Ak Vs. Overshove

[AimHigher 0]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (5 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)SB (t2995)BB (t2805)UTG (t4475)MP (t1205)Hero (t3580)Preflop: Hero is Button with K, A. UTG calls t50, 1 fold, Hero raises to t200, SB raises to t3020, 1 fold, UTG folds, Hero folds.Final Pot: t500$1.50+0.25. Typical players are passive. Villain has done nothing to make me think he is otherwise.

[throwemaway 0]

What is this in..It matters

[AimHigher 0]

What is this in..It matters

$1.50+0.25. Typical players are passive. Villain has done nothing to make me think he is otherwise. In other words, we have someone who is most likely a passive player, suddenly waking up and shoving ~60 BBs into a 4x BB raise.

[XXEddie 0]

$1.50+0.25. Typical players are passive. Villain has done nothing to make me think he is otherwise. In other words, we have someone who is most likely a passive player, suddenly waking up and shoving ~60 BBs into a 4x BB raise.

instacall

[TravisG 0]

instacall

[jmbreslin 0]

If this is the first time in the tourney you've seen him make this move, it's most likely a med-pp and you're racing from behind. If the blinds were 10/20 and he shoved his 1500 it could be a much wider range at this level of play, but this is usually going to be something like 66-TT.You've built yourself a nice stack and I see no reason to call off almost all your chips in this spot. I fold.

[AimHigher 0]

instacall

player specific reads > buyin specific reads.

[jburn812 0]

There is no way you should be laying this down in a low stakes game IMO.

[outsider13 0]

instacall

This is easily a weaker A here in lower limits. Absolutely call.

[TravisG 0]

player specific reads > buyin specific reads.

looool not in 1.75's, seriously.

[MovingIn 0]

LOL, we're gonna seriously call off more than 80% of our stack in the 25/50 level with AKoff and a good stack... because we're assuming that villain is an idiot and banking that he overshoved a competitive stack with a weaker ace? Maybe if villain had been running over the table with the PF pushbot, but otherwise, that's just lazy cross-application of a cash play mindset.I'd call here with a good PP, or if this guy's been overshoving PF frequently, but not otherwise, not with the overrated AKoff. And if he is in fact making a habit of overshoving weaker hands, he'll do himself in and you'll get a better shot at his chips and everyone else's in situations with better edges. Don't overplay AK. Fold.

[TravisG 0]

LOL, we're gonna seriously call off more than 80% of our stack in the 25/50 level with AKoff and a good stack... because we're assuming that villain is an idiot and banking that he overshoved a competitive stack with a weaker ace? Maybe if villain had been running over the table with the PF pushbot, but otherwise, that's just lazy cross-application of a cash play mindset.I'd call here with a good PP, or if this guy's been overshoving PF frequently, but not otherwise, not with the overrated AKoff. And if he is in fact making a habit of overshoving weaker hands, he'll do himself in and you'll get a better shot at his chips and everyone else's in situations with better edges. Don't overplay AK. Fold.

looool way too much assumption. 1.75 players ARE donkeys. you WONT find a better spot with AK there. its an insta-instacall.

[AimHigher 0]

Thanks for the posts guys. I am actually convinced that this is an acceptable lay down, but I'd like to explain why.Part of the reason I wanted to post this hand was because I wanted to see what others thought about laying this hand down when a tight-passive player is overshoving into us like this. I also excluded some reads from the original post because they only became available to me after reviewing the hand history. I also wanted to be somewhat vaige because I was basing my reads on a rule of thumb. (If he doesn't grab my attention early on, and hasn't been raising many hands, he is most likely passive).I feel that a lot of players are allowing the buyin amount to factor too heavily into their decisions. In my opinion your notions about the typical players based on the buyin amounts should only be a factor if you have zero information about the individual opponent. In this hand I feel that we do have information about our opponent.I also think some of your opinions of typical players might be biased by extreme examples of the play in these games, as opposed to those which are the most common. What I mean is, if you play in these games a few times, the first thing you will notice is the awful LAG players who will usually triple up and then quadruple down before the final table. The TYPICAL players for these stakes fall into two categories: loose-passive, or tight-passive. Both bleed chips, but one tends to do it a little more quickly than the other.In this hand we have an example of a tight-passive player overshoving a button raiser. First of all, this situation almost NEVER happens. That is not to say that you will not see players overshoving against raisers when it is this deep, but 99% of the time it won't be the passive players, it will be the bad LAGs. This is an isolated hand in which a PASSIVE player decides to overshove, in which I made a laydown I would not typically make. This is the reason I posted it, it is a unique hand with unique circumstances. I have never been caught in this spot with a hand that is right on the fense for calling before.In an earlier hand, he had limped in EP with KQ (it was six handed), then check it down in position until he rivered his straight. The pot was something like 225, his opponent, who was in the BB (and therefore OOP) bet out 100 on the river and he shoved his remaining 1450 into the pot. The opponent called all in with KT on a board of A7AJT and villain took it down with KQ.He was ~30 BBs deep at the time. I was not paying attention to this hand at the time and saw it after when reviewing the hand history (which is why I did not include it in my descriptions) but even before the hand, I was fairly convinced he was a passive player. He had been fairly quiet up until this point, with the exception of this one hand. I had seen him raise once, and now we find him shoving into my raise.I think it is the clues about his play in this hand that give legitimacy to the suspicions that had already caused me to make the laydown.The fact that he is just limping with KQ six handed in EP tells us that he has SOME concept of tight preflop hand selection (but still not much, how many of us read the books, started off by limping with KQ, only to learn it is better to raise or fold it?). The fact he chose to play KQ, yet not to raise it, indicates he is passive. The fact that he checked the flop behind without any draw (flop was A7A rainbow), when there is a good chance a bet will take it down, indicates he is passive. Then, when he makes his hand, not only does he raise, but he raises all in. This is indicative of the fact he is making an adjustment of overshoving his big hands. This is quite a common adjustment to make in these games, because the first thing anybody notices when playing in these games is that a lot of players are willing to stack off very lightly. They won't notice the 3 tight passives at the table quietly being blinded away, but they will just notice the calling stations and inexperienced loose-aggressives, and try to cater their play to them.By the time we completed the session, his VPIP was 23, his PFR% was 7, and his aggression factor was 1. I myself running at 20/16/5. If he has an aggression factor of 1, is only raising the top 7% of his range, then what percentage of his range do you think he is shoving 60 BBs into a 4x BB raise with?So in other words, I had a read, I went with it. Afterwards, I reviewed the hand history and collected information that might determine if I made the correct decision. I also posted the hand and while most players seemed to think it was a snap call, I am lead to believe that if it is a call, it is at most a marginal mistake to fold.

[AimHigher 0]

looool way too much assumption. 1.75 players ARE donkeys. you WONT find a better spot with AK there. its an insta-instacall.

Your entire reasoning for calling with AK is based on an assumption. ^^ This one.

[kkot 0]

player specific reads > buyin specific reads.

Too bad we don't have any.

looool not in 1.75's, seriously.

Player specific reads are always going to be better. We can make much more accurate assumptions and assign better ranges if we know more about the specific villain. --------------------------AimPleeeease put the buyin and what we are playing either in the title or at least in the OP. We can't answer any questions appropriately without this information.

[AimHigher 0]

Too bad we don't have any.

The fact that the villain has not raised a single hand up until this point is a reasonable indication that he is passive. He has not grabbed my attention in any way, where as the stations, lags and tags tend to stick out in these games. Also, I just edited the buy in info into the OP incase there is any more discussion.

[kkot 0]

Thanks for the posts guys. I am actually convinced that this is an acceptable lay down, but I'd like to explain why.Part of the reason I wanted to post this hand was because I wanted to see what others thought about laying this hand down when a tight-passive player is overshoving into us like this. I also excluded some reads from the original post because they only became available to me after reviewing the hand history.We can't use these reads for the discussion of this hand if we didn't have the information at the time I also wanted to be somewhat vaige because I was basing my reads on a rule of thumb. (If he doesn't grab my attention early on, and hasn't been raising many hands, he is most likely passive).He can't be TAG? He can't be multitabling? I don't think that this is a very good assumption. Is he open limping a lot from any position? That would be a very good indication of what player type is is.I feel that a lot of players are allowing the buyin amount to factor too heavily into their decisions. In my opinion your notions about the typical players based on the buyin amounts should only be a factor if you have zero information about the individual opponent. In this hand I feel that we do have information about our opponent.I couldn't agree more.I also think some of your opinions of typical players might be biased by extreme examples of the play in these games, as opposed to those which are the most common. What I mean is, if you play in these games a few times, the first thing you will notice is the awful LAG players who will usually triple up and then quadruple down before the final table. The TYPICAL players for these stakes fall into two categories: loose-passive, or tight-passive. Both bleed chips, but one tends to do it a little more quickly than the other.In this hand we have an example of a tight-passive playerYou gave us no information about this beyong that he may be passive. overshoving a button raiser. First of all, this situation almost NEVER happens. That is not to say that you will not see players overshoving against raisers when it is this deep, but 99% of the time it won't be the passive players, it will be the bad LAGs. This is an isolated hand in which a PASSIVE player decides to overshove, in which I made a laydown I would not typically make. This is the reason I posted it, it is a unique hand with unique circumstances.You gave us a bare hand hisory without even including the buyin or what we are even playing. To any of us this is a pretty ordinary hand. I have never been caught in this spot with a hand that is right on the fense for calling before.In an earlier hand, he had limped in EP with KQ (it was six handed), then check it down in position until he rivered his straight. The pot was something like 225, his opponent, who was in the BB (and therefore OOP) bet out 100 on the river and he shoved his remaining 1450 into the pot. The opponent called all in with KT on a board of A7AJT and villain took it down with KQ.Again, info we could have used in the OP.He was ~30 BBs deep at the time. I was not paying attention to this hand at the time and saw it after when reviewing the hand history (which is why I did not include it in my descriptions) but even before the hand, I was fairly convinced he was a passive player. He had been fairly quiet up until this point, with the exception of this one hand. I had seen him raise once, and now we find him shoving into my raise.I think it is the clues about his play in this hand that give legitimacy to the suspicions that had already caused me to make the laydown.The fact that he is just limping with KQ six handed in EP tells us that he has SOME concept of tight preflop hand selection (but still not much, how many of us read the books, started off by limping with KQ, only to learn it is better to raise or fold it?). The fact he chose to play KQ, yet not to raise it, indicates he is passive. The fact that he checked the flop behind without any draw (flop was A7A rainbow), when there is a good chance a bet will take it down, indicates he is passive. Then, when he makes his hand, not only does he raise, but he raises all in. This is indicative of the fact he is making an adjustment of overshoving his big hands. This is quite a common adjustment to make in these games, because the first thing anybody notices when playing in these games is that a lot of players are willing to stack off very lightly. They won't notice the 3 tight passives at the table quietly being blinded away, but they will just notice the calling stations and inexperienced loose-aggressives, and try to cater their play to them.By the time we completed the session, his VPIP was 23, his PFR% was 7, and his aggression factor was 1.This doesn't really matter for this hand. What were his stats up to this point? I myself running at 20/16/5. If he has an aggression factor of 1, is only raising the top 7% of his range, then what percentage of his range do you think he is shoving 60 BBs into a 4x BB raise with?Post flop AF numbers don't have much to do with preflop all in situations. So in other words, I had a read, I went with it.Didn't you collect your reads after the hand? Afterwards, I reviewed the hand history and collected information that might determine if I made the correct decision.Making a play and then searching for information to justify that play is not a very good way to play poker. I also posted the hand and while most players seemed to think it was a snap callAgainst an unknown, at this level, it very well may be., I am lead to believe that if it is a call, it is at most a marginal mistake to fold.

[jmbreslin 0]

You guys are nuts for wanting to make this call here. It's still very early in the SnG and Hero has built himself a nice 70BB stack. You want him to call off almost his entire stack when he is most likely on the wrong side of a race? Sure there is a possibility that villain is making this shove w/ AQ, AJs, but it is far more likely to be something in the 88-QQ range. You also have to include the possibility that he's doing this with AA/KK trying to make it look like a weaker hand.The fact that this is a $1.75 makes me less likely to call rather than more likely because I know the stack I've built here puts me in a really good position to outplay the opposition at this level. I'm not giving up this edge to make a huge call that I don't need to make.

[AimHigher 0]

kkot, I am not sure how to quote you, so I am just going to itemize your statements and respond:"We can't use these reads for the discussion of this hand if we didn't have the information at the time.", "You gave us no information about this beyong that he may be passive. You gave us a bare hand hisory without even including the buyin or what we are even playing. To any of us this is a pretty ordinary hand.", "Again, info we could have used in the OP."When I originally posted the hand, all I had really is a strong suspicion. Obviously, I understated it in the OP and that is why many players felt it was a snap call. That is my mistake, and I am not posting the information I collected to undermine any of the opinions given and justify my play (which I feel you are implying). I am posting to illustrate why I have reached the conclusions that I have. "He can't be TAG? He can't be multitabling? I don't think that this is a very good assumption. Is he open limping a lot from any position? That would be a very good indication of what player type is is."Yes, it's possible. But I think it is far more likely that he is a typical passive player, since there are far more of those players in these games than competant players who are multitabling."Didn't you collect your reads after the hand?"I had my suspicions during the hand and my play was based on them. I collected additional information regarding the hand after posting this thread to try and determine whether my suspicions were correct. My intent was not to come back in, be all proud and say, "I stand by my play because I can't admit when I am wrong." I simply posted that information because it is what I am basing my conclusions on."This doesn't really matter for this hand. What were his stats up to this point?"They were very similar, but I don't run pokertracker so it is largely irrelevant. Again this is information I collected after to see if I could confirm my suspicions. The reason I included his stats at the end of the session is because it is a larger sample size."Post flop AF numbers don't have much to do with preflop all in situations. "It is a measure of his aggression. While it is only calculated based on his post flop play, it can still be used as a rough guideline for understanding how aggressive a player is generally."Against an unknown, at this level, it very well may be"I am not 100% sure about this hand, but I am convinced that if it is a mistake to lay this down, it is probably only a small one. Again, I feel like I need to stress that I am not trying to justify my play to those who thought it was poor. The point was to express gratitude to the players who have come in and given their opinions and outline the conclusions regarding the hand I have drawn from reviewing the hand history. I did review the hand history after making the thread, but not so I could come in and justify my play.

[kkot 0]

I'm drunk, so I won't respond to Aim just yet. Though I think you are taking this too personally, or maybe I'm just drunk and have no idea what's going on. The whole point I was trying to make was that this information should have been included in the OP, and with that, this situation becomes relatively standard. Showing a play you made, waiting for resopnses, and then giving reads in your response really does nothing for anybody.Pay attention during your SNG and know this guy is tight passive and this becomes an ordinary situation. This is hardly unique, and if you know this guy is tight passive it becomes an easy fold. Especially if you know he overshoves strong hands, which you would know if you were paying attention to that KQ hand. Unless you are megatabling, you should be able to pay attention to this. If not, you are leaving money on the table. This is a huge mistake that a lot of people make. If you are browsing forums or spending time with several IM conversations instead of paying attention to your tables, you will not be as profitable as you could be. This is one thing I am working on myself, and I am sure it could take my game to the next level.

You guys are nuts for wanting to make this call here. It's still very early in the SnG and Hero has built himself a nice 70BB stack. You want him to call off almost his entire stack when he is most likely on the wrong side of a race? Sure there is a possibility that villain is making this shove w/ AQ, AJs, but it is far more likely to be something in the 88-QQ range. You also have to include the possibility that he's doing this with AA/KK trying to make it look like a weaker hand.The fact that this is a $1.75 makes me less likely to call rather than more likely because I know the stack I've built here puts me in a really good position to outplay the opposition at this level. I'm not giving up this edge to make a huge call that I don't need to make.

Perfect! You can probably fold your way to the money. If you are going to risk your stack, you better have a hell of a reason to do so. To the people who say this is a snap call, it definitely isn't. Against a tight/passive, it's a pretty clear fold.

[AimHigher 0]

I'm drunk, so I won't respond to Aim just yet. Though I think you are taking this too personally, or maybe I'm just drunk and have no idea what's going on. The whole point I was trying to make was that this information should have been included in the OP, and with that, this situation becomes relatively standard. Showing a play you made, waiting for resopnses, and then giving reads in your response really does nothing for anybody.Pay attention during your SNG and know this guy is tight passive and this becomes an ordinary situation. This is hardly unique, and if you know this guy is tight passive it becomes an easy fold. Especially if you know he overshoves strong hands, which you would know if you were paying attention to that KQ hand. Unless you are megatabling, you should be able to pay attention to this. If not, you are leaving money on the table. This is a huge mistake that a lot of people make. If you are browsing forums or spending time with several IM conversations instead of paying attention to your tables, you will not be as profitable as you could be. This is one thing I am working on myself, and I am sure it could take my game to the next level. Perfect! You can probably fold your way to the money. If you are going to risk your stack, you better have a hell of a reason to do so. To the people who say this is a snap call, it definitely isn't. Against a tight/passive, it's a pretty clear fold.

My approach to this thread was definitely off, but it was an honest mistake. I have only started reviewing the hand history recently (thanks to cardrunners HH tools), so next time I will make sure I either include it in the original post or only post the information available to me at the time. I think the question that I really wanted answering when making this thread is, "How strong do your suspicions really need to be to fold this hand?" All I had was the fact that I hadn't noticed him getting out of hand and that the typical players in these game are passive. Obviously if I had been paying more attention I would have caught the KQ hand, but I was browsing FCP at the time (lol) so I missed it. Not always paying attention while playing is definitely a mistake I make too. While I catch most hands, I do have a tendency to browse FCP and a few other sites while playing. I will have to try and stop.

[TravisG 0]

oh i missed that this guy was tight passive. yeah fold.

[Snake Plissken 0]

looool way too much assumption. 1.75 players ARE donkeys. you WONT find a better spot with AK there. its an insta-instacall.

haha true.