100% standard AJ raptor hand from sb.. in the 55s at least..

[nykenny]

hi,

i respect your opinion. and i am also new to sngs. would you please exepain the risk and reward ratio here?

you said,

[ QUOTE ]
the point is, the risk reward ratio to gain those chips in there isnt worth it with this marginal holding. period.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks,

-Kenny

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

damnit yer still missin the point. THINK!!!! im not making a flop call for value, its for info. if he comes again hard on the turn, i can get away with minimal risk. i SEE things.



[/ QUOTE ]

You get info much cheaper by leading for T45 here. (This is because you end up losing so many hands you would have taken down on the flop, and win so much from the donks who will call a flop and turn bet with a worse ace, second pair, or draw and check behind on the river or bluff a missed draw. If you are so concerned about risk v. reward that you pass up EV later in the hand, I am pretty sure just leading and shutting down is going to average out to more +EV. You cannot expect to win this hand if you don't bet very often. Maybe you can win it the one time in 5 you need to to make your flop call correct.)

[/ QUOTE ]

now that i look at it deeper, i think leading is by far the worst play here. i would much rather check raise or check call and see a turn. leading is simply not good. holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


jeeeez.. yall gotta learn to open up yer minds. im not always just calling to improve my hand. have yall never played a NL cash game or a mtt before? holla

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how you play this hand in a cash game or (early in) an MTT? Man, I hate this line tons more in either of those situations. (I've played lots more cash games and MTT's than S&G's. When I get the S&G count up I may hate the line equally there [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

heres the thing you seem to be missing. i dont play every hand the same way. i dont play every hand the way it 'supposed' to be played. my game is quite a bit different than teh standard. my mtt track record is excellent, my cash game track record is excellent, and ask anyone that has played live with me (there are probably 10 respected 2+2ers) if they find it easy to know where im at in a hand. everything is situation dependent. in this situation, i chose my line to limit risk. it would be foolish as ever to do that in a cash game or mtt. do you see why? holla

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

also, im not trying to justify my argument with results. i still think its the best line to take even if he flipped over A5. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

and i still think you are wrong even with main villain having two pair (which he played poorly).

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i grasped that from yer other 3 posts telling me i was wrong. you dont back it up with enough information as to WHY though. keep goin though, this how we all get better. holla

[citanul]

hi kenny,

welcome to the forum.

i don't know where you want the explanation started. i'm not sure if i agree with raptor's line here, but the basic concept is the following:

the general concensus of most players on this forum is that the path to winning at sngs is to be alive late in the game, since you can't win unless you get there. a model called independent chip model, along with sort of common sense, says that other people busting helps your overall equity in the tournament, even if they don't give the chips to you.

so being alive later in the game is very important. the next step is to make it most likely that you have enough chips to play when you get there. sort of similar to this reasoning and again with ICM, you can find that there's many times when sort of this happens:

current ev - ev if you lose x chips > ev if you gain x chips - current ev

this is the biggest difference between cash and tournament games, the difference between dollar EV ($EV) and chip ev (cEV). In sng structured tournaments, this difference is often apparent, and the first step usually from moving to donk to thoughtful player is understanding it. It is what drives most/many bubble decisions.

In raptor's hand, he's taking a far from bubble situation and believes he's utilizing the same concept.

All that said, there's a large and growing number of people who play these tournaments who throw more and more disregard towards this concept in these many handed early game situations, believing, possibly correctly, that while they'll be losing some ROI usually by making these "gambles" they will help their hourly rates if they restart a new game if they bust early. Meanwhile, in those times they gamble and win early, they now have a real stack to work with.

Sorry if that was either long winded or not helpful in the least.

citanul

[citanul]

and a good morning to you mr grumpypuss.

citanul

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot expect to win this hand if you don't bet very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just flat out wrong. I never bet that flop in raptor's situation.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

also, im not trying to justify my argument with results. i still think its the best line to take even if he flipped over A5. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

and i still think you are wrong even with main villain having two pair (which he played poorly).

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i grasped that from yer other 3 posts telling me i was wrong. you dont back it up with enough information as to WHY though. keep goin though, this how we all get better. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

I was replying as I read, so I got a little redundant. Here's why I don't like a check raise here:

1. It may get checked through, which sucks on this board. There is a real chance of that since no one has showed any interest, and there could be a couple of non top pairs or gutshots etc. out there.
2. If you check raise a normal bet (T15 is just weak sause, if you can expect someone to bet that, then sure, c/r away) you are looking at putting t125ish into the pot. If villain comes over the top you have to let go and cost yourself t80 more than if you bet and let go to a raise. If you c/r and get called, now the pot is a lot bigger, and you are OOP with a marginal hand. Very tricky to play that going forward. Sure you may pick up the pot right there (and get a few extra chips in the process), but your raise is not going to really threaten a betters stack and he will have good odds and position to call.
3. (This is a style dependant one) I lead with a lot of hands here, so I am not really giving any real information away other than the flop didn't completely miss me. (I'm not leading with three opponents if I have air, so it does say I have at least a decent draw).

Here's why I don't like a check call here:
1. You don't really get a lot of information. (Assuming that the better will shut down with a weak ace or second pair or a draw isn't something I would do without a read. Position rules here, and without defining your hand some it is going to be hard to define villains.)
2. You invite overcalls. This is a bad board to let hangers on hang on. If you check call a 3/4 pot size bet, the next to act is getting 3.3:1 on his call directly.
3. (repeat from above) I hate giving a free card here.

Here's why I don't like a check fold:
1. I am almost positive it is -EV in terms of TC and the cost of a bet here is such a small percentage of your stack I believe it is -EV in terms of cashing equity. Of the three lines mentioned here, I dislike this one the least.

To summerize (yeah, I know I can ramble) with 3 opponents and a cordinated board that is likely to hit limpers to some degree, I want to resolve the hand quickly and cheaply. I think you have good equity here, so that resolution should not be check folding. Check raising violates the cheaply part and check calling does not really resolve anything.

edit - my grammer sucks

[raptor517]

so basically fnord, you want to bet 45 and let everything come along with you while building a pot and not being able to protect your hand? not exactly the way i would want to play this. think of it as a limit hand. if you lead, you encourage calls from drawing hands. if u check raise, you knock out the str draw that ended up winning. thats as simple as i can make the argument. leading is probably the worst line to take. u get everything in there.

actually, by checking and calling, you receive quite a bit of information. i found out that someone behind me was along for a draw, and i found that out very cheaply. by checking again on the turn, the original bettors continuation bet told me he had at LEAST a relatively strong holding, meaning at least an ace. now, my ace is quite good, and likely better than any ace he would have, however, in the 55s, a lot of people will slow down after getting ANY action wit ha weak ace, as they know their hand becomes extremely weaker the more multiway the pot is.

as for leading, you bet 45, obv the str draw calls, then what happens if lp min raises? you cant actually fold if your logic was to lead into the field. he could be min raising with any number of hands. a weaker ace to see where hes at, a str draw to get a free turn card, etc. what is your plan on the turn if called in one spot? and two? you cant play poker on such a basic level. you have to look down the road as to what will happen on later streets.

this thread is fun. holla

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
i found out that someone behind me was along for a draw, and i found that out very cheaply.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he had folded, do you still check/fold the turn? Assume all else the same.