- Hey, everyone. This is Uri
Peleg for Guerrilla Poker.
In this video, I'm gonna be going over
the largest amount of big blinds
I won in a single hand from the last year.
I'm gonna dive in pretty deep.
Hope you guys enjoy it
and manage to take some
stuff away from it.
The hand was played on
a rathole table on WPN.
Rathole tables work where you
buy-in with 10 big blinds,
but there's no rat-holing -
that means if you won a lot,
next session you're coming in
with the same stack you're left with.
So stacks can sometimes get pretty big.
Let's dive into the action.
Rocket Scientist goes all-in
for 13 big blinds; I call,
which is the only play
you should be making here.
There is no point in re-raising.
And we get this four-bet,
a good time to practice your poker face.
This kind of spot is something I refer to
as a Wild West Spot in poker.
What do I mean by Wild West Spot?
I mean that nobody
knows what they're doing
and nobody knows what
anyone else is doing.
And for these reasons, these
are the kind of situations
in which you'll see people
making the largest mistakes
and where there's a lot of
room to outmaneuver people
if you understand the spot better.
I think the first thing
I was thinking is that
his range should be very tight,
much tighter than a cold 4-bet situation.
Were this to go raise/three-bet
and he cold four-bets,
when we both fold he wins the entire pot.
Here, if I fold, he still has to race
Rocket Scientist with his equity.
So I assume this would have to be tighter
than a cold four-bet range
which is already very tight.
So first thing I want to do with you guys
is to test this assumption.
And to do this, I made
these four lines in Excel.
The first is a simulation of his EV
were it to go raise to three big blinds,
three-bet to 13, four-bet to 48.
And here he would need to succeed
roughly 75% of the time
to start turning a profit.
Now, I made a slightly
different calculation where here
he's gonna win his equity
share times the side pot
of 39-and-a-half with
the three of us all in.
And then there's a new variable of equity,
how much equity does he need
versus the other guy's range?
And then the answer is he
needs quite a lot of equity
to get to a similar point.
So were he to have the
same success against me,
he needs 77% equity against
the other player's range,
which is an insane amount.
Just to kind of show this to you guys,
I put out a shoving
range for the UTG player.
I took out the top-range hands
and it's a bit too loose,
but most people play this
spot a bit too loose.
And here we can click
on hand range calculator
and say, "well, what hands have 77% equity
against this range?"
And the answer is KK+.
If it were to just play like this
where I play five-bet or fold,
he would have to be
extremely, extremely tight.
I feel like we're getting
close to an inflection point
where if I'm shoving,
I can only shove aces
and then he has to fold everything.
But if his range is aces
and kings you know...
So kind of these weird spots
in poker when you're deep
and ranges get really tight
and really crazy things happen.
Now, I want to look a
little bit deeper at that
and talk a bit about ranges
and see how correct that actually is.
If we go look at Equilab
and assume something like
this is my calling range,
we can talk about what
strategy I would play.
So if I think he's being super tight,
I think there are two
reasonable strategies
for me to play and this is where you get
to see kind of me building
an equilibrium by hand.
One strategy for me to play would be,
well, if your range is so tight,
I'm just gonna shove kings and aces
or ace-kings, and aces,
or ace-deuce and aces.
Whatever we decide makes the most sense.
We have to remember it's
also a protected pot.
I think shoving kings and aces,
even though it doesn't work well
if he's just having kings and aces,
his is a response that
some people might make.
How often would he get to squeeze here
if I were just shoving kings and aces
and folding everything else?
So this is the formula I put here,
and then the variables are his race size,
his equity against the calling range,
the pot size he's gonna win,
how often I fold,
and how much money he gets
back from his raise size.
If I were going with KK+
with the shoving range I put out,
that would be 83% folding.
And that would mean he
would need 60% equity
to win $8 on the shove with...the rake's
usually capped at $5.
So we're talking roughly 59% equity.
Again, this is something
we can look at in Equilab.
So were I to play the simple strategy
of just shoving KK+,
he could go with tens
plus ace-king actually,
which is a lot wider
than just kings and aces.
That's because in this situation
I wouldn't be like we calculated before
folding 75% of the time,
I'd be folding 83% of the time.
These things make a big difference.
Alternate strategy for me
would be the play call only here
and not shove because ranges are so tight,
I think that's pretty reasonable.
Calculating that's a lot more complicated.
I did do that here with some assumptions
and, again, the formula is here.
You could look at various
flatting strategies for me -
I think a reasonable one
would be calling something like this;
Queens plus ace-kings suited.
Again, you have to remember,
I'm assuming his range is really tight.
With me calling and not shoving,
obviously, I'd be
folding less of the time,
but he actually got to get away
with a much lower equity share.
So if, for example, I were
going with ace-king suited,
kings and aces as a call
and everything else folds,
that would be 16 combos out of 72.
So we're talking somewhere around
this amount of folds.
And then he can get away
with even as low as 49,
48% equity against the calling range
once I'm being this tight,
let's say 50% equity
which lets him expand actually his range,
where if we ask what has 50% equity
against the shoving range
we would get 77+, ace-queen-off,
ace-jack-suited.
Of course, as I widen my range,
if I were to add ace-king
offsuit in there,
which is another 12 combos,
you'd get this to 28,
folding would drop to 61.
And then, again, he would need
massive amounts of equity.
Once I'm flatting something
like ace-king plus,
even if we increase his
post-flop equity here,
he would have to be quite
tight, not super tight.
I guess if he has 30%
equity against my range
so he's not doing this with trashy hands,
you get to something like 55% equity
which, just to finish off, would be
99+, ace-queen-suited, ace-king.
Kind of a deep analysis
of the pre-flop situation,
but you can see how sensitive
his strategy is to my response.
where if I'm responding by only calling,
he can probably do this pretty wide.
If I'm responding by calling too tight,
it gets even wider.
It's never gonna be like
crazy wide because in the end,
he does need to win a pot
against rocket scientist.
Definitely a lot wider
than I would have assumed.
And like we said,
if I were just shoving Aces and Kings
actually narrower than with
me having a calling range.
So that being said, I'm gonna call,
take a flop, Ace, five, nine.
He bets third pot, call.
Turn, three of spades.
He bets third pot and I
call, and in this situation
I was already getting a
bit of a funny feeling.
My range has to be extremely
narrow at this point.
Like the amount of money
that went in pre-flop,
plus a third pot and the other third pot,
I'm not even sure I would have worse
than Ace-King on the River, personally.
Like to have worse than
Ace-King on the River,
I'd have to either call
Kings or Queens twice,
or I'd need to call
Ace-Queen suited pre-flop
and then get here with it.
And then he shoved the River,
and I was...you know
obviously, I'm snap calling,
but as far as the feeling of what to do,
I had this feeling that this is gonna be,
again, one of these spots
where people can potentially
mess up really big
and something about what
he did was just wrong.
I think what happens here is that
because of the pre-flop action
and because we're so deep,
by the time he puts the third bet in,
he's narrowing my range so much
that Ace-King is actually
the bottom of my range.
And I should in theory, be
folding some of my Ace-Kings,
wary of his Aces as far
as, as how GTO would play.
And that hugely implies
that he should have taken a
smaller bet sizing scheme.
In practice, bluffs -
bluffing here would be terrible, I think,
because nobody's ever
folding AK in my shoes.
Also your value hands are
not maximizing the amount
of money they can make.
Because say he has Ace-King,
is he shoving, hoping to
get me to fold a chop?
Had he made smaller bet
sizes - like, a smaller,
maybe pre-flop 20% flop,
20% turn, 20% River,
would put me in a tough spot
with all sorts of hands.
But when he does this,
I think for my range,
I just call Ace-King plus.
It's very difficult for him to bluff
or do anything about it.
So I simmed this with
kind of weird ranges.
I gave him this range.
I gave me this range,
which is wider than I
would have had in practice.
But you need slightly wider ranges
or Pio will not have anyone ever betting.
And what you see here is that
if you were to go one third pot flop
and then one third pot turn,
which are not very common lines,
but they are okay lines.
And then we get this River.
Pio would sometimes shove,
the shoving range would
be based around Aces.
And my response would be
kind of like I expected,
to fold some of my Ace-Kings
and just call Ace-King and Aces,
making this a ridiculously tight spot.
One where probably his
bet sizing is optimal
only if he has specifically pocket Aces.
And were we to get even deeper than this
or were my range to be narrower,
which it certainly would have been.
You get kind of in a situation...
Like, if you're infinite big blinds
deep pre-flop and
someone just goes all in,
you can just call in
with Aces and that's it.
And I think this was a bit that situation.
So yeah, obviously I'm calling
expecting to see Ace-King,
but I run into King-Queen suited.
I respect every player I play
against for what it's worth,
just because a hand seems not good to me,
doesn't mean I'm not going
to check and figure out
is this maybe good?
And I would say pre-flop is
a lot closer than I thought
when I was looking at the hand.
I still think King-Queen suited
is probably a bit too loose.
According to every way I've managed
to model this situation,
it never gets quite to King-Queen suited,
but it's pretty close.
Postflop I think he... like
I said, Wild West spot.
He made a pretty huge
blunder shoving the River.
It feels like, you know...
"I need to pick some bluff,
what's wrong with this one?"
But actually this is
one of those situations
where we're so deep that,
no you don't need to pick some bluff.
If you're bluffing, bluff with Ace-King,
to get me off a chop.
And like I said, even
with these tight ranges,
shoving a bluff, like a hand like Queens
would be massively losing.
Same with the hand like Kings,
because I just don't need to fold enough
to allow these kinds of bluffs.
You have to have an Ace and a King.
And even then you're
looking to make me fold AK.
That's it for this video!
Hope you guys enjoyed it
and take something away
from the way I analyzed this hand.
These spots, they are very important.
If you can find some
kind of generalization
to play them better than the other people,
these are the spots where people
are gonna make very, very large mistakes,
as we can see here.
If you liked the video,
please subscribe to the channel
and I'll see you next time!
