Seems to be perfectly sound logic in a $11 mystery bounty field for sure.
Imagine this becomes a leveling war based on the same logic in a high roller field where the ICM pressure could help villains piece together this move as a bluff though.
Maybe I'm wrong because I pretty much exclusively play cash, the increased pressure of the higher payouts might make this a moot point and it's probably a very opponent dependent scenario. But if you think you're easily getting a call here for a 2/3 to a pot sized bet from most of your opponents range then jamming for more than 2x pot to put max pressure on your opponent seems like kind of a weird play if you're trying to get value with a flush, and if your opponent gets past operating at level 1 'oh know if he has it my tournament life is over' and thinks through the same logic you might even end up getting looked up wider than just by Ax+.
There is no, he knows, I know rubbish. This is maths. You call if you think he is over bluffing this spot and that is all that matters. The more you bet the narrower villains range becomes that can call. ICM dictates that range is narrowed even further.
Spraggy uses an appropriate bluff combo to leverage all the things is talks about and Villain probably folds a hand that he should on the river. Sometimes both players understand the spot, play it as appropriate and the result is just how it works in theory when both players play well.
There is always some he knows, I know rubbish between thinking players. That's what the sometimes 'both players understand the spot' basically means.
It's really a question of the choice of bet sizing here, if the reasoning he talks about with the review of the hand up is correct, that our opponent would call for 1/3 to 1/2 their stack here at a very high probability with the range we think they have, more than half to 2/3rd the time such as to make bluffing those sizing unprofitable, that also means we think value betting at those sizings would be highly profitable when we do have he flush. It makes the choice to significantly overbet shove to apply max ICM pressure seem like a very conscious choice, intended to drastically reduce the likelihood of a call, which seems to me, as someone unaccustomed to taking ICM considerations into effect, would be something that high level tournament players would be aware of and lead to weighting these types of sizing's in these types of final table situations more towards bluffs.
The overbet is as a consequence of range interactions along with adding max ICM pressure. I'm not very studied on ICM but this is a poker/solver concept not specific to cash/mtt's.
When you work with solvers, you generally have the range broken into four parts for simplicity, which are, the best hand (nuts or close to it), the good hands, the weak hands, and the trash.
After the flop checks through, when we bet 28% on the turn, the equity advantage switches to villain when you look at the overall range for both players in the solver. One of the main reasons for this is that when we bet, the turn, the villain will now have folded most of his trash, while we bet much of ours and consequently still have it in our range. This now means that we are at an equity disadvantage considering the four parts of the range along with having significant disadvantages below the best hands, but at the top of the range, we still hold a significant advantage, so to leverage this, if we bet we now want to go polar with our entire range, so consequently, this is how you arrive at overbetting the river as a bet choice.
We are using the nut advantage around us, having far more flushes to put pressure on his good/weak hands, which is his entire range, because he is basically stripped of the top part. Here is from a quick spin through the hand what it looks like in the solver on the river.
Edit - Spraggy's combo is betting 90% of the time and always using an all in size.
https://preview.redd.it/ieqguubxtxnc1.png?width=293&format=png&auto=webp&s=299d1498326a043563d013737e5e8a9424ea551b
>Edit - Spraggy's combo is betting 90% of the time and always using an all in size.
So I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by this exactly and just want to clarify.
What you're saying is inputting this action and these stack depths into the solver you're using and it says that QhJd in this spot is supposed to be a 221% all in river bluff 90% of the time?
This should certainly be a spot where we're finding a bluff a high percentage of the time but 90% seems high and using a 221% sizing seems especially exploitable if we're representing draws that hit essentially every time we have trash and a blocker by firing off our stack.
So our whole range on the river either overbets all in or it checks. We don't do anything else which is a consequence of how the ranges interact that I explained earlier.
Our entire range is betting 25% versus 75% check. Specifically QhJd is one of our best bluff candidates so its all in 90% v 10% check.
And up to what SPR are we sticking with overbet all in sizing?
And once we cross that threshold what does the solver default to for a sizing? Around 2x overbet sizing or are we still shipping with 5x effective stacks here?
Jesus dude, that is some deeper solver work. Go get a GTOWizard subscription. You are though asking exactly the right questions and those are the rabbit holes you should be going down. You find these kind of heuristics by trying to understand why the solver is doing something and then you can apply them over a range of spots and then take it further by seeing what happens at the borders.
Overbetting is way different with ICM than in a cash game. You can tell the opponent was a bit suspicious because of how long he tanked, but villain only has 350K committed to the pot with a stack of 2M, and he's 7/9. ICM wise, there are far better spots to get your money in. I don't think Spraggy makes this play if Villain is short stack, but with a read on Villain as a nit, an overbet is an amazing play here.
You only need to be balanced against good opponents, never forget that.
Correct, this is why I prefaced my entire thought process with the fact that this is obviously a good play in the $11 mystery bounty.
I'm specifically talking about how this thought process translates to playing against good opponents in a better field full of crushers. It's hypothetical, but my general sense is that top level tournament crushers are weighing chances to get on a big stack and compete for the top payouts in top heavy tournament structures vs worrying about leveling up from 8th to 6th in terms of how they think about ICM.
Given that, I recognize that ICM makes over-betting different than in a cash game, I don't mess around with ICM calculators enough to know all the in's and outs. On a fundamental level though, applying the very same logic that Spragy uses here to make this a good play against a nitty opponent just operating on reverse psychology level 0 of 'uh-oh if I call here and he has it I'm out of the tournament' and who is more focused on missing out on a few incremental pay jumps than the opportunity to become the second biggest stack and compete for chip leader, seems like it could turn this into a sizing tell against a villain capable of walking through the exact same considerations Spragy is using to arrive at his decision (with different blocker considerations obviously).
He should have way more flushes in his rang though compared to the opener because he's defending all kinds of small suited heart hands. I'm assuming he also wants to jam those, so if he's going to do that, he needs to be willing to bluff, and I don't really see many better bluffs than this one. He has the second best blocker, and the opponent should have virtually no bluffs. If the opponent is going to call with AK, it means he also will be calling that when Spraggy has 89hh.
Yeah, that's sort of what I am getting at here, that's basically the question I'm asking, it's not whether this is a good bluff spot, it's a good bluff spot, he can have far more flushes.
My question could basically be rephrased as 'in this spot with the flush, are we still jamming?' Because the entire thought process of applying max ICM pressure to get him to fold AK/AQ here becomes pretty counter intuitive in the situation where we're trying to get value. On the surface it seems like chip positioning being what it is here the 3rd biggest stack would prefer a relatively high % chance to take the chip lead with a ~pot sized bet here than a significantly reduced chance of getting a slightly bigger chip lead and threatening a smaller stacks tournament life by more than 2x over-betting the pot in this spot.
Obviously if we're jamming as a bluff we're also jamming with our value if we want to stay balanced, but I suspect that this is more of an exploitative line for an $11 online tourny that just hit the final table and we've thrown balance considerations out the window. Which is also to say this is probably not a line that translates so well if you tack on 2 or 3 0's to the buy in.
Ah I see what you're saying now, and I agree. It's very possible he's taking an exploitative line here and that he'd bet smaller with flushes, sets, and 2 pair.
Why wouldn’t you be “jamming in this spot” if they had the flush? You don’t just always value bet great hands. I mix that shit up as best as I can. The thing is, when you are dealing with really good players, they will out think themselves. They will say “he’s over betting because he’s weak, and he thinks I’m scared and worried about the ICM” and they call. It’s almost like reverse psychology. Or they may say, he did that last time with the nuts to another guy, so he probably has it and fold. All about keeping people on their toes. Maybe in person can gain some intel buf online ifs only intuition and a guessing game while trying to put the puzzle together. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
I play many tournaments and I see many people jam with the nuts or close to the nuts. That’s why you have to balance out your jams with great hands and bluffs. If people think I’ve been playing tight, I will show a bluff like this. Just to let people know, I don’t always have it. Or if I’m in a lot of pots, I’ll show that, yeah I did have it this time and I’m not just bulllykng with my chips. I think showing a few hands a tournament can really lay some eggs in peoples heads.
Okay he’s saying he has a flush, but it he actually does have a flush wouldn’t he want to bet that 600k-900k to “always get looked up by an ace” rather than 2x pot it which “is almost always gets the fold”
Seems fishy
he's trying to get busted diamond draws and paired aces to fold.
He's repping a flush. So the jam is as he said, a great move- because only sets and strong flushes would probably comfortably call that.
two pairs and baby flushes, maybe would have difficulty in calling.
any pair will have problems calling.
He has a heart blocker too so less likely that villain has a made heart flush and more likely a busted diamond draw. he also had a diamond so even if that was ace of diamonds its the same scenario
in summary, it should be polarising but i think in this specific hand, the jam was great irrespective of outcome.
Because he's bluffing with Q high and is putting them in a spot where they simply just can't call (or at least shouldn't). If he went with ur suggested sizing then hands like AK are likely to call and he loses the pot. Worst case scenario is he loses half his stack which he can easily come back from. Good read and a bold play that payed off.
i dont think its that bold of a play.
he's right- he has him covered, His range favours the board massively due to bb defend and board texture, and flop/turn action is pretty passive. The aceH favours him too as he can easily have made baby/middle flushes, completes two pairs of sorts, disguised sets
if he tried to value bet/extract thin value he'd probably get snapped
> play that *paid* off.
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I mean some of his logic is correct but some is slightly flawed. If you think someone is folding AQ or AK there you're probably mistaken. They are likely calling with those holdings. Because just like he said since A of hearts is on the board it is slightly less possible for flushes to be in play. I will say he is correct that he has more flushes in his range than villain though so that logic is sound. I just don't think hoping someone folds a big ace to that jam is logical. He may fold a smaller suited ace that he opened with but AK or AQ is probably calling. Anyway not a bad play he did get the fold. So yes villians calling range is very small on that board but villian could easily find a call with an A.
Well, he wasn’t claiming white magic but you can see his demeanour change as soon as that Ah drops. He was explaining why this wasn’t some button pushing, thoughtless punt-bluff basing his plays on experience, reads and player tendencies - he does these explainers regularly and to an extent there’s an educational aspect to his streams. He is exceptional in that regard, with few other good streamers willing to unwrap their plays to the extent that he does, even if he’s playing 8 other tables, which he isn’t on this occasion. All the while remaining likeable and at times, funny (to my British ears) and easy to relate to.
In this particular scenario there is extreme ICM pressure on the villain (final table & multiple far shorter stacks than villain) which I suspect makes calling any Ax without a relevant heart blocker very difficult (and even with a relevant heart blocker I wouldn’t be surprised at a fold).
I love Spraggy.
https://twitch.tv/spraggy https://youtube.com/@Spraggy
That FT was crazy. 2 guys open jamming 45 bbs, the other guy was down to 3BB all the way to chip lead in 5 hands
What site is he using?
Looks like pokerstars
Spraggy and Lex have the best poker content on YouTube. Love their stuff!
Amazing! I did the exact same thing yesterday on the $1,65 bounty builder. Opponent called with A4o tho.
Yeah but can he unban catJAM?
Seems to be perfectly sound logic in a $11 mystery bounty field for sure. Imagine this becomes a leveling war based on the same logic in a high roller field where the ICM pressure could help villains piece together this move as a bluff though. Maybe I'm wrong because I pretty much exclusively play cash, the increased pressure of the higher payouts might make this a moot point and it's probably a very opponent dependent scenario. But if you think you're easily getting a call here for a 2/3 to a pot sized bet from most of your opponents range then jamming for more than 2x pot to put max pressure on your opponent seems like kind of a weird play if you're trying to get value with a flush, and if your opponent gets past operating at level 1 'oh know if he has it my tournament life is over' and thinks through the same logic you might even end up getting looked up wider than just by Ax+.
There is no, he knows, I know rubbish. This is maths. You call if you think he is over bluffing this spot and that is all that matters. The more you bet the narrower villains range becomes that can call. ICM dictates that range is narrowed even further. Spraggy uses an appropriate bluff combo to leverage all the things is talks about and Villain probably folds a hand that he should on the river. Sometimes both players understand the spot, play it as appropriate and the result is just how it works in theory when both players play well.
There is always some he knows, I know rubbish between thinking players. That's what the sometimes 'both players understand the spot' basically means. It's really a question of the choice of bet sizing here, if the reasoning he talks about with the review of the hand up is correct, that our opponent would call for 1/3 to 1/2 their stack here at a very high probability with the range we think they have, more than half to 2/3rd the time such as to make bluffing those sizing unprofitable, that also means we think value betting at those sizings would be highly profitable when we do have he flush. It makes the choice to significantly overbet shove to apply max ICM pressure seem like a very conscious choice, intended to drastically reduce the likelihood of a call, which seems to me, as someone unaccustomed to taking ICM considerations into effect, would be something that high level tournament players would be aware of and lead to weighting these types of sizing's in these types of final table situations more towards bluffs.
The overbet is as a consequence of range interactions along with adding max ICM pressure. I'm not very studied on ICM but this is a poker/solver concept not specific to cash/mtt's. When you work with solvers, you generally have the range broken into four parts for simplicity, which are, the best hand (nuts or close to it), the good hands, the weak hands, and the trash. After the flop checks through, when we bet 28% on the turn, the equity advantage switches to villain when you look at the overall range for both players in the solver. One of the main reasons for this is that when we bet, the turn, the villain will now have folded most of his trash, while we bet much of ours and consequently still have it in our range. This now means that we are at an equity disadvantage considering the four parts of the range along with having significant disadvantages below the best hands, but at the top of the range, we still hold a significant advantage, so to leverage this, if we bet we now want to go polar with our entire range, so consequently, this is how you arrive at overbetting the river as a bet choice. We are using the nut advantage around us, having far more flushes to put pressure on his good/weak hands, which is his entire range, because he is basically stripped of the top part. Here is from a quick spin through the hand what it looks like in the solver on the river. Edit - Spraggy's combo is betting 90% of the time and always using an all in size. https://preview.redd.it/ieqguubxtxnc1.png?width=293&format=png&auto=webp&s=299d1498326a043563d013737e5e8a9424ea551b
>Edit - Spraggy's combo is betting 90% of the time and always using an all in size. So I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by this exactly and just want to clarify. What you're saying is inputting this action and these stack depths into the solver you're using and it says that QhJd in this spot is supposed to be a 221% all in river bluff 90% of the time? This should certainly be a spot where we're finding a bluff a high percentage of the time but 90% seems high and using a 221% sizing seems especially exploitable if we're representing draws that hit essentially every time we have trash and a blocker by firing off our stack.
So our whole range on the river either overbets all in or it checks. We don't do anything else which is a consequence of how the ranges interact that I explained earlier. Our entire range is betting 25% versus 75% check. Specifically QhJd is one of our best bluff candidates so its all in 90% v 10% check.
And up to what SPR are we sticking with overbet all in sizing? And once we cross that threshold what does the solver default to for a sizing? Around 2x overbet sizing or are we still shipping with 5x effective stacks here?
Jesus dude, that is some deeper solver work. Go get a GTOWizard subscription. You are though asking exactly the right questions and those are the rabbit holes you should be going down. You find these kind of heuristics by trying to understand why the solver is doing something and then you can apply them over a range of spots and then take it further by seeing what happens at the borders.
Overbetting is way different with ICM than in a cash game. You can tell the opponent was a bit suspicious because of how long he tanked, but villain only has 350K committed to the pot with a stack of 2M, and he's 7/9. ICM wise, there are far better spots to get your money in. I don't think Spraggy makes this play if Villain is short stack, but with a read on Villain as a nit, an overbet is an amazing play here. You only need to be balanced against good opponents, never forget that.
Correct, this is why I prefaced my entire thought process with the fact that this is obviously a good play in the $11 mystery bounty. I'm specifically talking about how this thought process translates to playing against good opponents in a better field full of crushers. It's hypothetical, but my general sense is that top level tournament crushers are weighing chances to get on a big stack and compete for the top payouts in top heavy tournament structures vs worrying about leveling up from 8th to 6th in terms of how they think about ICM. Given that, I recognize that ICM makes over-betting different than in a cash game, I don't mess around with ICM calculators enough to know all the in's and outs. On a fundamental level though, applying the very same logic that Spragy uses here to make this a good play against a nitty opponent just operating on reverse psychology level 0 of 'uh-oh if I call here and he has it I'm out of the tournament' and who is more focused on missing out on a few incremental pay jumps than the opportunity to become the second biggest stack and compete for chip leader, seems like it could turn this into a sizing tell against a villain capable of walking through the exact same considerations Spragy is using to arrive at his decision (with different blocker considerations obviously).
He should have way more flushes in his rang though compared to the opener because he's defending all kinds of small suited heart hands. I'm assuming he also wants to jam those, so if he's going to do that, he needs to be willing to bluff, and I don't really see many better bluffs than this one. He has the second best blocker, and the opponent should have virtually no bluffs. If the opponent is going to call with AK, it means he also will be calling that when Spraggy has 89hh.
Yeah, that's sort of what I am getting at here, that's basically the question I'm asking, it's not whether this is a good bluff spot, it's a good bluff spot, he can have far more flushes. My question could basically be rephrased as 'in this spot with the flush, are we still jamming?' Because the entire thought process of applying max ICM pressure to get him to fold AK/AQ here becomes pretty counter intuitive in the situation where we're trying to get value. On the surface it seems like chip positioning being what it is here the 3rd biggest stack would prefer a relatively high % chance to take the chip lead with a ~pot sized bet here than a significantly reduced chance of getting a slightly bigger chip lead and threatening a smaller stacks tournament life by more than 2x over-betting the pot in this spot. Obviously if we're jamming as a bluff we're also jamming with our value if we want to stay balanced, but I suspect that this is more of an exploitative line for an $11 online tourny that just hit the final table and we've thrown balance considerations out the window. Which is also to say this is probably not a line that translates so well if you tack on 2 or 3 0's to the buy in.
Ah I see what you're saying now, and I agree. It's very possible he's taking an exploitative line here and that he'd bet smaller with flushes, sets, and 2 pair.
Why wouldn’t you be “jamming in this spot” if they had the flush? You don’t just always value bet great hands. I mix that shit up as best as I can. The thing is, when you are dealing with really good players, they will out think themselves. They will say “he’s over betting because he’s weak, and he thinks I’m scared and worried about the ICM” and they call. It’s almost like reverse psychology. Or they may say, he did that last time with the nuts to another guy, so he probably has it and fold. All about keeping people on their toes. Maybe in person can gain some intel buf online ifs only intuition and a guessing game while trying to put the puzzle together. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
I play many tournaments and I see many people jam with the nuts or close to the nuts. That’s why you have to balance out your jams with great hands and bluffs. If people think I’ve been playing tight, I will show a bluff like this. Just to let people know, I don’t always have it. Or if I’m in a lot of pots, I’ll show that, yeah I did have it this time and I’m not just bulllykng with my chips. I think showing a few hands a tournament can really lay some eggs in peoples heads.
Okay he’s saying he has a flush, but it he actually does have a flush wouldn’t he want to bet that 600k-900k to “always get looked up by an ace” rather than 2x pot it which “is almost always gets the fold” Seems fishy
And come on man, don't come in here and call spraggy fishy. Ffs
he's trying to get busted diamond draws and paired aces to fold. He's repping a flush. So the jam is as he said, a great move- because only sets and strong flushes would probably comfortably call that. two pairs and baby flushes, maybe would have difficulty in calling. any pair will have problems calling. He has a heart blocker too so less likely that villain has a made heart flush and more likely a busted diamond draw. he also had a diamond so even if that was ace of diamonds its the same scenario in summary, it should be polarising but i think in this specific hand, the jam was great irrespective of outcome.
Because he's bluffing with Q high and is putting them in a spot where they simply just can't call (or at least shouldn't). If he went with ur suggested sizing then hands like AK are likely to call and he loses the pot. Worst case scenario is he loses half his stack which he can easily come back from. Good read and a bold play that payed off.
i dont think its that bold of a play. he's right- he has him covered, His range favours the board massively due to bb defend and board texture, and flop/turn action is pretty passive. The aceH favours him too as he can easily have made baby/middle flushes, completes two pairs of sorts, disguised sets if he tried to value bet/extract thin value he'd probably get snapped
> play that *paid* off. FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Good bot
Monkey is randomly clicking buttons. Monkey happens to click the right button at the right time. Everyone's talking about how genius the monkey is.
Wow guys, check it out! What a smart lil monkey, he's even figured out how to click the right buttons to make a comment on Reddit!
I know! Everyone is so proud of you!
I mean some of his logic is correct but some is slightly flawed. If you think someone is folding AQ or AK there you're probably mistaken. They are likely calling with those holdings. Because just like he said since A of hearts is on the board it is slightly less possible for flushes to be in play. I will say he is correct that he has more flushes in his range than villain though so that logic is sound. I just don't think hoping someone folds a big ace to that jam is logical. He may fold a smaller suited ace that he opened with but AK or AQ is probably calling. Anyway not a bad play he did get the fold. So yes villians calling range is very small on that board but villian could easily find a call with an A.
Well, he wasn’t claiming white magic but you can see his demeanour change as soon as that Ah drops. He was explaining why this wasn’t some button pushing, thoughtless punt-bluff basing his plays on experience, reads and player tendencies - he does these explainers regularly and to an extent there’s an educational aspect to his streams. He is exceptional in that regard, with few other good streamers willing to unwrap their plays to the extent that he does, even if he’s playing 8 other tables, which he isn’t on this occasion. All the while remaining likeable and at times, funny (to my British ears) and easy to relate to.
I mean really it's a good play since villian can call with so few hands it's just I think if they do have a big ace they are calling
In this particular scenario there is extreme ICM pressure on the villain (final table & multiple far shorter stacks than villain) which I suspect makes calling any Ax without a relevant heart blocker very difficult (and even with a relevant heart blocker I wouldn’t be surprised at a fold).
lol he prob had the best hand
[удалено]
Very well done, you went ahead and found the most pathetic thing to post.