Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

I think the main problem with 2 is your stack size, not just your opponents, if you had say 2500-3000 I think I make the push, but here he will call basically almost always and if he beats you, you are down to around 1200, which is not good.

Mack

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

David, unfortunately, looking at these hands in isolation is a little tough. Hand 2 is the only "glaring" problem that is easy to identify. Hopefully you're able to see the problem. Your objective in this stage is to **steal** blinds. There are many factors to consider when blind stealing. One main factor is to consider the probabilities of getting called. Hand 2 has a very high propensity to being called.

Hand 1: This is basicly 4 handed. The decision becomes quite a bit easier once UTG has folded. You've got a great position here. Depending on your read of the BB, I'm positive I'd push here. You need the chips. That being said, BB also knows you need the chips. If you were called by KK, you shouldn't even post these. If you were called by A2, I understand your question.

Hand 3: At first glance, this is a relatively easy push, IMO. The only real concern is that SB will call with any hand he can't let go by, which includes middle pocket pairs (which might be folded by the other big stacks), and a hand like A8, KJ, etc. I think you might find it interesting to do the math on a hand like this one. Figure out the probability of getting called. I think that SB folds this hand 65% of the time. Use pairs 44+, A8+, KJ+, QJs, and maybe even TJs ('cos TJ Cloutier recommends this in his book - which doesn't mean it's smart). I'm guessing that is about a 38% call probability. If I'm right, this hand, mathematically at least, could be a fold. I'd appreciate it if you did the math, I'm interested in the results.

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 3: At first glance, this is a relatively easy push, IMO. The only real concern is that SB will call with any hand he can't let go by, which includes middle pocket pairs (which might be folded by the other big stacks), and a hand like A8, KJ, etc. I think you might find it interesting to do the math on a hand like this one. Figure out the probability of getting called. I think that SB folds this hand 65% of the time. Use pairs 44+, A8+, KJ+, QJs, and maybe even TJs ('cos TJ Cloutier recommends this in his book - which doesn't mean it's smart). I'm guessing that is about a 38% call probability. If I'm right, this hand, mathematically at least, could be a fold. I'd appreciate it if you did the math, I'm interested in the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Subtle use of bold.

In 2 hands, he is going to have to pay the blinds and that will leave him with 900 or 3xBB.

The math might show that this only slightly +$EV with the SB calling a lot, but there's no way you can pass here with the blinds coming up. I'd be tempted to push with any 2 here.

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
The math might show that this only slightly +$EV with the SB calling a lot, but there's no way you can pass here with the blinds coming up. I'd be tempted to push with any 2 here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you've already gotten to my next question/thought before our friend David did the math (which I'm confident he would do). I agree with your statement, but I am interested in the math results.

If this turned out to be +$EV, I wasn't going to bring it up, but since you did, hypothetically at least, if this turned out to be a -$EV play, would you still push - considering the upcoming big blind?

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you might find it interesting to do the math on a hand like this one. Figure out the probability of getting called. I think that SB folds this hand 65% of the time. Use pairs 44+, A8+, KJ+, QJs, and maybe even TJs ('cos TJ Cloutier recommends this in his book - which doesn't mean it's smart). I'm guessing that is about a 38% call probability. If I'm right, this hand, mathematically at least, could be a fold. I'd appreciate it if you did the math, I'm interested in the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using your hange range for the SB comes out to only 14% of hands (or 15.2% using pokercalc -- not sure which is right, but both are pretty close). I'm not sure if you were looking for something a little looser. I tightened up button to 66+, ATs, AJo+, and BB can be a little looser, with 44+, A9+, KJs+.

This has me getting called only about 30% of the time. Folding, my EV is 18.2% -- Pushing, it's 19.5%, so it's a clear push in my book.

Frankly, it's hard to find many hands you shouldn't push with here. eastbay's tool lists 93% of hands as push hands in this situation.

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hand 3: At first glance, this is a relatively easy push, IMO. The only real concern is that SB will call with any hand he can't let go by, which includes middle pocket pairs (which might be folded by the other big stacks), and a hand like A8, KJ, etc. I think you might find it interesting to do the math on a hand like this one. Figure out the probability of getting called. I think that SB folds this hand 65% of the time. Use pairs 44+, A8+, KJ+, QJs, and maybe even TJs ('cos TJ Cloutier recommends this in his book - which doesn't mean it's smart). I'm guessing that is about a 38% call probability. If I'm right, this hand, mathematically at least, could be a fold. I'd appreciate it if you did the math, I'm interested in the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Subtle use of bold.

In 2 hands, he is going to have to pay the blinds and that will leave him with 900 or 3xBB.

The math might show that this only slightly +$EV with the SB calling a lot, but there's no way you can pass here with the blinds coming up. I'd be tempted to push with any 2 here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. In retrospect, this is more of a stack size vs. blinds issue than worrying about what cards we have. 43o is a push, ICM-wise.

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The math might show that this only slightly +$EV with the SB calling a lot, but there's no way you can pass here with the blinds coming up. I'd be tempted to push with any 2 here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you've already gotten to my next question/thought before our friend David did the math (which I'm confident he would do). I agree with your statement, but I am interested in the math results.

If this turned out to be +$EV, I wasn't going to bring it up, but since you did, hypothetically at least, if this turned out to be a -$EV play, would you still push - considering the upcoming big blind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I didn't mean to jump the gun there. You are indeed too subtle for me.

I do believe there may be times where -$EV plays are required, but I don't think this is one of them. Even if he drops to 900, he's only 1 double-up away from a reasonable stack. He's not desparate yet.

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, it's hard to find many hands you shouldn't push with here. eastbay's tool lists 93% of hands as push hands in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the result I was looking for. Good work

My intent was to figure out if your hand was +$EV if you only had a 60% probability of folding by short stack.

Thanks for the work.

Re: bubble (and almost bubble) disasters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, it's hard to find many hands you shouldn't push with here. eastbay's tool lists 93% of hands as push hands in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the result I was looking for. Good work

My intent was to figure out if your hand was +$EV if you only had a 60% probability of folding by short stack.

Thanks for the work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's not exactly the calc I ran. For SB to be calling 40% of the time, he needs to be insanely loose. Let's put him on any pair, any ace, any king, Q8+, J8+. That's about 40% of all hands.

And it's still a clear push (+1.0%)