Bad Shove for 13 BB? (1 Viewer)

(Reason for my shove above even though I had 20+ bb was because a 4! to at least 4.5k would have put 40% of my stack in so I just figure I'd shove since only AA beats me preflop. I think there was another player who called the 1500 in between too... Maybe this is a hand worth more criticism but I think it's just another bad beat situation?)

The crazy thing was almost literally the same thing happened last week, I had QQ, shoved for ~10bb, got called by someone (different player) holding 53o, flops a wheel and busts me. What are the chances and WTF?!?

These are both correct plays that do not deserve over analyzing either. Even if you got folds, that means you chip up substantially compared to your stack with no showdown. Also, if you get called here and get to show what you are shoving with, you can get a lot of shitty shoves thru on your reputation for having it.
 
It's kind of crazy we've gone on this long about a 13bb stack holding AQ vs 2 limping ranges.
 
The limping ranges from late position are interesting. I’ve seen limp calls from pros late position with pairs. Anyone got a resource explaining that strat? I think I’ve noticed a couple plays from S4Y crew that were similar…88 or 99 from button, this kind of 15ish stack depth, can’t remember how strong the ICM was
 
The limping ranges from late position are interesting. I’ve seen limp calls from pros late position with pairs. Anyone got a resource explaining that strat? I think I’ve noticed a couple plays from S4Y crew that were similar…88 or 99 from button, this kind of 15ish stack depth, can’t remember how strong the ICM was
I've seen some such stuff, but we're taking about non-pros here in this instance. I don't think we should be giving them much credit for having a well thought out limping strategy obviously.
 
the solve 4 why guys are basically a group of people lead by berkey, a guy who specializes in finding wealthy people who know nothing about poker to stake them in games that they're at best marginal winners in, but for deals that ensure that no matter how good/bad he is will show a massive profit at the expensive of one of his many backers. berkey and his crew are reasonably good at poker but all the online content is some combination of,

a) worthless advice littered with buzz words that're incorrectly applied (and i think he might even know how bad it is, it's almost like he's trolling)
b) hands played in private games between berkey and his friends, probably not actually for real money, and (i would speculate) for the purpose of giving people the impression that he's a loose, tricky and crazy player for image purposes. he's basically trying to emulate what tom dwan was able to do by making actual bluffs in high stakes games by posting play money hands against his entourage of "pros" (basically a group of average to below average 5/5nl regs).

he's definitely not bad at poker and he isn't disreputable or shady in the traditional sense. but playing poker is secondary to the self promotion and fellating rich people for stakes and/or private game hookups.
 
deals that ensure that no matter how good/bad he is will show a massive profit at the expensive of one of his many backers
How does that work?

Bob stakes me
I play poker and lose money
Bob loses all the money instead of me and somehow I make a profit
??
 
Tournaments are easier to explain because there’s a finite, defined term of the stake.

50/50 per tournament is a horrible deal for any backer. It requires a massive roi to break even. You take 50% on wins but they take 100% on losses. If you play 10 tournaments, cash in 3 (2 of which are min cashes for 2x buyin) and 1 is a large cash for 15x your buyin for instance - the player is up 9 buyins technically. But the players profit is 9.5 buyins whereas the backer is down 0.5 buyins.

In the poker community 80/20 is closer to normal and even that only is done in really soft tournaments and requires the player to be a really big winner, in smaller or tougher tournament 90/10 or 95/5 is more appropriate.

Considering the impact of taxes backers should require an even lower markup for it to be profitable. Same basic premise. You pay taxes on winning years but don’t get tax refunds on losing years. There are ways to minimize this via accounting but it’s always a drag.

You can also do an ongoing deal with “makeup” where you have to work off losses over an indefinite time frame before taking wins. But thats susceptible to the fact that you can’t have a player by the balls for several years of their life - eventually they’ll give up if theyre too deep in makeup (or play very little because they have other things going in their life) and being deep in makeup is a very likely outcome even for top players when playing huge field tournaments. And pretty common in cash games too. Especially tough games where the player in question is Berkey. Sure he could be willing to play indefinitely to work off makeup but the backer (who doesn’t understand poker) would most likely not be interested in keeping it going if he’s down 20 or 30 buyins, and so berkey just moves on to the next backer who offers a similar deal with a clean slate.

There are a lot of professional “horses” out there. The great thing about poker is that no one tracks losses so no matter how mediocre you may be you can always point to specific results or sessions where you made a great read, or a commentator who made you sound like a big shot. This is a shockingly high number of famous tv pros.
 
... backers are willing to put up 100% of the money and accept less than 100% of the winnings?

Holy shit.

There really IS a sucker born every minute.
 
It's hard, man. Human beings like reasons for stuff. At least you're not one of these people blaming the dealer.

Last night I saw a Youtube video of a guy stacking off with quad 4s. It took a couple raise/reraise cycles to get all that money in the middle, and the whole time, Nick Schulman and Ali Nejad are commenting on the tragedy that there's literally no way that guy could possibly get away from his hand, even with a pair of 6s on the board. We all just slowly watched him realize the inevitable. And you know, I bet that even though he knows on an intellectual level that he couldn't have done differently, it's going to eat at him for a while.

So for a few days I'll be safe from self-recrimination. Sometimes, you just go broke, and there's nothing to be done.
Was that the main event hand ? One guy flopped a boat and one guy flopped quads the flop was 644 then turn came a 6 no way either hand was getting away no matter how good you are if u flop quads u have to feel ur gonna win the hand lol
 
Was that the main event hand ? One guy flopped a boat and one guy flopped quads the flop was 644 then turn came a 6 no way either hand was getting away no matter how good you are if u flop quads u have to feel ur gonna win the hand lol
Yeah, that's the one. There was another one several years back in the ME where quad aces ran into a royal flush, too.
 
Perfectly standard shove imo. You are near the top of your range, got 13 BBs and you need to double up. If he calls with 55 he would call with plenty of hands you dominate as well. Also, it's easier to shove than to call as you're the one applying pressure whenever you shove. Just pick your spots and opponents wisely if you're going to shove lighter. I reckon hands as weak as Q9s+ is an easy shove in this particular spot.

In tournaments, many players plays way too tight and try to nit themselves the money. Once the ante kicks in you should start opening up your range a bit more and start battling in more spots. That means 3 betting ligher in position, and opening more hands in late position. Aggressive poker is winning poker. Good tournament players might not cash as often as tight players percentage wise, but whenever they do they get bigger stacks and will naturally run deeper.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom