ouch, cruel! not an unreasonable request, but a little discretion!

the reference to "my chips" reminds of an incident when I was in your area playing in Chester. a 2-5 rec player got belligerent because he didn't want to leave the must move table, he kept pointing to another stack yelling that he wanted to win "his chips" back. the incident was complicated by a language barrier, and in the end, he was escorted out by security.

Actually, I remember a similar spot I talked about a while ago about check/shoving overpairs on boards like this. In the end I concluded that you should have some semi-bluffs in your range (AK/AQ) because their shove-calling ranges are limited to sets and flush draws, while they're likely folding 77/99/TT, A8 etc.

Considering the hands they're calling our shove with, AK equity shouldn't differ dramatically from an overpair here.

If I got took Cammando's post correctly, I think you all may be missing his point. I don't think it was that he was satisfied with his read, believed he made the right play, and thinks two pair guy is going to fold the majority of the time. I think he was saying that Vs will play strong hands in ways you find inconceivable, and by making spewy plays like this one, you are outplaying yourself for them.

I think it's very reasonable to consider a more with AK/AQ in this spot, if we have a solid read AND IF stacks were deeper. We just shouldn't expect to get enough folds, especially from V1, at this stack size.

2-5 is nofoldem holdem after all

Grunch: One flaw in the analysis in the OP is the lack of any thoughts regarding what either of the villains might think about the range his check-shove represents.

He mentioned it in another post. He's repping QQ+ and a set. But that should be obvious.

.

Only if he thinks either the villains are clueless or they see him as being prone to FPS.

The strategy discussion in this section gets so deluded because everything is met with the answer "lol live poker". Yes, our opponents are not the greatest, but they're not autistic.

I've check/shoved these boards (for value w/ overpairs -- I've been too much of a pussy so far to do it with AK) and many times have gotten folds. Even mediocre players realize when you raise $40 pre then shove all in, you probably have it.

These players are either thinking about his range or they're not.

If they aren't, they're going to call, because a weak scared money player who called 40 and then bet 80 likes his hand a lot, and other player is going to call after that, because he's been "priced in".

If they are, they're going to know that an overpair wouldn't risk this flop checking through and that an overpair can't expect to get value out of a check/shove on this board, making it look like a shove that wants folds and then they'll call even lighter.

I discussed that play with several players who's game I like and who knew the villains. The more ambitious one loved the play. That one hand stayed with me because it really helped me get perspective n how higher variance plays fit in my overall game.

In that case I needed at least one villain to fold. Either the FD guy or the flat caller. If they both cal I'm drawing dead to 2 outs or running miracles. I over estimated my FE. It almost worked cuz the top TP guy tanked over 5 minutes and I'm sure he would have folded TPTK there. But as mentioned people sometimes have a weird self evaluation of their own relative hand strength. We can read them based on their action as weak or strong but sometimes their own assessment is so far off that our spot on read of how they size up their hand is not useful. This tends to happen in very large pots when they have non nut hands. Top two becomes a bluff catcher to a guy and I read him as weak. The opposite is a guy who overvalued his hand and we read him as strong.

I think the willingness or heart to make plays like this are part of what makes a beast of a player but it needs to be tempered with good judgement.


FWIW I've read Blink and generally do feel thin slicing takes place at the poker table if we allow it. Doyle Brunson covered this in Super System. Most people think it's hoakey because he used the 70's term "ESP" but this is what I believe he was talking about.

Tom Dwan gets Eastgate to lay down trips in that HSP hand with Greensteins AA. But he also is in tons of spots where he barrels flop and turn and gives up OTR. His adventurism is tempered with solid judgement.

I think really good players do think "yeah I missed my draw" or "my pair is probably no good now" "but I'm gonna get this ****er off his hand because much of his range is weak here". The best players IMO have the same "sense" in their follow up thought process that says "yeah maybe but not in this spot".

^ Great response Cam, always enjoy your take on things.

The results/runout doesn't matter, but shouldn't your reads/accuracy matter? It's funny, you were the first guy to respond and when I saw you weren't on board I knew it was gonna be all downhill from there (since you seem to take some of the more aggressive lines compared to many on here).

PS: Forgot to mention in OP, but MP was a player prone to attacking orphan pots when checked too, which plays into the dynamic of why I would check/shove overpairs and sets here. Probably should have mentioned that but I don't think it changes anyone's opinion that wasn't on board with the play.

Anyway, results time. Even though V1 was kind of short stacked ($350 to start hand), he had only put in about 1/3 of his stack ($120) so I felt like he could give up the weak parts of his range.

Results

Not really an orphan pot, but maybe it was in V1's eyes. Sounds like a good Villain to have at your table.

But, you got it in $410 to win $650 as a slight favorite, nh. (I guess )

Of course reads are important. V1 was the one who donked out, not MP and V1's image is he is playing with scared money. He donked out into 4 people. The decision why I won't jam would mostly be based on what V1 is donking out with (and another villain calling).

This is a play I would make, but with more equity than just over cards.

Great thread. I think you are all forgetting that we have the Kc blocker, which makes this a snap shove.

Also, MP vs BB hand in background potentially deserves its own thread

How are you defining V2's range here? A6 is literally the *ONLY* draw combo that has us in terrible shape. Against 97 and 75 we still have 36% equity which makes the shove ~$32 +EV.

The other combos to worry about I would be more worried about in a limped pot, not a limp/call pot. 76 and 64. I understand he was last to act, closing the action, so they are still potentially out there, but I still think AX makes up a larger portion of his range. Maybe that is where I made my mistake, putting too much emphasis on the Axcc range and not enough on the other less likely combos.

The non-flush naked straight draws are probably folding some of the time as well since they have to be worried about dirty outs if the flush comes in. That should add some FE to the OESD range of V2.

I would tend to agree with this. Basically a lot of the suited-connector or suited-gapper combos that are out there will, on this board, be combination pair/flush draws, or gutshot/flush draws, or open-ender/flush draws. (Plus 54 is a double-gutter and flush draw.) Those draws would all have 12 outs or more against red aces; now add 6 because they beat you if they pair up. The non-nut flush draws all have big equity against you. Even QT is about 50/50. And the nut flush draws, which you're in the best shape against, still have 11 outs. You're never happy getting it in. I get that there is dead money which makes it closer, but really, I think you got a little bit lucky to run into the hand you ran into here. And if "lucky" means less than 60% equity, I'm not happy with the spot.

I don't hate the play, but you need to definitely consider sets in your opponents ranges... its silly to not.

If V1 has 99 and V2 has his actual hand...

EV of shove if V1 folds and V2 calls is +160
EV of shove if V1 calls and V2 calls is -123
EV of shove if V1 calls and V2 folds is -80
EV of shove if both fold is obv +320

Obviously these numbers are much grimmer if anyone is 2pair+ or V2 has a better draw

Your argument that this is a snap shove is because you believe V1 folds 8x or 99 sufficiently often or that V1 has a weaker hand often enough?

Thanks.

Yes but we have blocker.

Those are the EVs with our Kc. Sorry, but I don't understand your answer. I think V1 usually has at least 8x and rarely folds here, and V2 is almost never folding once V1 calls.

I love me some jamming of the AK. But doesn't V1 need to be deeper to expect the necessary FE? Thanks again.

I'm only going to say this one more time:

We have blocker.

I think your bet sizing reads are way off.

After your raise to 40 pre, and a big field. While mathematically 80 isn't a big bet, to the V it probably is. You cannot infer that he is weak because of this sizing. He is much more likely to be strong given your reads of him and the fact that he is betting out into the field.

Your ranging of him doesn't make much sense. I'd be very surprised for him to show up with hands like 6x, or OESDs, gutshots + overs or underpairs.

This flop hits a limp-calling range harder than a raising range. You shouldn't infer that he is weak because of that.

Even if you get it in headsup vs a good draw you are only a slight equity favourite, you have no solid evidence to eliminate made hands from their ranges, or to believe that v1 is leading light here. If you get it in 3 ways you have horrible equity vs pretty much everything.


Also you shouldn't overthink repping hands etc vs a field who are behaving like bad 1/2 players. Just c/f A high and be done, a lot of the time people will check it through if they don't have good hands anyway.