Mid-Game Tournament Question Revisited

Congratulations out to corron10 for taking down this week's Skills Series in Stud Hi. He beat out another record field of 86 runners to nab the first prize of over two hundy in cash plus the all-important third Tournament of Champions seat in the new Battle of the Blogger Tournaments challenge. Having survived only around an hour or so in this thing thrashing around like a little girl myself, I can only assume that corron had to play some very solid stud poker, and get a solid amount of decent hands dealt to him to make it all the way to the title.

I wanted to spend some more time today talking about the question I asked yesterday about that play from Mondays at the Hoy on Monday night. #1, I wanted to review the comments and give my own thoughts on the hand in question, which I think was very interesting as shown by the comments that were made. Moreover, one of my favorite things about blogging as a medium happened with that debate, as I think a brand new question was born from the analysis that I would also like to address here today and maybe get your thoughts.

So first, a recap of the hand in question, copied directly from my post yesterday:

A hand went down in the MATH this week that I wanted to discuss today, and frankly I think both sides of the equation merit some discussion and analysis. There we were, one hour and 43 minutes in to the Hoy, and the player in the cutoff had just taken over the overall chip lead in the tournament with about 35 runners left at just under 19k in chips, while the big blind was in the top 10 in chips as well of the remaining players. Then the following hand occurs between the Cutoff and the Big Blind:

Full Tilt Poker Game #5492581154: Mondays at the Hoy (41405249), Table 16 - 120/240 Ante 25 - No Limit Hold'em - 23:42:56 ET - 2008/03/03
Seat 1: Cutoff (18,995)
Seat 2: Button (6,025)
Seat 3: Small Blind (3,468)
Seat 4: Big Blind (13,188)
Seat 5: UTG (2,470)
Seat 6: Hijack (11,200)
*Players each ante 25
Small Blind posts the small blind of 120
Big Blind posts the big blind of 240
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
UTG folds
Hijack calls 240
Cutoff calls 240
Button calls 240
Small Blind folds
Big Blind checks
*** FLOP *** [3s 4s 6h]
Big Blind has 15 seconds left to act
Big Blind checks
Hijack checks
Cutoff has 15 seconds left to act
Cutoff bets 720
Button has 15 seconds left to act
Button folds
Big Blind raises to 2,000
Hijack folds
Cutoff has 15 seconds left to act
Cutoff raises to 18,730, and is all in
Big Blind calls 10,923, and is all in
Cutoff shows [Ks Qs]
Big Blind shows [8s 5s]
Uncalled bet of 5,807 returned to Cutoff
*** TURN *** [3s 4s 6h] [Tc]
*** RIVER *** [3s 4s 6h Tc] [8d]
Cutoff shows King Queen high
Big Blind shows a pair of Eights
Big Blind wins the pot (27,076) with a pair of Eights


So yesterday I asked what everyone thought of the way each player played this hand, and as usual I got a bunch of well-thought-out comments. I think most of the commenters seemed to think generally that this was not a situation where either player had much reason to get involved in such a huge pot with such marginal holdings. I tend to agree, although I think the relative merits of each player can be debated in a bit more detail. Generally speaking, though, we are talking about two top-10 stacks -- one of them the actual chip leader at the time -- with 35 players remaining out of 103 starting runners. With a nice stack getting lateish in the blonkament (or mostly any mtt for that matter), my general strategy tends to be more protective of my stack than accumulative. In particular as the chip leader in this spot, I do not believe I would ever want to get involved to this degree in this particular situation.

I think of it this way: I am the chip leader in a tournament, getting kinda late in the event. Now someone offers me the chance to race with essentially 14 of 15 outs for 2/3 of my stack. Given that the big blind has already raised this flop, and that he is a fairly tight player to boot (something which I did not include in the original question, I know) I see the odds as fairly high that he is going to call if the cutoff pushes allin on him, so I don't think there was a whole lot of fold equity here from the cutoff's perspective. Let's say that the cutoff assumes he has 14 outs like it is reasonable for the cutoff to assume (9 flush outs plus 6 for the King and Queen overcards, less one out I would say to reduce for the possibility of the big blind holding AK or AQ). So the cutoff is roughly 48% to win the hand if the big blind calls, and the big blind is pretty likely to call in this spot. So the question becomes, does the cutoff want to take the 48% gamble for 2/3 of his stack?

After much reflection, my answer is no. That approach is not consistent with the way I tend to play when I have the midway-lateish chip lead in any tournament, which is to say that I would expect the guy with a 4k stack, who knows he basically has to start doubling up or going home, to be the guy who jumps at the chance to race for 2/3 of his stack. He is out there actively looking for that kind of a pot to get involved in. I've had this happen to me a million times -- some rat bastard flops quads on me when I get allin preflop with a higher pair, and suddenly I am down to 500 chips 15 minutes in to the Mookie or some other tournament. Now I am looking to play a pot against two high cards with my 88, or looking to get it allin with my AJo against a middle pair, KQ, something like that. That's what I expect the short stack to be wanting to do here. But the chip leader at this point in the event? I have not done any math to back this up, but I tend to approach this from the opposite point of view of the short stack if I am the chip leader. I want to avoid racing for my stack against the only other player at the table who can actually hurt me right now. Yes there is obviously something to accumulating chips at all points in a tournament and especially still with 35 players remaining, but as a general statement I don't love the idea of actively pushing in all my chips as the chip leader with little fold equity and figuring I have 14 outs to win. That IMO is a short stack's move, but not my preferred strategy for playing with a big stack.

I have some of the same questions about the big blind's play in this hand. Here he raised the flop with just an 8-high flush draw and an oesd. Some of yesterday's commenters stated that the big blind's raise from 720 to 2000 chips was weak. That comment I do not get, as I think 2000 chips is within the normal range for a raise from an 720-chip bet on the flop at nearly 2.8x the size of the original bet. So personally I view that as a poor read, in that I do not think the raise looked weak or actually was weak. But with the big blind reasonably thinking he has 16 outs here (9 flush outs, less maybe one out for the fact that his flush draw is only 8-high) plus 8 oesd outs, I think that raise was not a bad move. But raising with the intention of calling an allin reraise there like the big blind did is also somewhat reckless for a guy in the top 10 of chips with 35 players left in an mtt.

Imagine these possible resolutions to the hand instead, which is probably the way I would have played each player's situation if it had been me and the action otherwise went the way it did go in this real-life example. I will skip the preflop action for a minute and get back to that in a minute. So, starting with the cutoff, the flop comes down and it give me what I view as 9 flush outs plus another possible 6 overcard outs. The flop is somewhat connected though which can obviously be trouble since the big blind literally limped in with any two cards for free. Given all this and given the cutoff's big stack at the time, I think the betting out was a good move here, and it is what I would have done in most cases. I am probably more likely to bet a little more than 720 into I think a 1230-chip pot at the time, but probably more like 1000 or so since the flop is so coordinated, but I don't think that is a major thing either way. Most of the people that a 1000-chip bet will fold out, will also fold out for 720 chips so that's no big thing in my view. But when I get raised on that flop, and I quickly determine that I do not have much fold equity and that I will likely end up playing this pot for the big blind's entire stack, I think the much more prudent move here would have been to fold. It is what I would have done in this spot, and in general this approach when in the chip lead has served me well over time. And to be clear, again with these exact same cards and this exact same action heading into the flop, I would happily make the exact allin push that the cutoff made if the cutoff were sitting there with an average or slightly below average stack. But with a chip-leading stack, I think the most +EV move here is to fold to the flop raise, rather than willingly put in the rest of my stack when I know I am likely going to be racing as a roughly 50-50 shot to either add 2/3 or lose 2/3 of my tournament-leading chip stack. I should be perfectly happy avoiding that very chance that reraising allin forces me to take on when I am the tournament chip leader and have confidence in my poker abilities.

Now from the big blind's perspective, the same hand, ignoring again the preflop action: Once I had limped for free into the 5-way pot and I flop what I view to be a good 16 outs, I would be looking to play here and to maximize my fold equity to boot. Since I am still a top-10 chip stack, however, I don't want to needlessly toss in my chips even as a 55% favorite without getting a good amount of fold equity to go along with that situation. So when the cutoff bets out on this flop and I believe I have roughly 16 outs with that chip stack, I think I only have two moves in the running for being optimal. I don't want to tempt the cutoff to call me (or to reraise, thinking he will have some fold equity of his own) by raising only to 2000 chips. A call there is not a great outcome for me as I am not likely to win much if the straight or flush completes on the turn, and I only have roughly a one-third chance of improving anyways or I am likely to have to fold after the turn card hits the board. No, I think there are two options that are both better than the raise to 2000 chips here. Either I would raise allin, thereby giving me significant fold equity of maybe, what, 30-40% chance of a fold, depending on what the cutoff is holding, and knowing that even if called, I am probably a 55% favorite to win the hand nonetheless. That is a good situation for me, giving me a good what, 70-80% chance of winning the hand by playing in that way, regardless of specifically what the cutoff does in response. My other option as the big blind facing the flop bet from the cutoff would be to fold. I have nothing but outs right now, but my best made hand is 8-high, and that's it. Personally, folding in this spot is probably a bit soft for my tastes, but I think it is easily defensible given the big blind's decent chip stack in his own right. If he had been the chip leader, once again I might be recommending folding in this spot rather than jeopardizing that chip lead with only a bunch of outs, but the smaller his stack becomes, the more reasonable I think the push is here. I do not love the raise to 2000 chips since I think you should want to maximize your fold equity in this spot as much as possible, and given that since all you have is outs, and since you have a nice stack already as it is, your #1 outcome here should not be to race with your (hopefully) 16 outs for all your chips, but rather it should be just to get the cutoff to fold and give you the 2k in chips or so already in the pot at that point in time.

So that's my thoughts on the hand. Given that the big blind only raised to 2k, and the cutoff then pushed, at that point it became simple pot odds and I believe the big blind had to call around 11k into a pot that at that point was well over 30 or 40k, so with 16 likely outs he kinda has to call there. But I think the big blind got himself into that ugly spot by not maximizing his fold equity at all with the raise from 720 to just 2000 chips, knowing he was committed for the rest of his stack if the cutoff pushed.

In all the analysis of this hand in the comments, a new issue emerged that I think is worthy of some further discussion, and as I mentioned above this is one of my favorite things about discussing hands over a public comment-ready forum such as a blog. Several of the commenters, some of whom were even at the table during this particular hand, mentioned how much they think the preflop limp of KQs from the cutoff was a bad play behind the UTG+1 limp that had already taken place. Curiously, not one person thought she should have folded the hand after that preflop limp -- something I personally would almost always do in early-middle position after an UTG+1 limp at a ring table btw -- and also the vast majority of the commenters mentioned that they believed a raise from the cutoff was more appropriate preflop than the limp. In fact, most of those people who made this comment stated it as if it were more of a foregone conclusion than a statement of opinion. I found this very interesting because, frankly, I liked the preflop limp there and that is definitely the way I would be apt to play this hand more often than not in the cutoff's exact situation before the flop.

Here's my thinking: KQs is a good hand, and it is actually one of the hands that does not mind seeing a flop with many opponents. But KQs is also behind to any Ace and to any pair, and that is most likely what you are going to be up against when the UTG+1 player limps in to a pot ahead of you. And, the UTG+1 limp should also be a tad bit scary to many of you since it can often be a big, big hand laying in disguise. Personally, I think raising an UTG+1 limper with KQs from the cutoff, with still the button and both blinds to act behind you, is not a good move generally speaking, at least not for the way that I view the strength of KQs heading into a random flop, and that is what I found so interesting about the opinions on this hand in the comments, and the matter-of-fact nature with which most of those opinions were delivered on this particular point. I don't think it is well-settled at all whether or not a raise or a call is better in that spot, and I am still struggling with why there seemed to be such a nearly uniform negative reaction to the preflop limp with KQs by the cutoff in this hand. If the cutoff was acting in an unopened pot, then I definitely agree that a raise was in order. If the cutoff was in the big blind and wanted to get some information from the late-position preflop limper, then again I can easily see where a raise might make good sense in that spot. But with an UTG+1 limper and still with three players behind to act, raising in this spot means you are facing the possibility of a large reraise from the button, the small blind and the big blind that you basically know you will have to lay down to (unless you want to be a donkey), and even if the UTG+l limper calls you, you are heading into a flop into a now large pot with a hand that is almost surely behind whatever the original limper is holding. To me, a limp with KQs under those circumstances is a far preferable outcome, and just take my chances on flopping a flush draw with or without overs, two pairs, top pair second kicker, etc. and then reevaluate from there.

Thoughts?

Don't forget the Mookie tonight, the next BBT3 tournament, at 10pm ET on full tilt. This is an $11 buyin nlh tournament every Wednesday night, and it is normally already the best-attended blogger event most weeks, so it will be interesting to see the final tally on players in this thing this evening. I will make the first guess at 155 runners.