Ok, I am CERTAIN this hand is obvious...

[freemoney]

i usually have a real crappy image, ive been called so much by hands like A4 in this situation, problem is at the 109s they are smart enough to realize im doing it with basically any 2 but too dumb to realize they should still fold.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
at the 109s they are smart enough to realize im doing it with basically any 2 but too dumb to realize they should still fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ain't that the truth.

I get called all the time in situations like this with, say, Q9, caller has K5, and he will say "I knew you had nothing."

eastbay

[illegit]

Fold. I'm a fan of bubble aggression and weak/tight bubble play is bad IMO. But the short stack has 3 BB. And you have 10/11. If the stacks were closer in size I'd like this play a lot more.

[Pokerscott]

I think there is a little bit of a problem with the assumptions of this play.

To make this play you SIMULTANEOUSLY have to assume:

-The button is GOOD enough to lay down just about anything to your all in
-The button is BAD enough not to realize he is donating 400 chips to you should you decide to push all-in and adjust his raising standards accordingly.

I think you either have to decide you have a good or bad opponent, but it is a bad idea to assume you have both.

Pokerscott

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
If the stacks were closer in size I'd like this play a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????? That's exactly the motivation behind the play in the first place!

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a little bit of a problem with the assumptions of this play.

To make this play you SIMULTANEOUSLY have to assume:

-The button is GOOD enough to lay down just about anything to your all in
-The button is BAD enough not to realize he is donating 400 chips to you should you decide to push all-in and adjust his raising standards accordingly.

I think you either have to decide you have a good or bad opponent, but it is a bad idea to assume you have both.

Pokerscott

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point, but I am certain a lot of higher limit players are laying down here.

A different way to look at it is that he has to be tight enough to lay down yet loose enough to try to steal by miniraising. But this is a pretty typical level of tightness to have.

[Jbrochu]

I've slowly worked my way up from the Stars $5 + .50's to the $30 + 3's and I've yet to find it necessary to make high risk moves like this at these levels. The mini-bet would also cause me to re-think this, because one thing you can be sure of at this level is that almost everybody has learned the pocket A's minibet move.

(That reminds me of how recently I decided to try some mini-raise bluffs when clearly my only move should be all-in or fold, in the hopes that people would fold even with good pot odds fearing I held a monster. This of course assumes your opponents read you as solid. Anyway, it was another terrible disaster of a "move making" experiment and I don't recommend it...)

I would almost rather try this move against a more standard 3x BB raise, since then you would be representing real strength. Of course, you can represent a hand all you want but even at the $33's I see people calling all-in with garbage too often to make me comfortable that this play could be +EV in the long run.

[freemoney]

its not necessary to do something like this, finding right situations for this is important in optimizing your EV.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
its not necessary to do something like this, finding right situations for this is important in optimizing your EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you in principle.

I'm assuming that at some buy-in level that I have not yet reached, you "need" to make moves like this to mazimize your success, unless you're happy to win when the deck hits you and lose when it doesn't.

Not to say that there isn't room for moves at the $33's, I find places here and there (post oak bluff when I'm fairly sure my opponent was on a draw but I don't have anything either being my favorite move at the moment). I just believe that really high risk moves like this one are likely -EV because you're getting called here (assuming stars $22 and $33) often with a lot of hands that have no business calling yet are 2 to 1 favorites over you.

Of course, it could just be that I'm picking bad spots to try high risk moves and my opinion of the likely low success of this move is born more from my own poor skills in picking spots.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
... except for maybe the freemoney principle. My image is good, and this player both did not give me reason to believe he would minraise a big pair and was not a super calling station. There is nothing in my history at this table that would make it seem like I might pull this, and I've never played with Button before.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (4 handed) converter

Button (t2030)
SB (t8650)
Hero (t2240)
UTG (t580)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises to t400</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to t2215</font>,

[/ QUOTE ]


My normal play here is to just fold. The fact that if you win this pot, you are still likely to get 2nd at best is a factor as well. The EV you gain just isnt that great from these chips you will win.