normal situation 215

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, I pushed here, in the game as it played, fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey citanul, the only thing that matters is if you won the hand.

fuji [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

psh, we all know i never lose.

bb called with KK, flop 678, turn 5, whammo.

citanul

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, I pushed here, in the game as it played, fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey citanul, the only thing that matters is if you won the hand.

fuji [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

psh, we all know i never lose.

bb called with KK, flop 678, turn 5, whammo.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

He was lucky preflop, you were lucky postflop. It evens out.

[Nick B.]

I thought this was 4 handed, anyways my vote for fold is the same.

[SCfuji]

what an idiot. who calls with kk there when you are going to hit a straight.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
what an idiot. who calls with kk there when you are going to hit a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

i clearly have no problem with the play of the bb. people just want closure and results and whatnot, so i posted them. he should have known, however, that he was going to lose, because i never lose, and it had to be one of us.

citanul

[curtains]

citanul your calling standards are way too tight for most of the players!! TT+, AKo+, AQs+????? Are you playing different games than me? Do you really think they are just automatically folding 99, 88 and AJs along with other assorted pretty looking hands?

[deathpotato]

[ QUOTE ]
citanul your calling standards are way too tight for most of the players!! TT+, AKo+, AQs+????? Are you playing different games than me? Do you really think they are just automatically folding 99, 88 and AJs along with other assorted pretty looking hands?

[/ QUOTE ]I have to agree with curtains here. I think realistic ranges for all 4 players would be something like 44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+ (and we all know that we will oftentimes be called much looser than this, too). Putting two of them on 66+,AJo+,ATs+, which is in my opinion tighter than most people will play given your fairly desperate-looking push, still makes pushing equivalent to folding. Pushing definitely isn't terrible, I don't think, and against the right field it can be good, but I think the ranges you're assuming are too tight to assign to 4 unknowns.

Edit: VV I don't think you can assume that you give up 1/4 of your equity by going through the blinds, as being folded to or find yourself in a calling situation happens fairly frequently. That's an interesting point though, and you may very well be right that losing a little on this hand is better than the bigger equity hit you take by going through the blinds with a smaller stack.

[citanul]

c,

nah, but i felt that the short stacks would be fairly tight, and the big stacks fairly loose. didn't do much customization, but felt that i was probably closish. the main point was that the decision isn't all that clear cut, i think.

pesonally, as has been discussed previously, my current re-aligning of my game has me always looking if i'm going to have 2 bad spots, looking for the one where i can be the aggressor, even if i give up a couple of bucks by doing it. mostly i like fold equity i guess.

here, i think that the ev of pushing, due to a variety of things, such as being sandwiched between two stacks, and possibly having to deal with someone who is desperate to call when the big stacks do decide to let one slide, i felt that pushing was intuitively better than letting the blinds plow me and then seeing what happened next.

stack, icm for utg alignment, stacks then icm for alignment saying for instance, big stack takes down this hand and both of the next two sets of blinds.

1085 -> .1283 -> 785 -> .0988
2872 -> .2684 -> 2672 -> .262
1290 -> .1494 -> 1290 -> .1542
1415 -> .1616 -> 1415 -> .1668
3338 -> .2922 -> 3838 -> .3183

i dunno exactly what this all means right now, mostly because i'm tired, but i thought i'd put more stuff out there in the field for people who do want to look at this hand to consider.

you're giving up just under 1/4 of your equity in the tournament by folding through the blinds here, according to ICM. that means that if your plan is to fold through the blinds, and the alternative is something else, you should consider how much it loses, as another loser can still obviously be better without being a winner.

my prior numbers show that against a semi-reasonable set of assumptions about opponents, the push is *clearly* positive. however they werne't great assumptions. the other numbers i showed show that when you loosen up the numbers, you're still not giving up close to 1/4 of your equity, i think, when you get to reasonable calling ranges for your opponents.

anyway, off to sleep. i like this stuff sometimes. (the sleep and the poker.)

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
citanul your calling standards are way too tight for most of the players!! TT+, AKo+, AQs+????? Are you playing different games than me? Do you really think they are just automatically folding 99, 88 and AJs along with other assorted pretty looking hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with curtains here. I think realistic ranges for all 4 players would be something like 44+,A7s+,A9o+,KJs+ (and we all know that we will oftentimes be called much looser than this, too). Putting two of them on 66+,AJo+,ATs+, which is in my opinion tighter than most people will play given your fairly desperate-looking push, still makes pushing equivalent to folding. Pushing definitely isn't terrible, I don't think, and against the right field it can be good, but I think the ranges you're assuming are too tight to assign to 4 unknowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) i ran several scenarios and reported the numbers for all of them, not just the tight ranges, as i explained, i know that those ranges were not great, but i did run several ranges.

b) i think the assumption that the short stacks will call off their whole stacks at a 215 with 44 because your push "looks desperate" is completely off the wall retarded. not even the average 215 player is dumb enough to say "he's desperate, i know what i'll do, i'll hope to call into a coin flip with that guy for my whole stack. oh, hell with it, he must have a 2 in his hand, i'm way ahead.

c) there's a clear, and large, difference between curtains' 99 and 88 example and your example of 44.

i think that the most realistic of the ranges that i ran (if i'm remembering what i ran earlier without looking now) is the big stacks with the loosey goose ranges and the small stacks fairly tight.

d) look at my post above this one, where i talk about how costly folding through the blinds is going to be. i think that people like to talk about the ev of just folding the hand, but sometiems you hve to consider what the ev of being forced to fold the next several hands is going to be, especially when it is incredibly likely.

all this is without talking about how much or if one is supposed to open up his calling standards against short stack pushes against his bb. (any ace? any king? etc.)

gnight for real this time.

citanul

[curtains]

Ok but I think that the TT, AK+, AQs+ range is way off the wall. Basically that is the absolute tightest that ANYONE will be. Meanwhile people can be a lot looser. Its almost never a good idea to use a range that is the maximum in tightness, and honestly I would suspect that less than 5% of players will be that tight.

I never use that range in any situation whenever I use SNG powertools, and think you would be well advised to never use it again, as it gives unrealistic results. Make a more reasonable range that includes 88+ and AJ+ and such. Okay it still may be a bit too tight, especially when you are pushing for 5.5x the BB, but ok its much closer.