200 from 200 then 200 at 200

[Texas Pete]

I'm going to write down 200 lessons I learn from watching $200 SNGs. Then I'm going to play 200 of them. I am currently playing the $30's.

[Daliman]

I'll give you your first 2, which you likely already know;

#1 Play ultra tight first 2 levels.

#2 Call almost any raise from a single player allin giving you 2-1 pot odds if less than 1/3rd of your stack with any 2 cards.

[Texas Pete]

Level 2. Stacks are all ~T1000.
Two players in unraised pot

Flop comes J plus rags

First guy min bets (he had middle pair).
Second guy raises 3X his bet (he had A J ).
First guy calls.

Another blank on the turn, but it First guy pairs again and now has the best hand. He checks, TPTK goes all-in, and he calls and wins.

There are a lot of things to learn from this.
First, what what the purpose of TPTK's raise?
Was it to fold middle-pair, or to get more money in the pot?

If he was trying to fold him, he should have bet more. The stacks are still big and 3BB is not enough to fold middle pair.

If he was trying to get more money in the pot, it worked. But then he wants to fold him and goes all-in.

Darn, I have some more questions now about why he didn't raise his A J in the first place. He may have been in middle or early position.

[doggin]

What is so significant about the magical 2 to 1 odds.
I've noticed on the WPT, Mike Sexton will always say,
"I tell you Vince, he's getting 2 to 1 for a call, I don't
see how he cannot call it", even if the guy has junk!

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to write down 200 lessons I learn from watching $200 SNGs. Then I'm going to play 200 of them. I am currently playing the $30's.

[/ QUOTE ]

sounds like a plan. good luck.

[WarDekar]

Because with 2 to 1 pot odds, any rag hand has 1/3 of a chance to win the pot (depending on the other hand, but the few times it's down more than that is made up for the other vast majority of the time that it isn't down near that much).

[Texas Pete]

Level 3. Allin Guy comes over the top of a 3x BB raise, and folds the raiser. He's now in second place and in middle position. Next hand he raises 4x BB and folds the table.

Big stack + obvious aggression = people are more likely to fold.

[Texas Pete]

Level 4 (50/100), 8 players.
Blinds have ~T800-1000 after posting.
Button has T558.

Button goes all-in!
I love this. I think I would do it with any 2.

Reasoning is this: whether you win the pot or not is not just your cards. It's also your stack. If you are ahead on the flop, you need to have enough T$ to fold people. If not, you are in bad shape.

If this guy plays at any time there will be T200 in the pot if he is lucky enough to get a heads-up. Otherwise there will be more in the pot and he won't be able to push anyone off.

The best thing to do is just push now against two random hands. He is making them risk a little more than half their stack if they call.

[citanul]

You are in trouble if you are finding 200 things to learn, and this is #2, since:

-> at least your explanation of what you mean is unclear
-> it is most likely true that using this as strategy will lose you money

winning an all in preflop, without seeing a flop, does not make people more likely to fold to your next raise on the next hand.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

You didn't mention the other two important points:
(1) He has a big stack
(2) It's early in the tournament.
So now I'm thinking this guy is an aggressive player, having putting it all on the line early on, and he has a lot of T$ to work with. I think there are some hands I would fold now to his raise, that I might play to someone elses raise.

The "immediately following the all-in" means that everyone just saw what happened and comes to the same conclusion about what kind of player he is.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
winning an all in preflop, without seeing a flop, does not make people more likely to fold to your next raise on the next hand.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

So I agree with your statement but it is not the same as what I said.

[Irieguy]

As somebody who spends as much time teaching poker as playing it, I would caution you about your goal of learning 200 lessons.

2 lessons, well applied, are more likely to have a positive impact on your game than the mental quagmire created by attempting to assimilate 200 lessons.

Also, there are not 200 worthwhile lessons to be learned. I would say that a perfect, non-exploitable strategy for SNG poker could be described in 10 well-written sentences.

Irieguy

[Texas Pete]

Quagmire. First Vietnam, then Iraq, now this.

[Cael_Sanderson]

Why not just steadily move up the levels from $33-$55-$109-$215 and do a bit of advance scouting for the next level up. You will learn while playing and figure out the playing styles. I just don't why you feel you need to jump from $33 to $215.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to write down 200 lessons I learn from watching $200 SNGs. Then I'm going to play 200 of them. I am currently playing the $30's.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have found that articles written about what not to do are much more important than articles about what to do. if poker profit comes from your opponents mistakes, it stands to reason that by eliminating your own mistakes, you eliminate your opponents profit. I think it would be very helpful if you chose to focus on common mistakes that not only you but many of your opponents make.

thanks
johnny

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
I would caution you about your goal of learning 200 lessons. 2 lessons, well applied, are more likely to have a positive impact on your game than the mental quagmire created by attempting to assimilate 200 lessons.

Also, there are not 200 worthwhile lessons to be learned. I would say that a perfect, non-exploitable strategy for SNG poker could be described in 10 well-written sentences.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, thanks for your comment. Let me explain a little better about why I am doing this.

First I believe poker is an art, but also that good play is based on a small number of principles. The only way to really learn the principles is to practice by playing, but also by watching. The 200 lessons are not the principles, but illustrations of the principles.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just steadily move up the levels from $33-$55-$109-$215 and do a bit of advance scouting for the next level up. You will learn while playing and figure out the playing styles. I just don't why you feel you need to jump from $33 to $215.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have the bankroll for the $215 but not the confidence. I think after this study I will be confident enough to play. I want to see where I stand. After the 200 SNGs, I will decide what to play next. I am sure after it's over I will be a better player. I am also sure I will learn faster this way than continuing my grind which started in April '04. I will be paying for an accelerated education.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]


i have found that articles written about what not to do are much more important than articles about what to do. if poker profit comes from your opponents mistakes, it stands to reason that by eliminating your own mistakes, you eliminate your opponents profit. I think it would be very helpful if you chose to focus on common mistakes that not only you but many of your opponents make.

thanks
johnny

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I think in Lesson 1 the mistake was the guy changed his mind about how he wanted to play mid-hand. If he wanted to play AJos agressively on Level 2 he should have raised. He limps in and gets top pair. He played the flop passively too since the absolute value of his raise was not enough to knock anyone out that had anything. So obviously the other guy has something when he calls the raise. Then all the sudden Mr. AJos decides to be super aggressive, with TPTK, on Level 2. If he wanted to play it this way then he should have raised it to begin with.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Because with 2 to 1 pot odds, any rag hand has 1/3 of a chance to win the pot (depending on the other hand, but the few times it's down more than that is made up for the other vast majority of the time that it isn't down near that much).

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, pot odds don't affect the chance that a hand will win.

[Texas Pete]

Level 2, ten players, stacks all ~T1000.
UTG raises to 90.
MP calls. Rest of the table folds.

Flop: T T 6

UTG bets half the pot, MP min raises, UTG calls.

Turn: Q

UTG checks, MP checks.

River: 8

UTG check, MP bets half the pot, UTG calls.

UTG turns over K K but
MP wins with 8 8.

I think the paired T's on the flop scared UTG, but he
didn't want to fold those kings. He said, well, I'll just
try and stay in this hand. In the end, he let one too many cards come out.

I'll bet MP thought he had the best hand all the way through. He may have called if UTG pushed on the flop. But definitely, after not betting the turn, UTG should have folded the river. He wasn't trying for a check raise otherwise he would have done so on the river.

[WarDekar]

TP, are you in school?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to write down 200 lessons I learn from watching $200 SNGs. Then I'm going to play 200 of them. I am currently playing the $30's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jumping from $33 to $215 would be a terrible mistake. Are you really planning on that?

eastbay

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Level 2, ten players, stacks all ~T1000.
UTG raises to 90.
MP calls. Rest of the table folds.

Flop: T T 6

UTG bets half the pot, MP min raises, UTG calls.


[/ QUOTE ]

I post this same exact freaking hand in this forum (with reversed position and a low buyin, but close enough) and half of you are saying to fold AA.

THIS is why that's, like, the worst fold ever.

[Texas Pete]

I'm in the school of the $200 SNG! I'm getting ready to pay my 30 buy-ins of (un-scared) tuition money.

Eastbay: since I think I understand at least some of what is going on and what the players are trying to do, it's not a mistake. On the other hand, I might not understand what is really going on. That's why i'm posting instead of scribbling in a notebook.

[WarDekar]

So are you in school? I ask cause I know someone with the nickname Texas Pete.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in the school of the $200 SNG! I'm getting ready to pay my 30 buy-ins of (un-scared) tuition money.

Eastbay: since I think I understand at least some of what is going on and what the players are trying to do, it's not a mistake. On the other hand, I might not understand what is really going on. That's why i'm posting instead of scribbling in a notebook.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't pay to learn, I charge. That seems like a better deal to me.

eastbay

[Texas Pete]

I agree, at this level AT, KT, etc, are not going to cold-call an UTG raise on level 2. Hell, I don't even do that at the 30's.

[Texas Pete]

Level 1, 10 players, stacks haven't changed much.
UTG+1 limps, followed by MP, and the blinds.

Pot T60
Flop K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Blinds check
UTG+1 Bets 45
MP Raises to 90
Table folds to UTG+1 who calls

Pot T 240
Turn brings 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

UTG+1 checks
MP bets 70
UTG+1 calls

Pot T380
River J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
UTG+1 bets 150
MP calls

UTG Turns over A /images/graemlins/heart.gif5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
MP Wins with K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif

I think UTG+1 played this horribly, like there was
no real plan behind his bets.
First I would try to build the pot on the flop. I
would min bet or check here, to keep people in.

Second, if he's going to bluff at this pot, the turn
was the time to do it, when the board paired. That would
give MP something else to worry about besides the flush
draw. I think a big bet here would have folded MP. However, the question is, do you really want to play that way this early?

Then again on the river, UTG+1 must realize that bet will not fold MP, and UTG+1 has nothing to showdown with. A proper bluff at the pot requires a huge bet here.

[Texas Pete]

First hand of Level 2, 10 Players, all stacks ~T1000.

UTG comes in with 175.
UTG+2 re-raises all-in.
Table folds to UTG who calls.

UTG had 99
UTG+2 had AQos

[citanul]

Hey Pete,

First off, lemme say that at the rate you are going, if you just move up limits when your br allows, you'll probably be up to the 200s by the time you hit "lesson" 200. So all those hatas that said not to do anything crazy for br reasons, can stfu.

Second, I've been "following" your "lessons" for a while now, and really have been struck by some "what the [censored] is he thinking?" moments. What is lesson 6 here supposed to be? This hand you're quoting is abolutely not the norm at all for the $215s. Not the original raise, not the reraise, and not the call.

Perhaps along with your little trite cropped up hands, you could post what you're thinking more than "early aggression." Then maybe your posts would be helpful or something. Or perhaps people could help you. You never know.

Good luck and all, but at the moment, this stuff seems mightilly retarded.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
What is lesson 6 here supposed to be? This hand you're quoting is abolutely not the norm at all for the $215s. Not the original raise, not the reraise, and not the call.

Perhaps along with your little trite cropped up hands, you could post what you're thinking more than "early aggression." citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

I was also thinking "hmm, let's see what folks have to say about this." Plus, "I'll bet AQos thought there was no way in hell he was going to get called." And finally, "Probably, 99 thought that AQos thought there was no way in hell he was going to get called."

[citanul]

You have a long, long way to go.

The guy with 99 thought "Hey, I'm a tool! I raise too much at early levels out of position with medium pairs!"

The AQ guy thought, (unless he had very specific notes on the other player) "Hey, I'm a tool! I reraise all in with AQo out of position with another player already having entered the pot with a raise! He couldn't possibly have AK, KK, QQ, or AA, nor could anyone behind me, those hands don't exist! I'm All In! Man, that's just as fun as it looks like it is to say on TV!"

Then the 99 guy thought "I'm a tool, but 99 is the 6th best hand in holdem, right? (I'm not saying it is, but this is how people will justify this, same as saying 33 is the 12th best hand in holdem, which they do.) And hell, There's no way he could have a bigger pair! Those don't exist! Why? 99 is the nuts, that's why! Booyah! I'm All In! Man, that's just as fun as it looks to say on TV!"

I'm betting my ad lib of their thought processes is closer to what actually happened in these players' brains than yours.

Give the actual 200s players some credit. And make sure that you know who the idiots are, when you come across them.

The play in this hand was nothing like what the norm for play of that hand would have been in a 200.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

Neither of those players thought that they were stupid.

[Texas Pete]

Also, what would you raise to 175 UTG with on Level 1, and would you call if MP went all-in with that hand?

[ChrisV]

I agree with citanul. Plus, you can't learn how to play the 200's by randomly picking hands as lessons. The 200's contain a bunch of poor players, otherwise they wouldn't be worth playing. If, as here, you aren't able to distinguish the poor players from the good ones, then the "lessons" you try to take away will often be wrong.

In answer to your question, there is no hand I would raise to 175 UTG. If I was away from the table and someone else raised to 175 for me, then I would call that reraise with AA, KK, QQ, AK.

[McMelchior]

Hey, you know you write REAL FUNNY monologues! I'd love to see some more from your pen (computer, whatever). Pretty much ROFLMAO, and that goes for my wife as well. Thank you.

Best,

McMelchior (Johan) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Texas Pete]

There's a lot of straw-house-blowing down going on here.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what would you raise to 175 UTG with on Level 1, and would you call if MP went all-in with that hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll handle this one.

NOTHING!!

If I was forced to pick a hand to raise to 175 with every time I got it in Level 1, it'd either be AK or QQ. I would certainly be a lot better than the hands those two were playing.

[niin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because with 2 to 1 pot odds, any rag hand has 1/3 of a chance to win the pot (depending on the other hand, but the few times it's down more than that is made up for the other vast majority of the time that it isn't down near that much).

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, pot odds don't affect the chance that a hand will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he meant that most rag hands will have a 1/3rd chance to win a hand pre-flop, and with 2:1 odds it's about an even money prospect. He didn't mean that the 2:1 pot odds makes the hand win 1/3rd of the time.

But in most cases, that's true. Unless you're dominated, overs against unders comes in around 65/35 to 60/40, which is better than 2:1 odds

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of those players thought that they were stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's some sort of Catch 22 going on here, and it may not just be with the 2 players involved with the hand that you posted.

citanul

[citanul]

Damnit Chris,

It feels like every day or two, I'm about to post something, or reply to something, and you've just posted the exact same thing! You're really killing my post count! Hence, posts like this!

I hope of late you have been executing better than I have. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

citanul, who counts himself as pretty happy that he's so in tune with what Chris thinks.

(otherwise known as, I aspire to play on the same level at which I believe Chris does.)

[adanthar]

Hand 6 is a stupid, stupid, stupid hand, not just because both of them are tools (they are) but for the following additional reasons:

-9 times out of 10 that someone raises to t150 or higher PF at a $50 or higher table, it's a medium pair (occasionally, it's AA-KK, and very rarely, someone goes all in with nothing);

-9 times out of 10 that someone reraises all in after them, it's AA-QQ/AK;

-99 times out of 100, that second guy gets called.

[citanul]

Well yeah, that's all nice and analytic and all, but I hardly think it stands up to my little skit.

citanul

[adanthar]

Oh yeah, I'm totally playing for second here.

[assron]

[ QUOTE ]
You have a long, long way to go.

The guy with 99 thought "Hey, I'm a tool! I raise too much at early levels out of position with medium pairs!"

The AQ guy thought, (unless he had very specific notes on the other player) "Hey, I'm a tool! I reraise all in with AQo out of position with another player already having entered the pot with a raise! He couldn't possibly have AK, KK, QQ, or AA, nor could anyone behind me, those hands don't exist! I'm All In! Man, that's just as fun as it looks like it is to say on TV!"

Then the 99 guy thought "I'm a tool, but 99 is the 6th best hand in holdem, right? (I'm not saying it is, but this is how people will justify this, same as saying 33 is the 12th best hand in holdem, which they do.) And hell, There's no way he could have a bigger pair! Those don't exist! Why? 99 is the nuts, that's why! Booyah! I'm All In! Man, that's just as fun as it looks to say on TV!"

I'm betting my ad lib of their thought processes is closer to what actually happened in these players' brains than yours.

Give the actual 200s players some credit. And make sure that you know who the idiots are, when you come across them.

The play in this hand was nothing like what the norm for play of that hand would have been in a 200.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

citanul is mostly right. I dont think the 99 raise is necessarily wrong, but it's not something I would do, and not something citanul would do either, and I think both of us play a fairly standard winning SNG game. Usually in a 109 or 215, a raise of that size is TT-AA or AK, AQ, AJ, AT, and maybe KQ if the player's feeling loose. So 99 isnt really that much of a stretch. that reraise is QQ-AA or AK more often than not. Very atypical hand, I'd scrap it if you really want to learn the game.

A good 215 player would have avoided this situation, the players you saw were recreational gamblers.

[Texas Pete]

Folks, when I make a note of something, it doesn't mean that I want to do what those players are doing.
I think it important to understand what they are trying to do, and what they are thinking. "Good players", "bad players", everyone. If I understand what someone is trying to do I can exploit it, "good" or "bad".

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Folks, when I make a note of something, it doesn't mean that I want to do what those players are doing.
I think it important to understand what they are trying to do, and what they are thinking. "Good players", "bad players", everyone. If I understand what someone is trying to do I can exploit it, "good" or "bad".

[/ QUOTE ]

Pete,

I'd like to show you something, and then maybe you can help me out.

This is your post, titled "6: Early Aggression"

[ QUOTE ]
First hand of Level 2, 10 Players, all stacks ~T1000.

UTG comes in with 175.
UTG+2 re-raises all-in.
Table folds to UTG who calls.

UTG had 99
UTG+2 had AQos

[/ QUOTE ]

As you can hopefully see, your original post in no way says "I think that these players played poorly. Neither did your follow up post when I asked what it was you thought was being accomplished by your posts.

I just have to ask again: What is the point of your posts? Do you hope to pose them as questions, for other players to explain what the players were thinking? Do you believe you are showing some insight into how these games are played by your "lessons"? As you can see, your post does not include any "I think that the thought process of the two players worked like this, they are clearly bad players, and they clearly played the hands in this fashion for these reasons." Your post that said that "neither player thought they were stupid," is one of the stupider posts I've ever seen on this board, and there have been some doozies.

At the moment, your posts strike me and all other players with brains, I'm assuming, as just plain silly. You don't ask questions, you don't post whether you think it was a good play or a bad play on any players part, you just post a hand. They are the equivalent of this:

Post Title: KK doesn't always win
10 handed, blinds 10/15, Party poker.

UTG limps, UTG+1 limps, 3 more players limp, button makes it 200 to go, blinds fold, UTG pushes, others fold, button calls. Button has KK, UTG has AA.

Now, the funny part is that your post on this subject would not include "players often limp reraise early on with AA, so it's good to exercize caution when limp reraised." It would just end after "UTG has AA." The world will I hope forgive my slight hyperbole.

Do you see the problem?

citanul

[Texas Pete]

Citanul, just let me do my thing. Once again it's "200 Lessons" not "200 Great Moves I'd Like to Make". It is important to speculate on the thought process of bad players. Bad is not always irrational. When it is not irrational, it can be exploited. When I first saw #6 I couldn't believe I was watching a 200 SNG.

[Texas Pete]

p.s.

I answer my own questions.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again it's "200 Lessons" not "200 Great Moves I'd Like to Make".

[/ QUOTE ]

What/where are the lessons?!?!?!? I have yet to see more than perhaps 1 let alone anywhere near 200. Maybe you should start a new thread titled '200 random 215 SNG hands that struck me as informative.'

The only lesson I've gotten so far is that you're very bad at answering Citanul's questions.

Wow, this sounds harsher than it should be. I agree with much of what you say Pete (that thought process is important and things can be gained from watching the 215s) but I'm confused as to what you're trying to accomplish with this thread. If you want feedback, ask questions. If you just want to post stuff journal-style, call it a journal. If you want to confuse the hell out of everyone, carry on, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Yugoslav

BTW, I hear your hot sauce is da bomb!

[Texas Pete]

Journal it be. Lessons for me.
Sorry about the delay. Was sick for more than a day.
Compete when well-- good stories to tell.
Play when infirm-- hard lessons you learn!

[Texas Pete]

Happy happy, joy joy: I've found that by clicking the "This hand #11111111111111" or "Previous hand #1111111111111" in the upper right hand corner of your Party table, you can get individual hand transcripts for review. So you can get transcripts for games that you watch, not only the ones that you play.

[Texas Pete]

Just re-read Sklansky's Tournament Poker book. One of the most excellent principles he speaks of is "only raise hands which you wouldn't mind a re-raise" meaning easy to throw away or call/push. Here is a decent example:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t100 (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

CO(t1035)
Button (t1625)
SB (t970)
BB (t1035)
UTG (t735)
UTG+1 (t1020)
MP1 (t900)
MP2 (t1895)
MP3 (t785)

Preflop:

UTG+1 raises (250) to 250
CO raises (1035) to 1035
CO is all-In.
UTG+1 calls (770)
UTG+1 is all-in.

UTG+1 has Ac Kd (high card, ace).
CO has As Qs (high card, ace).

Flop: (t150) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(9 players)</font>

Turn: (t150) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(9 players)</font>

River: (t150) T/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(9 players)</font>

Sklansky also talks about how AK is best all-in.
Why not just push it to begin with here?
Because he's fishin', that's why.
Now that's twice i've seen AQ come over the top a hefty
early raise.
Learn and exploit the "market conditions".

[citanul]

Another lesson to be learned here might be:

Don't come over the top of players whose play is tight and/or respectable from early position with hands that do not play well against raising hands.

Such hands would include AQ and KQ at the top of the list.

Possibly another lesson is: Pay attention to who is doing the raising and from where, and what that means for that individual player. There are plenty of players, even at the 200s, who are raising light from all positions, and even calling of their whole stacks with those holdings when reraised. Isolating those players with AQ or even sometimes KQ can be very, very correct.

On the stack of 1k, it's a tossup much of the time about whether you intend to push preflop or to make a normal raise, from up front. You're right on the edge of the 10 or 8 bb "rule" for pushing preflop as the only raise, but you clearly also don't mind idiots pushing after you with AQ. Most people who would push AQ there will also call a push with it. There's more nuance to go into, but barely, here. I'm a little out of it, but, have just snapped my 1 1st place in 90 tournaments streak, so I'm also a little jazzed!

good luck pete,

citanul

[DonButtons]

Just push with any 2 when the blinds get big whenever it folded to you, it works /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Mystic]

1 first place in 90 attempts, that's some streak! Do you think your play got worse as this streak continued? Or can you put it all down to variance?

Sorry to hijack the thread but that is one helluva bad streak!

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 Call almost any raise from a single player allin giving you 2-1 pot odds if less than 1/3rd of your stack with any 2 cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question about this:

I have $5200 in chips, currently in 1st place. A player goes all-in for 1500 after the flop of J-J-8, making $3400 in the pot. Other players fold to me. I have 9-4 offsuit (I saw flop for free as the BB when other players limped). I am supposed to call this?

[wulfheir]

I think daliman is talking about PF.

[revots33]

Oh ok sorry, if it's pre-flop it makes more sense. I'd still have trouble risking almost 1/3 my stack PF with a hand like 9-4 tho. I'd rather the small stack win a small pot then double-up through me. I'm sure I'm wrong, which is probably why I'll never get past the $11 SNGs! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[citanul]

I don't think that during that streak, I let my mindset actually change the way I played. I mean, I still tried to get the loonies all in preflop against my kings, I just always did so thinking "Well, let's see that ace on the flop! Perfect!" I'm not a big believer in the power of positive thinking as far as it actually having any impact on what cards come on the board.

Mostly, when I look over the games, I have a ton of unlucky busts in 3rd and 4th, many either from getting crippled as the big stack when the 2nd stack makes an insane call, or as the 2nd stack, when the big stack makes a crazy call. Lots and lots of things like folded to me in the small blind, I'm second stack, about 400 behind the chip leader, blinds at 250/500, I push with JJ, he has AK, I lose, or he has AA, I lose. So yeah, basically just lost more coinflips at the wrong times. over the 90 games, my finish detail, for assorted limits, was 1 1st, 12 2nds, 20 3rds, 14 4ths, or something very close to that. Not the greatest ITM or anything, but that includes a few 10s I entered and just pushed every hand (like 3). The ITM is just a bit below my norm, but really, just getting murdered.

Don, Thanks for the advice as well, I did indeed try that strategy for quite a bit a couple weeks ago, and made a killing with it! I think I may have gotten noted, and for some reason, people are just entirely willing to call all in 4 handed with QJ or K4, and always seem to do it at the right time lately /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Last night I started a new account, and played 8 50s, 3 1sts, 3 2nds. Let the healing begin.

Good luck everyone, and thanks for the condolences/help.

citanul

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still have trouble risking almost 1/3 my stack PF with a hand like 9-4 tho.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently started applying this rule with good results. I found that because you are calling less than 1/3 of your stack, you usually aren't much different than before. I've also managed to suck out quite a few hands where I was clearly the dog. When that happenned, I think people at the table started thinking that I was a loose/reckless player may mean called when raising with by far the best of it later on. You'll often lose with this move, but the math doesn't lie... it's clearly a +EV move.

This has fixed a leak in my game.
What I have been doing though, is being selective about when to apply this rule. There were a couple situations on the bubble that I encountered where I was more comfortable folding to let someone with 1-1.5 BB's bust out in the next hand. I'm not sure if it's right to fold in such a situation though...

Steve

[Laughingboy]

That's the hardest I've laughed in a long time. Thanks.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the hardest I've laughed in a long time. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah... what a meaningful post. Care to elaborate to enlighten me?

[Laughingboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the hardest I've laughed in a long time. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah... what a meaningful post. Care to elaborate to enlighten me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have quoted some of citanul's "I'm a tool" post, given the length of this thread. I was just saying his post was funny.

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of those players thought that they were stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do the fish at the Stars 5.50s think they're stupid when they call all-ins pf with A5s because "They thought you were bluffing" or "It was sooooted"

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have quoted some of citanul's "I'm a tool" post, given the length of this thread. I was just saying his post was funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, thanks. I thought that you were pointing out that I did something stupid (which is entirely possible), without telling me what was stupid or how to fix it. You know, like your girlfriend is clearly mad, but she won't tell you why....

[citanul]

se2schul,

when something doesn't make sense in flat mode, it's usually because flat things always show up in time order, not near the posts they are in reply to. You can tell what people are responding to by looking at the header of the post, where it has the linked poster name like "Re: citanul." Clicking on the linked name will open a new window with the post that is being replied to in it.

Hope this helps,

citanul

[se2schul]

That helps a lot. I never noticed it before, thanks.
ss

[GanAnim]

Just thinking the same thing, I don't even play the 215 level but (and I know there are a lot of fish out there and I wish I had those two dumb nuts at one of my tables) those early aggression plays with those hands are absolutely foolish. And that's a lesson learned on any table.

[Texas Pete]

Well, if folks are willing to punch TPTK and two pair on Level 1... (and perhaps slow play them if not challenged on the flop...) I'll make sure to play as many stack-busting hands as possible (trip/str/flush draws). Even, conditions permitting, out of position and paying "too much" to draw because of the implied odds. As long as i'm not crippled on the bubble it's OK. I also realized this kind of thing is easier at $50 and above because you start with T1000 instead of T800.

As a corollary, this sort of behavior reduces the value of AKos early on. And AA--QQ... gotta punch it pre-flop very hard. 3xBB raise doesn't mean much on Level 1.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t15 (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

MP2 (t1000)
<font color="#C00000">MP3 (t800)</font>
CO (t1000)
Button (t990)
<font color="#C00000">SB (t985)</font>
BB (t1000)
UTG (t800)
UTGB (t1425)
UTG+2 (t1000)
MP1 (t1000)

Preflop:
UTG calls t15, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP2 calls t15, MP3 calls t15, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (t75) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets t65</font>, UTG calls t65, MP2 folds, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises to t200</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises to t970 (All-In)</font>, BB folds, UTG folds, MP3 calls t585 (All-In).

Turn: (t1960) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

River: (t1960) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t1960


SB has 8d Td (two pair, tens and eights).
MP3 has Th Ac (two pair, tens and fours).
Outcome: SB wins t1960. </font>

[Texas Pete]

I don't think a small suited connector would stay in for say, T150-200 pre-flop?? And we can always count on AQos coming over the top!

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t30 (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

<font color="#C00000"> (t700)</font>
SB (t1020)
BB (t1210)
UTG (t2105)
<font color="#C00000">UTG+1 (t770)</font>
MP1 (t615)
MP2 (t1320)
MP3 (t1290)
CO (t970)

Preflop:
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 raises to t75</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP3 calls t75, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, calls t75, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls t45.

Flop: (t315) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets t200</font>, MP3 calls t200, calls t200, BB folds.

Turn: (t915) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets t250</font>, MP3 calls t250, calls t250.

River: (t1665) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, MP3 checks, <font color="#CC3333"> bets t175 (All-In)</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 raises to t245 (All-In)</font>, MP3 folds.

Final Pot: t2085


UTG+1 has As Ad (one pair, aces).
has 7h 6h (straight, nine high).
Outcome: wins t2015. UTG+1 wins t70. </font> /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Texas Pete]

Well I have a backlog of hands sitting in my mailbox, but before I get to them, I want to mention that I've moved up to the $50s. Also, before moving up, I had an unbelievably wicked-bad losing streak on the $30s-- three days and something like 30 buy-ins worth. After the first day I thought it was funny. By the end of the third day I was left wondering about just what the heck I was doing.
What I came up with is this:
My job is to get my money in with good cards, as the aggressor, and act before I lose my fold equity. The rest ain't up to me.

So, more about this losing streak.
Everybody loses when they have dominating hands sometimes. But I tell you, I lost almost every time for three days. Not just the usual Ace-big losing to ace-little. I had my KK busted by Th 5h and my aces busted by lower pairs too.
Also, when I went for the all-in steal on the bubble, the big blind would turn up AA, KK or the like.

Actually it's still going on somewhat. I just came in 3rd-- called the very loose pushing small blind with KTos, he had K3os, the cards came A 2 Q 4 5....

[Texas Pete]

UTG waited too long (he no longer has fold equity on three of the players left to act, by the 1/3 rule of thumb). Personally I'd rather push with rags while I still have fold equity, then wait for a good starting hand that gets beat by callers with mediocre hands and big stacks.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (7 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

SB (t2030)
BB (t1715)
UTG (t685)
MP1 (t1000)
MPB (t2200)
CO (t1150)
Button (t1220)

Preflop:
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to t685 (All-In)</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises to t1220 (All-In)</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>.

Flop: (t2205) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Turn: (t2205) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

River: (t2205) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 2 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t2205

UTG has 4d As (one pair, fours).
Button has Ad Qd (one pair, queens).
Outcome: Button wins t2205. </font>

[Insty]

Your 'lesson' doesn't seem to correspond to the hand history you posted.

[Texas Pete]

I've been thinking about the middle game lately.
I don't like button's raise here because it goes against
the "only raise if you wouldn't mind a re-raise" principle.


Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t50 (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

BB (t1540)
UTGA (t595)
UTG+1 (t900)
MP1 (t2420)
MP2 (t1340)
CO (t1440)
Button (t815)
SB (t950)

Preflop:
<font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises to t150</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls t100.

Flop: (t325) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets t125</font>, BB calls t125.

Turn: (t575) K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, Button checks.

River: (t575) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets t150</font>, Button calls t150.

Final Pot: t875

Results:
BB has 7s 6s (one pair, sixes).
Button has Kc 7c (one pair, kings).
Outcome: Button wins t875. </font>

[Texas Pete]

I'm not trying to oversimplify things, but it seems like a good level 1-2 strategy is this: play *correctly* (namely, in position) for trips, straights, and flushes only. (I experimented with out of position and bigger bets, not worth it.) Things like AK-ATos on level one... you raise to 45 and still get called by a wide variety of hands. That is the reality in the current environment at the 200's and of course the lower levels. You hit an ace or king and get re-raised... do you really want to start throwing large chunks of your stack around on level 1, on this? I used to think that's great-- just a fish with A6os... but I have now observed quite a few TPTK disasters (and, mediocre kicker) on the early levels.

[citanul]

Why do you think that the button would have minded a reraise? BTW, I don't think that the rule is "never raise unless you don't mind a reraise," it's much closer to "Never raise without knowing what you're going to do if you are reraised."

The button was trying to steal the blinds. On top of that, no one reraised him. So i'm really not understanding the point of your post at all.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

With a Kxs hand I want to see a flop. If I raise and someone pushes, I have to fold this hand (unless I want to be all-in with that hand). That is the difference between "don't mind a re-raise" and "know what you are going to do if re-raised". It is a bad hand to steal with. If I have to fold it, I give up a potential stack-busting hand. I would much rather steal with a 72os or KK. I'm not going to miss out on anything folding 72os and I will laugh when KTs pushes against my KK. (Laugh to myself, that is. I always keep chat off.)

Getting back to Kxs, if I know that limping with this hand is likely to bring a pusher, then I will just fold it. So you might say this makes it a trash hand, so go ahead and steal with it. Under those conditions, I agree, a steal is OK if it was going to be folded anyway.

[Texas Pete]

also getting back to the Button on this hand: he has to make up his mind on just what the hell he is trying to do. If he just wanted to see a flop he should check and fold. If he wants to bluff for the pot he should go all-in on the flop. But then, why not just push pre-flop. Or, limp then push, folding to a pre-flop re-raise.

[citanul]

After reading these last 2 posts of yours, I'm really shocked that you're beating any level of sng at all.

Kx suited is not a hand that you "want to see a flop with." Nor is it, at this point, really to be considered a "stack busting hand."

Here's some facts about the hand:

Kxs is a trashish hand.

You can't go all in preflop as your first action (well you can) because it is stupid.

Kxs is a fine hand to try to steal the blinds with.

This whole post:

"also getting back to the Button on this hand: he has to make up his mind on just what the hell he is trying to do. If he just wanted to see a flop he should check and fold. If he wants to bluff for the pot he should go all-in on the flop. But then, why not just push pre-flop. Or, limp then push, folding to a pre-flop re-raise."

is just about the stupidest thing I've seen written. You ignore the one case that is the one that is going on. Getting back to the button on this hand: what if he wants to try to steal the blinds with an above average hand, and then, if called, make a decision about what to do, while in position, post flop? Assume that he will fold to a reraise preflop. All of your alternative plays are worse ideas than the play I ask about in this paragraph, which also happens to be the play that the button made.

Additionally, there really isn't that much of a reason for the button to push at the flop. He still has enough chips that if he is called on the flop, or if he is reraised on the flop, he can get away with it. Think about what hands are going to call his push. Why bluff off all your stack in cases when you will be called when you will in general find out if you're going to get called with a much more sensible, 1/2 or so pot bet?

If you make a practice of limping with anything at all on the button, first in, in the 200s, you will never have a positive ROI at that level. In my opinion, which you clearly don't have much respect for, there are two available plays for the button in this hand: he can fold preflop, or he can raise preflop. Limp reraising over a blinds raise is about the stupidest thing I could think of in this situation.

Again, I seriously hope you don't make any analysis nearly as retarded as that described in you last post here while you are playing at the tables, as I have real questions about your ability to be profitable in any way. I really hope you're just trying to debate a bad side of an issue for no real reason at all.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

"Trashish" hand or "above average"? Make up your mind first before you comment.

I would limp in here and play for the flush. It's getting close, but I think with the blinds at 50 and the SB and BB stacks what they are, this makes sense. This suited hand on the button is still a stack-busting hand. I would fold if raised and I don't think that would change the situation at the table much. Neither would capturing T75 from a steal. So, I wouldn't steal with this hand.

The other plays I talked about were prefaced with "if he wants...". Also, stealing and making a decision on the flop like you suggested is clearly bad, because K8-KQ may flat call that steal raise. If you would like to explain why that is a good move, go ahead. But so far I haven't learned anything from you except that you like to build straw men and knock them down. If you like I can just incorporate some of those insults into my sig and that would save you some time.

[Elektrik]

Pete,

Despite the very insulting tone of his post, citanul was right. K7 is trash, whether it is suited or not. Yes, it is above average trash, but it is trash none the less. However, you can raise here with what is most likely the best hand with the hopes to take down the blinds.

"only raise if you don't mind a reraise" is relavent here - he doesn't mind a reraise, because he has an easy fold.

Limping here is by far your worst option of the three. The blinds could have any hand, and you'll have absolutely no idea where you stand on the flop. Thinking the "flush possibility" is worth it is wrong - why don't you limp with 72s? Because it doesn't come up enough to make it relevant.

So how on earth is this a stack busting hand? Obbiously, if the flop comes Kxx and you go to the river with an opp you're probably beat, so you're hoping for two pair, trips, or a flush - so why aren't we limping any two suited cards here? By that logic, they're ALL stack busting hand.

I know citanul's tone was harsh, but I suggest you grow some thicker skin, especially on these boards; even those who insult you are usually still giving you something. Look at what he was trying to say. And as much as I hate to admit it, he is right, with logic like that it will be very tough to maintain a positive ROI in the 200's.

[Texas Pete]

If Kxs hits his hand there is only a small chance it's second best. That's why it's a stack busting hand. I see that it is negative T$ EV to limp. I wouldn't do it in a ring game. But if played correctly it is positive real $ EV. I think this goes for any suited connector here (but not any two suited cards) too. BB called because of the same principle. He's probably going to lose the hand, but he has some stack-busting potential there. Supposing it works 1 out of 100 times, it's worth it.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]


Limping here is by far your worst option of the three. The blinds could have any hand, and you'll have absolutely no idea where you stand on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want them to play. Hopefully they flop something decent and bet the pot. That's why I said I'm playing for the flush. I'm folding a pair of kings.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
If Kxs hits his hand there is only a small chance it's second best. That's why it's a stack busting hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
If T7o flops 986 rainbow, it's the absolute nuts! That makes it a "stack busting hand" too. (Note also that you can't "stack bust" the blind, because he has more chips than you).

Do you have any idea how bad the odds are of making a flush? And most of them come via draws. If the flop comes with two clubs and BB bets the pot, whats your plan?

[ QUOTE ]
I see that it is negative T$ EV to limp. I wouldn't do it in a ring game. But if played correctly it is positive real $ EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV, which is why 90% of the long-time posters on this forum advocate a tight style in the early rounds. The reason is that gaining chips does not help you as much as losing them hurts you. (Folding, on the other hand, is -CEV/+$EV heaps of the time).

[ QUOTE ]
Supposing it works 1 out of 100 times, it's worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Limping for 1/16th of your stack is worth doubling up 1 in 100 times?

If you honestly think that limping in a suited king on the button is a good idea because you get to lay the flush smackdown on the blinds, there's nothing left for me to say except "Welcome to the 200's, what's your nick?".

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Limping for 1/16th of your stack is worth doubling up 1 in 100 times?


[/ QUOTE ]

I this case, yes... what's the difference if the guy has 815 or 765 at this point in time? He's still going to be in the same situation, looking for a place to push once the blinds move up.

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't know that. Why? What about raising?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Limping for 1/16th of your stack is worth doubling up 1 in 100 times?


[/ QUOTE ]

I this case, yes... what's the difference if the guy has 815 or 765 at this point in time? He's still going to be in the same situation, looking for a place to push once the blinds move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I don't understand Pete is that you're completely unwilling to accept anything that anyone tells you, no matter how nicely or in how much detail they take the time to do it. I'll make this pretty clear for you.

No one agrees with you. Until you can provide, oh, any evidence for your case as to why limping 1/16 of your stack to double up 1 in 100 times is a reasonable play, perhaps you should consider information that others are trying to give you. That being, that no, it is not worth limping 1/16 of your stack in this situation.

I don't understand your style of discussion, where the process is:

1 - Statement A
2 - Statement A is false
1 - No it's not
2 - Yes it is, here's why
1 - You're clearly not thinking about it *my* way
2 - That's because your way is wrong
1 - Is not.

Your other post in response to Chris' post is actually worthwhile and you may learn something from it. In fact, this subthread here about how to play K7s on the button etc should hopefully teach you something. Namely, I'm hoping for your sake that by the end of the discussion, having been given many reasons, you will understand that limping is the worst of all plays you could decide on.

Now, the question about this statement:

"Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV"

is an interesting one, that even people that know that limping on the button with K7s is wrong will probably learn something from discussing.

Pete, I think that you need to sit down and think about the goals in a SNG, and think about the gap concept some, and think about SPECIFICALLY why you would never, ever, ever, limp with K7s in that position.

I really hope that your next post includes a statement from you explaining why limping there would be wrong.

citanul

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]

Thm. 1.: Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thm. 2: If it doesn't hurt you or help your opponents when you lose, it is +$EV to spend ~5% of your initial stack at some point on a lottery ticket.

Def. of lottery ticket: a -CEV play with large implied odds.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Thm. 1.: Aside from some very specific situations on the bubble, calling is not ever -CEV and +$EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thm. 2: If it doesn't hurt you or help your opponents when you lose, it is +$EV to spend ~5% of your initial stack at some point on a lottery ticket.

Def. of lottery ticket: a -CEV play with large implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

So now apparently you're going to need some help figuring out the difference between ~5% and ~15%? I'm not going to say that I necessarilly agree with what your "Thm. 2" is or anything, but you're getting closer to a reasonable assertion.

Perhaps you'd like to just make Thm. 3: "when in late position, with a few limpers, you can limp small pairs for up to ~5% of your stack."

K7s is *not* a lottery ticket hand. 33 *is* a lottery ticket hand. One hand hits MUCH more often than the other. Hell, T9s a lottery ticket hand. You just MUST NOT get over zealous with what hands/situations you think are these "lottery ticket" hands.

Also, exactly how is it, at basically any time, that you think that losing a hand will neither hurt you nor help your opponent that wins the hand?

Pete, now answer two questions:

1) Tell me why you shouldn't limp K7s on the button in the situation in the original hand

2) Tell me what specific situations on the bubble Chris is talking about

citanul

[ChrisV]

Here's the first problem with this argument:

It is very similar to an argument that goes around in economics. This argument says, for example: Suppose houses cost $250,000 and stamp duty is currently $5,000. Imagine if we increased stamp duty to $6,000. Moving from $255,000 to $256,000 can't possibly change anyone's mind about whether they will buy the house. Therefore, this tax increase can be made with no effect on the housing market.

This argument is plain wrong. If you increase stamp duty like that you will find there will be an effect on the housing market (or on the economy at large). Likewise, there is a price to be paid for losing 50 chips in this situation. This price is likely to show up as being forced allin in situations where with 50 chips more you could have simply raised or bet an amount that doesn't put you allin.

The second problem is that most of the time what you will flop with Kx suited is a draw, rather than a made flush. You flop a flush only 0.84% of the time compared to flopping a draw 10.9% of the time. Suppose you flop a draw and the BB either bets out or checkraises you. What now?

[Texas Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
there is a price to be paid for losing 50 chips in this situation. This price is likely to show up as being forced allin in situations where with 50 chips more you could have simply raised or bet an amount that doesn't put you allin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply. Supposing the blinds are close to moving up to 100; he's in all-in land with T815 or T765 regardless. I think the hurt here is that if he wins his called push he is losing T50x2, having pissed away T50 previously. That's a little bit bad.

[ QUOTE ]

The second problem is that most of the time what you will flop with Kx suited is a draw, rather than a made flush. You flop a flush only 0.84% of the time compared to flopping a draw 10.9% of the time. Suppose you flop a draw and the BB either bets out or checkraises you. What now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold. It's another great way to lose the T50.

Got any refs on Thm. 1.?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
do you really want to start throwing large chunks of your stack around on level 1, on this? I used to think that's great-- just a fish with A6os... but I have now observed quite a few TPTK disasters

[/ QUOTE ]

I love throwing around large portions of my stack in level 1. It usually means I have a pretty good idea I have the best hand, rather than just a hope that the blinds weren't dealt good cards.

That's not to say I'm loose in the early rounds. I'm not.

[ChrisV]

There's a time and place for these "situational" arguments. I've seen Gigabet advance a compelling situational argument before in defense of an allin call he made with KJ. The argument is no good here because there is virtually no gain to be made from calling. You only flop a flush 0.84% of the time and you flop two pair or trips an additional 3.5% or so of the time. Of those times, the amount of times the BB is willing to go allin with you with a worse hand is again very small. It's hugely unlikely you'll take his stack here.

Now for the theorem of calling (or more accurately, voluntarily putting chips in the pot) never being -CEV and +$EV. For this I'll be using the ICM calculator. ICM Calculator (http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~sharnett/ICM/ICM.html). Everyone starts with 1000 chips and has 10% of the prize pool in equity. Now, suppose on the first hand the SB and BB go allin, both with exactly 50% chance to win and 0% chance to split. After the smoke clears, the equity looks like this:

1000 - 0.10194444444444445 (x 9 stacks)
2000 - 0.18444444444444447

What has happened here is that the guy who doubled up didn't double his equity, or anywhere near. A whole 2.5% or so of the prize pool was taken from the two allin players and redistributed among the table.

Let's take a less extreme situation - suppose these players only commit half their stack on the first hand.

1000 - 0.1004781561747506 (x8)
1500 - 0.14375644994840042
500 - 0.05241830065359476

The sum of the equity of the 1500 and 500 stacks is 0.19617475060199518. A much less extreme, but still noticeable, 0.38% of the prize pool has been taken from those two players and distributed to everyone else.

So the theorem says: Any time two stacks have a confrontation, equity is taken from those two stacks and given to everyone else on the table. Therefore, averaging a break-even on chip amount will lead to a small loss in equity. Therefore, even a CEV neutral play loses $EV. You require a clearly +CEV play before it becomes +$EV. In the case of going allin on the first hand, for example, you are required to be a 54.22% favourite to break even in $EV terms.

The reason this is so can be best understood by looking at a common bubble situation. You know how good it is on the bubble to have two other stacks of equal height go allin. Immediately you are taken from a bubble situation to guaranteed money (provided they don't split). This represents a huge gain in equity for you. Even if one or both stacks are not allin, it is good for you because they will still be crippled - made short stacked - by the confrontation. Anything that brings you closer to the money is good.

This effect persists all the way down to the start of the tourney, with ten players. SNGs are effectively one long bubble. The effect becomes larger (1) As the amount invested by the stacks becomes larger (allin is best, obviously) and (2) as the number of players becomes fewer. Example:

2000 - 0.24023809523809525
2000 - 0.24023809523809525
2000 - 0.24023809523809525
1000 - 0.13964285714285712
1000 - 0.13964285714285712

versus:

2000 - 0.24259129759129758
2000 - 0.24259129759129758
2000 - 0.24259129759129758
1500 - 0.19738636363636364
500 - 0.0748397435897436

If you sum the equity of the 1000 stacks before and after the confrontation, they have lost 0.71% of the prize pool, compared to 0.38% in the ten player example. Same confrontation, but bigger loss because there are less players so everyone is closer to the money.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Any time two stacks have a confrontation, equity is taken from those two stacks and given to everyone else on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

suppose 8 people have T1000, and the other two have T500 and T1500. if the short stack doubles up off of the big stack (leaving everyone back at T1000) then equity is removed from the 8 original T1000 guys and given to the two who clashed (obviously the loser loses equity, but as a pair, they gain). right?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Def. of lottery ticket: a -CEV play with large implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you might have a confused idea about implied odds. Any hand you play has some implied odds potential in it, be it 93o or K7s.

The points people are trying to make here, is that when you consider the probability of hitting a *big* hand AND getting paid for it, you find that playing such hands is -CEV (and -$EV) in most common situations, because you will lose small amounts of chips much more often than you'll win enough to compensate for it, PLUS you will find yourself in situations where you'll be getting marginally OK odds to go on with the hand, while you don't actually want to go on with it, i.e, chasing, or putting too much into the pot post-flop without knowing for sure you're ahead.

Your example with the lottery ticket is simply irrelevant. Buying a lottery ticket is either +EV or -EV, there's no meaning to "implied odds" in this case. The fact that you can win big if you hit is simply part of your EV calculation. In poker, on the other hand, there are moves that are +EV (CEV or $EV, doesn't matter now), even without taking in calculation implied odds. Implied odds might change a move from -EV to +EV, but the jump to conclusions regarding the implied odds EV is not simple as saying "it's a stack busting hand".

[ChrisV]

Yeah, that's correct. I should more accurately have said that when two stacks have a confrontation that is certain to increase the unevenness of stacks, they lose equity.

Note that the short stack in that example is giving equity to everyone on the table, including the guy he's in the hand with. The general lessons to take from that are that as a short stack it's bad to be allin and as a big stack you have an incentive to bust small stacks.

[lorinda]

I don't have a favorite posts list, but if I did, this would be on it.

Lori

[ChrisV]

Thanks! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Texas Pete]

Thanks for taking the time to post this. It is all new to me and it's going to take some time to digest.
Sincerely,
Pete

[citanul]

The ChrisV fan club grows...

citanul

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's correct. I should more accurately have said that when two stacks have a confrontation that is certain to increase the unevenness of stacks, they lose equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just looked at this again and realised I was totally wrong. I don't know why I thought this was right the first time.

If the two stacks with 1500 and 500 collide, then half the time it reverts to everyone having 1000 chips. In this case they strip equity off everyone else - 0.38%.

However, when the short stack loses, then the pair of them dump a stack more equity - all the way down to 2.5%, as in the first example.

Any 50/50 confrontation between stacks always has them losing equity as a pair to the rest of the table, because the other stacks are always helped more by the short stack declining than they are hurt by him gaining chips.

Of course, confrontations between stacks which are not 50/50 can certainly rip equity off other stacks. I'm sure everyone recognises the sinking feeling you get when the big stack dumps chips to the short stack on the bubble. You just lost equity.

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
After the smoke clears, the equity looks like this:

1000 - 0.10194444444444445 (x 9 stacks)
2000 - 0.18444444444444447

What has happened here is that the guy who doubled up didn't double his equity, or anywhere near. A whole 2.5% or so of the prize pool was taken from the two allin players and redistributed among the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to nitpick a great post, but "after the smoke clears", aren't there 8 stacks of 1,000? And doesn't the 9th guy having ~18.44% mean that *1.55%* has been re-distributed around the table?

[ChrisV]

Yes. Yes.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif