Quick question, how bad do you guys think would be 4b shoving AKs in this spot?

That's what I would do like 100% of the time.

What should leave us to believe this guy's good? His PS profile isn't that hot: http://officialpokerrankings.com/pok...E18B4.html?t=3 and his HMob page is good but not like a huge crusher.

I mean Swishy and Tudor posted here.

Cleaner plays mostly cash

he plays ms/hsplo like a fiend. in last decembers vpp challenge he got something like 390k alone

stephenson og cash reg too

just seems like a -$EV move on his part considering ICM and cEV wise, tough to understand as well.

meh I don't think it ever prints $$ but dan is prolly calling off like 40 combos so he doesn't have to have 97s or A5s that often for 3 to 5'ing to be ok'ish. I mean I doubt anyone would blink an eye if he'd have 99 here but the difference between the two, while still significant when taking into account flats, isn't that huge.

He probably thought Dan was going to fold sometimes.

I'm just guessing though guys.

But in a sample of one hand he didn't fold, so it was obviously horrible Ben. You should know better.

but how is it horrible when 44 is ahead of AK?

I wonder if Dan would call the shove if it was a snap shove in stand of the 5 minutes tank

kinda hard to speculate as to how dan constructs his 4b range in this spot, but i'm gonna masque out here real quick

44 has somewhere around 30-32% against a value range of JJ+/AK, (certainly might have a couple more pairs in it depending on how wide dan feels he can induce, skeptical that he wouldn't just flat the 3b w AQ at this depth)

cleaner is risking 6.5 mill to win like 2.1 mill, when he's called he loses around 2.5 mill [6.5 mill - (13 mill x .31)] so he needs dan to be 4b bluffing >55% of the time for this to break even [1 - (2.1 mill / 4.6 mill)]. it's certainly possible but i don't think any of us are privy to enough information to make that judgment. maybe we can get lucky and dan will bless us with a response

fyi it's not about getting 2 to 1 on the call because none of dan's 4b bluff range has 33% vs van hoof's 5b value range

You have to compare 3 to 5'ing with 3b/f'ing, not with folding initially (we're not always faced with a 4b so this is an unfair comparison) so it's more like 35%

thats a good point and you're absolutely right, thankfully it's only gonna lower the threshold at which dan needs to be 4b/f by maybe 5%

35% for cEV instead of 50%:

(1-.35)*13*0.31+.35*(6.5+1.8+0.3+9*.02) ~ 5.6 (6.5-.9)

^^that's not 35% cEV for van hoof, it's a 35% frequency for dan to be 4b bluffing. your equation there says that king dan 4b/f 35% of the time and 4b/c 65% of the time, with van hoof's cEV being 31% against dan's value range when allin. as you can see, it results in a net -900k EV (5.6 mill) because with 31%, van hoof needs king dan to 4b/f at least 55% of the time.

i thought you were making the point that sometimes when van hoof takes the 3b/5b line, he isnt just split between dan 4b/c and 4b/f because sometimes dan just r/f to the 3b. i dont think dan is going to r/f a particularly large % of the time without having one or more complete dolts behind him or in the blinds, so i was fine with accounting for that by giving van hoof a few more % cEV when called. but that's not what your equation says.

5.6M (6.5M-900k) is because you have already lost those 900k chips after the 3bet, that's what I meant - you compare folding and 5b'ing after being faced with the 4bet.
That doesn't mean that the initial decision to 3bet this spot isn't worthy of discussion.

the decision by van hoof to 3b is def worthy of discussion imo, i try different things but overall i struggle with small pairs in the blinds at 25-50bb. i don't feel like i have any value to add to that conversation.

and derp, you're right, we can compare to 5.6 mill eff instead of 6.5 mill eff because that 900k 3b is a sunk cost. my bad.

so

fold to 4b: -900k, left with 5.6 mill
5b and take it down (1.8 mill + 160k + 180k): +2.1 mill
5b and get called (5.6 mill - 13 mill*.31): -1.55 mill

so its more like he needs king dan to 4b/f 42% to make 5bai better than folding to the 4b. it's been a long day.

ty pablito and congrats on your recent success/profiling

he may be a great player, i really dont know, but tanking for 5 min then shoving there is horrendous

If there was ever a moment that a 44 all in played this way vs AK deserved to get a flop of 422 followed by turn A and river A, that was it!

I think when you 5bet at this spot with 44 and you block nothing the opponent will probably be calling you like >80% of the time if not more simply because he needs so little equity vs your range given the chips already in place. It all requires a very special fine tuning in ranges to get this move by 44 to make sense.

Even if it does its so marginal that its an icm suicide and all the great ones that play small pairs like that with such plan in mind to relentless aggression all the way to all in with decent starting stacks may be exceptional players but yes they can get better you better bloody believe it. I doubt they find themselves at the end of the line knowing it was all a great plan to risk so much on 44, so they make it along the way and this sucks, to not make it along the way, to be prepared from the start to go all this way, sucks even more lol, its worse than even A5s). I wonder what they plan to do with 44 if somewhere along the line they get called and see a flop out of position.

So what is this 20-25% open 3bet 15% 4bet 10% 5 bet 7% and 44 is in that 7% of top well selected hands, really? Plus some may not follow such progression and call as well sometimes instead of binary fold or reraise and that may force the reraise to drop by 50% each time rather than 33%. Fold equity then evaporates to 0 and he has 35% vs range all pure loss.

You know its better to be playing more ABC and for them to know not to give you action when you 4bet or to bluff you often than this kind of game that is a coin flip festival or worse.

I bet the tanking was being used for him to calculate how terrible the EV was to go all the way vs folding. Its hard to do in your mind but maybe 5 min will do it.

This is the problem of it all really. Its not that the final decision is that horrific given what pot is already out there and some small chance of folding existing. Its that it should have never gotten that far because there is no point to such volatility between decent players.

This only marginally works if you are correct in ranges and if you miss a bit its suicide in true tournament equity. What is the idea here that people will give you such meta game value when its all exposed and you get lucky to win it?

^^

The 3 to 5 with wheel pairs etc. even with a really good understanding of your opponent's range and knowing that 22-55 plays about as well as 66-99 vs his calling range only makes the tiniest of profit normally unless the guy is 4b folding WAY too much and it's really hard to know that with any degree of accuracy or consistency.

It's a risk/reward calc and generally if you have any edge here it's like <1% of the prize pool in play, and if you're wrong you're essentially punting like 3% of it when you get looked up by TT+ AK just so often. If you do this once in a while in online MTTs vs regs just to metagame confuse them (e.g. your actual 5 bet range is almost always JJ+ AKo+ here but once every 10 times you get specifically 44 you may include it in your range) ok that might be reasonable, but in a single live MTT it is absurd to start some sort of leveling war with plenty of ICM unaware amateurs still left in the field, or people who let you steal endlessly and don't adjust, etc.

I would say like that (w/o knowing specific tendencies): OK/fine vs BTN open, borderline/suspicios vs CO, bad/awful vs HJ.

vs UTG?

Why does it matter he tanked for 5 mins? Dont you think Dan would 've constructed his call- and bluffrange before he decided to polarize with his 4b ?