Push?

[hockey1]

Stars 2 table $30+3. 4 left. I've got well over 1/2 the chips and have been doing more than my fair share of pushing people around, which I'm doing in large part because everyone at this table seems REALLY weak tight. Then this hand comes up:

Big Blind is t400 (4 handed)

UTG (t3640)
Button (t4385)
Hero (t15745)
BB (t3230)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG raises to t800, Button folds, Hero raises to t15720, BB folds, UTG calls t2815 (All-In).

Flop: (t19385) 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Turn: (t19385) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

River: (t19385) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: t19385

Results in white below: <font color="white">
UTG shows Kd Kh (two pair, kings and sixes).
Hero shows 9c 9d (two pair, nines and sixes).
Outcome: Hero wins t12105. UTG wins t7280. </font>

Too aggressive?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Too aggressive?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my book? absolutely. You say you are pushing them around. Miniraise from UTG looks very powerful to me, in these circumstanses. I would guess he's trying to trap you, and he's ready to call your push with a big hand. You are big anough to play this for a set value, in my opinion. Why not call him, and play the flop? I would even muck 99 here to a raise sometimes, it depends.

I think that you played right into his hands with your move here. Aggression should be used with thought. Why doubling up an opponent here, or at best - taking a coin-flip against him? that's not the right moment for it, IMO.

PrayingMantis

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you played right into his hands with your move here. Aggression should be used with thought. Why doubling up an opponent here, or at best - taking a coin-flip against him? that's not the right moment for it, IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well hold on a second. There was plenty of thought that went into this move. First of all, your post assumes he's going to call. Why? Is it because you always read a min-raise from a steal position to be a big PP? Yes, it was in this case, but reading the results and then working backward is cheating. If you really do play this way then you'll get chewed up short handed.

So, rather than just jumping to conclusions, let's think about the situation. For starters, we've got weak tight players here -- generally not a min-raise trapping bunch. Moreover, I've got a pretty good hand, but one that will almost certainly be very hard to play after the flop because of all the overcards. Just call preflop? That seems like a terrible play to me. Just weak. Re-raising has got to be the right move, and if I'm going to re-raise, there's not much sense in re-raising any less than his stack. Do that and boy, do I ever put my opponent to a decision. What hands would you risk your whole stack with here? AA, KK. QQ and AK maybe. That's it. And IF I do get called, and IF I do lose, I'm still by far the biggest stack.

So, comments appreciated from anyone who doesn't auto-fold anything but AA to a minraise.

[PrayingMantis]

Hey hockey1,

I appriciate your thinking here, it's only that we see it differently. I'd rather raise them big with complete trash, than pushing against a min-raise from UTG (you say yourself they are tight-weak. mini-raising is, IMO, a clear tell of a strong hand by a weak-tight player) with 99, and no, I'm not reading that backwards from the results. You are at best 50-50 here, and as I see it, with weak-tight players, chances for a big pair are pretty good here.
That's my take here. As a big stack, I will attack all the time, but will not let small-stacks good doubling-up chances like you gave them here. Playing *too* loose as big stack, in situations where people show strength, can lead you to lose too much of your chips-advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
So, comments appreciated from anyone who doesn't auto-fold anything but AA to a minraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I've got a pretty good hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You kidding, right? Are you comparing 99 to AA? There are MANY hands in between, and you should play any hand according to the situation. If you don't understand this, you have a problem. 99, as much as you don't like it, is a VERY mediocre hand in NL.

PrayingMantis

[threei]

I don't think its a bad play to push here, 99 is a big hand when the table is 4 handed. With your chip lead you can put him to the test knowing you won't be hurt too badly. The only thing here is the min raise. Most people will only min raise with AA KK in early position. Its important to pay attention to his betting pattern. If he is normally coming in for 3x-4x the bb when he raises, be aware of the min raise. If he is one of those players who always just doubles the blinds when he raises then it could be a number of hands.

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
I appriciate your thinking here, it's only that we see it differently. I'd rather raise them big with complete trash, than pushing against a min-raise from UTG (you say yourself they are tight-weak. mini-raising is, IMO, a clear tell of a strong hand by a weak-tight player) with 99, and no, I'm not reading that backwards from the results. You are at best 50-50 here, and as I see it, with weak-tight players, chances for a big pair are pretty good here.
That's my take here. As a big stack, I will attack all the time, but will not let small-stacks good doubling-up chances like you gave them here. Playing *too* loose as big stack, in situations where people show strength, can lead you to lose too much of your chips-advantage.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, comments appreciated from anyone who doesn't auto-fold anything but AA to a minraise.


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




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, I've got a pretty good hand.


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



You kidding, right? Are you comparing 99 to AA? There are MANY hands in between, and you should play any hand according to the situation. If you don't understand this, you have a problem. 99, as much as you don't like it, is a VERY mediocre hand in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, thanks for setting me straight on that whole AA is different from 99 thing. You just plugged a big leak in my game.

As for the less silly things you say in your post, you skip THE most important aspect of the play entirely: You put tremendous pressure on the other player AND you have a strong hand HU. Of course it's not AA, but it's better HU than AK. And 4 handed, it's a pretty damn big hand, but ONLY IF YOU PLAY IT RIGHT. And just calling preflop shrinks it up a whole bunch. Go all in. Fold those mediocre aces and KJs and garbage like that. Hell, you'll fold TT and JJ and AQ and AJ enough to make this play highly profitable. But calling let's all of those hands in, and then what do you do when the flop comes K 8 7? You're screwed.

Maybe I just prefer to attack more than you short-handed, and that's fine, but your analysis of the situation is incomplete.

[PrayingMantis]

Let's make it clear: I didn't say you made a huge mistake here or something. I only insist that it is much much better to apply aggression in spots when you open the pot, or sense real weakness, and not against a mini-raise from weak-tight UTG, especially when you hold hands like 99.

[ QUOTE ]
but it's better HU than AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is your mistake. I would gladly push here with AK. Saying that 99 is better HU than AK is the same common mistake as saying 22 is better that AK HU. This is a wrong way too look at it, and I suggest you'll check some very good threads on this in the multi-forum. The EV evaluation of a specific hand against another (like 22 vs. AK) is a misleading concept when you have to make decisions like yours here.

The question is always: what is the range of hands you are standing against. With your 99, as I said, you are AT BEST a 50-50 here. However, AK here gives you a huge advantage over a nice range of hands, and that's why it is much much better than 99 in this specific spot.

PrayingMantis

[hockey1]

Sorry Mantis, you're just plain wrong here.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is your mistake. I would gladly push here with AK. Saying that 99 is better HU than AK is the same common mistake as saying 22 is better that AK HU. This is a wrong way too look at it, and I suggest you'll check some very good threads on this in the multi-forum. The EV evaluation of a specific hand against another (like 22 vs. AK) is a misleading concept when you have to make decisions like yours here.

[/ QUOTE ]

99 is better than AK HU, which this pot surely will be if you play it reasonably. And it's much better than 22. The "22" point, which I'm quite aware of, is that 22 is a slight favorite over most hands, a large favorite over none, and a big dog to some. First, that's not true for 99. Second, you are STILL MISSING THE MAIN POINT HERE, which is that your bet forces almost ALL hands to fold. 99 isn't any more of a favorite over JT or KJ than AK, but the only non-big pair hand that will call you if you push here is AK, so that's the only one I mentioned. Try running the numbers this way: pick a range of hands that UTG could have min raised with (if you only pick KK and AA then you're crazy). Then decide what % of those would fold to an all-in re-raise. The answer is almost all of them. Calculate the EV from that play. THEN subtract the neg. EV for those times when you're called and lose. Doing that shows that if you're called by AK (or anything other than AA-TT) you're ahead. If you're called by a bigger pair you're behind. I guarantee that if you run the numbers assuming a reasonable range of hands that UTG would min-raise with, pushing all in is a significantly +EV play. Now, I'm not sure it's the most +EV play, but I'm confident that it is +EV.

[ QUOTE ]
The question is always: what is the range of hands you are standing against. With your 99, as I said, you are AT BEST a 50-50 here. However, AK here gives you a huge advantage over a nice range of hands, and that's why it is much much better than 99 in this specific spot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've already answered this but you're wrong again. One question is what range of hands you're standing against, but that's not the most important question. The most important question is what hands will he call you with given each size of raise you're considering, and what happens on later streets if you don't go all in.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
99 is better than AK HU, which this pot surely will be if you play it reasonably. And it's much better than 22. The "22" point, which I'm quite aware of, is that 22 is a slight favorite over most hands, a large favorite over none, and a big dog to some. First, that's not true for 99. Second, you are STILL MISSING THE MAIN POINT HERE, which is that your bet forces almost ALL hands to fold. 99 isn't any more of a favorite over JT or KJ than AK, but the only non-big pair hand that will call you if you push here is AK, so that's the only one I mentioned. Try running the numbers this way: pick a range of hands that UTG could have min raised with (if you only pick KK and AA then you're crazy). Then decide what % of those would fold to an all-in re-raise. The answer is almost all of them. Calculate the EV from that play. THEN subtract the neg. EV for those times when you're called and lose. Doing that shows that if you're called by AK (or anything other than AA-TT) you're ahead. If you're called by a bigger pair you're behind. I guarantee that if you run the numbers assuming a reasonable range of hands that UTG would min-raise with, pushing all in is a significantly +EV play. Now, I'm not sure it's the most +EV play, but I'm confident that it is +EV.


[/ QUOTE ]

I still insist you are wrong. Especially when you say "your bet forces almost ALL hands to fold. 99 isn't any more of a favorite over JT or KJ than AK, but the only non-big pair hand that will call you if you push here is AK" - this does not make much sense, in the situation you describe. I'm sorry.

Look at this that way: In order for you to show that it is +EV, you'll have to list a range of hands, with which UTG will mini-raise, but *fold* to a push. You are big-stack, and you said you played very aggressively. He knows it too, of course, and you say he's weak-tight. Frankly, I can hardly think of any hand he'll *mini-raise* and fold. Give me a reasonable list, that is with accordance w/ all the information we have, so EV could be calculated, than we can talk.

PrayingMantis

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at this that way: In order for you to show that it is +EV, you'll have to list a range of hands, with which UTG will mini-raise, but *fold* to a push. You are big-stack, and you said you played very aggressively. He knows it too, of course, and you say he's weak-tight. Frankly, I can hardly think of any hand he'll *mini-raise* and fold. Give me a reasonable list, that is with accordance w/ all the information we have, so EV could be calculated, than we can talk.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well this may be the crux of the disagreement. You think there are hardly any hands he'd do this with and I think there are hardly any he wouldn't. These guys were regularly trying to pick up the blinds with min-raises (to be fair, I didn't say that in my original post). But I can certainly see a tentative player minraising in this situation with almost any A or K, QJ, QT, mid or small pairs, etc., etc.

[LetsRock]

I tend to agree with mantis on this one hockey. You've been pushing the table around with your huge stack. If I'm one of your opponents, I'm going to look for exactly this kind of hand to get my chips in with, and I'd play it just like he did - lure you into feeling like you can steal my raise and then pounce with what I have left.

99 is not strong enough for this situation. Fold or call and hope for a set. If you call - I'm gonna check/raise (or minibet/raise) you on the flop - so tread lightly.

Something that I find curious, is that you asked for comments and then proceeded to tell Mantis that he was wrong. If you're going to completly dismiss opinions that you disagree with, why did you bother to ask? I'm not saying that everyone (including myself) who replies to questions is right, but to flat out say that he is wrong is telling the rest of us that you don't want to hear our opinions if we don't agree with you. You won't learn much that way.

[PrayingMantis]

And another point, before I quit for a few hours: according to your reasoning above, you can do this move with 33, with exactly the same EV. Think about it. That's your main error.

PrayingMantis

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
These guys were regularly trying to pick up the blinds with min-raises (to be fair, I didn't say that in my original post).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important fact for your story. "Regularly trying to pick-up the blinds with mini-raises" isn't somthing I associate with weak/tight. It's weak/loose/aggressive and that would change the way the situation is approached. I'm closer to agreeing with your move than I was based on your original description.

But it's still not an automatic move with 99 - closer to 50/50 decision.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
These guys were regularly trying to pick up the blinds with min-raises (to be fair, I didn't say that in my original post).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious??? You called them WEAK-TIGHT in the original post!! What was this discussion all about???
C'mon, hockey1. This is CRITICAL CONTRARY information.

GL,
PrayingMantis

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious??? You called them WEAK-TIGHT in the original post!! What was this discussion all about???
C'mon, hockey1. This is CRITICAL CONTRARY information.


[/ QUOTE ]

Easy, fella. They weren't idiots, they were weak tight. They didn't play total crap. But, 4 handed, hands like KJ are pretty good; probably worth a raise UTG. They're weak because they'd often min-raise and then fold to a reasonable re-raise.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy, fella. They weren't idiots, they were weak tight. They didn't play total crap. But, 4 handed, hands like KJ are pretty good; probably worth a raise UTG. They're weak because they'd often min-raise and then fold to a reasonable re-raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, to conclude, you clearly have some real problem evaluating your opponents, and categorizing them even into rough types. You obviously don't understand the difference between weak-tight, loose-aggressive, loose-passive, etc. I would suggest you work on this, then work on your EV calculations, since it seems you don't really know what you're talking about.

I must say I feel that this whole thread was a waste of time, as you're not ready for any kind of true discussion, or criticism, and not even able to admit you've given wrong information in the original post (or later on, I don't know any more), and therfore there isn't much point giving you advice or opinion. Not to mention the overall rudeness of your replies, which didn't include even one half-convincing argument.

GL,

PrayingMantis

[cferejohn]

Against a short-stack, I'd probably do the same thing. 99 is a strong hand 4-handed, but you don't want to call and let the BB to overcall (which he is getting very attractive odds to do with a min-raise and a caller). Make a note that UTG min-raises with big hands (unless he's been minraising everytime he's raised.

[cferejohn]

Now that I've read the rest of the thread, a couple randowm thoughts:

1. Someone (I think it was hockey) said that "the all-in will fold all non-pair hands except AK". I really don't think this is true. If I were UTG I would call 4-handed against an aggressive player with AQ, AJ, and possibly KQ. You did say they were weak tight, so maybe you can take out a couple of those, but I can't imagine he would fold AQ 4-handed here.

2. I would play 99 and AK exactly the same here. They are both coinflips against alot of good hands. If he does call with AQ, AJ, and KQ, AK and he will fold low pairs (say 5's one down), AK has a much better chance of being way ahead (dominates 36 hands, where 99 is an overpair to 18 hands). Similarly, AK be a big dog much more rarely than 99, since it is only behind 8 hands (4 ways to make AA and KK since an A and a K are already accounted for). In any case, they are both strong hands 4-handed and I'd often put a shortstack all-in with either of them.

3. The fact that the players on this table had been min-raising alot changes the complexion of the question entirely, and makes your all-in a much better move (if this player really was doing it alot, I would go all-in here without a second thought). I agree with Mantis that constant min-raising does not fit my description of 'weak tight'. I would call it 'aggressive-tricky'. If they had been very tight when someone else raised, I'd make a seperate note about that. Many good tournament players, in fact are simultaneously quite aggressive when entering a pot first and extrememly tight when there has been a raise before them.

[CrisBrown]

Hi hockey,

I've read the entire thread, and I think this is a much more complicated situation than either "side" has made it. If people are often stealing with min-raises, then folding to any reraise, yes, reraising on 99 seems reasonable.

But ...

... 99 isn't a hand that has a lot of improvement potential if you're called. If you're behind, you're way behind. If you're ahead, you're only slightly ahead, because it's not likely that tight players will call your reraise with 88 or less. You might get lucky and get a call with a weak Ace, but at a tight table, it's not that likely, and even then you're only a 7:3 favorite.

So in one sense, you were unlucky in that you ran into a monster pair. But in another sense, you put yourself into a position to get unlucky, and at a time when you didn't need to do that. With four players, and you having the big stack, you're going to get a lot of chances to open-raise at pots, and you can absorb a few folds to reraises. Why get into a contested pot, when you can wait and pull them into a pot when you have the monster?

On the other hand, you took a shot to bust a short stack with a hand that (typically) had a decent chance of doing exactly that. You could sacrifice this pot and still be in a dominant position at the table, and that's not a bad time to take a risk.

I can see both sides of this argument, and I don't think either play -- mucking, or pushing -- is really "bad." If you had a solid read on this particular opponent, sure. But lacking that, it's a 50/50 go-with-your-gut play, and I can't criticize either side of this coin.

Cris

[schwza]

I think the other guys' chip positions makes it relatively likely that the UTG will fold. With one monster stack and 3 fairly even stacks, it looks like a race for 2nd for the small guys. You pick up 1400 chips in the likely (IMO) event UTG folds and are faced with about -2592 chip EV (0.8 * 3240) if he calls you with an overpair. 4-handed people will be raising with an awful lot of stuff besides TT-AA - I wouldn't fear it too much.

Call me maniac, but I'd probably make this play with 77 or AJ.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
4-handed people will be raising with an awful lot of stuff besides TT-AA - I wouldn't fear it too much.

Call me maniac, but I'd probably make this play with 77 or AJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agreed. I'll do the same. However, I will not even consider calling this type of players "weak-tight", as they were described in the OP.

PrayingMantis