Is Harrington advocating a bad play?(Touranment volume 2)

[pat3392]

I'm fairly sure that Harrington is recommending a bad play but wanted some opinions. It is hand 10-2 on page 241. For those who haven't got the book I'll go through the question:

Toward the end of a one-table satellite. Player B(villian) and E are aggressive and C is super aggressive. Blinds are $30/$60, no ante

Preflop:
Player A. $610: folds
Player B. $610: raises $120
Players C. $2840 folds
Player D. $1480 folds
Player E. $1700 folds
SB(hero). $1330 (Ah Td)

My move(BB has $1430)

Harrington suggests just a call here and I tend to agree; if we shove we are only going to be called when we are beat( I can't see anyone calling this with (KQ/A9) so essentially we are bluffing with a hand that definitely has value.

So hero calls, BB folds and the flop comes : Jc 6s 5h
Hero is first; my move?

I'm not sure if I should give me opinion now because it may bias your responses but I'll do it anyway(bad decision?)

The pot currently has $210 and villain has $490. Because of this, Harrington suggests to bet a half pot probe bet and if villain shoves, call his all-in since villain is aggressive and I will be getting the correct odds to call( would be getting 3-1; AT beats pockets and a pair of 5/6 here 3-1 times so calling is correct, the only thing to be concerned of is pockets TT-AA, 55-66 and a pair of JJ which is unlikely, the amount of times he would be bluffing here off sets that)

However, I believe that an aggressive player in this situation would shove much wider if his opponent checked to him. By raising and calling any shove, I'm basically going to get the money in with more hands that have me beaten.

So I believe(correct me if I'm wrong) that checking the flop and calling any shove is a much better play because if I'm going to call any shove if I raise, I miles as well check because he is going to bluff more often.

Some of the arguments against checking would be:

It would be tough if villain checks behind

Harrington says that by betting it makes a easier decision for him; when villain just shoves like that it is a close call.


I hope that makes sense, I don't really know how else to describe my thoughts

[revolvingiris]

I'm not going to get into villains range although it looks like he is trying to induce...I think a donk bet is OK since apparently Harrington thinks villain will fold some % of the time. However, if he thinks his range is that weak he should just shove over PF. Villain isn't going to bet/fold 1/6th of their stack so its seems like he is seeing a flop for (idk)??

[fjuanl]

However, I believe that an aggressive player in this situation would shove much wider if his opponent checked to him. By raising and calling any shove, I'm basically going to get the money in with more hands that have me beaten.

So I believe(correct me if I'm wrong) that checking the flop and calling any shove is a much better play because if I'm going to call any shove if I raise, I miles as well check because he is going to bluff more often.

I think your right in that checking the flop has some value, but villain's standard bet won't be a shove. He has $490 left in a pot of $210, so a standard cbet would be $90-140.

A) Harrington's advice (bet flop, call shove)

- We could possibly enduce him to bluff all $490 with hands AT beats
- We double him up with all his value hands

B) Checking the flop

- We enduce him to bluff $90-$140 with hands AT beats (then he folds when Hero shoves)
- We double him up with all his value hands


Option A could be the best choice if we really expect him to be crazy aggressive and will bluff shove a high %. That doesn't mean that taking another line would be a mistake. If villain's range is wide enough to bet/call with Ace high, there's almost no way to play the hand badly

1) You could shove preflop and show a profit even if you only get called by better (i think)

2) You could min-reraise preflop planning on calling a shove.

3) You could bet the flop and call a shove

4) You could check/shove the flop

[pat3392]

I think your right in that checking the flop has some value, but villain's standard bet won't be a shove. He has $490 left in a pot of $210, so a standard cbet would be $90-140.

A) Harrington's advice (bet flop, call shove)

- We could possibly enduce him to bluff all $490 with hands AT beats
- We double him up with all his value hands

B) Checking the flop

- We enduce him to bluff $90-$140 with hands AT beats (then he folds when Hero shoves)
- We double him up with all his value hands


Option A could be the best choice if we really expect him to be crazy aggressive and will bluff shove a high %. That doesn't mean that taking another line would be a mistake. If villain's range is wide enough to bet/call with Ace high, there's almost no way to play the hand badly

1) You could shove preflop and show a profit even if you only get called by better (i think)

2) You could min-reraise preflop planning on calling a shove.

3) You could bet the flop and call a shove

4) You could check/shove the flop

Impressive analysis, I never considered that he would not shove the flop. Would anyone ever fold to a shove check shove at that point though?

It would also be dangerous if he checks

[revolvingiris]

The thing that fjuanl put so well is that you really can't make a mistake with villains line/stack sizes (other than folding). If villain checks almost always bet...Generally the goal of poker is to get as many chips in when equity is in your favor.