Re: You think this is a leak?
 

I'll let others elaborate.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

[ 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.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

[ 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.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

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

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

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.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

[ 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.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

Im sure, you try putting in the correct blinds.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Brad

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

[ 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.

Re: You think this is a leak?
 

[ 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.