5NL, some preflop spots, go all-in?

OK, there's three of these.

Hand 1

BB is a short-stacked fish, basically dead money.
Only 4 hands on BTN, but he's 75/50 with a 3-bet of 100% (2 of 2), so probably pretty aggressive.
This is a good spot to jam, right? Especially with the short-stack overlay? Or do we not know enough about BTN?

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

UTG ($3.65)
MP ($10.62)
Hero (CO) ($8.41)
Button ($4.51)
SB ($10.06)
BB ($1.62)

Preflop: Hero is CO with J, J
2 folds, Hero bets $0.15, Button raises to $0.52, 1 fold, BB calls $0.47, Hero ?


Hand 2

SB is 50/8 over 12 hands, so probably loose-passive.
I don't think villain has a premium because he just called the BTN steal and he couldn't know I would 3-bet.
So I put him on a range of 99-JJ, AQ, AJs, or something like that. I'm 50% against that range.
Go all-in?

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

SB ($6.42)
Hero (BB) ($5.73)
UTG ($6.16)
MP ($6.47)
CO ($2.05)
Button ($4.47)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q, A
3 folds, Button bets $0.15, SB calls $0.13, Hero raises to $0.60, 1 fold, SB raises to $5.40, Hero ?


Hand 3

Villain is 50/50 over only 4 hands. Snap?

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $0.05 BB (6 handed) - Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

Button ($5.13)
SB ($6.94)
Hero (BB) ($6.70)
UTG ($1.74)
MP ($4.69)
CO ($2.90)

Preflop: Hero is BB with A, K
4 folds, SB bets $0.15, Hero raises to $0.45, SB raises to $6.94 (All-In), Hero ?

1.) Easy fold
2.) " "
3.) could argue either way really. Of course you have a monster but you are deep so do you really want to risk it all? What range do you figure villain is shoving with? Lets say we give him JJ+,AJs+,KQs,AKo your still a slight underdog. Grant it you have some blockers but I still may wait for a better day myself. Note I will admit it's much easier saying it than doing it although I have folded AKo several times. Could be a leak of mine as I have many.

1. Do we not have set mining odds? I'd call then reassess.
2. Easy fold.
3. I'd fold. No need to stack off against an unknown 135bb deep.

hand 1 is a redic ez call given fish in pot
hand 2 sigh fold
hand 3 i dont like folding bvb

Originally Posted by Bbickes

hand 1 is a redic ez call given fish in pot
hand 2 sigh fold
hand 3 i dont like folding bvb

This but 3 is pretty mehhhh

I hope you realize you don't really learn much from any of our responses unless you put villain's on a range and do some math.

1.i would shove , just cause he is short stack and he didnt go all in (ussually they do that only KK+)
2. fold, AQs aint good there , actually i fold AQs to any rereraise
3. fold, on that stack to lose i would only call KK+

anyway, on all 3 you have to little hands on them to make a good decison about their playing style and ranges.

Originally Posted by kmind

I hope you realize you don't really learn much from any of our responses unless you put villain's on a range and do some math.

That's a good point but putting people on accurate ranges can be tricky which is why I wanted you guys' impression. Especially in weird spots like squeezes or bvb, the 'rational' range is sometimes too tight.

Hand 1, BTN is obv a little 3-bet happy. So I'll give him a range of 99+, AQ+, AJs, KQs and I'm 51% against that range. If his range is TT+, AK, AQs, then JJ is 44%. (Of course this doesn't factor in that shoving folds out alot of the hands we beat and none that we don't, but it's probably still at least breakeven, esp with BB still in the pot.) So I guess shoving wasn't too unreasonable, although calling, like some people said, is clearly the best choice. Funny I didn't even consider that.

Hand 2, I think my read on his range was pretty accurate, 99-JJ, AQ, AJs. In which case, AQs is 50% and calling is slightly +EV. If he ever has AK or QQ, then AQs is only 37%, definitely -EV, since we need 44% to break even. Since he looks loose-passive, I guess we can't rule out AK or QQ, though if he was taggier, I'd be comfortable taking those out of his range.

Hand 3, I should've mentioned it but villain insta-shoved. So I think he has alot of good-looking second tier hands in his range but probably not KK+. Against a range of JJ-QQ and AQ+, we're 55%. So that's a snap.

Hand 2 just fold AQ to a monster 3bet/4bet, you call this and people will be right clicking and making notes in an instant. It's a ridiculous raise, we're either way ahead and this guy is an idiot who's going broke soon, or we're way behind. Are we not playing the long game here? We don't need his stack now this minute, we can fold and take this guy to the cleaners when we have his range dominated. All in with a hopeful 50% equity, hoping he doesn't have us dominated based on a 12-hand read? Come to my table please.

I happen to agree about hand 3, I think we're getting a good price against a range we're probably flipping against, but I have no problem admitting here there I'd lose my bottle, I'd fold because I don't want to play AK for 135bb against someone I have no read on. Again, if he's doing this with something weak, he's not going to keep his stack for long. Give it another ten or twenty hands or so, any evidence of wild play and next time I get AK I won't be such a pussy.

Originally Posted by Bbickes

hand 1 is a redic ez call given fish in pot
hand 2 sigh fold
hand 3 i dont like folding bvb

pretty much sums it up

Originally Posted by OngBonga

1. Do we not have set mining odds? I'd call then reassess.

Do we? We have to call .37 for a pot of 1.36 and there is 5.14 behind. I typically use a rule of 15x to figure if I have the correct implied odds or not. Given this I would require 5.55 so I guess it is pretty close. I'm only responding because I am curious if there is an error in my thinking here?
Do we count the pot as well? Which would put the total at 6.50 so if we do then I guess we are getting the correct odds but I have always thought we looked at what was still behind??

hand 1 - call, don't shove
hand 2 - fold
hand 3 - close

Originally Posted by HarleyGuy13

Do we? We have to call .37 for a pot of 1.36 and there is 5.14 behind. I typically use a rule of 15x to figure if I have the correct implied odds or not. Given this I would require 5.55 so I guess it is pretty close. I'm only responding because I am curious if there is an error in my thinking here?
Do we count the pot as well? Which would put the total at 6.50 so if we do then I guess we are getting the correct odds but I have always thought we looked at what was still behind??

I'm not exactly sure how much we need to have reasonable odds, but I tend to go for 15x what we have to call as a potential pot. I we think about it mathematically, we hit our set on the flop once in nine, so we only need to win 9x our investment, but that's not taking into account the times we lose with a set, which is usually very expensive. And of course, many times we don't win a pot big enough to consider our investment positive, so when we do stack off we have to pay for these times too.

In this case, we have to call 37c, and the potential return for this 37c is up to $4.51 + $1.62, or $6.13, which is approx 16.5x our investment, so I would say we're good to go.

Basically, our average return for a flopped set must be at least 9x our average investment pre flop in order for set mining to be profitable, but we need more when we win because we sometimes only win three times what we invest, and occasionally we lose our stack. I don't think we can get a perfect number to give as set mining odds because many factors, such as villain tendancies, play a role. How likely is villain to stack off on the flop with tptk? If very likely, then we might not need 15x the investment, we could maybe push to 12x and still make a profit, because we stack off more often.

jfc dont play JJ in a 3b pot with a fish in it for set value

Originally Posted by Bbickes

jfc dont play JJ in a 3b pot with a fish in it for set value

So what, fold? Or play JJ like the nuts? There's only one fish in the pot, and he's short. I'd be playing for set value against the big stack, and whatever will be will be against the fish.

I don't see what other options there are, we either raise, which doesn't seem wise, or fold, which is missing potential value. Calling can only really be for set value unless we think our overpair is beating the big stack.

So you're calling JJ, if not for set value then why?

Call it fish mining. With a fish in the pot, it's standard not to do anything preflop that might fold them and prevent them from coming along with their heavily dominated range. For example, a fish limps and a tag isolates him on the button, you're in the blinds with AQs. Normally, you'd probably 3-bet and resteal from the tag. But with the fish in the pot, you should consider just calling even though you're oop because the fish will certainly over-call and that's very +EV.

In this hand I jammed, hoping to fold the bluffy button and get ai hu with the fish. The fish did come along with a dominated hand, but unfortunately the button had a monster this time. If the fish had a bigger stack, so that jamming folds him alot, then jamming would have been a really bad move. In this situation though, I thought it was OK.

Originally Posted by OngBonga

unless we think our overpair is beating the big stack.

So you're calling JJ, if not for set value then why?

You're acting like JJ isn't good enough as a call against the big stack's range. I would rethink that. Also, add in the shortie who if he calls we'll most likely be happy to get it in postflop.

It's not for set value and it's not a fold = call because it plays well vs. their ranges.

Originally Posted by kmind

You're acting like JJ isn't good enough as a call against the big stack's range. I would rethink that. Also, add in the shortie who if he calls we'll most likely be happy to get it in postflop.

It's not for set value and it's not a fold = call because it plays well vs. their ranges.

I'm not sure JJ does play well against his range. 4 hands is not enough info for me to decide he can do this wider than AK+ QQ+. I approach this spot with caution, put him on an uber-tight range and play for set value. I've got no problem calling JJ to a 3bet this size if I think it plays well against villain's range, but I need more than four hands to give a wide enough range to consider it better than a set mining hand.

2 for 2 3betting already, not 100bb stack, fish in pot...I'm going to lean a lot more towards him not having QQ+/AK+ only. Throw in the fact that the fish will call too and

Originally Posted by kmind

2 for 2 3betting already, not 100bb stack, fish in pot...I'm going to lean a lot more towards him not having QQ+/AK+ only. Throw in the fact that the fish will call too and

Yeah fair enough. I guess I take the attitude that if he's doing this weak, he's not going to keep his chips for long. I don't like making a judgement based on a few hands. Last night I had an orbit of hands that went from BB to UTG... AA QQ AA KQs 88 82o AA... the last AA met KK and the poor guy couldn't believe I had AA yet again. That's as hot a run as I've ever had but I don't think it's that unusual to see a couple of 3bet hands in the first few hands at a new table.

I don't think there's anything wrong with deciding this guy is a bit wild after four hands, but personally I would prefer a larger sample to decide this. I err on the side of caution with unknowns. Patience is the key to beating donks.

No I agree that you need more hands for a read. But I just also think there are more signs than usual indicating he may be light (albeit not that many signs). I'm not saying you may not be correct but this is how I think.

I think giving him a wider range than QQ+ AK is a gamble, to be honest. I've got no problem with gambling, we have to do it sometimes, but it's important if we give him a wide range here that we realise that we are making a guess, although perhaps an educated guess. It might just be that I'm too tight when applying ranges, I've played KK as a set mining hand at 2nl ffs.

Bottom line is, we're both playing correctly, because we're both applying ranges and acting based on that. I don't think either of us are right or wrong about the range we put him on, what is right is putting him on a range. So long as we adjust our future ranges if we are proved wrong, then we are playing well.