A tournament hand

[peterbirks]

It's so rare that any play crops up in tourneys that isn't automatic, I thought I'd post this one.

Seat 2 is the button

Seat 1: bigron42 ( $6210.00 USD )
Seat 2: Villain ( $10985.00 USD )
Seat 3: maz101010 ( $1890.00 USD )
Seat 4: Hero ( $2270.00 USD )
Seat 5: steptoe1949 ( $6285.00 USD )
Seat 6: celtic rebel ( $9040.00 USD )
Seat 7: ComancheTodd ( $2745.00 USD )
Seat 8: 40kCrasher ® ( $550.00 USD )
Seat 9: foxiefella ( $17875.00 USD )

bigron42 posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
Villain posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
maz101010 posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
Hero posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
steptoe1949 posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
celtic rebel posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
ComancheTodd posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
40kCrasher ® posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
foxiefella posts ante of [$20.00 USD].
maz101010 posts small blind [$75.00 USD].
Hero posts big blind [$150.00 USD].

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to Hero [ 9◊; 6♡; ]
steptoe1949 calls [$150.00 USD]
celtic rebel calls [$150.00 USD]
ComancheTodd calls [$150.00 USD]
40kCrasher ® folds
foxiefella calls [$150.00 USD]
bigron42 calls [$150.00 USD]
Villain calls [$150.00 USD]
maz101010 calls [$75.00 USD]
Hero checks
** Dealing Flop ** [ 9♠, A♡;, 6◊; ]
maz101010 checks

Hero ?

So, you have about $2k and there's about $1.6k in the pot. You have flopped bottom two against a veritable army of limpers.

There are 18 places paid and 40 players left.

Rate your opinion on the choices of

(a) a check
(b) a non-all-in bet
(c) a shove

I'll state quite categorically that anyone who thinks there is a "right" answer to this is, in my opinion, not that good, because so much depends on your assumptions re other players, and if you are certain that your assumptions about what another player will do are correct (let alone eight of them!), then you are a better man than I, Gunga Din.

Mathematically, it's an interesting one.

However, I do think that one of the choices is definitely wrong.

___________________________

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well, obviously I'm not all that good then because I think it's an easy all-in.
Other options
(a)Check - checking is fine if I know someone will bet, as then I can go all in.
But if it's checked around, then that's a disaster.
With this hand in this situation, I want to get my money in now.

(b) A non-all in bet. With this many opponents, that is a bad move,
because if someone calls, then others might follow. And I don't
want a multi-way pot. I realise that if the pot is say 3-handed
after the flop, then I will probably be the favourite, but I
don't see that as a better situation than winning the pot now,
or getting it all-in against one opponent. I haven't worked
this out mathematically, I'm a bit rusty on EV calculations, so
I'm open to correction.

A huge reason for going in is that you are short stacked, and somebody might call you with an Ace, thinking that your hand range in this situation may warrant a call

Kevin

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Agree entirely that a non-all-in bet is wrong. I actually agree that a shove is correct. At the time, I checked, thinking that it was about 95% that someone would bet, particularly the guy with the big stack who was last to act.

As it turns out, that was what happened. He put in a 30% of the pot bet and I check-raised all-in.

However, I later decided that a check-round was far more likely than I had allowed for -- perhaps as high as 45%. If this is a case, then a check probably becomes wrong.

The second calculation is referred to by you. How likely is it that a hand worse than yours will call?

I strongly doubted that a bad Ace would call me here (with the exception of Mr Big Stack). But one chance that I had ignored was that a limping AK might not be able to find a fold now that he had flopped an Ace. I still doubt that a bad Ace will call a shove in anything but last spot here.

So, my logic at the time went: "Shove, will probably only be called by a better hand. Check, might get worse hand to bet (or shove). Pass round v unlikely. Ergo, EV is better if I check."

Let's mathematicize this crudely.


2) I shove. I win the pot uncontested 90% of the time. I am called 10% of the time, winning half of them.

EV = $2000

3) I check.

95% of the time someone bets and I check raise. Half the time I am facing an Ace (makes me 75%) and 45% I am facing shit (makes me 95%). The other 5% (see above) I am facing a better hand and I lose. EV = $3000

5% of the time it's checked round. I then shove the turn (unless the turn is an Ace) and win uncontested 70% of the time, I am called and win 20% of the time. I am called and lose 10% of the time. EV = $2300.


So, under my original parameters, the check has an EV of $2.8k and the bet has an EV of $2k.

However, if we take my later conclusion, that there is a 40% chance of a check-round, and that there is a higher chance than I thought that a shove will elicit a call from a worse hand (say, 20%?), we get much closer to an EV of around $2,600 for both.

These number still seem to me to indicate that a check has a higher overall EV, but I'm far less comfortable with it than I was.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

I'll state categorically that moving all-in is the best play. (I'm also moving in with 78 and any critique should address that)

--- matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi matt:
Well the "I'm also moving in with 78" part is implicitly addressed by opponents' reaction to your play and their uncertainty therein. If opponents know that you are only shoving with TPTK or better, or two-pair or better, or whatever, then they will react accordingly. So your "I'm also moving all in with 78" can mathematically be incorporated into the analysis above by an increase in the likelihood of a person calling with a bad Ace.

If you think that there's a 50% chance that a bad Ace will call (I've put it at far lower than that in the above analysis - 5%) then a shove becomes proportionally better. The numbers aren't hard to work out whether it takes it above a CR.

So, any widening or narrowing of Hero's betting range as far as opponents are concerned is incorporated in the above template.

PJ

rachat de credit surendettement

[(Anonymous)]

Regroupement de credit (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regroupement_de_credit) et simulateur Rachat de credit (http://www.rachatdecredit.net)

[(Anonymous)]

Before I read any of your original analysis I guesstimated the chance of a check-round at 50%. It's not at all infrequent in multi-way limped pots.

I also think your intuition about whether a weak ace will call has been skewed by cash games. I would expect to usually get called here by an ace and even if they accurately know my range they still have 37% EV. Only an allin bet slightly prices them out. Of course they have to worry about players behind them so might err on the side of caution and fold but this is absolutely fine for you in a tournament. You're not losing value in a tournament when someone passes a very marginally -EV spot for them.

Here I've removed 99 and AA from my range as I would've shoved pre-flop.

Board: Ah 9s 6d

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 63.233% 62.28% 00.95% 2900292 44451.00
{ 66, A9s, A6s, 96s, 87s, A9o, A6o, 96o, 87o }

Hand 1: 36.767% 35.81% 00.95% 1667766 44451.00
{ ATs+, A8s-A7s, A5s-A2s, ATo+, A8o-A7o, A5o-A2o }

[(Anonymous)]

"it's so rare that any play crops up in tourneys that isn't automatic" - I think that's overstating it. For instance, you could healthily debate whether you should have gone all-in pre-flop in this hand.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I agree that I estimated wrongly the chance of a check round, and had I estimated 50% at the time, then I would have shoved. The likelihood of a call with a bad Ace is interesting. This is probably highly variable from situation to situation, but my instincts were (and remain) that I would not have been called by a player with a bad ace.

But, these large-number-of-player pots are indeed alien territory to me.


PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose that you could, but a check would still be "automatic" for me here, if you see what I mean. You could argue that it "shouldn't" be automatic, but that's a different debate.

Wish I could work out why all of a sudden LJ is "screening" comments.

PJ