I suck with stacks between 20 and 80 BBs

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm touched. Also I'm always eager to discuss these top-pair situations; even if metagame isn't important, I think good players listen to their pot-control itches a little too much in these spots.


[/ QUOTE ]
Bad players do too, I'm living proof!

That said, this whole hand is leading me to some rather broad questions (or, they were, until I thought how to phrase them better)...

How big do stacks have to be here to make checking (for pot control, I suppose) more attractive than betting? Somewhat related to this, how much stack should I be willing to sacrifice when I get c/red?

I realize that I'm not often going to encounter effective stacks of this size in a cash game. So, are there any "tournament-specific" aspects of this hand I should consider other than the stacks (and other than the fact that I'm going to put much less emphasis on metagame considerations)? FWIW, I think we were about 10 players away from being on the bubble, and both of us had above-average stacks.


I'm going to think about these while I go mail off some big checks to the government, and maybe I'll post some answers (correctness not guaranteed, or even expected) later. I eagerly await your responses (not just Nate's).

[Nate.]

Exit --

Many times he folds to a turn bet, he is shut down. We give a free card by checking the turn. Hero betting the K when checked to should look so mechanical that he could easily be tempted to call with less.

In short, Qx is probably the best hand here and I don't think the slight increase in probability of getting one more street of value outweighs all the reasons one normally bets what's probably the best hand.

And sometimes we'll actually get more value by betting now, either because he's calling now but would have folded the river or, less likely but possible, we'll get value on the turn and river. (Depending on timing, the river card, and so forth, a river valuebet could easily be in order.)

--Nate

[gobboboy]

I was going to say bet the turn before I saw nate's post, and I am not a person who likes to bet many turns. You're never getting c/r'ed unless you're absolutely crushed and if he calls it lets you set up a very nice valuebet if you hit a 5 outer to improve and lets you check behind when you're still ahead against a draw.

Other than that, I like. On the river against the right person I might fold, because 99% of people will not bet a queen here for value.

[Nate.]

Superfluous Man --

Those are good questions, but here I'd bet the turn even with very deep stacks. That's because I'm pretty confident that Villain is not checkraising the turn without having us cooked. Getting a showdown is irrelevant when you know you're losing.

I'm not sure it's constructive to be thinking in terms of "% of stack sacrificed" in a spot like this, any more than I'd be thinking of a cash game decision as a semibluff for 1.3% of my bankroll. Are you going to stop valuebetting, or protecting your hands, or making profitable ($EV, not just cEV) bluffs for fear of crossing some stack-percentage threshold?

As far as tournament-specific aspects of the hand... it's mostly that people are looking to get the money in and put you to the decision even more than they would be in a cash game, both for some (rather bizarre, really) zeitgeisty reasons and also because the plays often have technical merit. This turn is an exception, I think, to that, just because he's so unlikely to have a hand or something semibluffable (and you know that) that he can't jam on you too much.

Another tournament aspect of this hand is that it's unlikely that Villain is an expert. Against a really good player you'd need to worry about balancing your lines. You'd also be more inclined to get to showdown. You'd also think that perhaps he was thinking all this and thus able to lead flop + checkraise turn with air. In short, the turn checkraise actually would put you in a tough spot, because strong players will engineer their games to pepper you with tough spots. But in this case, that would require his taking nonobvious lines with a few different types of hands almost specifically to give you trouble in spots like this, and I don't think that's happening. In cash games, where (a) there's more metagame and (b) the players are better, I'd probably rethink some of my profiling.

--Nate

[Nate.]

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to say bet the turn before I saw nate's post, and I am not a person who likes to bet many turns. You're never getting c/r'ed unless you're absolutely crushed and if he calls it lets you set up a very nice valuebet if you hit a 5 outer to improve and lets you check behind when you're still ahead against a draw.

Other than that, I like. On the river against the right person I might fold, because 99% of people will not bet a queen here for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gobbo --

We seem to agree but for slightly different reasons. You seem to think a draw is a significant part of his range and that we can never valuebet if we don't improve. I think that he rarely has a draw here and (less importantly) we'll occasionally (river K comes to mind, sometimes even on blank rivers) valuebet the river unimproved.

--Nate

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and, damn it, Nate is right. As usual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nath --

I'm touched. Also I'm always eager to discuss these top-pair situations; even if metagame isn't important, I think good players listen to their pot-control itches a little too much in these spots.

--Nate

[/ QUOTE ]
This I actually agree with. I think the trend of "pot control" vs. "pressing edges" has swung a little too much in the former direction. Like you wrote earlier, raising and calling an all-in really isn't that bad in certain spots, simply because so many people these days are willing to go to war with any piece of the board and put the heat on you. Q5 is significantly ahead of villain's range on the flop (everyone, and I mean everyone, check-raises top pair there). And there are certainly enough people who will assume you're bluffing and 3-bet shove any piece after donking.

[NoahSD]

Nath + Nate,
Villain donked flop for less than half pot. He's not the kind to bet/3-bet second pair.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Nath + Nate,
Villain donked flop for less than half pot. He's not the kind to bet/3-bet second pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
By that line of reasoning he wouldn't bet-3-bet anything because he's not that smart.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nath + Nate,
Villain donked flop for less than half pot. He's not the kind to bet/3-bet second pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
By that line of reasoning he wouldn't bet-3-bet anything because he's not that smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get your point. I don't think someone who bets half pot here 3-bets very often, but I do think they lead the turn and river if we just call.

If he bet bigger (and stacks were comparably deeper), I'd definitely raise planning to call a shove.

[Nate.]

Noah --

He'll lead the turn if we just call? Hm? (Not to be results-oriented, but he didn't lead the turn.)

Also, I think the bet/3 line is a little more common than you're implying.

Anyway, the flop and turn are two very different situations. I think the flop call is better than the turn check.

--Nate