Re: How low would you go...
[ QUOTE ]
no no, this is different han the sirio hand.
he had everything to lose, and nothing to gain, becacuse it was a satelite 12th paid as much as 1st, so theres no reason to go from say 10th chip stack to the leading chip stack when theres 13 left.
In this situation though where 1st is substantially more than 2nd, it helps us a lot to double up here. Still we're not going to want to get knocked out right now a big % of the time. So i'll be conservative still, and say he's only pushing the top 50% of hands. ANd i'll arbitrarily decide that i want to still be around 70% of the time, so that would be JJ+ .. and that's it.
if he's pushing more than 50%, or if you dont need quite 70% equity for it to be good, then add in 99+ AJs+ AQo+
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Ansky's range pretty much. Maybe even ATs b/c I'm a sucker for that hand.
This isn't like the sirio situation for the reasons given, but also no one's really explicitly considered the fact that you need a stack to take on the big stack with. Everyone's implying that more chips=good, but what this really means is you have to put yourself in a position to WIN. Namely, imagine if the situation were that you had 500k and the shorty had 150k and the biggie had 10M. You can't pass up a chance to make yourself a stack to take on the big stack, otherwise you're basically conceeding winning an extra $250k for having no chance at first. You might go totally card dead the rest of the tourney. Take your shot now when you get it.
In my opinion, chips have increasing value here, as it gives you more than just a proportionate chance at taking a shot at the leader for every chip you get. You need wiggle room. Shorty could also magically suck out with 72o against Aces when he's forced to go all in, and you get fuzunked.
Always remember you're playing for first.
|