Shoving range: For UTG, and UTG+1(100r FT)

[timex]

PokerStars Game #10305794589: Tournament #51837807, $100+$9 Hold'em No Limit - Level XVIII (6000/12000) - 2007/06/06 - 18:43:17 (ET)
Table '51837807 1' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: UTG (31120 in chips)
Seat 4: UTG+1 (206240 in chips)
Seat 5: CO (146904 in chips)
Seat 6: Button (76320 in chips)
Seat 8: SB(103422 in chips)
Seat 9: BB (303994 in chips)
UTG: posts the ante 600
UTG+1: posts the ante 600
CO: posts the ante 600
Button: posts the ante 600
SB: posts the ante 600
BB: posts the ante 600
SB: posts small blind 6000
BB: posts big blind 12000
*** HOLE CARDS ***
UTG: raises 18520 to 30520 and is all-in
UTG+1: raises 175120 to 205640 and is all-in
CO: folds
Button: folds
SB: folds
BB: folds


FT of a 109r, with standard payouts, assume UTG is shoving any 2, how wide do you think you can shove profitably from UTG+1.

What if UTG is shoving 50% of hands, and the rest of the table assumes about the same?

What types of hands do you prefer shoving, what types of hands do you prefer raising

Also, if you are UTG+1, what is your shoving range?

[Eagles]

UTG realllllly wide. I don't even want to bother with a range but like super wide. UTG+1 probably something like 20%

[djk123]

If we think UTG is shoving any 2, i think we can profitably shove a huge range, like basically hand that has at least 50% equity vs a random hand. The people behind us are going to need a big hand to call.

If he's shoving 50%, maybe 55+ A6o+.a4s+,kto+,k7s+, QTs+

If i'm gunna raise, i would always shove.

My range would be something like 44+,a5o+,a2s+,k9o+,k7s+,QJo,QTs+

[timex]

[ QUOTE ]
The people behind us are going to need a big hand to call.

My range would be something like 44+,a5o+,a2s+,k9o+,k7s+,QJo,QTs+

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by big hand, like ATs, 77 or like AKo,JJ?

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The people behind us are going to need a big hand to call.

My range would be something like 44+,a5o+,a2s+,k9o+,k7s+,QJo,QTs+

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by big hand, like ATs, 77 or like AKo,JJ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be surprised if we get called by worse than AQ or TT. But I bet a bunch of people would fold AQ and TT here. Maybe not a good regular, but there are a lot of bad people in the 100r.

[Cornell Fiji]

if people behind you are calling with ONLY 99+/AQ+ they are calling with 4.7% of hands.

with 4 players left to act behind you the chance that one of them wakes up with one of those hands is 1-(.953)^4 = 17.6% of the time.

If you reshove with 66+/A9o+/A7s+/KJ+ you are reshoving with 13.1% of hands and you will be 66.6% to beat a random hand if you are heads up and you will have 31% equity when someone else comes along with 99+/AQ so (assuming that when you are reshoved on the avg reshoving stack is 100k)...

.824*(.66*52,120-.33*31,120)+.176*(.315*152,120-.685*100,000)= 16,260

ok, I guess your range should be a lot wider than that. Lets try: 55+,A2s+,K8s+,QTs+,KTo+,QJo.

With this range you are 30.8% to win a 3 way all in and 64% to win if its heads up... not much of a difference.

Lets try: 55+,A2o+,K7o+,K5s+,any two broadway, Q9s,J9s,9Ts,89s. Thats 32% of total hands.

Heads up you would be 61% against the random hand and 26.7% to win a 3 way all in:

(0.824*(0.61*52120-0.39*31120)+0.176*(0.267*152120-0.723*100000)= 10,620

Lets see if the bottom hands in that range are adding to our expected value...

K7o is 20.8% to win the 3 way all in and 55.2% to win heads up:

.824*(.552*52,120-.448*31,120)+.176*(.267*152,120-.733*100,000)=6466.3 (we can include lower kings)

89s is 50.8% against a random hand and 24.9% in a 3 way all in:

.824*(.508*52,120-.492*31,120)+.176*(.249*152,120-.751*100,000) = 2649.6 ... about the lowest we should go with the SCs

ok, im sick of doing math... I am going to go with the final range of:

55+,A2o+,K7o+,K5s+,any two broadway, Q9s,J9s,9Ts,89s. Thats 32% of total hands.

[curtains]

btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
if people behind you are calling with ONLY 99+/AQ+ they are calling with 4.7% of hands.

with 4 players left to act behind you the chance that one of them wakes up with one of those hands is 1-(.953)^4 = 17.6% of the time.

If you reshove with 66+/A9o+/A7s+/KJ+ you are reshoving with 13.1% of hands and you will be 66.6% to beat a random hand if you are heads up and you will have 31% equity when someone else comes along with 99+/AQ so (assuming that when you are reshoved on the avg reshoving stack is 100k)...

.824*(.66*52,120-.33*31,120)+.176*(.315*152,120-.685*100,000)= 16,260

ok, I guess your range should be a lot wider than that. Lets try: 55+,A2s+,K8s+,QTs+,KTo+,QJo.

With this range you are 30.8% to win a 3 way all in and 64% to win if its heads up... not much of a difference.

Lets try: 55+,A2o+,K7o+,K5s+,any two broadway, Q9s,J9s,9Ts,89s. Thats 32% of total hands.

Heads up you would be 61% against the random hand and 26.7% to win a 3 way all in:

(0.824*(0.61*52120-0.39*31120)+0.176*(0.267*152120-0.723*100000)= 10,620

Lets see if the bottom hands in that range are adding to our expected value...

K7o is 20.8% to win the 3 way all in and 55.2% to win heads up:

.824*(.552*52,120-.448*31,120)+.176*(.267*152,120-.733*100,000)=6466.3 (we can include lower kings)

89s is 50.8% against a random hand and 24.9% in a 3 way all in:

.824*(.508*52,120-.492*31,120)+.176*(.249*152,120-.751*100,000) = 2649.6 ... about the lowest we should go with the SCs

ok, im sick of doing math... I am going to go with the final range of:

55+,A2o+,K7o+,K5s+,any two broadway, Q9s,J9s,9Ts,89s. Thats 32% of total hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe m range was a bit too loose, but I didn't do any math or anything. Also, I really think that most people at these final tables value their survival too much, which allows us to shove wider.

[coxquinn]

[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[coxquinn]

timex can we see the payout structure?

edit: my gut tells me top 33% is too wide.

[timex]

Another major error is that

1) The guys with 6 and 8 bets are calling much lighter than 99+,AQ+
2) The BB has 300k, so the average ends up being more like 130-140k

I wasn't playing the tournament, so I don't have the payout structure,

Probably something standard like 30,20,13,10,8,6 or something.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? But pushing 100% is simply a ridiculous play. I never saw anyone give any reason why the guy would be pushing 100% here.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? But pushing 100% is simply a ridiculous play. I never saw anyone give any reason why the guy would be pushing 100% here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are idiots and somehow think that pushing any two here is better than calling any two in the bb next hand. Someone once told them raising>calling and dammit that's all they need to know.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? But pushing 100% is simply a ridiculous play. I never saw anyone give any reason why the guy would be pushing 100% here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are idiots and somehow think that pushing any two here is better than calling any two in the bb next hand. Someone once told them raising>calling and dammit that's all they need to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah but what reason would we have to assume this is occuring in some random internet tournament? I mean sure maybe the guy has any 2, but I can't imagine a reason to assume this to be the case.

[aejones]

lol, so many people don't grasp the concept of 2-3 bb play in tournaments, some of you are right about that

i don't rly know what my range would be i don't know much math i would probably just go by my gut feeling

[stealthmunk]

IMO you should never shove here and a cold call or a minreraise is always the more +EV play.

[NoahSD]

I shove like 55/AT/A9s/KQ.

[Mr.Poker]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you should never shove here and a cold call or a minreraise is always the more +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my feeling aswell, there is a massive difference between shoving and iso min-raising. Min raising by far looks like the strongest play and what you would likely do with the top end of your reraising range. I think therefore it is best to do it with the lower part of your reraising as well, and gives you a chance to reassess if the CO or BB comes over the top.