I often get into situations, where i choose the theoretical correct play over my gut feeling.

Just a hand to illustrate my problem:


Poker Stars $50 $5 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t1500/t3000 Blinds - 9 players

MP2: t25670
CO: t81894
BTN: t116623
SB: t61540
BB: t89894
UTG: t45304
Hero (UTG+1): t156600
UTG+2: t12489
MP1: t31120

Pre Flop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q Q
1 fold, Hero raises to t7850, 2 folds, MP2 raises to t25370 all in, CO calls t25370, 3 folds


This is a shove, especially in this tourney, since CO wasn´t a great player. In the medium buy-ins you just too often see people getting fancy w medium PPs here to find a fold.

Problem is, I had a very strong feeling that this was AA, maaaaybe KK. I thought this particular player would push AK and JJ here and fold 99-, AQ. Being unsure about his play w TT.

And no: I wasn´t scared at all.

I am just asking myself: Why can´t I fold here when my gut tells me to do so, if I occasionally 4-bet-ai T9s when the situation is right or call down strong bets with middle pair.

Why does the gut-feeling not apply to a simple pf-spot like this? (I suppose, people would come up with hand ranges and tell me I am a nit if I posted that I folded here)

I find myself in this spot quite often, so I lay it down pf only to see that i would have spiked a set thus stacking a villian or two. math or my reads? that is the question. somtimes I dont do enough math and base my play too much on my read while other times I'm too focused on the math and completely ignore my read. There's a fine line and balancing the two is the ultimate approach to winning poker, imo. I just dont know an easy answer to your questions because a) Im still searching for the answers and b) there isnt a clear cut answer.

I don't really understand the question I guess.

With your reads, it sounds like you should call.

However, my default would be fold here.With overlay you are getting the right price against this range:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 31.156% 29.46% 01.69% 1153429560 66286664.00 { QQ }
Hand 1: 34.422% 27.80% 06.62% 1088400192 259178408.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 2: 34.422% 27.80% 06.62% 1088400192 259178408.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }

But I think AK ought to get less weight b/c the caller is much less likely to have AK IMO:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 21.955% 20.19% 01.77% 471536748 41273516.00 { QQ }
Hand 1: 32.908% 28.86% 04.05% 674079684 94574756.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }
Hand 2: 45.137% 40.11% 05.02% 936977280 117322832.00 { QQ+, AKs }

Sherman,

I think a handrange/pottodds analysis would lead to the conclusion to push here.

But the hand was just to illustrate my actualy question: Am I ever allowed to fold in a spot like this where my gut feeling is as strong as it can be, despite a proper mathematical/handrange analysis suggests the opposite?

On a sidenote, I´m not worried at all about the shorty-push in this hand. I have been fairly active and his range is more like 99, AJs, AQo.

I still don't get it. Where does this "strong feeling" come from? You are telling us that his range is X but you have a feeling that it is actually Y.

That makes no sense to me. If you have a feeling that his range is actually Y, then that IS the range you are assigning to him. Your feeling about his range IS his range (assuming you are correct in assigning his range; which is a big assumption for anyone to make).

I agree that the shorty who pushed ought to have a wide hand range, but COs hand range looks exactly like a huge pair. Why would he re-raise with AA? I certainly wouldn't. I would try to get you in the pot. Let's try some more ranges. Here is one assuming the CO is only calling in this spot with KK+:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 15.831% 15.63% 00.20% 516630000 6776908.00 { QQ }
Hand 1: 21.693% 20.34% 01.35% 672491412 44735182.00 { 99+, AJs, AQo }
Hand 2: 62.476% 61.19% 01.28% 2023213044 42412102.00 { KK+ }

Here is one assuming the CO also calls with AKs:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 21.731% 21.37% 00.36% 935167728 15653084.00 { QQ }
Hand 1: 22.279% 21.01% 01.26% 919481628 55304756.00 { 99+, AJs, AQo }
Hand 2: 55.991% 54.95% 01.04% 2404385556 45454016.00 { KK+, AKs }


We need somewhat less than 33% equity to call/shove (I didn't do the exact math), but I don't think we are going to get it.

I am interpreting the COs call as very strong. It seems that you are too with your "feeling".

I guess the point I am making is that I don't understand how your handrange assignment for CO can differ from what you "think" or "feel" he has. They ought to be the same thing...

Sherman

Ya, this is probably a useless post and a waste of everybody´s time. I´m sorry.

It is just that this:

sometimes does not apply for me.

There are so many people in this tournament who call with TT/JJ, sometimes even 77 / AQ, in MP2´s spot, that I had to widen his range as I had no reason to believe he was better than average. So my ratio assigned a wider range than my gut and I went with the ratio.

While I´m typing this I remember a post by Bond18 who was begging to be allowed to fold QQ to an UTG-limp-reraise which was denied by most of the people lead by Cornell Fiji. That happened months ago when I was still kind of a noob and maybe it was the school that taught me: ratio > gut.

I think you're missing what OP is saying Sherman. I think what he is trying to say is this:

just an example:
gut says: I am 100% sure villian has KK or AA. So I am dead to a Q.
math says: I have the right odds to call and catch my Q.

so do we follow the math and call or go with our gut and fold even though the math says to call? or is this question irrelevant since we should ALWAYS follow the math?

The problem here is your "feeling" is based on fear of opponent showing an overpair. Your read should be based on "CO isn't a great player" which means he can hold a bunch of hands your are crushing. And unless you have a long history with this player or previous hands to rely on there is no way you can narrow his range to KK+ based on his cold call of a shortie's push.

too late to edit:

by "ratio" I mean "rationality"

(language-gap)

My point is this:

Where does your "gut" feeling come from? It ought to come from reads, experience, and knowledge of your opponents. I call that a hand range.

There is no magical way to look at a person to get a hand range. It comes from his playing style and your interpretation of that style. From that, you develop a hand range.

If his style suggests that his hand range is X but you decide that it is Y anyway for no apparent reason at all, that isn't a gut feeling. That is just dumbassery.

So I am saying that your "feeling" that his range is Y ought to be based on something. Not on some random thing. If your feeling about what his range is is based on something tangible, then go with it. But it is not just a "feeling" it is an educated guess about his hand range based on information.

If the math says to call, it is b/c the range your "gut feeling" (i.e. read) has for him says to call. If your "gut feeling" or read gives him a range that the math says is a fold, then you fold.

Your "gut feeling" should not impact your decision to fold or call directly. It should follow this pattern:

Gut Feeling/Reads -------> Assign Hand Range --------> Equity Analysis --------> Decision

Thus, you shouldn't decide to follow some gut feeling at the "decision" point. Your gut feeling should be part of your read and help assign the hand range. Once the hand range is determined, you compute your equity analysis and that analysis makes the decision. The YOU is completely out of the decision process at that point.

Sherman

Sometimes it's not rational or logic ... it's instinct, for lack of a better word.

Case in point:
In two consecutive hands I held QQ.
The first hand I'm in the CO; I reraise a MP raiser, reraise the flop bet, pushed the turn, MP relunctantly folds (I flopped a set, had the mortal nuts. But ... my play could to him look like I was playing position poker. He didn't know what I held.)
Next hand same player limps ... for some reason the limp set off alarm bells so I just flat call on the button with QQ (blinds are short stacked), sb completes BB checks.
Flop comes out Kxx. sb checks, bb checks limper makes a half pot bet I instantly fold. SB pushes, BB folds, limper calls.
Limper had AA SB had KJ.

thats cuz your the man so your capable of making these great plays. some of us just arent good enough to play with your so called "instincts".....we need to go by our reads and calculate all the math before we can come to a decision!

That wasn't meant as a brag post at all, and I apologize for that ... I just felt that the previous play 'pissed' off the mp raiser and was trying to trap when he limped. I don't know why I felt that way ... I was just providing an anecdotal account of when instinct overcame 'proper' play.

The equity analysis of a hand can tell you the "right" thing to do from a mathamatical standpoint "over the long term". However, espeically in Tournament poker, sometimes that mathamatical standpoint should give way to a "feeling". Poker is played against people, who are by definition going to do things that defy the odds or are "incorrect", which means that while the math can tell you the "right" way to play, your "feel" after all the analysis has been done, can provide the "appropriate" way to play this situation.

Personally, and based on an almost exact duplicate situation at the WPT Reno event last year, I would lay the QQ down, just from what you wrote, my gut says WATCH OUT...If the CO wasn't in the hand, didn't smooth call and didn't have a stack which could hurt you, then its a different story, but with the situation as it is, I say in this situation its perfectly OK to make a lay down based on GUT, even though the math says you are getting the right odds to call...

Bottom line for me is that in tournaments, sometimes the "long term" never comes and all the right moves based on the math leave you sitting on the rail wondering why you didn't listen to yourself...

I prefer to be sitting on the toilet and ponder those same questions myself...but whatever. to each is own!

OP,
I don't know how involved you get with weighting and working away from the tables but Phil Galfond's article in Bluff is a good read and something I personally haven't focused on that much. I think it's a big step to converging heart and mind and to removing some ambiguity.

Many a time I have settled that my read was "right" and just got unlucky that he had the top of his range when in reality I can quantify portions of his range more precisely and be confident that my play was correct.