Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:16 am GMT by Sean_in_NJ
This generated some conversation on IRC. Thought it would be an interesting hand to bat around...
PokerStars Game #3744285565: Tournament #18594498, Hold'em No Limit - Level II (15/30) - 2006/01/24 - 18:58:42 (ET)
Table '18594498 1' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: jimwid (1530 in chips)
Seat 3: Vegas2414 (1290 in chips)
Seat 4: BUSHWCKED (1425 in chips)
Seat 5: SeanNJ (960 in chips)
Seat 6: GAMBIT-AK (1485 in chips)
Seat 7: dooley81 (2325 in chips)
Seat 8: kidtz50 (2425 in chips)
Seat 9: LowesKnows (2060 in chips)
jimwid: posts small blind 15
Vegas2414: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to SeanNJ 5 5
BUSHWCKED: folds
SeanNJ: calls 30
GAMBIT-AK: folds
dooley81: calls 30
kidtz50: raises 90 to 120
LowesKnows: calls 120
jimwid: calls 105
Vegas2414: calls 90
SeanNJ: raises 840 to 960 and is all-in
Impressions?
The entire hand, for those dying to see how it ended.
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 Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:34 am GMT by Skribbles
Its a decent play. I had posted one similiar about an MTT a week or two ago.
You are short stack and need the chips. It doesn't look like anyone likes their hand overly much so you should pick the pot more often then not.
The only problem is that if you get called, at best you're a slight favorite. Its a gamble but a well calculated one IMO.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:42 am GMT by Phil14312
I find this line almost always gets at least 1 caller, so I think people over-estimate fold-equity in this situation. However, I don't necessarily think this is a bad play.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:51 am GMT by Cyberhwk
Dan Harrington talks about this "creating dead money" in Vol. 1. I think it's a great play and I've used it a couple of times myself.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:19 am GMT by TheSalche
| Skribbles wrote: | | You are short stack and need the chips. It doesn't look like anyone likes their hand overly much so you should pick the pot more often then not. |
I hate to be a bitch, but I disagree entirely with that statement. You're the short stack at the table, but not short stacked ... you still have a lot of chips compared to the blinds and you can afford to pass this hand.
Somebody likes their hand ... whether its the preflop raiser or one of the THREE callers. I'm really not comfortable going all-in here knowing 80% of the time you get called, and at best you're a coinflip, most likely an underdog.
You're fold equity is too small, and your stack is too big for a push. I might limp with this, but I think if you're gonna play it, you should've raised it preflop.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:25 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I definitely don't like it. Getting all the money in when you're sure to get a race if not domination is not my idea of a good time. You WILL get at least one caller with this hand, and I'd prefer to have the best of it rather than a small edge at best.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:05 am GMT by Dave B
I hate it. I do feel that a flat call is worse, either push or fold, I fold.
Also-I hate the KQ call more than the 55 all in. WHY ARE PEOPLE SO IN LOVE W/ KQ????????? I see this all the time. What hand would KQ be a favorite to that people would push with? So you are hoping for a pure bluff or 22-JJ for a coin toss.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:55 am GMT by Loonbat
I also hate it. You have 4 people who have called 4x BB. Your raise will not take all of them out the majority of the time, and then it's a race, or your hand is the dog.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:04 am GMT by arras
I don't like it as a re-raise. If it were first action after a few limpers I think it would be marginally better, but I'm not sure if its necessary at this point.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:55 pm GMT by snoogins47
Am I the only one who thinks that we won't always get picked off here?
If we assume that we always get one caller, we only need to win like what, 40% of the time to break even? And I'm sure we're picking up this pot some of the time. Even a fairly small amount of the time is quite a boon to the EV, because the pot is so large.
I'm not necessarily going to defend this specific play, because at the moment I haven't really thought about it in too much depth, only for about 5 minutes in IRC... but I will make the statement that in general, many people seem to be underestimating the power of dead money. You (almost) never have to be an odds-on favorite to win the showdown to be getting the best of it in poker. That's important to remember.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:19 pm GMT by Ciso_B
I dislike this play too, simply cos the blinds are really small comparative to your stack and you can wait for a much better spot.There is no hurry to go all in yet.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:44 pm GMT by Dave B
Snoogie-what I dont like here is the cost benefit analysis. It is so early that you really dont need to make a move. You are risking your tournament, optimistically on a coin toss, for 360 in chips. That is nice, but it isnt really going to allow you to open up your play anymore.
I guess it also depends on your style. I really dont mind playing from a small stack. But if you need chips to play effectively, then this might fit you better. Grab the chips or risk it vs doubling up or move on to the next one.
I just think that this move is more gambling than good poker.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:10 pm GMT by snoogins47
| Dave B wrote: | Snoogie-what I dont like here is the cost benefit analysis. It is so early that you really dont need to make a move. You are risking your tournament, optimistically on a coin toss, for 360 in chips. That is nice, but it isnt really going to allow you to open up your play anymore.
I guess it also depends on your style. I really dont mind playing from a small stack. But if you need chips to play effectively, then this might fit you better. Grab the chips or risk it vs doubling up or move on to the next one.
I just think that this move is more gambling than good poker. |
Oh, I agree that's it's quite risky: and I'm not certain whether or not I think this specific play is right: I think last night the numbers/assumptions I played with showed it to be marginally +TCEV, which means there's a good chance that it's not correct to do. My post was more addressing the general concept, than this hand, and I probably didn't make it clear. I've seen so many people recently advocating a complete wuss style of play, because they don't really understand how powerful semi-steal type things are. Of course, Dave, I bet you're one of the last people on the board to ever downplay the part of aggression, you maniac.
Anyway, I might go think about it more and make a post about the general thing here. I might not. Either way, I am completely supportive of calling Sean a fish, no matter how he plays, so flame away everybody.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:24 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| snoogins47 wrote: | | Dave B wrote: | Snoogie-what I dont like here is the cost benefit analysis. It is so early that you really dont need to make a move. You are risking your tournament, optimistically on a coin toss, for 360 in chips. That is nice, but it isnt really going to allow you to open up your play anymore.
I guess it also depends on your style. I really dont mind playing from a small stack. But if you need chips to play effectively, then this might fit you better. Grab the chips or risk it vs doubling up or move on to the next one.
I just think that this move is more gambling than good poker. |
Oh, I agree that's it's quite risky: and I'm not certain whether or not I think this specific play is right: I think last night the numbers/assumptions I played with showed it to be marginally +TCEV, which means there's a good chance that it's not correct to do. My post was more addressing the general concept, than this hand, and I probably didn't make it clear. I've seen so many people recently advocating a complete wuss style of play, because they don't really understand how powerful semi-steal type things are. Of course, Dave, I bet you're one of the last people on the board to ever downplay the part of aggression, you maniac.
Anyway, I might go think about it more and make a post about the general thing here. I might not. Either way, I am completely supportive of calling Sean a fish, no matter how he plays, so flame away everybody. |
I think I get what you are getting at, but I'm not too much into it in SNGs. But I guess you can raise to gain equity in the pot per man that folds his hand. Ie. for the simplest of all scenarios...hero has 55, villain one has AK, villain 2 QJ and villain 3 T9, it should be easy to see how a push can benefit hero. So in likely coinflip situations hero has about 50% equity...if hero gets dead money into this pot then it is +EV even if someone calls...then we take into account the chances of someone having hands that are guaranteed to call us...and blablablabla....but as said, I don't know enough about SNGs too calculate how this translates into cash.
Though I want to point out that a call here is not necessarily 'weak'.
Posted Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:08 pm GMT by Soup_dog
| snoogins47 wrote: | | Either way, I am completely supportive of calling Sean a fish, no matter how he plays, so flame away everybody. |
 Classic!
|
|
