I try to Analyze a Hand: MULDER vs RUGGERI - EPT Prague

This is a great hand, very very interesting and also very technical, with several reversals of front, which sees two hands that are not at all common, with which it is very difficult to both attack and defend. The problem is always the same: POKEROLOGY. These video summaries are half traps, they feed the false belief that at the EPT there are dogs that place them randomly, they are incomplete, they do not show you important details, in addition (the most dangerous of all) they induce you to imitate some moves that if they have not been fully understood, are then disastrous when you try to replicate them. All these concepts are not mine, they are explained in an excellent video called "the iceberg of poker: the mathematics that you do not see but suffer". I recommend you watch it, I'll link it below. The summary of the hand shows a guy who, out of position, continues to fire chips until the inexorable disaster. Hence the click-bait title "running into the nuts". Thinking "how bad! “he played it like a dog” is the first thought that would come to anyone’s mind but I’ve been thinking about it for two days because I just can’t believe that at the EPT in Prague there are poor people who give away chips. There’s definitely more. In fact, it took just 3 seconds on Google to understand that both MULDER and RUGGERI don’t play badly or randomly, on the contrary… let’s start by saying that in a blind war the strangest things happen (and also the biggest disasters). Opening with Q8s in a blind war is correct, RUGGERI knows that MULDER can open a wide range profitably so he defends himself by attacking: he 3bets in position and MULDER calls (first reversal of fortune). However, he also knows that RUGGERI can 3bet with a wide range. Both players at this point will have thought they were in deep **** and in fact they both are. They find themselves in a 3bet pot with very weak hands. The recipe for the perfect disaster. Of the two, the one in the best position is RUGGERI because he has position but also has a hand that poorly realizes equity. MULDER is out of position but has a hand that could have one-on-one potential and in fact he calls and we go to the flop. As a defender, MULDER checks and RUGGERI bets small (so far everything standard) but MULDER tries to take the pot in CHECK/RAISE. (second reversal of fortune. MULDER is the aggressor and RUGGERI defends). The reason why I am writing this long speech is because I would like to make you understand that things are not done randomly, there is always a reason. We were saying that MULDER tries to take the pot, but it is not "He'll try and hope I get away with it". No, in reality the flop with the exception of those two hearts is dry and does not tie in well with a 3bet range that RUGGERI may have. It is a good opportunity to try to take the pot. But now there is a big problem that RUGGERI must solve: my opponent shows strength out of position by calling the 3bet preflop and shows strength by checking/raising on the flop. What do I do? Do I follow the draw or not? (I would need to know what the stacks involved are but these damned videos never mention them, I can assume that MULDER has a much bigger stack than RUGGERI but I don't really understand what it could be). It is important because with a short stack RUGGERI can also shoot everything, with a deep stack not. With a medium stack... eh... difficult. It is always difficult to make a decision, but mathematics can give you the solution. Does RUGGERI have the odds to follow the draw? Yes and so he calls (he too, like MULDER, does not call randomly). The turn comes out a T, MULDER continues betting small maintaining the initiative and RUGGERI calls. Here too, is it a random bet/call by both? No, because MULDER senses that the T does not help the opponent's range and therefore it is correct to continue betting and RUGGERI has (also in this case) the right odds to call and therefore does so correctly (never by chance, I repeat myself but it is important to understand that these are not people who play "by feeling"). On the river there is a strong temptation to think "but look, this guy puts them all in with nothing in his hand" in reality it is an excellent spot to bluff. After MULDER's triple barrel only the nuts (or a very strong hand) could call and I think the nuts were not even in MULDER's worst nightmares because 54o is a hand that is not 3-bet often preflop and therefore it was excluded from his evaluation or considered a "very rare" option. RUGGERI instead saves himself in the only possible way in which he could take home this pot: by closing the draw. From this point of view, MULDER's move would therefore have been effective 2 times out of 3 and in poker if something works 2 out of 3 it is gold. The only draw that could be considered at this point was the flush that however did not close (a further point in support of the all in). In conclusion, as I said at the beginning, it is a very good hand, very well conceived and played according to a logic that I am only recently starting to understand. The proof of the pudding? As a weak amateur, I would have folded MULDER's Q8s preflop and also RUGGERI's 54o. After all, I don't play the EPT and they do.