Kjhh Facing 3bet Shove

[TrueAce13 18]

Hero has been playing TAG. hasn't really shown down a hand, but when he has, usually with the goods.Villain hasn't been playing many pots, but one that he has, he 3bet AIPF with tensPokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $10+$1 Tournament, 1000/2000 Blinds 200 Ante (9 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comsaw flowSB (t46763)BB (t20813)UTG (t28293)UTG+1 (t15186)Hero (MP1) (t62276)MP2 (t19074)MP3 (t49316)CO (t41988)Button (t56592)Hero's M: 12.97Preflop: Hero is MP1 with J, K2 folds, Hero raises to t5555, 5 folds, BB raises to t20613 (All-In), Hero?

[Sick Boy 0]

I say call here, i was in a similar spot in the 30k GTD myself earlier this week, deep in the tourney i picked up QJs on the CO, made a similar raise and this guy came over the top from the button. Similar stack sizes etc. I called and he turned over 99, i won the race and went on to finish 6th for 1.3k.you gotta have heart to win these things, take a shot and if you lose the pot, oh well, u still have a shot to get back into it.

[outsider13 0]

Villain hasn't been playing many pots, but one that he has, he 3bet AIPF with tens

This may be the reason I let it go. You either racing vs. pair or behind to any A . I think it's a fold but it's quite close considering the price you're getting. I fold this spot, but ISAP.edit, had second thoughts, I think I call, really close imo.

[MovingIn 0]

You're definitely trailing most, if not all, of the possible range villain could overshove with. KJs is a hand worth raising with, but not necessarily worth calling an all-in with, especially for 1/3rd of a big stack. Maybe you're a 47-53 dog and you have pot odds, but do you really need to risk a 3rd of your stack to play a hand at table-game odds (at best)?Also, at this stage, don't concern yourself with table image too much. Short stacks are looking for a chance to overshove and double through regardless of the preflop raiser's style of play. The only image that matters right now is your big stack: when they catch a preflop hand, you're the guy they want in the pot when they finally get their chips in, because you assure them a full double-up AND you'll typically call lighter than anyone else.

[OhKeePa 0]

You're definitely trailing most, if not all, of the possible range villain could overshove with. KJs is a hand worth raising with, but not necessarily worth calling an all-in with, especially for 1/3rd of a big stack. Maybe you're a 47-53 dog and you have pot odds, but do you really need to risk a 3rd of your stack to play a hand at table-game odds (at best)?Also, at this stage, don't concern yourself with table image too much. Short stacks are looking for a chance to overshove and double through regardless of the preflop raiser's style of play. The only image that matters right now is your big stack: when they catch a preflop hand, you're the guy they want in the pot when they finally get their chips in, because you assure them a full double-up AND you'll typically call lighter than anyone else.

i would prob. call... only because you bet 5555, and i hate when people make stupid bets like that and will usually reraise w/ any 2... maybe thats why im only a little better then break even though

[XXEddie 0]

i would prob. call... only because you bet 5555, and i hate when people make stupid bets like that and will usually reraise w/ any 2... maybe thats why im only a little better then break even though

probably. Im sure OP makes it 5555 everytime where he has KJhh, 76o, 88, JTs, or AA, as I do.Nevermind, that is very smart, continue to do it.I fold this, yeah you're getting 2-1, which is about how far behind you are even if he has you dominated(AK, AJ, JJ+) But, I still fold. You are basically calling off 2/3 of your stack hoping it's AQ, 88-TT.

[AimHigher 0]

You need 34.20% equity against his range to call. AQ+, 99+ is probably reasonable.

	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	65.405%	  65.06% 	00.34% 		  64615659 	   340539.50   { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ }Hand 1: 	34.595%	  34.25% 	00.34% 		  34016894 	   340539.50   { KhJh }

[MovingIn 0]

Don't forget tournament equity, which changes dramatically when we lose, but not as much when we win, and certainly not much if we fold.We can consider equity alone in a cash game, but tournaments also carry an additional equity factor: relative stack size and chip position.

[XXEddie 0]

Don't forget tournament equity, which changes dramatically when we lose, but not as much when we win, and certainly not much if we fold.We can consider equity alone in a cash game, but tournaments also carry an additional equity factor: relative stack size and chip position.

Very good point here.Losing 1/3 of our stack hurts much more than winning 1/3 helps us.

[SlackerInc 0]

You need 34.20% equity against his range to call. AQ+, 99+ is probably reasonable.

	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	65.405%	  65.06% 	00.34% 		  64615659 	   340539.50   { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ }Hand 1: 	34.595%	  34.25% 	00.34% 		  34016894 	   340539.50   { KhJh }

I think that range is a little tight--villain is in the Red Zone. What if we throw in AJo, all suited aces, KQ, 66-88, maybe even a discounted possibility (is this allowed?) of JTs, T9s, 98s?ETA: I tend to agree with you guys about tournament equity (as you know from posts I've made about the bubble in particular). But I find it interesting that Arnold Snyder (Poker Tournament Formula) has undergone an intense debate with Sklansky (or is it Malmuth?) about this idea that in tourneys chips you lose are worth more than chips you win. Snyder believes just the opposite: that (at least in big MTTs) it's more important to try to rack up a huge chip stack than to try to survive. (I find his ideas quite interesting even when I don't always agree; as a result of one discussion I had on his website he gave me a shout-out in his new book, as I discovered when skimming it at Barnes and Noble.) Does anyone think he could have any chance of being right? What if he's sort of right and Sklansky/Malmuth have a point too, and it ends up cancelling out in the middle, making the equity the same as in a cash game? LOL

[BeaverStyle 1]

Ugh, I don't know what the right play is here, but I'd probably call getting 2-1.

[SlackerInc 0]

You are basically calling off 2/3 of your stack hoping it's AQ, 88-TT.

You mean 1/4 your stack, not 2/3...right?

[XXEddie 0]

You mean 1/4 your stack, not 2/3...right?

errr, meant 1/3. But i guess 1/4 is right since we no longer have that 5555 in our stack

[AimHigher 0]

Don't forget tournament equity, which changes dramatically when we lose, but not as much when we win, and certainly not much if we fold.We can consider equity alone in a cash game, but tournaments also carry an additional equity factor: relative stack size and chip position.

This is a good point and something I didn't take into consideration. We do need to be avoiding marginally +cEV situations where we stand to lose a large amount of tournament equity. Depending on payouts and stack sizes this is possibly a situation where the cEV of about 1000 chips doesn't compensate for the considerable loss in equity when we lose.

I think that range is a little tight--villain is in the Red Zone. What if we throw in AJo, all suited aces, KQ, 66-88, maybe even a discounted possibility (is this allowed?) of JTs, T9s, 98s?ETA: I tend to agree with you guys about tournament equity (as you know from posts I've made about the bubble in particular). But I find it interesting that Arnold Snyder (Poker Tournament Formula) has undergone an intense debate with Sklansky (or is it Malmuth?) about this idea that in tourneys chips you lose are worth more than chips you win. Snyder believes just the opposite: that (at least in big MTTs) it's more important to try to rack up a huge chip stack than to try to survive. (I find his ideas quite interesting even when I don't always agree; as a result of one discussion I had on his website he gave me a shout-out in his new book, as I discovered when skimming it at Barnes and Noble.) Does anyone think he could have any chance of being right? What if he's sort of right and Sklansky/Malmuth have a point too, and it ends up cancelling out in the middle, making the equity the same as in a cash game? LOL

It alters our equity to about 37%, but even then it's very marginal.