$100+9 SnG problem

[Martin Aigner]

OK, so far it seems that it´s an either push or muck situation, where most of you prefer the push. Now this is what I thought (and actually still think), too.

As stated in my original post: I discussed this hand with a friend. Now this friend happens to be an absolute world class player, who definetly already forgot more about poker than I´ll ever know, and his approach in the given situation is a bit different, saying that he would just bet less then all in, something about 2 or 3times the minumum bet (about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the pot). What do you guys think about that approach?

Thanks in advance

Martin Aigner

[Apathy]

It depends on his reasons for doing that, if you can bet an amount less then all in that will give you more FE then betting all in, that is what you should bet. Pushing often looks like a wekaer hand then a bet of 400 or so. Of course you would call any raises, and push any turn if someone smoothcalled.

[Scuba Chuck]

Post flop: I only see two moves. check-fold behind, or be the first with all your chips in the middle.

The math part seems pretty simple. If you think that your opponents will fold ~30% of the time, then this is neutral $EV. If they fold more than 30% than this is +$EV.

1/3 - push, all fold
1/3 - push, called and complete the flush
1/3 - push, called and don't complete

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
his approach in the given situation is a bit different, saying that he would just bet less then all in, something about 2 or 3times the minumum bet (about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the pot). What do you guys think about that approach?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that he doesn't understand the chip structure of a Party Poker SitNGo. Can you see hemoraghing?

[Gramps]

If you limp with 86s in the CO behind another limper, you're doing it to pick up a lot of pots when the board is right - knowing you have the big stack as a threat. While you have a good draw, you're sitting with 7-high. If you don't make a play for this pot, you shouldn't be in the hand to start with, b/c part of your reason for being there in the first place is gone. Checking means you win only if the button doesn't bet you out and you hit your hand. Betting means you have two ways to win (and the odds, etc. justify that course of action).

A lot of players like to make "foolio mini-raises" in these games. Maybe they're trying to carry over the limit poker concept of raise to take the initiative or something. Even in the 109s, a lot of players will do this with a wide range of hands (a few with monsters, but usually not). So...a lot of the time the button will be sitting there with two not-so-attractive-looking overcards and would gladly defer to a big stack bet. Charge him a price overcards don't like to pay.

A push looks somewhat suspicious (a "please don't call me I'm drawing" bet). I'd go like 500-600 and call a push. Even if you have to commit 1k to this, you're getting close to 2:1 on your call. Even against an overpair, you have outside straight draws in addition to your flush draw. Not ideal, but not the worst spot to be. But on that raggedy flop against two VP$IP'ers, you'll pick up that juicy pot with a good-sized bet a fair amount of the time IMO, making it overall a significant +EV chip play.

[curtains]

Well if he bets small, he needs to call if one of the players goes allin. You are getting about 40% equity against AA, and it's clearly worth it to call in that situation. Also your bet may look weak and convince the button with AK or AQ to move allin on you, which you'll have to call and will be a small favorite, but will be very unhappy about stringing along.

In conclusion I think betting small is not good, and that allin is clearly correct. There's no way betting small gives you more folding equity compared to moving allin.

[Martin Aigner]

Well, the hand described wasn´t an actual hand I played. It´s taken from Dan Harrington´s book "Harrington on Hold´em". I´ve edited a little bit (rounding up the stacksizes and changing the flop and the colours of the cards so that it´s not too obvious for those who have read the book already, but basically it´s an example given from him ). Of course I didn´t discuss the hand with him, and in fact I´ve never happend to meet him, but I guess the small bet still is his way to play that hand. At least that´s what he´s writing.

When I read that example, which in fact is the very first problem he wants you to solve in this book, I thought that I just don´t see how his approach can be right. IMHO a small bet gives less FE, which is what changes everything.

From his book:

Action: You call for another 100. The pot is now $750. The flop comes 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (Hero has 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img])
Answer: That´s a very good flop for you. Two clubs and only one overcard to your 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. You should make a move to win the hand right here, but cheaply if you can. Players C and F have 640 and 790 respectively. A bet of $100 is too little (too easily called) but $200 or $300 looks looks about right to shake out any week holders. This way his pot odds won´t be too good if he has a call.

Any Thoughts?

Martin Aigner

[curtains]

Ok there were plenty of hands I disagreed with while reading that book. This is one of them of course, and I suspect that if you somehow were able to talk to Dan about the hand, he MIGHT even change his opinion.

I mean if you look at it, his advice for this particular hand is really absurd. To claim that you want to make a move "cheaply" and then to bet 300, when you OBVIOUSLY have to call if anyone moves allin, just makes no sense.

[Martin Aigner]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean if you look at it, his advice for this particular hand is really absurd. To claim that you want to make a move "cheaply" and then to bet 300, when you OBVIOUSLY have to call if anyone moves allin, just makes no sense

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that´s what I thought/think, too. I just started reading the book and was really looking forward to it. But already in the first problem I think he´s clearly wrong. I hope, the rest of the book will be better, although you already said that you disagreed on many things in his book.

Thanks anyway

Martin Aigner

[Scuba Chuck]

What are the odds in a Sit N Go?

Gigabet vs. Dan Harrington?