Poker Hand #TM258628747: Tournament #5924171, High Rollers: Super MILLION$ Ultra Sat: Direct Qualifier (4 Seats GTD) Hold'em No Limit - Level5 (125/250) - 2020/06/18 21:39:49

8-max
HJ: Hero (5,482 in chips)
BB: a3b282ad (5,593 in chips)

Dealt to Hero [Kc Js]
Hero: raises 250 to 500
BB: calls 250
*** FLOP *** [9d As 7s] Roughly 1300
a3b282ad: checks
Hero: bets 437
a3b282ad: calls 437
*** TURN *** [9d As 7s] [6d] Roughly 2200
a3b282ad: checks
Hero: bets 1,100
a3b282ad: calls 1,100
*** RIVER *** [9d As 7s 6d] [2s] Roughly 4400
a3b282ad: checks
Hero: bets 3,420 and is all-in
a3b282ad: calls 3,420
Hero: shows [Kc Js] (Ace-High)
a3b282ad: shows [Ac 3c] (Pair of Aces)


Apologies for format. V seems a little loosey goosey eating a sandwich, but nothing too wild. Hero has been fairly solid - no actions prior to this hand that could indicate tendency to over-bluff. I wouldn't normally include results, but my question is primarily regarding the river call - good call/bad call/call at what frequency?

We bet flop and turn with range advantage - when V calls ott we can safely put him on an A, an 8/perhaps with a pair, a 9 at some frequency, or fd but we have the J blocker. An A or 8 seems overwhelmingly likely and I feel a shove on this river should be enough to push him off of either, assuming an A kicker is relatively weak (we block K/J, lack of 3bet pre). A flush or Agk beats the vast majority of his range and this is usually what we're betting in this spot (I likely check back any non-S).

Actually thoughts on this: '(I likely check back any non-S)'? Any case to shove most rivers?

I would surrender on the turn here. You do have more As, but he is far more nutted, and has too many 8xs that are likely combo draws that will call the turn. Once we bet the turn, I think your river shove is good, and I think I shove all rivers except K, J, T, 8 or 5. I think trying to represent backdoor spades is a little FPS, especially since the As was on the flop.

As for V's call, I think that it was right once he called the turn with a weak A -- otherwise his turn call is burning chips.

OTF and OTT you are representing a good ace. OTR you are representing a flush. Maybe hard for BB to fold an ace after calling the turn. BB expects you to cbet and maybe barrel an ace high board with air.

These aren't consistent since the As was on the flop, which should make V more likely to call the river.

Once the turn comes, I think it widens most V's calling range substantially. You might have gotten a lot of 8x hands to fold with your second barrel on the turn (e.g., 78, 89, J8, 68), but those are probably calls now. I would fire a lot of turns I miss, I just think the 6 is a card that could really increase V's calling range.

I'll just clarify that my value range with this line on this runout vs this opponent includes something like AQo+, so if V is assuming that I just x/b a ton of my Ax otr then yes I can sort of see how he makes the call at some frequency, but if he makes this call a million times vs my actual range (I'm opening tighter than nash with this loosey goose in the bb) then he's losing a ton of money overall

A key note that a friend pointed out to me after running the hand in Pio is that in fact Oop actually has a very slight range advantage after the turn card, so my betting turn based on the logic of having a strong range advantage is severely flawed. Of course the logic is accurate otf, but it shows how significantly a card that I at least felt had only moderate interaction with V's range can actually be a total equity changer. I may post a full Pio analysis if I get time during my next study session

If I called down with top pair from the BB on an ace high board, I would never fold to a less than pot sized bet OTR when a flush hit. The raiser had been representing a big ace. Now he would never bet the river with AK when the flush hit. So to fold, you have to think the raiser was semibluffing on the flop and river and has now hit a flush. It makes more sense that the raiser has nothing. And even if it is somehow correct to fold, it would be really hard to make the laydown, accepting that your opponent had been bluffing twice and now hit.

Thanks for saving me the PIO run, I assumed this was going to be the case. Preflop you had the range advantage. The flop made that advantage larger.

The actions on the flop cut that advantage down substantially. You bet (probably with your whole range), Villain called. Even before the turn was dealt you didn;t have a huge advantage, I'd assume, because Villain has already folded his weakest hands.

As you pointed out, the turn card also helps Villain. I'd give up here. You didn't mention what stage of the tournament you were in, but increasing variance is not your friend in satellites, either...

This simply isn't true; most of our betting range otr is still value both in theory and practice and I'm actually betting wider than we should in theory, ie all 2pair+ and actually vs this opponent on this board I would be betting AK/AQ since V should in theory be calling with a ton of bluff-catchers. Ironically, by this logic I probably shouldn't be bluffing here, at least not too often, but the fact is that V caught me with one of the very few combos relative to value that I would be bluffing here. As I said, he's losing a ton of money overall by making this call, especially since I'm value betting exploitatively wider than theory suggests is correct.

I'll give a better breakdown later (at least as best I can) since this is a super-interesting spot. Level was something like 4 or 5 with 10 minute blinds.

I don't know what you're repping on either the turn or the river

(fwiw I routinely run this line with AT etc as an exploit against stations knowing they will call A3 otr)

Neither did V apparently. He ran down his entire time-bank before making the call (implies how close the spot is)

What are you doing with all of your 2pair (A9 A7 A6s 97s), sets (AA 99 77 66), straights (T8s), even some percentage of your paired draws (T9s 98s K9ss Q9ss 88) not to mention your pairs that unblock the draws (not only your AK, AQ, AJ, AT, but your TT, 55 Q9hh etc)?

Chances are that you're betting somewhere in the region of (more or less) half-pot at a high frequency with a huge number of these combos, which are a mix of strong and thin value, and following through otr with the strong value portion. Therefore, we have a ton of value when we bet the river and can now include a small frequency of A2s in that value range. Pio also gets here with a reasonably large amount of broadway combos and follows through with most containing a S blocker (as do I). So we're actually repping a ton of strong value and our bluffs are those combos which best block the nuts.

So when you consider how wide our range actually is otr, this is by no means a clear-cut spot. This isn't a nuts or air game.

So yeah I somewhat agree - I sometimes wonder whether to f*ck balance for the most part and play face-up, since V's seem to just assume you're balanced or even over-bluffing and therefore tend to call wider than they should. I mean, at least vs the sort of V I've described here this has to be exploitatively correct (I'm not saying V was wrong to call - it was a good call at equilibrium)

Ok, broke down and ran a PIO to see how much our equity changes after the flop goes x/b/c. When we saw the flop we had 62.7%, after the action we had 50.1%.

That is with Villain having a significant check raise range of about 20% of his continuing range. Some Villains will have a check raise range that is too strong; against them our equity will be better.

One other sim, giving Villain no ability to check raise (some players might not check raise here on an Ace hi flop), now we have 47.7% equity when called.

So of course this depends on range inputs - my friend ran this with solved monker ranges (IP is actually a little wider than I would have opened in practice) and his sim included Oop option to x/r on both streets. Either way, equity is pretty similar ott and a couple of % isn't going to alter our decision making at all significantly

I used Acevedo’s ranges. They are probably too wide for the defender, given this was a satellite, but the general point of our equity plummeting still holds.

Just read back through this and adding to the above, your point is especially untrue since we likely check our unpaired fd's ott, so we're not actually repping a flush at all otr. As I stated in another post, this isn't a simple nuts or air game