app

Would You Call For a Tournament Life in the $125K Triton Main Event With a Bottom Pair?

Calling for all your chips with a weak hand in the late stage of a tournament is always tricky. How to approach it?

Justyna Kubak

Nov 2, 2024 • 7 min read

Poker fans worldwide have no reason to complain during the ongoing summer. Soon after the WSOP 2023 streams ended, top poker pros flew to London to participate in the Triton Series. There was a lot of money to play for at the World Series of Poker, but the stakes at the Triton Series were on another level. Needless to say, the lowest buy-in was set to $26,500, and the biggest equalled $262,500. The Main Event of the series was priced at $132,500.

Such big stakes meant many of the best poker players in the world would show up, and indeed they did. Add a few wealthy men who like to test themselves against the pros, and you've got a recipe for a captivating poker show.

A field studded with the best should result in a display of a GTO strategy, right? Well, we'll find out.

When is it time to fight back, and when to fold?

As usual, you can watch the action we’ll cover in the video below.

The hand starts when there are still 14 players left in the Main Event of Triton Poker Super High Roller Series London. All players are in the money (with $282K guaranteed), and a pay jump worth $29K is coming.

The action starts with Doug Polk, sitting on a little over 40 BB, raising on the HJ with pocket threes. It's an acceptable rise; however, when you plan to open with a low pocket pair, consider the stacks behind you, i.e., how likely are they to 3-bet or shove over your open. In this case, only Nacho Barbero on the BB has a reshoving stack, which validates Doug’s open.

Despite being so short, when action folds to the Argentinian, he has a mandatory defense. While Nacho can not be thrilled with playing a 65o against an accomplished pro, he knows that realizing his equity on such a small stack is relatively easy.

Quite often, this hand would be over after the flop

Barbero outflops the heads-up specialist, but as it's almost always the case in such a scenario, he checks (which, as we suspect, he would do with 100% frequency, or close to).

Polk has two options to choose from. Firstly, he could go for a c-bet trying to fold out all of Barbero's air and take the pot down on the flop or, if Argentinian calls, evaluate on the further streets. Secondly, he can check back without risking a check-raise, against which he would likely have to fold, which always feels gross when you have any showdown value.

Both options have flaws and merits, but given how big Polk's stack is and how relatively cheap it is to c-bet, it shouldn't be surprising that he chooses the more aggressive way. Considering the stack sizes, his sizing choice of ⅓ bet is spot on; there's no reason to bet bigger. For the sake of this article, we'll assume that Polk uses only a small sizing, betting around 70% of the time.

Going back to Barbero, he has a crucial decision to make. What options are on the table?

First of all, we have to rule out a fold. After all, you do not defend a big blind to fold to a small c-bet after flopping a pair. The real question is: should Argentinian call, or should he raise? There are a few things to consider here.

If Barbero shoves, he will realize 100% of his equity. Admittedly he will get called only by better hands, but at the same time, he will force Polk to fold overcards, which have a decent equity in that spot. The biggest drawback to this play is an ICM impact, although, with such a small stack, it's smaller than usual.

Barbero's hand is unlikely to improve. His only clean outs are a five or a six. There are, however, quite a few decent turns since, in such a situation, any card lower than a ten is not bad for the BB player. Also, any card pairing the board will make it less likely that Polk's ahead. On the other hand, it will be harder on each street for Barbero to get his chips into the pot while being ahead.

Given how small Barbero's stack is, we'd lean towards jamming the flop, just like the solver does:

*Shoving would make Nacho's life easier*

Calling is justifiable, but it makes more sense if Nacho assumes that Doug will be overly aggressive on the turn.

Turn is a desirable card for Nacho

As mentioned above, any card lower than ten is a card that the Big Blind players would like to see. This is also reflected in the equity shift, which changes to 52% vs. 48% in favor of the out-of-position player.

That being said, lead jamming doesn't accomplish much for Nacho since check-raising the flop would achieve the same without letting Doug see the turn card cheaply. Assuming Nacho is in bluffcatching mode, he should check to capitalize on Doug's perceived aggression.

As for Polk, the situation is quite clear. Even though it's unlikely his opponent has a very strong hand, his threes are rarely good, so checking back to give up or try to bluff catch on favorable rivers seems like a good idea.

A blank river that's not a blank

Usually, when an offsuit three hits the river, the outcome of the hand rarely changes. Not this time, though!

In the vacuum, it's an excellent card for the out-of-position player: a three rarely improves IP player, decreasing their bluff frequency. It also completes a straight that only BB can have and sometimes improves his hand to a pair.

Summarizing, the Argentinian player has to feel quite good about the runout. Despite the favorable river card, the same logic from the turn applies; there's not much value in betting the fourth pair, so Barbero checks, probably expecting to win a lot against high cards that give up.

On the other hand, Doug is in the greatest spot there is in poker: he now has the essential nuts, which is virtually impossible for his opponent to assume. As for his range, he should be able to value bet as low as his strongest second pairs. His bluffs should mostly come from the hands with one high card and one straight blocker, like K8, K4 or A4.

And now we arrive at the most interesting point of this hand. Should Barbero call or let his fourth pair go?

Since this spot is an infrequent case, let's make a few assumptions first:

While this is quite an unnatural spot to bluff with, Doug is a player who can bluff with correct frequencies and even recognize that he can exceed them, so Nacho has to defend widely.
That being said, since Nacho decided to defend passively on the flop, and the subsequent cards only improved his range’s equity, he can let go of his weakest holdings.
Despite being the shortest (or of the shortest stack), there is still a small ICM influence on his decision.

Doug's exact strategy is impossible to pinpoint in such a fringe spot, so let's look at what the solver assumes in the GTO scenario.

*Nacho has better bluff catchers than his exact combo*

This time, the solver is fairly straightforward; it defends almost all of the third and better pairs while mostly folding the fourth pair and worse.

And while this is quite an unusual spot, the math is pretty straightforward. Against a bet of roughly ~115% pot, Nacho needs to defend ~46% of his range. One-pair hands with a five are at the bottom of his overall range, so considering there is still a little bit of ICM factor in play, he can let his exact holding go.

After a well-justified tank, Nacho Barbero makes the call and sees bad news. In his defense, his exact suits are the only combo that the solver calls at any frequency.

GTO poker insights

Whenever you feel that your bluffcatching decision is marginal, the ICM implications should lean you to fold the bottom of your range.

When the influence of ICM is low (i.e. you're in the early–to–mid stage of a tournament) and you're short, check/shoving with weak pairs on the flop that does hit your range decently might be a good idea.

As usual, the guidelines to play theoretically sound poker aren't obvious. Since that's the nature of the game, you can't fight it; you have to adapt to it. And what's the best way to test your skills? Study with Deepsolver to be prepared for the tough spot you'll have to face sooner or later.

Learn more about Deepsolver:

Also, see our other Deepsolver Checks: