(109) Bubble Fun with Raptor

[lacky]

well, at some point I'm gonna have to play a hand unless I do a fold race with the small stack and hope he doesnt get lucky. Going that route leaves me with a few hundred chips in 3rd, if I'm lucky. If small stack gets lucky on his all in hand and i dont I'm screwed. I hate playing that way.

So, assuming I have to push something, I will have to push into or past a stack that can call with no worries, and a stack that can call pretty louse, cause i cant hurt them much. anytime I'm in small blind and small is in bb one of the 2 huge stacks will raise just to wear us down so they can get rid of us. So, assuming I'm gonna be showing down a hand anyway, AQ is a pretty decent hand to be in against the huge range that the button is pushing here. Also, the sooner I play a hand the more chips I get for my double up, giving me more chances for 1st.

Is any of this correct? Donno, but it is how I see it.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
well, at some point I'm gonna have to play a hand unless I do a fold race with the small stack and hope he doesnt get lucky. Going that route leaves me with a few hundred chips in 3rd, if I'm lucky. If small stack gets lucky on his all in hand and i dont I'm screwed. I hate playing that way.

So, assuming I have to push something, I will have to push into or past a stack that can call with no worries, and a stack that can call pretty louse, cause i cant hurt them much. anytime I'm in small blind and small is in bb one of the 2 huge stacks will raise just to wear us down so they can get rid of us. So, assuming I'm gonna be showing down a hand anyway, AQ is a pretty decent hand to be in against the huge range that the button is pushing here. Also, the sooner I play a hand the more chips I get for my double up, giving me more chances for 1st.

Is any of this correct? Donno, but it is how I see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow all of your thoughts. And barring my use of SNGPT, this is how I would logically think through it as well. But I don't think this maximizes EV, and that's what SNGPT tells us.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
i think this has to be one of the most insanely marginal decisions, its kind of akin to making a post on whether or not to choose heads or tails, maybe the reasoning behind the decision is helpful for improvement in this case but the actual decision pretty much makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... but call because gambling is more fun than not.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think this has to be one of the most insanely marginal decisions, its kind of akin to making a post on whether or not to choose heads or tails, maybe the reasoning behind the decision is helpful for improvement in this case but the actual decision pretty much makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... but call because gambling is more fun than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if thats the case, then I, Raptor, will call because I am better with more chips than my opponents are. That tips the scales for me at least.

[lacky]

I think even eastbay would say that sngpt isn't designed to see how the game is going to play out givin the stack sizes and reletive positions. What sngpt says on a givin push or call is good to know, and one of the things to consider, but there is more to it than what sngpt says. (or i'm wrong. I bought sngpt and played with it for MAYBY 2 hours. I am not an expert on that program or ICM in general)

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think even eastbay would say that sngpt isn't designed to see how the game is going to play out givin the stack sizes and reletive positions. What sngpt says on a givin push or call is good to know, and one of the things to consider, but there is more to it than what sngpt says. (or i'm wrong. I bought sngpt and played with it for MAYBY 2 hours. I am not an expert on that program or ICM in general)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've just always had the assumption that SNGPT's value is greatest, for sngs, when it's down to 4 people or less.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think this has to be one of the most insanely marginal decisions, its kind of akin to making a post on whether or not to choose heads or tails, maybe the reasoning behind the decision is helpful for improvement in this case but the actual decision pretty much makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... but call because gambling is more fun than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if thats the case, then I, Raptor, will call because I am better with more chips than my opponents are. That tips the scales for me at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think a point everyone seems to be missing is that the big blind, if even relatively decent, will call with ANY TWO because he knows he will lose a fold race and hes getting better than 2 to 1. any 2 cards folks. keep that in mind. some good points being made though keep it up. holla

[ QUOTE ]
SNGPT's maniac range is only 22%-23% of hands. It's easy to imagine the pusher here has a wider range than that.

"Maniac" doesn't really mean "crazy" (at least not in all cases), just a bit wider than "loose".

[/ QUOTE ]

You should give Eastbay more credit. Anyway, for your viewing pleasure, I adjusted manaic to any two cards.

Using Eastbays' default manaic, it's +0.2%
Using any two cards, it's +0.6%

Thanks for making your point that much stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]My point wasn't really specific to this problem, but rather a general point about the "maniac" descriptor not meant to mean anything other than "wider than loose". Sort of like when you go to 7-11 and get a soft drink, you can't get a small, the choices are something like large, super and mega. And, I'm pretty sure I have seen eastbay post something to this effect -- I'm not making it up and it's not meant as a criticism of SNGPT.

I'm not sure SNGPT is adequate to solve this problem. If the SB folds, the BB will be calling on a very wide range of hands, right? And, I don't think SNGPT takes this into consideration when determining the post hand equity in the case where SB folds. Of course, this consideration may make a stronger case for not calling.

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW the most you can gain from calling according to SNGPT s +.6%, if they are pushing with 100% of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]In determining the posthand equity in the case where SB folds, does SNGPT take into account the likelihood of the BB calling? I don't think so. When the BB goes out, the SB's equity will go up, won't it? This probably means that SNGPT is saying the SB call is better than it actually is, I'm not sure, but at the very least it suggests to me that SNGPT isn't nearly definitive. (As you've noted with "FWIW". I'm not suggesting you claimed SNGPT gave a definitive answer.)

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think this has to be one of the most insanely marginal decisions, its kind of akin to making a post on whether or not to choose heads or tails, maybe the reasoning behind the decision is helpful for improvement in this case but the actual decision pretty much makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... but call because gambling is more fun than not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if thats the case, then I, Raptor, will call because I am better with more chips than my opponents are. That tips the scales for me at least.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think a point everyone seems to be missing is that the big blind, if even relatively decent, will call with ANY TWO because he knows he will lose a fold race and hes getting better than 2 to 1. any 2 cards folks. keep that in mind. some good points being made though keep it up. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you that I fold this, but I think you're vastly overestimating how often the BB is good enough to call with any 2. The players in the 109's aren't great, especially regarding concepts like this.