Poker Video: MTT/SNG by DJ Sensei (Mid Stakes)

The episode cuts off immediately after the sweat portion for me on the mp4 download. Otherwise, I enjoyed the vid.

The episode cuts off immediately after the sweat portion for me on the mp4 download. Otherwise, I enjoyed the vid.

I've got Rusty looking into what happened here, will update you as soon as we know what happened to part 2.

Rob

I've got Rusty looking into what happened here, will update you as soon as we know what happened to part 2.

Rob

Part 2 coming shortly. Sorry for the oversight.
-Rusty

Time Link to 00:03:13

Is it your standard to flat with MPP OTB with one limper?

Part 2 coming shortly. Sorry for the oversight.
-Rusty

Fixed the video, enjoy.
-Rusty

Time Link to 00:34:07

It was mentioned that with this stack size opening wide isn't really the most profitable since we lose our 3betting fold equity. And I realize that Vanessa was talking more along the lines of when we're deeper. But how relevant are their VPIP / PFR stats here vs their 3bet and steal stat. We've already had Luke identify the player to his immediate left as a tough player. He did just iso A9s last hand as well.

Also, since this is a turbo it's really difficult to approximate their true vpip/pfr as we know it takes a long time for those to converge properly. However if someone's steal is at 60% or their 3bet is > 10% it's easier to assume that they're just going to own us when we start opening wide.

I'd also like to add that it's a $100r, which from what I've seen are the toughest tournaments because of the high rolling regs, and that it's a turbo they're already prepared for the variance of 3bet shoving hands like SC.

Time Link to 00:38:56

We've already decided that she's a super nit w/ 0/0, even though it's only 24 hands which I don't put a lot of weight on. All it means to me is that they either haven't had many opportunities to steal, which is pretty common w/ someone like Luke to your right, or that they just on a dry run of cards. Since we didn't see how "her" chips were gained it's hard to range her as just a nit. Also, when I see those stats a lot of times I search them on the client and see if they're multi-tabling. If they are playing a bunch of tables it would make it more likely for them to be auto piloting. If they're playing just one table, then you could possibly add a boredom factor into their range and widen it out a little bit

With the shove the only hand that should be in villains range that we "might" value from with the check / shove is AQ. They're folding 99-JJ and snapping us off w/ QQ+, we chop AK and obviously get wrecked by KQs(if we can assume that's in their range for being a nit in early position.) Personally I like 3betting pre better, playing oop is definitely really annoying and w/ AKs we have so much equity vs their range, don't need to go into the value of it, we obviously know that already. The problem comes with the sizing of the 3bet, when we get 4bet/ shoved on we're obviously calling since she only has 8800 behind after the pfr and any 3bet gives near 2:1 odds on what is easily a flip situation vs the range. Granted we fold out KQs, possibly AQ, but it's also very likely that we can fold out TT/JJ vs a super nit. But what's wrong with picking up that really nice sized pot pre and moving on. I'm not sure if I would just 3bet to something like 2300 or just shove myself. In game I'd probably shove pre and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

I say call with the ATo hand on the river for the reasons you guys gave at the end of the analysis. Liked the video though, great format and good insight.

It was mentioned that with this stack size opening wide isn't really the most profitable since we lose our 3betting fold equity. And I realize that Vanessa was talking more along the lines of when we're deeper. But how relevant are their VPIP / PFR stats here vs their 3bet and steal stat. We've already had Luke identify the player to his immediate left as a tough player. He did just iso A9s last hand as well.

Also, since this is a turbo it's really difficult to approximate their true vpip/pfr as we know it takes a long time for those to converge properly. However if someone's steal is at 60% or their 3bet is > 10% it's easier to assume that they're just going to own us when we start opening wide.

I'd also like to add that it's a $100r, which from what I've seen are the toughest tournaments because of the high rolling regs, and that it's a turbo they're already prepared for the variance of 3bet shoving hands like SC.

I wouldn't get caught up in high stats at all when I'm opening in MP. Their stats don't really reflect how they're going to react to me opening the stack size that I have, so it is a situation you sort of have to wade through. For what its worth, I'm not opening incredibly wide with that stack size.

With respect to stealing, the steal stat in HEM reflects how often they raise from the CO/BU when folded to them. 3-bet is a more accurate reflection of how they're going to react when I open with a medium stack size.

I think I said in the video that I don't mind taking high-variance spots in that tournament in particular. Reason being of course its tough and its a turbo. So my two choices to adjust are either 1) call reshoves lighter or 2) not open as much. In the video I'll always just raise/call lighter for the entertainment value.

I usually tell my students not to get caught up in the ego of it all. If you have tough players on your left who will play back with a high enough frequency, the optimal strategy is probably to have a tighter opening range.

We've already decided that she's a super nit w/ 0/0, even though it's only 24 hands which I don't put a lot of weight on. All it means to me is that they either haven't had many opportunities to steal, which is pretty common w/ someone like Luke to your right, or that they just on a dry run of cards. Since we didn't see how "her" chips were gained it's hard to range her as just a nit. Also, when I see those stats a lot of times I search them on the client and see if they're multi-tabling. If they are playing a bunch of tables it would make it more likely for them to be auto piloting. If they're playing just one table, then you could possibly add a boredom factor into their range and widen it out a little bit

With the shove the only hand that should be in villains range that we "might" value from with the check / shove is AQ. They're folding 99-JJ and snapping us off w/ QQ+, we chop AK and obviously get wrecked by KQs(if we can assume that's in their range for being a nit in early position.) Personally I like 3betting pre better, playing oop is definitely really annoying and w/ AKs we have so much equity vs their range, don't need to go into the value of it, we obviously know that already. The problem comes with the sizing of the 3bet, when we get 4bet/ shoved on we're obviously calling since she only has 8800 behind after the pfr and any 3bet gives near 2:1 odds on what is easily a flip situation vs the range. Granted we fold out KQs, possibly AQ, but it's also very likely that we can fold out TT/JJ vs a super nit. But what's wrong with picking up that really nice sized pot pre and moving on. I'm not sure if I would just 3bet to something like 2300 or just shove myself. In game I'd probably shove pre and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

One thing I'm thinking about here is that her stats are 0/0 and not 15/0 or 20/0. Even though it is 24 hands, I think a total fish would limp a few hands in 3 orbits of play. What I do with that assumption is just assume some form of TAG player who most likely won't call a 3-bet with dominated hands (TOURNEY LIFE!!!). Therefore, the most value would be in calling.

Not to be results oriented, but I think check/calling the turn is better in retrospect. I doubt the type of player I described above would actually call with hands other than KJ, KT, big draws.

Sure, being OOP with AKs might be tough but don't forget the shorter we are, the less position is going to matter. For instance, in that situation I would definitely just shove over a small bet on XXX (little cards) hoping my assumptions are correct and that she'll fold some hands she shouldn't. It also simplifies the hand.

Anyways, I wouldn't go too far with what I have assumed about the player in question. I would rather you think about why I reacted the way I did (or think I should) than how I got to the assumption I did based on 24 hands. There is no magic behind it. Just making an ass out of...me.

Thanks for the comments btw.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to those, I know they were a bit lengthy. I'll just add that I love the series, it's awesome to hear so many different points of view from top level MTT'ers. And thanks for giving up some ev to make it entertaining for us

I feel like this would work so much better with people commentating with Luke who play online mtts as their profession. It feels like Luke has to explain a lot of the considerations you need to have in these tournaments to the two of them and despite the fact they are obviously very good poker players, it seems strange they were picked for this series.

Time Link to 00:49:21

I think if he were bluffing on the river, I like his bet sizing there. The way IWEARGOGGLES played his hand, it's sort of obvious that he does not have a flush and probably has some Ax or Qx hand that is looking to showdown for cheap on the river. A 3000 chip bet is really just a pot-sized bet since the pot was already close to 2900, but it represents close to half of IWEARGOGGLES' stack, and the psychological effect of that would definitely apply a lot more pressure as compared to a 1/2 or 2/3 pot bet.

I feel like this would work so much better with people commentating with Luke who play online mtts as their profession. It feels like Luke has to explain a lot of the considerations you need to have in these tournaments to the two of them and despite the fact they are obviously very good poker players, it seems strange they were picked for this series.

That is kinda the point really isn't it? I mean, there wouldn't really be much point in having three people that did not need to explain things to each other. From what I am seeing, Luke is able to explain some of his points very well, but at the same time Vanessa and DJ (who are both very good at mtt also) are able to bring other stuff to the table that Luke can learn from.

All good from what I can see.

Loving this series as much as I enjoyed tournamentality... awesome job... love this trio

great comment vanessa....

nice vid

Time Link to 00:48:47

I might be missing something but I think this play would be so bad for value that it almost has to be a bluff. Hero's range is pretty face-up here as an AJ type of hand when he checks the river so the 3k bet only nets 1200 chips more than the 1800 bet but seems to kill the calling range of Q's and mid A's that might look up a 1500 chip bet.

Plus some players could have checked the flush over twice so 3000 into 2800 for value when trying to get looked up by hero's overall range seems quite horrendous. IMO Tournament players should focus more on 100% chip accumulation spots even if it means giving up some ev. The expectation of a 3000 chip bet being called even 60% of the time by an A means the other 40% you get nothing. The 1800 chip bet might have a called frequency of 100% and also get a few rare calls from QK.

Time Link to 00:51:04

You guys are all much better than me but I strongly disagree with flatting and like Luke's original inclination more. The commentary wasn't recorded live, was it? It sort of looked like it was.

Luke doesn't have that much money to play with. I think the open creates a pot size of 1400, which is about 15% of his stack already in dead money. There's a chance villain could spazz out with a tight image as well. Flatting OOP leads to ugly spots where he can peel one but has to fold to any further aggression.

I'm assuming you're 3b/calling pre with AKo and the added playability of the suited AK made it a flat?