Re: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in the first example if we 4-bet are we folding to a 5-bet? seems like the answer should be no, in which case we are making our hand look ridiculously strong w/ 100+bb stacks.



[/ QUOTE ]

Is your 4-betting range {AA} here? or non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]

depends on opponents, but it's never {AA} against good ppl.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats my point. Wouldnt you rather 4-bet more hands than 0 hands in this spot? I mean what does our calling range look like here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people flat call too much when they should raise, but cold 4-betting here gives away too much information. Are you going to 4-bet with JJ or as a squeeze with a suited connector? I wouldn't 4-bet any hand here.

Re: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to 4-bet with JJ or as a squeeze with a suited connector? I wouldn't 4-bet any hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this tourn. in OP?..In hand 1 4-betting{AA-QQ, AK}.
I just wonder what our 3-bet calling range looks like here, taking this line. It seems that it is ~the same as a std 4-betting range; if only AA-KK is calling UTGs 4-bet, IMO.

Re: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to 4-bet with JJ or as a squeeze with a suited connector? I wouldn't 4-bet any hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this tourn. in OP?..In hand 1 4-betting{AA-QQ, AK}.
I just wonder what our 3-bet calling range looks like here, taking this line. It seems that it is ~the same as a std 4-betting range; if only AA-KK is calling UTGs 4-bet, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think 4-betting QQ or AK is a good play for OP. In fact, I don't know if I fold AK.

Re: KK UTG+1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to 4-bet with JJ or as a squeeze with a suited connector? I wouldn't 4-bet any hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this tourn. in OP?..In hand 1 4-betting{AA-QQ, AK}.
I just wonder what our 3-bet calling range looks like here, taking this line. It seems that it is ~the same as a std 4-betting range; if only AA-KK is calling UTGs 4-bet, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think 4-betting QQ or AK is a good play for OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. whats his PrF calling range then, {AA-KK}?

What im getting at is; if 4-betting here gives away the strength of our hand too much; how does calling the 3-bet IP, conceal it? I dont know agree to disagree I guess, id prefer to 4-bet here.

Results
 

I just called, 2 ppl behind coldcalled the raises and UTG called as well.

flop came J64 with 2 hearts, UTG+1 bet 1300, I made it 4k, the other folded, he pushed with Ah Qh, I called and lost the flip.

I still think its close and that both plays have some merits both for the hand in a vacuum and for meta/balancing purposes. if it wasnt because it was UTG and UTG+1 (for exmple Hijack vs Button and I am in SB) and/or that UTG+1 is a pretty good hand reader that views me as tight early in torunament I think 4-betting is the best way to go.

comments on the hand are still welcome.

Re: Results
 

In example 1, you should 4-bet. If you just call, you are giving those yet to act too good a deal. Their M-cost-to-call=5.3 is low for M>90. Their implied odds given are about 18:1, sufficiently larger than the implied odds required for most hands (15:1 at most, especially considering likely 3:1 pot-odds).

In example 2, it is very close between calling and shoving. M-cost-to-call=5.3 but M=47. My feeling is that many players start really thinking hard when it costs 1/10 or more of their stack to call. Those yet to act are given implied odds of 8.75:1, not sufficient to play for set value, combo-draw value, etc.

Pot/stack ratio = 1250 / 6900 = 0.18, a nice win but perhaps not nice enough to justifying foregoing stacking villain post-flop. Personally, I shove, b/c I prefer small-ball. Note that non-shove 4-betting is bad b/c it costs 1/2 your stack if called, cramping you post-flop.

In example 3, you should shove. Pot/stack ratio = 2500/6900 = .36. This is an immediate payoff well worth eliminating flop risk.

Re: KK UTG+1
 

rr him and be prepared to GII