Seems reasonable. Are you ever 4-betting IP, and if so, was I reasonably accurate in removing the top of your range?
1 Like
I am absolutely 4! sb from utg pre flop. 4! looks like KK AKs⌠AA A5s KJs JTs and T9s 50% and QQ AJs ATs and AQo 25% (27.5)
Exactly , If he knows he can survive variance and the shorty cannot, there is an inherrant advantage, no different than in a 3 rebuy MTT. If I still have my 3 rebuys and the other person does not, and he knows I know he doesnât⌠then I can thus apply more pressure with basically 0 risk and he knows it, duhhhhhh.
Sassy
Okay
Well its a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Dayman is talking about 200 mill bank to a 20 mill bank in RINGS only as compared to re-buys in a tourney. If the guy only has 3 re-buys in his bank for a MTT then his bank is virtually exausted anyway because the re-buys in tourneys here are what, a maximum of what 500/2500 as far as buying in more than once? so he has a max 7,500 bank roll with 3 re-buys. u think he cares about pressure when/if he loses his 7,500 bank when he gets another 2,500 free chips again, and every day he logs on the site? I think a player with 20 mill in rings playing 2k/4k would not feel too much pressure either and is prob a bit more skilled to hold his own than a 7,500 bank roll player. That being said i do believe when u get to elite and a 800 mill or 1 bill player sees a 50 mill player and they are on a 100/200k or 250k/500k table, then he will crush him on pressure aloneâŚat least eventually he will. I see both of your points u are making however It still comes down to how much each player values their chips and how important bank roll mgt. is to them.
1 Like
For ring games, once you have say 10 or more buyins in your bankroll, bankroll pressure goes away as a factor because you can play without worrying too much about losing 2-3 buyins. If you donât have 10+ buyins you shouldnât play that level of ring game. If you have 10 buyins and are still playing scared then youâre playing stakes that are too high for your bankroll and should drop down another level.
I will say that 80% of the people that I see buying in with short bankrolls at high stakes here are not all risk averse. Trying to apply pressure to these folks is counter-productive because they are simply not scared of losing their bankroll.
4 Likes
Iâm not sure the line of x/c, x/r here makes sense and Iâm having a tough time constructing a balanced approach for it. The turn is a total brick so doesnât change a thing. Your remaining stack, even if shoved, has very little fold-equity. All this shove does is fold out hands you are way ahead of or get snapped off by hands you are behind. You want V to continue bluffing it off with his air and you have lots of room to improve on the river if you are currently behind.
If the line is to x most of your range on this flop, I would protect my range by x/r on the flop with my nutted hands and bluffs. Once you have x/c, unless the turn brings in a card that returns the range/nut advantage to you, I think you should be in x/c or x/f mode the rest of the way with your entire range.
As to your specific hand, since you are blocking the nut flush and heavily blocking the non 4-bet part of Vâs TPTK holdings, I think you can either x/r the flop for value or x/c all the way and let V bluff it off. There just arenât that many hands he can have here and you have tons of equity against even the very top of his value range.
So, if I were to take any x/r line, it would be on the flop and Iâd rather use hands like KsQx or even TsTx to balance my value hands (AA, 99, XsXs). I prefer using low-equity vs strong but not nutted hands in these spots. KsKx is right in the middle where it doesnât need any protection and has redraws vs any hands that youâre behind. As such, I wouldnât include it in my x/r bluff range on the flop.
Interesting hand and Iâm glad you posted it. I think it is a very good example of play at a higher level than just âmake a hand and get paid for itâ.
ADDED: Would have been simpler to say that you didnât cap your range with the x on the flop but you did with the x/c. Once you have capped your range, you shouldnât have a raising range on future streets without a card that returns the range/nut advantage to you.
5 Likes
This is interesting. Do you never x/c with a flush on the flop here?
Vs a weak player who I think may overplay Ax and keep betting into the nuts? Sure. Vs a strong player who understands ranges? Nope. The whole point is to make V indifferent to calling, right? If you have enough bluffs in your x/r range and your opponent understands this, you have to continue with your nutted hands as well. Its hard as hell to flop a flush and you need to extract max value when you do.
Now, if I crippled the deck with something like KsQs, Iâd keep the bet sizes down to get called by Ax or even JsJx or TxTs but vs a player who understands KsQs is just 1 combo in a wider range, its best to keep going for value. Sometimes you wonât get action and thatâs fine. The object is to maximize EV over the whole range. If V folds when you have KsQs and also when you have KsQx or TsTc, youâve accomplished that.
4 Likes
Thatâs interesting, because at the ring tables Iâve played at, everyone just wanted to get it all in every hand preflop, or if not then immediately on the flop, making it a bingo fest. They were definitely not afraid of losing their bankroll, though.
Agreed, there are a lot of reckless players who arenât thinking about bankroll management at all. The all-in-every-hand mentality mostly goes away once you play higher than 50/100 ring.
2 Likes
Possibly because they actually have a bankroll to manage by then? Seems that each level of ring games (low, medium,high, and elite) has itâs own unwritten rules and each requires a shift, mentally, to play at that level whether moving up or down in blind levels. Flaunt those rules at your own risk 
2 Likes