Push?

[LetsRock]

I tend to agree with mantis on this one hockey. You've been pushing the table around with your huge stack. If I'm one of your opponents, I'm going to look for exactly this kind of hand to get my chips in with, and I'd play it just like he did - lure you into feeling like you can steal my raise and then pounce with what I have left.

99 is not strong enough for this situation. Fold or call and hope for a set. If you call - I'm gonna check/raise (or minibet/raise) you on the flop - so tread lightly.

Something that I find curious, is that you asked for comments and then proceeded to tell Mantis that he was wrong. If you're going to completly dismiss opinions that you disagree with, why did you bother to ask? I'm not saying that everyone (including myself) who replies to questions is right, but to flat out say that he is wrong is telling the rest of us that you don't want to hear our opinions if we don't agree with you. You won't learn much that way.

[PrayingMantis]

And another point, before I quit for a few hours: according to your reasoning above, you can do this move with 33, with exactly the same EV. Think about it. That's your main error.

PrayingMantis

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
These guys were regularly trying to pick up the blinds with min-raises (to be fair, I didn't say that in my original post).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important fact for your story. "Regularly trying to pick-up the blinds with mini-raises" isn't somthing I associate with weak/tight. It's weak/loose/aggressive and that would change the way the situation is approached. I'm closer to agreeing with your move than I was based on your original description.

But it's still not an automatic move with 99 - closer to 50/50 decision.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
These guys were regularly trying to pick up the blinds with min-raises (to be fair, I didn't say that in my original post).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious??? You called them WEAK-TIGHT in the original post!! What was this discussion all about???
C'mon, hockey1. This is CRITICAL CONTRARY information.

GL,
PrayingMantis

[hockey1]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious??? You called them WEAK-TIGHT in the original post!! What was this discussion all about???
C'mon, hockey1. This is CRITICAL CONTRARY information.


[/ QUOTE ]

Easy, fella. They weren't idiots, they were weak tight. They didn't play total crap. But, 4 handed, hands like KJ are pretty good; probably worth a raise UTG. They're weak because they'd often min-raise and then fold to a reasonable re-raise.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy, fella. They weren't idiots, they were weak tight. They didn't play total crap. But, 4 handed, hands like KJ are pretty good; probably worth a raise UTG. They're weak because they'd often min-raise and then fold to a reasonable re-raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, to conclude, you clearly have some real problem evaluating your opponents, and categorizing them even into rough types. You obviously don't understand the difference between weak-tight, loose-aggressive, loose-passive, etc. I would suggest you work on this, then work on your EV calculations, since it seems you don't really know what you're talking about.

I must say I feel that this whole thread was a waste of time, as you're not ready for any kind of true discussion, or criticism, and not even able to admit you've given wrong information in the original post (or later on, I don't know any more), and therfore there isn't much point giving you advice or opinion. Not to mention the overall rudeness of your replies, which didn't include even one half-convincing argument.

GL,

PrayingMantis

[cferejohn]

Against a short-stack, I'd probably do the same thing. 99 is a strong hand 4-handed, but you don't want to call and let the BB to overcall (which he is getting very attractive odds to do with a min-raise and a caller). Make a note that UTG min-raises with big hands (unless he's been minraising everytime he's raised.

[cferejohn]

Now that I've read the rest of the thread, a couple randowm thoughts:

1. Someone (I think it was hockey) said that "the all-in will fold all non-pair hands except AK". I really don't think this is true. If I were UTG I would call 4-handed against an aggressive player with AQ, AJ, and possibly KQ. You did say they were weak tight, so maybe you can take out a couple of those, but I can't imagine he would fold AQ 4-handed here.

2. I would play 99 and AK exactly the same here. They are both coinflips against alot of good hands. If he does call with AQ, AJ, and KQ, AK and he will fold low pairs (say 5's one down), AK has a much better chance of being way ahead (dominates 36 hands, where 99 is an overpair to 18 hands). Similarly, AK be a big dog much more rarely than 99, since it is only behind 8 hands (4 ways to make AA and KK since an A and a K are already accounted for). In any case, they are both strong hands 4-handed and I'd often put a shortstack all-in with either of them.

3. The fact that the players on this table had been min-raising alot changes the complexion of the question entirely, and makes your all-in a much better move (if this player really was doing it alot, I would go all-in here without a second thought). I agree with Mantis that constant min-raising does not fit my description of 'weak tight'. I would call it 'aggressive-tricky'. If they had been very tight when someone else raised, I'd make a seperate note about that. Many good tournament players, in fact are simultaneously quite aggressive when entering a pot first and extrememly tight when there has been a raise before them.

[CrisBrown]

Hi hockey,

I've read the entire thread, and I think this is a much more complicated situation than either "side" has made it. If people are often stealing with min-raises, then folding to any reraise, yes, reraising on 99 seems reasonable.

But ...

... 99 isn't a hand that has a lot of improvement potential if you're called. If you're behind, you're way behind. If you're ahead, you're only slightly ahead, because it's not likely that tight players will call your reraise with 88 or less. You might get lucky and get a call with a weak Ace, but at a tight table, it's not that likely, and even then you're only a 7:3 favorite.

So in one sense, you were unlucky in that you ran into a monster pair. But in another sense, you put yourself into a position to get unlucky, and at a time when you didn't need to do that. With four players, and you having the big stack, you're going to get a lot of chances to open-raise at pots, and you can absorb a few folds to reraises. Why get into a contested pot, when you can wait and pull them into a pot when you have the monster?

On the other hand, you took a shot to bust a short stack with a hand that (typically) had a decent chance of doing exactly that. You could sacrifice this pot and still be in a dominant position at the table, and that's not a bad time to take a risk.

I can see both sides of this argument, and I don't think either play -- mucking, or pushing -- is really "bad." If you had a solid read on this particular opponent, sure. But lacking that, it's a 50/50 go-with-your-gut play, and I can't criticize either side of this coin.

Cris

[schwza]

I think the other guys' chip positions makes it relatively likely that the UTG will fold. With one monster stack and 3 fairly even stacks, it looks like a race for 2nd for the small guys. You pick up 1400 chips in the likely (IMO) event UTG folds and are faced with about -2592 chip EV (0.8 * 3240) if he calls you with an overpair. 4-handed people will be raising with an awful lot of stuff besides TT-AA - I wouldn't fear it too much.

Call me maniac, but I'd probably make this play with 77 or AJ.