$$33 NL HE MTT: 5 bet shoving QQ pre when deep and deepstacked?

[Jaelan]

Game

Hold'em

Game Format

No Limit

Table Format

MTT

Buy-in

$33

Currency

$

SHOULD I HAVE FLAT CALLED HIS 4BET PRE HERE WITH QQ RATHER THAN 5 BET SHOVE? I'm curlywurlz and I'm so deepstacked and wonder if i could have preserved my tournament life here being so deep in the tournament. I was currently sitting at 34/180/5887

pokerstars, $30 + $3 - Hold'em No Limit - 17,500/35,000 (4,500 ante) - 8 players
Replay this hand on CardsChat

The.Architectt (UTG): 4,032,680 (115 bb)
Matu1096 (UTG+1): 1,348,480 (39 bb)
bozzyyyy (MP): 1,370,644 (39 bb)
AndyKidPoker (MP+1): 3,685,231 (105 bb)
CurlyWurlz (CO): 2,216,191 (63 bb)
NegromJames (BU): 2,719,528 (78 bb)
mfae (SB): 1,788,632 (51 bb)
veky brate (BB): 881,231 (25 bb)

Pre-Flop: (88,500) Hero (CurlyWurlz) is CO with Q♥ Q♠
3 players fold, AndyKidPoker (MP+1) raises to 80,500, CurlyWurlz (CO) 3-bets to 266,000, NegromJames (BU) 4-bets to 616,000, 3 players fold, CurlyWurlz (CO) 5-bets to 2,211,691 (all-in), NegromJames (BU) calls 1,595,691

Flop: (4,592,382) 9♣ A♠ 4♦ (2 players, 1 all-in)

Turn: (4,592,382) 6♥ (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: (4,592,382) 3♥ (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: 4,592,382

Showdown:
CurlyWurlz (CO) shows Q♥ Q♠ (a pair of Queens)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 53%, Flop: 8%, Turn: 5%, River: 0%)

NegromJames (BU) shows A♣ K♣ (a pair of Aces)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 47%, Flop: 92%, Turn: 95%, River: 100%)

NegromJames (BU) wins 4,592,382

 

[fundiver199]

Against some really nitty players, who you think might have a cold 4-betting range of only AA and KK, you could make a tight fold preflop. But we are not putting in almost 30% of our stack to setmine out of position with QQ. And this is a late position confrontation in a $33 MTT, where presumably most players will have some cold 4-bet bluffs. So yes the correct play is to 5-bet jam here, especially since there are no ICM-implication with the final table still being miles away. And at least he did not have AA or KK. So basically the hand is just a lost coinflip, and this is, how a lot of tournaments end.

 

[Jaelan]

Against some really nitty players, who you think might have a cold 4-betting range of only AA and KK, you could make a tight fold preflop. But we are not putting in almost 30% of our stack to setmine out of position with QQ. And this is a late position confrontation in a $33 MTT, where presumably most players will have some cold 4-bet bluffs. So yes the correct play is to 5-bet jam here, especially since there are no ICM-implication with the final table still being miles away. And at least he did not have AA or KK. So basically the hand is just a lost coinflip, and this is, how a lot of tournaments end.

I must admit, folding QQ wasn't even a consideration for me here. I was calling the 4 bet or 5bet jamming.....would calling the 4bet in this situation be a leak in your opinion? Also, at what point where you're taking ICM into account would you not be 5 bet shoving or calling the 4bet or folding pre?

 

[puzzlefish]

basically the hand is just a lost coinflip, and this is, how a lot of tournaments end

This is pretty much what I would say here as well, and one of the most disappointing aspects of playing poker in MTTs. It's the big let down when you go deep and land on the wrong side of a flip.

would calling the 4bet in this situation be a leak in your opinion?

I don't think it would be much of a leak if at all and you could get away from a flop that has an A and K, and still live to fight another hand. I'd be interested to see a solver showing this to be a mandatory 5bet jam.

at what point where you're taking ICM into account would you not be 5 bet shoving or calling the 4bet or folding pre?

So you're asking when QQ is a fold here after the 3bet? I think you would have to be closer to the final table (maybe final two tables) and still have 20BB behind you. But I don't know for sure!

 

[Jaelan]

Does anyone think the villain's call with AK is bad here? (he did tank for a long time before calling)

 

[John A]

Can you post in BB for your hands in the future?

As far as the hand, w/ someone cold 4-betting, I don't even hate an exploitable fold here if your opponent is even somewhat tight. The worst hand this guy is showing up w/ is likely AK. JJ/TT are likely almost always flatting. I don't hate a call, or a shove though either.

 

[fundiver199]

I don't think it would be much of a leak if at all and you could get away from a flop that has an A and K, and still live to fight another hand.

The thing is, a tournament life or "live to fight another day" has no value in itself, unless you have a big edge on the field, or payjumps are near, so that 2M chips are not nearly twice as valuable as 1M chips. Here presumably neither of this was the case. It was deep in a $33 MTT, where the average player is likely pretty competent, and with 180 left the big payjumps dont begin, until another 90% of the field is gone. Which mean, that Hero is going to need not just one but more likely 3 dubble ups to make it there.

I'd be interested to see a solver showing this to be a mandatory 5bet jam.

I plugged the situation into GTO Wizard selecting 60BB stacks, since this was the effective stack. And while the solver does call QQ a small percentage of the time, it 5-bet jam QQ far more often. AA is actually called way more often than QQ, and the obvious reason is, the hand needs less protection, and its still very easy to get the chips in postflop.

 

[eetenor]

Does anyone think the villain's call with AK is bad here? (he did tank for a long time before calling)

No it is not bad---Calling AKs is exactly how you are supposed to play that spot-

 

[eetenor]

The thing is, a tournament life or "live to fight another day" has no value in itself, unless you have a big edge on the field, or payjumps are near, so that 2M chips are not nearly twice as valuable as 1M chips. Here presumably neither of this was the case. It was deep in a $33 MTT, where the average player is likely pretty competent, and with 180 left the big payjumps dont begin, until another 90% of the field is gone. Which mean, that Hero is going to need not just one but more likely 3 dubble ups to make it there.

I plugged the situation into GTO Wizard selecting 60BB stacks, since this was the effective stack. And while the solver does call QQ a small percentage of the time, it 5-bet jam QQ far more often. AA is actually called way more often than QQ, and the obvious reason is, the hand needs less protection, and its still very easy to get the chips in postflop.

The EV is the same for both actions the question is as you stated how much of an edge do we have over the field and how tight is this player? We need them to 4 bet AQs AJs KQs KJS JJ TT and then call JJ full and TT 73% for us to get full EV value for the shove. If that is not happening then calling is a more viable action than represented in the solver. Not the best option, just more viable than the solver which would mean an increased frequency of calling but only if we have a strong skill edge and a tight standard player.

 

[Jaelan]

Can you post in BB for your hands in the future?

As far as the hand, w/ someone cold 4-betting, I don't even hate an exploitable fold here if your opponent is even somewhat tight. The worst hand this guy is showing up w/ is likely AK. JJ/TT are likely almost always flatting. I don't hate a call, or a shove though either.

Hey,

What do you mean can i post in BB?

 

[Station_Master]

Hey,

What do you mean can i post in BB?

I think he means the raise sizes in BB rather than chips. It's much easier to follow the action.

I think a shove is fine here for 60bb unless your opponent is a nit or you are perceived as a nit. It's late position v late position and not super deep so while you will run into AA and KK alot you will also see AK, maybe JJ and hopefully some bluffs

 

[fundiver199]

We need them to 4 bet AQs AJs KQs KJS JJ TT and then call JJ full and TT 73% for us to get full EV value for the shove. If that is not happening then calling is a more viable action than represented in the solver.

No then folding is a more viable option than represented in the solver. If they are only 4-betting the nuts, then the EV of calling as well as showing goes way down.

 

[SpanRmonka]

Can we, and/or should we also be considering if this is your regular level of tournament.

I think I know the standard answer is if we are usually microstakes, then we don't have a skill edge, therefore the shove becomes a better play. But I actually believe there is some EV, in just going deeper in a tournament, and getting to play it for longer, personally I think we can occasionally give up a little EV for this purpose. Especially when its not entirely wrong.

1 phrase I always quote from a Dara O Kearney book is 'losing hurts way more than winning feels good' Basically its a kind of reminder to try and avoid putting your tourney life at risk if you can.

So, can we consider calling, and getting away from this hand if an A or K comes on the flop?

Also surely the solver is expecting some folds to the shove which is why it thinks its profitable to shove. I just think the population of most games rarely cold 4 bets with a hand that wouldn't call, like maybe AKo might do, but really do many people do that with AQs/o. I just don't think they do, and furthermore I tend to think this is where solvers become slightly inaccurate, not is the actual output, but in their asumptions.

I think there's a chance that calling can be an exploit, due to population tendancies not to fold many hands they are cold 4 betting with.

I could be way off here, and I don't regularly play $30 games. I'd be very interested to hear what the more solver savvy guys think of my thoughts.

 

[fundiver199]

The issue with calling is, we are out of position, and we are not going to play postflop perfect. Sure its easy, when we know the opponents cards. Like in this case "there was an ace on the flop, and he had it, so we could have folded and saved some chips". But what if he had KJs and bet the A high flop? Then we are folding the best hand. Or what if flop comes 9J4 instead of 9A4? Then he is the one, who can save some chips by not stacking off with his AK. And we still go broke against AA, KK and JJ.

The truth is, not a lot of great things will happen, when we call out of position for almost 30% of our chips, unless we flop a set. So if we are to talk about, where solvers might be inaccurate against human players, then its more in their assumption, that there is a need for a calling range in this situation. In theory this allow the solver to fold slightly less, but its very complicated, and humans cant execute it well. So humans playing against other humans likely win more by folding a little more and pushing all the hands, they want to continue with.

And as others have said, does his cold 4-betting range really contain all those bluffs, which it is supposed to? Thats certainly up for debate, and if it does not, then the value of QQ shrinks dramatically. If he is only 4-betting KK+, AKs, then QQ only has 27% equity plus massive reverse implied odds postflop, because we go broke on all runouts, that dont contain a Q, K or A.

So while incorrect in solver world, against a human player its somewhat ok to just let go of QQ here and still have 55BB to continue in the tournament. Or we can just call QQ pre instead of 3-betting, when we are playing against one of the table chip leaders. Then presumably AKs will squeeze, and then we can dubble flat and see the flop much cheaper, where there is actually some room to maneuver. This is also incorrect in GTO world, but can perhaps induce some spazz and generate EV that way.

 

[Jaelan]

The thing is, a tournament life or "live to fight another day" has no value in itself, unless you have a big edge on the field, or payjumps are near, so that 2M chips are not nearly twice as valuable as 1M chips. Here presumably neither of this was the case. It was deep in a $33 MTT, where the average player is likely pretty competent, and with 180 left the big payjumps dont begin, until another 90% of the field is gone. Which mean, that Hero is going to need not just one but more likely 3 dubble ups to make it there.

I plugged the situation into GTO Wizard selecting 60BB stacks, since this was the effective stack. And while the solver does call QQ a small percentage of the time, it 5-bet jam QQ far more often. AA is actually called way more often than QQ, and the obvious reason is, the hand needs less protection, and its still very easy to get the chips in postflop.

I think he means the raise sizes in BB rather than chips. It's much easier to follow the action.

I think a shove is fine here for 60bb unless your opponent is a nit or you are perceived as a nit. It's late position v late position and not super deep so while you will run into AA and KK alot you will also see AK, maybe JJ and hopefully some bluffs

Ah ok. Thanks. Not sure how to change that in the card replayer. I'll have a look next time as yes, BB's much easier to follow

 

[Jaelan]

Can we, and/or should we also be considering if this is your regular level of tournament.

I think I know the standard answer is if we are usually microstakes, then we don't have a skill edge, therefore the shove becomes a better play. But I actually believe there is some EV, in just going deeper in a tournament, and getting to play it for longer, personally I think we can occasionally give up a little EV for this purpose. Especially when its not entirely wrong.

1 phrase I always quote from a Dara O Kearney book is 'losing hurts way more than winning feels good' Basically its a kind of reminder to try and avoid putting your tourney life at risk if you can.

So, can we consider calling, and getting away from this hand if an A or K comes on the flop?

Also surely the solver is expecting some folds to the shove which is why it thinks its profitable to shove. I just think the population of most games rarely cold 4 bets with a hand that wouldn't call, like maybe AKo might do, but really do many people do that with AQs/o. I just don't think they do, and furthermore I tend to think this is where solvers become slightly inaccurate, not is the actual output, but in their asumptions.

I think there's a chance that calling can be an exploit, due to population tendancies not to fold many hands they are cold 4 betting with.

I could be way off here, and I don't regularly play $30 games. I'd be very interested to hear what the more solver savvy guys think of my thoughts.

Yes, I generally play within the $11-$55 buy in range.

I think the main reason for my post is that I came second in a SCOOP this series and am chasing the win and although I didn't really question my QQ 5 bet jam with 65bigs at the time, i thought about it a lot afterwards and oddly like you mention, I had Dara ringing in my ears regarding avoiding flips where possible.

Generally, I am happy with how i played but was interested in a wider consensus on the subject. I guess at 80-100bigs, flatting the 4bet may be better than a shove?

 

[Jaelan]

The issue with calling is, we are out of position, and we are not going to play postflop perfect. Sure its easy, when we know the opponents cards. Like in this case "there was an ace on the flop, and he had it, so we could have folded and saved some chips". But what if he had KJs and bet the A high flop? Then we are folding the best hand. Or what if flop comes 9J4 instead of 9A4? Then he is the one, who can save some chips by not stacking off with his AK. And we still go broke against AA, KK and JJ.

The truth is, not a lot of great things will happen, when we call out of position for almost 30% of our chips, unless we flop a set. So if we are to talk about, where solvers might be inaccurate against human players, then its more in their assumption, that there is a need for a calling range in this situation. In theory this allow the solver to fold slightly less, but its very complicated, and humans cant execute it well. So humans playing against other humans likely win more by folding a little more and pushing all the hands, they want to continue with.

And as others have said, does his cold 4-betting range really contain all those bluffs, which it is supposed to? Thats certainly up for debate, and if it does not, then the value of QQ shrinks dramatically. If he is only 4-betting KK+, AKs, then QQ only has 27% equity plus massive reverse implied odds postflop, because we go broke on all runouts, that dont contain a Q, K or A.

So while incorrect in solver world, against a human player its somewhat ok to just let go of QQ here and still have 55BB to continue in the tournament. Or we can just call QQ pre instead of 3-betting, when we are playing against one of the table chip leaders. Then presumably AKs will squeeze, and then we can dubble flat and see the flop much cheaper, where there is actually some room to maneuver. This is also incorrect in GTO world, but can perhaps induce some spazz and generate EV that way.

Love this considered reply. Thanks a lot

 

[Jaelan]

Thanks for all your replies and insight.

 

[G0930]

Hey,

What do you mean can i post in BB?

Not only to make hand analysis for us easier, trust me it benefits your game when you set your stack to be displayed in BB.
If you listen to Pros, they never talk about having 100K or smth , no its always described in how many BBs you have. since it's a better way to orientate yourself .

For MTTs its beneficial while multitabling - helps to play after GTO system
For cashgame it helps some people to to be more at ease seeing BBs rather than how many dollars they have. Becomes more relevant in higher stakes ofc .

Ah ok. Thanks. Not sure how to change that in the card replayer. I'll have a look next time as yes, BB's much easier to follow

doesn't work that way. you need to set it to BB in your pokerclient

 

[Jaelan]

Not only to make hand analysis for us easier, trust me it benefits your game when you set your stack to be displayed in BB.
If you listen to Pros, they never talk about having 100K or smth , no its always described in how many BBs you have. since it's a better way to orientate yourself .

For MTTs its beneficial while multitabling - helps to play after GTO system
For cashgame it helps some people to to be more at ease seeing BBs rather than how many dollars they have. Becomes more relevant in higher stakes ofc .

doesn't work that way. you need to set it to BB in your pokerclient

Yes I agree. I always think and talk in BB's. I just don't like playing online with my display in BB's. I occasionally toggle it as and when required but I have been playing for years and will always keep it showing chip count as it's just personal preference. Plus when i play live, my chips aren't displayed in BB's so I'm used to it

 

[steve01991]

same, you had to do it, he was lucky to hit his ace, and you unfortunate to lose.

 

[SpanRmonka]

Love this considered reply. Thanks a lot

Me too!!