Re: I would, however, do it here:
 

[ QUOTE ]
I probably wouldn't push in either of the examples given, however I would be more likely to push in apathy's example, as I think the chance of that preflop raiser having 99 dominated is smaller, due to the min raise. People min raise big pairs all the time, but very rarely do they do so after so many limps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think the chance of being dominated in Apathy's hand is much smaller. But it should still be small; and that risk should be worth the opportunity to race the small stack when he almost certainly doesn't have you beat, will almost certainly call, and cannot bust you.

Irieguy

Re: Unusual PF play.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
open pushing behind multiple limpers etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I find this one far more rewarding, with much less risk. Having identified a habitual limper, no one too desperate behind...a much needed boost during the intermediate levels. Specifically at this level, where decent sized stacks are still trying to see flops. I'm pulling this most every game, when the condition presents itself, with alarming success. Not rocket science I suppose, but perhaps overlooked by some. Gaining these chips to get ahead of the blinds, saves you the unpleasant push of 5-7BB's, 5-6handed, in EP, later in the tourney.

55+5
Seat 1: (1600 in chips)
Seat 2: (1445 in chips)
Seat 3: (1195 in chips)
Seat 4: (1480 in chips)
Seat 5: (1795 in chips)
Seat 6: (2375 in chips)
Seat 7: (680 in chips)
Seat 8: (1725 in chips)
Seat 9: (1205 in chips)
Seat 3: posts small blind 75
Seat 4: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to bluefeet [Kd 9d]
Seat 5: calls 150
Seat 6: calls 150
2 folds
bluefeet: raises 1055 to 1205 and is all-in
5 folds
bluefeet collected 675 from pot

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes, that one is going to be called more than you like it...

i meant at lvl 2

Re: Unusual PF play.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this play is that your hand becomes very transparent.

If somebody limps from a position when it is almost impossible that they are trapping with a big pair, and then pushes when the pot gets sweeter from a few weak raises and calls behind... what do they have?

So, you give all the other players the option of racing you when they know that your range is very narrow. This makes it difficult for your opponents to make a big mistake, and because a SNG involves only a few hands, you really want to create situations where you are giving your opponents a chance to make really, really big mistakes.

By seeing a flop here, you will have opportunities where your opponents can make big mistakes for their whole stack. You will lose a few chips often, and gain a bunch sometimes. By pushing preflop, you will win a few chips often, and lose a bunch sometimes. You will rarely win a bunch, and if you do, it will not be because you forced your opponents into a horrible play. (The exception to this would be if your opponents were particularly likely to call with smaller pairs, and fold with overcards. But this isn't typical at the levels you play.)

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the thought process that should be involved in whether or not to push here. You state one side of the argument quite well. The reasons why looking at the example I gave is a push in my mind though are these:

- Although your hand is made transparent by pushing it is extremly likely to be the best hand, and it will be very difficult for anyone to justify calling looking for a race because you could have two big-ish cards (AQo, AJs, KQ) OR a medium pair (JJ-77), so they can't sit there with thier KQ and call 'knowing' they will be a race. Also you will be all-in so you won't be hurt be giving away your hand as much as in deepstack because there are no implied odds offered to your opponents on post flop decisions.

Also this doesn't (as was a point of yours) force them into big mistakes when you push but the key to this hand is the stack sizes. You are pushing to win about 235 chips, more (about a 25% stack increase). By calling the 30 chips you have a chance to win about 800 more by stacking someone which you will almost certaintly need to flop a set to do. Now take the times you flop a set (1 in 8) and the times you are actually able to win a signifigant amount of chips in this multi way pot where nobody has a strong hand and you can figure out what you stand to gain by "giving up" the opportunity to take down this 25% stack increase immediatly.

My point being that forcing one opponent into a very bad decision is of decreasing importance when you can gain from SEVERAL opponents making marginally bad decisions.

Re: I would, however, do it here:
 

I don't really like pushing in your example. You have a relativly high chance of being dominated by the open raiser (I would say almost 50%) who will probably call your over-bet push with as little as JJ and maybe 10s. He will also likely call with AK, not a very desirable outcome for you as that would only leave about 100 chips dead in the pot as you race for your stack.

On top of that the best case scenario seems to involve racing the short stack as I think an underpair is a pretty unlikely hand for him (but possible) for half of your chips with still only about 100 dead in the pot. Sure I would take that bet on its own but coupled with the reasonable chance of being called by the big stack and a very small chance of just taking the pot down without a showdown I don't like the push.

Re: Unusual PF play.
 

[ QUOTE ]
consistantly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Schools are for fish.

<font color="white"> in ya face </font>

Re: Unusual PF play.
 

[ QUOTE ]


This is exactly the thought process that should be involved in whether or not to push here. You state one side of the argument quite well. The reasons why looking at the example I gave is a push in my mind though are these:

- Although your hand is made transparent by pushing it is extremly likely to be the best hand, and it will be very difficult for anyone to justify calling looking for a race because you could have two big-ish cards (AQo, AJs, KQ) OR a medium pair (JJ-77), so they can't sit there with thier KQ and call 'knowing' they will be a race. Also you will be all-in so you won't be hurt be giving away your hand as much as in deepstack because there are no implied odds offered to your opponents on post flop decisions.

Also this doesn't (as was a point of yours) force them into big mistakes when you push but the key to this hand is the stack sizes. You are pushing to win about 235 chips, more (about a 25% stack increase). By calling the 30 chips you have a chance to win about 800 more by stacking someone which you will almost certaintly need to flop a set to do. Now take the times you flop a set (1 in 8) and the times you are actually able to win a signifigant amount of chips in this multi way pot where nobody has a strong hand and you can figure out what you stand to gain by "giving up" the opportunity to take down this 25% stack increase immediatly.

My point being that forcing one opponent into a very bad decision is of decreasing importance when you can gain from SEVERAL opponents making marginally bad decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can buy all of that except the last sentence. I'm not sure there are very many players standing to make marginally bad decisions in this hand... they are all likely to fold correctly after having limped correctly a majority of the time. But the more they limp, the more I like your play and your justification.

I never thought the play was that bad, but hearing you discuss the chips you stand to gain as a percentage of your stack I think I like your push quite a bit more.

Irieguy

Re: Unusual PF play.
 

If you will also do this with AA then I like it, if you won't then I don't. I will do this with 99+, AKs occasionaly. The danger of playing this way if you won't play AA like this should be obvious.