This is why I love Multi-table tourney's |
|
Posted Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:15 pm GMT by screwthepooch
Although I lost this hand, I have to love that players will play this badly.
FullTiltPoker Game #192332207: 500 Point Freeroll (1162281), Table 27 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 20:14:04 ET - 2005/08/21
Seat 1: RiverMan1969 (3,620)
Seat 2: kumara (1,766)
Seat 3: Bigfishie (2,646)
Seat 4: mick113 (2,850)
Seat 6: WMDpoker (2,955)
Seat 7: blunt60 (4,803)
Seat 8: DPerks (1,035)
Seat 9: upaymybills (1,120)
upaymybills posts the small blind of 25
RiverMan1969 posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to upaymybills  
kumara folds
Bigfishie calls 50
mick113 calls 50
WMDpoker folds
blunt60 folds
DPerks folds
upaymybills raises to 1,120, and is all in
RiverMan1969 folds
Bigfishie has 15 seconds left to act
Bigfishie folds
mick113 calls 1,070
upaymybills shows
mick113 shows  
*** FLOP ***   
*** TURN *** 
*** RIVER *** 
upaymybills shows a pair of Eights
mick113 shows two pair, Aces and Sixes
mick113 wins the pot (2,340) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
upaymybills stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,340 | Rake 0
Board:
Seat 1: RiverMan1969 (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: kumara didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: Bigfishie folded before the Flop
Seat 4: mick113 showed and won (2,340) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 6: WMDpoker didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: blunt60 didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: DPerks (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: upaymybills (small blind) showed and lost with a pair of Eights
I looked up the pre-flop odds of our hands, and I was 67.8% to win versus his 32.2%.
What is so ridiculous is that any decent player should put me on Ace High card, or pocket pair. With his A6 suited, I put in the odds versus my hand if I had pocket underpair (instead of my 8,8) and even gave myself one of his suit and I was still a 52.8% favorite. With A,10 (the worst I would really put someone on with an all-in in that situation I would be a 66.9% favorite.
These are the type of players that make it worthwhile to play in an MTT. The only type of hand that I wouldn't be a favorite is either something like 7,2 suited (in which case he is a 62.5% favorite) or Ace with a worse kicker. I really don't know how anyone could make that call there...LOL.
So, of course I lost, but it was a Freeroll which probably explains the crappy call...however I've seen stuff like that at $50 MTT's and even higher. It's a pleasant reminder to me of why I play poker.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:20 pm GMT by bluef0x
Dude, that was a REALLY REALLY bad push. The blinds were 25/50 and you were not desperate... you had over 25BB's. Next time call, if you flop a set or overpair then play it, if not drop it like its hot.
Posted Sun Aug 21, 2005 11:16 pm GMT by Tadzio
Should the ace have called you? Probably not, but I'm guessing he thought his ace was good enough to stop you from stealing the blinds... which, it turned out, it was. He had no idea what you had. All he knew is you forcefully overbet the pot and he had twice the chips as you did. Depending on your previous play at the table, I might've done the same as he did. Anyway....
At a full table, imo, any pocket pair smaller than JJ has to be played PF like a drawing hand (a highish suited connector, for example, T9s-AKs depending on the pair). 22 will beat AKs heads up a good 50% of the time, but that doesn't mean you play it like it's invincible.
If you just wanna think of it in terms of heads-up odds (though I think it's a mistake to ignore the other 7 players at that table), 88 is beaten or has (close to) equal odds with 99, TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA, AKs, AKo, KQs, KQo, QJs, QJo, JTs, JTo, T9s, T9o, KJs, KJo, QTs, QTo, J9s, J9o, KTs, KTo, Q9s, Q9o, K9s, K9o, AQs, AQo, AJs, AJo, ATs, ATo, and A9s. That's 34 different hands, not considering specific suit permutations.... Furthermore, any single overcard has a significant chance to beat you. In the instance of 88, the lowly 92o wins a full 27.5% of the time.
I'd slow down there a bit, bucko. Seems to me that you're the type of player others like to meet at a MTT.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:21 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Um... why did you push all-in in the early stages of a tournament when there were only about 100 chips in the pot? You still had over 12x the sum of the blinds, and there really wasn't a reason to risk so much with a pair of 8's, even when you are a 2-to-1 favorite.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:48 am GMT by 1988 TR
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Um... why did you push all-in in the early stages of a tournament when there were only about 100 chips in the pot? You still had over 12x the sum of the blinds, and there really wasn't a reason to risk so much with a pair of 8's, even when you are a 2-to-1 favorite. |
The player was small blind and there was 175 in the pot. With 2 limpers, he could very much expect to take the pot down right there. If he gets a call, he expects to be a slight favorite (probably no overpairs).
It's a tourney where the player was short stacked....
I like it because it most likely will take down 175 & if not, he expects to be a slight favorite.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:50 am GMT by 1988 TR
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | and there really wasn't a reason to risk so much with a pair of 8's, even when you are a 2-to-1 favorite. |
This is completely WRONG.
You need to re-evaluate your thinking there.
Short stacked in a tourney, you are begging to get your chips in as a 2-1 favorite.
You only have so much time in a tourney to gather chips. That is the opportunity you want.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:49 am GMT by screwthepooch
| Tadzio wrote: | | Should the ace have called you? Probably not, but I'm guessing he thought his ace was good enough to stop you from stealing the blinds... which, it turned out, it was. He had no idea what you had. All he knew is you forcefully overbet the pot and he had twice the chips as you did. Depending on your previous play at the table, I might've done the same as he did. Anyway.... |
I'm not sure what kind of previous play you'd be looking for in which you would make the same call he did, but if you are willing to risk 40% of your stack versus an all-in with A6 suited, I would love to have you at my table any time. Unless you can put me on A5 (or less) or something like 2,7 suited, I am probably dominating you or at best we're 50/50. As far as previous play, I had only really been in one previous hand and in that hand I had an open-ended on flop and nut flush draw on turn...I called a sizeable bet on the turn and when the river was a brick, I folded to the opponent's all-in.
As far as my play, well most times I would call just to see if I can flop a set, but as 1988 TR pointed out, there was 175 chips that looked to be mine for the taking and I decided it was worth a shot. I was only facing 2 limpers and the small and big blind. I think it's worth a shot in this scenario, but I could just as easily have called and tried to see a flop...just felt like this time it was worth the return.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:49 am GMT by Loonbat
20+ BBs is NOT shortstacked. Remember that the stack definition in a tourney is a comparison of you in regard to the blind structure, not you in relationship to the other stacks in the tourney. 8s are a poor push (at this point) with 1 left to act and two limpers left to respond. If just the BB, fine ... your math works. However, your analysis of the hands which call is poor. KQ, AJ or AT might limp in EP, or a monster may limp in hoping for someone to make a push like this. At best you're 2-1 ... at worst, you're dominated by a monster ... generally, you're probably a coinflip.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:58 am GMT by 1988 TR
| Loonbat wrote: | | 20+ BBs is NOT shortstacked. Remember that the stack definition in a tourney is a comparison of you in regard to the blind structure, not you in relationship to the other stacks in the tourney. 8s are a poor push (at this point) with 1 left to act and two limpers left to respond. If just the BB, fine ... your math works. However, your analysis of the hands which call is poor. KQ, AJ or AT might limp in EP, or a monster may limp in hoping for someone to make a push like this. At best you're 2-1 ... at worst, you're dominated by a monster ... generally, you're probably a coinflip. |
There are 8 people at the table. He is the lowest stack. One guy has 5 times his stack a few others have 3 times. That is short stacked.
And I would want a call from KQ, AJ, etc - Because I NEED to double up.
Most of the times, I would just take down the 175 & be fine with that.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:59 am GMT by 1988 TR
| screwthepooch wrote: |
I was only facing 2 limpers and the small and big blind. I think it's worth a shot in this scenario, but I could just as easily have called and tried to see a flop...just felt like this time it was worth the return. |
You were the small blind....
You were only facing the BB and 2 limpers.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:01 am GMT by bluef0x
There is no way you NEED to double up, you have PLENTY of time to make a move, a call + hope for a set is better. Once the blinds get high you switch to push/fold poker and you can double up off of stealing. Pot is too small to make a steal and the fact that there are two limpers and the BB still to act is scary. If the pot was twice the amount it was here- I see the push as a much better play.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:22 am GMT by 1988 TR
| bluef0x wrote: | | There is no way you NEED to double up, you have PLENTY of time to make a move, a call + hope for a set is better. Once the blinds get high you switch to push/fold poker and you can double up off of stealing. Pot is too small to make a steal and the fact that there are two limpers and the BB still to act is scary. If the pot was twice the amount it was here- I see the push as a much better play. |
How do you plan on stealing anything once the blinds go up with that piddly little stack?
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:28 am GMT by bluef0x
You have no concept of stack size and Folding Equity....
That is not a little stack and he still has tons of FE.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:31 am GMT by 1988 TR
| bluef0x wrote: | You have no concept of stack size and Folding Equity....
That is not a little stack and he still has tons of FE. |
You have no concept of stack size.
He is short stack at the table and there are several people with 3x to 5x his stack.
He folds a few more rounds & is down to 700-800 in chips and the blinds are 100/200.
You really think he will be stealing any blinds with people now sitting there with 5000-8000 in chips when he raises 500-600 all in?
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:35 am GMT by bluef0x
You must be on crack... how is he going to have 800 in chips? It's more +eV to steal vs 2 opponents vs 3. Blinds will go up to 50/100, wait till you are SB or button and steal, or wait for a premium hand.
The risk vs reward here is just bad.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:38 am GMT by Loonbat
| bluef0x wrote: | You must be on crack... how is he going to have 800 in chips? It's more +eV to steal vs 2 opponents vs 3. Blinds will go up to 50/100, wait till you are SB or button and steal, or wait for a premium hand.
The risk vs reward here is just bad. |
Agreed - less opponents and better position. This is why stack size is based on number of blinds, not the stacks at the table. It gives you an indication of how long you can wait. I go back to 20BBs is not short-stacked ... geez.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:16 pm GMT by screwthepooch
| Loonbat wrote: |
Agreed - less opponents and better position. This is why stack size is based on number of blinds, not the stacks at the table. It gives you an indication of how long you can wait. I go back to 20BBs is not short-stacked ... geez. |
You keep referring to how long I can wait for a premium hand as the measure of my stack size. So, I am to wait and be pushed around when I get pocket 8's in this situation? What if the Big Blind raises? How much can I call without pushing anyway? Or if he goes all-in, I have to fold and wait some more...and in most cases, I'm going to be pushed around by the guys who have thousands more than me anyway. I think it makes more sense to be the one doing the pushing around. For this tournament which was a freeroll for a satellite token, there's nobody letting you see a flop for cheap, so I'm going to be forced into an all-in situation next time I want to commit any chips anyway. At least in this case, I'm the one doing the strong-arming and the majority of the time I'm taking this pot down without a fight. And, if not, it's going to be a 50/50 most likely.
Besides, if a guy who only has 2,850 chips to my 1,120 is going to call my push with A6 suited, please explain to me how in later rounds I'm going to steal this guys blinds with possibly even less chips in my stack? There's no respect in these tourney's and certainly not in the early rounds. Even if I waited for KK, this guy would still have made the same call and I don't think the percentages would be much different based on his cards and mine. He still would have hit the Ace and for the rest of his playing days believed that he made a good move (which is fine by me).
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:33 pm GMT by Loonbat
Freeroll? Ahh.
Since these play like play money, it's not even a point to discuss. My comments were directed at games with a cash stake where people understand how to play. Push with your 8s all day long ... it irrelevant.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:37 pm GMT by screwthepooch
| Loonbat wrote: | Freeroll? Ahh.
Since these play like play money, it's not even a point to discuss. My comments were directed at games with a cash stake where people understand how to play. Push with your 8s all day long ... it irrelevant. |
Problem is that I see a lot of bad plays like the A6 call in money tourney's as well. Depending on the type of action at my table, I would make the same play I did in this situation. Again, depending on how aggressive the other players were and whether or not I could foresee seeing any flops relatively cheap.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:38 pm GMT by Geno
I actually like this move personally and the bottom line is it was the right move when you look at what the other chump flipped over!
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:46 pm GMT by bluef0x
Geno- just because he turned over A6 doesn't make a move correct. If you went all in with 34s and your opponent turned over 24o, would the move still be "right?" That logic is flawed.
The move here isn't god awful, just personally I would wait 'til later when you are vs 1-3 opponents with NO LIMPERS and a bigger pot. Limpers are scary as they've already shown willingness to put money into the pot and you never know if they were trying to slowplay a monster.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:47 pm GMT by mugged_off
| Geno wrote: | | I actually like this move personally and the bottom line is it was the right move when you look at what the other chump flipped over! |
What is that damn avatar about mate !??!!!
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:55 pm GMT by Geno
| bluef0x wrote: | | Geno- just because he turned over A6 doesn't make a move correct. If you went all in with 34s and your opponent turned over 24o, would the move still be "right?" That logic is flawed. |
That is true, but I meant in this specific case, given what we saw when the cards were turned over, it was right.
PS. The avatar provokes reaction and that is what it is for.
PPS. It's not me 
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:39 pm GMT by screwthepooch
| bluef0x wrote: | You must be on crack... how is he going to have 800 in chips? It's more +eV to steal vs 2 opponents vs 3. Blinds will go up to 50/100, wait till you are SB or button and steal, or wait for a premium hand.
The risk vs reward here is just bad. |
I was the small blind.
| bluef0x wrote: | | Limpers are scary as they've already shown willingness to put money into the pot and you never know if they were trying to slowplay a monster. |
Limpers are scary? Limpers are called limpers for a reason. They have put money into the pot hoping to get a cheap flop. It is not my experience that those who meekly call the Big Blind are going to have a big hand. And, if that's how they play a big pocket pair, they are going to get cracked more often then most because they would allow a multi-way pot with a hand that does better heads-up. I wonder about your logic that you would rather push all-in against non-limpers I suppose? So, when you know you may be faced with bigger pocket pair or AK, AQ, you would feel MORE comfortable???
You can't play poker always fearing the worst in any given situation. Here you have a case where you have some good information because most players who limp in will likely not have a hand that stands up to an all-in. It's not scary to me.
It's like that other comment by xDiamond_CutteRx:
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | and there really wasn't a reason to risk so much with a pair of 8's, even when you are a 2-to-1 favorite. |
How conservative am I supposed to be that I don't want to risk my chips when I'm a 2-1 favorite???
I guess I'm just not as conservative as you guys because I'm playing to win and when I think I have the advantage, I'm gonna push it.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:59 pm GMT by Loonbat
| screwthepooch wrote: |
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | and there really wasn't a reason to risk so much with a pair of 8's, even when you are a 2-to-1 favorite. |
How conservative am I supposed to be that I don't want to risk my chips when I'm a 2-1 favorite???
I guess I'm just not as conservative as you guys because I'm playing to win and when I think I have the advantage, I'm gonna push it. |
You have to make a separation in your mind for strategy when it comes to an MTT vs a ring game. In ring games, push every advantage and every edge. In the long run, you'll win money.
Putting your pocket 8s against any random, playable hand is going to make you about a 60/40 favorite, a 3-2 advantage. That's the average hand ... now look at the scenarios of who will call (generally), disregarding what hand did call:
-PP, either bigger or smaller - bigger probably would have raised (but may have limped looking for action); smaller will be dominated
-Overcards (probably suited and/or connected) or a medium ace (AT, AJ)
An allin push by the shortest stack at the table (although not a "shortstack" by definition) is suspicious and probably means a weak ace or a small/ mid pocket pair. This preflop overbet screams "I'm weak, don't call, I'm trying to steal".
When you have everything to lose and they only risk about 50%, they can afford to be wrong. In an MTT, you don't play with a Russian Roulette mentality ... you only need to be wrong once.
This is why some ring players shouldn't play tournaments (and vice versa).
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:13 pm GMT by bluef0x
I wasn't talking about your situation... you are a SB with people in the pot already. And limpers are WAY more scary than the button,sb, bb
How is my comment like diamond cutters? I would risk everything if i was a 2-1 favorite every time. Don't say my comment is like that...
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:15 pm GMT by Tadzio
| screwthepooch wrote: | | As far as previous play, I had only really been in one previous hand and in that hand I had an open-ended on flop and nut flush draw on turn...I called a sizeable bet on the turn and when the river was a brick, I folded to the opponent's all-in. |
I wouldn't have called you with A6s, then. Prior play that'd have me calling in his position would be a noticable collection of overbets on raggy boards, particularly if you were caught bluffing, or 2-3 bad beats (putting you on tilt). Sounds like you were playing weak/tight before this all-in, and I don't like to mess with all-ins from them.
I still don't like this all-in, though. Even with a stack as "small" as yours, a bet of 150 PF would probably buy you this pot. With a bet of 150, you're telling them you have cards to win and you're not afraid to let a couple of them into the hand so you can make some real money. And that's a scary message from the short stack. If someone else re-raises, you've got a decision to make, you're probably in a coin-flip situation that your opponent can survive and you can't. Decisions, decisions.
If the bet failed to buy it, the flop of AT9 would give you fantastic reason to check/fold and save yourself the humiliation of being beaten by a "2 to 1 dog."
| Geno wrote: | | That is true, but I meant in this specific case, given what we saw when the cards were turned over, it was right. |
By that logic: we can determine from what we saw when the board cards came, that the decision to move all-in pre-flop was incorrect.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:22 pm GMT by Geno
| Tadzio wrote: | | Geno wrote: | | That is true, but I meant in this specific case, given what we saw when the cards were turned over, it was right. |
By that logic: we can determine from what we saw when the board cards came, that the decision to move all-in pre-flop was incorrect. |
With all due respect, that's crap because two players made their decisions based on what was available to them at the time which was their hole cards. The board came up AFTER all decision making had been done. Do you see? 
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:35 pm GMT by Tadzio
| Geno wrote: |
With all due respect, that's crap because two players made their decisions based on what was available to them at the time which was their hole cards. The board came up AFTER all decision making had been done. Do you see? |
You're assuming, though, that Screwthepooch has some sort of psychic powers that allow him to know that the 3 people left to call his all-in are 2-1 dogs. It may be true that they're all 2-1 dogs. It may be that they're all holding undercards, and it might be that they have overcards and are coinflips. It's possible that the BB has an overpair. You just don't know at the point that Screw goes all-in.
And that's why your claim is just as much crap as mine. "By that logic," as I said, and it holds. If Screw has the psychic ability to know that his opponent is a 2-1 dog before he goes all-in, why not assume his opponent is also psychic and realizes he'll hit an Ace on the board and win the hand?
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 4:47 pm GMT by Skribbles
Time for my 2 cents...
You're small blind with 88 and most likely going to get a cheap flop as long as the BB doesn't raise. Why not just call for the extra 25 chips and hope to hit a set? If not, fold and wait for a better oppurtunity?
Grant it, it was a freeroll and the play is not going to be great but I've seen plays like this in $20 buy-ins. Usually its the SB pushing in with something like KJs after 6 people have limped in.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:08 pm GMT by Jernej Zorec
it wasnt the optimal move , but it was correct
i really dont care if u call it "steal attempt" or "stop and go"
if u dont want to get too low with your stack 88 is a good hand to do it, only 6 hands is ahead and u can't always think blind or limpers have higher PP
not to mention in poker it always depends, and u really can't give too much credid to freeroll players to make some fancy limp with PP moves becouse that hardly ever happens, and he said nobody let them see a flop for free or cheap
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:38 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I don't understand how this move is "correct" in any sense of the word. Maybe correct in a cash game when you suspect that you ARE a big favorite, but not in an overall tournament strategy.
Look at pot odds. You are risking 1120 chips to win 125, and are not expecting to be called. If you are called, you are probably a coin flip at best. The fact that in THIS particular instance you were a big favorite makes no difference to the overall tournament strategy. When you were called, you basically were risking 1-to-1 money and were almost a 2-to-1 favorite, and that looks good on any one hand. But in a tournament, if you go broke, you can't dust yourself off and wait for another hand.
Forget the size of the stacks of other players. At this point, the blinds are only 25 and 50, so with a stack of 1120, your M (ratio of stack vs total blinds + antes) = about 15, still well within limits not to need to race for chips. At this stage in the tournament, you want to take down pots when you have a big advantage and still room to run. Not a race that may take you out. In a MTT, M is a MUCH more important number than Q (the ratio of your stack to the size of average stack). Worrying so much about your stack size will just get you into trouble and make you race for more chips before it's even close to have to.
Furthermore, you do NOT need to push all-in to steal the pot here! A raise of maybe 300 ought to be enough to win the pot. Your all-in got called by a weaker hand and you lost. That sucks, but I still think risking your whole stack on what is essentially a steal-play is completely uncalled for.
Yes, you should be happy to get money in as a 2-to-1 favorite. But there was no way to know your chances were even that good. Especially when you can expect to outplay weaker players on later streets, I have no clue why you want to take away all your best tools and get all the money in before the flop.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:42 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Skribbles wrote: |
You're small blind with 88 and most likely going to get a cheap flop as long as the BB doesn't raise. Why not just call for the extra 25 chips and hope to hit a set? If not, fold and wait for a better oppurtunity?
|
What hand would be the better opportunity? Wait for 1010 JJ AK? Why not push it here, most likely take down the pot & then if yoou get an even bigger hand have more chips to use?
Better yet, why not play the hand as he did & 67% of the time double up against the A6s.
He read the limpers as being weak (as they USUALLY are) and guess what, he was CORRECT.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:54 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: |
Look at pot odds. You are risking 1120 chips to win 125, and are not expecting to be called. |
There was 175 in the pot.
You are missing the point that 60% of the time, he will likely take down the pot.
Here is my guess at the results and odds :
60% of the time wins 175 with no fight
25% of the time he will be 55% - 2 overcards
8% of the time 67% - Only 1 overcard
7% of the time 20% - Limper or BB has overpair.
So if he played this pot 100 times :
60 times he would win 175 with no fight
21 times he would win 1295
19 times he would bust out
So if he makes this play 100 times, my best estimates would be 19 times he would end his tournament, 21 times he would make 1295 and get back in the tournment and 60 times he would take down the 175.
I like those odds.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:57 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: |
Furthermore, you do NOT need to push all-in to steal the pot here! A raise of maybe 300 ought to be enough to win the pot. Your all-in got called by a weaker hand and you lost. That sucks, but I still think risking your whole stack on what is essentially a steal-play is completely uncalled for.
|
If he bets 300, he is pot comitted. That is a terrible play.... Then he has to fold to any aggression on the flop & now only has 800 left.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:07 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Your definition of pot-comitted must be different than mine. Even if he loses that 300, his M is still slightly above 10, which is still enough to make a move. 30% of one's stack when the blinds are low doesn't count as pot commitment in most senses of the term.
If the blinds were maybe as high as 75/150, I would like the play. I just don't see the point in risking your stack when the blinds are so paltry, when 88 just isn't that strong of a hand.
I don't know how you came up with the figures for his odds, but my guess is that 60% of the time he will likely take down the pot (I agree with you there, maybe as much as 75%), but probably 95% of the time he is called he will be in a coin toss situation, which really isn't required at this stage in a MTT.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:13 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | Your definition of pot-comitted must be different than mine. Even if he loses that 300, his M is still slightly above 10, which is still enough to make a move. 30% of one's stack when the blinds are low doesn't count as pot commitment in most senses of the term.
If the blinds were maybe as high as 75/150, I would like the play. I just don't see the point in risking your stack when the blinds are so paltry, when 88 just isn't that strong of a hand. |
The money out there 16% of his stack! You act like it's nothing.
If I'm the short stack at the table with people having 3-5x my chip stack, time is of the essence. Sitting back & waiting for AA is over.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:43 pm GMT by Geno
| 1988 TR wrote: | | The money out there 16% of his stack! You act like it's nothing. |
I do think a lot of people seem to be missing this point...... If a sixth of your SMALLish stack is out there and you need to double up in the not too distant future, 88 is a good enuff hand IN MY OPINION to be throwing your chips in and so once again, I don't think this was a bad move at all.
Posted Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:49 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Geno wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: | | The money out there 16% of his stack! You act like it's nothing. |
I do think a lot of people seem to be missing this point...... If a sixth of your SMALLish stack is out there and you need to double up in the not too distant future, 88 is a good enuff hand IN MY OPINION to be throwing your chips in and so once again, I don't think this was a bad move at all. |
I agree - Especially on the SB with No raises.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 1:19 am GMT by Tadzio
| 1988 TR wrote: |
I agree - Especially on the SB with No raises. |
Would you go all in in this position with AQs?
...
Before you answer. AQs has better odds to win PF vs A6s than 88 does.
88 doesn't look so good now, does it?
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:55 am GMT by Jernej Zorec
but 88 is also better vs. AQs PF so ?
in his situation move was correct, this is not a 200$ buyin and even there
i'd still push if i would think nobody has overpair
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:33 am GMT by Tadzio
| Jernej Zorec wrote: | | in his situation move was correct, this is not a 200$ buyin and even there i'd still push if i would think nobody has overpair |
you'd push for 17% of your chip stack?
good for you.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 5:02 am GMT by Jernej Zorec
what areu going to do then ?
its unlikely it will ever be folded to you in CO or button,
so u will wait some rounds only to do the same move with worse hands ?
like i said its not the optimal move, but it is definetly not the wrong move to make
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:57 am GMT by 1988 TR
| Tadzio wrote: | | Jernej Zorec wrote: | | in his situation move was correct, this is not a 200$ buyin and even there i'd still push if i would think nobody has overpair |
you'd push for 17% of your chip stack?
good for you. |
If I expected folds 60% of the time, hell yes. If I expect to be favored most of the time I get a call, hell yes. It's poker - You have to play the odds.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:59 am GMT by 1988 TR
| Tadzio wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: |
I agree - Especially on the SB with No raises. |
Would you go all in in this position with AQs?
...
Before you answer. AQs has better odds to win PF vs A6s than 88 does.
88 doesn't look so good now, does it? |
Thanks - I comment like that I can see where you are at - You do not understand the game at all.
I would push with AQs there also.
But your arguement makes no sense because I don't know he has A6.
88 is better than AQ.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:55 am GMT by howzit
i don't mind it. There's dead money in there and any reasonable preflop raise is going to get snoochy poochy in trouble, i.e., pot committment.
stick it in there. Although asking for a 60% fold equity is high.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:56 am GMT by Loonbat
| 1988 TR wrote: |
It's poker - You have to play the odds. |
I think you had better reread your Harrington. This is NOT the rallying cry of an MTT pro. And the quote further illustrates how stuck you are in a ring game mindset, which is okay ... if you stick to ring games.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:11 am GMT by screwthepooch
| Loonbat wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: |
It's poker - You have to play the odds. |
I think you had better reread your Harrington. This is NOT the rallying cry of an MTT pro. And the quote further illustrates how stuck you are in a ring game mindset, which is okay ... if you stick to ring games. |
Loon,
You're taking his quote out of context. He is referring to this particular situation where I'm short-stacked and in need of taking down some chips and/or doubling up. Don't mis-interpret it to mean that he would make this play in just any situation in an MTT. It's all about picking your spots based on your stack size, position and what the opponents have done ahead of your bet. If I'm in a good position (meaning my stack size is good), I would just call hoping to flop a set, and that's what 1988 TR would likely do too...but it all depends. And trust me, he knows how to win at both ring games and tourneys and he plays them both very differently as he has mentioned many times on this board.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:14 am GMT by 1988 TR
| Loonbat wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: |
It's poker - You have to play the odds. |
I think you had better reread your Harrington. This is NOT the rallying cry of an MTT pro. And the quote further illustrates how stuck you are in a ring game mindset, which is okay ... if you stick to ring games. |
I think you need to re-read it.
How many times in the book does he say in a tournament that you don't have a ton of time & will use the quote :
"You have to start accumulating chips, and this is as good as spot as any."
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:04 am GMT by red_pen
what an excellent thread... the best for a while, different opinions eloquently expressed, a variety of forumites getting involved, the high rollers, the newbies, the old hands, an occasional insult, several fantastic atavars, drug use, pot odds, stack size, position, strategy variations in cash v mtt v sng - it has it all. Must be one of those borderline decisions.
I don't have anything against the play. I don't think you can really criticise other people's poker unless they make a complete cock-up, and this is nowhere near. But I would have played it differently. I would complete the sb and hope on a set.
Maybe it is a leak in my game, but at the levels I play, which ain't too tough by the way, sets get paid off better than 8-1 all the time so I think the implied odds are great here. And if I hit my set and get paid, it may make a massive difference to my tournament position - think of all the flush drawers out there... mmmm nice. (until they hit  )
Second, and I realise that the poster was short in comparison with the rest of the table, but I don't think I am short enough to be obligated to take a chance now.
And third, if I take down the pot (175 i think it was) my stack-size is not vastly improved. I am still short. I still have to make a move and double. I don't really extricate from my position unless I get a caller and win, and to be honest I am not sure I want a caller here unless he has A6s.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:38 am GMT by 1988 TR
| red_pen wrote: |
I don't have anything against the play. I don't think you can really criticise other people's poker unless they make a complete cock-up, and this is nowhere near. But I would have played it differently. I would complete the sb and hope on a set.
|
Definitely another way to play that hand that I don't think is bad at all. 100% the way I would play it earlier in the tournament. As the tournament goes on, depending on my ranking in the tournament, how far from the money I am, and my chip stack, I might be inclined to push if I needed the chips out there or a double up opportunity.
To me, there is only two ways two play the hand, call or all in. I don't see what a 300 bet will do for you (someone said that would be a good play earlier in the thread). You probably aren't going to hit the set on the flop & there will most likely be overcards. If you do hit the set on the flop, the 300 did nothing but scare away your customers pre flop.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:13 pm GMT by Skribbles
| 1988 TR wrote: |
To me, there is only two ways two play the hand, call or all in. I don't see what a 300 bet will do for you |
Raising anything other than all-in is a horrible play. You're not going to win the pot with the raise and odds are you won't hit your set and there will be overcards.
I still think that a call would have been best. If you hit your set, you'll most likely get paid. If not, you have invested very little and its an easy fold.
I just think that there would be better oppurtunities ahead.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:15 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Skribbles wrote: | | 1988 TR wrote: |
To me, there is only two ways two play the hand, call or all in. I don't see what a 300 bet will do for you |
Raising anything other than all-in is a horrible play. You're not going to win the pot with the raise and odds are you won't hit your set and there will be overcards.
I still think that a call would have been best. If you hit your set, you'll most likely get paid. If not, you have invested very little and its an easy fold.
I just think that there would be better oppurtunities ahead. |
Yah, I agree - Committing anything less than all in just seems pointless.
There could be more opportunities ahead.... Just never know. Calling to try to hit a set is not a terrible play either.
Posted Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:29 pm GMT by bluef0x
Everyone seems to be tied up in arguing over worthless points... here are the options:
A)Call for set/overpair value
B)Push All-in
Those are really the ONLY two options you have, anything else is a very horrible play. Choose whatever you think is the best and keep your mouth shut, 'cuz no one in this thread is changing their mind 
Posted Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:32 am GMT by 1988 TR
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | I don't understand how this move is "correct" in any sense of the word. Maybe correct in a cash game when you suspect that you ARE a big favorite, but not in an overall tournament strategy.
Look at pot odds. You are risking 1120 chips to win 125, and are not expecting to be called. If you are called, you are probably a coin flip at best. The fact that in THIS particular instance you were a big favorite makes no difference to the overall tournament strategy. When you were called, you basically were risking 1-to-1 money and were almost a 2-to-1 favorite, and that looks good on any one hand. But in a tournament, if you go broke, you can't dust yourself off and wait for another hand.
Forget the size of the stacks of other players. At this point, the blinds are only 25 and 50, so with a stack of 1120, your M (ratio of stack vs total blinds + antes) = about 15, still well within limits not to need to race for chips. At this stage in the tournament, you want to take down pots when you have a big advantage and still room to run. Not a race that may take you out. In a MTT, M is a MUCH more important number than Q (the ratio of your stack to the size of average stack). Worrying so much about your stack size will just get you into trouble and make you race for more chips before it's even close to have to.
Furthermore, you do NOT need to push all-in to steal the pot here! A raise of maybe 300 ought to be enough to win the pot. Your all-in got called by a weaker hand and you lost. That sucks, but I still think risking your whole stack on what is essentially a steal-play is completely uncalled for.
Yes, you should be happy to get money in as a 2-to-1 favorite. But there was no way to know your chances were even that good. Especially when you can expect to outplay weaker players on later streets, I have no clue why you want to take away all your best tools and get all the money in before the flop. |
Since you are playing around with your new found terms (M), I suggest you go back and read pages 156 & 157 of Volume II of Harrington's book. The situation couldn't be closer to the one pooch was in with 88.
Summary of those pages.
About an hour into a multi-table online tournament. Blinds are 25/50 (sound familiar??). Your stack is $1,180 (Sound familiar??) and you're in the big blind (Still noting any familiarities??). The average stack is a little over $2000. In pooch's case, I don't know what the average stack is, but it is probably a little less than $3,000 - Making his position in the tournament even worse.
The hand Harrington describes is very similar to Pocch's situation - Same chip size, exact same blinds, exact same position (Big blind), and about the same Q ratio (his stack size to the average - Pooch's is probably even worse than Harrington's 1/2 example).
In the book, the player in question picks up 10 10 on the big blind. The action is, the first 5 players fold, the sixth player with a stack of 3500 makes a min raise to $100. The button calls as does the small blind.
I could not possibly hope to find a printed example more closely resembling pooch's sitaution. The only small differences is this hand is slightly better (10-10 vs 8-8) and there is slightly more in the pot due to the min raise.
He says to go all in :
"With 10's, I strongly advocate the all in move. Winning a decent sized pot right here is not a bad result for you, and your stack is big enough so you still have the leverage to push out any non-premium hands. If my pair were aces, kings, or queens, a smaller bet looks right. I'll still probably chase out a couple of players, but someone might read my hesitancy to go all in as weakness, and look me up. If my pair drops as low as jacks, however, I want to chase people away.
If I do get a call, I'm still pretty happy. I'll have at worst slightly better of a coin flip situation, with some dead money in the pot giving me extra odds. Once your M drops toward the Orange Zone (6-10 times the pot - Blinds + antes), that's a great result for you. Don't get cute and imagine that you can creep back into contention with some artful bluffs and pot stealing. You're going to have to double up in an all-in situation, and you're going to have to do it more than once. That's what inflection point playis all about - picking the right moment for your all-in moves. You're either going to get a decent amount of money in front of you, or you're going to get knocked out. This problem shows a perfect moment."
So Diamond Cutter, while the above quote of yours is your opinion, I think I'll still stick to my own thoughts - Feeling even better that a top ranked pro would make the same play....
Posted Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:48 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I retract my previous suggestion. I agree with the limp in or all-in move, but I favor limping slightly.
And for future reference, it isn't necessary to be ridicule me when trying to prove a point.
| Quote: | | So Diamond Cutter, while the above quote of yours is your opinion, I think I'll still stick to my own thoughts - Feeling even better that a top ranked pro would make the same play.... |
I'm mature enough to admit my previous analysis wasn't the best, but I stand by my opinion that limping is preferable to the all-in at this stage in the tournament, especially if you feel you're a better player than the average player in the tournament. TT is a LOT stronger than 88, but point well-taken about the example in the book.
Posted Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:49 am GMT by 1988 TR
I think the main problem is that although he is M 15 now, as soon as the blinds go up again, he is starting to get to desperation mode.
Since he needs to double up more than once, now is as good as time as any, with no players showing any strength. First all in vigorish & all that jazz.
Glad you can at least take the advice to heart - That is essential to becoming a better player.
You may very well be a better player in the tournament, I feel like your time to prove that is rapidly deteriorating - You now have to use the fact that you are a better player by making the all in move - A weaker player wouldn't realize that's the best play.
Sorry to "pants" you in public, but it's frustrating after 4 pages of dialogue, the only thing that gets someone to listen is quoting a book.
I went through the time to analyze it here - This is kind of the thought process that needs to be done to understand these situations (I as even conservative here, was I think more than 60% he will take down the pot without a fight) :
| 1988 TR wrote: | | xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: |
Look at pot odds. You are risking 1120 chips to win 125, and are not expecting to be called. |
There was 175 in the pot.
You are missing the point that 60% of the time, he will likely take down the pot.
Here is my guess at the results and odds :
60% of the time wins 175 with no fight
25% of the time he will be 55% - 2 overcards
8% of the time 67% - Only 1 overcard
7% of the time 20% - Limper or BB has overpair.
So if he played this pot 100 times :
60 times he would win 175 with no fight
21 times he would win 1295
19 times he would bust out
So if he makes this play 100 times, my best estimates would be 19 times he would end his tournament, 21 times he would make 1295 and get back in the tournment and 60 times he would take down the 175.
I like those odds. |
Posted Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:01 pm GMT by Loonbat
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | TT is a LOT stronger than 88, but point well-taken about the example in the book. |
Agreed - do we wish to take a hand example and give it a +/- two hand rank standard deviation ... is this prudent? Might you try to use this illustration for 7s (or 6s) even?
But, the example is a good one in general. I always find arguments supported with reference documentation to be most helpful. Personally, I'll stick with presenting each of my arguments as fact ... easier that way.
Posted Mon Aug 29, 2005 2:54 pm GMT by 1988 TR
| Loonbat wrote: | | xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | TT is a LOT stronger than 88, but point well-taken about the example in the book. |
Agreed - do we wish to take a hand example and give it a +/- two hand rank standard deviation ... is this prudent? Might you try to use this illustration for 7s (or 6s) even?
But, the example is a good one in general. I always find arguments supported with reference documentation to be most helpful. Personally, I'll stick with presenting each of my arguments as fact ... easier that way. |
I think in Harrington's book, he would advocate this play with just about any pair jacks or lower. AA - QQ he would want a smaller raise.
|
|
