[fivebyfive]

Let’s start with some general approaches and then talk specifics. This is not unlike a satellite situation where we care nothing about winning the tournament and only about having one chip left when we get to third. Our strategy would radically change if all the money was up top and we were trying to win, but we’re really trying to survive. So we can think about this a little with satellite strategy in play. If you want a good primer for playing this kind of game, I highly recommend Dara O’Kearney’s Satellite Strategy book.

To the hand, this is a very big open. What does it mean? This will start our approach. There are bad players out there that adjust their sizing based on the strength of their hand. If I’ve seen this player raise smaller before, I’m now quite worried this is JJ+/AK. If this is the case, it is a snap fold.

But let’s be more generous and say this player just likes to open large with a wider range. I ran this in HRC with these payouts and gave everyone a stack of 43bb except the SB which I gave 129 (since you said they knocked two players out). I further gave our CO opponent 66+, A2s+, A8o+, KTs+, QJs, KTo+ (about 21% of hands). While they should be opening wider for smaller, when they’re opening this big, my experience is that population is tighter when they open bigger. I’m thinking they might be even tighter in this spot, but for argument’s sake, let’s give them this. I gave us the option of calling, raising to 13bb, or raising all-in. Since you got raised without an all-in, I gave it the option of a min-4bet and an all-in.

Perhaps not all that surprising when we start thinking of this from a satellite perspective, but we need to be pretty tight here. Unless we have reason to believe villain is an absolute maniac, we are only continuing with about 8-9% of our range here, mostly through a raise (TT+, AJs/AQo+, KQo).

There is a ton of pressure on us and a big stack directly to our left. We don’t have the odds to set mine. It feels odd to throw away a decent pair on the button, but this is a clear fold. I’m running an even wider calculation for villain, but I suspect they would need to get very wide to this sizing for us to continue much with 77.

[7high11]

First off, welcome to the Forum! It’s great to be seeing a new member involved! Full disclosure…I’m not one of the Wizards on here, but perhaps further along in my journey than you. What I do have is a ton of experience playing triple-ups on Ignition, so I thought I would at least weigh in. I play mostly $7 and $15 instead of the $3, but I don’t think there is too much difference in the player pool. It gets a little tougher as you move up (I’m now dabbling in the occasional $25).

Also, the thoughts you outlined on here puts you at a minimum “5” rather than a “2” on the scale of Ignition players at least. My overall advice is for you to read 2 of Dara O’Kearney’s books, one on Satellites and the other ICM. These triple-ups actually qualify as satellites, and there is a ton of ICM pressure in them. Alternately go back through the book study archives if you have access to them. At least the ICM book was the subject of a book study, if not both of them. I learned a ton from both of these books that directly helped me in these tournaments.

To the hand… Let’s assume for a basis that the cutoff is opening with a GTO range. That is about 37% of hands from the CO. A quick check on Flopzilla shows you have about 56% equity against that range. However, I find very few people in these tournaments are opening up their ranges that wide in the CO. With few exceptions I find they are sticking to ranges of about the top 15% to 20% of hands (I know that sounds tight to a lot of you, but these people are not really positionally aware at this level). That puts you right at about 50% equity. So your “coin flip” analysis is pretty well on track.

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>I know </font>there<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> are still 7 players left, but in my opinion there is already some ICM implications at play here (others might disagree with me). Once I start to to factor in ICM implications I start to shy away from from these coin tosses looking for something a little more in my favor. Having </font>said<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> that, 77 is much too strong to fold here. I probably would have flatted the raise, </font>especially<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> with people to act behind me. But I know there are a lot of people here that would </font>definitely<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> 3 bet this as you did, so I think it is a perfectly fine play. In my </font>opinion<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> your 3 bet size here is just right. You need to go at least 3x, but your stack size isn’t deep enough to let you do much more.</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>The next stage is a little trickier. At a more advanced table people are only going to be 4 betting with a polarized range AA through QQ, AK and AQs with a spattering of bluffs thrown in. With A5s and A4s thrown in as bluffs you are down to about 42% equity. From a pot odds point of view it may still be a call (I didn’t calculate that out.) At these tables however people are 4 betting with a much wider range (even </font>though<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> they are opening with a tighter range in late position). I’ve seen </font>people<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> do this with any pair and hands as weak as JTo. Given that range you are back to about 50% equity.</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>So having played the hand the way you did (which is fine in my opinion) I think this is a call to the shove. QQ over 77 is just the way poker is!</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>One thing more to consider. When ICM is in play, the value of lower pocket pairs goes down when calling a shove. It is actually better to have big suited cards (</font>broadways<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>). Not only do they have a lot of equity, but they act as blockers to your </font>opponent<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> having big pairs. Not saying they </font>can’t<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> have a big pair, but reducing the chance that they have that </font>pair<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> by 25% matters. To me 77 is right on the edge of that “low pair” </font>threshold<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> (I know it </font>technically<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> </font>qualifies<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> as a “</font>medium<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> pair”). Suited connectors go way down in value here, mostly </font>because<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> when stacks are going in you are not getting the right implied odds to win as much as you need to on them (and there is clearly no room for any postflop play). </font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>My own style in these is to play </font>aggressively<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> when I am controlling the action, and quite tight when I am not. In other words, when it comes down to it I am doing more shoving than might be GTO and less calling than might be GTO.</font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>I’d love to hear what one of the Wizards thinks!</font>

[fivebyfive]

Update, like I kind of suspected, if we really widen villains range. Any pair, any ace, all broadways, a lot of suited cards and give them a 37% opening range, as crazy as it may seem, we STILL fold 77. We’re just not as incentivized to take flips in these spots, especially with that opening size. We so rarely dominate with 77 that we just fold it.

But it is interesting to look at how our approach does change against a player who opens this wide. We’re almost never flatting now (even less than we were in the previous example) and we’re introducing some 43bb shoves into our approach. But poor 77 just doesn’t cut it in this kind of spot.

[7high11]

See that is why Chris is in on the Recing Crew… He can get right to the point. I do play these tournaments as if there is a lot of ICM pressure right from the start. Posting this s made me evaluate my own strategy here and try and put into words where it comes from. The people in these tournaments are definitely over folding and under bluffing. And that is why I say I am aggressive when no one is aggressive but I tighten right up when someone else opens large or plays back at me. I still might not have folded the 77 here, but Chris’ point about tightening up in these spots is right on!

[buchr]

Thank you 5×5 and 7H11!

There’s a lot to digest here, allow me to take it all in. I may have follow up questions.

Had never thought of comparing the game to a satellite tournament strategy-wise, thanks.

Thanks again, looking forward to taking in more content.

-B

[elvida]

Hey Buchr,

First welcome to the forums! Glad you are here.

I think that Chris and John have given you lots to think about in the hand and how to approach these spots. One thing I will say is one of your goals is to let the other players make mistakes. It is tough for players to NOT play hands in these games. Think about your situation. It is HARD to not play 77, though it is the right play. But your goal is not to accumulate chips, it is to have 1 chip left when the bubble bursts. Since these are not killers by-and-large, waiting for THEM to stumble will be more profitable than taking riskier spots. In fact, there are spots where folding AA (and not just on the stone bubble) is the absolute right play. If you are tracking your hands (highly recommended) I think you be surprised how few hands you need to win in these tournaments in order to cash. Satellite play is a different animal from MTT with its own strategy and recognizing just that fact will give you an edge on the table.

[jim]

This was a great post @Buchr and you should know that we just recorded a podcast episode about it! We are a few weeks ahead with the Forums edition of the podcast so that episode will come out the week before Christmas. Hope you enjoy unwrapping it! Keep playing and posting, you have a bright future in this game. 🍻

[buchr]

Hi Jim,

Leaned of the episode in the best possible way, completely by surprise as it randomly came on in my car! So grateful to the crew for dissecting the hand and really helping me think about my play more carefully, since the ep I’ve taken a more considerate approach to my game and seen a huge improvement! Great insights on the triple up tourney structure from the crew too, thanks again.

[jim]

🤗