2+2 sng Hand for discussion

[Toro]

Those of us in this hand didn't think this was particularly good tournament strategy by Missot. Maybe we're prejudiced though because we were in the tourney.

I didn't like the play because his raise gave the short stack protection from other players who may play the hand. The isolation play is great when you likely have a better hand than the short stack but with 6 high it made no sense to me.

The most likely result of the hand is that he loses to the short stack and gives him chips to make him potentially dangerous to both himself and others. In the actual hand the SB said he was coming in and would have knocked Doc out. Instead Doc more than doubled through and had enough chips to be a factor.



PokerStars Game #1405308471: Tournament #6364609, Hold'em No Limit - Level VII (100/200) - 2005/03/23 - 21:08:06 (ET)
> Table '6364609 1' Seat #2 is the button
> Seat 1: Toro85 (2040 in chips)
> Seat 2: missot (3810 in chips)
> Seat 4: j jawanda (3075 in chips)
> Seat 5: pasty11 (1740 in chips)
> Seat 6: DrPhysic (395 in chips)
> Toro85: posts the ante 25
> missot: posts the ante 25
> j jawanda: posts the ante 25
> pasty11: posts the ante 25
> DrPhysic: posts the ante 25
> j jawanda: posts small blind 100
> pasty11: posts big blind 200
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to Toro85 [Td 8h]
> DrPhysic: raises 170 to 370 and is all-in
> Toro85: folds
> missot: raises 430 to 800
> j jawanda: folds
> pasty11: folds
> *** FLOP *** [9c 7s 3d]
> pasty11 said, "?"
> Toro85 said, "ha best hand doc"
> *** TURN *** [9c 7s 3d] [Ah]
> *** RIVER *** [9c 7s 3d Ah] [7d]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> DrPhysic: shows [4c 8s] (a pair of Sevens)
> missot: shows [6h 5h] (a pair of Sevens - lower kicker)
> DrPhysic collected 1165 from pot
> DrPhysic said, "unreal"
> mackthefork [observer] said, "haha"
> *** SUMMARY ***
> Total pot 1165 | Rake 0
> Board [9c 7s 3d Ah 7d]
> Seat 1: Toro85 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> Seat 2: missot (button) showed [6h 5h] and lost with a pair of Sevens
> Seat 4: j jawanda (small blind) folded before Flop
> Seat 5: pasty11 (big blind) folded before Flop
> Seat 6: DrPhysic showed [4c 8s] and won (1165) with a pair of Sevens
>

[Apathy]

Meh. Its not a horrible play, it's just a gambling one. With 56s your getting incredible odds against Doc's range of hands (almost any two) with the antes. Also maybe Doc was not defending his blinds well so missot thought it likely that he could steal from doc in the event that he lost the all in.

If missot was not the big stack this would be a horrible play though. If missot was a bigger big stack, I actually don't mind the play.

Also Doc gave up on this hand and got lucky, he should've waited until the next hand to get his chips in, pushing with 84o is silly.

[Apathy]

Also I didn't realise that this was the bubble (just saw other thread) I assumed it onlt paid top 3. In that case this play is even better, and if missot had 700-1000 more chips a push would be very standard (for me at least, im crazy on the bubble).

[sofere]

If this was the bubble than this would not be that bad a play. The way I see it, 3 things could happen:
(a) Everyone else folds, he wins and is now ITM with a healthy chip lead
(b) Everyone else folds, he loses...He's still the chipleader and there is still a pretty small stack at the table...great for stealing opportunities.
(c) Someone calls or raises behind...he shuts down barring a superb flop. He's now at worst second stack with a healthy stack.

If this wasn't the bubble and there was still another table out there (which I think is the case cause chip stacks don't quite add up right) then my vote is that this is a silly play.

[DrPhysic]

I disagree slightly with your thinking:

[ QUOTE ]
...against Doc's range of hands (almost any two)...

[/ QUOTE ]

I had 395 chips. I think mine is a forced bet literally with any two, not almost. I will be not much worse than a 2-1 dog with the cards I had (or 72o for that matter.) If I win, as I got lucky and did, I pick up both blinds and probably at least one more bet, which can put me at 200+100+395+395 = 1090 and give me a chance in the game. The big blind hits me next. If I wait and catch AA in the bb the best I can expect is to pick up the 100 small blind and maybe one more bet, which would be a range 495 to 890 chips. The time to gamble is now.

Missot (and probably anybody else) should have considered my short stack bet with the big blind next as a forced call. I certainly would have. Against a desperation bid by a short stack especially when he hits the bb next, I think it is a forced call by anybody at the table who happens to have two cards (unless their stack is also so short they can be hurt if I win.) Even pasty who was the second low stack, can afford to risk 395 chips to get me off the table.

It needed to be a call, however. This play comes somewhat under the same heading as two players covering a smaller all-in. The object is to get the weak stack off the table. Betting against each other lessens the chance of removing the short stack from the table, therefore generally a subsequent bet is -EV, unless you have the absolute nuts and know you have to have the other bettor and the short stack beaten. For the same reason, missot's raise was -EV. It kept someone else who might well have beaten me and taken me off the table from jumping in with a second call. Toro's point was exactly that: the raise protected me from subsequent callers who could (and I think did) have me beaten.

Sometimes it is possible to be too aggressive.

Doc

edited: this hand was not on the bubble.

[Toro]

It was not the bubble, we had two 5 handed tables in this 2 table sng which played 4 places.

[MissOt]

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

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

MP (t2040)
<font color="#C00000">Hero (t3810)</font>
SB (t3075)
BB (t1740)
<font color="#C00000">UTG (t395)</font>

Preflop: Hero is Button with 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to t370</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t800</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>.

Flop: (t1245) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Turn: (t1245) A/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

River: (t1245) 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Final Pot: t1245

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
UTG has 4c 8s (one pair, sevens).
Hero has 6h 5h (one pair, sevens).
Outcome: UTG wins t1245. </font>

(dr jekyl)utg is on his last hand. his range of pushing hands is basically any 2 cards. im risking 370 to win 1245 with 56s. thats 25% of the pot and pretty much all the time ill be higher than 25% favorite to win the hand. im only putting in 370 to jump my stack to 5k.

if i lose... he has 1200 and its still 5 handed and i continue to steal and chip up. i was picking up almost every pot uncontested so if i win(have 5k) or lose(keep stealing) i like the results.

it was fun. ill try to make these more often

[/ QUOTE ]

bubble for new table not payouts

[mackthefork]

Toro

I'm surprised you don't like this move, it would be definitely standard, and very profitable CEV wise for me. SB or BB will have something playable very rarely and no further investment is neccesary here.

Regards Mack

[MissOt]

who cares about busting you. we are 6 from the money. why should i let a family pot checkdown happen when i can add a good amount of chips to my stack for a little price? why should i let pasty(BB) get the chance at the free chips and not me? if i fold here, SB and BB call and both check down and will probably win chips that easily could have been mine. it doesnt matter if i let the SS live for some more hands. we arent on the bubble for the money. it doesnt make any sense to.

[DrPhysic]

An apparent difference in philosophy.

Yes you can "add a good amount of chips to my stack for a little price?"

Or for a smaller little price, half the risk in fact, which does not affect your lead much one way or the other no matter who wins them (with the exception of j juwanda who could at best tie your lead)...

...you could be 5 from the money.

From a chiplead position, I prefer the latter.

I did appreciate your raise which effectively shut out the next two players. I would bet almost any amount of money that one of them held a hand that beat my 8 high.

That argument is secondary in my thinking to the fundamental philosophical question ie: would you rather have 685 more chips (18% improvement in your stack if you win), or one less player at the table?

Comments?

Doc

[morgan180]

there's no way i raise here in front of the blinds with 56 when the SS is going to be all-in. i'd rather do that with a bad k or a if i am going to do it. i feel that doc IS forced all in here w/any two there aren't too many card combinations lower than 56. When you're up against a forced allin i'd rather have high card strength that can run better hot/cold. i would fold this. if you want to play it, play it for straight value and keep the blinds in for better odds to hit your hand.

[curtains]

I think the UTG allin is simply wrong, and was clearly worse for raising than was the MP player who reraised with 65s. None of the arguments given for raising UTG hold much water to me.

First of all the few extra chips you gain from winning this hand compared to next hand, aren't that important as you will be posting 200 the very next hand anyway. To count the chips gained as a pure 200 extra is erroneous IMO, as posting the BB the very next hand negates a good portion of these chips EV wise. Also the overall math figures given were very fuzzy, with too many rough approximations and so on. I personally think its a very clear fold.

Also in this particular case, it's very likely that the UTG raiser will be called in more than one spot, which is not something someone wants with 84o here (If folded to the blinds he is likely to be called by BOTH blinds here). He was very fortunate to have someone raise out his competition. I think your winning percentage is quite a few points higher if you wait for one hand, and the extra chips that you don't gain in this scenario are not as important as the made out to be.

Anyway this isn't even me talking, Sklansky examines this exact situation in detail and writes that it's best to fold in these spots (albeit in what I believe was a no ante tournament, but it shouldn't make that big a difference). I see some serious logic behind his points but see almost no logic behind pundits who claim you should move allin with any 2 cards here.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Missot (and probably anybody else) should have considered my short stack bet with the big blind next as a forced call. I certainly would have. Against a desperation bid by a short stack especially when he hits the bb next, I think it is a forced call by anybody at the table who happens to have two cards (unless their stack is also so short they can be hurt if I win.) Even pasty who was the second low stack, can afford to risk 395 chips to get me off the table.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just don't get this at all. So next hand everyone at the table is going to call 200 preflop because you are allin in the BB, but this hand when you move allin for a whopping 385, all your opponents will fold like dominos?

First of all it's flat out wrong that anyone at the table should just call with any two cards next hand, and I think people would be MORE likely to call preflop this hand, as when a player is allin, it often makes other's at the table less likely to bluff. By this I mean that someone may not raise with something like A7o after an allin and another caller, whereas next hand, it's very likely that someone will raise with this hand and limit the competition for the shortstack in the BB.