PokerStars - $3.30+$0.20|100/200 Ante 20 NL - Holdem - 9 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

CO: 35.64 BB (VPIP: 21.28, PFR: 15.73, 3Bet Preflop: 14.29, Hands: 94)
BTN: 7.5 BB (VPIP: 27.27, PFR: 13.79, 3Bet Preflop: 10.53, Hands: 33)
SB: 13.44 BB (VPIP: 9.09, PFR: 6.45, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 33)
BB: 63.1 BB (VPIP: 25.00, PFR: 18.75, 3Bet Preflop: 12.50, Hands: 33)
UTG: 15.97 BB (VPIP: 12.12, PFR: 13.79, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 33)
UTG+1: 12.76 BB (VPIP: 38.89, PFR: 29.41, 3Bet Preflop: 28.57, Hands: 18)
Hero (MP): 6.39 BB
MP+1: 47.39 BB
MP+2: 50.44 BB (VPIP: 25.00, PFR: 18.75, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 17)

9 players post ante of 0.1 BB, SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 2.4 BB) Hero has 4 4

fold, UTG+1 raises to 12.66 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 6.29 BB and is all-in, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, BB calls 11.66 BB

Flop: (33 BB, 3 players) K A 7

Turn: (33 BB, 3 players) 3

River: (33 BB, 3 players) 3



HRC doesn't like it. It gives my call it off as -0.5 in regards if villain was shoving GTO. I'm saying hes going to be wider then that after just 18 hands but hes 39/29.

But what about stack utility I'm getting very short so icm tax on flips not so severe and I will gain a lot of fe in the future if I flip and win.

If I change his range from 10.2 to 12.6 take out a couple of suited aces but put in kqo and qjs (not sure qjs in his range but left out some pretty broadways he may to reflect rather then assigning frequency to them all) and some Axo for a more human non reg range

it comes out just + call.

Thoughts?

This is about midway through the tourney?

It doesn't seem like you have many hands left especially depending on how soon the blinds go up.

And according to an optimal shoving chart I use, it suggests shoving w/ 22.5% of hands in this spot, so any pair here is good.

I ran this through Icmizer and it looks pretty close. 44s are almost BE. I would not deviate from the nash here much, but if you think he is shoving more than nash (16-17%) and possibly stacks behind are are overcalling a bit tighter, thans it is a fine call...

4bbs pre its a snap,5bbs sight call,6bbs fold (not wider than 55+)
there are players behind as well,too early positions to risk here

dont worry about blinds goin up or smth,sometimes you can find a lot better equity spot with your stack in blinds later being so short

That sound about spot on if we are considering this hand in isolation in regards to $EV as valued by ICM models. but I don't think it factors the gain we have on subsequent shoves if we do double up. ICM models typically over value very short stacks. combining these factors with early read on villain I'm not so sure? You don't have to deviate villains range that far from GTO to make it a plus EV call in isolation either.

dont think you understand spot corretly,thing is,not much difference what UTG+1 shoves,its basically always flip or we lose,we play for good pot odds and your call increase good pots odds to call players behind and in 3way+ our 44s always decreases in equity/unlikely we win.in this case hand is good,but not positions

What is it you think I don't understand? Read the title I'm aware this is a -EV spot when reviewed in isolation. I didn't bother running it through HRC for that reason.

We gain Fe on future shoves when we flip and double up.

HRC and ICMizer etc are based on ICM values. ICM over values the value of short stacks especially when in close proximity to the soon to come BB.

also utg+1 range may well be capped at his stack size if we can remove AA KK which he may r/c with then our hand equity is a lot better as we skew his range away from pairs towards AX slightly.

Yes in isolation this is a negative equity decision. What should we do wait until its correct to gii with a2c and we double up sometimes to the sort of stack size we have now. or hope to pick up QQ+ in the next two hands.

What about the tournament context. We are in trouble early with little equity remaining.

Not that I'm saying I'm right to weight this factors so significantly. But when you say I should fold are you just saying this because in isolation this is -EV or have you also weighed the factors I mentioned and say they are not significant enough to make the adjustment.

sorry about that,yeah didn't read title :/ just looked at hand
if you think utg+1 is capped,prob you can find it as +ev,4s might be here right on edge

I'm like you URagnatha, I am unsure what 'edge' is sensible to use - I haven't seen too much written on what to do in these spots. I'll put down a few thoughts but I don't think this is worth too much - I don't really know tbh.

If you ask me now I'll say one thing ask in a year and I might have changed my mind.

Perhaps last year I would have put some weight on gaining future FE in this spot and taking a neg cev, but now I think you shouldn't. Perhaps if you had a smaller stack I would worry about the impending blind tax but 6.4 isn't too bad .

Let's say that at this early/mid stage the 6.4bb stack is worth 0.7 buyins overall - you are below average and can't expect on average to score much. If you call and win you reach about 14bb. is this 14bb stack really worth ~2.2 times the value in buyins? ie, ~1.5 buy-ins.

The usually dead money of the blinds increases the chip value but tools like HRC have already calculated this in and even so the hand is a little negative (I haven't looked at all but lets just assume by your estimate of ranges it is a touch neg cev). Until you get down to 3 or 4bbs I think a double up is worth at most a double up of $value.

Ok, the blinds are imminent but you will come through them at worst with 4.5bb's (unless they go up) and be sitting on the Btn. Double up at this point and you hit 9bb's, you still just might get folds if you get to open. For this current hand you are calling and so clearly have no FE at all.

If you exactly double up from 6.4bb I don't think you exactly double your $ value so I would fold. Again, I say ask tomorrow and get another answer from me, it is so difficult with these big field tournaments as you don't get fast enough feedback from results to really get much of a feel for it.

Thanks for your input. I don't remember the blinds due to increase imminently so probably wasn't. Yeah its hard to balance the factors mentioned which we can only assess in a qualitative manner with adjustment on any one hand which we can analyse in isolation but not always within the big picture.

I agree with your assessment that in this example I'm probably slightly to big stacked to make this adjustment.

One factor I didn't mention is I only tile 6 tables so playing a table where I'm a micro stack far from the money is taking up 1/6 th of my "screen real estate" obviously this is a negligible consideration and one that means if we let it factor we are deliberately reducing our expected roi ( ever so slightly) to maybe increase our $/hour.

I think I may just play more standard and increase tables played rather then considering these debatable adjustments from standard reg play. (although they are other reasons for this decision, not just spots like this)

In a hand with various mixed stacks isn't it the short stack that has the chipEV advantage, all else being equal?

I think I know what your saying. The small stack having a BF closer to one vs other seats means he is less likely to have to pay significant ICM tax on all in collisions. My point was contradictory to that, inferring value in future spots by fe on shoves gained as well as survivability of stack.

I take your point I think fe gained in my scenario outweighs this counter argument but your counter argument also has some weight and is undeniable and I hadn't considered it enough. So my adjustment was to extreme.

doubling/tripling up though also means we are more likely to benefit from ICM gain of other seats going all in vs each other when we are not involved. yes In the example hand I could fold and if another player calls I gain in terms of icm but this gain is going to be very negligible with my stack size and distance from bubble, but if we double /triple up, then the icm gain by confrontations in which we are not involved are going to be more significant as our stack has greater icm value and the collisions are taking place closer to the bubble.

I think we have to realize that there can be gains in our equity in the future in hands where are hands are insta folds. maybe we don't consider these enough because the hands in isolation are snap folds but there is fluctuations in expected value in this hands and when we consider previous decisions can allow profiting from these confrontations we really should keep these factors in mind.

I mean far from the money - or even in a format like 10B buy-in cash game.

If you have 6 BB and there are 2 other stacks with 12 BB then you have an advantage over them because you are playing optimal 6BB poker whereas they are playing a compromise strategy for the different effective stacks they are facing.

Yeah I take your point and the smallest stack is the easiest to play optimally. But the ability /value in having control of the effective stack size only applies in some spots not all. I think this is outweighed by the fact that we have less fe and less options like r/f r/c 3 bet shoves etc. (of course having options means its harder to play optimally but that doesn't mean we don't want them).

Basically our opponents can call us pretty much like its cEV spot.

Consider when we are in the bb the sb is shoving a cEV nash range we have to fold tighter so he gains by this. The fact we have a small stack which is so valued in terms of ICM proportionally to our stack size means we are forced to pay high ICM tax on our calls. If the sb is a reg and knows we are also a reg he can shove wider then cEV nash and exploit our stack size. Of course they becomes a point if we get so short stacked our calling range starts to converge on what would be cEV but this isn't an advantage to us. it just means we are no longer at the greater disadvantage that we cant be further exploited by the sb regs adjustment from the nash range.

This is only my musings I'm not a pro. Also ive come from 6 max stt which have very different considerations. with only 2 pay outs and massive ICM tax which gets so high 3 handed that the micro stack can gain so much freaking EV from a collision between the other 2 stacks its sick and can make for some ridiculous tight/loose ranges. So I don't have high volumes in mtsng my musings could be fundamentally flawed. I'm just trying to analyse the game in its entire context taking a holistic approach not treating the game as a series of hands in isolation like they have no bearing on one another which to me is how we all to often analyse hands.

the only time we seam to universally except this is when an outcome would give us a stack size of wielding ICM abuse in future hands.

I've studied 3-handed spots paying 2-1-0 before. I spent most of my HRC trial looking at these.

Obviously "real" ICM is based on the value of the stacks. The short stack is only in a position where they have to play tight because their stack fundamentally is worth more than it's fair share based on the chips.

Part of the reason it's worth more than it's fair share is that even in a setup with winner takes all, If the stacks are BTN 12BB, SB 12BB, BB 6BB the BB benefits from the fact that the BTN has to play tighter than it would if there was 6BB all round.

That's true in WTA but we are are considering ramifications in an icm effected format. I get what your saying in terms of cEV but lets take your example paying 65% 35% 0% the button can shove 32.6% GTO. And if he does and the sb knows that he is ( no capped ranges) sb can only call 2.1%

That's the massive ICM considerations particular to that format. I know it gives a pretty extreme example but what I'm saying is that having the effective stack size with both villains isn't going to be all that significant in the presence of other factors.

I'm not sure what you mean by " the smaller stack being worth more then its fair share"? Do you mean as predicted by ICM? Because I believe ICM actually overvalues short stacks. The main reason for that is the short stack doesn't factor for FE on shoves and also doesn't reflect that sometimes the small stack will have to take a -EV decision if it feels its likely to be the least -EV its going to get.

I don't mean the ICM model - I mean whatever the real, true numbers are for what the ICM model is trying to quantify - even though we don't know them yet.

My point is we can't have it both ways - if the chips are split 2000/4000/4000, the stack with 2000 must be worth at least 20% of the remaining equity - otherwise there is no special ICM pressure on it. If it is worth more than 20% then there is no special reason to take a 50-50 or worse flip to switch places with one of the other stacks (which must be worth less than 40%).