Heads up with 10:1 chip lead |
|
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:06 am GMT by LeafsFan1122
Typically when heads up and a 10:1 chip lead are you suppose to put your opponent all in with any decent hand? Say....T high and up? I know this is pretty general but I just want to hear some thoughts. 8)
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 Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:25 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Not even T high and up. ANY hand.
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:00 am GMT by greathuskie
just push all in every hand
if he doubles up you are only at 5-1, its time to slow down a bit and work on just getting him out....
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:09 am GMT by kainARGH
depending on the blinds , i think you could choose to wait for a somewhat decent hand. IE at least let um be suited or connected( or gappers when i say connected ) or preferably both or at least Q high(j high is probably good as well). But yes , typically if hes SB your probably not gonna fold.
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:46 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| kainARGH wrote: | depending on the blinds , i think you could choose to wait for a somewhat decent hand. IE at least let um be suited or connected( or gappers when i say connected ) or preferably both or at least Q high(j high is probably good as well). But yes , typically if hes SB your probably not gonna fold.
|
At 10-to-1, I'm putting him all-in every hand, regardless of blinds. If I lose one, I'm still up 4.5-to-1, and can give him a good thrashing. Note that at 10-to-1, if you're just looking at your odds of winning that ONE hand to win the tournament, you would be correct to push in with even 32o, the weakest of all heads-up hands. You are not a 10-to-1 dog to any hand, even Aces.
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:37 am GMT by AHBrownell
I don't like that idea though. You are giving away your lead to most hands. I like to just call lots of flops with this sort of advantage. You should see every flop, but you don't need to raise all-in every hand.
I like calling better because if you are lucky and you get a monster you can check/call like you have every hand. If your opponent hits something, but you know you are ahead, during any point in the hand you have them and its over.
I think its important to be aggressive - maybe even raise 90% of hands. But why give your opponent a shot to double up when you are holding 72os? Even if it is only a 2:1 dog against AK - against a pair or domination its far worse.
It could just be me - but I would rather wait for better situations then to risk giving my opponent a shot at getting back in the match.
I'd also consider the blind situation. If the blinds are like 5000/10000 and you have 2,000,000 vs 100,000 this is far different than when you have 400,000 vs 40,000. In the first situation I'd concede small hands because I have time on my side. In the second situation, the blinds nearly double up my opponent - I might as well go all-in every hand...
Posted Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:19 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
The only problem I see, AH, is that you're really considering the worst-case scenarios. Remember that most heads-up contests are battles of unpaired hole cards, and that most flops miss most hands. AK is only a 2-to-1 favorite over the lowly 32. So 1/3 of the time, you would win the whole tournament, and 2/3 of the time, you will be reduced to a 4.5-to-1 chiplead, which is still enormous.
But I see your point with blind structures. If The short stack has an M lower than 10, I'd gladly put him all-in with any two cards on every hand. If the M's are higher, I may try to see some cheap flops and outmaneuver him there, because it's much harder to call for value if you flop nothing vs. calling with 5 cards to come.
Also, by forcing HIM all-in, you put him to the decision and make him pick up a real hand. CALLING all-in is different, and not always automatic, even with a 10-to-1 lead, because then you only one way to win--prevailing in a showdown.
Posted Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 am GMT by suitedaces84
One point about this:
Your effective stack* relative to the size of the blinds should competely determine how you play HU. The ratio of your chips to your opponent's should have nothing do to with how you play a hand HU. That is, if the correct play from the SB when both you and your oppoenent have 15bbs is folding, then the correct play when your effective stack is 15bb and you have a 10:1 chip lead is also folding.
A lot of players might say "but this is a tourney format, not a cash game". The HU portion of a tourney is exactly the same as a cash game that cannot be left. In the HU portion your chips have direct cash value. Their value is (%of chips you have)*(first place prize) + second place prize. When you reach the final two in a $10+1 SNG the game has changed to an unraked cash game with a prize pool of $20 where both participants are gaurnteed $30.
Diamond, if you can't see that the size of the blinds is crutial imagine a 1/2 NL cash game where you have taken everyone's money and have a stack of $10,000. You're the only one left at the table. Just as you're about to cash out a player sits down with $300, you figure what the hell, I'm running good, why not? He posts his BB, should you put him all-in every hand because you have better than 33:1 a chip lead?
In a SNG where the blinds a very high relative to the stacks putting all your chips in the middle every hand with a 10:1 chip lead is almost always correct. But it's correct because of the size of effective stacks, not the fact that you have a 10:1 chip lead.
*Effective stack = your stack or his, whichever one is smaller.
Posted Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:30 am GMT by BeerWench13
| Quote: | | Your effective stack* relative to the size of the blinds should competely determine how you play HU. |
Precisely what I was thinking. It all depends no the blind levels vs stack size.
Posted Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:50 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Suited, I agree in general, and I'm well aware that stacks/blinds ratio should be the most important factor to consider, but not the only factor--Harrington himself says that the ratio of stack to average stack size is also important, and that when the two conflict, you should go with what the former number says--but I don't see a conflict MOST of the time with putting your opponent all in with a 10-to-1 chip lead until the blinds are not a factor at all. Hoyt Corkins used this tactic nearly perfectly at the World Poker Finals at Foxwoods in 2003.
Cash games are different circumstantially because the option of the rebuy is there. In a tournament, once you win it's a done deal, and in many tournaments these days, first place is winning 50%-100% more than 2ns Place.
So I'll ammend my original statement to, "so long as the blinds are not inconsequential (ie your opponent's M is less than 10), I would consider RAISING an opponent all-in with any hand (but not necessarily calling)." I think we're on the same page though, given what you said:
| Quote: | | In a SNG where the blinds a very high relative to the stacks putting all your chips in the middle every hand with a 10:1 chip lead is almost always correct. But it's correct because of the size of effective stacks, not the fact that you have a 10:1 chip lead. |
In other circumstances, where the blinds are not as big a factor, but where I still have a big lead, I will still almost always play more aggressively than I normally would.
Posted Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:58 pm GMT by snoogins47
You: 100,000
Opponent: 10,000
Blinds: 1000/2000, 200 ante
You: 100,000
Opponent: 10,000
Blinds: 3/6, no ante
It's pretty easy to see why "All In Every Hand" is probably better in the first one. It's also easy to see how suicidal it would be in the second.
Posted Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:27 am GMT by tame_deuces
| snoogins47 wrote: | You: 100,000
Opponent: 10,000
Blinds: 1000/2000, 200 ante
You: 100,000
Opponent: 10,000
Blinds: 3/6, no ante
It's pretty easy to see why "All In Every Hand" is probably better in the first one. It's also easy to see how suicidal it would be in the second. |
That 2nd one sounds like a fun game. :D
I wonder what the mechanics for a 1700big blind stacked game is.
Posted Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:08 am GMT by suitedaces84
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | Harrington himself says that the ratio of stack to average stack size is also important. |
He wasn't talking about HU, I'm sure of this. A SNG is much more complicated when it's 3, 4 or 5 handed due to the payout structure. And in that case your stack relative to everyone else's is also important. But when you get to the HU portion all of that changes. There is nothing left to consider other than 'what's the best way to get all of the other guy's chips before he gets all of mine'.
Posted Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:47 am GMT by red_pen
OP's post said 10:1 chip lead HU.
While I appreciate stack/blind ratio considerations, i think OP's point, and his description of it relates to how to play a massive chip lead when 9 and 10 player SnGs are reduced to a HU contest.
i think in this scenario the blinds will already be high enough to make pushing every hand the play with the highest "optimality/effort ratio". In other words, it's not far off the best thing to do AND you don't have to think about it.
Posted Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:27 pm GMT by LeafsFan1122
Thanks red_pen. You're right on the money, but I've really enjoyed (and benefitted) from everything that has been posted on this thread. Thanks everyone. 
|
|
