MovingIn

Technically, IIRC, you always stand to lose more equity from getting your chips in and losing than you stand to gain from getting all in and winning. Kill Everyone's tournament odds and bubble factor concepts are based on this tenet. You still need to get your chips in when you hold a significant edge or chance of outdrawing.And all that belies the point that you not only may not be behind here, but may be well ahead of a possible bluff.

It's a cooler and unless you're facing a total rock who never does this unless he has AA/KK, there's no reason to put this overshove on AA/KK.

If the PF raise was for value, then good job. But that raise isn't folding those limpers, especially once 1-2 of them call. If you're going to set mine, then limping or the smaller raise is fine, but really set mining isn't the optimal way to play TT.With the FD on the flop, the raise was fine. I'd have bet the turn, though. Checking indicated that you were on a draw yourself. CO could be leading the river thinking you're on a busted SD/FD and hoping to steal the pot, whether or not he was himself.

What are we worried about here? He bet the scare card, except he 3bet pre which is consistent with a PP. If you see AA or AK here, that's just plain crappy luck: we're holding one of the Aces! And even if you see 88 or AA here, you've got 9 outs to the best hand. Methinks he's just taking advantage of the scare card and the passive action on the flop and trying to take the pot down on the turn.I'd at least call this turn bet because we're usually way ahead, but I'm not opposed to raising here and even getting it in.

I'm almost certain he's thinking we're on a FD that missed. We bet half the pot in position, then checked the turn, which would be consistent with a FD line. He shoved because 1) we can't bluff him anymore when he shoves if we were and 2) even if we have a hand, he thinks we can't call for that many chips.Call. You're usually good here.

You made your draw. There's only one possible hand that beats you, and the fact you're holding one of the Js makes it less likely it's out there, as well as makes it less likely you're splitting the pot with another J. May as well bet out about 1500-2000.On the flop, I'd have raised to 800-1200. It could net us a free card if called.

If he has something big, a villain typically tries to milk us. He doesn't make a shove that's difficult for anyone to call.This shove reeks of either a bad bluff to swipe the pot or a set trying to reek of a bad bluff, but the more aggressive villain has been (and OP admits he was 4 tabling so we don't have enough reads to know if he liked to donk like this), the more I'd go with the former. We might be good here but even if not, we have outs to the NF and two pair+ if villain only did this with a pair.

I think that even if the table will call you light, how much of their range crushes or beats KJ? What are the odds we run into one of those hands?Once 5 handed and short stacked, we need to play ~20% to keep up with the blinds, and KJ falls into that range. If someone behind us woke up with Ax, KQ or a PP, or called and drew out on us, so be it. Everyone at this table is short and it's likely going to come down to who gets what cards when anyway. In all likelihood, we probably swipe the blinds without a caller often enough to make it worth our while.

So instead of your vote having 1/3000000 value in deciding the outcome of an election, it would have 1/300000000?As it stands, your vote counts about as much right now as a Turkish Lira... if we're going to debate marginal vote value. I'm not going to argue that voting is pointless, but I'm not seeing the justification for reviling this proposed change given where things currently stand.

That's some play-money level donkery by those villains right there.If I knew prior to this hand that they were this loose, I'd shove AA pre expecting at least one call. Otherwise, your PF raise is fine, and shoving that flop is fine since the chances that someone among these donks has you crushed with JJ, QQ or 66 or beat with QJ/J6/Q6 is so remote, and it's more likely that someone behind to you is calling off their chips.

Jam the flop or fold the flop with your stack. Any betting essentially pot commits you, so if you're going to continue, may as well get it in ASAP and not give villain a chance to bluff you... which it appears he was trying to do with a semi-bluff shove. He just got lucky and hit his OESD.

An entire STT nitting it up until everyone's short seems to be all the rage online these days.At 13BB... unless minraises actually get respect, shove or fold until you double up or bust.

Focus on playing hands in position until you get some useful reads.

If you're playing 88 for set value then you'd fold that flop. Not that I would... I can see other reasons for calling behind pre, such as position.

I'm shocked neither person who flopped trips took a stab on the turn.

Because lord knows George W Bush and the Republicans never developed any systematic plans to intimidate or demonize their opponents.

I'll go a step farther: raise the flop. Your set is probably good but there's a FD on board and if you call, anyone yet to call who's on a FD is getting a good price to see the next card.But as played, once we fill up on the turn I can see staying slow with our betting to keep our customers. But we ought to make some sort of raise for value. Since the turn lead was rather small, and since the board plus our flop call as played disguises our boat, we'll probably see a reasonably sized raise get called by either FD, which we're obviously not worried about.UTG+1 really helped you get value on

With such a low M we may well see a wide range here, any two broadway, any pair. We're behind to a bit of that range but ahead of most of it. However, this belies the first cold caller behind us, what he may do or what he may have. The equity may be borderline or it may not, but to call takes over 1/4 of our stack in a spot where we're not at all committed, and we have enough of a big stack that we're ahead of all but one player at our table as it is. I'd lean towards mucking since what we may gain isn't as likely or as great as what we may lose.

This is not a complete answer, but if villain shoves or otherwise aggressively bets a lot of flops, I call this. He may just realize he can shove players off pots in spots like this, and could have just about anything. If he's more selective about his aggression, then it comes down to reads and ranges and that's up to you whether you believe an OESD and an over gives you the equity to call.If the average stack is as short of both of yours', it's pretty much a crapshoot at this point anyway, especially if anyone at the table is being particularly aggressive. It comes down to stack or fold.

Interesting that both responses so far are cool with hand 2. Why do we call the flop raise in hand 2 in light of the passively played hand 1, and given villain is pot committed once he raises us and we're only sitting on 2nd pair? Do we really think we're good here with 2nd pair often enough to put 1/3 of our stack in to get villain all in?Hand 3 is an easy 3bet to at least 900.

Flop line is okay. I'm for keeping this pot as small as possible given there's a reasonable chance we're up against another FD and we may only have 4 real outs. Our FD may be good, of course, and that's why we proceed, but if they're going to play passive, let's follow along.

This sort of nitty aversion to risk is kind of why Phil gets so nuked after someone outdraws him. He thinks he has more control over the game than he actually does.

Okay, I can see that, though it's a very limited sample. And the QQ-AA raise was a 3bet, while in this hand it's a 4bet. We could say it makes no difference in context.I think another strong sign of trouble would be if Player A hadn't made this sort of PF raise at any other point in the tourney.

I think the issue is the time investment. nosoul's idea calls for hours of solid play, and then donk-shoving behind multiple shovers in the middle game and hoping to get lucky. That's time you could put to better use in, say, actual cash MTTs playing a consistently solid strategy. Who wants to put in 2 hours of work stack building, and then, in the cases where you do build a stack instead of bust early, immediately donk out ~90% of the time?