Final Table Takedown: Mike Ermie Shares How to Define Ranges Throughout a Hand

Michael Ermie, 27, is from Perrysburg, OH. He first started playing poker when he was 15 years old back in 2003 during the post-Moneymaker poker boom after Moneymaker (whose friend and college roommate Bruce Peery took second in the tournament we are about to discuss) won the World Series of Poker main event. Ermie made the decision to pursue poker professionally while in the process of pursuing a degree in criminology at The Ohio State University. He’s always primarily been a live cash game player playing mid-stakes no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha, but the last few years has been focusing more on PLO. Ermie enjoys playing live tournaments as well and probably plays one or two events a month outside of the summer during the WSOP. He has career earnings of more than $250,000.

Event: 2016 Hollywood Poker Open – Toledo
Players: 323 • Entry: $1,115 • First Prize: $60,017 • Finish: 1st

Key Concepts: Semibluffing against a capped range

Craig Tapscott: What has the final table been like leading up to this point? Have you changed any strategy you came into the table with now that you are six-handed?

Michael Ermie: The final table had actually gone pretty quickly up until this point. We were going on break with nine left and I folded under the gun and went on break. When I came back, we had two pay jumps and there were seven left. Bruce Peery had knocked out two players in one hand. Then, one of the first hands after we resumed seven handed, I eliminated Steven Stout in a hand blind vs. blind where I made yet another flush. So, from nine players to six went pretty quickly, as did from six players down to four. This was a really slow and well-structured tournament. I had been playing with most of these guys quite a bit over the prior couple days, so most of my adjustments at this point were going to be pretty player dependent. Obviously, my opening and three-betting ranges get a bit wider from nine-handed to six-handed, but other than that , no major adjustments.

Barill opens to 40,000 from the cutoff. Ermie calls from the big blind holding 10 9.

ME: The preflop action is pretty standard here. It’s an easy defend from the big blind here against Barill’s cutoff open. Against a more loose-aggressive opponent, I might choose to add this hand to my three-betting range, but I don’t think Barill was opening my big blind quite wide enough to justify that.

Flop: 8 3 2 (pot: 108,000)

Ermie checks.

ME: This is a pretty good flop for my hand. It is unlikely to have connected really hard with his range. I think that this is a board he is going to be continuation betting frequently, so I decide to check with the intention of check-raising and potentially getting it in.

Barill checks.

ME: Surprisingly, he checks behind.

CT: What’s your read on his hand now?

ME: When he checks back the flop, I think I am able to use that information to cap his range quite a bit here. He almost certainly would continuation-bet most if not all of his pocket pairs here. There is very little to be gained from checking them behind, as they are likely to be the best hand. But they are vulnerable to free cards and he would want to maximize his value against a flush draw with his better pairs. The same goes for all of his bigger flush draws as well. I think those are also hands he would be playing more aggressively and betting the flop with.

Turn: Q (pot: 108,000)

Ermie checks. Barill bets 65,000.

CT: Pretty good card for you, but he bets. What now?

ME: Yes. This is an interesting turn card, as I picked up some additional equity with a gutshot straight draw. I decided to check because I think when checked to twice as the preflop raiser Barill is likely to use this opportunity for a delayed c-bet trying to rep a Queen. I didn’t think he could credibly rep too many queens here though. I think he is going to c-bet most of his A-Q combos most of the time on the flop, and the same with some of his K-Q combos and all QX combos. So, I’m effectively capping his value range at Q-J or maybe K-Q. I think his overall range can still be pretty wide here with him turning some Ace-, King- or Jack-high hands into bluffs that he decided not to c-bet with.

Ermie raises to 180,000.

ME: For these reasons above, I decided to raise his turn bet to 180,000, effectively putting him to a decision for his tournament life. After some deliberation, he eventually moved in.

Barill shoves all in. Ermie calls. Barill reveals Q 10.

River: 5 (pot: 1,022,000)

Ermie wins the pot of 1,022,000.

ME: I was fortunate enough to river a flush and eliminate a tough opponent.

CT: What have you been working on to grow your game over the last year?

ME: Quite a bit, actually. I have probably spent more time off the felt working on my game over the last year than I have in years. About a year ago I entered into a new backing deal for live cash games and tournaments that had the added bonus of coming with some excellent coaching which I think has definitely paid off. They have helped me to remember to constantly keep learning and maintaining a growth mindset. It has also helped me to stay motivated. I set monthly volume and learning goals now, which I think is important. A lot of my work has been more specific to pot-limit Omaha, but I dedicate some time to tournament-specific stuff as well. I also got a place up in Canada where I can play on PokerStars, which helps keep my tournament game sharp in between live events.

Key Concepts: Preflop Ranges; Short-handed play; Hand reading

Ermie raises to 45,000 from cutoff holding 7 6. Andrews calls from the big blind.

Flop: Q 8 7 (pot: 115,000)

ME: This is clearly a pretty strong flop for my hand. Andrews’ preflop range for defending his big blind here is pretty wide and my hand has quite a bit of equity against his range here. Therefore, I am pretty comfortable getting a lot of chips in with this hand on that flop, so I wanted to start building a pot so that I could extract maximum value from my hand on later streets. Also, based on my experience with him, I think he is going to be floating my c-bet quite frequently on this board texture, so I sized up a bit on my c-bet sizing.

Ermie bets 85,000. Andrews calls.

Turn: 9 (pot: 285,000)

Andrews checks.

CT: You’re running good. Can you put him on a hand range?

ME: I know. I turn my flush and he checks again. At this point, it’s still pretty hard to define his range other than that it’s still going to be fairly wide.

Ermie bets 135,000.

ME: I bet roughly about half pot. Looking back at this hand, I actually don’t love my turn bet sizing. I think I probably should’ve sized up to like 200,000 or around three-quarters pot. I don’t think sizing up there affects his calling range too much. I think he is going to be fairly inelastic to my sizing here, so I think I probably made a small mistake there by not making a bigger bet.

Andrews calls.

River: 6 (pot: 555,000)

Andrews bets 225,000.

CT: When he leads out what are you putting him on?

ME: I think that it’s pretty likely that he either has some sort of a straight, either J-10, 10-x or 5-x. I thought he most likely would have taken a more aggressive line with a lot of his flush draws on the flop, so I’m not too concerned with him having a bigger flush. I was also pretty confident he would elect to check-call with a two pair-type hand that he thought might be capable of winning at showdown.

Ermie raises to 725,000. Andrews tanks and calls and reveals J 10. Ermie wins the pot of 1,999,000.

CT: Do you think he could have gotten away from his hand?

ME: Although his hand may seem strong in an absolute sense, in this scenario it is purely a bluff catcher. Very few hands can take such a strong line on every street. I am definitely pretty polarized to really strong hands and bluffs when I raise here and I can see how that may lead him to believe that it could be the latter.

CT: Could he have thought he had a read on you from previous hands at the table?

ME: Yes. I think it’s possible that seeing me attempt a big semibluff on Barill an orbit before in the above hand may have led him to develop an exaggerated perception of my bluffing range and frequency. That being said, I am never raising a worse hand for value and I am very, very rarely going to be bluffing here. There are too many potential straights in his range that I don’t think he is going to be capable of folding in this situation. With the exception of the call on the river, I think Andrews played his hand pretty well at all points. With his hand on the river, I think he should probably either be check-calling or bet-folding, as his hand just isn’t quite strong enough to bet-call off in this situation.

CT: Congratulations on the win.

ME: Thanks. I have played quite a bit with both Barill and Andrews, both are friends, and I definitely respect both of their games. So I was really fortunate that these hands unfolded the way they did because they were definitely my toughest opponents at the final table. ♠