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.

For ChewMe1

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • For ChewMe1

    I watched you play this hand You're sitting in first out of 27 still in the game and 9 more before ITM This player makes a bet, you then re-raise and he re-raises you At this point, I would say he's got something worth the re-raise, second I would think that he's going all in on his next move. My question is it worth risking the tournament for AKo? Why not wait for a better situation and still be 2nd or 3rd? Sure, every book or calculator will tell you to go for it, but what about something call logic? Sure I would go all in, but once I know that I'm ITM I'm asking because yesterday, I was leading the 100 FPP tournament (was in 1st) 34,000 chips. I get KK, a stack of 6,000 goes all in, I call and lose to a set of 6's. 2 hands after I get AKs, a stack of 7,000 goes all in and I call to lose to a straight. And 7 hands later, my all in AKo gets knocked out by a set of Q's. Yes I know that the odds were in my favor and that all text book and calculators will say to call those all in's, but shouldn't you first make sure you're in the money? Now, of course, if everybody had the bankroll to play 20 tournaments a day, then they wouldn't care about losing one like that, but this is a school and most if not all don't have that opportunity, shouldn't they be thought to be ITM first? umbup:

  • #2
    Hey ... that was one of the concepts I've been trying to digest from Chewme's videos ... stack management.

    It's one of the things that's got me hung up on trying to catch all the subtle nuances of the decision-making process - like, I'm watching the videos as somebody who plays entry-level games, so I don't always feel like I'm picking up on all the important stuff, eh ...

    I'm trying my best anyways ...

    Interesting hand! Stuff I noticed from watching the Chewme video I was watching was that he seemed super-tight about calling shoves and playing for stacks, and that he was only doing it that day if (1) he had them covered at least like 2-3x over, (2) he was still going to be competitive (stack-wise) if the hand didn't go his way, and (3) he had AK or better?

    Was 9,600 about average? Did that mean he'd still be in decent position to ITM if 18 cash, and there were 27 left?

    Like I guess one option as the big stack is to lay low and wait for the other little stacks to go all-in against each other. But then those little stacks all start to double up, and then your big stack isn't big anymore, and stuff.

    Mostly I got the impression that Chewme was relying on small pots to increase his stack - like by stealing blinds in position, restealing from the sb, taking advantage of sitters on the bubble, and his ability to read opponents and accurately predict how they were likely to respond to his actions, and stuff like that?

    I mean like I don't know ... it's all a bit of a blur in my head that I'm still trying to sort out ...
    Last edited by TrustySam; Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:56 AM.


    • #3
      Hey TrustySam & Sandtrap777 umbup: Thanks for taking the time to ask about this hand, I will try to give you more information on the important concepts that made me go with this hand, and other large pots/all ins that I am faced with. Let's cover the facts. ifaint is 27bb deep, and raising from utg to 2.5x the big blind. me and ifaint have some previous history where I folded to his 3bet reshove. When we have history with an opponent our hand ranges can alter dramatically. I am 1st or 2nd in chips and have been opening a lot, I have over 50bb. You will have probably heard me talking about having a plan for your hand before you play it, it is something I bring up a lot because it is very important. My plan here was to 3bet ifaint to try to induce him to 4bet/shove all in against me. He is more likely to 4bet/shove against me with a wider range than usual because of our history. I decided to take this plan because of our history, and even if I did lose the hand I would still have 20+bb's. With 27 players left in the tournament and 18 places being paid this doesn't mean to say I will be tightening up my range so I can make it in the money. I am the big stack, and as a big stack I shouldn't have to worry about this. I don't worry about this even if i'm shorstacked, with 27 players left to go I will not be going out of my way to make the money and I will be playing the tournament as if their was 100's to go before the money. I may alter the way I play with 5 players or so until the bubble breaks, and obviously alter the way I play if we are one or two away from the direct bubble. I believe my success from poker is massively due to the fact that I always have a plan before I play my hand. I will think out the plan that I feel will win me the most money, and I will go with it. Near enough all of the decisions I am faced with I use the history I have had with that player in particular or base my decision because of the way he or she played a certain hand before , etc. I always using the information I have about somebody to help guide me with my decisions. If I wasn't bankrolled to play the games that I am in then I wouldn't be playing them, however with that being said..... if I took a shot at a game im not bankrolled for and I was faced with the same hand that you have quoted above, then I may play the hand differently but the bubble prize money would have to be substantially large. I'm not the greatest at explaining in depth thoughts but I hope I have given you some insight to the way I think ? If you have more questions about this then let me know, I think it is all very interesting and I believe we all approach the game differently and for that reason we all naturally play differently, and this is why we have to learn and change the way that we are naturally used to playing, including myself. Cheers, Chris,
      Last edited by ChewMe1; Mon Jul 16, 2012, 02:30 AM.


      • #4
        Okay, that's interesting Chewme ... especially hearing how important prior play with the opponent factors into your decision-making. I think I kind of wondered some of the same things as Sandtrap - like how conservative should one be in protecting one's stack versus taking risks to try and build it, or to try and knock other people out, etc. I guess it's like something ongoing that I wonder about, so it's always kind of interesting to see how other people deal with that balance. Especially if they've got a wicked ROI, eh? umbup: umbup: umbup: There were some other hands from your video Middle and Late Stage Play where that question of whether to play for stacks or take a more conservative line came in, that are kind of interesting to contrast with the one you posted Sandtrap. 1. This one's kind of interesting in that ChewMe took a very conservative line against the big stack that had never 3bet him before @93:50 - 99 in the cutoff, Chewme got 3bet and decided to call rather than shove or fold - there were much smaller stacks at the table, it was only a small amount to call, Chewme had position, there was the possibility of hitting a set and then stacking the sb, etc - and then post-flop Chewme continued to pot-control, becoming chip-leader while also ensuring he lost the minimum of he was behind (although he felt he was likely good) 2. On the other hand, there was this one against a slightly smaller stack, where ChewMe as chip-leader was willing to get it all in at the risk of losing and winding up left with just 20bb's @100:30 - 99 in the sb - Chewme got 3bet and didn't want to fold, or call and have to play out of position, so he 3bet to induce a shove (like in Sandtrap's hand) 3. And then Chewme made a bit of a comeback and was able to move back up to 3rd of 4th - but was still close to being last - and was willing to put his tournament life on the line and play for stacks @106:45 - A4s in the sb against that bb that does those weird little 3bets - post-flop the bb does another one of those weird 3bets with a check-raise, and so Chewme just got it in Whenever I start learning about a new topic, I like to do a Google search and scan over articles to get a feel the stuff that people like to factor into their decision-making, and everybody mentioned that thing about avoiding tangling with stacks the same size or bigger if there's smaller ones at the table. I remember one article saying, "it's always much easier to pick off the low-hanging fruit" But on the other hand, I guess if an opportunity comes up like the A4s @106:45, maybe sometimes it pays to take some risks as well too, eh? I'm not sure how well I'm doing finding that ideal balance just yet between being patient and cautious, and on the other hand taking risks so you can put yourself in a better position to go deeper. I guess that's the nice thing about cash games - you just keep going round and round and round, and if you go bust, you just press reload and it's as if that last station call to the river never happened. No redos in tourneys Lots to keep studying - will keep at it. I'm really enjoying your videos ChewMe. Thx for the additional info too!! umbup:
        Last edited by TrustySam; Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:52 AM.


        • #5
          I will give you my thoughts on the hands that you have picked out,

          Hand 1 - 99

          Ok so here is a strange spot, the big blind that has been playing loose passive decides to min 3bet me, we are 5 handed so our hand values increase dramatically, right here with my 9's I feel I have the op beat, but I will procees with caution as he is the only player at the table that can bust me, and I am 40 bb's deep, their are 2 other stacks with under 20 bb's so ideally them guys will bust before I risk my tournament life in this spot.

          So I decide to take a pot controlling line, from what I remember the villain has not 3bet us yet, because of this and because of the two short stacks at the table I decide to flat call the 3bet instead of 4bet/jamming all in.

          The check/call line is super standard on this board given his bet sizing, I don't want to raise the flop or the turn incase villain shoves on me, and if I do raise his c bet or the turn bet then he is going to fold out all his bluffs and at the same time I lose a big chunk of my chips, so raising his c bet for information here is a mistake imo, if I raise his cbet to let's say 11 - 14k and then fold to a shove it just sucks.

          I have to give the BB some credit for a hand as I havn't seen him make a tiny 3bet like this yet, when an opponent does something out of the ordinary that you havn't seen before it's a lot harder to get a grasp on their holding.

          So because of all the information I have I feel like flat calling is best.

          Hand 2 - 99

          So a button raise of 3x from a tag player and we are holding 99.

          This is a sticky spot for me but again, I had a plan and I went with it.

          The button raiser was on the tighter side of a tag so I was genuinely concerned about getting it in, but because of the reasons I am about to give you I believe that I played it fine.

          If the button raiser was a little tighter then I may of just called his button raise, but he was right on the edge of tight and super tight, <-- I hope that made sense lol ?

          Button raises to 4800 (3x) and has 50k behind, so a total of 34 bb's, I have 90,000 chips so I have 56 bb's. I decided to 3bet and call a shove because if I was indeed losing then I would still be left with 22 bb's, which leaves me with a relatively short, but playable stack size.

          I figured that my 9's are good enough in this spot for me to get it all in and show a profit, ( we are 4 handed ) ... so 99 is a monster, and again if we are behind then we can always bink are 2 outer , 4 to a flush/straight.

          Or just lose the hand and be left with 22bb's.

          If the button raiser had the same amount as chips as I did then I would be more inclined to just flat call his button raise, I will 3bet get it in here with 9's against everybody except for the super tight guys, and this guy was close to being one of those, so the entire hand was a difficult one to play and is a situation that doesn't come up much.

          Hand 3 - A4s

          Blind on blind I make a standard raise with A4s vs the BB, I have 37 bb's and the BB has us covered. We have new information on the BB and have noticed that he likes to min reraise a lot.

          Before I played this hand I was aware of this players style and was expecting to get played back at on most boards.

          But when I flop the nut flush draw with a gutshot and an overcard, I am certainly going to take a stand.

          So I make it 2.5x from the sb and he calls. I c bet half the pot ( 4300 ) and like we assumed, he min raised us to ( 8600 ). So right now their is 21,500 in the middle and we have only 50k behind.

          I like shoving because firstly, we assumed he's going to be playing back at us on a ton of flops before we played the hand, so when he min raises here he could have absolutely nothing, we also have a ton of fold equity, It's going to cost him 46k to call our shove!

          When you think of the hand like I just have, the best play is to jam all in right? He is going to fold at least half of the time, and when he folds we pick up 21,500 lovely chippy's... which is nearly half our remaining stack, and if he does call then we are either flipping or we are ahead of some of his draws.

          If I decided to flat call his min raise then im in all sorts of trouble if we dont hit our draw on the turn. So by re shoving all in on the flop.. if the guy was to call then we get to see both the turn and river card.... where as if I just called then im only going to see the turn card, and then check/fold if he decides to bet the turn.

          So what I have done here is I have used the information we have on this guy, and we have worked out that we have a lot of fold equity and we dont expect to be called more times than not. So my decision was based on not just one bit of information, but also based on the fold equity and players hand range.

          One more thing that would entice me to shove all in is that we are now in 3rd place out of 4th, so I need to get busy if im going to win this thing, and with this hand it is the perfect opportunity for us to do that.

          Again guys I hope I helped, I do realise that I have blobbled on a lot lol.
          Last edited by ChewMe1; Tue Jul 17, 2012, 12:27 AM.


          • #6
            ^^^^^^ Okay, that's really good stuff there ... trying to take it all in and process it. Like, for example you mentioned fold equity being a factor with the A4s hand in the video, but somehow that didn't wind up getting put in my notes I guess because I was trying to absorb other stuff Same with the button being tight, etc. And then there's that additional info about 4 handed-handed play having different standards umbup: This is all awesome feedback to hear about because ... not sure how other people look at these set of hands, but so many of us who came up through the PSO leagues, it seems like a lot of us might have a tendency to play all our hands the way you played the first 99 hand in the blinds against the ATs (cautious, cautious, cautious!) But then on the other hand, sometimes yeah there's that nagging feeling where I end up wondering what might have happened if I had played things differently. And so to see somebody else take the path not taken ... and have things turn out really great ... it's real food for thought. Like there's so much emphasis placed on TAG and patient play when one's first starting out, especially for the microstakes, that I when there's plays that might be a little more risky - it's both interesting to see, but a little scary too in that it can feel a bit 'outside the box'? Although I can think of at least one exception to TAG patient play, that virtually all of us generally accept is more EV than playing TAG all the time - loosening up on the button and stealing blinds to stay afloat. So then, maybe there's more too? I guess the reason (LAG play > TAG play) on the button is because the advantages of position more than compensate for the risks of opening up one's range? So maybe there's other factors that can act as hedges against increased risk-taking, like having a big stack with everybody to act behind being shorter (but not too short)? Or having superior post-flop skills (as evidenced by people oftentimes responding the way ChewMe predicts they will to his raises/calls), etc. So much of my time the first couple of years of playing poker has been spent just trying to get the basics down, which has meant trying to plug all the leaks in my own game. And I'm still working on trying to not be so much of a fish (lol! work in progress ), but lately it's also been seeming like I'm needing to focus as well on opponents' strengths/weaknesses at times when the competition is harder? So if there's an edge to be found in better stack management, or in learning when/where/how much to cbet or 3bet ... like those are interesting things to be looking at, eh? Chewme had a couple of other really interesting hands from the video, an A7o from middle position, and a J3o reraise, but they were a lot farther outside the TAG box ... not sure how they'd be received if I posted them lol! But they're worth watching for people thirsting for fresh ideas I think. They were very reminiscent of the Celina Lin 50/50 video where she 3-bet with the 53o, and ended up like tripling her money by the end of the game. I get the sense that the key to being a successful LAG might be that it's more controlled and deliberate? Not to be confused with those wild monkeys that go on a massive heater mid-tourney only to flame out before half of us have even played a hand, etc?
            Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Jul 17, 2012, 06:54 AM.


            • #7
              I"m still pondering the 2nd and 3rd hands in my little poker cave because it's such a different approach to how I'd normally play the hand, which is always very interesting and exciting to see umbup: And so here's the possible moves and outcomes for the A4s hand after the sb did that weird check-raise:
              1. Fold - H: 50,478, V: 89,167, (45,646), (84,709)
              2. Call
              	A. And hit on the turn
              		i. And villain check-folds to a raise - H: 71,978, V: 67,667, (45,646), (84,709)
              		ii. And Villain raise-folds - not likely since they'd be drawing dead and pot was already so large and ChewMe didn't have much behind
              	B. And miss
              		i. And villain raises, so hero must fold - H: 46,178, V: 93,467, (45,646), (84,709)
              		ii. And villain checks, giving hero a chance to see a free river
              			a. And river hits (and villain check-folds) - H: 71,978, V: 67,667, (45,646), (84,709).
              			b. And river misses - H: 46,178, V: 93,467, (45,646), (84,709)
              3. Shove
              	A. And it's met with a fold - H: 71,978, V: 67,667, (45,646), (84,709)
              	B. And it's met with a call
              		i. And a win - H: 118,156, V: 21,489, (45,646), (84,709)
              		ii. And a miss - out and win $59.04
              I guess the way I'd usually play would be to try and small-ball with #2 in the hopes that if I lose the loss would be small. Unfortunately I guess that also means when I make the hand, the wins are winding up smaller as well. So of the two outcomes for #2, hitting or missing - I guess making the hand would result in a tie for 2nd/3rd in chips. And a miss would result in a tie for 3rd/4th. Whereas the two outcomes for #3, hitting or missing - I guess making the hand would result in a solid 1st in chips. And a miss would result in a definite 4th. And then, the really interesting part, is that in doing a really rustic lazy person's ICM ... since A4s is a flip against 82o on that flop, that means that half the time if* the stack sizes hold and the chip lead results in a 1st place win, playing the hand with method #3 would mean a 1st place win and half the time would mean a 4th place finish. Giving an average prize of $140.26 ($221.47 for 1st, and $59.04 for 4th). Whereas in contrast, playing the hand with method #2 would mean a 2nd place finish half the time [I]if[/I* the chip stacks held resulting in a 2nd place finish, and a 3rd place finish the other half the time [I]if[/I* the chip stacks held resulting in a 3rd place finish. Giving an average prize of $117.71 ($147.60 for 2nd, and $87.82 for 3rd). Like because prizes are so top-heavy, it's better prize-wize in the long-run to shoot for 1st and miss half the time, than to go for the sure things of 2nd and 3rd, eh? Still thinking things through ... interesting to run across fresh ideas of doing things that open your eyes to new possibilities * That's the assumption I had to make to simplify the ICM calc ... like although sometimes by taking the low-risk route you maintain the chance to still win 1st. But then other times, by going the low-risk route, we'll also still inevitably wind up coming in 4th too. So ... I guess I'm assuming that those'll even out too over time
              Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:53 PM.



              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.