Play a hand with Sir Pawnalot.

[Sir Pawnalot]

This hand is also posted in my strategy discussion/getting flamed thread.

Play a hand with Sir Pawnalot.

Villain is typical weak/tight German player. He had not done anything irrational, and had won a couple of hands with strong hands. He had been betting pretty fast and big when he had something good. He did fold a lot postflop and had only been bluffing a couple of times- both times small bets.

My image was tight/passive. I had won one hand with a check raise about 5 hands earlier. But mostly I had just folded all hands. I had also given away a timing tell- I had been checking quickly with weak hands. This tell I reversed in this hand.

6 players left, blinds 25-50. Big stack 2155

Hero (1725):

All folds to Hero (CO minus 1) who raises to 150

Villain (1980)(CO): Calls 150

Flop (375)

With both flush draws and straight draws out there- I could not represent a king without betting out. Check- folding was also a good, if not better option.

I estimated my FE pretty high, since K was easily in my range. My E was pretty low though. I figured there was a lot of PPs in villains range preflop, because he didnt seem like a player who was comfortable playing air- especially not after a raise.

AA, KK, AK was unlikely in his range- because he was a player who bet strong hands hard. I estimated KQ was the bottom of his range. Therefore I figured his only K hand would be KQ. Since AA was out, there remained only underpairs and sets.

I did a small mistake by betting a ghey amount- 250.
This was stupid, because the reason I bet was to make all his underpairs fold.

My hand could easily be read as a bluff- like AQ, or JJ type of hands- hands which villain could fold out on turn. AK was probably out of my range because my weird bet size.

Villain calls rather quickly. It almost made me feel like he was planning a steal. If he had KQ, which was a likely hand before I bet on flop, he would probably have thought some more about his decision, because of draw heavy board.

Turn (875):

The turncard was pretty interesting. It completed no draws. Since there really was not many strong hands in his range- I wanted to induce a weak bluff- which I had seen him do in earlier games too.
By betting out I would only get called by KQ and sets. My FE was high, but I did not have enough information thus far in the hand that I could call a reraise. It would also be disastrous to convey weakness in this stage of the game. 50-100 was coming up and I had been nurturing my general FE.

I was planning a check-raise, but I was prepared to fold depending on villains action. My check was slow- almost like I had hit a set of 6, K or T. I believe villain thought that I either had a very strong hand or that I was contemplating firing a second but chickened out. By check-raising I could possibly also fold out KQ.

Villain bet 450 into 875. His action was slow and unless he was playing a sick metagame with me- his hand was probably weak. KQ was unlikely and I really narrowed his range to draws and PPs and a T.

My equity against this range was too low to call this ghey bet. If I had greater E than villain- he would still have a lot of outs in his range. But because he was a weak player, had conveyed weakness, and I figured he put me on either a very strong hand- or a bluff, I estimated my FE with a check-raise very high.

I raised all-in quickly (1325 into 1625). Results edited out.

This seems like a good play had it been a cash game. However, it was a sng and I am not certain it was a good play. But with all the unformation I had, I felt that folding would have been too weak- even for a sng.

[rong]

this post is too long, i lost interest

[CoccoBill]

If you have to think that hard midgame in an sng, you're doing it wrong.

What stakes is this? Anything under $22 I doubt you have much of a table image. On the turn the villain probably found something interesting picking his nose and took his time with it. Unless you have a couple hundred hands on the guy and some solid reads, don't try to put too much meaning on stupid crap like action timing, it's just as likely that your read is wrong and you make a horrible decision because of it.

Look, some friendly advice. Stop imagining anyone at low stakes is thinking about you, they're either donks who don't pay attention or multitablers who don't pay attention. Don't get yourself into difficult (marginal, speculative) situations in low stakes sngs, play TAGG till you get to under 15BB, then use ICM to pwn everyone in the push/fold game. WPT highlight moves do not belong in low stakes sngs.

But with all the unformation I had,

This.

[Rage2100]

I think you will lose a lot of money playing the hand the way you did.

I agree with CoccoBill, most low stakes players will not notice anything apart from their own cards.

[Sir Pawnalot]

Thank you for great tip!

[Sir Pawnalot]

Do you agree with the range I assigned him?

JJ, 99, 88, AQ, AT.

My equity versus this range? 20%? Please help with that one.

Fold equity versus this range (versus this villain) 100%. Margin of error 20%. Adjusted FE 80%

Would my move had been correct if this was true?

[fjuanl]

You didnt post stack sizes for you and villain, which is pretty important. I would say you are overthinking a little too much. You have a read that villain doesnt bluff and "folds a lot postflop". So when he calls your bet and then leads the turn...doesn't it make sense that villain has a very strong hand? Seems like an easy check/fold. Cbetting the flop seems ok, but once your called its time to shut down.

[Sir Pawnalot]

You didnt post stack sizes for you and villain, which is pretty important. I would say you are overthinking a little too much. You have a read that villain doesnt bluff and "folds a lot postflop". So when he calls your bet and then leads the turn...doesn't it make sense that villain has a very strong hand? Seems like an easy check/fold. Cbetting the flop seems ok, but once your called its time to shut down.

I did post stack sizes next to names.

He did not lead the turn- I checked to him. My read was that he bet strong with strong hands. He did not bluff much, when he did it was small bets.

I had played 2 sngs with him so I had good reads on him.

[mcatdog]

Just check-fold the flop, don't run big bluffs when you have two outs, and realize that you can't put people on ranges with this much certainty.

[Sir Pawnalot]

I do not want general answers.

This was the only big bluff I made the whole tournament. This is not standard play by any means.

This hand is more typical of my cash game than my sng game.

But- if we assume we have 80% FE and 20% E, can we make the check-raise profitably in a sng?

Please do not spam generic cliches.

[Mr Bigcity]

yes you can make the check raise profitably in sng

[fjuanl]

Do you agree with the range I assigned him?

JJ, 99, 88, AQ, AT.

you said that he's been folding most flops, but you think he's calling with 3rd pair on this board and then bluffing the turn? i wouldnt consider his sizing of 1/2 pot to be "small", which you said was typical for his bluffs.

My hand could easily be read as a bluff

broad generalization, you have no idea how he is interpreting your betsizing. fwiw your amount would be my standard for AK...if not even larger

Villain bet 450 into 875. His action was slow and unless he was playing a sick metagame with me- his hand was probably weak.

how exactly do you come to the conclusion that slow = hes bluffing?

anyway, its very clear that you belief this was a good bluff so I won't bother going much more in detail. i think its awesome making plays based on reads and really thinking through hands, which clearly you do

[mcatdog]

anyway, its very clear that you belief this was a good bluff so I won't bother going much more in detail. i think its awesome making plays based on reads and really thinking through hands, which clearly you do

Don't encourage him. He didn't think the hand through at all, it's quite clear that he was just mashing buttons on his mouse and only came up with this elaborate justification after the fact.

BTW this play would be terrible in a cash game too. The point is that you CAN'T assume you have 80% FE because you can never be that sure about someone's range, that's why you shouldn't make big bluffs unless you have more equity than a two-outer as emergency backup in case you get called.

[gingerwizard]

Just check fold flop. When you started going into details of big reads I was like "Wow that is detailed." Then I saw you were at the 25/50 level and I loled.

[Sir Pawnalot]

I agree that the best options here- based on absolute equity and absolute FE (as opposed to relative E and FE)- would be to check-fold flop, or to bet flop, check-fold turn.

I had played a couple of hundred hands versus him (2sngs). The only reason I felt I could do this move because I had solid reads. I estimated my accuracy of my read versus this villain to 80%- which is way higher than I usually estimate.

I felt certain he could not call without a King, and I was pretty sure he could have had no King because he called so quickly, without contemplating a raise, on a very draw heavy board. Callling a reraise with Aq, AQs, JJ, 99 type of hands was very unlikely- because my bet put him all in except a couple of hundred.

What you guys fail to realize is that my strategy involves taking advantage of all players on the table. This includes attacking weak-tights when I have strong reads.

You suggest that I play safe and sound sng strategy. I have played like that before and I know you can have good results doing this.

Problem is that I am working hard with my game nowadays and I am experimenting with ways to increase my edge versus all players. I am pushing the boundaries of my comfort zone and make more marginal moves.

This is how I think about it, assuming my estimation was correct:

- 80% of the time I will win by making villain fold.

Chipsstack: 3260. This is a good situation to be in before entering 50-100 blinds. It gives me a lot of room to maximize my advantage later in game.

- 20% of the time I will get called. My equity is very low against a call. This means that I will get knocked out almost 20% (15%?) of the time.

- If I check-fold turn, I will have 1325 chips left. With 6 players left I still have good chances of making it to the money. 50-100 blinds will give me very little room for outplaying opponents and forces me to play solid push-fold poker.

It seems like a lot of you guys play robotic poker- and that is what my strategy exploits. You need to remember that I have already played 600 games in the way that most of you suggest. Then I had a ROI of 30%- but now I am pushing my edges harder than previously.

The guy folded his hand very quickly and I came second in this tourney after a HU match that I was not happy with.

[gingerwizard]

And you made a very tiny profit on your buy in. That's why this sort of thinking and analysis is for cash players

[Sir Pawnalot]

TY for inputs.

I have realized that FTR will not help improve my game any further. FTR creates predictable players which can be easily exploited and I want no part of that.

I am on a journey to improve my game. You guys keep suggesting that I drop down to level 1 and 2 thinking. That is a huge step back for me and is detrimental to my future growth as a player.

I had high hopes for FTR and thought the pros here had a lot to learn me. Instead it is all just basic stuff.

Everyone assumes that low stakes players do not think and that tells does not count and that we therefore need to think only about our own hand. This is not my experience and I have had great success with trusting my reads. If I could not make good use of my memory- and disregard all information I am accumulating versus villains- my edge versus opponents would decrease dramatically.

There is several ways to win in poker- but all of them requires thinking.

[Sir Pawnalot]

And you made a very tiny profit on your buy in. That's why this sort of thinking and analysis is for cash players

Second place finishings is good IMO. I can not win every one.

Bye guys, keep folding till the money and take your 20 % ROI.

[Muzzard]

I have realized that FTR will not help improve my game any further. FTR creates predictable players which can be easily exploited and I want no part of that.

lol gg. There's no point of 3rd levelling a level 1 player.

Unless you have a couple hundred hands on the guy and some solid reads, don't try to put too much meaning on stupid crap like action timing, it's just as likely that your read is wrong and you make a horrible decision because of it.

Stop imagining anyone at low stakes is thinking about you, they're either donks who don't pay attention or multitablers who don't pay attention. Don't get yourself into difficult (marginal, speculative) situations in low stakes sngs, play TAGG till you get to under 15BB, then use ICM to pwn everyone in the push/fold game. WPT highlight moves do not belong in low stakes sngs.

+1

Do you agree with the range I assigned him? JJ, 99, 88, AQ, AT.

No I totally disagree with this range, JJ/AQ and possibly 99 RR preflop given ur LP position preflop. You dont have enough hands on this guy to assume such a tight range anyway. His range is more likely, boradways/PPs Axs, suited connectors preflop. Given flop action - I'd weight this more towards KT/KJ/KQ/QJ/AT/Spade draws, possibily some loer PP's. I'm assuming its a fairly low steak SNG, so ur fold equity isn't that high, he probably isnt folding a King/draw, so I think c/r turn is pretty disaterous.

You have a read that villain doesnt bluff and "folds a lot postflop". So when he calls your bet and then bets the turn...doesn't it make sense that villain has a strong hand? Seems like an easy check/fold. Cbetting the flop seems ok, but once your called its time to shut down.

+1

Just check-fold the flop, don't run big bluffs when you have two outs, and realize that you can't put people on ranges with this much certainty.

He didn't think the hand through at all, it's quite clear that he was just mashing buttons on his mouse and only came up with this elaborate justification after the fact.

BTW this play would be terrible in a cash game too. The point is that you CAN'T assume you have 80% FE because you can never be that sure about someone's range, that's why you shouldn't make big bluffs unless you have more equity than a two-outer as emergency backup in case you get called.

+1. Mcat is one of the better regs on this site fwiw

[Sir Pawnalot]

I am constantly being misunderstood.

Must I use caps to make things clear?

"This is how I think about it, ASSUMING my estimation was correct"

It was from a theoretical point of view. I almost never assume such an accurate range on people. I had a much wider range on him on flop, but I narrowed it down on turn. How much you can narrow his range depends on how much information you have about villain.

In this example I assumed 80%. This was a mistake, because I did not have enough information. The risk was greater than the reward in this instance.

It would have been a profitable cash game move, because FE was almost certainly greater than 45%.

If we assume FE 45% and E 0%, after playing hand 100 times:

We win 1625*45= 73125
We lose 1325*55= 72875

Profit after 100 hands= 250 USD.

Even without any E we can profitably bet with 45% FE in this instance- in a cash game.

[gingerwizard]

I have realized that FTR will not help improve my game any further. FTR creates predictable players which can be easily exploited and I want no part of that.

If only you'd try to listen. You are the exploitable one!

I exploit you in the following way. It's level 3, I have a 1700 stack, and you and this German guy go at it. You go for a very elaborate bluff based on a read that he folds 80% (a number based on seriously flawed assumptions).

Your bluff gives me a 20% chance to increase my equity if you are right. If you are wrong that is greater than 20%. Hence, in expectation, your decision to make this elaborate play MAKES ME MONEY LONGTERM!

All I have to do to make money out of you is sit in on your game and watch you piss away your equity to me even when I'm not playing.

I'm sorry you are going. You are very interested in poker which is good. But SNGs are totally the wrong place for the in-depth hand analysis you crave. The beginner forum for cash games should be much more your cup of tea

[Sir Pawnalot]

I really appreciate all of your responses Gingerwizard.

It makes me realize flaws in my game. It is not the critique that annoys me- but the generic replies by people who play robotic poker.

A check-raise bluff in middle stage sng is total stupidity IMO. That was not the point of this hand example.

This hand was supposed to show, through example, what I consider the basics of poker- FOLD EQUITY, EQUITY, INFORMATION, and EXPECTED VALUE- and how they relate.

Hope someone can make some input if this move is profitable in a sng IF WE ASSUME 80% FE and 20% E.

[Muzzard]

Hope someone can make some input if this move is profitable in a sng IF WE ASSUME 80% FE and 20% E.

Do the math, it's pretty simple

[jyms]

Did you just ask if having 80% FE is profitable too bluff?

[gingerwizard]

I think raising 77 from CO+1 in level 3, AND THEN, cbetting a wettish board, AND THEN, assuming 20%E and 80%FE is not a profitable move in SNGs.

This is the point really. Whether or not it is profitable if you assume 80%FE 20%E now you're here is the least of your problems. Getting this far with the pot this big is massively bad, and it destroys the profitablility of 77 early. How you can even get near a risk of busting, let alone a minimum 20% risk(still 1 in 5), with 77 having not hit a set is beyond me.

This move, taken as the whole hand, is not profitable IMO. I may be just a L1 player to you, but limping pf, check folding flop unless I set up makes 77 a very profitable hand for me early. It also keeps my stack relatively undamaged 7/8 times I miss, which is paramount in SNG strategy.

[Sir Pawnalot]

I agree with that.

Avoiding risk of elimination is important in sngs. It is one of my stronger points in sngs.

After reviewing the hand history- this was the only time I risked elimination before I was ITM. In retrospect I see that my FE was probably around 70%, maybe less. If we assume 60% FE and 0% E, which is on the low side, my risk for busting out in this sng was 40%- in total.

Therefore- after playing this sng 100 times I would have made the money 60%. I would also have a nice stack in those 60 games. In the other 40 games I would bust 6th.

If I had not risked anything this hand, I would have risked more when blinds 50-100 and beyond. I always try to keep the risk at a minimum and spare my moves for good situations.

What you said about you gaining E because of my battle against the Germans- I agree with that too. The real loser is the German though- who gives away 800 chips or so 60- 80% of the time. You lose a little E whenever I have a big stack though- because you get less chances of stealing the blinds- and when you push you wont get called.

I do not recommend anyone to play 77 like this, unless it is very well planned.

[Sir Pawnalot]

Hope someone can make some input if this move is profitable in a sng IF WE ASSUME 80% FE and 20% E.

Do the math, it's pretty simple

Its not that simple- thats why I asked for help. I know how to calculate EV in cash game, but SNG has others factors involved which I do not know how to integrate into the calculation.

[gingerwizard]

Therefore- after playing this sng 100 times I would have made the money 60%. I would also have a nice stack in those 60 games. In the other 40 games I would bust 6th.

No.

You bust out 40% AT LEAST.

In 100 sngs lots of things may/will happen to your bigger stack. You may have AA cracked, set over set, your correct calls of pf shoves may not win their races, and in the end there are a whole lot of other fking times you bust out before the money.

I have had a 7500 stack on the bubble and finished 4th. I saw this exact thing happen to a 2+2er who plays the $60 games LAST WEEK. Variance happens lol move on. But going out 40%, like this, will kill you.

I'm sorry Sir Pawn, but your ROI is a massive heater. This heater has boosted your ego so that you think any play you make is justifyable, because it worked. It is 100% not sustainable playing single table SNGs, particularly like this. The sad thing is you won't believe me until the doomswitch hits and you wonder where it all went wrong.

[Sir Pawnalot]

I believe you Ginger.

I do not believe I am on a heater though. I have never played any game or any stakes without profits.

If so I have been on one massive heater from my first hand in poker, from 2c- 4c limit- to 100NL.

I understand what you are saying- this particular hand was EV-. But put into context I rate the play slightly EV+, because this was my only bluff all tourney and my only risk of elimination.

If I had estimated my FE 60% it would have been an easy fold. I did a mistake and estimated it 80%. If 80% is "correct"- a check raise is more justifiable.

I have experienced doom switch too, but I did not lose faith in my abilities because of that. I studied harder and longer and always came back even stronger and more powerful. A massive negative variance run does not affect my ego- its a message from the Poker Gods I need to improve my game.

I thank you sincerely for taking this hand seriously- because from a quick glance it really look like an easy decision to check-fold. Sir P always thinks twice before folding though...

[Jack Sawyer]

Sir P wins, gg

[fjuanl]

omg please teach us robots more of your secrets

[Sir Pawnalot]

Thank you for inputs guys!

fjuanl- This hand was played 2 weeks ago. That is why some details may be inconsistent. Appreciate your inputs, they have learned me to be more cautious about my reads in sngs.

I looked through my hand histories and studied the hands that worried we. This was one of them. My interest in this hand revolved around what kind of FE I would need to justify a C/R in this spot.

[Poker Orifice]

Sir P,
I've gotta say,... why would want to spew chips in early levels in a situation like this? How could this be +EV? c/r on turn... to me it seems foolish.
Why not just wait for a better oppurtunity.

Sir P may always think twice about folding.... but why not think twice about depleting your stack on a marginal hand in a risky situation? Personally I'm looking twice at why I want to stay in a hand like this, then to be thinking twice about folding.

I think this hand'd be a pretty straightforward fire a c-bet on the flop to rep the K.. if I'm called.. shut 'er down.

Sir P, have you tried reading through Collin Moshman's SNG book? It's not real advanced or anything but it does put things together.

I too like to put alot of thought into my play (or into my game), but find MTTs & cash tables to be a better venue for it. Generally speaking for me sngs are about maintaining a stack in early levels, not risking chips in marginal situations and then mastering a push/fold game (getting there and then getting it done)

[Poker Orifice]

Cool. I was in the 81% majority. It must just be badbeats this week then, lol.

[Sir Pawnalot]

80/20 would probably be my stats on these situations too.

The interesting question is what kind of FE would we need in this spot to justify a C/R?

This was something I had never thought about in relation to SNGS- but I would instinctively try to avoid elimination and thus raise my required FE significantly.

80% FE was my rough estimate in this situation. This is also the minimum of what I required in this hand.

Is it possible with SNG WIZ or any other tools to calculate how low we could go- FE wise?

Edit: I have a different understanding of FE than the standard definition. I am constructing a new language of poker from the ground up because I feel that the current terms, I.E Equity and Fold Equity, does not correlate with my own mental images of how all things poker are interrelated.

I must thank everyone for their contributions to this site and you will meet the good old cocky Sir P again when he is finished with creating a new language of poker and has completed his poker system.