22: You've just pushed elevnty-bajillion times

[IdiotVig]

Actually, it was 3 of the last 4. Grow a set and push these, Vig? Or muck 'em?

Edit: No one looked you up on those 3.

***** Hand History for Game 3154875244 *****
NL Texas Hold'em $20 Buy-in + $2 Entry Fee Trny:18041162 Level:5 Blinds(75/150) - Tuesday, December 06, 15:21:18 EDT 2005
Table Table 66817 (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 5
Seat 5: MadMaestro ( $790 )
Seat 6: troutman555 ( $3306 )
Seat 7: Jking4 ( $665 )
Seat 8: IdiotVig ( $1385 )
Seat 9: tornadot69 ( $1854 )
Trny:18041162 Level:5
Blinds(75/150)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to IdiotVig [ Qs Kd ]
IdiotVig ?

[tigerite]

Folds, this isn't even close actually.

[pineapple888]

I think this is very close at the 22s because of the spite call danger. I'd flip a mental coin, I guess.

[Double Down]

if I was in later position I'd push. But utg I'd fold

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Folds, this isn't even close actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's proximity is up for debate but I would fold here most of the time.

[tigerite]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is very close at the 22s because of the spite call danger. I'd flip a mental coin, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is very close at the 22s because of the spite call danger. I'd flip a mental coin, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my god NO! I DIDN'T DO ICM!!! [kills himself]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is very close at the 22s because of the spite call danger. I'd flip a mental coin, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

"hmmm. there it goes...here it comes...huh, its heads. was heads push or fold? Oh well, let me try again, there it goes...

[playtitleist]

[ QUOTE ]
Folds, this isn't even close actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere today I read somebody write he wanted more explanation behind the responses. I think it goes without saying that Tigerite is very well respected in the STTF. I sure respect you.

So, why is this not close?

Personally, I think it's a fold because:

- OP has 9 BBs, no where near desperation
- two villains have much smaller stacks and are getting desparate enough to widen their range
- OP pushed a lot already, eventually a spite call will come and KQs is not killing everybody
- BB is going to call with a lot of hands
- two bigger stacks behind can knock OP out

[tigerite]

Because the calling ranges for the 3 barring BB (who can call with any two and it doesn't bother us, but that's not the point for this case, really) are 3%, 9%, 9%. The CO alone is pretty insane with JJ+,AK+ only. I don't know many $109'ers even who wouldn't call TT or AQ here, let alone a $22er. As for the 9%, that is slightly more likely, but just a tad too close to the bone for me, especially with the pushing that's been going on. Button perhaps I could see folding some of the range, but the SB, knowing BB will be priced in to call a lot, if he puts the OP on any kind of a steal at all will definitely be pushing in with a lot of suited aces and pairs. That absolutely destroys our $EV here.

With 9+ BBs, I don't feel under pressure. If I enter the pot, I go all-in, but I don't feel like I need to stretch too much to find a hand to enter the pot with. Especially with the two smaller stacks and UTG and having just built up my bullying image. But, really, the key factor is how close I am to 10 BB and how good my position is even if I pass this opportunity.

[tigerite]

Also I agree with zabt, if I had about 7BB here, I'd almost certainly push. With 8.. well, that's right on the knife edge for me. 9BB and especially with the image that the OP has, it's got to be a fold.

[IdiotVig]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[tigerite]

Well, I always go for the ranges where there is no inbetween range that can stuff your $EV. For instance, try 3%, 9%, 15%, 69%.

[tigerite]

PS there is absolutely no way the BB has a 'tight range' here..

[IdiotVig]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I always go for the ranges where there is no inbetween range that can stuff your $EV. For instance, try 3%, 9%, 15%, 69%.

[/ QUOTE ]

+0.4%.

Push hands: 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KJs+ (10%)

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Folds, this isn't even close actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere today I read somebody write he wanted more explanation behind the responses. I think it goes without saying that Tigerite is very well respected in the STTF. I sure respect you.

So, why is this not close?

Personally, I think it's a fold because:

- OP has 9 BBs, no where near desperation
- two villains have much smaller stacks and are getting desparate enough to widen their range
- OP pushed a lot already, eventually a spite call will come and KQs is not killing everybody
- BB is going to call with a lot of hands
- two bigger stacks behind can knock OP out

[/ QUOTE ]

[resurrects himself] In short, it's the stack sizes, which I hadn't paid attention to before posting for some stupid reason.

Yours means you can wait, and theirs (shorties and big) means you get called way too often.

[tigerite]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I always go for the ranges where there is no inbetween range that can stuff your $EV. For instance, try 3%, 9%, 15%, 69%.

[/ QUOTE ]

+0.4%.

Push hands: 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KJs+ (10%)

[/ QUOTE ]

0.4% is too narrow here if you ask me. Especially as you now have 9BB. You're not in any kind of rush, and rate to have a bigger edge over the field than this.

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did this too and got the same results. I find this suprising and would say it was a fold before using SNGPT. I still think this is a fold and suprised by the SNGPT results.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would everyone be on that tight a range?

[tigerite]

As I say, please look at inbetween ranges, and consider that BB is going to call far more than TT+,AQ+ here, or whatever 'tight' is.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I always go for the ranges where there is no inbetween range that can stuff your $EV. For instance, try 3%, 9%, 15%, 69%.

[/ QUOTE ]

+0.4%.

Push hands: 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KJs+ (10%)

[/ QUOTE ]

0.4% is too narrow here if you ask me. Especially as you now have 9BB. You're not in any kind of rush, and rate to have a bigger edge over the field than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... dare I say it... maybe it *was* even close?

[IdiotVig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would everyone be on that tight a range?

[/ QUOTE ]

I decided to be literal in my challenge. I guess it's only funny/effective/poignant when a mod does it.

[tigerite]

Well, I don't really think so, if the OP hadn't pushed 3 times in the last 4 hands, possibly. But people get antsy about that and want to be the sheriff, and any ace calling you here is really, really bad news. So I think it really isn't that close.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I always go for the ranges where there is no inbetween range that can stuff your $EV. For instance, try 3%, 9%, 15%, 69%.

[/ QUOTE ]

+0.4%.

Push hands: 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KJs+ (10%)

[/ QUOTE ]
-0.2%. Push hands: 88+,AJo+,ATs+ (7%). With no blind discounting.

+0.3%. Push hands: 66+,ATo+,A8s+,KJs+ (10%) With 50% blind discounting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would everyone be on that tight a range?

[/ QUOTE ]

I decided to be literal in my challenge. I guess it's only funny/effective/poignant when a mod does it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who says the mods are funny, effective or poignant?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would everyone be on that tight a range?

[/ QUOTE ]

I decided to be literal in my challenge. I guess it's only funny/effective/poignant when a mod does it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who says the mods are funny, effective or poignant?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're.......uh..... effective!

[IdiotVig]

[ QUOTE ]
Who says the mods are funny, effective or poignant?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I think they're funny. But then, looks aren't everything.

[ilya]

There's no way I'm pushing here.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't really think so, if the OP hadn't pushed 3 times in the last 4 hands, possibly. But people get antsy about that and want to be the sheriff, and any ace calling you here is really, really bad news. So I think it really isn't that close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm swung around to fold, but I don't think I 100% agree that any A is terrible news, especially from the shorties.

You're still 40% or better against AJ- and JJ-, which is one of the reasons why KQ is reasonably strong in this situation, as opposed to Ax which is too often dominated when called.

I think this is why we are seeing the possibly surprising ICM results here. You're just not going to be a huge dog very often.

Any weaker K, though, I wouldn't have even debated -- insta-fold.

[tigerite]

Losing 790 or 665, out of 1300, when we're about to hit the blinds is, for me, pretty bad news..?

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Losing 790 or 665, out of 1300, when we're about to hit the blinds is, for me, pretty bad news..?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... if you lose... which was kind of the whole point of my post.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no way I'm pushing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you actually done ICM here, at all? It's not close even if they are calling with a tight range. It's a fold!

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, from SNGPT, if everyone has the default tight range, it's +1.4% if blind discounting is set at 0%, +2.4% if BD at 100%.

Did I do something wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would everyone be on that tight a range?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the real key. No chance BB is anywhere near that tight with his stack and OP's image. If everyone else is tight and he's playing top 25%, this is -$EV (and the short stacks won't be that tight, either).

[el_dusto]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is why we are seeing the possibly surprising ICM results here. You're just not going to be a huge dog very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - but I voted "fold" in the mental poll because in pretty much any situation where you get called, you're at least a slight dog, and I get hoarse if I have to shout "IMPROVE!!!" at the screen too many times.

Monsters, though, are pretty unlikely. I think the real tipping factor for me was the other pushes. I don't have as much experience at the 22s, but I find that people get itchy to stop your BS if you go, say, three or four hands consecutively all-in.

Bottom line: you have enough chips to slow it down a bit and wait for a somewhat better spot... like, say, KQo in LP. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[good2cu]

I push this every time at the 55s and 109s. .04% is an edge too big to pass imho.

[ QUOTE ]

0.4% is too narrow here if you ask me. You're not in any kind of rush, and rate to have a bigger edge over the field than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect your views a lot, but this argument holds very little weight. It is true that changes to future +EV situations should be considered when deciding whether to take an action in the present, but do you really think that our advantage (with 9 BBs) and the odds that we get a better spot are big enough to switch this from call to fold?

I assume you'd agree that at equal skill levels no +EV situation should be avoided. If not, I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[tigerite]

It's too narrow because that's assuming a still pretty tight lot of calling ranges.. it only gets worse from there.

Because of Hero's image I really don't like the push here. I think I can find a better spot.

[ QUOTE ]
It's too narrow because that's assuming a still pretty tight lot of calling ranges.. it only gets worse from there.

Because of Hero's image I really don't like the push here. I think I can find a better spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I like this reasoning much better.

I agree with you on the hand, just wanted to know if you were going somewhere with your argument that it wasn't +EV enough. Sounds like you really meant it wasn't actually +EV.

[tigerite]

Ah, no, I didn't mean that. I mean a 0.4% +EV is definitely good enough at this spot, I'd usually take +0.2% or perhaps +0.3% (it depends on the table) here. It's just the argument of how much he's pushed lately and that +0.4% is probably the "best" he can hope for here, sorry that I wasn't making myself clear on that point.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, no, I didn't mean that. I mean a 0.4% +EV is definitely good enough at this spot, I'd usually take +0.2% or perhaps +0.3% (it depends on the table) here. It's just the argument of how much he's pushed lately and that +0.4% is probably the "best" he can hope for here, sorry that I wasn't making myself clear on that point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that we all have to remember that the numbers we get with SNGPT are only guesses. Switching calling ranges or blind discounts just a little often change results dramatically. When we're using a minimum edge of +0.5%, it's not because we want to pass up on other positive EV plays, but rather that when they get closer to 0 EV we're less confident that they're actually plus.

Sort of like when someone says they're a winner because of their 4% ROI. Well, we're not really so sure.

[IdiotVig]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that we all have to remember that the numbers we get with SNGPT are only guesses. Switching calling ranges or blind discounts just a little often change results dramatically. When we're using a minimum edge of +0.5%, it's not because we want to pass up on other positive EV plays, but rather that when they get closer to 0 EV we're less confident that they're actually plus.

Sort of like when someone says they're a winner because of their 4% ROI. Well, we're not really so sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was quite proud of my 4% ROI. Snob.

This was a really great hand to play around with in SNGPT. I played around using fairly wide calling ranges for the short stacks (~20-60%), and tighter ranges for the big stacks (5-15%), and was really amazed how small tweaks can drastically change the outcome.

But an even more important moral of the story is that even if there were an exact way of knowing this is marginally +EV, it's okay to take a pass on a hand like this based on the image I've established. Which was kinda cool.

In the actual hand, I mucked. w00t.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, no, I didn't mean that. I mean a 0.4% +EV is definitely good enough at this spot, I'd usually take +0.2% or perhaps +0.3% (it depends on the table) here. It's just the argument of how much he's pushed lately and that +0.4% is probably the "best" he can hope for here, sorry that I wasn't making myself clear on that point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that we all have to remember that the numbers we get with SNGPT are only guesses. Switching calling ranges or blind discounts just a little often change results dramatically. When we're using a minimum edge of +0.5%, it's not because we want to pass up on other positive EV plays, but rather that when they get closer to 0 EV we're less confident that they're actually plus.

Sort of like when someone says they're a winner because of their 4% ROI. Well, we're not really so sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. However, tools like SnGPT are really powerful and, basically, we should listen to what they have to say. If SnGPT says a play is +.02%, and you think villain's could be on either wider or looser calling ranges, then that means (very, very roughly) the play's 50% to be slightly better than +.02% and 50% to be slightly worse than +.02%, still making the play correct.

Tiger's point is, I think, that this specific hand was only +.04% with a little bit of optimism. He was arguing that this optimism added more than +.04% to the actual number, so the play was actually -EV.

If, for example, a push is +.01% even if you put your opponents on calling with any two (and >.01% if they call with less), and you expect them to call with any two, you should definitely push because there's no possible way your play could be incorrect.

[tigerite]

Yep, that is my point indeed. The interesting point, I think, is what -0.x% or even -1.x% we need to take in certain situations, when we are desperate, losing FE, blinds about to go up and hit us, against 2nd shorty on the bubble, and also the slightly more obscure ones like a win would let us dominate the bubble, or prevent loss of EV in future because people are less prone to push into our BB, and so forth.

Obviously another would be 'future image' but you can't possibly expect a model to work on that - the others are at least slightly within the realms of reality..

I'm glad I bugged you about this. Turned out really well. Nice posts.

[tigerite]

No problem. I have to say actually though, that even if someone uses a default of wanting 0.4% EV or whatever, they probably aren't losing any discernable huge amount of $EV, if it's just a quick and easy answer that they want. Sure you might miss the odd one where, like you say, an any two call is 0.1%, but for 0.4% that any two would no doubt be 80%+ anyway. So it's not horribly wrong to want a default % if it makes someone feel more "comfortable" with a move.. maybe lose the few odd cents here and there.

[ QUOTE ]
No problem. I have to say actually though, that even if someone uses a default of wanting 0.4% EV or whatever, they probably aren't losing any discernable huge amount of $EV, if it's just a quick and easy answer that they want. Sure you might miss the odd one where, like you say, an any two call is 0.1%, but for 0.4% that any two would no doubt be 80%+ anyway. So it's not horribly wrong to want a default % if it makes someone feel more "comfortable" with a move.. maybe lose the few odd cents here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh.. I think we should suggest the play that earns a player the most money in the long run on these forums unless someone asks very specifically for something different.

I can tell you very easily how much money you're losing if you pass up a +.03% of the prize pool play if you just tell me the prize pool /images/graemlins/smile.gif.