Options

Blinds are about to go up...

1246789

Comments

  • reibs wrote: »
    Yeah I def think there is some more pairs and suited aces in their calling ranges on average Darb. Not many, but a few extra I think.
    you aren't answering this properly or addressing the issue. How wide is he min raising here? does he fold A3s pre? KTo? 22? and does he call with those.

    Wetts and Rich think he almost always min raise/calls here. Is that true in your experience? That I have almost no fold equity? You play this field, how many time do you shove aces here and he just folds?

    reibs wrote: »
    Some people might be this tight though I'd find it hard to believe that without any notes you would have THAT good a read on someone when your 25 tabling.
    Don't even.... ;p


    reibs wrote: »
    Furthermore, and aside from mathematically it being barely +EV at the best of times, I think the main reason I dont like shoving here is that it will most definitely affect how the fish react to your shoves for the remainder of this game. You said they wont react to reshoves spots cus there wont be any more in this game, however they will react in other ways, like calling your open shoves lighter (which we don't want). Remember most of the fish play only one or two tables, so they do watch. Mostly watch for the wrong things, but they watch. And they usually dont understand the difference between this spot and an open shove.
    you are suggesting that fish adjust and its simply not true, nor will they adjust enough to drastically change our shoving habits.

    reibs wrote: »
    Whereas if you can keep your 'tightish' image, they will fold way way way too much. its a delicate balance and I think shoving this wide (everytime the scenario presents itself) will ultimately ruin your image, whether its +EV or not.
    Yes because you think you would look me up 'light' during game but you wouldn't >:D





    Edit: btw... you're folding 9c7c too much in the cutoff at bb1000
  • darbday wrote: »
    you aren't answering this properly or addressing the issue. How wide is he min raising here? does he fold A3s pre? KTo? 22? and does he call with those.

    Well I havent had time to dig through my database to check this for sure. But I plan on it. My guess is that most of these villians will minraise some of those hands (weighted to more suited aces and pairs) and fold to our shove. The rest like KTo they just fold. Just my guess though.
    darbday wrote: »
    Wetts and Rich think he almost always min raise/calls here. Is that true in your experience? That I have almost no fold equity? You play this field, how many time do you shove aces here and he just folds?

    I already posted that hand which shows we have fold equity vs even the top regs at the $2s. So yes you def have some FE.

    I very highly doubt the fact that the fish minraise with the intent of calling. I think the "fish" in mid-high stakes mtts are of a much different skill level and they understand what < 15bb means. Most of the villians in micro 180s dont.
    darbday wrote: »
    Don't even.... ;p

    Oh I just did! haha

    darbday wrote: »
    you are suggesting that fish adjust and its simply not true, nor will they adjust enough to drastically change our shoving habits.

    This I totally disagree with. They adjust. They just don't do it properly or enough. Not nearly enough. But they adjust in the sense that they think you're a tool and they start calling you a bit lighter.

    Cant say how many times Ive had two or three push spots in a row and the last one, a typically weak tight fish decides to call me with Q6o or something....Just cus "I cant have it everytime."

    darbday wrote: »
    Yes because you think you would look me up 'light' during game but you wouldn't >:D

    Wait, are you saying I dont look you up light enough? Cus I can make a few changes to that.... Didn't think this was the object of the game when sitting with other pfc'ers though?! hehe
  • reibs wrote: »
    This I totally disagree with. They adjust. They just don't do it properly or enough. Not nearly enough. But they adjust in the sense that they think you're a tool and they start calling you a bit lighter.
    Not nearly enough and a bit lighter are fairly negligible

    reibs wrote: »
    Cant say how many times Ive had two or three push spots in a row and the last one, a typically weak tight fish decides to call me with Q6o or something....Just cus "I cant have it everytime."
    But mathematically their 'adjustment' won't be big enough to change our shove range by more than a few hands. If we are shoving wide it matters even less. If we are in late game they adjust even less.

    EDIT: Also noting that when we shove light the premise is we don't go to showdown often. And sometimes the only hand that gets sd is a monster (but I'm not arguing Vekked here, he was talking about a slightly different thing)
  • I think we should /thread this by saying Darb I agree with you in the math side of this being a good play which may in the end be +EV. I do play many of these SNGs as well and have to agree with you that people do fold 9bbs consistently... I think this is due to the structure of them and not the poker logic behind it as you would play most MTTs.

    Many others bring up valid points about the consequences of making plays like this in the long run as maybe fish don't adjust but the regs certainly do and you will find yourself losing these more often when wider ranges start to call. I think another thing you have missed is that you do tend to make "light" allin moves very often in position. This likely already has given you the image that you are fully capable of making this move and as such the ranges we have applied really could be lowered... which likely would result in it being -EV.

    You should really test this as in the late stages of these SNGs this min raise is seen very often and you will likely be able to get a good feel on how this plays out for you to give you an answer you find acceptable. To look at this as exactly it is it may be a good play but in the long run I think you will find that it can be passed up more often than not.
  • I think we should /thread this by saying Darb I agree with you in the math side of this being a good play which may in the end be +EV. I do play many of these SNGs as well and have to agree with you that people do fold 9bbs consistently... I think this is due to the structure of them and not the poker logic behind it as you would play most MTTs.
    what is your min raise range in mp2 shoes (use the picture of the table and hand to decide)? what hands would you call a shove vs. an unknown sb?
    I think we should /thread....
    we aren't nearly finished with the math to start saying that

    This likely already has given you the image that you are fully capable of making this move and as such the ranges we have applied really could be lowered... which likely would result in it being -EV.
    no because if this player is new to me then i am new to him

    You should really test this as in the late stages of these SNGs this min raise is seen very often and you will likely be able to get a good feel on how this plays out for you to give you an answer you find acceptable.
    i thought playing 10k hands a day you would assume that i tested it lots?
    To look at this as exactly it is it may be a good play but in the long run I think you will find that it can be passed up more often than not.

    this is where i make my money, people thinking they can pass up on marginal spots in a turbo, its not true, and if i find out for one sec it your philosophy i will use it to crush you on a turbo table......especially late game...you won't stand a chance
  • ima use induction for this.....

    I guess no one will verify the math anyways...perhaps I do range people well and perhaps the math is correct....maybe there's a few different scenarios where 42o is break even...

    my original question was how do we quantify the fact that blinds will be going up when our chips are in the air?
  • I think something is up with the calculations there darb, but can't correct cuz im in my phone. I'll double check later

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
  • Darb what I was trying to say with my first point is that in this exact scenario I think it would be a good shove and agree with your math if it is correct...

    My second point was that this style may not be as successful in the long run and you will likely need to test it. I am fully aware of the amount of hands you play but how can I assume you're making this play all the time and testing it while asking the question itt?

    If you say this is where you make your money in the late stages of turbos than I don't think anyone can argue against that. I was merely suggesting that you could be concerned with how it plays out over time.
  • darbday wrote: »
    this is where i make my money, people thinking they can pass up on marginal spots in a turbo, its not true, and if i find out for one sec it your philosophy i will use it to crush you on a turbo table......especially late game...you won't stand a chance

    Ok Tony G.

    Are you qualified? ;)
  • Vekked wrote: »
    I think something is up with the calculations there darb,
    thats very likely....that my math is uber off and doesn't make any sense....:(
  • Darb what I was trying to say with my first point is that in this exact scenario I think it would be a good shove and agree with your math.

    My second point was that this style may not be as successful in the long run and you will likely need to test it. I am fully aware of the amount of hands you play but how can I assume you're making this play all the time and testing it while asking the question itt?

    If you say this is where you make your money in the late stages of turbos than I don't think anyone can argue against that. I was merely suggesting that you could be concerned with how it plays out over time.
    me and you are having a good conversation too, and not just cause you agree with me :)

    you are right in a way that you couldn't assume if tested 3bet shoving in spots like this but at the same time I think you could assume it cause of the number of games...my threads..my wild play and most important my confidence in the ranges here...

    as for me playing loose all the time and how that plays out over time...i constantly get berate by good regs after the snapping me with aqs^-^
  • i think this might be your math

    first the villain folds part which he would do 1-5,3/21 % =74,8

    first calculation WITHOUT minivillain

    cEV villain folds = (3200+150x9) = +4550

    cEV villain calls= (14800 + 14800 + 150x9) x 0,247 -14800= -7156

    weighted cEV= 4550x0,748 - 7156x0,252 = +1600




    if we adjust this for shorty it turns out that 66% of the time he will steal 250 chips from our stack, all the antes, 250 chips from BB and 250 chips from villains open (and 250 chips from himself) making sidepot 2350 we lose this 66% and add this 33% meaning we lose 33% of it putting that component at -783 and our adjusted chip EV at 1600-783= +817 chips

    I think that's correct, had to do it myself cause I couldn't follow your math right away but if you compare the two calculations you might figure something out

    eidit: I made one very important mistake, are you good enough to spot it? :P

    I made several insignificant errors like estimation minvillain eq vs us to 66% instead of 67 but there's a pretty major conceptual misake in there thst offsets the result by almost 100%
  • the 4 2 off suit.. I like a shove here.you got to think you have live cards and two different suits so you got a shot at making two separate flushes.. not to dismiss the straight possibilities as well.
  • Richard~ wrote: »

    weighted cEV= 4550x0,748 - 7156x0,252 = +1600

    this all seemed close to what i was doing. i didn't understand where I take the answer for when villain calls and subtract if from my stack, but i found a good example and i did it anyways. The number i used i think was after the sb and antes were removed or something (maybe have been wrong).

    I think the only difference is i attempted to do all the calcs with the adjusted pots for the the shorty instead of trying to subtract it later.....i think ;)



    So again we've just got to the point of the thread now, i actually have 2 more adjustments before we can ask if this is a shove or not.....the first one is how do we quantify the blinds going up while our chips are in the air???
  • Some of your calculations are definitely off, but you came to the right conclusion mathwise.

    Major Calculations:

    Stack left if you fold: 13849

    Amount in stack if you shove, MP folds, you win vs Short Stack: 20879
    (13849 + 1200 [Antes] + 800 [your SB] + 1600 [BB] + 3200 [Amount in from MP] + 230 [SS])

    Amount in stack if you shove, MP folds, you lose vs Short Stack: 18759
    (Side Pot = 1200 [Antes] + 230 * 4 (you, BB, MP, SS) = 2120)

    Amount in stack if you shove, MP calls, you lose vs MP: 0
    (obvious)

    Amount in stack if you shove, MP calls, you win vs MP, win vs Short Stack: 32328
    (20879 + 13849 - 2400)

    Amount in stack if you shove, MP calls, you win vs MP, lose vs Short Stack: 30208

    20879(0.7523 * 0.668) + 18759 (0.7523 * 0.332) + 0 (0.7794 * 0.24766) +
    32328(0.2206 * 0.24766 * 0.668) + 30208 (0.2206 * 0.24766 * 0.668) =

    20879 (50.256%) + 18759 (24.978%) + 0 (19.303%) + 32328 (3.649%) + 30208 (1.814%)

    [Note that the percentages, added together, approximately equal 100%)

    = 16331

    16331 > 13849, so IF your assumptions are correct, then the math is on your side.

    NOTICE though: pretty well all of your equity is from when the main villan folds - because of all of the dead money in the pot. You have to have a really good read on their calling range to be this confident.
  • DataMn wrote: »
    NOTICE though: pretty well all of your equity is from when the main villan folds - because of all of the dead money in the pot. You have to have a really good read on their calling range to be this confident.
    nice math explanation too


    coo, and that its true, assumptions need to be correct...i thought the ranges were even better to my favor, but i can't say for sure they aren't worse...


    but now how would you quantify the blinds going up while our chips are in the air...???
  • the part I fucked up was that I calculated the cEV relative to our current stack rather than cEV relative to us folding our stack. I'm pretty sure the blinds going up almost works in our favour from your description of villains
  • Richard~ wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the blinds going up almost works in our favour from your description of villains
    I think so too, or better said we can shove slightly wider.

    Also another way of seeing it...when the blinds go up we'll have about 7bbs. With that stack I am not looking to go through blinds, meaning my shoving ranges will be quite wide. Coupled with the fact that everyone is calling uber tight here because with about 16 left people are feeling the ft bubble even though the payouts are flat right now.

    So ill likely have 5 chances to shove some of which will be pre-empted by others. The way I play is to shove nearly atc if i have about 6 bbs utg....so my point is im comparing this spot to the latter and thinking this might be the best spot i get...

    with the blinds going up with our chips in the air i think this is a fine spot to take...but i don't know if it works like that....

    3 of us came up with the math being a break even ish spot (ranges are debatable but think if we average our thoughts it seems conceivable)

    ....do we need Vekked or someone to confirm all this or is it std. and i can do my last adjustment?
  • Here is the counter argument to the math provided earlier though:

    When the villan has to make their decision to call your shove, there is 20879 chips in the pot.
    It will cost them 11449 to call. Therefore, they should call with any hand that has at least a 37.04% chance of winning against your range.

    Even if they thought you could only make this move with the same range that you gave to their initial move (33+, A3s+, A6o+, Any Broadway except QTo, QJo) they should call with ALL of the hands in that range - and a whole lot of other ones that you did not have in their original range (full list - 22+,A2s+,A2o,K5s+,KTo+,Q8s+,QJo,J8s+,T8s+,97s+,87s,76s)

    A lot of players won't know the percentages vs all ranges, but they do generally know the rule that most hands are less than a 2 to 1 dog [especially in their initial range], and the pot is giving them very close to that. I would be very surprised if they tighten up as much as you state when it comes to the final decision.
  • DataMn wrote: »
    Here is the counter argument to the math provided earlier though:

    When the villan has to make their decision to call your shove, there is 20879 chips in the pot.
    It will cost them 11449 to call. Therefore, they should call with any hand that has at least a 37.04% chance of winning against your range.

    Even if they thought you could only make this move with the same range that you gave to their initial move (33+, A3s+, A6o+, Any Broadway except QTo, QJo) they should call with ALL of the hands in that range - and a whole lot of other ones that you did not have in their original range (full list - 22+,A2s+,A2o,K5s+,KTo+,Q8s+,QJo,J8s+,T8s+,97s+,87s,76s)

    A lot of players won't know the percentages vs all ranges, but they do generally know the rule that most hands are less than a 2 to 1 dog [especially in their initial range], and the pot is giving them very close to that. I would be very surprised if they tighten up as much as you state when it comes to the final decision.
    in order for this to be correct....i need to have a sample of hands in which a fishy/rec player min raise calls weak hands with 9bbs effective. and in the 1 mill hands i have over 20k games it never happens....it a negligible amount

    on the contrary i see bad players min fold short stacks all day long every day. my perceived range here is jj+ ak....and its very unlikely this guy knows the 2 to 1 rule because we have decided he is not a reg.... we have taken most of good players out of our villains profile...

    its not likely hes good

    I 3bet shove good hands on people all day and watch them fold ridiculous stacks...here we are in a ft bubble, he will never call light (never meaning not very often).

    Edit: In case if Vekked reads this...I DO NOT 3bet shove bluffs 9bbs at min raises though ;)
  • DataMn wrote: »
    Here is the counter argument to the math provided earlier though:

    When the villan has to make their decision to call your shove, there is 20879 chips in the pot.
    It will cost them 11449 to call. Therefore, they should call with any hand that has at least a 37.04% chance of winning against your range.

    Even if they thought you could only make this move with the same range that you gave to their initial move (33+, A3s+, A6o+, Any Broadway except QTo, QJo) they should call with ALL of the hands in that range - and a whole lot of other ones that you did not have in their original range (full list - 22+,A2s+,A2o,K5s+,KTo+,Q8s+,QJo,J8s+,T8s+,97s+,87s,76s)

    A lot of players won't know the percentages vs all ranges, but they do generally know the rule that most hands are less than a 2 to 1 dog [especially in their initial range], and the pot is giving them very close to that. I would be very surprised if they tighten up as much as you state when it comes to the final decision.

    this is pretty obvious, darbday is basing his entire thread on villain being retarded but I thought we had all understood that fact already
  • Ok moving on, assuming we decided its break even but we don't like to take spots like this or something.

    We need to come up with two things now...

    I need the people in this thread who responded to come up with the range they would shove when they first saw this post (without the math)....or it could be one person so we can use it as an example or the general consensus etc.


    And with everything we talked about what is the general consensus of what the actual correct shoving range is after now seeing that 42o is almost break even and considering the blinds are going up....
  • I have not in any way shown 42o to be anywhere close to breakeven, I just showed that it was given your premises which I strongly disagree on... have I not been extremely clear on this point already? <.<
  • Richard~ wrote: »
    this is pretty obvious, darbday is basing his entire thread on villain being retarded but I thought we had all understood that fact already
    yes and singling out 'retards' and adjusting my play to exploit them is where i make most of my roi
    Richard~ wrote: »
    I have not in any way shown 42o to be anywhere close to breakeven, I just showed that it was given your premises which I strongly disagree on... have I not been extremely clear on this point already? <.<
    for you we can assume you agreed on the ranges in the first place....for you it will change your 3bet range you give....for others who don't understand the math...they will have much the same range.
  • what I would shove without thinking is interesting. First off I would be scared of his minraise so I'd take out most marginal BW hands out of his range resulting in me probably shoving like 66+ A10s+ AJ+ and some KJs+ KQo possibly, but I'd probably fold some of these hands at times to

    what I'm gonna do is I'm simply gonna find time to play a bunch of these tournaments to get my own feel for it, seems to be the most reasonable way
  • **** this doesn't prove im right, its just one more adjustment i want to make***


    so, IF villain was raise calling something like 20/5, or something reasonably like that, or slightly worse for us. But the blinds are going up while the chips are in the air, so we can be even more marginal....

    And most people here shove a range like 55+ A9s+ ATo+, All suited BW, and kjo+

    Attachment not found.

    and we find something like 65% of hands to be profitable...

    Attachment not found.

    if we jam 42o it means we jam all profitable hands but take a hit from 76o-42o

    Attachment not found.

    Then i think its more of a mistake to fold kto then it is to jam 42o...

    because that implies we fold all profitable hands from kto-76o (or the breakeven hand).....


    Attachment not found.
  • we fold all the hands that are profitable vs a retard. Villains stats was "standard stats" and you have no reason to believe he's a retard. If I have a reason to believe someone is a retard that changes a lot and it might be bad folding out some wider hands
  • Richard~ wrote: »
    what I'm gonna do is I'm simply gonna find time to play a bunch of these tournaments to get my own feel for it, seems to be the most reasonable way
    im wondering if by a bunch you are going to play 1k games and come back and tell me my 20k games sample or what ever is wrong.
    Richard~ wrote: »
    we fold all the hands that are profitable vs a retard. Villains stats was "standard stats" and you have no reason to believe he's a retard. If I have a reason to believe someone is a retard that changes a lot and it might be bad folding out some wider hands
    this thread has now assumed that my ranges are correct and has moved onto to something else....you last 10ish posts have restated this over and over....you are right...i can't range opponents properly....lets just move on slightly, please, under the premise i am correct....



    My last adjustment....do we agree given 65% is the optimal shoving range.....that shoving 42o is better than folding kto...
  • you are this thread and you have moved on, as for me I can't continue on in this thread cause I believe that any conclusion reached will be faulty in it's foundation

    and I won't go play 1000 tournaments, I'm not a grinder right now even though sometimes I wish I was, I do almost only coaching and 4-6 tabling trying to make my 3-500 dollar/ week withdrawals. what I am going to do is go play 100 or so and observe villains playing the turbos
  • ofc if you're gonna write that off I can't begin to fathom why you created this thread hoping to find some other guy who had played 20k of these to talk to
Sign In or Register to comment.