Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

Those were examples. The BB probably calls with A7, KT, QJ, 55... that's getting towards the range. I'm not exactly sure.

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

I push, please read HOH-2 and return when you are ready. Your software will not save you. Folding any Ace in the small blind at that point instead of pushing is a mistake unless the UTG player only had enough to be all-in on the next hand. You have twice as many chips as he does, but that can change very quickly. I've seen many short-stacks come back to win from the bubble.

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
I push, please read HOH-2 and return when you are ready. Your software will not save you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Prick. That aside:

[ QUOTE ]
Folding any Ace in the small blind at that point instead of pushing is a mistake unless the UTG player only had enough to be all-in on the next hand. You have twice as many chips as he does, but that can change very quickly. I've seen many short-stacks come back to win from the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even pay attention to stack sizes at all? Nearly the entire BB's calling range dominates you, and your M here is over 6. You don't need this pot. There will be better spots. I would rather raise UTG with the 2nd place stack in the BB with A6o than here.

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

[ QUOTE ]

maybe some confusion.... i was asking if you ran sngpt for whether it's correct to push a6 against this range:

and then a seperate question of what range an average BB will have.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok - yes I used SNG power tools for the calculations to confirm my initial thoughts and when I said "I'd say the average tight player goes with that range while a loose player would open it up considerably. Any pair, any ace, most kings and probably any 2 face cards." replace goes with calls. I was referring to what they would be calling with from the BB.

rvg

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

cool, thanks.

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I push, please read HOH-2 and return when you are ready. Your software will not save you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Prick. That aside:

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. I would push this with any 2 against a tight player in this situation for the reasons I mentioned but I also appreciate other opinions and the reasoning behind them, like Durron's.

rvg

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

Before HOH-2 I was a consistant bubble finisher. After HOH-2 I have been coming from behind as a short-stack on the bubble to win a lot of these sit n' go's.

I'm snagging a lot of 1st and 2nd's now, instead of 4th's and 5th's. The proof is in the pudding. You're welcome.

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
Before HOH-2 I was a consistant bubble finisher. After HOH-2 I have been coming from behind as a short-stack on the bubble to win a lot of these sit n' go's.

I'm snagging a lot of 1st and 2nd's now, instead of 4th's and 5th's. The proof is in the pudding. You're welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always tended towards first in my finishes. I think I play the bubble quite well thank you.

This is at best a slightly positive EV push. It is definitely not "clear".

And do you have to phrase every thing you say in the most condescending way possible?

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before HOH-2 I was a consistant bubble finisher. After HOH-2 I have been coming from behind as a short-stack on the bubble to win a lot of these sit n' go's.

I'm snagging a lot of 1st and 2nd's now, instead of 4th's and 5th's. The proof is in the pudding. You're welcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always tended towards first in my finishes. I think I play the bubble quite well thank you.

This is at best a slightly positive EV push. It is definitely not "clear".

And do you have to phrase every thing you say in the most condescending way possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, bad habit I picked up in these forums with all the elitists running around. And, um, "it's not even close, do you see why?" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: battle of blinds on bubble
 

I don't know why someone said that it was -ev given a certain range, because if you use any of the preset ranges, even maniac gives you a slightly +EV. Considering that he is not alway a maniac, it becomes even more +EV (proportionate to what read you have on him). Given that I can not see folding this. Your worst case scenario is +EV (granted very slightly) and the other scenarios are more +EV. To me this seems like as clear a push as any.