As of November 2021, the APT Forum is closed to new posts. Like with many online forums, usage has decreased in recent years. All previous posts are still available.
How Can I Get Away From Aces Cracked?
Small tournament. We were on the bubble - one away from the cash. I had one of the bigger stacks in the room with about 25BB. The player two spots to my left had been fairly active, and had been defending his blinds. It folds to me on the BU, I look down at AA, and min bet. SB folds and BB calls. The flop comes Qxx rainbow. BB goes all-in and I call. BB tables QQ and I'm on the Walk of Shame.
Should I have bet bigger than a min bet? Not that it would have mattered against his QQ.
Can I get away from that hand when he shoves after that flop?
Sign In to comment.
Welcome
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Just wondering: were you min betting in hopes of getting raised by a blind (who may have thought you were trying to steal cheaply) in hopes of getting them all in (which would have ended with the same result as you say because of the QQ) or were you wanting a caller since you were giving the BB great odds to call with just about anything? Or do you feel like the BB will defend anything so you have no fold equity anyway? Has min raise been your typical opening raise in the tournament in recent levels?
If you were trying to trap, I understand the play although it is somewhat unusual on the button. I think of the AA attempt to have someone raise you late in tournaments with shallow stacks to be more an early position move with more opportunity for someone shoving. On the button, I'd make a standard raise which looks even more like a move and hope to get raised but be OK with a fold as well. I'd worry that the min raise might get both blinds in which lowers my equity in the hand more than I wish.
Having said that, post-flop it's tough. Given the BB did not raise pre-flop (very odd with QQ but perhaps he was playing conservatively on the bubble wanting to get away from any A or K on the flop or he was trying to trap) seems less likely that he has QQ but he could have hit a set just as easily with the other two flop cards given the good price he was getting to set mine even with relatively shallow stacks.
I felted a woman mid-tournament a couple weeks ago when I held QQ in SB and just called after she raised UTG. I actually did so because she is one of the tightest players I know and an UTG raise from her almost surely means AA,-JJ or AK so I did not love my position but could not let it go. I flopped top set, checked to her, she led out I came over the top for the rest of her stack and she called with KK. I would have insta-folded if there was an A or K on the flop (and I had not hit my set of course) and been in a difficult position if there were all unders to my QQ. But my pre-flop flat gave me some post-flop options at least against this specific player. So maybe the BB had a similar justification pre-flop against you a relatively big stack.
But this is where the min raise pre-flop comes into play because a standard raise has him folding out a fair portion of his range, but the min raise (which is giving him 3.5 to 1 on a call at minimum and more like 4.5-1 if there are antes) could well having him calling with any two cards (even if he holds 2-7 off that has 35% equity against all other hands and even 27% equity against all Broadway combos and all pairs!), especially if you figure in the value of protecting against blind stealing (and as you indicate he's a blind stealer). If you made a standard raise, I think you beat most of his holdings when he shoves which would include all those Broadway combos that hold a Q (and perhaps even Q-9 and Q-8 suited) versus the two bottom sets (taking out QQ which was less likely even though it was what he had!), although that is even a bit closer because he is likely not doing that with draws on a rainbow and I am assuming a fairly gapped board. So your call may be more justified and perhaps much more painful. But now, you pretty much have to worry about not only the sets but any two pair combos because he can be holding any two cards. I think there are zero complete bluffs in his range when he shoves on the flop.
Then of course there is the situation: you say you are a big stack but got felted by him which means he is bigger but I imagine not more than two to three times your stack (just a guess) at best. So he shoves immediately out of position into a player than can take a sizable portion of his stack. Does he do that with K-Q or Q-J? He shouldn't if he's a good player, but not sure if he is a good player or not. He should be checking to the raiser then calling and maybe getting value on a future street.
On the other hand, he has the nuts on a rainbow board so what the heck is he doing leading out? He got lucky that you held something like AA because you are folding pretty much everything else except KK and bottom sets and A-Q, K-Q - so you are folding like 90% of your holdings. So late in a tournament why is he not trying to get some value from this on that board? Most likely even if you missed you would continuation bet which if I were him I would likely just call and hope for another street of value. But I worst check-raise the flop to get the continuation bet. So his shove is very odd if he holds set or even two pair.
So you are in a tough spot to understand what the heck this shove means and you have to probably rely on what you know about this player. If he is impulsive when he hits big, then maybe this makes sense. If he's a better player than that, then what could he be protecting? Given what he held I find his action puzzling even though it worked out for him.
But the other factor of course is: you are on the bubble. If it had been much earlier or when you were well into the money you'd lean toward call, on the bubble you lean toward fold given the ICM implications especially against a stack that can felt you or hurt you significantly.
These AA situations against a flop shove are always brutal and this situation complicated. Your min raise oddly may have allowed you to put the BB on more hands that beat you and allow you to fold easier. His actually holding ironically may have been his least likely hand for his action.
First, even though it is never easy to fold aces, I think I'd have given it a lot of thought when the BB shoved there, especially if he had me covered. Based on your description, the BB could have anything there, including three different sets and three different combinations of two pairs. I assumed from your description that there weren't any straight or flush draws readily apparent. Your best hope, I think, would have been that he hit top pair and shoved, and even then, he could still hit a second pair or a set with two cards to come.
Second, I think ICM suggests pretty strongly in that situation that you might shove yourself pre-flop, but shouldn't call. At the point where you could have shoved, you knew you weren't behind. Once the flop came, you easily could have been. And I think there are a few players out there who would fold QQ to a shove on the bubble.
My min-raise in hindsight was a mistake because of the odds I was offering. My thinking has been that in these shallow stack situations SPR becomes a primary consideration - you have to balance the odds being offered by a min-raise with the risk of becoming pot committed. In this particular game the min-raise had become the standard raise by this stage of the tournament.
I've often wondered about the whole concept of pot commitment in tournaments. Can someone clarify this theory for me? Here's my thinking: In a cash game you're pot committed because of the odds. If you lose, just reach into your pocket for more money and buy back in - and try harder to avoid those situations moving forward. But in a tournament if you get it all-in with the correct odds and lose, you're gone. So shouldn't you theoretically abandon pots even with correct odds when you would be behind going all-in? For example in a cash game if you face an all-in with 40% hand equity but 2:1 pot odds you call all day long. But in a tournament with this situation you have a 60% probability of elimination. So you should lay your hand down in spite of the odds, except in situations where the laydown would cripple you and this is likely your best chance to survive. With this thinking in a tournament you could make more plays that might otherwise "commit" you to the pot, because you'll lay it down and survive anyway if things go haywire. Taking an abnormally aggressive semi-bluff line and then folding to a big 3-bet defense comes to mind.
After my opponent in that tournament shoved I assumed he had top pair. I had ruled out QQ in my mind because that would have resulted in a 3-bet preflop. I hadn't been terribly active and hadn't shown down any bluffy hands after being moved to his table, so I didn't think he had any incentive to try to trap me preflop. When analyzing hands on the flop, lower sets and two-pairs are usually something I rule out in my mind because they don't happen often enough to change my play for. If my opponent flops a set or two-pair that's just bad luck for me. I guess that's a habit of thought I should break when opponents shove. Lesson learned - painfully.
For me pot commitment in tournaments is along the lines of how you describe it: you have alot invested in the pot and if you lay down this hand will you be so weakened anyway that the odds of moneying are very low. This means you are basically going to play this hand out because even if you only have 30% equity that's your best shot at staying viable to position yourself to money. Many times you'll look back and that meant you should have been all in pre-flop while you still had fold equity.
But more generally, you are also correct that the equity versus por odds decision is different for tournaments versus cash. The general rule is you do need strong equity to pot odds than you do in cash. The question is how much more? For me, in many situations, it's a heck of a lot more. Sometimes I think when a lot of pros do hand analysis, there is still too much isolation of equity and pot odds for that specific hand and not enough recognition of the impact that has on tournament survivability and ICM implications.
The piece I am struggling to put together is why is the ideal amount of variability is ideal for long-term tournament profitability. Such a high percentage of winnings are determined by how many top finishes you get, min cashes don't do a ton for you. Maybe I should accept a but more risk in hands to put myself in better positions to get big stacked on those infrequent good runs to position for one or two more of those infrequent big wins each year.
I like the analysis above, I still catch myself hanging on to aces and kk too long.
But not as bad as I used to.
I got fed-up with my play and played a few cheap $10 tournaments and folded AA and KK preflop the whole game, as long as I lasted, and kept repeating, IT'S JUST A PAIR, IT'S JUST ONE STINKING PAIR. IT'S NOT EVEN A HAND.
As advanced as you are, I'm not suggesting this, but 7 years ago when I started playing it helped.
Now with AA in above scenario I would shove and be happy with the blinds, and if called and they get lucky, that's poker, I never play just to money (I might if the buyin is over a grand, and too many times I tried the slow play and let someone with KTo in and they flopped two pair or better.
In ring I don't mind fretting a little post flop, but not late in a tournament. I'm just not that good.