PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

SNG 99's flop FH 1st hand

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SNG 99's flop FH 1st hand

    This was the first hand of a SNG and I was very confused by what this guy could have with his river bet and betting style throughout. My thought process - pre-flop it was just a standard raise. when the 7's come on the flop and he bets out just 20 i re-raised to try and see how much these players liked their hands. maybe i should have re-raised more but i'm alright with my raise here. when an over card comes on the turn and he bets out a small amount again i become suspicious that he might be trying to slow play something good so i decide to just call and then see what happens on the river. i realize that by calling here, instead of raising, i'm showing weakness but i figured the player behind me would call as well and that would keep the initial raiser honest. the river card is a blank so when the player makes an almost pot sized bet on the river i feel like he wants a call. i can't put him on a better pocket pair because i figure he would have probably re-raised me pre flop, except maybe with 10's or J's. basically i figured he could have a 7, J or possibly a lower pocket pair but i just didnt' feel like i could win here so i folded. what do you guys think about how i played the hand?

  • #2
    early in tournies, people will stay with anything and you will not be able to get them off of a hand.

    When the over card comes on the turn.. muck. Also, I'd have bet less on the flop (raised to 60 instead of 100). The extra 40 won't scare anyone off and can save you chips if an over card hits... which most likely will happen.

    Also, the river was not a total blank. someone could be staying in early in a tourney with 9 10 and hit a straight with it too. You had the straight beat, but wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilites that one of them could have it.

    6 Time Bracelet Winner


    • #3
      (WARNING! Some very little known poker info in this post! a LOT of people "feel" this effect in their play, but now we see WHY some things happen! Heavy stuff...)

      Only real issue I have is in the sizing of your turn bet.


      First, look at this link:

      Morton's Theorem outlines a special exception to the Fundemental Theorem of Poker for multi-way pot situations.

      Morton identifies a "paradoxical region" of bet sizing wherein the first caller may well make a "mistake" in calling the amount, but the now larger pot incites a 2nd caller to also make a mistake in calling. EACH of these players have made an "individual mistake" in calling your bet, but the SUM of their total chances to win are now receiving a CORRECT PRICE from the call(s).

      The Fundemental Theorem of Poker states that whenever ANY of your opponents act in a manner which they would not have acted if all cards were known you GAIN value, but the Morton Theorem exception notes that through IMPLICIT COLLUSION there can arise a "paradoxical region" of bet sizing wherein the CORPORATE ACTIONS of your opponents' "mistakes" actually result in the "field" of opponents you are play against receiving the RIGHT PRICE...therefore you LOSE VALUE even though all individual opponents made a "mistake" against you...see?

      The reason morton's theorem is valid is because it does not matter to you to whom you "lose" (if you lose), as the effects on your stack are the same...

      (NOTE: "implicit collusion" in a situation like this is NOT the same as collusion, and is NOT against the rules of poker. A more familiar "implicit collusion" situation happens when there is a short stack all in, with multiple callers. So long as there is no verbal agreement to "check it down", each of the callers of the all in may find it in their own best interests to check down to ensure a greater chance of the all in busting. All the callers are essentially "working together" to lessen the survival chance for the all-in, but they are also acting solely in their own interests; thus no illegal "collusive action" has occured.)

      In case that is a bit vague, let's look at it in terms of what happened in this hand specifically...


      The pot size is 200 when the EP villain leads for 20 chips.
      You RAISE , making it 100 to go, and pushing the pot to 320.

      If we "assume" the LP Villain has 2 over cards to your 99, he is getting a 3.2 to 1 price to CALL.
      His over card draw will spike on the turn roughly 1 time in 7.8 (12.8%), so he is NOT getting the right price to call; he has made a "mistake" by calling.

      Now if we assume the EP villain ALSO holds 2 overs to your 99, he too "needs" 7.8 to 1 as a price to be "correct" in calling. His actual odds are only 5.25 to 1 (80 to win 420), so he has also made a MISTAKE in calling.


      If we assume that neither villain SHARES overs to your 99, thus you are facing a total of 4 overs which might hit on the turn, the chances for THOSE to spike are 3.9 to 1 (25.6%) in total.

      Since the price being paid to the 2nd caller (the EP Villain) was 5.25 to 1, the CORPORATE CHANCES For you to lose the hand, BECAUSE you bet a small enough amount to encourage implicit collusion (you did not "thin the field") is well UNDER the price being given for the 2nd caller!

      Since it does not matter to YOU who beats you (if you do lose), and since the effects for you will be the same if either opponent beats you, even though BOTH villains made a "mistake" against you, you've actually LOST VALUE as a result of both of their "mistakes"!


      Don't get me wrong g57_g57, I think you were on the right "wave length" in betting an amount that would get called; that 20 bet after your pre-flop raise is probably NOT TT+, and is only A7 exactly if it is ahead of you at all. I think you WERE WAY AHEAD here, and were definately right to raise SOMETHING...

      100 (a tiny bit under half pot) would have bene a fine bet if there was JUST the EP villain who led 20 chips into you to play against. With the 2nd villain who may make a "mistake" in calling on just overs, thus giving greater incentive to the EP villain to also make a "mistake", both of them calling greatly increased your risk of a threatening turn card showing.

      What I think you SHOULD have done here is bet more along the lines of 2/3rds to full pot, or 150 to 200. What would have happened then would be:

      EP Villain leads 20, pot = 220.
      You raise to 150, making the pot = 370
      LP villain CALLS, making the pot = 520
      EP villain CALLS, making the pot = 650

      In this case, LP Villain would have had 2.46 to 1 odds, and even if he makes the mistake and calls that on just overs, the EP Villain than has 4 to 1 odds...or BARELY the right CORPORATE PRICE of 3.9 to 1 needed by 4 over cards out there agaisnt you. Making it 200 to go would have denied the corporate price altogether...


      do not get too fussed oer this tbh. You WERE definately on the right track of betting enough to deny odds, but to encourage a call. The problem is you just bet a little bit TOO SMALL to deny odds to the villains if they BOTH came along and you were facing 4 overs.

      Fact is, you were looking at only a bit over 25% chance for EITHER of them to spike if you were facing the max of 4 overs, so the chance wasnt really that great anyway. Next time though, you may want to thin the herd a bit more in spots like this, as that will help to increase your chances of winning, and if you are facing such rampant calling stations that they DO call larger bets in multi-way pots, then you;ve added more VALUE than would a smaller bet size...

      Double Bracelet Winner


      • #4
        ya i see what you're getting at. thanks for expanding my poker knowledge. i appreciate any and all help i get


        • #5
          JD, great post. I'd never seen that one before.... so I ended up learning a good one from it! umbup:

          6 Time Bracelet Winner


          • #6
            On the plus side g57_g57...

            I really think flatting on the turn J is a good play, and then when a blank-ish turn 8 pops the river (only "helps" 88 specifically, so not a complete blank), and the villain making those piss ant donk bets suddenly bets STRONGLY, it is a very reaosnable fold...

            His 20 bets before then might be blocker bets, or they might be stronger hand bets...

            TT+ isn;t hugely likely, but the J is certainly in the range of 1 of the villains left...

            sure, EP villain MIGHT have done this even if a total airball came for his KJ, but your REASONING in folding would have been the same. The suddenly strong river bet is jsut too likely to be made with real strength to be worth calling, even though there is only 1 over there to beat you (or very few rag 7's that are there).

            So overall, except for maybe sizing the turn bet a bit differently (and even there, as I said, you WANT all call, so you were on the right track), you played this hand quite well and lost jsut about the minimum.

            Good job.
            Double Bracelet Winner


            • #7
              Originally posted by JWK24 View Post
              JD, great post. I'd never seen that one before.... so I ended up learning a good one from it! umbup:
              Yeah JWK... I started playin Casino poker in the pre-moneymaker days on LIMIT HE (and Stud). People who cut their teeth on low limit fixed limit games, with the incredibly loose entry standards, and frequent big multi-way pots, kinda get the sense of this "law" VERY early on. The result in FLHE is that you are less prone to bet very hard on any single pair hands, even major over pairs, iin multi-way pots oop...there is simply too much chance you will NOT improve, and someone else will... So betting hard, and early, is un-likely to thin the herd much, and generally costs you more in the super loose low limit games is NOT hugely good overall, and at the 10/20 casino limit games, you'll usually find the "break point" where early aggression and betting 1 pr hands for value in MW pots tends to be more profitable. for NO LIMIT though, the early aggro moves in MW action is a lot more effective, because you are NOT simply putting 1 more bet in that is easy to call. So... the simple "rule" to avoid these sorts of things are: when it is multi-way, your bet designed to "deny odds and invite a call" should tend to be LARGER depending upon how many there are who might all, and how strong you are (how likely you are now "best"). In HU spots, a half pot flop bet is usually enough to deny odds and invite calls, but in 3 way are gunna need 2/3rds to full pot more often...ESPECIALLY on draw heavy boards (like this one, or all of 1 suit...etc).
              Double Bracelet Winner


              • #8
                i see this kind of betting sequence all the time: the minbet, minbet, pot size bet. it's just a weird way for an inexperienced player to get a small amount of value out of a big hand in which he expects everyone to fold if he bets it any harder. he's assuming that everyone around him has enough skill to fold mediocure hands, but he knows they will stick around for a minbet. therefore, he figures someone is bound to pay him off on the end if they've stuck around that far already. well played


                • #9
                  JD, looking back at the limit tables I've played on stars.... that definitely holds true on the 2/4, 5/10 cent tables (mostly what I was playing).

                  6 Time Bracelet Winner



                  X Cookies Information

                  We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.