Dr. Gammon

[Jason Strasser]

Dr. Gammon is highly ranked on the leaderboards all the time on Party. In a game with him the other day, something was brought to my attention.

A solid 200 regular limped in EP with blinds 100/200. One other person limped, I folded on the button. Dr.G was in the BB, and went all-in. The solid EP limper called right away, and the other limper dropped.

Dr.G had 52o, the solid regular had 55.

Then he said, "Write that down folks, he does that EVERY single time."

I was puzzled, so I looked at some HH of past games with Dr.G. Sure enough, ALMOST like clockwork, everytime it was limped to him in the BB when it was 100/200, he would push.

What do you guys think? I understand that when people start to catch on to this little trick it can become a huge problem (as we see), but Dr.G, due to his longevity and appearance on the top of the leaderboards every month, must make money. I really think you'd be hard pressed to argue against that. He seems to play very well.

Is this a +EV move if you did this EVERY time? I know the standard answer is that "there is no formula or structured" way to play poker that will be profitable, and that you have to look at each situation uniquely. I agree. But especially at the higher limits, is there anything gained by making this move occasionally with nothing?

I really believe for Dr.G to keep doing something like this, he'd have to have some success with it in the past.

-Jason

[Tosh]

Until people catch on my suspicion is that it would be +EV. When people know what you're doing you have to stop with any 2 though obviously.

[AJo Go All In]

you need to revise your opinion of the solid regular. he played it much worse than gammon.

[DOTTT]

The question is, is he doing this regardless of his holdings in the bb? If so, then I do believe that this is +EV. Just take a look at the example you posted. He's getting someone with 55 to commit his entire stack. Sure he had crap this time, but if he had 67 he's a coin flip to win the hand. If he's getting his opponents to call with hands he can easily out draw then it's easily +EV because he'll outdraw them some of the time if they call, and will get them to fold most of the time. I don't see him continuing to do this though as it's becoming quite obvious, and an observant player can easily trap him with a good hand by simply limping in.

[Jason Strasser]

I would have to agree with you, this was extremely out of character--obviously driven by his read on gammon.

[Jason Strasser]

Most (90%+) of the time, a player will fold 55 in that spot. I'm sure Gammon makes money on this play not because he gets callers doing this, but because he will pick up a nice, uncontested pot a large portion of the time.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Gammon is highly ranked on the leaderboards all the time on Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what does this fact say. Could he be only a marginal winner? Could he be playing A LOT, and by that gaining points? What does it mean?

[ QUOTE ]
Dr.G had 52o, the solid regular had 55.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is the solid so eager for a coin-flip at this stage? What is the logic behind "trapping" with 55? even against a *random* hand, he's only 3:2, and he's the caller on that one. Pretty questionable, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
ALMOST like clockwork, everytime it was limped to him in the BB when it was 100/200, he would push.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is playing way too predictable, in my book. However, against certain weak-tight opposition, that does not adapt, it could still be +EV. I don't play the $215, but I bet it isn't so weak-tight.

[ QUOTE ]
But especially at the higher limits, is there anything gained by making this move occasionally with nothing?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure there is, as long as you are doing it some of the time, against the right opponents, etc, etc. It's like other matters that game theory deals with: it is profitable to make an X move (specifically bluffs), Y% percent of the time. As your % gets higher or lower than Y, you are getting further from "optimal" play.

[Jason Strasser]

Good post and good points. I can't say for sure that Dr. G is a winner, but if I had to make a guess I would say he most definitely is, just based on his playing style, and correct levels of aggression at certain stages.

I agree that it is not good to do it every time, I was just thinking it could be an element of my game I could do more, especially against the rare LP open limp.

-Jason

[Jason Strasser]

I was not endorsing the play of the "solid regular". In the past, he has played a very clean game and such, this move partly surprised me as well. Some of you seem to think that I like the play with 55, which I really don't. I just thought it was interesting...

[PrayingMantis]

I know exactly what you mean. Sometimes I have a read on someone that he's a solid player, but then, after X games together, he's doing something that I wouldn't expect a "solid" to do, so I tell myself there are two basic options:

1) Maybe his move was a strong one, and I just don't get it?

2) Maybe he's not solid.

[Jason Strasser]

I think this players move is similar to what I sometimes (wrongfully) do at a PL or NL table when a real fish sits down. I seem to go out of my way to get involved with him as much as possible, and I lower my hand standards in general. This player had seen Gammon do this constantly, and maybe felt like he should take advantage of this whenever possible, even though his hand was really not the type of hand you want to trap with.

Make any sense? I still think this player is solid, just maybe a lapse in judgement due to a known leak in his opponent.

-Jason

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not endorsing the play of the "solid regular". In the past, he has played a very clean game and such, this move partly surprised me as well. Some of you seem to think that I like the play with 55, which I really don't. I just thought it was interesting...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that play with 55 was great!

55 might be a coin-toss against two higher cards, but you can't assume that your opponent has no 2, 3, 4, or 5. In fact, about half of the time, a random opponent will have a 5 or lower: 48.6% if you have 55. J3 vs. 55 isn't a coin-toss. 55 wins 60.3% against a random hand (http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm). That's very different from the 50.3% that 22 wins.

What I think has happened is that Dr. Gammon has identitifed a leak in many players' games, that limping too often means they are not going to call a push. I doubt he pushes every time. If Dr. Gammon pushes in this situation 95% of the time, with what 5% is he not going to push? I think he would not push with premium hands, since he wants to get some callers when he has AA. So the chance that 55 is up against a higher pair may be lower than random, and the player with 55 may expect to be even more of a favorite.

It was a great call, but bad to announce the "tell." If you look for these types of situations (on both sides), you will find them, and they are worth a lot of equity.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that play with 55 was great!


[/ QUOTE ]

I must disagree with you. Blinds are 100/200, still some room to manouver (we don't know much about other stacks and such), and the 55 caller is 3:2 AT BEST, AS A CALLER. Many times he'll be very close to 1:1. Few times he'll be a big dog. I'm pretty sure he would have higher EV by pushing it, with the possiblity of taking it uncontested.

I *might* limp/call against this player with 99 and above.

Only my opinion, and we actually know *very little* about the specific situation. As a default, I woudn't say it's a great move. Mr. Gammon's move here is much stronger, in this context.

Edit: if it was HU, then I'd agree with you.

[woodguy]

This is just a guess, but "solid regular" had probably seen Dr. Gammon make this move successfully enough times to REALLY want to know what kind of cards he was pushing with in this spot.

He sees 55 and figures he's a coinflip, so why not.

Even if he loses, he know nows that Dr. Gammon will make this move with a nothing hand.

Isn't that +EV in the long run if he plays alot with Dr. Gammon?

regards,
woodguy

[mackthefork]

Indeed calling a push with 55 is f*&()ing suicide

Regards ML

[mackthefork]

It's obviously a plus EV move in my opinion, as long as you can have confidence in your opponents not calling too loose, as you say 55 should fold here, so should KT and an awful lot of other hands.

Regards ML

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
It was a great call, but bad to announce the "tell." If you look for these types of situations (on both sides), you will find them, and they are worth a lot of equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely bad even possibly unethical, you can bet he wanted the guy to stop doing it though.

Regards ML

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
"solid regular" had probably seen Dr. Gammon make this move successfully enough times to REALLY want to know what kind of cards he was pushing with in this spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wanting REALLY to know what kind of cards someone else has, is a fishy tendency.

[ QUOTE ]
He sees 55 and figures he's a coinflip, so why not.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, he LIMPED with 55 from EP, when blinds were 100/200. And then there was another limper, only then Mr. B pushed. Of course he can figure he's about a coin-flip, it doesn't mean his call is much better. And if someone else, not Mr. B, will raise behind (very possible, since "hero" is EP), then what? Or Mr. B doesn't push, but only checks after SB completes? So hero only sees a flop with 3 others, out of position, with a baby pair? Looks like a shaky plan, and a questionable call.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if he loses, he know nows that Dr. Gammon will make this move with a nothing hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

He probably "knew" it before the hand took place. Making all-in calls with 55, only to learn something about your oppponent, is not the way to go in high buy-in SNGs, IMO.

[pipes]

Not first hand knowledge, but was talked about at
length on another board.

[PrayingMantis]

It's possible, since Hansen was known also as a backgammon specialist.

[kyro]

actually, that would make sense. he's an avid backgammon player ain't he?

[AJo Go All In]

well, i'm sure that's why somebody made it up, but it's definitely not hansen. the guy plays $2K-4K or whatever at the bellagio. the party 200 SNGs are below him.

[pipes]

I'm just telling you what I heard. It might not be true, but I don't think you can definitely exclude the possibility.

Supposedly, he plays 2-3 at a time and does very well. Making a grand or two a night in your pajamas probably wouldn't be beneath anyone.

[AJo Go All In]

well, i play 6 at a time and do well. i really don't think gus hansen is putting in those kind of hours at a game significantly lower than his hourly rate playing live.

[pipes]

What's his hourly rate at the higher limit games? How would you know what it is?

In those high limit games between brunson, ivey, flack etc
How's winning? Is the money just flowing around the table clockwise?

[woodguy]

PM,

I concede all your points.

I just think that if "hero" and Dr. play together often, Dr. may re-think this play in the future if "hero" is one of the limpers, and therefore give "hero" a number of cheap look at a flop with his baby pair, or whatever "hero" has limped with.

Taken alone, "hero's" call with 55 is wrong, but if this move has positive benefits for the future, it loses some of its stench.

When I said he "sees" 55, I meant after the Dr. had pushed, my grammer was incorrect, I did not mean to infer "he looked down", I was refering to re-evaluating his hand after the push by the Dr.

[ QUOTE ]
Or Mr. B doesn't push, but only checks after SB completes? So hero only sees a flop with 3 others, out of position, with a baby pair? Looks like a shaky plan, and a questionable call.

[/ QUOTE ] .

I have read in this forum that the implied odds of limping with a baby pair is +EV. Is this not true at $200 buy in? (I play 30-50)

regards,
woodguy

[AtlBrvs4Life]

I seriously doubt Gus Hansen has enough extra time to play enough $200 PP SNGs to consistently be on top of the leader board.

[AtlBrvs4Life]

The implied odds can be worth it, but with blinds at 100/200, the implied odds aren't good enough to limp with 55.

[SnakeRat]

I have a chemistry Prof named DR. Steve Gammon. Hmmmmmmm.

[AJo Go All In]

i don't know what it is, obviously. but it's gotta be higher than the $250/hr or whatever it is that Gammon makes on the SNGs.

[pipes]

It's him. You may choose to disbelieve it...but it doesn't change the fact that its him. lol

[AJo Go All In]

umm. okay this is my last post on this topic. let the dream die. it's not him.

[woodguy]

Good point.

I' not a limper by nature anyhow, so I don't really know why I started to defend "hero" anyhow. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

For some reason I had in my mind that it earlier in the SnG.
Gotta pay more attention to the original post!!

PM, I fully understand your distain of his limp in the first place.

regards,
woodguy





regards,
woodguy

[adanthar]

It's not that the regular called with 55, it's the fact that he announced why he was doing it to 8 other people and wound up getting it posted to a message board everyone who plays those limits probably reads.

The EV boat just struck a giant iceberg and sank with most hands, except for Leonardo DiCaprio who froze to death.

[ZeeJustin]

This isn't a strategy unique to Dr. Gammon. There are TONS of players that if they are in the BB and the SB open limps, they will raise any 2 cards. This is both easy to catch on to, and easy to exploit. At the same time, it is a profitable strategy against the average idiot. The same is true for Gammon's strategy.

FWIW, i think Gammon is pretty good, and definately a winner, but he's nothing special.

[Ulysses]

Dr Gammon != Gus Hansen.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed calling a push with 55 is f*&()ing suicide


[/ QUOTE ]
When a tight player pushes, calling with 55 is bad.

When a total maniac pushes, you expect 55 to be ahead by a significant amount. My guess is that Dr. Gammon would not push with AA, KK, or QQ, which makes calling with 55 much better.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Indeed calling a push with 55 is f*&()ing suicide


[/ QUOTE ]
When a tight player pushes, calling with 55 is bad.

When a total maniac pushes, you expect 55 to be ahead by a significant amount. My guess is that Dr. Gammon would not push with AA, KK, or QQ, which makes calling with 55 much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

By a significant amount?? So you're saying you expect them to have a 2,3,or 4? Thats crazy!

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
...the 55 caller is 3:2 AT BEST, AS A CALLER.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, 55 is better than a 3:2 favorite on average. 55 is often a much larger favorite to balance out the times 55 is less of a favorite. In the actual hand, Dr. Gammon had 52.

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=420388
cards EV
5/images/graemlins/spade.gif 5/images/graemlins/club.gif 0.890
2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif 0.110

55 was an 8:1 favorite.

Against a tight player, there isn't much of a difference between 22 and 55. Against a maniac who pushes with hands like 52 and Q4, there is a huge difference between 22 and 55.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure he would have higher EV by pushing it, with the possiblity of taking it uncontested.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that you don't like calling. However, sometimes it is the right thing to do.

Do you think Dr. Gammon would have called a push with 52? I saw nothing in the description of Dr. Gammon that suggests he would do that. Against some opponents postflop, check/call is better than betting, since checking will induce a bluff. Here, the player recognized that limping might induce a bluff. Several players between the solid player and Dr. Gammon might have a real hand, so raising not only would fail to induce a bluff, it leaves the player with 55 exposed to an uncomfortable reraise by someone else.

I disagree that "pushing it" (raising? pushing?) is +EV relative to limp/calling here. It might help to know the stack sizes.

[ QUOTE ]

I *might* limp/call against this player with 99 and above.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you fold 88, you are giving up a lot of equity in this situation. It's not a coin-toss. It is very likely that you are not against two overcards.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When a total maniac pushes, you expect 55 to be ahead by a significant amount...

[/ QUOTE ]

By a significant amount?? So you're saying you expect them to have a 2,3,or 4? Thats crazy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm crazy. I believe a random hand contains a 2, 3, 4, or 5 most of the time (52.5%). I believe that when you have 55, a random hand from the other 50 cards has a 5 or lower 48.6% of the time. I'm so crazy, I don't believe in ignoring something that happens half of the time. What do you believe instead?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No, 55 is better than a 3:2 favorite on average. 55 is often a much larger favorite to balance out the times 55 is less of a favorite. In the actual hand, Dr. Gammon had 52.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are not thinking correctly here. 55 is 3:2 against a random hand (i.e, if Gammon is pushing with ANY hand). This is *best case scenario*, which means 55 will be less, or significanlt less than 3:2, if the range of hands Gammon pushes with isn't completely random. This was actually your point in your first post here, so I don't see why it is changed now.


[ QUOTE ]
55 was an 8:1 favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is WAY too results-oriented.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you don't like calling. However, sometimes it is the right thing to do.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that I don't like calling. Calling can be great in many cases. However, limping from EP with 55, when blinds are 100/200, and then calling all-in, is generally a bad plan, against any player, IMO. It is definitely not +EV when there is still a room to play. The fact that Dr. Gammon is sitting on the BB has very little to do with how good or bad this move is, from the first EP limp and on.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think Dr. Gammon would have called a push with 52?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understnad this point. Why should he call with 52? This has nothing to do with the situation. He should be an idiot to call all-in with 52. The rest of this paragraph isn't clear to me either. It has very little to do with the situation we're discussing.

[ QUOTE ]
If you fold 88, you are giving up a lot of equity in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why fold 88? Again, I don't see your point.

I think you are working too hard to justify a very questionable play, which is marginally OK at best, nothing more. And as we don't have more specific data on the situation, I'd say that generally it is pretty bad.

[Slacker13]

[ QUOTE ]
but Dr.G, due to his longevity and appearance on the top of the leaderboards every month, must make money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw Dr G had won two large tourneys on PP in one month totalling over $140k and those are just two that I happened to notice.
I suppose he immediately assumes they are weak for limping.
For all those who post "when should I limp in with AA", this is the time you do it.

[ddubois]

What the poster you quoted probably meant to convey was that (I will name the 55-holding solid player "Presto" for obvious reasons) Presto was, at best, against a random hand, hence "at best 3:2", and at worst, against a range of hands less than random. Obviously we all know that he is much better than 3:2 against certain specific hands, but we as players can only optimize our play against ranges of hands until the cards are turned up.

However, that said, given the stated read, the commentary involved, and the actual results, it's pretty clear Presto was truly up against literally "any 2 cards". In which case, I think Presto's play was sheer genius. He played his hand in such a way as to minimize the amount of risk and exposure (sans outright folding) he has to take against those players who would only give action with a range of hands he is (much?) worse than 3:2 against, and simultaneously maximize the amount of action he got from the one player whose range of hands he is 3:2 against. This is the awesome power of getting inside your opponents' heads and anticipating their every move. The read of all reads.

As for making the audible on the read, this seems hard to defend. But I think I can manufacture some retrospective rationale for it: Most of us have probably heard of 'incuding bluffs' and 'stopping bluffs'. Stopping a bluff is performing some action that encourages your opponent to bluff less. I believe an example of stopping a bluff in a B&M setting is when you think someone is about to bluff you grab your chips as if you are ready to call.

Why would you want your opponents to bluff less? Well, if they are bluffing at nearly an optimal rate, discouraging them from bluffing at that rate is profitable for you. You can begin to fold more often, because if your stops are working, you can get a read that they aren't bluffing and make educated guesses that you are beat, and make proper laydowns. I would think telling the table "This guy bluffs all the time" is another means of stopping a bluff. I also logically conclude that another method of stopping a bluff is pounding the guy into the asphalt by calling his 52o with 55! Dr. G will probably think twice about this move before repeating this play aginst this player, which in the long run, again assuming Dr. G's bluff rate was near optimal, should good for Presto.

On the other hand, maybe Presto was more intertested in showing off how smart he was than keeping a narrow, specific, and easily exploitable bluff to himself. Because it really doesn't seem like Dr. G's bluff rate in this situation could possibly be optimal if he does it "every time".

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
the poster you quoted

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!

[ QUOTE ]
What the poster you quoted probably meant to convey was that (I will name the 55-holding solid player "Presto" for obvious reasons) Presto was, at best, against a random hand, hence "at best 3:2", and at worst, against a range of hands less than random. Obviously we all know that he is much better than 3:2 against certain specific hands, but we as players can only optimize our play against ranges of hands until the cards are turned up.

However, that said, given the stated read, the commentary involved, and the actual results, it's pretty clear Presto was truly up against literally "any 2 cards". In which case, I think Presto's play was sheer genius. He played his hand in such a way as to minimize the amount of risk and exposure (sans outright folding) he has to take against those players who would only give action with a range of hands he is (much?) worse than 3:2 against, and simultaneously maximize the amount of action he got from the one player whose range of hands he is 3:2 against. This is the awesome power of getting inside your opponents' heads and anticipating their every move. The read of all reads.

As for making the audible on the read, this seems hard to defend. But I think I can manufacture some retrospective rationale for it: Most of us have probably heard of 'incuding bluffs' and 'stopping bluffs'. Stopping a bluff is performing some action that encourages your opponent to bluff less. I believe an example of stopping a bluff in a B&M setting is when you think someone is about to bluff you grab your chips as if you are ready to call.

Why would you want your opponents to bluff less? Well, if they are bluffing at nearly an optimal rate, discouraging them from bluffing at that rate is profitable for you. You can begin to fold more often, because if your stops are working, you can get a read that they aren't bluffing and make educated guesses that you are beat, and make proper laydowns. I would think telling the table "This guy bluffs all the time" is another means of stopping a bluff. I also logically conclude that another method of stopping a bluff is pounding the guy into the asphalt by calling his 52o with 55! Dr. G will probably think twice about this move before repeating this play aginst this player, which in the long run, again assuming Dr. G's bluff rate was near optimal, should good for Presto.

On the other hand, maybe Presto was more intertested in showing off how smart he was than keeping a narrow, specific, and easily exploitable bluff to himself. Because it really doesn't seem like Dr. G's bluff rate in this situation could possibly be optimal if he does it "every time".

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your wise and deep perspective, ddubois. I'm sure pzhon really needed your help here, with your unbelivable deep insight into one of the most genius ("sheer genius"! no less!) moves of our time: limp-call-all-in from EP with 55! Against the dreadful Dr.Gammon! /images/graemlins/grin.gif I must admit that if YOU think it's genius, then we can all be assured it REALLY is. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anyway, lucky for "presto" Dr. Gammon had the cursed 52... if it was (oh no!), 96o, for instance, then it would have been a real GENIUS COIN FLIP CALL, AT 54:46!!! But actually I care less about the call iteslf, than about the limp from EP, against few opponents, when blinds are 100/200. THIS, AND the all-in call, certainly justify the word "problematic".

Most highly entertaining post, though, I'll give you that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

...55 is 3:2 against a random hand (i.e, if Gammon is pushing with ANY hand). This is *best case scenario*, which means 55 will be less, or significanlt less than 3:2, if the range of hands Gammon pushes with isn't completely random.

[/ QUOTE ]
I argued that Dr. Gammon realizes people almost always fold, so he won't push with AA. So, 55, may do better than against a random hand. If Dr. Gammon makes a small raise, watch out.

When you said, "Many times he'll be very close to 1:1. Few times he'll be a big dog," you weren't referring to particular hands, but to ranges of hands? In that case you are ignoring the player's read, which was the point of the play. The player said Dr. Gammon does this every time, and it seemed to be confirmed by the past hand histories and the fact that Dr. Gammon was caught with 52o.

No one is advocating calling all-in with 55 against everyone. Against someone who pushes with a range of cards including 52o, calling all-in with 55 is a good play.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
55 was an 8:1 favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is WAY too results-oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assumed that when you said, "55 caller is 3:2 AT BEST, AS A CALLER. Many times he'll be very close to 1:1. Few times he'll be a big dog," you were referring to how 55 performs against individual hands. Many people see a low pocket pair and assume that the best-case scenario is a coin-toss. It isn't. A low pocket pair is a big favorite over a hand with 0 or 1 overcards. If someone pushes with any two, that is a common scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
However, limping from EP with 55, when blinds are 100/200, and then calling all-in, is generally a bad plan, against any player, IMO...The fact that Dr. Gammon is sitting on the BB has very little to do with how good or bad this move is, from the first EP limp and on.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to ignore the player's read, which was very specific about Dr. Gammon's maniacal pushes from the BB after limpers, just ignore this thread.

In case you accept the read, do you have a better way to play 55? I don't think you can get anything out of Dr. Gammon by raising, only by limping and then calling the push. That was the only way to provoke the bluff.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you fold 88, you are giving up a lot of equity in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why fold 88? Again, I don't see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cut the context. You stated, "I *might* limp/call against this player with 99 and above." That suggests you would not limp/call with 88. If you raise or fold with 88, you are losing a lot of equity. With 88, or 55, limp to provoke the bluff, then call the push.

[ QUOTE ]

I think you are working too hard to justify a very questionable play, which is marginally OK at best, nothing more. And as we don't have more specific data on the situation, I'd say that generally it is pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you are dismissing the read. There is a lot of equity here if the read is correct. If you had AK, you'd like someone to blindly call a push by you, right? A 60:40 advantage is 2/3 of the advantage that AK has over a random hand. That's significant.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
I assumed that when you said, "55 caller is 3:2 AT BEST, AS A CALLER. Many times he'll be very close to 1:1. Few times he'll be a big dog," you were referring to how 55 performs against individual hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hadn't seen this, so I retract the first paragraph of my last post. The "AT BEST" line is obviously false with this context. Mea culpa.

[ddubois]

Interesting to note: yes 55 is 1.5:1 favorite over any random 2 cards, but as your BB pushers go from maniacal to more reasonable, 55 is still a 1.2:1 favorite over the range of: "top 40% (74 hands): all pairs, A, K, Q9-QJ, Q5s-Q8s, J8s-JTs, JTo, T9s".

I'm not sure whether dropping from 60% to 54% should seem miniscule or huge to me.

With regards to my statement about exposing oneself to minimal risk from those that would call a push, 55 is a 1:1.6 dog to "top 10% (21 hands): 55-AA, AT-AK, and A8s-A9s".

What percentage of the time will X opponents not have a push-calling hand? When no one calls your push, you win 1.5BB; when an equal stack calls your push, you win your stack 40% of the time and lose it 60% of the time.

What I'm getting at here is: How do you quantify fold-equity?

[ethan]

If I remember my railbird fanboy chat correctly, someone mentioned him winning two of the $250K/$200K multis in the same month. If that's true, he's likely ahead at party /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is advocating calling all-in with 55 against everyone. Against someone who pushes with a range of cards including 52o, calling all-in with 55 is a good play.


[/ QUOTE ]

pzhon, we're going around the same point, but you keep making an irrelevant argument as to the hand. CALLING by itself COULD be a good play in certain circumstances (for instace: folded to Dr. G on the button, he pushes, SB folds, BB calls with 55. It is NEVER a great move though, especially if it's not SH and there is still room to play, and none of the caller/bettor are desperate. SH and HU it can be different of course. If you think it is a GREAT move , there is a leak in your game. There's not much I can add.) This is regarding the CALLING ALL-IN part of the play.


[ QUOTE ]
If you want to ignore the player's read, which was very specific about Dr. Gammon's maniacal pushes from the BB after limpers, just ignore this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a very common mistake here, by thinking that a READ justifies such a problematic and passive move as limping from EP with 55 when blinds are high, to begin with.

[ QUOTE ]
In case you accept the read, do you have a better way to play 55? I don't think you can get anything out of Dr. Gammon by raising, only by limping and then calling the push. That was the only way to provoke the bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better ways to play 55 here is to fold or push/raise . Very simple. It depends on many factors: stacks, etc. Dr. G tendency to push from the blinds against limper/s has very little to do with how you should play a marginal hand like 55 from EP. I'm sorry, but you you are WAY overestimating 55 if you think you want to be bluffed all-in when you hold it, in the mid-late stages of the game, when there are a few players to act behind you.

[ QUOTE ]
With 88, or 55, limp to provoke the bluff, then call the push.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this kind of advice, sorry. I don't know where and what levels you play. Generally speaking, limping with small-medium PPs from EP (1000th time I'm saying it here) when blinds are pretty high, is a bad way to play SNGs. It *might* be different in other positions against super aggressive players, as we have here, but it's still marginal, IMO. It seems as if you don't understand the HUGE difference, between calling and raising/pushing with a hand, especially in an SNG. That's why, by itself, pushing from BB with 52 against limpers is BY FAR a superior to limping / calling all-in with 55 from EP. And this is correct for many other OK-good hands, when played passively.

Edit: BTW, if you think Dr. Gammon will not do the same move with AA, as you've stated, then you have never played against a really strong SNG player.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one is advocating calling all-in with 55 against everyone. Against someone who pushes with a range of cards including 52o, calling all-in with 55 is a good play.


[/ QUOTE ]

pzhon, we're going around the same point,

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe that means you should actually read what I said. You have repeatedly misread/misinterpreted what I have said. I'm not going to argue with your abrasive willful ignorance after this post.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to ignore the player's read, which was very specific about Dr. Gammon's maniacal pushes from the BB after limpers, just ignore this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are making a very common mistake here, by thinking that a READ justifies such a problematic and passive move as limping from EP with 55 when blinds are high, to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are wrong again. What I am saying is not common at all. It is specific to this rare situation. When someone will push with any 2 after you limp, limping is more aggressive than pushing. There is no folding equity, but this leads to the most chips going in when you are the favorite if no one raises between you and the maniac.

The read was the whole point of the play. Without the read, no one is advocating limping/calling all-in with 55. Even though you apparently have no respect for me, it doesn't mean that is what I am saying.

In this particular situation with Dr. Gammon in the BB, to limp/call is +EChips compared with folding or raising. You could argue it is not +E$, but that depends on the stack sizes, and it's not the argument you are making.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With 88, or 55, limp to provoke [Dr. Gammon's] bluff, then call the push.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this kind of advice, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to explain "inducing a bluff" while you insult me. At this point, your lack of understanding (if real) is your fault, not mine. Good bye.

[ddubois]

When the folding equity hammer is your only tool, everything looks like a nail.

[Martin Aigner]

I´ve played a ton of 200+15 buy ins at Party with Dr Gammon. He´s pretty agressive, but he also likes to call with way too many hands. Being from Austria I´ve never been able to watch Gus before (no broadcast of WPT here), but from what I´ve read about him he´s a pretty tough guy. Very loose, maybe almost a maniac sometimes, but definetly a raiser, no caller. Dr Gammon makes some pretty doubtable calls all in preflop, I simply can´t imagine a WCP as Gus make these calls.

On the other side: Gus´s supposed to be very lucky, right? Maybe I´m wrong, and Dr Gammon finaly is Gus Hansen? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
What I am saying is not common at all. It is specific to this rare situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is so rare about this situation? Being this aggressive against limpers is a very common practice by strong players, at high buy-in SNGs.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no folding equity

[/ QUOTE ]

There's A LOT of folding equity, if you choose to use it, even against the most agressive players. You are confusing looseness with aggressiveness. Some strong players are very loose, but only when they are applying aggressiveness, openning the pot, or raising/reraising against others. They can be VERY tight in their calling standards. Again, this is not rare at all. What buy-ins are you playing?

[ QUOTE ]
The read was the whole point of the play. Without the read, no one is advocating limping/calling all-in with 55.

[/ QUOTE ]

A read on BB does not justify a passive, limpy move with 55 from EP, when there are few players in between. In tournament poker it is extremely important to think in terms of "cycles of influence", *especially* PF.

[ QUOTE ]
Even though you apparently have no respect for me, it doesn't mean that is what I am saying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I aplogize if I sometimes sound too harsh, but I have all the respect for you. You have wrote (and also replied to me) some very interesting posts in the theory forum, that were very insightful, and I thank you for that.

However, I happen to strongly disagree with your perspective toward SNG play, and I think you are simply wrong. There are many wrong advices here, and I am not interesting to adress each one of them, but yours are somewhat unique in that you are writing them in a very self-assured manner, sometimes based upon certain general assumptions regarding EV, and SNG play, which are simply not accurate, to say the least. This is why it is more important for me to reply to what you say.

And according to some of the points you make, I also feel you are not very expirienced, especially in higher buy-ins. I don't mean it as an insult, but only to state how It looks. This is the second time (alongside with the QJs thread, if you remember) that you are advocating a weak, passive, calling approach to the game, and here you also state it is great. Actually, it is interesting how these two situations are so similar in some ways: limping from EP, for whatever reasons, and then continuing to play the hand in a passive manner, because of X and Y reasons and reads. This is a VERY problematic approach to SNG game. It is not necessarily a *losing* approach, but it is definitely very far from optimal, as to the play of the specific hand, and as a part of your general approach towards the whole game as a unit.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to explain "inducing a bluff" while you insult me. At this point, your lack of understanding (if real) is your fault, not mine. Good bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are tons of situations where "inducing a bluff" is the correct move. This is, generally speaking, *not* one of them, especially if you are a +EV player, who is not looking for marginal +CEV showdowns at the middle stages of the game.