You think this is a leak?

[Scuba Chuck]

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t300 (4 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

Hero (t1440)
SB (t3195)
BB (t2320)
UTG (t1045)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>.

[tigerite]

That's an ugly situation, it depends on the calling standards of the blinds. Against tight players it's a leak, against loose ones it's not.

[Bonafone]

Not at all, maaaaybe push if they have been giving the shortstack free walks and have tight calling standards, but it looks good to me.

[bennies]

I'd push this. If BB was SB and SB was BB I would fold.

[Big Limpin']

Why must it be taken as a given that this is a push/fold situation? With T9s, I see merit in paying the t300 and seeing a flop.

You have 400 chips more than shorty/UTG (an important "block"), and he pays blinds ahead of you. If you call with T9s, i suppose you will then have to fold to a push from either blind (steal or legit), but that is a minority of times. So see a flop and use your superior poker skills Scuba. SB can do whatever he wants, complete or not, suprisingly often he does fold, maybe bottom 40% of hands(!). So if the BB does check and we see a 2/3 handed flop, you can pick your spots to make your bet or not,and with t1000 behind, THEN it must be push. But limping, you arent commiting to the pot, and you will flop the best hand 1 time in, uh, 3(?). And you make use of being the button, i'm sure you can take away a good chunk of pots when he flops bottom pair, or if you both miss. If he stop-and-goes you, well, only call if you are pretty damn sure you have him beat. Otherwise, fold.

Just a suggestion, an alternative. If limited to push/fold, yeah push seems OK, 450 chips helps...but i'd wait for a better spot. Remember shorty pays blidns next hand, not you. The stacks/positions, for me, dont make having t1900 than much better than your current t1400, for $equity in the tournament. I'd toss this and be thrilled if SB decides to push at BB...and even more if he gets called /images/graemlins/laugh.gif That would jump your equity even more than having the t450 blinds.

BL'

[Bonafone]

I only read the first line of your post. But limping is pretty horrible imo. The blinds push way to often.

[applejuicekid]

Most times I would push this unless the table was very aggressive. But I think folding is OK with the short stack being in the BB the next hand.

[tigerite]

[ QUOTE ]
I only read the first line of your post. But limping is pretty horrible imo. The blinds push way to often.

[/ QUOTE ]

They certainly do at $55/$109 but I'm not sure about the $22s. I suppose it has merit but seems a bit fancy to me.

[Annulus]

I push in this situation. I'm not scared of being called and busting out.

[Annulus]

what are you scared of? they are not priced in to call you and neither stack is huge enough to call with a mediocre hand. You win the blinds the majority of the times. And when you are called you still have a good chance to win the hand... what buy-in?

[ QUOTE ]
Why must it be taken as a given that this is a push/fold situation? With T9s, I see merit in paying the t300 and seeing a flop.

You have 400 chips more than shorty/UTG (an important "block"), and he pays blinds ahead of you. If you call with T9s, i suppose you will then have to fold to a push from either blind (steal or legit), but that is a minority of times. So see a flop and use your superior poker skills Scuba. SB can do whatever he wants, complete or not, suprisingly often he does fold, maybe bottom 40% of hands(!). So if the BB does check and we see a 2/3 handed flop, you can pick your spots to make your bet or not,and with t1000 behind, THEN it must be push. But limping, you arent commiting to the pot, and you will flop the best hand 1 time in, uh, 3(?). And you make use of being the button, i'm sure you can take away a good chunk of pots when he flops bottom pair, or if you both miss. If he stop-and-goes you, well, only call if you are pretty damn sure you have him beat. Otherwise, fold.

Just a suggestion, an alternative. If limited to push/fold, yeah push seems OK, 450 chips helps...but i'd wait for a better spot. Remember shorty pays blidns next hand, not you. The stacks/positions, for me, dont make having t1900 than much better than your current t1400, for $equity in the tournament. I'd toss this and be thrilled if SB decides to push at BB...and even more if he gets called /images/graemlins/laugh.gif That would jump your equity even more than having the t450 blinds.

BL'

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is 1) you might get raised and 2) even with your description (which ignores raises), this play seems only marginally +cEV and high variance, which means it's -EV in a structured payout tourny.

[Shillx]

Don't see how you can push this. What if you knew that you would get AA the very next hand. Would you push this T9s now? Hell would you even push with A9s here?

Well this is essentially the same thing. UTG is going to have to take a -EV gamble at some point, and guess who the main beneficiary is? Figure that sneaking into the $$$ is worth about 3% of the prize pool and there is no way that you should be pushing this hand. You will be lucky to get any value from it let alone anything close to 3% of the pool. Pass up on +EV gambles (if this is even +EV to begin with, which is questionable at best) to exploit bigger +EV gambles later (namely watching UTG flip for his tourney life). That is the name of the game.

Brad

[Annulus]

According to your logic UTG could also get AA next hand and in that case he is not flipping for his life. It almost sounds to me like you are satisfied at just post and fold till u make the money.

[Sciolist]

I'm generally raising these hands in the $22s. It really depends on hand ranges, as Tigerite says. I'm probably worried more about what my table image as the time for affecting those ranges though.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
what are you scared of? they are not priced in to call you and neither stack is huge enough to call with a mediocre hand. You win the blinds the majority of the times. And when you are called you still have a good chance to win the hand... what buy-in?

[/ QUOTE ]

$33

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't see how you can push this. What if you knew that you would get AA the very next hand. Would you push this T9s now? Hell would you even push with A9s here?

Well this is essentially the same thing. UTG is going to have to take a -EV gamble at some point, and guess who the main beneficiary is? Figure that sneaking into the $$$ is worth about 3% of the prize pool and there is no way that you should be pushing this hand. You will be lucky to get any value from it let alone anything close to 3% of the pool. Pass up on +EV gambles (if this is even +EV to begin with, which is questionable at best) to exploit bigger +EV gambles later (namely watching UTG flip for his tourney life). That is the name of the game.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted this because it turns out this has a +0.9% expected value against Eastbay's default lag calling ranges. That's awfully high to pass up. I didn't know how big a value this was until I reviewed.

BTW, this is a $33 buyin.

[gisb0rne]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this because it turns out this has a +0.9% expected value against Eastbay's default lag calling ranges. That's awfully high to pass up. I didn't know how big a value this was until I reviewed.

BTW, this is a $33 buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those calling ranges are too tight. You can't see SB or BB calling with KTs? I've seen that call a ton of times. How about A2s? Or 33? Or JTs? All calls I've seen. If you change the settings to maniac for both you get -0.9%. Maniac for 1 and loose for the other and you get -0.1%.

[ZeroPointMachine]

If the table is aggressive I'm pushing while I've got the chance. If the table is tight I'm pushing. Give shorty 200 less chips and I think about folding.

There is a leak here but I'm not sure who's it is.

I fold there. I tend to put most oppenants on either Loose or Maniac setting. Even under Average setting, SNGPT gives this a +0.2 wich is not enough for a push. So only way you can push in this spot is if you put the two big stacks in the blinds behind you on Tight setting. I think that is very unrealistic, expecially in a $33.

[pooh74]

For those advocating giving looser ranges to BB (and SB) I think that's very wrong. At low BIs, 33s included, people simply do not call very loosely when there chip standing can go from ITM to 4th. BB has a lot to lose here and if you havent been pushing like a maniac up until now, then, this push should be very +EV off the top of my head. I wouldnt put BB on maniac calling range ever here.

I couldnt imagine a hand like KT calling here.

[junkmail3]

[ QUOTE ]
For those advocating giving looser ranges to BB (and SB) I think that's very wrong. At low BIs, 33s included, people simply do not call very loosely when there chip standing can go from ITM to 4th. BB has a lot to lose here and if you havent been pushing like a maniac up until now, then, this push should be very +EV off the top of my head. I wouldnt put BB on maniac calling range ever here.

I couldnt imagine a hand like KT calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was thinking.

If they call and lose, they're in trouble. They don't want to take that chance right now. Not with a shroty.

I think their calling ranges have to be pretty tight here.

[Freudian]

I used to fold this pretty much 100% of the time. Now I push this perhaps 2/3. I am convinced it was a bigger leak earlier.

Shorty doesn't even have to double up for you to get in trouble. All he needs is a walk.

[durron597]

I think I push this, if I have any read whatsoever that these guys aren't calling loose. SB has to worry that the BB will wake up with a big hand behind, and the BB will be crippled if he calls you and loses. What's your image like?

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I push this, if I have any read whatsoever that these guys aren't calling loose. SB has to worry that the BB will wake up with a big hand behind, and the BB will be crippled if he calls you and loses. What's your image like?

[/ QUOTE ]

Point of the post is not to be tournament specific. I meant it to be more universal.

[tigerite]

In a vacuum I'd push, if that's what you're getting at.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I push this, if I have any read whatsoever that these guys aren't calling loose. SB has to worry that the BB will wake up with a big hand behind, and the BB will be crippled if he calls you and loses. What's your image like?

[/ QUOTE ]


Point of the post is not to be tournament specific. I meant it to be more universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would universally push here. Its more of a "drip drip", not a leak perhaps.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
In a vacuum I'd push, if that's what you're getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is a discussion hand. I often think about the bubble in terms of stack management and specifically in terms of relative stack management. This hand was counter-intuitive to me.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

Point of the post is not to be tournament specific. I meant it to be more universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shorthanded poker is meaningless without reads. This should be obvious, David Sklansky style*.

<font color="white">*(and it's not close, do you see why?)</font>

[bluef0x]

[ QUOTE ]
I fold there. I tend to put most oppenants on either Loose or Maniac setting. Even under Average setting, SNGPT gives this a +0.2 wich is not enough for a push. So only way you can push in this spot is if you put the two big stacks in the blinds behind you on Tight setting. I think that is very unrealistic, expecially in a $33.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure buddy? Try putting in the correct blinds...

Iffy situation- at first I thought this was an easy push but the more I look at it the more dependent on reads/table image this becomes. If you've been pushing the last few orbits or anyone has said any comments about you pushing- fold easily. If you've been quiet, the shorty has been pushing or getting walks... I push here.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Point of the post is not to be tournament specific. I meant it to be more universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shorthanded poker is meaningless without reads. This should be obvious, David Sklansky style*.

<font color="white">*(and it's not close, do you see why?)</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, thus my opinion is that you would say, if my image was _______, then I would act in this fashion, otherwise, I would __________.

I didn't want to talk about, ok, in this situation, I would play it this way because ________.

Overall, mathematically, it's +EV. The magnitude is what through me off. I had not realized this before. In fact, it's so big, I think it's something I need to do more. I agree, if I'm in a war with BB over some trivial suckout earlier, I'm more likely to fold this.

[Melchiades]

I'll let others elaborate.

[bluef0x]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, thus my opinion is that you would say, if my image was _______, then I would act in this fashion, otherwise, I would __________.

I didn't want to talk about, ok, in this situation, I would play it this way because ________.

Overall, mathematically, it's +EV. The magnitude is what through me off. I had not realized this before. In fact, it's so big, I think it's something I need to do more. I agree, if I'm in a war with BB over some trivial suckout earlier, I'm more likely to fold this.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you going to say it's mathematically +EV overall? This IS situation dependent.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, thus my opinion is that you would say, if my image was _______, then I would act in this fashion, otherwise, I would __________.

I didn't want to talk about, ok, in this situation, I would play it this way because ________.

Overall, mathematically, it's +EV. The magnitude is what through me off. I had not realized this before. In fact, it's so big, I think it's something I need to do more. I agree, if I'm in a war with BB over some trivial suckout earlier, I'm more likely to fold this.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you going to say it's mathematically +EV overall? This IS situation dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's official. I've turned this post into crap.

[The Yugoslavian]

Scuba,

You have to few BBs and shorty isn't short enough to not push here IMO. Now if SB or BB is a calling maniac or you're pushing everything perhaps my opinion changes...but c'mon, you're gonna hurt either one of them if they call and lose - plenty of FE here considering the amount of blinds at stake.

Yugoslav

I push, but that's because I don't think either of the blinds will call as much as they should (probably because they put me on a tighter range in this position). They're probably thinking that I wouldn't risk my whole stack, with the blinds about to hit the short stack, without a good hand. So, they won't imagine that I'd push T9s, so they'll have pretty tight calling ranges.

This is probably all wrong. The blinds should expect me to push a pretty wide range and be looser with their calling range. But, I don't think that's how it actually works at these levels.

My guess, without having tried to find an equilibrium, is that T9s is just about at the bottom of the theoretical equilibrium pushing range. But, that perfect practical play from the button will mean pushing more than you should because the BB will call less often than he should.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]

My guess, without having tried to find an equilibrium, is that T9s is just about at the bottom of the theoretical equilibrium pushing range. But, that perfect practical play from the button will mean pushing more than you should because the BB will call less often than he should.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the EV number I provided, I think your guess is off.

Im sure, you try putting in the correct blinds.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't see how you can push this. What if you knew that you would get AA the very next hand. Would you push this T9s now? Hell would you even push with A9s here?

Well this is essentially the same thing. UTG is going to have to take a -EV gamble at some point, and guess who the main beneficiary is? Figure that sneaking into the $$$ is worth about 3% of the prize pool and there is no way that you should be pushing this hand. You will be lucky to get any value from it let alone anything close to 3% of the pool. Pass up on +EV gambles (if this is even +EV to begin with, which is questionable at best) to exploit bigger +EV gambles later (namely watching UTG flip for his tourney life). That is the name of the game.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted this because it turns out this has a +0.9% expected value against Eastbay's default lag calling ranges. That's awfully high to pass up. I didn't know how big a value this was until I reviewed.

BTW, this is a $33 buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is bothersome to me because it isn't the 1st time that I have come up with different numbers then the rest of you. Okay just to see if I'm getting this all right here...

They both call with 22+/A2+/KQ/KJs (this is the loose button for me). You are on the button and both bigger stacks are in the blinds. It tells me that pushing here is -0.7% compared to folding. If they both call with 77+/A9+ (the average button) it now becomes +1.4% to push.

There is no way that they are calling with 77+/A9+ here. The 1st range appears to be pretty reasonable and that is why I can't understand pushing.

So what gives here? Tell me what I'm doing wrong. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Brad

[ QUOTE ]
They both call with 22+/A2+/KQ/KJs (this is the loose button for me). You are on the button and both bigger stacks are in the blinds. It tells me that pushing here is -0.7% compared to folding. If they both call with 77+/A9+ (the average button) it now becomes +1.4% to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your range and 0% discount for the blinds, I also get -0.7%. However, the "loose" button for me is 44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+ and I always discount some for the blinds (usually the 50% default). I wish someone would explain the blind discounting so I could better understand which setting might be best.

BTW, the "average" button is 66+,ATs+,AJo+ for me. I'm using v1.19-test13 and have not changed the default ranges.

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this because it turns out this has a +0.9% expected value against Eastbay's default lag calling ranges. That's awfully high to pass up. I didn't know how big a value this was until I reviewed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I get the same +0.9% when blind discounting is turned off. With 50% discounting, it's only +0.2%. Discount them 100% and this becomes -0.7%. I guess it becomes very important to understand blind discounting.

[ QUOTE ]
I wish someone would explain the blind discounting so I could better understand which setting might be best.

[/ QUOTE ]
A quick search of the SNG forums uncovered this:

[ QUOTE ]
It's very simple.

When you fold, equity is usually computed using the stacks before posting the blinds for the next hand.

However, another way to do it would be to compute equity after posting the blinds for the next hand. This is called "blind discounting."

The blind discounting options allow you to choose one, the other, or some percentage in between.

The correct choice depends on how aggressive the game is. If you expect to have your blind nearly always folded to you, then you would want to turn off blind discounting or use a small percentage.

If you expect your blind to nearly always be contested, then you should use blind discounting to some higher percentage.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect this means that higher percentages should generally be used. (And, makes the +0.9% ScubaChuck came up with earlier rather optimistic.)

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Scuba,

You have to few BBs and shorty isn't short enough to not push here IMO. Now if SB or BB is a calling maniac or you're pushing everything perhaps my opinion changes...but c'mon, you're gonna hurt either one of them if they call and lose - plenty of FE here considering the amount of blinds at stake.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with all of this. you're not far enough ahead of shorty to make it affect your decision that much.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this because it turns out this has a +0.9% expected value against Eastbay's default lag calling ranges. That's awfully high to pass up. I didn't know how big a value this was until I reviewed.

BTW, this is a $33 buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those calling ranges are too tight. You can't see SB or BB calling with KTs? I've seen that call a ton of times. How about A2s? Or 33? Or JTs? All calls I've seen. If you change the settings to maniac for both you get -0.9%. Maniac for 1 and loose for the other and you get -0.1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the stacks again. I have "seen" these calls too, and they stick out in my mind because, frankly, I was able to see them. But Kt and A2 are also folded probably 9 times for every time we "see" the call with that hand. We don't know what these guys are folding all the time because, they're not calling...having seen some suspect calls is not good enough evidence for putting such hands in hypo call ranges.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
In a vacuum I'd push, if that's what you're getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, in a vacuum you would explosively decompress.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]

There is no way that they are calling with 77+/A9+ here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is highly debatable, one sees horrid horrid calls on a regular basis.

[tigerite]

He's saying there's no way they call with that TIGHT a range..!

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
He's saying there's no way they call with that TIGHT a range..!

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, I was looking at that lone sentence in a vacuum.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's saying there's no way they call with that TIGHT a range..!

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, I was looking at that lone sentence in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]And you didn't explosively decompress?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's saying there's no way they call with that TIGHT a range..!

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, I was looking at that lone sentence in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]And you didn't explosively decompress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah check out my rig.

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8831/space28ec.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[junkmail3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's saying there's no way they call with that TIGHT a range..!

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad, I was looking at that lone sentence in a vacuum.

[/ QUOTE ]And you didn't explosively decompress?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah check out my rig.

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8831/space28ec.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[/ QUOTE ]

This one thread puts OOT to utter shame.

[bluef0x]

[ QUOTE ]
Im sure, you try putting in the correct blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're fking up somewhere. On 'average' it's +1.8%

[bjb23]

im pushing this and i dont think that hard about it.

problem is, that in mid/low buyins the big stacks arent nearly aggressive enough here to make me feel safe... in other words, the shorty is getting a walk too often, imo, to wait around.

Now I've played a bit more with SNGPT. If we put SB on a calling range of 44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+ (loose default) and BB on a calling range of 66+,ATs+,AJo+ (average default) and we discount the SB 40% and the BB 70%, pushing T9s is only +0.3%. Make the calling ranges wider and the equity goes down. Discount the blinds more and the equity goes down.

Given these conditions, button's pushing range (minimum +0.5%) is 66+,ATo+,A9s+,KJs+,QJs (10%). If we losen up the pushing range to include T9s (33+,AKo,AQo,AJo,ATo,A9o,A8o,A7o,A5o,A2s+,KTo+,K7s +,QTo+,Q8s+,JTo,J9s+,T9s), then BB's calling range becomes 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KQs (10%). Using that calling range, button's pushing range becomes: 77+,AT+ (8%). The equilibrium ought to be between those two ranges somewhere. That doesn't narrow it down too much, but it does convince me that T9s is not in the pushing range. I've convinced myself (for the moment) that it's not really even close. There's plenty of room for other conclusions given the same situation because of how much the blind discounts change things.

[Scuba Chuck]

Where/how do I do the blind discounting? And I'm not sure if I completely understand how one should be using this.

I think I'd rather find a way to 'discount' the fact that bigstacks sometimes let shorty off the hook, rather than the fact that they'll attack my blind.

[ZeroPointMachine]

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:28 am Post subject: v1.19-test8 (blind discounting)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v1.19-test8 is available.

This release contains a new item under the edit menu called "Equity Modeling."

Here I am adding options for gaining finer control over the modeling and estimation of tournament equity.

The first addition is a long overdue way to "discount" equity for the taking of blinds on the next hand.

The way this works is that your fold equity can be affected by your posting of blinds on the next hand. This can be important especially when getting short-stacked. Your fold equity is computed from some combination of your fold equity before posting your next blind and after posting it. The two sliders allow you to pick some combination of the two values, from no discount (0), to full discount (100).

For a default setting, I've chosen to use discounting for both big and small blinds, and have chosen 50/50 values for both discounts. I think these are good starting points.

As for how to choose values, you can see that in an aggressive game where you are unlikely to get a pass in the BB, you should weight the discounted value more heavily. In a passive game where you are likely to get a pass in the BB, you should not expect to lose your BB all that often and can use a lighter weight on the discounted value.

eastbay


As I understand this blind equity discount modeling should be turned off unless you are UTG(next BB) or BB(next SB). I am not entirely sure why it gives different results when you are not in these positions.

ZPM

[ QUOTE ]
As I understand this blind equity discount modeling should be turned off unless you are UTG(next BB) or BB(next SB). I am not entirely sure why it gives different results when you are not in these positions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the equity lost by the hands in the blinds has to go somewhere: into everyone else's bank account.

[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I understand this blind equity discount modeling should be turned off unless you are UTG(next BB) or BB(next SB). I am not entirely sure why it gives different results when you are not in these positions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the equity lost by the hands in the blinds has to go somewhere: into everyone else's bank account.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that is what it is doing. But, I'm not sure why it makes sense to "take" equity from those other stacks and disperse it among the others. The logic that you are going to get your fair share of that equity with your short-stack UTG next hand doesn't make sense to me.

I think this feature was designed specifically to look at your reduced equity for paying the blinds next hand and not to share equity with you because the other stacks have to pay the blinds.

[freemoney]

this had to an insanely easy push.

[kamrann]

Okay, first off, somewhere down this thread two people have said they get it as -0.7% or something, what's going on here? What calling range gives you +0.9%?

Also, I think that pushing is less good than SNGPT may see, because shorty is UTG and about to post have his stack in blinds (assuming SNGPT does not now compensate for such things, I don't have the software so don't know for sure).

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, first off, somewhere down this thread two people have said they get it as -0.7% or something, what's going on here? What calling range gives you +0.9%?

Also, I think that pushing is less good than SNGPT may see, because shorty is UTG and about to post have his stack in blinds (assuming SNGPT does not now compensate for such things, I don't have the software so don't know for sure).

[/ QUOTE ]You can get a great range of EV for the same calling ranges depending upon how much you take into account the next deal's blinds. If you read through the thread you will see a post from me that gives ranges and numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this feature was designed specifically to look at your reduced equity for paying the blinds next hand and not to share equity with you because the other stacks have to pay the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]If there are four players left, all with 2000 chips, what is everyone's equity? You don't know because you don't know which players are in the blinds next. If you know that players A &amp; B will be in the blinds next, you will know that their equity is less than 25%. Since equity always has to add to 100%, the players who are not in the blinds will have equities greater than 25%. The blinds effect everyone, not just the players in the blinds.

[tewall]

If you take into account that you're just about to be in the blinds, a result which is at worst break even is terrific, isn't it? So that would still make T9s a very easy push, right? T9s is a top 20% hand. That's better than you can expect to be getting the next couple of hands.