you just said you believed he might be minraising 30% and calling only a couple so if he's minraising most of his range it should contain a lot of j10 hands.
again, not sure if it's been said enough in this thread but frankly you have to be a pretty bad spewy player just to consider trying this
you just said you believed he might be minraising 30% and calling only a couple so if he's minraising most of his range it should contain a lot of j10 hands.
here he only has 4 combos... range is like 28percent or something, but i picked a wide range so we could eyeball the math and see if its conceivable. I wonder if 20 percent is profitable... Attachment not found.
again, not sure if it's been said enough in this thread but frankly you have to be a pretty bad spewy player just to consider trying this
thats the weird thing tho because I am considering it, and im admittedly not the best and maybe not very good but i have one of the higher roi's for a 24 tabler in this field. Attachment not found.
those are really good results and better than mine for sure. But until I see some math I'll definitely think you're outleveling yourself greatly. my guess would be that this guy won't call you tighter than any pair and decent suitec connector or any suited ace
firstly being forced to win a showdown for part of the pot vastly reduces our equity.
secondly you would need a read so insanely good that they're never r/c'ing here.
thirdly their range should be tighter than usual since they're forced to showdown here.
fourthly we have the nut worse hand to shove here.
fifthly we barely have any fold equity.
sixthly when they call we're drawing so dead.
seventhly we'll never be able to reship light again.
eighthly your read would have to be SO SO SO SO accurate to do this. I'd start with shoving whatever's profitable given his PFR + a calling range of AJ+/77+ and go from there. if you see him only showing up with better hands when he calls then jam more. basically you don't want to make -EV reshoves and find out that they're -EV and tighten up, you want to make +EV reshoves and widen up as your read gets better. Not only will you burn heaps of money vs. a lot of people doing it the other way around, but if someone sees you jam 42o, they start calling way looser, so then 76s becomes -EV, or A2s or hands that would otherwise be +EV. So you'll have to tighten up heaps just to get to the point where you're making +EV reships, and probably just punt equity in the process.
seventhly icm suicide.
I'm 99% sure that you're assigning yourself wayyy too much fold equity if you're saying like AQ+/99+ is too loose 9BB effective. Sure a couple people might muck TT and AQ here, but some people will call A8 and 44 here. You can't just jam because it's +EV vs. the nittiest players on the face of the internet, absolutely lean towards being slightly cautious if anything in these spots because it's just such a big mistake when you're wrong, and barely +EV when you're right.
Just have to say before this entire thread goes to hell, that we were hoping you would provide us insight on the 3bet shove math. Especially what range you think is +ev to shove here
seventhly we'll never be able to reship light again.
i think this is the least valid point of all these....nobody is adjusting in the entire field....its a negligible amount of people...the best regs are non note taking multitablers...the rest will never understand how
eighthly your read would have to be SO SO SO SO accurate to do this.
I don't think this is right to say either, well i have to see the math exactly but there are many different combos of min opening/calling that would make this > 0 ev.....they may not be plausible but i don't think we need "accuracy" here....and I think this point confuses people into thinking that villain needs to not show up with aces to shove correctly here
I'd start with shoving whatever's profitable given his PFR + a calling range of AJ+/77+ and go from there. if you see him only showing up with better hands when he calls then jam more. basically you don't want to make -EV reshoves and find out that they're -EV and tighten up, you want to make +EV reshoves and widen up as your read gets better.
yes but we aren't talking about a certain player...we are talking about a 'player profile' and ive shoved +ev ranges on this profile for like 16k games
Not only will you burn heaps of money vs. a lot of people doing it the other way around, but if someone sees you jam 42o, they start calling way looser, so then 76s becomes -EV, or A2s or hands that would otherwise be +EV. So you'll have to tighten up heaps just to get to the point where you're making +EV reships, and probably just punt equity in the process.
this doesn't apply to this hand at all, no one is watching, and the likely hood of having another light 3bet jam spot in this game is almost nil....it also assumes other regs adjust and they don't
we are at a flat part of the payout structure, although there is some slight icm effect, my understanding is it can't be called icm suicide. However the icm presence of being close to the ft will def effect villains calling range.
I'm 99% sure that you're assigning yourself wayyy too much fold equity if you're saying like AQ+/99+ is too loose 9BB effective. Sure a couple people might muck TT and AQ here, but some people will call A8 and 44 here.
but in general, they call really tight and at the final two tables almost NEVER with a8s and 44
absolutely lean towards being slightly cautious if anything in these spots because it's just such a big mistake when you're wrong, and barely +EV when you're right.
but right about shoving or about the ranges we've assigned our opponent?
This is the best I could do I might mess around with some math before my grind
this doesn't account for antes, and the calling range is way too wide at 66+, a9s+, kq+, ato+
but it also doesn't account for the bb whos range I think is JJ, AK+. It may be slightly wider sometimes, but he may fold ako sometimes too.
but in general, they call really tight and at the final two tables almost NEVER with a8s and 44
this is such bs, all you're doing right now is trying to mold the villain to fit the play instead of the play to fit the villain, Sherlock Holmes would never talk to you again
Edit: I've said this in many ways but shoving here is like crossing your fingers and going "please be the worst player on the planet, please be the worst player on the planet"
this is such bs, all you're doing right now is trying to mold the villain to fit the play instead of the play to fit the villain, Sherlock Holmes would never talk to you again
edit: i see that part about contradicting wasn't really correct i misunderstood what wetts was sayin
however I will accept the fact that mtt players won't min fold here and 180 turbo rec player do
edit: but i like how your still making jokes....we aren't anywhere near done the math here and i hope we can still have a conversation before people just start calling me stupid
poker is poker, 180 mans are extremely similar to mtts in structure and payouts. There's really no math to be done, you claim people will fold non nut hands and I claim they won't, not sure how math changes that
Edit: Also, it's not really contradictory, if I were to accept that villain isn't raisecalling marginal hands as in "villain is not raising marginal hands in the first place" then I don't see what we're hoping to fold out at all
Edit: Also, it's not really contradictory, if I were to accept that villain isn't raisecalling marginal hands as in "villain is not raising marginal hands in the first place" then I don't see what we're hoping to fold out at all
yes i misunderstood.
so what is 'lucky joe299' doing with kts, 33, a9o, a5s, kjo, qjs, etc?
I think this might be a better play to consider had the min-raise came from the SB and you were the BB, or maybe even a late position player as oppose to this hand where it is coming from MP
I think this might be a better play to consider had the min-raise came from the SB and you were the BB, or maybe even a late position player as oppose to this hand where it is coming from MP
its not about his position (which is only the lowjack) but the fact that hes the first stack behind the shorty that could min rasie without thinking hes committing himself.....
also i think that his calling range bvb would be bigger than in this spot
Pre-Flop: (3,600) 4 2 dealt to JodaB. (SB)
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls 230 and is All-In, MP1 folds, MP2 raises to 3,200, 2 folds, JodaB
Looking at what you posted I'm really not sure why you think your 2-4os shove is a good move in any respect here. Vekked's post really does sum it up.
I think another good point is that if you're going to make this move you should be doing it the majority of the time with something that plays well or has at least a few out potentials in the case that villain does have a calling hand....5-6s+ A-rag. The play itself is a good one. However if you're going to risk your stack what you think is the perfect read, at least do it in a spot much better than 2-4os.
I keep coming back to this thread, have tanked longer than I ever thought possible and have finally convinced myself my read should be "multi-page level".
I think another good point is that if you're going to make this move you should be doing it the majority of the time with something that plays well or has at least a few out potentials in the case that villain does have a calling hand....5-6s+ A-rag. The play itself is a good one. However if you're going to risk your stack what you think is the perfect read, at least do it in a spot much better than 2-4os.
although in the end you may be right...your not offering any reasoning....we can do the math on this...we don't want to just look at our hand and guess
although in the end you may be right...your not offering any reasoning....we can do the math on this...we don't want to just look at our hand and guess
Yeah of course. I'm not doing that work though, it is your post . Wait didn't DataMn do them....
yes now we are discussing ranges....you should skim it because im def interested in hearing everyones take on mp2 ranges
Your calling ranges of MP2 99+AQ and BB QQ+AK are pretty much there and what you should use to work it out.
Edit: With the blinds at what they are, the stage the tourney of a 180 man $8 you're around 16-15 left. This is not ft due to the stacks. MP2 is not going to be min raising anything less than A8s+,J10s+,55+ here as even a horrible player they would not risk getting to the ft in these.
Your calling ranges of MP2 99+AQ and BB QQ+AK are pretty much there and what you should use to work it out.
Edit: With the blinds at what they are, the stage the tourney of a 180 man $8 you're around 16-15 left. This is not ft due to the stacks. MP2 is not going to be min raising anything less than A8s+,J10s+,55+ here as even a horrible player they would not risk getting to the ft in these.
so you pretty much agree with me then
edit: in response to highflyer below: the range you gave IS different than mine however from any calculation I could do 42o is at least close to break even with YOUR ranges
however wetts is suggesting he doesn't raise hands like kts and a8s and 55 and Richard is saying he rasies them but calls with them when i shove (apologies to them if im misquoting).
I agree with your logic about how to play the hand but am not convinced about what the numbers are for you to make this play, as the ones you have posted are not what we just discussed. Also going back to my earlier post, the range of hands I would make this move with would still need to be something that plays better than 2-4os.
In response to your edits Darb, I see your logic and the math behind this seems to be about even with 2-4, are you going to risk your stack with that? I think what brings this to be a fold is looking beyond that. Being how deep you're in this tournament, is shoving here needed? Blinds are about to go up, but how low are other stacks? (Someone is about to bust). If you are really just looking at the math maybe make this play earlier in the tournament but really I still would feel that I can outplay the field and not risk being stacked here with a great read and 2-4os.
In response to your edits Darb, I see your logic and the math behind this seems to be about even with 2-4, are you going to risk your stack with that? I think what brings this to be a fold is looking beyond that. Being how deep you're in this tournament, is shoving here needed? Blinds are about to go up, but how low are other stacks? (Someone is about to bust). If you are really just looking at the math maybe make this play earlier in the tournament but really I still would feel that I can outplay the field and not risk being stacked here with a great read and 2-4os.
This.
You're moving out of the blinds as they increase and into a better steal spot. Better spots a coming imo.
I don't know what he would do with middlish hands, probably shove, that's what I would do 100%. Do you think he folds them pre? or do you think he folds them to your shove?
I don't know what he would do with middlish hands, probably shove, that's what I would do 100%. Do you think he folds them pre? or do you think he folds them to your shove?
they are not in a weak or bad players shoving range
In response to your edits Darb, I see your logic and the math behind this seems to be about even with 2-4, are you going to risk your stack with that? I think what brings this to be a fold is looking beyond that. Being how deep you're in this tournament, is shoving here needed? Blinds are about to go up, but how low are other stacks? (Someone is about to bust). If you are really just looking at the math maybe make this play earlier in the tournament but really I still would feel that I can outplay the field and not risk being stacked here with a great read and 2-4os.
You're moving out of the blinds as they increase and into a better steal spot. Better spots a coming imo.
I can't believe I came back.
A side note to these two posts...if we found the math showed this is +ev we will always take it when we are playing purely chip ev.....meaning when there is no pay structure involved.
so if its plus ev rich wetts and vekked will shove.....
now there is some icm consideration but its not very strong because we are at a flat part of the payout structure...we are in the money but not at a bubble
in other words what you aren't taking into account is that to have a top roi you need to take ALL marginal non icm spots
Darb, it's like you're assuming I've never done reshove calcs in my life or something. I didn't do them here because I'm still at fallsview and on a mac so I don't even have pokerstove let alone any other software that would help, but I've done heaps of calculations on reshoves and there's rarely a spot to reship >30% of hands. It's obvious why you're coming to the conclusion that reshipping might be +EV here, because you went down the list of reasons why I said you shouldn't, and said none of them are true. Clearly if this was correct then it would be a reship, but I don't think it's correct at all, no math in the world is going to be able to show you that 90% of people just aren't folding AJ/77+ to a 9BB shove, and many will call looser. You can't just look at the tightest range someone will show up with and assume that's their range, you have to make some sort of average that has a balance of the times people fold AQ and the times people call A5 here.
Re: ICM suicide. In any situation where we're making a -cEV play when ICM is a consideration (even in a flat payout structure ICM is at least going to make all breakeven cEV plays -$EV, and slightly +cEV plays breakeven, therefore we shouldn't take them) it's ICM suicide. Like I said I can't provide exact math right now, but I can provide this (and it's probably all that's needed to prove your play is -EV). Your calculations in the above prove that jamming 42o under those assumptions is ~breakeven if we're reshipping 9BB on someone with those ranges without the shorty all in. The fact that we have to show down with the micro stack and only have 33% equity in the main pot vs. ATC reduces our EV in the pot by almost a full BB (1400 chips). So not only are we making a hugely -EV shove (losing a full BB just from cEV is obviously really bad in a spot we're only risking 9BB, and many people argue over whether we should even be taking +cEV plays if they're much less than +cEV by 1SB), but when you throw ICM on top of it you're just burning money.
So basically if you do your calculations like you did above and come up with a range that you're actually winning 1BB on average when you jam 42o, your play becomes breakeven with the shorty, and still not one you would take. I'm not sure what ranges would achieve that, would be interested to see though.
Disagee. Haven't you ever seen someone make a call/play that seems absurd? Let alone a call that is completely standard, lol. I wouldn't say they call >50% with those hands, but I think 55 calls like 1/3 of the time, and JTs 1/5 of the time or something. Even old live nits call reshoves with stuff like 55 every once in a while because a certain % of players just over value specific hands, small pairs and suited broadways are exactly some of those hands.
in other words what you aren't taking into account is that to have a top roi you need to take ALL marginal non icm spots
Marginal means the play could be +EV or could be -EV, I highly doubt that taking all spots that you're not sure whether they're +EV or not is what is required to have a top roi. Probably just taking all +EV spots and passing on marginal ones is optimal. Unless you're using marginal in the sense that it's very slightly +EV, in which case I don't think marginal is the right word (a lot of people do use marginal in this sense though and it tilts me to no end, lol, +EV =/= marginal).
Comments
again, not sure if it's been said enough in this thread but frankly you have to be a pretty bad spewy player just to consider trying this
Attachment not found.
thats the weird thing tho because I am considering it, and im admittedly not the best and maybe not very good but i have one of the higher roi's for a 24 tabler in this field.
Attachment not found.
these two quotes are contradictory....
firstly being forced to win a showdown for part of the pot vastly reduces our equity.
secondly you would need a read so insanely good that they're never r/c'ing here.
thirdly their range should be tighter than usual since they're forced to showdown here.
fourthly we have the nut worse hand to shove here.
fifthly we barely have any fold equity.
sixthly when they call we're drawing so dead.
seventhly we'll never be able to reship light again.
eighthly your read would have to be SO SO SO SO accurate to do this. I'd start with shoving whatever's profitable given his PFR + a calling range of AJ+/77+ and go from there. if you see him only showing up with better hands when he calls then jam more. basically you don't want to make -EV reshoves and find out that they're -EV and tighten up, you want to make +EV reshoves and widen up as your read gets better. Not only will you burn heaps of money vs. a lot of people doing it the other way around, but if someone sees you jam 42o, they start calling way looser, so then 76s becomes -EV, or A2s or hands that would otherwise be +EV. So you'll have to tighten up heaps just to get to the point where you're making +EV reships, and probably just punt equity in the process.
seventhly icm suicide.
I'm 99% sure that you're assigning yourself wayyy too much fold equity if you're saying like AQ+/99+ is too loose 9BB effective. Sure a couple people might muck TT and AQ here, but some people will call A8 and 44 here. You can't just jam because it's +EV vs. the nittiest players on the face of the internet, absolutely lean towards being slightly cautious if anything in these spots because it's just such a big mistake when you're wrong, and barely +EV when you're right.
1/10 of a bbs tho vs atc., i don't know the math on that though
see this isn't fair because its a total exaggeration isn't it?
I don't think showing down changes their min open range, if it does its very very slight
ya i wish i didn't post the hole cards, but having the worst hand doesn't matter vs a lot of min/calling ranges
this is largely the same thing as point 3
haha you said this already
i think this is the least valid point of all these....nobody is adjusting in the entire field....its a negligible amount of people...the best regs are non note taking multitablers...the rest will never understand how
I don't think this is right to say either, well i have to see the math exactly but there are many different combos of min opening/calling that would make this > 0 ev.....they may not be plausible but i don't think we need "accuracy" here....and I think this point confuses people into thinking that villain needs to not show up with aces to shove correctly here
yes but we aren't talking about a certain player...we are talking about a 'player profile' and ive shoved +ev ranges on this profile for like 16k games
this doesn't apply to this hand at all, no one is watching, and the likely hood of having another light 3bet jam spot in this game is almost nil....it also assumes other regs adjust and they don't
we are at a flat part of the payout structure, although there is some slight icm effect, my understanding is it can't be called icm suicide. However the icm presence of being close to the ft will def effect villains calling range.
but in general, they call really tight and at the final two tables almost NEVER with a8s and 44
but right about shoving or about the ranges we've assigned our opponent?
This is the best I could do I might mess around with some math before my grind
this doesn't account for antes, and the calling range is way too wide at 66+, a9s+, kq+, ato+
but it also doesn't account for the bb whos range I think is JJ, AK+. It may be slightly wider sometimes, but he may fold ako sometimes too.
with an opening range of 20% 42o is breakeven
Attachment not found.
this is such bs, all you're doing right now is trying to mold the villain to fit the play instead of the play to fit the villain, Sherlock Holmes would never talk to you again
Edit: I've said this in many ways but shoving here is like crossing your fingers and going "please be the worst player on the planet, please be the worst player on the planet"
however I will accept the fact that mtt players won't min fold here and 180 turbo rec player do
edit: but i like how your still making jokes....we aren't anywhere near done the math here and i hope we can still have a conversation before people just start calling me stupid
Edit: Also, it's not really contradictory, if I were to accept that villain isn't raisecalling marginal hands as in "villain is not raising marginal hands in the first place" then I don't see what we're hoping to fold out at all
so what is 'lucky joe299' doing with kts, 33, a9o, a5s, kjo, qjs, etc?
Attachment not found.
also i think that his calling range bvb would be bigger than in this spot
but what is he doing with his medium hands then?
Looking at what you posted I'm really not sure why you think your 2-4os shove is a good move in any respect here. Vekked's post really does sum it up.
I think another good point is that if you're going to make this move you should be doing it the majority of the time with something that plays well or has at least a few out potentials in the case that villain does have a calling hand....5-6s+ A-rag. The play itself is a good one. However if you're going to risk your stack what you think is the perfect read, at least do it in a spot much better than 2-4os.
I fold.
although in the end you may be right...your not offering any reasoning....we can do the math on this...we don't want to just look at our hand and guess
Yeah of course. I'm not doing that work though, it is your post
Your calling ranges of MP2 99+AQ and BB QQ+AK are pretty much there and what you should use to work it out.
Edit: With the blinds at what they are, the stage the tourney of a 180 man $8 you're around 16-15 left. This is not ft due to the stacks. MP2 is not going to be min raising anything less than A8s+,J10s+,55+ here as even a horrible player they would not risk getting to the ft in these.
edit: in response to highflyer below: the range you gave IS different than mine however from any calculation I could do 42o is at least close to break even with YOUR ranges
however wetts is suggesting he doesn't raise hands like kts and a8s and 55 and Richard is saying he rasies them but calls with them when i shove (apologies to them if im misquoting).
This.
You're moving out of the blinds as they increase and into a better steal spot. Better spots a coming imo.
I can't believe I came back.
i think he min raises them
A side note to these two posts...if we found the math showed this is +ev we will always take it when we are playing purely chip ev.....meaning when there is no pay structure involved.
so if its plus ev rich wetts and vekked will shove.....
now there is some icm consideration but its not very strong because we are at a flat part of the payout structure...we are in the money but not at a bubble
in other words what you aren't taking into account is that to have a top roi you need to take ALL marginal non icm spots
so basically you think he will fold J10s and 55 to your shove?
Darb, it's like you're assuming I've never done reshove calcs in my life or something. I didn't do them here because I'm still at fallsview and on a mac so I don't even have pokerstove let alone any other software that would help, but I've done heaps of calculations on reshoves and there's rarely a spot to reship >30% of hands. It's obvious why you're coming to the conclusion that reshipping might be +EV here, because you went down the list of reasons why I said you shouldn't, and said none of them are true. Clearly if this was correct then it would be a reship, but I don't think it's correct at all, no math in the world is going to be able to show you that 90% of people just aren't folding AJ/77+ to a 9BB shove, and many will call looser. You can't just look at the tightest range someone will show up with and assume that's their range, you have to make some sort of average that has a balance of the times people fold AQ and the times people call A5 here.
Re: ICM suicide. In any situation where we're making a -cEV play when ICM is a consideration (even in a flat payout structure ICM is at least going to make all breakeven cEV plays -$EV, and slightly +cEV plays breakeven, therefore we shouldn't take them) it's ICM suicide. Like I said I can't provide exact math right now, but I can provide this (and it's probably all that's needed to prove your play is -EV). Your calculations in the above prove that jamming 42o under those assumptions is ~breakeven if we're reshipping 9BB on someone with those ranges without the shorty all in. The fact that we have to show down with the micro stack and only have 33% equity in the main pot vs. ATC reduces our EV in the pot by almost a full BB (1400 chips). So not only are we making a hugely -EV shove (losing a full BB just from cEV is obviously really bad in a spot we're only risking 9BB, and many people argue over whether we should even be taking +cEV plays if they're much less than +cEV by 1SB), but when you throw ICM on top of it you're just burning money.
So basically if you do your calculations like you did above and come up with a range that you're actually winning 1BB on average when you jam 42o, your play becomes breakeven with the shorty, and still not one you would take. I'm not sure what ranges would achieve that, would be interested to see though.
Disagee. Haven't you ever seen someone make a call/play that seems absurd? Let alone a call that is completely standard, lol. I wouldn't say they call >50% with those hands, but I think 55 calls like 1/3 of the time, and JTs 1/5 of the time or something. Even old live nits call reshoves with stuff like 55 every once in a while because a certain % of players just over value specific hands, small pairs and suited broadways are exactly some of those hands.
Marginal means the play could be +EV or could be -EV, I highly doubt that taking all spots that you're not sure whether they're +EV or not is what is required to have a top roi. Probably just taking all +EV spots and passing on marginal ones is optimal. Unless you're using marginal in the sense that it's very slightly +EV, in which case I don't think marginal is the right word (a lot of people do use marginal in this sense though and it tilts me to no end, lol, +EV =/= marginal).