Easy Fold vs donk on tilt?

Unknown

I know what the correct play is.,..but damn i want to call/spite call this idiot. Pro's Cons?.........Thoughts.

*********** # 1 **************
PokerStars Game #18591676777: Tournament #94506870, $55+$5 Hold'em No Limit - Level IX (300/600) - 2008/07/05 - 01:00:40 (ET)
Table '94506870 1' 9-max Seat #8 is the button
Seat 3: -#1Lottery- (2900 in chips)
Seat 6: ano5791 (4810 in chips)
Seat 8: SJSHARKY (1665 in chips)
Seat 9: Akala16 (4125 in chips)
-#1Lottery-: posts the ante 50
ano5791: posts the ante 50
SJSHARKY: posts the ante 50
Akala16: posts the ante 50
Akala16: posts small blind 300
-#1Lottery-: posts big blind 600
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Akala16 [Ts Th]
Akala16 said, "?n1"
ano5791: raises 4160 to 4760 and is all-in

JohnnieH

Some context would be nice.

It looks like he's just being a bully. I call, but that's me

stpboy

It looks like you're just trying to make the money here. I can understand that line of thought. Perhaps you feel like you are a better player then to get your money in as a possible slight favourite. Still, hard to fold tens 4 handed. I say pretty good chance you were winning by a load.

stp

pkrfce9

sng on the bubble? you are second highest stack, shortie with about 2BBs?

if you love to gamble, you call.
if you love money, you fold.

harrington discusses this exact situation very well. it is a good read for those who are interested.

Unknown

Thanks, yes a lack of context..guy seemed like a complete donk..started shove botting WAY too early..but looking him up he is better than he was playing. Likely ahead but it's a fold, maybe in a $16 I call.

Agree with pkrfce9 as well..but Moshman>Harrington Imo.

pkrfce9

i would expect moshman to reach the same conclusion

Unknown

pkrfce9 wrote: »

i would expect moshman to reach the same conclusion

Certainly.I knew the correct answer, but thought I'd just muse about poker because the discussion on here lately has been weak.

Point being the way stt's have progressed in the last year and a half if you don't understand ICM you're out to lunch (even pro's like Harrington).

At least a few of us on here are still interested in yaking about poker. Nice to see.

pkrfce9

you think (even for a second) harrington doesn't make full use of ICM?

Unknown

pkrfce9 wrote: »

you think (even for a second) harrington doesn't make full use of ICM?

Been a couple years since I read vol.2, but at that point..
No..he wasn't. It was all about the M.

pkrfce9

time to go back for another read. there is a specific example from an SNG, 4-handed where he even shows you how to calculate ICM values.

Pantsonfire

I don't have ICM handy but I can't see how a call here isn't +EV regardless of it being the bubble.

I go for first place in SnGs and winning this pot would almost guarantee that.

pkrfce9

and what would losing this pot guarantee you? and how big is your 'guarantee' of winning this pot?

Pantsonfire

pkrfce9 wrote: »

i would expect moshman to reach the same conclusion

Are you agreeing that it's a call at a different buy-in level?

Pantsonfire

pkrfce9 wrote: »

and what would losing this pot guarantee you? and how big is your 'guarantee' of winning this pot?

Sorry, I meant to say almost guarantee at least second place. And when I say "guarantee", I mean highly likely.

If you want to talk numbers, you'll have to wait until I get home and access my poker software.

Otherwise, feel free to show me calling here is -EV.

Wetts1012

It is probably marginal +cEV...almost sure it is -EV.

Pantsonfire

Wetts1012 wrote: »

It is probably marginal +cEV...almost sure it is -EV.

Yeah people keep saying that but I haven't seen any numbers yet. Just from PokerStove I get 63% ahead against an ultra tight range. So the +cEV is a given.

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 63.835% 63.44% 00.39% 313940132 1949314.00 { TdTh }
Hand 1: 36.165% 35.77% 00.39% 177017096 1949314.00 { 22+, A2s+, KJs+, A2o+, KJo+ }

Given the scenario of a standard SnG payout structure, the stacks and the chip EV of this scenario, I need to see some numbers that show overall -EV for a long run call here.

Unknown

Pantsonfire wrote: »

I don't have ICM handy but I can't see how a call here isn't +EV regardless of it being the bubble.

I go for first place in SnGs and winning this pot would almost guarantee that.

This is MTT thinking..not STT.

pkrfce9

Pantsonfire wrote: »

Yeah people keep saying that but I haven't seen any numbers yet. Just from PokerStove I get 63% ahead against an ultra tight range. So the +cEV is a given.

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 63.835% 63.44% 00.39% 313940132 1949314.00 { TdTh }
Hand 1: 36.165% 35.77% 00.39% 177017096 1949314.00 { 22+, A2s+, KJs+, A2o+, KJo+ }

Given the scenario of a standard SnG payout structure, the stacks and the chip EV of this scenario, I need to see some numbers that show overall -EV for a long run call here.

google 'icm calculator' or just read harrington.

Pantsonfire

pkrfce9 wrote: »

google 'icm calculator' or just read harrington.

Okay did that and the numbers I get are to call when this donk will push with 50% of his hands and BB will call with 10% of his.

So against a normal player, this is most likely a fold. But as the OP described this guy, if he is that loose then your read might be to call.

Unknown

Pantsonfire wrote: »

Okay did that and the numbers I get are to call when this donk will push with 50% of his hands and BB will call with 10% of his.

So against a normal player, this is most likely a fold. But as the OP described this guy, if he is that loose then your read might be to call.

Yeah as mentioned I posted before looking the guy up..but I think the play is the same. You might be surprissed what winning regs are shoving on the bubble in this spot. We have to fold and he knows that. His range is very wide here.