10-10 Overpair to a Scary Flop UTG in a 13-Person Private MTT (2 Viewers)

[DrStrange]

Hero should be thinking about expanding and exploiting his playbook.

I do not concede that a down bet is a sure sign of weakness. It could be trapping, trying to suck in money when Hero holds a big hand - Say the nut flush in this case. There is also the assumption that the villains are paying attention, which often is not the case. I have played with plenty of folks who "check out of hands" when the flop is bricks to their hand and are looking to fold at the first opportunity. A tiny c-bet gives them the opportunity to fold that they were looking for.

Ok, so some villains will see a down bet as a sign of weakness and jump on it when they can. Fine, then Hero needs to be down betting with strong hands. Getting spanked trying to steal a pot from a "weak" Hero will teach the villains better sooner or later. Then hero has a fuller range of options with small sized c-bets.

I agree completely with @Poker Zombie here. Hero's playbook is missing a chapter about down betting and it needs to be fixed.

Opportunity is knocking -=- DrStrange

 

[JustinInMN]

In fairness to hero, the idea of only using large sizing is probably an attempt to avoid sizing tells, in which there is value.

(At least I hope so, if hero is going pot with TT in spot, I hope it's also true with flushes and JJ+. Otherwise hero is offering observant opponents the opportunity to "play perfectly" against him.)

But in no limit, one can and should develop strategies for using different bet sizes that are tough to determine.

For example, If I really believed the shove was the best play here with TT, I would also make sure I am making this play with some flushes as well as not to show the shove only means middling holdings.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Hard to really discuss further once you've seen the spoiler. I will just say the cbet logic is sound.

No one made you read the spoiler

I like @Anthony Martino's down bet. If it's not in your playbook, your playbook is lacking.

Hero should be thinking about expanding and exploiting his playbook.

I do not concede that a down bet is a sure sign of weakness. It could be trapping, trying to suck in money when Hero holds a big hand - Say the nut flush in this case. There is also the assumption that the villains are paying attention, which often is not the case.

In your run-of-the-mill low stakes tournament, I agree. But our game is attended by some very well accomplished amateurs, some with 5 and 6-figure Hendon Mob profiles. They're paying attention.

Ok, so some villains will see a down bet as a sign of weakness and jump on it when they can. Fine, then Hero needs to be down betting with strong hands. Getting spanked trying to steal a pot from a "weak" Hero will teach the villains better sooner or later. Then hero has a fuller range of options with small sized c-bets.

The problem is, most of the time I don't have anything. That's not a referendum on my hand selection or playing style - but smashing the flop really just doesn't happen very often... as a point of reference unpaired hole cards only flop a pair 29% of the time.

I play a LOT of small-ball - even with monsters I'm content to take the pot down without confrontation. For every time I flop huge and don't get paid off there are many more instances of me picking up small pots when I have nothing.

I realize that's contradictory to trying to extract max value when you have it - but winning a lot of small pots without tabling a hand has a lot of merit too.

I agree completely with @Poker Zombie here. Hero's playbook is missing a chapter about down betting and it needs to be fixed.

Opportunity is knocking -=- DrStrange

I didn't mean to imply that I never vary bet sizes. I absolutely do based on the story I'm trying to tell. But with c-bets, I pretty much stick to a standard 2/3 to full pot bet or I just check. Sometimes I check with air, sometimes I check with a hand. But I probably c-bet 50-70% of the time.

I've listened to the argument for a down-bet on this flop and I understand the theory that when you're trying to induce folds, you should bet the absolute smallest amount necessary to achieve that objective - anything additional is just unnecessary exposure. But I really don't want this hand to continue past the flop. I have a hard time believing that if they'll call 8k they'll just as likely call 54k.

The concept of downbetting OOP like this feels worst than just checking with the intention of folding. I could see more merit to this play in position...

If I really believed the shove was the best play here with TT, I would also make sure I am making this play with some flushes as well as not to show the shove only means middling holdings.

Yeah I'd jam here at times with stronger hands - I've been known to swing for the fences here and there.

I thought this was an interesting hand in the sense that I was in a spot where I held what can reasonably be assumed to be the best hand most of the time. I mean - how often am I beat on this flop? Overpairs, set/two-pairs, flopped flushes and exactly one straight possibility are all I have to worry about.

MP's flatting range is pretty wide but doesn't smash that flop very often... and the Button's range is narrower and even less likely to have me crushed. Button's fold proclivity is also very high in this situation. I thought jamming represented the best chance to induce two folds, and holding the offered some additional potential equity if I get called.

Obviously, I got it in really bad and paid the ultimate price. I think my biggest error was valuing a small pot over remaining in the tournament.

 

[JustinInMN]

Obviously, I got it in really bad and paid the ultimate price. I think my biggest error was valuing a small pot over remaining in the tournament

Right, this is what I meant (obviously before the reveal) when I said lighting 27 BB on fire here was atrocious.

You are right you usually figure to be good here, though odd that MP played JJ this way as a LAG.

But I think if your max upside in 10BB, you are going to hit the cooler too often to justify the risk.