[tewall]

In "The Big Book of Bluffs" the author gives the following example of an on-line sit and go bluff.

Mark has a chip lead of 2000. Tony has been catching up, up to 1600 now, because noone has been standing up to his aggression. Mark decides to take a stand.

The blinds are 25/50 (with Mark in the BB), and Tony raises to 600. Mark calls. Regardless of the flop, Mark moves all-in.

The author states that this option is better than just re-raising pre-flop because it's less likely Mark will get called. He states this is a good bluff when it's 1600 to win 1200, but would be bad if it were 1600 to win 600.

Ok, a couple of questions. First of all, it seems to me that Tony's strategy is terrible. Why not let someone else take Mark on?

Secondly, and more importantly, as this is my main question, is it indeed true that the stop and go is better than an immediate re-raise? In what situations would the sit and go and better than an immediate re-raise?

Thirdly, the statement that it's not worth risking 1600 to win 600 seems wrong to me. If it's OK to go all-in with 10xBB with not very good hands because of fold equity, surely betting 1600 to 600 must be at least as +EV.

At any rate, the second question is the one I'm most interested in. When is sit and go better than just re-raising?