What to do...
chandler
passive. VPIP of 45 with a PFR of 2. 0 steals or 3 bets. SB limping in
doesn't matter so much, I think. You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
***** Hand History for Game 58430295888 ***** (Poker Stars)
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Monday, February 28, 12:54:20 ET 2011
Table 369833948 1 (Real Money)
Seat 7 is the button
Seat 1: littleabn533 ( $1790.00 USD )
Seat 3: DK-ARCHER ( $3090.00 USD )
Seat 4: mills78 ( $2505.00 USD )
Seat 7: MG136 ( $2223.00 USD )
Seat 8: StevieD1969 ( $2557.00 USD )
Seat 9: ChandlerX ( $1335.00 USD )
StevieD1969 posts small blind [$75.00 USD].
ChandlerX posts big blind [$150.00 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to ChandlerX [ Qd Td ]
littleabn533 calls [$150.00 USD]
DK-ARCHER folds
mills78 folds
MG136 folds
StevieD1969 calls [$75.00 USD]
Chandler
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Necron99
Shove, you are too short to make any sort of plays.
DDawgster
why in the worldl would you EVER want to shove there when ,for another
half bet .. you get 7 more free hands .. you chwck , flop a hand or you
put in sb next hand and you have 7 1/2 bb 's
this isnt even a reasonable question
in fact ..it is ridiculous
"If you can find *one* post where I call someone
illiterate, I'll leave RGP for a month. If you can't, I would expect an
apology, but I know who I'm dealing with so my expectations aren't exactly
high."
*jason pawloski... in the pawloski/loughner thread
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Necron99
>
> - Show quoted text -
My magic 8 ball said so. I use it for all poker decisions now.
Reptillian
> "chandler" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in news:qudt38xu0o.ln2
> @recgroups.com:
>
> You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
> > with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
>
> Yes. Seems like good value, and it's unlikely you have the best hand pre-
> flop.
Wait for AT
--------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
DDawgster
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> My magic 8 ball said so. I use it for all poker decisions now.
WELL SHIT you didnt tell me i was up against that ...uncle !! :)
"If you can find *one* post where I call someone
illiterate, I'll leave RGP for a month. If you can't, I would expect an
apology, but I know who I'm dealing with so my expectations aren't exactly
high."
*jason pawloski... in the pawloski/loughner thread
-----
chandler
> "chandler" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in news:qudt38xu0o.ln2
> @recgroups.com:
>
> You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
> > with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
>
> Yes. Seems like good value, and it's unlikely you have the best hand pre-
> flop.
And what range would you think UTG needs to have to make a shove
profitable? Under most circumstances I think seeing a flop is correct..
and likely folding when you don't hit.
Chandler
chandler
Well it's 4 more hands, but ty sir.
Chandler
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
chandler
>
> My magic 8 ball said so. I use it for all poker decisions now.
Magic 8 ball says "min raise, curse and throw laptop into fireplace."
Will in New Haven
> First time I played UTG so I only have about 55 hands on him. Very loose
> passive. VPIP of 45 with a PFR of 2. 0 steals or 3 bets. SB limping in
> doesn't matter so much, I think. You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
> with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
Possibly but is the UTG player "loose" about playing a large fraction
of his stack or is he only "loose" about limping in? That money in the
pot is there for the taking if UTG and the guy in the SB wire the guys
here and ask how to play AT or KQ when you do this. Even if they think
you are aggressive, how much of their tournament life do they want to
put on the line on a hand where they didn't raise?
Neither of them is so deep as to call you with a speculative hand,
it's just that there are a lot of hands that I wouldn't consider
speculative in this situation that they might. If you do stuff like
this a lot, either of them might be trapping you and calling you on
spec is more attractive.
--
Will in New Haven
misanthropic whackjob
I agree with you, check and see the flop here. But it is the age of scoot
and pray...
>
>
> "If you can find *one* post where I call someone
> illiterate, I'll leave RGP for a month. If you can't, I would expect an
> apology, but I know who I'm dealing with so my expectations aren't exactly
> high."
>
> *jason pawloski... in the pawloski/loughner thread
_______________________________________________________________________
chandler
> On Feb 28, 3:42 pm, "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > First time I played UTG so I only have about 55 hands on him. Very loose
> > passive. VPIP of 45 with a PFR of 2. 0 steals or 3 bets. SB limping in
> > doesn't matter so much, I think. You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
> > with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
>
> Possibly but is the UTG player "loose" about playing a large fraction
> of his stack or is he only "loose" about limping in? That money in the
> pot is there for the taking if UTG and the guy in the SB wire the guys
> here and ask how to play AT or KQ when you do this. Even if they think
> you are aggressive, how much of their tournament life do they want to
> put on the line on a hand where they didn't raise?
UTG is unpredictable. He is a high blind limper who has shown the ability
to fold to reraise preflop, but also called 3/4 of his stack of with J8
sooted. He has limped almost 50% of the hands he has played and not open
raised once. He has called off baby pairs on every street against big
hands lucked his way into a stack, which he then dumped on the wierd call.
SB shows weakness by the limp here.
>
> Neither of them is so deep as to call you with a speculative hand,
> it's just that there are a lot of hands that I wouldn't consider
> speculative in this situation that they might. If you do stuff like
> this a lot, either of them might be trapping you and calling you on
> spec is more attractive.
First time they have seen me. If you give either opponent credit for
being cognizant of my image, often a stretch, they will see me as
generally tight here. Playing small ball in the early blind levels. I
think my vpip for this match is maybe 14 and pfr of about 9. Not nitty,
but as these STTs go, pretty tight.
I once played around a lot with steals and resteals out of the blinds...
I tend to use online play as a place to experiment and play with different
ideas. I don't do it much anymore. I think there was not enough FE at
the levels I was playing at to make it profitable. Mostly I shove out of
the blinds for value now.
Chandler
______________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
So you weren't asking, you were teaching. Not having signed up, I will
withdraw from you lessons, oh Sensei.
chandler
> >
> > First time they have seen me. If you give either opponent credit for
> > being cognizant of my image, often a stretch, they will see me as
> > generally tight here. Playing small ball in the early blind levels. I
> > think my vpip for this match is maybe 14 and pfr of about 9. Not nitty,
> > but as these STTs go, pretty tight.
> >
> > I once played around a lot with steals and resteals out of the blinds...
> > I tend to use online play as a place to experiment and play with different
> > ideas. I don't do it much anymore. I think there was not enough FE at
> > the levels I was playing at to make it profitable. Mostly I shove out of
> > the blinds for value now.
>
> So you weren't asking, you were teaching. Not having signed up, I will
> withdraw from you lessons, oh Sensei.
>
No. As a matter of fact, I made the shove. My Q10 ran into UTG's AK.
Would a sensei do that? I wanted to see if anyone would make an
adjustment for UTG's range. The reason I included his stats. The shove
was probably wrong, but the closer UTG's range gets to 50% the better it
becomes, I think. if he can fold part of that range, better yet. And, as
you point out, if SB isn't playing a calling hand.
I had another hand recently where I had Q10 suited in the BB. Folded to
SB, who has been playing very tight with the rare open shove and grinding
on 10 tables. He's probably playing an ICM strategy. We are both in the
area of 10bb though he has me covered by a bit and we are not ITM or on
the bubble. He shoves and if he's playing ICM he is shoving any two. I
think I should have called there, but didn't. Sensei sucks.
Chandler
_______________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
> On Mar 1 2011 3:54 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > First time they have seen me. If you give either opponent credit for
> > > being cognizant of my image, often a stretch, they will see me as
> > > generally tight here. Playing small ball in the early blind levels. I
> > > think my vpip for this match is maybe 14 and pfr of about 9. Not nitty,
> > > but as these STTs go, pretty tight.
>
> > > I once played around a lot with steals and resteals out of the blinds...
> > > I tend to use online play as a place to experiment and play with different
> > > ideas. I don't do it much anymore. I think there was not enough FE at
> > > the levels I was playing at to make it profitable. Mostly I shove out of
> > > the blinds for value now.
>
> > So you weren't asking, you were teaching. Not having signed up, I will
> > withdraw from you lessons, oh Sensei.
>
> No. As a matter of fact, I made the shove. My Q10 ran into UTG's AK.
> Would a sensei do that? I wanted to see if anyone would make an
> adjustment for UTG's range. The reason I included his stats. The shove
> was probably wrong, but the closer UTG's range gets to 50% the better it
> becomes, I think. if he can fold part of that range, better yet.
Before the flop, turn and river, your tournament situation is not
vastly injured by being all-in with live cards against overcards with
dead money in the pot. I think you are about forty percent, if he has
this exact hand and calls (which he will of course) and I think you do
better, long-term, being out sixty percent of the time and having more
than double your stack forty percent of the time than you would be
checking, check-folding a bad flop for you and moving on with one
fewer big blind.
You would be much worse off versus AT, which is certainly in his open-
limping range, or KQ, which is also in his range. But is he calling on
those hands? That's the question.
And, as
> you point out, if SB isn't playing a calling hand.
>
> I had another hand recently where I had Q10 suited in the BB. Folded to
> SB, who has been playing very tight with the rare open shove and grinding
> on 10 tables. He's probably playing an ICM strategy. We are both in the
> area of 10bb though he has me covered by a bit and we are not ITM or on
> the bubble. He shoves and if he's playing ICM he is shoving any two. I
> think I should have called there, but didn't. Sensei sucks.
I have never played against someone I knew was multi-tabling. It
probably changes things quite a bit.
Pepe Papon
<ad8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Feb 28 2011 5:55 PM, Auto wrote:
>
>> "chandler" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in news:qudt38xu0o.ln2
>> @recgroups.com:
>>
>> You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
>> > with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
>>
>> Yes. Seems like good value, and it's unlikely you have the best hand pre-
>> flop.
>
>
>Wait for AT
AT would be a monster in that situation.
Will in New Haven
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:02 -0800, "Reptillian"
>
> >On Feb 28 2011 5:55 PM, Auto wrote:
>
> >> @recgroups.com:
>
> >> You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
> >> > with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
>
> >> Yes. Seems like good value, and it's unlikely you have the best hand pre-
> >> flop.
>
> >Wait for AT
>
> AT would be a monster in that situation.
Oddly enough, although this doesn't change the fact that AT is a much
better hand, if you _knew_ you were up against AK and the money was
already in, you would _beg_ for QT rather than AT. Starting hand
values are not linear.
chandler
> On Mar 1, 4:57 pm, "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > No. As a matter of fact, I made the shove. My Q10 ran into UTG's AK..
> > Would a sensei do that? I wanted to see if anyone would make an
> > adjustment for UTG's range. The reason I included his stats. The shove
> > was probably wrong, but the closer UTG's range gets to 50% the better it
> > becomes, I think. if he can fold part of that range, better yet.
>
> Before the flop, turn and river, your tournament situation is not
> vastly injured by being all-in with live cards against overcards with
> dead money in the pot. I think you are about forty percent, if he has
> this exact hand and calls (which he will of course) and I think you do
> better, long-term, being out sixty percent of the time and having more
> than double your stack forty percent of the time than you would be
> checking, check-folding a bad flop for you and moving on with one
> fewer big blind.
>
> You would be much worse off versus AT, which is certainly in his open-
> limping range, or KQ, which is also in his range. But is he calling on
> those hands? That's the question.
I was not unhappy to see AK given a call. I have made worse bets. What
he actually had is of less interest to me. The real questions... Was the
range I put him on accurate? Given the blinds at this point and my
limited numbers on him, probably not. Probably not opening for 50%. And,
if my assessment of his range was close, is the shove here profitable over
time? Still working on it.
>
> And, as
> > you point out, if SB isn't playing a calling hand.
> >
> > I had another hand recently where I had Q10 suited in the BB. Folded to
> > SB, who has been playing very tight with the rare open shove and grinding
> > on 10 tables. He's probably playing an ICM strategy. We are both in the
> > area of 10bb though he has me covered by a bit and we are not ITM or on
> > the bubble. He shoves and if he's playing ICM he is shoving any two. I
> > think I should have called there, but didn't. Sensei sucks.
>
> I have never played against someone I knew was multi-tabling. It
> probably changes things quite a bit.
A lot of people multitable and can't spell ICM much less play an ICM
strategy. It was one bit of information amongst several that led me to
believe he was grinding ICM style. It is an if/then push/fold strategy.
If he's using it I can predict his ranges pretty accurately. Sometimes
those ranges are any two, which opens up my calling range a lot.
Chandler
-----
chandler
A10 is an open shove in any position at this point, I think. And against
this particular opponent shoving the open pot with A10 is correct, I
think, also. Against tighter opponents, people who are opening a pot less
often, it is not correct. The range for open shoving is way wider than
shoving an open pot.
chandler
When I was playing with steals out of the blinds, I would never steal with
a weak/medium ace. Ideally it would be something like J10 suited. If
someone actually had a calling hand you were less likely to be a super dog
going to showdown.
Pepe Papon
Of course. By the same token, if you had QT and were up against KQ,
you'd beg for 32.
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Mar 2 2011 8:19 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>> On Mar 2, 6:29 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:02 -0800, "Reptillian"
>> >
>> > <ad8f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> > >On Feb 28 2011 5:55 PM, Auto wrote:
>> >
>> > >> "chandler" <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in news:qudt38xu0o.ln2
>> > >> @recgroups.com:
>> >
>> > >> You look down at Q10 sooted in the BB
>> > >> > with a stack of about 8bb. Do you let the flop peel off?
>> >
>> > >> Yes. Seems like good value, and it's unlikely you have the best hand
>pre-
>> > >> flop.
>> >
>> > >Wait for AT
>> >
>> > AT would be a monster in that situation.
>>
>> Oddly enough, although this doesn't change the fact that AT is a much
>> better hand, if you _knew_ you were up against AK and the money was
>> already in, you would _beg_ for QT rather than AT. Starting hand
>> values are not linear.
>
>When I was playing with steals out of the blinds, I would never steal with
>a weak/medium ace. Ideally it would be something like J10 suited. If
>someone actually had a calling hand you were less likely to be a super dog
>going to showdown.
If I have AT on the button as the first player in, I'm raising. I
don't even think of it as a steal. It's most likely the best hand.
chandler
You have 18BB. You open raise 3xbb with A10. SB folds. BB has stack of
17BB and shoves all in. Does your A10 still look golden? KQ, J10, JQ,
KJ, AJ, Q10, K10? Medium suited connector? Baby pair? On the bubble?
Kind of a converstation stopper. If you fold BB increases his stack by
25%. Like I said, I don't do it much anymore in the little STTs I play
around with. Other tactics have higher expectation, but in an mtt where
one needs to make more moves to keep up with blinds, it is something to
consider.
Chandler
Will in New Haven
If BB has seen the frequency of my button raises and he shoves, I
probably have a better hand than he expects. I may or may not lay it
down. The last time I didn't lay it down he had A3 and we wound up
chopping the @#$% pot.
Board AJQblankQ, so we each had Aces and Queens with a Jack kicker.
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Oddly enough, although this doesn't change the fact that AT is a much
>> >> better hand, if you _knew_ you were up against AK and the money was
>> >> already in, you would _beg_ for QT rather than AT. Starting hand
>> >> values are not linear.
>> >
>> >When I was playing with steals out of the blinds, I would never steal with
>> >a weak/medium ace. Ideally it would be something like J10 suited. If
>> >someone actually had a calling hand you were less likely to be a super dog
>> >going to showdown.
>>
>> If I have AT on the button as the first player in, I'm raising. I
>> don't even think of it as a steal. It's most likely the best hand.
>
>You have 18BB. You open raise 3xbb with A10. SB folds. BB has stack of
>17BB and shoves all in. Does your A10 still look golden? KQ, J10, JQ,
>KJ, AJ, Q10, K10? Medium suited connector? Baby pair? On the bubble?
>Kind of a converstation stopper. If you fold BB increases his stack by
>25%. Like I said, I don't do it much anymore in the little STTs I play
>around with. Other tactics have higher expectation, but in an mtt where
>one needs to make more moves to keep up with blinds, it is something to
>consider.
With 18BB, I'm not raising 3x, I'm jamming. If we're on the bubble,
then I have to take other factors into consideration.
chandler
>
> If BB has seen the frequency of my button raises and he shoves, I
> probably have a better hand than he expects. I may or may not lay it
> down. The last time I didn't lay it down he had A3 and we wound up
> chopping the @#$% pot.
>
> Board AJQblankQ, so we each had Aces and Queens with a Jack kicker.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Getting called is always a risk when making a move. It's not the end of
the world. In a preflop situation there are plenty of suck out
opportunities. Sucking out is always somehow more satisfying than winning
with the best hand.
Chandler
chandler
Well that would eliminate a steal, wouldn't it. I'm not sure about the
jam there... my point was that the range for an open raise on the button
is pretty wide. Very wide with some people. The calling range for a
large reraise, a reraise for a significant part of button's stack, is much
smaller. Sometimes there are situations where that can be exploited.
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> With 18BB, I'm not raising 3x, I'm jamming. If we're on the bubble,
>> then I have to take other factors into consideration.
>
>Well that would eliminate a steal, wouldn't it. I'm not sure about the
>jam there... my point was that the range for an open raise on the button
>is pretty wide. Very wide with some people. The calling range for a
>large reraise, a reraise for a significant part of button's stack, is much
>smaller. Sometimes there are situations where that can be exploited.
With 18BB, I'm assuming that it's fairly late in the tournament, and
antes come into play. If so, my M isn't much higher than 10. With
am M of 10-12, either raising or shoving is possible.
But the main point is that, short stacked, AT on the button in an
unopened pot is a very good hand.
Reptillian
7.5 blinds vs 2, with antes
UTG, its a fold here
--------
chandler
Frequently you get down to 18 bb and you aren't even on the bubble much
less near the end of the tournament... You may have noticed all the
people busting out in the first hours of an mtt;-) Let's keep it simple
so my brain doesn't 'splode. With a stack of 18bb, I'm pretty sure that
jamming the button with A10 against stacks that pretty much have you
covered is not an ICM play... on the bubble or not. With a slightly
shorter stack it might be. That doesn't bother me so much in an MTT if we
are not on the bubble. What bothers me is that you get zero value from
your shove against a wide range of opponents. IOW, most opponents are
only calling with something that beats you. That 17bb stack is likely not
calling you with his A4sooted. Not if it were me, anyway. You only get
vaslue from a shove here if you have opponents who will call light...
weaker aces, any two paint. So you might do this against someone who has
demonstrated that they are a preflop call monkey, or against a monster
stack who might be willing to gamble because it is only a small portion of
his stack at risk.
So that A10 button shove may not be exploitable, but it might not be
optimal.
OTOH, if one is afraid of a resteal one could take away that resteal sweet
spot by increasing the button raise to 5 or 6x bb. I'll have to think
about it. I wouldn't do it against someone who is laggy. They don't know
enough to need a sweet spot. Only against a solid tag.
Chandler
_____________________________________________________________________
chandler
I thunk on the way to work. I like the standard raise with a call if
reraise/shoved against over an open shove. Give them the opportunity to
ship it and then gamble... unless, as I mentioned, opponents have a very
wide calling range for the open shove on the button.
Chandler
________________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> With 18BB, I'm assuming that it's fairly late in the tournament, and
>> antes come into play. If so, my M isn't much higher than 10. With
>> am M of 10-12, either raising or shoving is possible.
>>
>> But the main point is that, short stacked, AT on the button in an
>> unopened pot is a very good hand.
>
>Frequently you get down to 18 bb and you aren't even on the bubble much
>less near the end of the tournament... You may have noticed all the
>people busting out in the first hours of an mtt;-) Let's keep it simple
>so my brain doesn't 'splode. With a stack of 18bb, I'm pretty sure that
>jamming the button with A10 against stacks that pretty much have you
>covered is not an ICM play...
I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
terms of M than number of BBs.
>on the bubble or not. With a slightly
>shorter stack it might be. That doesn't bother me so much in an MTT if we
>are not on the bubble. What bothers me is that you get zero value from
>your shove against a wide range of opponents. IOW, most opponents are
>only calling with something that beats you. That 17bb stack is likely not
>calling you with his A4sooted.
You must play in tougher tournaments than I do. I see all kinds of
marginal hands calling all-in bets.
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> OTOH, if one is afraid of a resteal one could take away that resteal sweet
>> spot by increasing the button raise to 5 or 6x bb.
If you raise 1/3 of your stack, you're pretty much pot committed if
your opponent reraises.
> I'll have to think
>> about it. I wouldn't do it against someone who is laggy. They don't know
>> enough to need a sweet spot. Only against a solid tag.
>>
>> Chandler
>
>I thunk on the way to work. I like the standard raise with a call if
>reraise/shoved against over an open shove. Give them the opportunity to
>ship it and then gamble... unless, as I mentioned, opponents have a very
>wide calling range for the open shove on the button.
I don't like that play at all. If you're going to call a reraise,
you might as well open shove and get the most of your fold equity.
chandler
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 19:09:30 -0800, "chandler"
> <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> OTOH, if one is afraid of a resteal one could take away that resteal sweet
> >> spot by increasing the button raise to 5 or 6x bb.
>
> If you raise 1/3 of your stack, you're pretty much pot committed if
> your opponent reraises.
That is exactly the point. I'm not particularly fond of the raise, but if
the blinds know what they are doing they are not trying to resteal. Maybe
you could make an argument for doing this to prevent some huge equity spew
in an stt. I've never done it before.
>
> > I'll have to think
> >> about it. I wouldn't do it against someone who is laggy. They don't know
> >> enough to need a sweet spot. Only against a solid tag.
> >>
> >> Chandler
> >
> >I thunk on the way to work. I like the standard raise with a call if
> >reraise/shoved against over an open shove. Give them the opportunity to
> >ship it and then gamble... unless, as I mentioned, opponents have a very
> >wide calling range for the open shove on the button.
>
> I don't like that play at all. If you're going to call a reraise,
> you might as well open shove and get the most of your fold equity.
The argument for the line is to induce action from weaker hands. I have
18bb well off the money in an mtt. I'd like to get my stack in against
something I am not crushed by. Invite a resteal. I need to accumulate
chips if I'm even going to money. Most of the range you get to fold with
a shove here, you beat. I don't want FE. I'm ready to gamble.
Chandler
chandler
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:45:02 -0800, "chandler"
> <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > With 18BB, I'm assuming that it's fairly late in the tournament, and
> >> antes come into play. If so, my M isn't much higher than 10. With
> >> am M of 10-12, either raising or shoving is possible.
> >>
> >> But the main point is that, short stacked, AT on the button in an
> >> unopened pot is a very good hand.
> >
> >Frequently you get down to 18 bb and you aren't even on the bubble much
> >less near the end of the tournament... You may have noticed all the
> >people busting out in the first hours of an mtt;-) Let's keep it simple
> >so my brain doesn't 'splode. With a stack of 18bb, I'm pretty sure that
> >jamming the button with A10 against stacks that pretty much have you
> >covered is not an ICM play...
>
> I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
> whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
> terms of M than number of BBs.
Think about it in whatever terms you are comfortable with and find most
useful. It doesn't change the situation. When I first started playing
with ICM analysis I was often surprised with how absolutely nitty ICM
plays could be.... and then I was surprised with how absolutely Laggy ICM
plays could be. Stack size (yours and those around you) and position have
as much to do with push/fold ranges as your cards. I usually get it at
least close to right these days in STTs. 18bb can play pretty nitty:
http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2602172440106618783RRTlOj
I haven't analyzed MTT situations. Maybe I will be surprised.
>
> >on the bubble or not. With a slightly
> >shorter stack it might be. That doesn't bother me so much in an MTT if we
> >are not on the bubble. What bothers me is that you get zero value from
> >your shove against a wide range of opponents. IOW, most opponents are
> >only calling with something that beats you. That 17bb stack is likely not
> >calling you with his A4sooted.
>
> You must play in tougher tournaments than I do. I see all kinds of
> marginal hands calling all-in bets.
I see all kinds of people play differently. Free rolls online. STTs
online with the nittyest ICM players to people willing to get it in early
or on the bubble with almost any 2. Creative and aggressive players in
live MTTs... and those who think about their tournament life in the way
that Will hates. I don't count on a particular type of stupid without
information.
Chandler
------
chandler
Oh yeah. I am not arguing for an ICM strategy here. I think the utility
for ICM strategy is prolly pretty limited well off the money in an mtt.
Chandler
--------
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> >I thunk on the way to work. I like the standard raise with a call if
>> >reraise/shoved against over an open shove. Give them the opportunity to
>> >ship it and then gamble... unless, as I mentioned, opponents have a very
>> >wide calling range for the open shove on the button.
>>
>> I don't like that play at all. If you're going to call a reraise,
>> you might as well open shove and get the most of your fold equity.
>
>The argument for the line is to induce action from weaker hands. I have
>18bb well off the money in an mtt. I'd like to get my stack in against
>something I am not crushed by. Invite a resteal. I need to accumulate
>chips if I'm even going to money. Most of the range you get to fold with
>a shove here, you beat. I don't want FE. I'm ready to gamble.
If so, then it might be a good play.
Pepe Papon
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
>> whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
>> terms of M than number of BBs.
>
>Think about it in whatever terms you are comfortable with and find most
>useful. It doesn't change the situation.
The problem is that you're framing the situation in terms of BBs, so
it becomes ambiguous in terms of M. The value of M, given the number
of BBs, can't be calculated unless we know whether there are antes or
not, and how much they are.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:6ft0o6puhpveb4f56...@4ax.com...
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:14:47 -0800, "chandler"
>
M is a bit more precise than "I have X number of BB with antes" or "I
have Y number of BB without antes" but not much moreso. If the antes
are unusually large or unusually small, using M would save having to
make an adjustment for that. It would also help in cases where the BB
isn't exactly double the SB but one rarely sees that even in cash
games and I haven't seen it in a tourney in years. It was 50/75 blinds
in _limit_ tournament many years ago.
What M _doesn't_ do is what /seemed/ to be claimed for it when it
first was discussed, which is tell you how many rounds you can just
sit there. The blinds and antes are going to increase and you _are_
going to have situations where you are going to play the cards you are
dealt.
However, that was never the important factor vis a vis M. The
important thing was and is adjusting your strategy to your stack size.
I think the chapterts on M in Harrington are very useful in that
respect in that many people didn't think in those terms before he
wrote about it (Fuck you, Action Dan, from the bottom of my heart) The
typical pre-Harrington player only thought about his or her stack size
as it compared to other stack sizes around the table. So the
discussion of M helped many players but you can make the same
adjustments using how many BBs you have.
chandler
M is an interesting calculation. Red, yellow, green. It is a convenient
way of thinking about my stack. It doesn't really tell me enough about
how I want to play a hand. It accounts for antes, but doesn't tell you
that stealing is all the sweeter because of them. Thinking in terms of
how each stack relates to multiples of bbs allows me to easily calculate
my risks vs. gains. Thinking in terms of stack size, mine and my
opponents, (not just bbs) allows me to size bets advantageously and guage
calls. I can recognize that certain stack sizes, guaged in terms of BBs,
can be played different ways more advantageously. And using M in STTs has
some problems. I'm not married to M. I'll make the calculation when I
get short enough in MTTs, but I probably don't need it to play optimally
and it kind of gets in the way when playing STTs.
Chandler
_______________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ft0o6puhpveb4f56...@4ax.com...> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:14:47 -0800, "chandler"
>
> >>> I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
> >>> whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
> >>> terms of M than number of BBs.
>
> >>Think about it in whatever terms you are comfortable with and find most
> >>useful. It doesn't change the situation.
>
> > The problem is that you're framing the situation in terms of BBs, so
> > it becomes ambiguous in terms of M. The value of M, given the number
> > of BBs, can't be calculated unless we know whether there are antes or
> > not, and how much they are.
>
> But the true M is ambiguous without knowing the structure of the tournament
I remember inventing, in my head, "Next M" to cover where I was going
to stand when the level changed. And then I stopped calculating M and
went back to keeping track of how many Big Blinds I had.
But M was never intended to do what many people misinterpreted
Harrington to mean. It was simply a way of understanding where your
stack size put you in relation to the structure. It was never
literally about how fast you would blind off.
Snyder is one of my favorite poker theorists but some of his
discussion of M amounts to attacking a straw man. M was never intended
to be quite what Snyder (and many of its users, bless them) seems to
think it is.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:a9c1434e-760d-40ad...@gn5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 4:54 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <Beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6ft0o6puhpveb4f56...@4ax.com...> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011
> 05:14:47 -0800, "chandler"
> > <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
> >>> whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
> >>> terms of M than number of BBs.
>
> >>Think about it in whatever terms you are comfortable with and find most
> >>useful. It doesn't change the situation.
>
> > The problem is that you're framing the situation in terms of BBs, so
> > it becomes ambiguous in terms of M. The value of M, given the number
> > of BBs, can't be calculated unless we know whether there are antes or
> > not, and how much they are.
>
> But the true M is ambiguous without knowing the structure of the
> tournament
I remember inventing, in my head, "Next M" to cover where I was going
to stand when the level changed. And then I stopped calculating M and
went back to keeping track of how many Big Blinds I had.
But M was never intended to do what many people misinterpreted
Harrington to mean. It was simply a way of understanding where your
stack size put you in relation to the structure. It was never
literally about how fast you would blind off.
***
Well, wait.
Harrington's "Zones" are supposed to reflect your approximate blind-off
time.
If you're in the "Orange zone" you make X kinds of plays, because you have
about 6-9 rounds left to find a hand.
If your M is 16, but the structure is such that you actually have 6-7
rounds left to find a hand, you're in the orange zone, not the zone your M
puts you in.
***
Snyder is one of my favorite poker theorists but some of his
discussion of M amounts to attacking a straw man. M was never intended
to be quite what Snyder (and many of its users, bless them) seems to
think it is.
***
I respectfully disagree here.
I agree Snyder didn't understand everything. He didn't grasp Sklansky's Game
Theory discussion in TOP at all.
Pepe Papon
But still more meaningful than the number of BBs.
Beldin the Sorcerer
calculating which zone they're in, assuming M means number of rounds before
they blind out, and of course, it doesn't. The faster and steeper the
structure, the greater the distortion.
Will in New Haven
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:54:25 -0400, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:6ft0o6puhpveb4f56...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:14:47 -0800, "chandler"
> >> <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>>> I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
> >>>> whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
> >>>> terms of M than number of BBs.
>
> >>>Think about it in whatever terms you are comfortable with and find most
> >>>useful. It doesn't change the situation.
>
> >> The problem is that you're framing the situation in terms of BBs, so
> >> it becomes ambiguous in terms of M. The value of M, given the number
> >> of BBs, can't be calculated unless we know whether there are antes or
> >> not, and how much they are.
> >But the true M is ambiguous without knowing the structure of the tournament
>
Not more meaningful than the number of BBs adjusted for the existence
and size of antes. In fact, it pretty much IS the number of BBs
adjusted for antes. It is the strategy and tactics that accompany a
stack size within a structure that is important, not how you measure
the stack size.
Pepe Papon
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Mar 18, 3:00 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:54:25 -0400, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Beldin...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Pepe Papon" <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:6ft0o6puhpveb4f56...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:14:47 -0800, "chandler"
>> >> <a5a7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I'm far less certain about this than you are. It also could depend on
>> >>>> whether or not there are antes. I find it much more useful to talk in
>> >>>> terms of M than number of BBs.
>>
>> >>>Think about it in whatever terms you are comfortable with and find most
>> >>>useful. It doesn't change the situation.
>>
>> >> The problem is that you're framing the situation in terms of BBs, so
>> >> it becomes ambiguous in terms of M. The value of M, given the number
>> >> of BBs, can't be calculated unless we know whether there are antes or
>> >> not, and how much they are.
>> >But the true M is ambiguous without knowing the structure of the tournament
>>
>> But still more meaningful than the number of BBs'
>
>Not more meaningful than the number of BBs adjusted for the existence
>and size of antes. In fact, it pretty much IS the number of BBs
>adjusted for antes.
But that's exactly my point. The OP in this thread was a question
about a situation with 18BBs. I noted that the correct play might
vary depending on whether or not there were antes, and that it would
be more useful to talk in terms of M than number of BBs, the reason
being that M takes antes into account.
Will in New Haven
BB, taking antes into account, also takes antes into account. By not
mentioning whether there were antes, OP did create a situation where M
would have been better. M versus #BB, once you throw away the zones
and other prescriptive material in the Harrington book, is just a
matter of whether you measure something in inches or in millimeters.
Pepe Papon
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "BB,
taking antes into account". Antes or not, 18BB means 18 x the amount
of the big blind. If you were to somehow adjust that number to
account for antes, I don't know how you'd communicate that. You
couldn't just say "18BB", since that doesn't indicate any adjustment.
You'd have to say something like, "18BB adjusted for antes". Perhaps
some people do that, but I've never seen it.
Will in New Haven
I think this could be a problem in writing about or discussing poker
but it isn't a problem when making decisions at the table. If you post
the actual blinds and antes (which the OP didn't do) and then give
your stack size (which the original poster didn't do) then the reader
can determine the proper strategy for himself. Whether he uses M or
notes the number of BB and adjusts for the antes doesn't matter.
chandler
Hmmm... well, the original post had more to do with an ICM decision.
Probably a bad one. It morphed into a discussion of restealing, button vs
BB, in which I laid out a hypothetical with no antes. And then it morphed
to how to play that A 10 off on the button. Pepe, as I recall, thought
adding antes and knowing exact M might change decisions. I thought the
hypothetical illustrated a plausible resteal situation well enough and
made no changes. It is possible I'm missing something. What the hell.
Add antes if you like. 200/400/25 work? Unless you are on the ragged
fringe of resteal territory (say closer to 15 low or 25 bb or higher) I
don't think antes change much except to make steals sweeter and more
essential to survival).
So...Pot is 850. 7200 stack raises 1200 on the button. Pot is now 2050.
SB folds. As BB with a similar stack and no ICM considerations, I still
come over the top against a lot of players here with non premium holdings.
If BB has a stack of 7200, button wont quite be getting 3/2 on a call and
his range for the button raise is often very wide. There is a fair amount
of FE here and the rewards are very good for the risk. If resteal is
successful you net a 20+% gain to your stack.
M of both players is roughly 8.5, but for me the important information in
this situation is:
1)What are stack sizes (in terms of bb) of stealer and of restealer? Are
they optimal?
2)What is the size of the raise?
The answer to those questions, tell me if there is FE and whether risk
matches reward.
Of course, a read on the opponent and an understanding of my current table
image always informs whether the above tactic might be advisable.
Chandler
Pepe Papon
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> To tell you the truth, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "BB,
>> taking antes into account". Antes or not, 18BB means 18 x the amount
>> of the big blind. If you were to somehow adjust that number to
>> account for antes, I don't know how you'd communicate that. You
>> couldn't just say "18BB", since that doesn't indicate any adjustment.
>> You'd have to say something like, "18BB adjusted for antes". Perhaps
>> some people do that, but I've never seen it.
>
>I think this could be a problem in writing about or discussing poker
>but it isn't a problem when making decisions at the table. If you post
>the actual blinds and antes (which the OP didn't do) and then give
>your stack size (which the original poster didn't do) then the reader
>can determine the proper strategy for himself. Whether he uses M or
>notes the number of BB and adjusts for the antes doesn't matter.
That's correct. My OP was strictly meant in regard to communicating.
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>
Well, I have often come out in favor of having a common vocabulary so
that we can discuss poker intelligently, so I see where you are coming
from. However, when Harrington can call open-limping on QJs ok but
criticize raising with it as "too loose," I despair at a common
vocabulary. I guess he didn't want to say "too aggressive" because
"aggressive" is a good thing.
Pepe Papon
"Too loose" and "ok" are matters of judgment, not vocabulary.
Will in New Haven
OK certainly is. But saying raising is "too loose" is insane. If it is
ok to get involved, the issue of tightness/looseness is settled.
Raising is more aggressive than limping, _not looser_ The way he wrote
it is very sloppy and there are dozens of examples in those three
books where he just doesn't use the standard vocabulary.
And using the standard vocabulary is leads to superior clarity and
understanding. When he has an entire book in which to illustrate the
correct action under certain circumstances it doesn't lead to much of
a problem. However, using the standard vocabulary in a forum post is
much more helpful.