shovins?

[deleted]

Richard~;295946 wrotethen the regs are most likely retarded

agreed...taught by the same people they are ^-^

[deleted]

Vekked;295931 wrotedef expect FE at this level unless he's a reg I guess

i disagree.....there just a ton of fe regardless

also ...when i make this shove...im def taking into regs on the table...if remember correct there weren't any....but they miss these calling spots all day

[deleted]

djgolfcan;295934 wroteWhat about the cut-off ? He has less than a BB, he has to call with anything, doesn't he ?
And our hand is not ahead of a random hand.

did you stove 97s vs a random hand....sure its not ahead but its like 49.8 percent. and surely he sometimes fold and theres giant pot odds were getting... also it makes everyone else less likely to call

[deleted]

Here is a link to the hand set up on the nash calc

HoldemResources.net: Beta ICM Nash Calculator

here are some adjusted calling ranges but i think they are quite conservative....anyone can argue them though since the percents are there...

[ATTACH]1037[/ATTACH]

here is the plus ev shoving range....97s will be a mistake to fold i think, fairly big....but that being said, just because I can prove it with math, doesn't mean a person with giant winning experience is wrong...thats the tough part :-\

[ATTACH]1038[/ATTACH]

reibs

darbday;295947 wroteconfirmed giant fold eq..

if you miss this spot...take the amount of hand you shove....and subtract it from the entire amount of hand you should shove.....the hands left over, is your error...or your room for improvement ev wise.....

when people see a spot they miss like 97s if this is the case...i think they forget that they prob miss 98s T9s, J8s etc

Yeah I miss a few of those most likely.... Mostly due to not always taking my time studying the other factors of the situation before looking at my hole cards and stack size. Mass tabling is still somewhat new for me....

Vekked

darbday;295949 wrotei disagree.....there just a ton of fe regardless

also ...when i make this shove...im def taking into regs on the table...if remember correct there weren't any....but they miss these calling spots all day

You'd know better that I would about the regs at this level, so they could be bad enough that you even have FE vs. them. They are getting >2:1 in the BB tho so I would assume most competent players to be calling 90% or so, which is significant because having a guaranteed showdown with 9-high is pretty bad for our equity in spots like these.

Vekked

The 30% BB call seems way too tight to me.

[deleted]

I adjust all of the bb calls. I think this is conservative and he def folds more but only because hes not a reg. I think 90 is fine for a reg but its not 100%.

I usually drop my lower offsuit aces because i think randoms calling ranges are ace heavy ....and ill usally add suited kings and sc's in their place, so i think this is close to my original range

also I see the power of the suited kings since the bb is likely to call, so it plays better than our lower sc's. I do think all the calling ranges are loose to though.

[ATTACH]1039[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1040[/ATTACH]

betrthanphil

I just don't like the risk of chips here from ep. I don't think these are like normal MTTS where you need to try to position yourself in the top 3 once you make the money. Moving up the money ladder is huge. Im not saying don't take shots at increasing your stack, but I don't see this as being a good spot to do it. OBV we could careless if the CO with 1bb calls and we lose thats not the issue. We have an above average stack of the FT. We don't need to be tossing our chips in the pot with every suited connectors or 1 gapers we get. I think in the long run in this spot its more profitable to fold, protect or stack a little bit and get a lil more aggro closer to the FT bubble. I think our stack will serve more purpose there than risking it here, maybe losing the chance to be aggro on the FT bubble. Just some rambling in there but think I said what I wanted too lol

[deleted]

tony guerrara suggested to me we have a slider, on one side its pure chipEv ie. we take anything that is remotely plus ev, and on the other its our $ev or icm where we cut out any marginal spots.

Here i think we are in pure cev mode (as the payouts are flat) and i expect to show up to the ft with about 40-60k. Almost every hand im dealt is going to be +ev. Here its about 1/3, but from lp its going to be more than 1/2.

anyways i think we can quantify the discussion like this

im all the way to the left....btp is more towards the right obv.....its different than deciding a shove is profitable....

maximal risk minimal risk

cev -------------------------------------------0----------------------------------<jam?>----------$ev

betrthanphil

My point is there will be a better spot in the next orbit or 2. that will be both more chip ev and $ev. Ill take that spot over this one.

[deleted]

betrthanphil;295972 wroteMy point is there will be a better spot in the next orbit or 2. that will be both more chip ev and $ev. Ill take that spot over this one.

no no you have to take the slider and show us where your at :p

its important for future 180 man talks ^-^

betrthanphil

Get to work!

Vekked

this def isn't pure cEV darb, I'd say $EV is a minimal consideration but obv it's not PURE cEV

« Previous Page