Found myself in another sticky situation with KQs deep in the ACR $109 40k GTD. Button felt like a decently aggressive player, stealing blinds, cbetting often when they could but they weren't terribly out of line.

Blinds are 30/60k, me and villain have roughly the same stacks and are both top 10ish in chips, I was probably 4th or 5th and they were around there as well.

---
No Limit Hold'em Tournament T30,000/T60,000
Buy-in: Tournament #31091532 - Holdem (No Limit)
Winning Poker Network
7 players

Stacks:
UTG - UTG (T3,315,889)
UTG+1 - UTG+1 (T770,393)
MP - MP (T1,870,837)
CO - CO (T2,306,606)
BTN - BTN (T2,969,724)
SB - SB (T1,557,432)
BB - Hero (T3,001,003)

Preflop: (T153,000, 7 players) Hero is BB with K Q
4 folds, BTN raises to T120,000, 1 fold, Hero calls T60,000

Flop: 8 9 T (T333,000, 2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets T196,500, Hero raises to T741,000, BTN raises to T2,840,724 (all-in)

I'd like to post the rest of the hand but curious what everyone's thoughts are.

I'm check raising here thinking he could have any Ax, top pair, or mid pair with a flush draw. If they had a set I still have open ender and flush outs. Faced with a pretty sick shove here, unsure whether to lay this down and still be top ~12ish in chips with about 30 or so left in the tournament, or win this pot and be a massive chip leader, almost 2x the next big stack.

Villain's bet sizing is rather large on this flop, over 1/2 pot. I would be more reluctant to check-raise given that fact. With how deep our stack is and how deep in the tournament we are, I'm not looking to ramp up variance here. I think calling is the correct action, particularly considering that if you do hit your jack you have a chance of stacking Qx anyway.

Then it sounds like you know you need to call. If you weren't prepared for this possibility, then you need to have considered it before you check-raise.

Isn't the point of check-raising here that the worst case scenario is getting it in with plenty of outs? I don't think you can throw your equity away here.

You decided to play your draw fast to get the money in. Here's your chance. If you don't know what to do with a hand like this when you get 3-bet on the flop, don't check-raise in the first place. You have 12 outs against AA, 13 against JJ, 15 against QQ. 12 outs minus redraws against a set. 11 outs against QJ. You're calling roughly 2.1M to play for 3.9M, which is about 1.85:1, meaning you need 35% equity here to make a call profitable. You're slightly getting the wrong price against sets, but only against sets. (Well, you're getting the very wrong price if he has AsXs-- AsJs is the worst, but none of them are good for you. But this seems like an incredibly fast way for villain to play the nut flush draw on a board like this.)

Folding this as played would be a mistake, but that's why I wouldn't check-raise the flop-- I don't want to get in 100BB flips this deep this late, if I can avoid it.

First off, thank you for such a thorough response. I appreciate all the info provided.


For sure. I probably come off/sound ignorant/new because I haven't played online poker in almost over a decade, but things like ICM and GTO are still ideas I'm trying to grasp. So wanted to see how this falls into those realms.

This is a very good point. I think (which means I'm sure) I probably have a (major) leak(s) playing OOP, and would rather get it all in with tons of outs instead of misplaying the hand all the way to the river, so that's something I definitely need to work on.


This is probably the biggest takeaway. Flipping for top 5 stacks with 30 left seems disastrous in retrospect.

No problem. I basically took almost a decade off myself (with a stint where I tried again in 2016, but it didn't really go well), and I've only been doing it again for a little over 2 1/2 years. I've been really working on modernizing my game by learning GTO ranges and lines, fixing my old leaks (which, frankly, were playing far too many hands and not particularly considering ICM), and trying to incorporate that into all of my experience and instincts.

ICM just refers to the concept that in tournaments, chips you gain are less valuable than chips you lose, and each chip you have is worth slightly less than the one before it. So you have to make some adjustments to chip EV lines to account for this, although they are usually only significant around the bubble and at or near the final table. (One of the biggest ones being that, when pay jumps matter and especially when your stack is at risk, you want to be leveraging fold equity more often and you need a significantly tighter calling range to call an all-in when you jam yourself.) That said, with a stack this deep and this late in the tournament, you don't really want to invite unnecessary variance.

Here's a fantastic example of ICM effects at a final table, from the 2022 WPT World Championship. They're six-handed, Benny Glaser has almost 100BB, Eliot Hudon has almost 50BB, third place has 17BB, and the other three have 10BB or less. Glaser's shoving range is extremely wide here, surely far wider than AJo, because of the payouts:

1st: $4,146,400*
2nd: $2,830,000
3rd: $2,095,000
4th: $1,608,000
5th: $1,301,000
6th: $1,001,050

Glaser can shove anything that has decent equity when called, particularly if he has a high card to block a calling hand, because the other players need a significant equity advantage over his range to call off their stacks and risk busting out. Even the shorter stacks aren't going to want to call off too wide considering they could make hundreds of thousands of dollars by waiting for another short stack to bust-- and in their cases the hit to Glaser's stack is so miniscule that he doesn't particularly mind. And with the great position Hudon is in, it would be a disaster for him to go out 6th; he'd surely be costing himself over $1 million in equity by doing so. In fact, the ICM effects are so strong here that Hudon's entire calling range is KK+.

Anyway, even given the point you are in the tournament and your stack depth, I wouldn't be looking to take unnecessary gambles and flips.

Regardless of ICM, when you make a bet, you should be thinking about the result you want and which hands you're targeting. In this case, I'm not sure what you're trying to get to fold that would bet 60% pot on a board this connected-- and I'm assuming that his size up makes his c-bet range tighter/stronger than it would be normally. (And since you don't have a made hand, folding is the result you want.)

I wouldn't check-raise at this depth for exactly this reason; the villain is showing strength-- or at least, this 60% bet size is more polarized than a 25-33% bet would be, which means a check-raise folds out all his bluffs and lets him continue only with his strong hands-- and I don't want to get all-in against his flop 3-betting range. I would rather keep the weaker hands in his range in and try to hit my hand. If we were 20BB deep, then just check-jamming the flop is no problem: We have loads of equity, we maximize our fold equity, and we guarantee we see two more cards if called. But this deep, we have a problem when we check-raise an unmade hand with this much equity-- we have enough chips behind that we can get 3-bet and put into a terrible spot, and if we get called we've built a huge pot against a strong hand with an awkward stack-to-pot ratio remaining. Did you have a plan if your check-raise got called?

We want to polarize our check-raising range between strong enough made hands to go with, and some bluffs that block villain's strongest hands and still have some equity or backdoor equity if they get called, but not enough equity that we mind folding against a 3-betting range. (Something like Qc6c would make sense; we block both ends of the straight and could still win with a Jack and maybe a seven, plus we have a backdoor flush draw that we can barrel again if we pick it up on the turn. Or even that might be too strong a hand by GTO, I'm not sure, but I think it makes the point well.)

As much as I hate call/call/folding, it might just be the right line here if you brick out. It's never fun to play passively across multiple streets, but this is a spot where you want to realize your equity without committing your entire stack to it, and unfortunately, being OOP, you can't really control the pot size.

And playing OOP sucks too, but again, you have to think about what you want to accomplish with your bets. Which hands do you want to fold, which hands do you want to call, what are you going to do if you get 3-bet, etc. Like I said above, the larger c-bet size has a polarizing effect on his hand range-- meaning it's more likely he has either strong hands or low-equity bluffs, and very little in between. If you call the flop, the bluffs likely give up and you'll get a free river, and even if you don't hit on the turn, you should still have enough outs to continue against a bet, depending on the bet sizing and the exact turn card. (Some we should be more prone to fold than others, like turns that pair the board.) So you still stand a decent chance of getting a fair price to hit your hand. Heck, against some villains who will two-barrel wide or with semi-bluffs of their own, you could check-shove the turn and put them in this terrible spot.

With a check-raise, though, you're getting him to fold the bluffs and you put more money in against his strong hands. We generally don't want to bloat the pot when villain is going to have a strong range if they continue. And, as we saw, you also open yourself up to getting 3-bet, either pushing you off your equity or forcing you to take a huge flip (and very likely the bad side of it). And since you have two of the best semi-bluffing cards, it's more likely he has a made hand-- and his best semi-bluff is AsJs, which you are in worse shape against than even his best made hands.

So, in other words, not only do we not want to take a flip this big and this late in the tournament, we've played the hand in such a way that we're getting our stacks in against all his hands that have us in the worst shape.

Having gotten to this point, though, after running the numbers I still think it's a call, because we're getting the right price even against the stone nuts. We're getting the right price against 76s, two pair, and overpairs, if he's ever shoving those (JJ maybe, the others increasingly less likely the higher you go). We're only significant dogs against sets and the nut flush. You have 37% equity against even the very tightest range of sets, straights, and nut flush draws with some other significant immediate equity (AJs, A9s, A7s). If you start adding J7 and 76 that equity goes up. And then if he ever has two pair or overpairs it goes up more, although it goes down if he semibluffs more nut flush draws (although I think that's less likely without at least some kind of other equity / straight blocker).

Yeah. To follow up on the above, we don't want to get to that point. You can't be afraid to play big pots with big hands this late, but you want big hands for that, or in a situation like this you want to be able to leverage the all-in bet, not the other way around. If you're going to semi-bluff with this many outs, you need to be able to maximize your fold equity by moving in; if you want to bluff at this depth, do it with hands you don't mind folding to further action.

(No advice is universal; there may be situations where check-raise bluff with your hand is fine here, perhaps against a smaller bet-- but that keeps the pot smaller and makes a 3-bet all-in from villain an unrealistic option-- but may make 4-betting all-in a realistic one from you. Again, the deeper in a tournament we get, the more important being able to leverage fold equity is.)

You don't want to create situations when you're this deep in a tournament where you're getting the right price to call off but have a substantial chance of busting (or losing nearly all of your chips).

Wow thanks for all this insight. I feel like I should be paying for this type of feedback xD

I think you bring up some very good points. That cbet size should've been my first tell for what was to come, and then the shove all in from villain should've been alarm bells as well but I guess I probably got tunnel vision just thinking about all of my possible outs and not taking in to account the bet sizing and proportional chip stacks.

I think what's most interesting is how a bad play can price you in to almost "not be able to fold" -- it's kind of like "escalation of commitment" or basically sunk cost fallacy... in a way. I guess that's why its called being pot committed.

Here's the hand as I think your analysis is spot on.
---

Flop: 8 9 T (T333,000, 2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets T196,500, Hero raises to T741,000, BTN raises to T2,840,724 (all-in), Hero calls T2,099,724

Turn: 6 (T6,014,448, 2 players, 1 all-in)

River: 2 (T6,014,448, 2 players, 1 all-in)

Total Pot: T6,014,448
BTN shows J Q (a straight, Queen high [Qh Jd Ts 9c 8s])
Hero shows K Q (a high card, King high [Ks Qs Ts 9c 8s])

BTN wins T6,014,448 from main pot

---

I think check calling makes most sense here for sure, as seeing if he bets the turn as well I keep the pot at least under some kind of control and not bloating it as you mentioned.

KQs seems to be a problem hand for me per my last post as well, lol. Might just start avoiding KQs deep ITM

In this spot with 50 blinds I typically won't c/r the flop with such a strong drawing hand. I tend to c/r with either monsters or hands with overcards and gutters (like Q5s no flush draw). I do it to take it down right then and there and without a monster I will always fold to a flop 3-bet.

Preflop though I am likely to 3-bet here to 480,000. Which would be a different disaster if BTN calls. On this flop I might check but best case i would check call the flop and turn and lose over half the chips. Unless BTN's turn bet was a shove which is possible and I would fold.

I think naths evaluation is probably worthy of payment, it is a great analysis.

I don't see your open ended draw on the flop either.

I would prefer to play this hand fast against an average stack who has 40-60% of my stack rather than another top ten stack.

After the villain shoved, I would probably tank and then think, what beats me here- Sets, flipped nuts, AA kk qq. But then, also think what has me beat but has my outs too- aj and a9 spades.

As played, I am calling it off and probably happy I was only up against a nut straight.

I think you have to 3! Pre man. Make it 420k-480k. I feel flatting is just way too weak and you let villian realize equity with trash part of their range. This seems like a 3! / call a 4 bet spot. Flatting to me is just way too passive.

If you 3!, you can basically cbet stack off I feel on stated flop or x raise flop honestly. Late in tournies, we gotta take our 3! Spots. We can’t just flat and play passive poker bc stacking up when average stack is 20-30bb is huge. Even 3! And they fold trash, we pick up what- 4.5bbs. Gotta consistently stack up when deck hits us. Taking chips without seeing a flop and letting folks realize equity is huge in late game tourny spots

3-betting definitely makes this hand easier to play and you can more comfortably get it in on this flop. But re: the trash range, one reason I am more reticent to 3-bet a hand this good is because we end up folding out a lot of the hands we dominate and can win a bigger pot from later, the wider Kx / Qx / suited spade hands.

You don't have to 3bet this hand - he could put you in a world of hurt 4betting, and calling it off with KQ this deep isn't that good unless he's shoving insanely wide. The only point of 3betting here would be if he opens very wide and calls 3bets very wide - if he's folding K8o to a 3bet then its not a good result. As played I agree the cbet is large on a board that is better for you then the raiser, so calling might be better.

You have a huge advantage with KQss against a button open. A button open range is going to be super wide- (roughly 50-54% of hands at 50 bb stack depth according to solver plus open ranges. Against 52%, KQss has 59.1% equity. Idk I’m pushing these spots- if I’m going to 3 bet some spots where I fold to a 4! I need to balance and have some top portion of range to 3 bet. There are some Kx we dominate that will call a 3bet also. Idk I think playing post event against K8o here is a little too hopeful. I would rather take my 4.5 bbs in a spot where equity isn’t realized.

I don’t think KQs is terrible as a call but think it’s a little too passive. Maybe KJo we can call but idk KQ is too strong. We even fold out hands like A7o and worse that actually have more equity than our hand. Aggression > passivity

Ya I mean clearly it dominates a standard button opening range, it's just what's the point of 3bing this hand. I'd rather 3b something like J9s/56s/etc that doesn't dominate any ranges, but has good board coverage considering you're perceived range. Now if villain opens the button very wide and calls every 3b, then surely 3bing this hand is correct but if he doesn't then I don't think I would.

For me the advantage of 3-betting is the number of hands BTN folds. We don't have to play those OOP and we are going to miss like 60% of the flops with our hand.

We also get to see if they 4-bet. Which means we have to crush the flop.

I think you don’t understand. We need to 3 bet top of range if we want to also add in some lighter 3 bets with more speculative hands we plan to fold to a 4!- example hands like kjo, A10o, J9s-J7s, 10-8s - 106s, 76s 75s 45s 43s, A5s K5s Q5s etc etc etc.

Like what is the benefit of playing so passive? The only thing I can think is oh maybe villain will have K8o or Q6s and will spazz off to us if flop is Kxx or Qxx but highely unlikely bc we both block card in situation per se. Also think KQs is super easy to play in a 3 bet spot out of position- especially when we see flop like we did: either we can cbet fairly small and plan to call raises or rip/ we can check and raise flop bets or just let villian check back and we realize our equity.

I just think we need to balance our 3 bet range which should be wider regardless in a bb Vs sb spot late in a tourny. 3 bet our top range value, 3 bet some trashy hands that can flop big- think 78s 56s KJo, etc where we plan to fold to a 4 bet. Idk if you aren’t 3 betting KQs in a bb Vs button spot, idk your 3bet % is too small, you prolly aren’t vpipping enough, etc etc. not ideal if you want to be a winning tournament player

Perfect responses all around by Nath. I think the call v 3b get it in are pretty close but once you 3b, folding certainly isn't an option. Great insight from Nath as usual. I see people do this often where they 3b and then say "what do I do now?" when the decision often should be made before the initial 3b

Thanks for the complimentary words, that's very kind.

I did run the actual hand in twodimes:



43% when you need 35% to break even is, I think, too much of an edge to fold here. Which is, again, why I don't check-raise this flop as played, so I'm not priced in to a 57% chance of losing my stack this late.

(I'll have to think about the question of 3-betting pre, since I think both options have their merits.)

No I don't think you understand how to construct a 3b range - everytime you 3b/call/fold there needs to reasoning other than we have two pretty suited cards that are ahead of our opponents range. Just because you're ahead of a range doesn't make 3bing the best strategy necessarily - it could be, but I would go deeper than that. A hand like 78s for example is much more of a clear 3b only hand, as it's inheritent value is much less than KQs. I think you need to think deeper on these spots than just "aggression vs passivity" in today's environment.

I would flat pre and 3! a polarized range. On the flop, he should be checking back a lot on this board. When he cbets fairly large, it seems like an easy flat call again.

Assuming this is a PKO (as per the T# on ACR/WPN), the bounties are probably more relevant than you'd expect, so would be good to post hands including those as they can often change strategies/ranges quite a lot, especially with regards to covering/being covered by villain. However, when we're fairly deep in a tournament, we're probably not making any wild adjustments as most of the average bounties won't be a huge impact, but the cost of losing chips is likely the bigger consideration.

3b/gii pre with KQs vs almost all players seems like a huge punt to me as I don't expect many players to be 4b jamming worse here (or enough hands that we have decent equity against), although I am not familiar with the ACR pool, so happy to be corrected on this. 3betting pre with KQs seems close when we're looking at exploitative adjustments, narrowing the SPR when OOP, getting calls from hands we dominate; but, I can't see it being great when facing a 4b still.

If we raise flop, then easily gii here as we have a ton of equity that we want to realise. If we're not happy gii, then just be calling the flop. I would expect this cbet sizing from IP on a texture like this, so not reading too much into someone going a little over half pot.

Like the flat on flop vs his sizing.