Hand v Sam Grafton at GUKPT London

[titaniumbean]

I think you should have ordered a sandwich, and then got it in pre! If he has AA - eat the sandwich, if not then you feed the bats birds with it

Don't underestimate the time it will take you to get your sandwich at the Vic though...

rofl Ah

[The Squid]

He's capable is some sick work. Believe he's the villain in this hand

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=47726.0

Defo would NEVER play a hand like this ever again. Do remember reading it at the time tho and thinking how astute Marc was. He mentioned my exact timings on every decision and it really made me cringe. He was actually scrutinising everything I was doing and I was just clicking buttons. I snap called flop because I'd already planned out the entire hand in my head. Was just like peel 4-bet, float every flop, bet every turn, my hand or my opponents hand was completely irrelevant to my thinking.

Incred live tekkers tho, calling the clock and getting well arsey saved the day.

[The Squid]

Don't underestimate the time it will take you to get your sandwich at the Vic though...

Karl must just win every thread.

[cambridgealex]

Great post from Sam

[smashedagain]

I dont think you're a wanker Keith, I think you're a lovely chap.

the two are not mutually exclusive..... i know plenty who fall into both camps and quite rightly proud of it too

[The Camel]

Don't wanna say what I had but I will happily comment on the pertinent questions:

a) Keith's absolutely right that he'd been opening a lot from every position and everyone peeled in a pretty nonchalant way. this would definitely serve to heighten the likelihood of a squeeze.
b) I thought there were only 3 callers but if Keith flats there's definitely the possibility of going 3 or way to the flop so it's a mandatory 4 bet for him as far as I can see.
c) I defo expect him to be 4-bet bluffing a lot in this spot. A sort of I know, that you know, that I know your playing relatively loose. So that increases the chances of me playing back at him
d) There's been some discussion of your 4-bet bluff range and how to proceed with it when I 5-bet. You can defo make a case for flicking it in against the 5-bet getting such a good price, but this means that your 4-betting range really shouldn't involve the bottom of your opening range, so that your not faced with getting 6 to 1 with some piece of cheese. Big difference between four-betting 54s A8o, T8o etc and JTs for instance also factoring in blockers.
e) We need to consider how a good player is gonna be affected by the re-entry element. largely I think it's gonna mean a broader range of value hands he or she is willing to go with. Say no re-entry they may not be willing to get in AK or QQ for such a large amount of chips, but re-entry means it's probably less of a mistake for them.
f) In constructing a players bluffing frequency and bluffing range we have to think about what hands they dont wanna just flick in and try and hit a big flop with multi-way. What I mean is, does a good player need to 3-bet T9s here? Is it not just better to take a flop when some of the players are less than stellar. So while their value range is very narrow, so infact is the number of hands their gonna feel compelled to 3 bet. Bluffs will probably be hands that have some reversed implied odds multi-way and largely consist of blockers. Also I think that my bluffing frequency is gonna be a lot less given how good stack was and how soft the table was. I mean Keith was literally the only person I knew at all and the only one with an online background.
g) Keith is definitely beat pre a not insignificant proportion of the time here, but I think that flatting kills his action from QQ and AK more than it serves to pot control vs AA. Don't think there's any need for balance here, because a tourney this soft is only coming round a few times a year and you should just play exploitative poker.
h) Keith tanked a decent while on the river and I think that he rightly concluded that I would know that QQ isn't good here almost ever and can't really be called by worse. Particularly when the Jack comes off.

In conclusion can see why your pulled in two different directions. The fact that I have a decently low bluffing frequency in this spot acts in contradistinction to your relatively laggy image and the dead money in the pot. Overall though think there's no reason to flat the 5-bet. If the 6-bet get's through you have nicely padded your stack and if your beat then you can always re-enter.

Great post, thanks for making it.

Point c, I was way wrong with my thought process, I didn't think you would give me any credit for having the ability to 4 bet air there. I mean, I've got grey hair and have trouble reading the cards without my glasses on.

Would I be correct in saying your 3 bet was relatively big and your 5 bet was relatively small to the sizes you would normally make in a similar spot?

If I am correct, what would your normal sizing be? And why did you vary from the norm, your cards or your opponent?

[outragous76]

Sam

How do you perceive the peel range?

[bobby1]

Great thread, really good to read two sides of one interesting hand.

[Boba Fett]

For the tiny amount it is worth, I jam pre because you're more likely to do that with a hand that is less than KK than flatting the 5-bet.

You never ever flat with AK and then check the flop and turn behind so it seems to me Villain is getting a free chance to win the pot on the river against your pretty exposed hand.

So easy from here with hindsight and knowing your hand, tho

Make me play it over the table and watch me fold like Superman on laundry day.

But that's the thing.

My hand isn't exposed at all.

I am calling 100% of my 4 betting hands here getting 6/1+

78s JQ KQ 22 T8 everything.

As it happens I had dem kings, but it didn't have to be that way.

Thats kinda the point of the small 5b, it gives you room to spew with the bottom of your value range and with your bluff range.  You really dont wanna be peeling 5bets too often with a weak range v good players or you will just get crushed postflop most of the time.

[Mitch]

Nice post Sam, id like to claim i was thinking some of the stuff you said, but can never seem to put it across as well as you did.

Keith, i think your missing the point about the 3/5bet sizing.

When he is squeezing the 3 out of position, he obv needs to make it bigger to narrow the field, stop people just flicking it in with the stuff theyve peeled with because its cheap and they are deep etc and define the hands a little.

Once the pot becomes heads up, he needs to be less worried about this, the stack to pot ratio is much closer, the ranges become more polarised and to be able to still bluff, he needs to put as little in the pot so he doesnt become pot commited. He also needs to leave room to give the illusion of fold equity when he has a hand he wants to get in and allow you to bluff shove the rest of your stack, which you may feel wouldnt work if it hes made a large 5bet.

[Rupert]

Ok this is a bit of a mash up of posts but Keith (and most of you) your perceptions/reasoning seem way off/bad to me.

Don't wanna say what I had but I will happily comment on the pertinent questions:

a) Keith's absolutely right that he'd been opening a lot from every position and everyone peeled in a pretty nonchalant way. this would definitely serve to heighten the likelihood of a squeeze.
b) I thought there were only 3 callers but if Keith flats there's definitely the possibility of going 3 or way to the flop so it's a mandatory 4 bet for him as far as I can see.
c) I defo expect him to be 4-bet bluffing a lot in this spot. A sort of I know, that you know, that I know your playing relatively loose. So that increases the chances of me playing back at him
d) There's been some discussion of your 4-bet bluff range and how to proceed with it when I 5-bet. You can defo make a case for flicking it in against the 5-bet getting such a good price, but this means that your 4-betting range really shouldn't involve the bottom of your opening range, so that your not faced with getting 6 to 1 with some piece of cheese. Big difference between four-betting 54s A8o, T8o etc and JTs for instance also factoring in blockers.
e) We need to consider how a good player is gonna be affected by the re-entry element. largely I think it's gonna mean a broader range of value hands he or she is willing to go with. Say no re-entry they may not be willing to get in AK or QQ for such a large amount of chips, but re-entry means it's probably less of a mistake for them.
f) In constructing a players bluffing frequency and bluffing range we have to think about what hands they dont wanna just flick in and try and hit a big flop with multi-way. What I mean is, does a good player need to 3-bet T9s here? Is it not just better to take a flop when some of the players are less than stellar. So while their value range is very narrow, so infact is the number of hands their gonna feel compelled to 3 bet. Bluffs will probably be hands that have some reversed implied odds multi-way and largely consist of blockers. Also I think that my bluffing frequency is gonna be a lot less given how good stack was and how soft the table was. I mean Keith was literally the only person I knew at all and the only one with an online background.
g) Keith is definitely beat pre a not insignificant proportion of the time here, but I think that flatting kills his action from QQ and AK more than it serves to pot control vs AA. Don't think there's any need for balance here, because a tourney this soft is only coming round a few times a year and you should just play exploitative poker.
h) Keith tanked a decent while on the river and I think that he rightly concluded that I would know that QQ isn't good here almost ever and can't really be called by worse. Particularly when the Jack comes off.

In conclusion can see why your pulled in two different directions. The fact that I have a decently low bluffing frequency in this spot acts in contradistinction to your relatively laggy image and the dead money in the pot. Overall though think there's no reason to flat the 5-bet.

a) If all these punters are flicking it in nonchalantly it means they are more likely to peel your 3 bet with 66 or whatever random crap they have which means your 3 betting range should have less (no) bluffs and be more value geared.
c) Because of A I think this means that 4 betting light here is pretty bad unless Keith expects Sam to fold AK or something heroic but with the dynamic they are both perceiving it seems unlikely that is happening (as it shouldn't be).
d) If I were Keith I'd construct his 4 betting range as something like QQ+ AK+ then throw in KQ or AQ every now and then but only based on a reasonably tight opening range. I don't think stealing UTG 10 handed pre-ante is a good idea.

However, because I believe he is likely to make this squeeze with virtually any 2, my 4 bet is mandatory in my mind, whatever I've opened with.

78s JQ KQ 22 T8 everything.

These assessments just seem wrong. Firstly should probably be folding half those hands pre. Secondly, Sam is not squeezing anywhere near any 2, mostly due to (f), but also because he is far more perceptive than you give him credit for. He likely knows who you are and he obviously knows you have been opening a lot. Put one and one together and the likelihood you are bluffing when you 4 bet is ramped up significantly compared to a more sensible opening range. This makes it even more likely that his squeeze is going to be for value or at least with the intention to either 5b jam or 5b/call with. Whether you should be peeling the 5 bet or not with these hands is a completely mute matter because the problem lies in the fact that your UTG opening range is far too wide and your 4 betting range is far too wide. That's why you are putting in 10k (1/3 stack) with 20% of hands vs a tight range and then fold KK by the river. If his 3 betting range was as wide as you think it is then the river would be a snap call and the turn would probably be a bet. But I think you probably realised mid-way through the hand that he is actually likely very strong here (correctly).

I think Sam absolutely nailed the hand in play, it's just a shame he didn't win the maximum from KK (assuming he had AA here...) but looks like his read on Keith is spot on from his and Keith's post.

[Tal]

May I just say this is probably the most interesting thread I've read in ages.

Fascinating stuff.

[booder]

May I just say this is probably the most interesting thread I've read in ages.

Fascinating stuff.

[Tal]

Rupert, are you advocating a fold to the 5bet, then? Or am I misunderstanding?


My 2003 style thinking is you should only call if:
1. You think you're ahead and it's to keep the guy keen
2. You think you're behind and you're hoping to catch up
3. You think you're behind and you're going to try to bluff him off if scare cards come (or if something magical happens and you flop the universe).

You shouldn't ever call because you don't know where you are. This whole thing reads to me as:

- the 4 bet was because you thought you were in front
- the 5 bet changed your mind (likely because of the size of the 5bet)
- so now you either raise thinking you're getting called a lot of the time by the nuts or you fold the second nuts and neither of those sounds very good
- ergo call.

In my head, that's the wrong way round.

If you think the villain/squid has a better hand than you, the price is rarely right given how much is already in the pot just to call.

I am still 90% shove 10% fold probably.

Again, but I'm an idiot.



This whole thread (and when I accidentally stroll into PHA) reminds me just how far poker has come in the last 10 years and how it has left me behind.

[Rupert]

Rupert, are you advocating a fold to the 5bet, then? Or am I misunderstanding?

As I said on page 2 I think Keith played the hand fine. But it seems more by blind luck that he got dealt KK rather than T8s and I think his overall thought process for the hand is heavily flawed and Sam was definitely exploiting his huge gaping leaks even though it was not evident in this hand because this is a cooler.