$8,8 NL HE MTT: GTO

G

Geo90

Rock Star
Platinum Level
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Total posts
318
HU
Chips
274
Game
Hold'em
Game Format
No Limit
Table Format
MTT
Buy-in
8,8
Currency
$
This was a straight race, not bounties.

Here, GTO wrote all-in, but is it really a good play to go all-in with 32 BB after 2 raises?

Here, the GTO fold range is no longer there, but I don't think many weaker hands will fold here. The CO could have raised wide, but the BTN's range suggests a strong hand.


888Poker, Hold'em No Limit - 1,000/2,000 (250 ante) - 7 players
Hand delivered by CardsChat

Diego_Marcos (UTG): 62,465 (31 bb)
Eiffel (MP): 81,585 (41 bb)
Jumbomcgee (MP+1): 15,590 (8 bb)
Elquelele (CO): 43,252 (22 bb)
Bit_ok (BU): 72,390 (36 bb)
pastrana19 (SB): 87,041 (44 bb)
Gyurika90 (BB): 65,603 (33 bb)

Pre-Flop: (4,750) Hero (Gyurika90) is BB with Q♣ J♣
3 players fold, Elquelele (CO) raises to 4,200, Bit_ok (BU) 3-bets to 10,600, 1 fold, Gyurika90 (BB) folds, Elquelele (CO) 4-bets to 43,002 (all-in), Bit_ok (BU) calls 32,402

Flop: (90,754) Q♦ J♦ 3♥ (2 players, 1 all-in)

Turn: (90,754) 4♠ (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: (90,754) K♥ (2 players, 1 all-in)

Total pot: 90,754

Showdown:
Elquelele (CO) shows 5♦ 5♠ (a pair of Fives)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 19%, Flop: 13%, Turn: 5%, River: 0%)

Bit_ok (BU) shows A♥ A♠ (a pair of Aces)
(Equity - Pre-Flop: 81%, Flop: 87%, Turn: 95%, River: 100%)

Bit_ok (BU) wins 90,754
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
15,745
Awards
2
Chips
885
The solver obviously assume, that both opponents play a GTO strategy. If they are opening / 3-betting tight and/or calling to much to a 4-bet jam, then hands at the bottom of our range might become unprofitable to jam. But at least against GTO-opponents and with the assumptions plugged into the program, then QJs is in fact a profitable 4-bet jam.

I might not always find this jam in real time, and its important to remember, that we are rarely leaving a ton of value on the table by being a little tight and folding the bottom of our range. So its not like, folding here is a major blunder. But if you also start folding hands like AQ, KQs or TT, then it becomes an issue, unless you have HUD-data on BTN showing a very low 3-bet percentage over a large sample.

Finally since this is a pure push-fold spot, I will say, that ICMizer is a better tool to analyse it. In ICMizer you can put in the actual stack sizes instead of just giving everyone 30BB, you can also put in the payout structure, and you can manually lock the opponents ranges, if you think, they are deviating from GTO.
 
G

Geo90

Rock Star
Platinum Level
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Total posts
318
HU
Chips
274
fundiver199 said:
The solver obviously assume, that both opponents play a GTO strategy. If they are opening / 3-betting tight and/or calling to much to a 4-bet jam, then hands at the bottom of our range might become unprofitable to jam. But at least against GTO-opponents and with the assumptions plugged into the program, then QJs is in fact a profitable 4-bet jam.

I might not always find this jam in real time, and its important to remember, that we are rarely leaving a ton of value on the table by being a little tight and folding the bottom of our range. So its not like, folding here is a major blunder. But if you also start folding hands like AQ, KQs or TT, then it becomes an issue, unless you have HUD-data on BTN showing a very low 3-bet percentage over a large sample.

Finally since this is a pure push-fold spot, I will say, that ICMizer is a better tool to analyse it. In ICMizer you can put in the actual stack sizes instead of just giving everyone 30BB, you can also put in the payout structure, and you can manually lock the opponents ranges, if you think, they are deviating from GTO.
Click to expand...
Okay, thank you, that's a good point of view. That's how I should approach the GTO, adjusting to my opponent's play. Here, they'll never 3-bet or 4-bet enough, and I don't think the QJS throw was too tight.

I left out an important piece of information: we were around 45 and it paid from 39th place, which is why I didn't want to take the risk.

Maybe I should pay for some kind of program to get accurate information about these situations on ICM or HCR.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
15,745
Awards
2
Chips
885
Geo90 said:
I left out an important piece of information: we were around 45 and it paid from 39th place, which is why I didn't want to take the risk.
Click to expand...
You have more fold equity near the bubble, because if BTN (the most important player here) call and lose, he is left with just 3BB and almost out of the tournament. So if anything your GTO jamming range might become a bit wider due to the ICM pressure, while his calling range become more narrow.
Geo90 said:
Maybe I should pay for some kind of program to get accurate information about these situations on ICM or HCR.
Click to expand...
ICMizer is definitely a valuable tool for SnGs and MTT final tables.
 
G

Geo90

Rock Star
Platinum Level
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Total posts
318
HU
Chips
274
fundiver199 said:
You have more fold equity near the bubble, because if BTN (the most important player here) call and lose, he is left with just 3BB and almost out of the tournament. So if anything your GTO jamming range might become a bit wider due to the ICM pressure, while his calling range become more narrow.

ICMizer is definitely a valuable tool for SnGs and MTT final tables.
Click to expand...
Thank you, so I should think about it the way I thought :)

Then maybe I'll invest in ICMizer, it has a 7-day trial version, so I'll try it out :)
 
amonlima

amonlima

Visionary
Bronze Level
Joined
Feb 18, 2023
Total posts
714
Awards
1
BR
Chips
608
Don't get hung up on those details; that's a high-stack concept. In micro-stakes, that play is completely unprofitable. The 55-card showdown itself demonstrates how unprofitable it is. You have to adapt to the field you're playing in.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
15,745
Awards
2
Chips
885
amonlima said:
Don't get hung up on those details; that's a high-stack concept. In micro-stakes, that play is completely unprofitable. The 55-card showdown itself demonstrates how unprofitable it is. You have to adapt to the field you're playing in.
Click to expand...
Just because CO 4-bet jammed 55, does not mean, he would also have called a cold 4-bet jam with the same hand. The ranges for those two situations are wildly different. CO is a winning player up almost $20k over 6.640 tournaments, so your suggestion, that this is a fishy "microstakes" play, is quite far off. Most likely this is actually a GTO jam by him or at least so close, its not a real mistake.

 
G

Geo90

Rock Star
Platinum Level
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Total posts
318
HU
Chips
274
amonlima said:
Don't get hung up on those details; that's a high-stack concept. In micro-stakes, that play is completely unprofitable. The 55-card showdown itself demonstrates how unprofitable it is. You have to adapt to the field you're playing in.
Click to expand...
It's true that not many people will make such moves at micro stakes, but I'm just trying to understand GTO so that I can apply it when I play at higher stakes later on.

Micron, if I played GTO, it would probably be unprofitable.
 
F

fundiver199

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Total posts
15,745
Awards
2
Chips
885
Geo90 said:
but I'm just trying to understand GTO so that I can apply it when I play at higher stakes later on.
Click to expand...
A $8.8 MTT is considered low stakes not micro stakes, and as I wrote already, CO is a strong winning regular. So the idea, you should have adjusted to playing against some clueless fish in this particular hand, is totally wrong.
 
Top