Call here?

[DaffyDuck]

I was thinking about Gigabet's theory and I know this is not exactly applicable since winning will not make me big stack, but I was trying to figure out whether 1500 with 5 left if I lose was much worse than 2350 with 5 left if I fold, while if I win I have 3700 on the bubble. I was being offered 1.7:1 to call and the range of hands I was putting him on had me in that ballpark if I call.

I had not limped this entire SNG so I was just trying to vary my play here. I know the limp is debatable but that is not my question.

Villain was pretty tight. Table was pretty tight in general so I figured if I do call and if I do lose I could steal it back. Maybe this is a dumb question also, but is that correct reasoning or backwards?

So, call or not?

Game: No Limit Hold 'em
Level IV: 75/150 Blinds (25 Minimum Chip)
Average Stack: 3,000 (1,500 starting chips)
Remaining Players: 5 (10 started)
Seat 5 : p1 starts with 6,375
Seat 6 : p2 starts with 3,325
Seat 7 : p3 starts with 1,775
Seat 8 : Hero starts with 2,600
Seat 9 : Villain starts with 925
Seat 5 : P1 has the dealer button
>>>DEALING HOLE CARDS<<<
Hero dealt down Qs Js
p2 posts the small blind 75
p3 posts the big blind 150
Hero calls 150
Villain raises 775 to 925 and is all-in
P1 folds
P2 folds
P3 folds
Hero ?

Thanks,

Bob

[lastchance]

Umm... Open-Limping preflop with 15x BB is dumb. In general, it's very, very dumb. And no, "mixing up your play" is not a good reason at all.

I don't think I call either. I mean, really, you have QJs. What the hell are you thinking about?

[DaffyDuck]

Yeah. That was helpful. Exactly why I lurk here and don't post.

Thanks.

[HighestCard]

This wasnt the best limping hand in UTG in the first place. With 1.7:1 pot odds, and assuming hero has an ace or a king with a rag or even ace king, you are about a 40-45% underdog (depending on connection and suit), this is probably your best sitation. More likely would be the hands where your a large dog, AA-JJ, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, and im assuming he would push with two face cards, typically being tight. Your in a tough position with blinds next hand but your chip stack can take it. I would wait for a better time, such as if villian had about half his chip stack.

[DaffyDuck]

Let's say he'll do this with any PP, any 2 face, and Ax (x=8) or over. According to Pokerstove, I'm 40% to win against that range, which are good enough pots odds (for whatever pot odds a really worth in this situation). Include Tens in any 2 face and bring the Aces down a little lower and I'm getting to 45%.

So, 40% of the time I am at 3750 chips on the bubble and 60% of the time I'm at 1675 with 5 left.

Time for a little ICM (independent chip model) typical $10 SNG with payouts of $50, $30, $20;

If I fold, my equity is $18.92

If I call, my equity is $13.70 if I lose, $26.71 if I call.

so calling equity = (.60*13.70) + .40(26.71) = $18.90.

So, it's a wash by the ICM. The ICM, of course, computes equity based on all players being exactly equal in skill. I felt fairly confident I was a better player and I also felt confident I could make better use of a bigger stack.

I don't really think I'm dominated (by my definition anyway) and I don't admit calling is a bad idea. I think with a bigger stack against a tight table I will have an opportunity to bully and steal more, and I thought that was the point of Gigabet's theory. I admit this is marginal by those standards because I won't be the big stack but I still like the idea of being at 3750 on the bubble 40% of the time and I don't think my chances at 1675 with 5 left are much worse than 2450 with 5 left.

What I was hoping for was some comment on whether I was thinking correctly about Gigabet's theory, whether this was too marginal even for that, and whether my rationale is correct about the table being tight making this a better call. I'm trying to expand my thinking and get my head around some new ideas beyond robotic play.

Of course, what I got was snide comments about a limp I admitted was debatable (and that I specifically mentioned was not the question), and being called dumb, without any consideration of the math or the situation.

What the hell was I thinking? I don't know what the hell I was thinking about posting this question. I guess I'm just not one of the "in" crowd.

Bob

[lastchance]

What level are you at?

Because Gigabet's theory only applies when you're playing against good players, which is very, very rare if you're not paying up to $50.

That limp was not debatable. When I make a comment about a horrible limp, I mean it. Don't limp there, it's huge -EV. You may think it's debatable. I'm telling you it's not. You're out of position, you're going to get raised when you have QJs, you're letting other people limp with better position on you and a lot more of a stack. On the button behind limpers, I like it a lot more. UTG, really, don't do this.

And calling was a lot better than I thought it would be here. Overlay is nice, and your range was tight.

Reads would be nice.

[ QUOTE ]
I admit this is marginal by those standards because I won't be the big stack but I still like the idea of being at 3750 on the bubble 40% of the time and I don't think my chances at 1675 with 5 left are much worse than 2450 with 5 left.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um... No... Not really. The blinds aren't large enough to bully with chips, plus if you can't get your opponents to fold A9 on the bubble, bullying with large stack is simply not worth it. And dropping 800 chips here leaves you with 10x BB, which is a lot less chips than 15x BB, which is a very manueverable stack.

[Scuba Chuck]

You should know that I stopped reading your post after this comment...

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about Gigabet's theory

[/ QUOTE ]

[DaffyDuck]

[ QUOTE ]
You should know that I stopped reading your post after this comment...

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking about Gigabet's theory

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you think it's bunk I'm very interested, as I usually am when I read your posts.

Lastchance- thanks for the feedback. I'm trying to get handle on the parameters where these ideas may make sense, and when the situation falls outside of those parameters.

Bob

[lastchance]

It's not that Gigabet's theory is bunk, it's just that your opponents have to be good before it's applicable or just tight. If you're not paying $55 per SNG at least, you're not getting BB to laydown A7, and if you don't, you really shouldn't be applying Gigabet's theory.

[utmt40]

FOLD!