient to jam more tightly with a higher % of value hands.

That was confusing earlier, since I was talking about the Q9s hand in the context of a scenario which is NOT happening here lol - sorry bout that!