EPT Hand: Antonious vs AJunglen

Jesus Wept

TheSpaniard wrote:

I think a bet of 10-15k would give the other guy the option of coming over the top and if he does what do you do? 65-70k in a pot and 20-25 left in your stack with a completely disguised openender - he's calling IMHO.

It's great to disagree isn't it Rigger.

There is no need to be patronizing and imply I'm disagreeing for the sake of it, just because you don't agree with my point of view. Stop been a plonker please

BigCityBanker

spaniard = rooney dives

Ste05

IMO PA had no option but to push on the flop and here's why...

In an aggressive game like this any other bet is going to induce a re-raise push from his opponent that he will have to call because of his holding, hence if he is betting he has to maximise his fold equity by pushing, whatever he bets he's going to end up AI if the other guy has anything at all. A push *might* get something like 99, 1010, JJ, AQ, KQ, etc. to fold, it might not, but he doesn't really care, it's a good push, and because of the size of the stacks and the size of the pot, he has no other option.

He's trying to accumulate chips with the least risk possible, and believe it or not, I think, this push has less risk than any other bet, obviously he could have checked, but then that just gives the initiative to his opponent to take the pot away from him on the turn, and if he pushed on the turn he has MUCH less equity in the pot when the money goes in. Basically this is a dream flop for him, no matter what his opponent has he has decent equity if he is called.

As for the other guys call, I would be fairly sure he was planning on C/R'ing the flop he decided he was probably ahead and then called, which I think is a slightly +cEV call, possibly -$EV but at that stage of a tournament $EV isn't really worth talking about. Obviously I don't understand why he didn't push pre-flop, I would think it was because he was possibly planning on calling and C/R'ing any flop, but he should really have just 4 bet there if he thought he was ahead.

sikes

goodluck2me wrote:

i dont think so. people say his read is off, i disagree, id say he thought that the other guy was weak and asked him the ultimate question knowing that he had at least 6 outs (if the guy has AA a small % of the time) but normally will have 8 outs twice.

His read is that pushing 38k into the 18k pot is profitable becuase adam will fold enough of his range. He didnt, so his read is wrong.

TheSpaniard

Isn't This The Best Hand Ever To Discuss On Here - Immediately Everyones Game Becomes So Clear And I Know That I Am Too Aggressive

ntlbell

BigCityBanker wrote:

spaniard = rooney dives

I doubt it.

TheSpaniard

The-Rigger wrote:

There is no need to be patronizing and imply I'm disagreeing for the sake of it, just because you don't agree with my point of view. Stop been a plonker please

I'm not but I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm not surprised that you are on the side of the argument that you are on

sikes

Ste05 wrote:

IMO PA had no option but to push on the flop and here's why...

In an aggressive game like this any other bet is going to induce a re-raise push from his opponent that he will have to call because of his holding, hence if he is betting he has to maximise his fold equity by pushing, whatever he bets he's going to end up AI if the other guy has anything at all. A push *might* get something like 99, 1010, JJ, AQ, KQ, etc. to fold, it might not, but he doesn't really care, it's a good push, and because of the size of the stacks and the size of the pot, he has no other option.

Its not a good push, its a losing play. Just because the only bet might be a push, doesn't mean he has to ship it in. He can check behind and peel another card off. His stack is far too big for the push to be profitable given the calling range we know adam has.

Gholimoli

I think PA played the hand fine .
I also I think PA’s play was due to absence of read and not its presence.
Maybe the other lad had a read on PA but I think it would make sense to believe that PA thought he is just a normal player.
Preflop PA makes his standard raise from the button.
He gets reraised.
Now against a normal half decent player a 3bet here is actually very profitable play as they almost always fold all hands bar AA,KK and maybe QQ.
BB then calls the 3bet,now the pot is 18K and is really large.
The flop is Q high with two spades and BB checks .
Most players would bet here with AA,KK even QQ here to protect against flush draw so the check is indeed showing weakness.
Now any bet will commit PA to the pot here and the best play here is to shove which puts max pressure on BB and if worse comes to worse he has 8 outs.

Jesus Wept

TheSpaniard wrote:

I'm not but I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm not surprised that you are on the side of the argument that you are on

Ok, maybe I read you wrong, How come you are not surprised? Because you can see both sides?

ste05 wrote:

MO PA had no option but to push on the flop and here's why...

In an aggressive game like this any other bet is going to induce a re-raise push from his opponent that he will have to call because of his holding, hence if he is betting he has to maximise his fold equity by pushing, whatever he bets he's going to end up AI if the other guy has anything at all. A push *might* get something like 99, 1010, JJ, AQ, KQ, etc. to fold, it might not, but he doesn't really care, it's a good push, and because of the size of the stacks and the size of the pot, he has no other option.

He's trying to accumulate chips with the least risk possible, and believe it or not, I think, this push has less risk than any other bet, obviously he could have checked, but then that just gives the initiative to his opponent to take the pot away from him on the turn, and if he pushed on the turn he has MUCH less equity in the pot when the money goes in. Basically this is a dream flop for him, no matter what his opponent has he has decent equity if he is called.

As for the other guys call, I would be fairly sure he was planning on C/R'ing the flop he decided he was probably ahead and then called, which I think is a slightly +cEV call, possibly -$EV but at that stage of a tournament $EV isn't really worth talking about. Obviously I don't understand why he didn't push pre-flop, I would think it was because he was possibly planning on calling and C/R'ing any flop, but he should really have just 4 bet there if he thought he was ahead.

I would have to disagree. Pushing does not maximise his fold equity on this flop againest this player, it reduces it. I think he makes it harder on his opponant if he makes a reasonable bet than if he shoves in, his range is far bigger betting into this pot than it is shoving in.

The reason he doesn't bet is in case he gets re-raised allin and is forced to call, because he knows he is going to want to call for the pot odds.

The main reason he shoves rather than bets is too avoid that: 'arkward, arg, now I have to call off chips with just a straight draw' moment. It is a mistake in my mind to shove in just to avoid that arkward feeling.

He knows he is playing to win the pot and all his chips will go in one way or another, it would be stronger if he bet knowing that if his opponent does opt to reraise allin that he is calling regardless.

Gholimoli

sikes wrote:

Its not a good push, its a losing play. Just because the only bet might be a push, doesn't mean he has to ship it in. He can check behind and peel another card off. His stack is far too big for the push to be profitable given the calling range we know adam has.

how do you know Adam's calling range?
how do you know PA knew his calling range and still chose to do this.
i think had PA knew he doesnt have any FE against villain he would not have raised in the first place.

sikes

just so everyone knows, adam had been at the same table all day afaik, there is no way PA doesnt know he is a strong lag.

sikes

Gholimoli wrote:

how do you know Adam's calling range?
how do you know PA knew his calling range and still chose to do this.

i know it becuase i know how the hand panned out. I said that PAs read is wrong in the hand, which it must have been.

Gholimoli wrote:

i think had PA knew he doesnt have any FE against villain he would not have raised in the first place.

i agree

5starpool

I think this comes into the age old category of the higher level you play at or watch the more it seems to casual observer to resemble the lowest levels of the game, whereas the majority of the population (me included) are firmly in the ABC middle category with a few deviations thrown in.

I can see both points of view on this and what I will say is that there were no lcak of testicles and testosterone on display at that table. Personally I don't see the need to do this at this point and the way that Junglen played it had the highest risk factor associated with it, as even with complete air, Antonius was only a 3/1 dog after the flop and so many flops that he caught even a bit of has Junglen in massive trouble.

As said, the main error imo was the notion of 'trapping' with AJ preflop OOP. If he is trapping by not re-reraising preflop then he obviously intended to get all the chips in the centre by checking on the flop and letting Antonius hang himself. In that case why the big dramatic pause? Was he hoping to see Antonius make his 'I have crap but got 2 pair on a raggy board' face? Getting your chips in where you could be 100% dead but never more than 75% ahead in the best case isn't that wise imo.

I think Junglen either made a conscious decision to take a huge gamble for a monster pot or else played it badly, probably the first one.

Antonius is just being himself and while it can be considered great play, he does it too often to have any real amount of FE left IMO.

TheSpaniard

No because I know your game :cool:
and you might have considered that move a year or so ago

Ste05

sikes wrote:

Its not a good push, its a losing play. Just because the only bet might be a push, doesn't mean he has to ship it in. He can check behind and peel another card off. His stack is far too big for the push to be profitable given the calling range we now know adam has.

FYP, would you really expect AJ to call there?? Forget about the results, I'd say a huge % of the time A high will fold there, and realistically only a hand of at least TP is calling him there

And I also disagree, I think it's a winning play, risky but still a winner, I would guess he has at least 35% equity in this pot against a reasonable calling range for Adam. e.g. in the worst case scenario is 28% against QQ,

Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 2s Qc 4c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
5s 3c 277 27.98 713 72.02 0 0.00 0.280
Qd Qh 713 72.02 277 27.98 0 0.00 0.720

Add in the fold equity and I think this is easily a winning play, how often will A high call him there. Checking behind on the flop is far too weak with a strong hand like an openender. What happens when Adam bets on the turn, which I think is a certainty, if he checks, what does he do then? Fold and just give up on a pot, of what, 45BB's (I'm assuming the BB is 400, but I'm not sure if it says it in the OP)

Jesus Wept

TheSpaniard wrote:

No because I know your game :cool:
and you might have considered that move a year or so ago

Who?

nicnicnic

I used to attend a Weekly €5 unlimited rebuy in a bar in Waterford called 19. genius plays like these could be seen regularly I guess i wasn't savi enough at the time to recognise how good the play was there

TheSpaniard

This was a genius play for the very reason that it was a 10k freezeout and not a 5 euro rebuy - in my opinion of course

Ste05

The-Rigger wrote:

The main reason he shoves rather than bets is too avoid that: 'arkward, arg, now I have to call off chips with just a straight draw' moment. It is a mistake in my mind to shove in just to avoid that arkward feeling.

LOL, this thread is catching fire, I can't keep up with it...

As for this response, PA isn't worried about an awkward moment, if he bets ANYTHING he will have no option but to call, he will be committed. Therefore he pushes.

sikes wrote:

just so everyone knows, adam had been at the same table all day afaik, there is no way PA doesnt know he is a strong lag.

You do realise strong LAG's aren't known for making huge All-In calls, they are known for taking hands away from players like PA who have large ranges, with this as his read it makes the play even better.

Jesus Wept

nicnicnic wrote:

I used to attend a Weekly €5 unlimited rebuy in a bar in Waterford called 19. genius plays like these could be seen regularly I guess i wasn't savi enough at the time to recognise how good the play was there

lol. It was probably 9th level thinking nic, don't try to work it out or you will take a fit.

Ste05

nicnicnic wrote:

I used to attend a Weekly €5 unlimited rebuy in a bar in Waterford called 19. genius plays like these could be seen regularly I guess i wasn't savi enough at the time to recognise how good the play was there

As 5Starpool says, plays at high levels can look like donkey plays, as I'm sure you know, but the difference between PA and the regulars in a €5 Re-Buy in Waterford, is PA knows why he's doing it, those other players don't.

sikes

Ste05 wrote:

FYP.....

My point is this, the profitability of the play is solely based on FE. So the range of villain must be correct to say whether the play is profitable or not. He didn't have the right calling range because his read was wrong and thus its a losing play.
Also i think that a push increases the chance of being called by a high, because it is what it is, a scared bet.

Jesus Wept

Ste05 wrote:

As for this response, PA isn't worried about an awkward moment, if he bets ANYTHING he will have no option but to call, he will be committed. Therefore he pushes.

That is the point...

Just because he will have no option but to call if reraised, does not mean he should shove in instead of betting. He knows in his own mind he is putting his chips in regardless.

On this board, againest this guy, a bet looks far stronger than a shove.

Ste05

That's not how it works Sikes, this particular time he got called by A high, it doesn't mean it still wasn't a profitable play. If Adam only has to fold say 35% of the time (random number, I haven't done the maths) to make a play profitable, more times than not he will get called, but it still makes the play profitable, you need to forget about the results and the fact that Adam called there with A high, and it takes serious balls to call there with A high, I'd say 95% of players wouldn't make that call.

sikes

Ste05 wrote:

this particular time he got called by A high, it doesn't mean it still wasn't a profitable play.

Depends on how AJ fits into adams, smooth call 4bet OOP to a mainiac, range.

Ste05 wrote:

If Adam only has to fold say 35% of the time (random number, I haven't done the maths) to make a play profitable, more times than not he will get called, but it still makes the play profitable, you need to forget about the results and the fact that Adam called there with A high, and it takes serious balls to call there with A high, I'd say 95% of players wouldn't make that call.

But we are dealing with THIS hand and THIS player. His read is wrong and just becuause it works against a nit doesn't mean its profitable here. Adam called with the absolute bottom of his range for this line. So patriks play is unprofitable becuase his read and FE were wrong.

Jesus Wept

sikes wrote:

Depends on how AJ fits into adams, smooth call 4bet OOP to a mainiac, range.

Getting a bit confused by all this 4-bet talk.



This is a quote from the OP

'Patrick Antonius makes it 1k from the button. Adam makes it 3.2k from the small blind and Antonius makes it 9k. Adam calls.'


Wasn't it 3 bets?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

TheSpaniard

I'm not so sure that it does

sikes

The-Rigger wrote:

Wasn't it 3 bets?

a blind is a forced bet. Adam three bet the button raise and smoth called the button 4bet

TheSpaniard

The reason that we are discussing this hand is that Adam called - thats what makes this hand amazing. Patricks play will be happening all over the place at an EPT but perhaps not so much on Day 1.

Does anyone agree with the call? The ego thing is a good call but there had to be so much more at play.

nicnicnic

Ste05 wrote:

As 5Starpool says, plays at high levels can look like donkey plays, as I'm sure you know, but the difference between PA and the regulars in a €5 Re-Buy in Waterford, is PA knows why he's doing it, those other players don't.

mark my words you will all know these players from this €5 rebuy in waterford in the years to come and you will also remember that nicnicnic told you first

Jesus Wept

sikes wrote:

a blind is a forced bet. Adam three bet the button raise and smoth called the button 4bet

I guess we are getting off topic, but there is no way I would consider the blind a bet. As you say its forced.

This is 3 bets to me, always

You can't possible be 'four betting', '3 betting' or '6 betting' if any one of your bets was involuntary.

Ste05

nicnicnic wrote:

mark my words you will all know these players from this €5 rebuy in waterford in the years to come and you will also remember that nicnicnic told you first

Goodluck2me

a few things - wehn people say why didnt he bet, it would look stronger and then call a push.
this is all wrong imo. if he bets (hence looking stronger) and the opponent STILL pushes over the top then more often than not he will be in much worse shape than when he pushes and gets Adam in with crap like Ace high, i dont think (although there is no way whatsoever of knowing) that adam would have RRAI after say a 14K bet from PA.
i think gholi mentioned it before - maybe partick DID know his range and thought he could get called by hands like AK/AJ and would only be a coinflip away from a MONSTER chip lead.
Also showing weakness in a hand like this between two LAGS is so unusual that PA could never check behind imo.

Goodluck2me

The-Rigger wrote:

That is the point...

Just because he will have no option but to call if reraised, does not mean he should shove in instead of betting. He knows in his own mind he is putting his chips in regardless.

On this board, againest this guy, a bet looks far stronger than a shove.

ive also seen on numerous threads here that "if your goin to call a shove why not do it yoruself first)

5starpool

goodluck2me wrote:

ive also seen on numerous threads here that "if your goin to call a shove why not do it yoruself first)

I used to think this years ago myself, and said it a few times too!!!

sikes

The-Rigger wrote:

I guess we are getting off topic, but there is no way I would consider the blind a bet. As you say its forced.

This is 3 bets to me, always

You can't possible be 'four betting', '3 betting' or '6 betting' if any one of your bets was involuntary.

its the terminology used.

Everything I have said is looking at it in a vacuum. This whole thread is a load of ****e becuase we dont know the dynamics. I would imagine there is a load of history to the hand and no one knows what level they are thinking on. Either Adam was one level below or above PA!

Gholimoli

The-Rigger wrote:

That is the point...

Just because he will have no option but to call if reraised, does not mean he should shove in instead of betting. He knows in his own mind he is putting his chips in regardless.

On this board, againest this guy, a bet looks far stronger than a shove.

tottally disagree with this.
if PA bets he is hoping for Adam to fold.however he knows that Adam has two options really.fold or come over the top(he is never calling).
if he comes over the top PA will be forced to call anyway becuase he is getting the odds.so by shoving he is deffo making a higher EV play than just betting as he has maxed his FE.
this is very obvious.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Jesus Wept

sikes wrote:

its the terminology used.

Pfft, I disagree, I think its ridiculas to count the blind as a bet, and to say that when the action goes raise, reraise, call, that it has been 'four bet'. I couldn't disagree more, its confusing and misleading.

It is very different to 'raise, re-raise, re-reraise, re-reraise (which would of been vey interesting) and would of been 'four bet' or a '4th bet'.

This is akin to people who make the first bet on the flop declaring'raise' as they act. It's just confusing and incorrect.

Gholimoli wrote:

tottally disagree with this.quri
if PA bets he is hoping for Adam to fold.however he knows that Adam has two options really.fold or come over the top(he is never calling).
if he comes over the top PA will be forced to call anyway becuase he is getting the odds.so by shoving he is deffo making a higher EV play than just betting as he has maxed his FE.
this is very obvious.

Just becase he limits the guys options from 2 (raising or folding) to one (folding) does not mean he has increased his chances of winning the pot, it depends on the % of chances of him doing what PA wants.

By shoving in, he is saying, in my mind, 'x %, for example 90%+ of the time I DON'T WANT ACTION', if he doesn't want action, we should do the opposite and give him action, and call his allin bet with Ace high.

If he makes a regular bet, he may or may not want action. He may be bluffing, he may not be, its hard to put a % on, its hand dependant, but you wouldn't guesstimate that he doesn't want action 90% of the time.

Gholimoli wrote:

this is very obvious.

This is a little bit concesending? I think we have people on both sides of the fence here arguing both sides, so I don't think it is 'very obvious' or just a case that we don't understand what you are saying. (*I do not want us to desend into bickering and for you and I to rinse each other on every other thread!)





Edit: Re: Lloyd, I took the long winded way of saying it, a photo finish was almost required.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

sikes

The-Rigger wrote:

This is akin to people who make the first bet on the flop declaring'raise' as they act. It's just confusing and incorrect.

On the flop, if someone makes the first bet and says raise it is stupid. However why can you say raise preflop? Because there is a forced bet out there.

wikipedia wrote:

The blinds is a term used to describe a number of forced bets posted by players to the left of the dealer button in flop-style poker games. The number of blinds is usually two, but can be one or three.

Goodluck2me

PA is now out of the tournament TT v JJ....
So much for $ev anyway...

Samba

Standard uncontrolled Scandi aggression.

Patrick's number may well have been up here and we have no clue if a strong physical read was made, as to the statement he was trapping I do agree that's utter tripe unless you have him on Arag...

Maybe he got greedy and wanted all hist chips..... who knows...

The flop bet imo was nothing short of a donko bet.

I guess the moral of the story is if you ever flop a monster against patrick just lead into him or raise and you'll get paid

Jesus Wept

sikes wrote:

On the flop, if someone makes the first bet and says raise it is stupid. However why can you say raise preflop? Because there is a forced bet out there.

Of course there is nothing wrong with saying raise when first to act preflop.

Thank you for the defintion of the blinds

---

http://www.pokertips.org/glossary/w/THREE+BET

Three Bet

Poker Glossary

To "three bet" means to make the third bet in limit hold'em. For example, If person A bets, Person B raises, Person C re-raises, Person C would have three bet. It does not matter who makes the third bet. If this hand was Person A bets, Person B raises, Person A re-raises, then Person A would have three bet.

---


And I do not consider putting your blind out 'making' a bet, you have no option, so you aren't making it.

I think that it is more of a limit term, I do mind it a little confusing when people use it in reference to NL, cause it really doesn't tell you anything about the size
of the raises that are been put in.

Goodluck2me

The-Rigger wrote:

And I do not consider putting your blind out 'making' a bet, you have no option, so you aren't making it.

you did it, so you are making it. i agree its stupid though. i prefer 3 bet to be a Re-re-raise.

Jesus Wept

goodluck2me wrote:

you did it, so you are making it. i agree its stupid though. i prefer 3 bet to be a Re-re-raise.

I agree that you are doing it, but not making it!! making a bet suggests there is some sort of option or thought process behind it.

lol

sikes

The-Rigger wrote:

http://www.pokertips.org/glossary/w/THREE+BET

Three Bet

Poker Glossary

To "three bet" means to make the third bet in limit hold'em. For example, If person A bets, Person B raises, Person C re-raises, Person C would have three bet. It does not matter who makes the third bet. If this hand was Person A bets, Person B raises, Person A re-raises, then Person A would have three bet.

that is in agreement with my definition.

Gholimoli

The-Rigger wrote:

Pfft, I disagree, I think its ridiculas to count the blind as a bet, and to say that when the action goes raise, reraise, call, that it has been 'four bet'. I couldn't disagree more, its confusing and misleading.

It is very different to 'raise, re-raise, re-reraise, re-reraise (which would of been vey interesting) and would of been 'four bet' or a '4th bet'.

This is akin to people who make the first bet on the flop declaring'raise' as they act. It's just confusing and incorrect.






Just becase he limits the guys options from 2 (raising or folding) to one (folding) does not mean he has increased his chances of winning the pot, it depends on the % of chances of him doing what PA wants.

By shoving in, he is saying, in my mind, 'x %, for example 90%+ of the time I DON'T WANT ACTION', if he doesn't want action, we should do the opposite and give him action, and call his allin bet with Ace high.

If he makes a regular bet, he may or may not want action. He may be bluffing, he may not be, its hard to put a % on, its hand dependant, but you wouldn't guesstimate that he doesn't want action 90% of the time.





This is a little bit concesending? I think we have people on both sides of the fence here arguing both sides, so I don't think it is 'very obvious' or just a case that we don't understand what you are saying. (*I do not want us to desend into bickering and for you and I to rinse each other on every other thread!)





Edit: Re: Lloyd, I took the long winded way of saying it, a photo finish was almost required.

Rigger ,
I didn’t mean to be condescending at all.if I came across that way I do apologies.
You made the comment that a bet would be better than a shove and I was trying to say why that’s not the case.
If Adam is going to fold to a bet you can be almost certain he is folding to a shove.
Calling there with A high is horrific I think TBH.
The fact that PA does not want attention is irrelevant.
You have to look at the way the hand has been played so far.
Raise,reriase,and 3bet by PA.
PA could be bluffing with 66 here as im sure he would have done the same with 66 but Adam can not call this simply because he is hardly ahead when he is but often way behind.
That board contains all sort of draws and Adam has none of it but he has no clue what PA has.
This is a different situation to when calling a huge bet like this on the river.
On the river one player has 0 equity and that cannot change. you are either winning or loosing and that’s it.
But here things can change. Even though all the money is going in on the flop but hand strength can change and that’s why calling with A high there is crap IMO.