|
|
#21
10-25-2005, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
My real problem here is that I think it is better to gamble in situations where you are the bettor and not the caller. I would rather have at least some fold equity if I am going to risk my tournament life.
After all, you can't win the tournament if you are not in the tournament. That is still rule number 1 last time I checked. 
|
|
#23
10-25-2005, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: tournament life. for the love of God stop it [/ QUOTE ] haha. yes. there's already enough thoughtless repetitiveness in this thread, do we really need to bring back an old classic?
|
|
#24
10-25-2005, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
If I planned to call a reraise I would raise even more from the button so as to a)increase FE and b)give me better odds to call the reraise. let's say to 600. now you're getting almost 1.7 to 1 odds to call instead of 1.45 to 1. and you only need about 37% equity as opposed to a little over 40%. maybe not much of a difference but i bet if you factor in FE from BB (assuming he's more likely to take the bigger raise as a sign of a "real"hand), it makes it a better move.
|
|
#25
10-25-2005, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself.
|
|
#26
10-25-2005, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself. [/ QUOTE ] yeah. thats one of the ideas in HOH2 that i pretty strongly disagree with. in this spot, i felt like 3x was plenty to get a decent FE. in most spots it is. and by raising less you also have an option of either folding or calling, depending who pushes in. if you price yourself in, then ofeten you're forced to call a push from a passive player whose range is very small. when you raise less you can call the aggressive players more b/c their range will be bigger, and so your equity vs. them will be more.
|
|
#27
10-25-2005, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself. [/ QUOTE ] But here we have a situation where hero has decided that he is going to call a reraise all-in from the big blind. Unless that decision was made after the reraise-- which is a mistake because you should always have a plan in mind when you raise-- then why not make the initial raise bigger? The decision to call the all-in already stands; make the raise that is most likely to have the effect you want (i.e. a fold, or at least a reasonable all-in call of a reraise). I don't really look at it as "trapping" myself, to be honest. I see it as creating a favorable gamble where previously none might have been had. (Also, the situation Harrington described was something like 88 UTG, which means 9 players left to act, so specific reads aren't nearly as applicable. In this situation if hero wants to call a push he should make the bigger raise.)
|
|
#28
10-25-2005, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
[ QUOTE ]
in this spot, i felt like 3x was plenty to get a decent FE. in most spots it is. and by raising less you also have an option of either folding or calling, depending who pushes in. if you price yourself in, then ofeten you're forced to call a push from a passive player whose range is very small. when you raise less you can call the aggressive players more b/c their range will be bigger, and so your equity vs. them will be more. [/ QUOTE ] OK-- but you raised to 400 which is not even 3xBB. Somewhere on this board I heard mention of the idea that you should raise more in late position and less in early position to compensate for the respect your position commands. (i.e. a 2.5x raise UTG is likely to be more respected than the same raise from the button or CO, so raise more from those positions to achieve the desired effect.) I find this principle to actually work quite well. So part of the reason I suggest the bigger raise is to increase FE-- you don't really want him to play back at you, right? 4x is by no means unreasonable here. You also mention that you may be priced in to call a tighter player's raise, possibly incorrectly, but here you only have two players to act. The SB has a monster stack-- you aren't calling any reraise from him, obviously. You're only adjusting your raise for the big blind, so make the raise that's more likely to get him to fold / price you in if you want to make that call. (It's actually more analogous to a hand from HOH2 where he has TT in the small blind and advocates a raise size that makes it incorrect for one overcard to call because that's the only real situation in which your raise can force an incorrect decision.)
|
|
#29
10-25-2005, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
oh. damn. sorry. i'm dumb sometimes. i forgot that this was before there were antees, so i almost always raise to 2.5BB then. i like to raise with potsize in mind as an attempt to be more game-theoretically correct. sometimes i try to have a plan ahead of time, but a lot of times i like to leave my options open. in this hand, if SB pushes i probably fold. he's not as aggressive, not desperate, and if i raised to 4x BB i would probably be in a horrible spot if he pushed. i'd probably either fold and lose a lot of my stack, or make a breakeven, or slightly worse call for all my chips. plus, i make it less likely that BB will make a total resteal with garbage, and i can call with the chance to get all his chips as a favorite. when i raise more he won't have any misbelief that he can resteal, so his pushing range will be much stronger, and my call will then not be too good.
|
|
#30
10-25-2005, 09:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: betgo\'s red zone idea in practice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think the idea of raising more to enticee you to call a reraise is a bad concept. harrington wrote about it in his books and i didnt like it then either. Just sounds like your'e trapping yourself. [/ QUOTE ] But here we have a situation where hero has decided that he is going to call a reraise all-in from the big blind. Unless that decision was made after the reraise-- which is a mistake because you should always have a plan in mind when you raise-- then why not make the initial raise bigger? The decision to call the all-in already stands; make the raise that is most likely to have the effect you want (i.e. a fold, or at least a reasonable all-in call of a reraise). I don't really look at it as "trapping" myself, to be honest. I see it as creating a favorable gamble where previously none might have been had. (Also, the situation Harrington described was something like 88 UTG, which means 9 players left to act, so specific reads aren't nearly as applicable. In this situation if hero wants to call a push he should make the bigger raise.) [/ QUOTE ] Listen to yourself, you're planning on calling a reraise.. but you ahve 9Ts! it's not that strtong of a hand, you won't be favorite... so you decide to play the hand so that it looks alright when you eventually do call the all in? No way.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
