Rainkhan and the 33 versus Alex Kravchenko

[Tyler Durden]

Does anyone feel like discussing this hand?

[MrTimCaum]

Anyone feel like posting the details?

[btmagnetw]

alex pushes for something. khan calls with some guy behind him. he has 33. alex has KQ or something. khan loses some amount.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

I don't recall the exact details, but it was something like this:

play was 6 handed iirc, blinds of 150,000-300,000, with a 40,000 ante.

Alex moved all-in UTG. I don't recall exactly what he had, it was about $4m. Folded to Rain in the SB, who pushed himself (about $10m?). BB folded.

so the pot was $690k pre-flop. just short of $5m probably when the action is on Rain.

edit: I'm more used to playing cash games, where I think this is a fold. as this point in the tournament, the push is ok according to MTT'ers, but I know nothing about tournaments.

[Tyler Durden]

Sure, sorry.

6 handed, Kravchenko goes all-in UTG for 2.66 million (as reported by Pokernews.com) w/ a BB of 300K (I think). Action folds to Rainkhan who overshoves from the SB for 9.3 million.

Rainkhan - 33
Kravchenko - KJ

[phiphika1453]

what was everyone elses' chip stacks?

[WarDekar]

Yeah... What's the big deal?

[Cornell Fiji]

TD,
I didnt go through the numbers again but I think when I was watching it Kahn needed about 42.5% equity for the shove to be +cEV plus.

Mitigating factors that could cause you to not want to take a cEV edge are:
-cEV deviating from $ev because of prizepool jumps (for more info see ICM modeling)
-gigabet blocks. (for more info see thread in MTT forum sticky)

while both of those factors come into play in this hand given the payout structure, Kahn's stack and the stacks of others at the table this is still a a pretty clear $ev+ shove

[DonkeyChip]

IIRC, they were the two shortest stacks and Yang already had the big stack. The BB thought for a while before he folded and the BB was playing pretty tight so it appears that the BB threw away something at least decent.

I think the arguement against it is that he's either a coinflip or crushed and he's not getting good enough odds. But IIRC, the SS here wasn't pushing that often and I think was UTG (somebody please verify/dispute that) and he still had Yang left to act when he pushed (Yang had already shown he would call light). So he has to have something and Khan should know he's at best a coinflip. If the better MTTers say it's a good play then I will defer to them but I think it was just too thin.

[mflip]

Rahme was going to call if Kahn didn't, so wouldn't Giga's block theory work here for Kahn because if he folds the chips most likely go to his immediate left? (I know the size of the blocks have some effect here but don't understand it well enough to know exactly how)

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Rahme was going to call if Kahn didn't, so wouldn't Giga's block theory work here for Kahn because if he folds the chips most likely go to his immediate left? (I know the size of the blocks have some effect here but don't understand it well enough to know exactly how)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you use block theory it's a rather bad shove since you double up the guy 2 seats to your left (I recall Alex was UTG and Rain in the SB, correct me if I'm wrong)

I think the 33 shove was marginal at best, really praying for Alex to have a 2 or 3 in his hand

[suzzer99]

Exact stack sizes are absolutely crucial to analyze this hand. Khan's shove goes from bad to good within a short range of overlay.

[GotQuads]

Agreed, it's just my recollection Khan wasn't desperate, but I may be wrong.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
Exact stack sizes are absolutely crucial to analyze this hand. Khan's shove goes from bad to good within a short range of overlay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kravchenko T2.66M
Khan T9.385M (-T150K SB)
Rahme T16.255M (-T300K BB)
(Other stack sizes are Yang T62.37M, Lam T20.605M, Kalmar T15.98M)

Blinds are T150K/T300K + T40K, with a resultant pot of T690K.

Kravchenko allin for T2.66M (total pot now T3.35M)

Yang, Lam, Kalmar fold, Khan goes allin, Rahme folds (AQ, as it turns out)

Kravchenko: K/images/graemlins/spade.gifJ/images/graemlins/spade.gif
Khan: 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif

Board: Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ/images/graemlins/club.gif9/images/graemlins/diamond.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

When Khan moves in, there are the following possibilities:

Rahme folds, at which point Khan is putting in T2.51M to win a total resultant pot of T5.86M

Rahme calls, at which point Khan is putting all his T9.385M to win a resultant pot of T22.12M, with Kravchenko eligible for T8.67M in the side pot.

[lwrunner103]

so standard

[disjunction]

I'm interested.

When I first heard the hand I thought the stacks were double what they were, and that Kravchenko doubled up *from* 5.8 million as opposed to *to* 5.8 million. As it is, you start to have a largish overlay. I'm still not sold on it, as it is borderline and my understanding was that

(1) Yang was VERY active, so
(2) Anyone could go busto at anytime despite stack sizes.
(3) Khan was one of the better players at the table

I'm sure this isn't accounted for in ICM or when 40-tabling.

Chip stacks 2 minutes after according to pokernews:

Updated Chip Counts

Seat 1 - Raymond Rahme - 15.955 million
Seat 2 - Alex Kravchenko - 5.86 million
Seat 4 - Jerry Yang - 62.37 million
Seat 6 - Tuan Lam - 20.605 million
Seat 8 - Jon Kalmar - 15.98 million
Seat 9 - Hevad 'Rain' Khan - 6.715 million

[DrewDevil]

If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[GotQuads]

The play is +chipEV, but I dislike it, because Alex is going to be blinded down. He shoved UTG so he's going to lose the chips he might have gained if Rahme had folded, very soon.

There's no reason not to wait for Alex' double up or elimination before taking a coinflip.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exact stack sizes are absolutely crucial to analyze this hand. Khan's shove goes from bad to good within a short range of overlay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kravchenko T2.66M
Khan T9.385M (-T150K SB)
Rahme T16.255M (-T300K BB)
(Other stack sizes are Yang T62.37M, Lam T20.605M, Kalmar T15.98M)

Blinds are T150K/T300K + T40K, with a resultant pot of T690K.

Kravchenko allin for T2.66M (total pot now T3.35M)

Yang, Lam, Kalmar fold, Khan goes allin, Rahme folds (AQ, as it turns out)

Kravchenko: K/images/graemlins/spade.gifJ/images/graemlins/spade.gif
Khan: 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif

Board: Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ/images/graemlins/club.gif9/images/graemlins/diamond.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

When Khan moves in, there are the following possibilities:

Rahme folds, at which point Khan is putting in T2.51M to win a total resultant pot of T5.86M

Rahme calls, at which point Khan is putting all his T9.385M to win a resultant pot of T22.12M, with Kravchenko eligible for T8.67M in the side pot.

[/ QUOTE ]


In Khan's spot, I would have folded.
- Alex K. was UTG, and with an M of 4 he's gonna have some standards (he's been extremely patient so far).
- ICM effects are significant with so few players left
- Hero's skill edge is quite high on this table and slow structure/relatively deep stacks means time to find better spots
- Player to act behind Hero: a.) may wake up with a premium hand and bust out Hero b.) will be fairly highly incented to call Alex K. with a near-premium hand and now two Villains go at it which gives you a very nice bump to $EV just by folding
- Inflection points (nothing to do with Gigabet's theory which is mostly nonsense): if Hero loses, back down to M=10 and into the Orange Zone, loses flexibility

For STT types, all of this means I would want a quite high minimum edge, even after ICM corrections, and I don't think 33 is there.

[gumpzilla]

I really didn't like the 33 push there, but I haven't really been playing tournaments for a while, so perhaps I'm just rusty. As pineapple says, I expected the early open from Kravchenko to be tight enough that I didn't think that 33's equity was going to be that great.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
- Inflection points (nothing to do with Gigabet's theory which is mostly nonsense): if Hero loses, back down to M=10 and into the Orange Zone, loses flexibility

For STT types, all of this means I would want a quite high minimum edge, even after ICM corrections, and I don't think 33 is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is Gigabets theory nonsense?

He evolved tournament strategy beyond HoH I/II and most great tournament players seem to believe in it.

ICM is far from a perfect model for MTTs. I'm not saying that block theory applies in this particular spot though. Anyways we agree it's a fold at least /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Inflection points (nothing to do with Gigabet's theory which is mostly nonsense): if Hero loses, back down to M=10 and into the Orange Zone, loses flexibility

For STT types, all of this means I would want a quite high minimum edge, even after ICM corrections, and I don't think 33 is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is Gigabets theory nonsense?

He evolved tournament strategy beyond HoH I/II and most great tournament players seem to believe in it.

ICM is far from a perfect model for MTTs. I'm not saying that block theory applies in this particular spot though. Anyways we agree it's a fold at least /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Go read his post. It's a bunch of hand-waving that has a small kernel of truth at the core that he didn't even come close to expressing well, and has several ridiculous statements (e.g. moving up to the next "block" is equivalent to doubling up).

He did nothing to "evolve" tournament strategy, good players understood the effects of inflection points and relative stack sizes before Gigabet, and his post did nothing but impress the masses because it sounded profound.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
ICM is far from a perfect model for MTTs.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the corrections I described above.

[RonWR]

I think Khan knew Alex's range is very big , he knew Rheme is tight and will only call him with a group A hand ( we also know he has a good read on him from the booth ) .

Pot odds
Alex's range
Practiclly last to act
knocking out a player
all these factors mae this more then a marignal play IMHO

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
As pineapple says, I expected the early open from Kravchenko to be tight enough that I didn't think that 33's equity was going to be that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think a good shortstack player should have a relatively wide range there. any pair, most hands with 2 face cards, some high suited connectors.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]

He did nothing to "evolve" tournament strategy, good players understood the effects of inflection points and relative stack sizes before Gigabet, and his post did nothing but impress the masses because it sounded profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those effects are of a "static" nature though, they don't take into account future hands. I think Gigabet was the first to point out a variety of dynamic effects that maybe should influence your decision making.

[suzzer99]

Yeah and let's not forget the $10mil+ overlay for first. Massively top-heavy structure that rewards gambling to double up.

Btw - I am at work, but some SNG donk who knows what they're doing can make a custom structure file in SNGPT to get the ICM #s.

Then run the whole analysis through Pokerstove with a) two way pot with an opening range for Kravchenko and b) three-way with a calling range for Rehme. I think we can safely put Rehme on something like TT+,AK there. JJ+/99+ for Rehme isn't going to make a giant difference in the final numbers I don't think.

Then vary Kerchenko's range to see where breakeven lies.

Finally add $10 mil to first and see what that does to the numbers.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He did nothing to "evolve" tournament strategy, good players understood the effects of inflection points and relative stack sizes before Gigabet, and his post did nothing but impress the masses because it sounded profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those effects are of a "static" nature though, they don't take into account future hands. I think Gigabet was the first to point out a variety of dynamic effects that maybe should influence your decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You mean "I'm maniacal enough to get my money in with crap, so don't F with me, especially because I have 5 more chips than you?" Well, if that's your game, that's your game, I guess. Worked for Dario for quite a while in the ME.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah and let's not forget the $10mil+ overlay for first. Massively top-heavy structure that rewards gambling to double up.

Btw - I am at work, but some SNG donk who knows what they're doing can make a custom structure file in SNGPT to get the ICM #s.

Then run the whole analysis through Pokerstove with a) two way pot with an opening range for Kravchenko and b) three-way with a calling range for Rehme. I think we can safely put Rehme on something like TT+,AK there. JJ+/99+ for Rehme isn't going to make a giant difference in the final numbers I don't think.

Then vary Kerchenko's range to see where breakeven lies.

Finally add $10 mil to first and see what that does to the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I forgot all about the overlay. Is $10M a consensus for the added value for any ME winner, not just Lee W.? Then ICM effects get real weak, and it looks like a call there.

Props to RainKhan if he was taking this into effect.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As pineapple says, I expected the early open from Kravchenko to be tight enough that I didn't think that 33's equity was going to be that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think a good shortstack player should have a relatively wide range there. any pair, most hands with 2 face cards, some high suited connectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here's a range which captures a lot of that.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,071,873,376 games 0.032 secs 95,996,043,000 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.315% 44.71% 00.60% 1373553804 18464646.00 { 33 }
Hand 1: 54.685% 54.08% 00.60% 1661390280 18464646.00 { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A5o+, KTo+, QJo }

45.3% equity does not thrillify me down to my delicatesticles in that spot. From what people have said earlier in the thread, it's probably slightly chip EV at that point. But this neglects that Rahme will occasionally have a huge hand and will call; I don't think you have to remove too many of the non-pair hands from his range to make this pretty uncomfortable; and with the BB having a pretty decent chance of calling, Khan is likely to gain some equity from that clash as well. I will say that after looking at it more carefully the shove is not as bad as I thought, but I wouldn't have made it myself.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Those effects are of a "static" nature though, they don't take into account future hands. I think Gigabet was the first to point out a variety of dynamic effects that maybe should influence your decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You mean "I'm maniacal enough to get my money in with crap, so don't F with me, especially because I have 5 more chips than you?" Well, if that's your game, that's your game, I guess. Worked for Dario for quite a while in the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean. You know that chipEV and ICM are not the same thing. You also know that ICM>chipEV. Thus, you should be capable of understanding that it is possible to come up with models that go beyond ICM. Sklansky, Harrington etc have not really explored anything beyond ICM.

[suzzer99]

There are things that go beyond ICM, mainly future expectation of a lot of +/-$EV situations, but also stuff like the $10 mil overlay, or fame and fortune, or if $1 mil vs $2 mil means a lot more to you than $2 mil vs $4 mil (as I suspect it did for a lot of these guys - thinking about what kind of house they can buy after taxes) etc. etc. -- but those are all almost impossible to model IMO.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
There are things that go beyond ICM, mainly future expectation of a lot of +/-$EV situations, but also stuff like the $10 mil overlay, or fame and fortune, or if $1 mil vs $2 mil means a lot more to you than $2 mil vs $4 mil (as I suspect it did for a lot of these guys - thinking about what kind of house they can buy after taxes) etc. etc. -- but those are all almost impossible to model IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Multiply the payouts by a player-specific utility function U_i(P) after calculating ICM finish probabilities. Now the result is a player's prize pool utility, as opposed to equity.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Those effects are of a "static" nature though, they don't take into account future hands. I think Gigabet was the first to point out a variety of dynamic effects that maybe should influence your decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You mean "I'm maniacal enough to get my money in with crap, so don't F with me, especially because I have 5 more chips than you?" Well, if that's your game, that's your game, I guess. Worked for Dario for quite a while in the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean. You know that chipEV and ICM are not the same thing. You also know that ICM>chipEV. Thus, you should be capable of understanding that it is possible to come up with models that go beyond ICM. Sklansky, Harrington etc have not really explored anything beyond ICM.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they have. And saying Gigabet has also, from one semi-incoherent post, is a real stretch IMHO. And we should probably stop there and agree to disagree.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah and let's not forget the $10mil+ overlay for first. Massively top-heavy structure that rewards gambling to double up.

Btw - I am at work, but some SNG donk who knows what they're doing can make a custom structure file in SNGPT to get the ICM #s.

Then run the whole analysis through Pokerstove with a) two way pot with an opening range for Kravchenko and b) three-way with a calling range for Rehme. I think we can safely put Rehme on something like TT+,AK there. JJ+/99+ for Rehme isn't going to make a giant difference in the final numbers I don't think.

Then vary Kerchenko's range to see where breakeven lies.

Finally add $10 mil to first and see what that does to the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I forgot all about the overlay. Is $10M a consensus for the added value for any FT winner, not just Lee W.? Then ICM effects get real weak, and it looks like a call there.

Props to RainKhan if he was taking this into effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

The $10M win bonus was only for Lee W.

[Ditch Digger]

I like the move from the SB since old man nit is only calling his reshove with QQ+, AK. If he was shoving into Yang or two other players it's probably a fold. Alex was obviously on a pretty wide range since there were no other shorties at the table and he's definitely shown that he isn't just trying to move up a place or two itm.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah and let's not forget the $10mil+ overlay for first. Massively top-heavy structure that rewards gambling to double up.

Btw - I am at work, but some SNG donk who knows what they're doing can make a custom structure file in SNGPT to get the ICM #s.

Then run the whole analysis through Pokerstove with a) two way pot with an opening range for Kravchenko and b) three-way with a calling range for Rehme. I think we can safely put Rehme on something like TT+,AK there. JJ+/99+ for Rehme isn't going to make a giant difference in the final numbers I don't think.

Then vary Kerchenko's range to see where breakeven lies.

Finally add $10 mil to first and see what that does to the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I forgot all about the overlay. Is $10M a consensus for the added value for any FT winner, not just Lee W.? Then ICM effects get real weak, and it looks like a call there.

Props to RainKhan if he was taking this into effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

The $10M win bonus was only for Lee W.

[/ QUOTE ]

But others could get endorsement deals (the $10M for Lee was actually an endorsement deal, not an outright bonus), appearance $$, etc. Not sure how to quantify.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He did nothing to "evolve" tournament strategy, good players understood the effects of inflection points and relative stack sizes before Gigabet, and his post did nothing but impress the masses because it sounded profound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those effects are of a "static" nature though, they don't take into account future hands. I think Gigabet was the first to point out a variety of dynamic effects that maybe should influence your decision making.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You mean "I'm maniacal enough to get my money in with crap, so don't F with me, especially because I have 5 more chips than you?" Well, if that's your game, that's your game, I guess. Worked for Dario for quite a while in the ME.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with these theories is that when someone does F with you they have you so crushed it's not even funny.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As pineapple says, I expected the early open from Kravchenko to be tight enough that I didn't think that 33's equity was going to be that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think a good shortstack player should have a relatively wide range there. any pair, most hands with 2 face cards, some high suited connectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, here's a range which captures a lot of that.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,071,873,376 games 0.032 secs 95,996,043,000 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.315% 44.71% 00.60% 1373553804 18464646.00 { 33 }
Hand 1: 54.685% 54.08% 00.60% 1661390280 18464646.00 { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, A5o+, KTo+, QJo }

45.3% equity does not thrillify me down to my delicatesticles in that spot. From what people have said earlier in the thread, it's probably slightly chip EV at that point. But this neglects that Rahme will occasionally have a huge hand and will call; I don't think you have to remove too many of the non-pair hands from his range to make this pretty uncomfortable; and with the BB having a pretty decent chance of calling, Khan is likely to gain some equity from that clash as well. I will say that after looking at it more carefully the shove is not as bad as I thought, but I wouldn't have made it myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you count the first place overlay, I now think it's very close. The better a player you are, the more you should lean towards a fold.

[Slim Pickens]

Khan needs 44.18% pot equity to make this play break even. That's using ICM to model prize pool equity and also assuming Rahme never overcalls. I got Khan's folding $EV by assuming a pushing range of {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo} for Kravchenko and a calling range of {TT+,AQs+,AKo} (4.08% given Khan has 33 and not accounting for Kravchenko's range) for Rahme if Kahn folds. I doubt Rahme's calling range matters that much since he's tight enough to almost never call there anyway.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there, but AK is a really really hard choice. Two allins, you figure either:

(a) both guys have pairs or
(b) both guys have big broadway cards or
(c) one guy has a pair, the other has big cards

you're only a big dog if one of the guys has AA or KK, but you're probably not a favorite to win against 2 allins, unless it's AQ and AJ. Then again, you have the chance to triple up or so.

I don't know, maybe some of the odds gurus can take a shot at it.

I'd probably fold AK here.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there, but AK is a really really hard choice. Two allins, you figure either:

(a) both guys have pairs or
(b) both guys have big broadway cards or
(c) one guy has a pair, the other has big cards

you're only a big dog if one of the guys has AA or KK, but you're probably not a favorite to win against 2 allins, unless it's AQ and AJ. Then again, you have the chance to triple up or so.

I don't know, maybe some of the odds gurus can take a shot at it.

I'd probably fold AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not quite a tripleup because Khan has about 60% the stack of Rahme, while Kravchenko has about 20% the stack of Rahme.

Wasn't there some Bill Gazes hand something like AK vs. JJ vs. TT where he was fine with AK since he had to hit an A or K anyway?

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there, but AK is a really really hard choice. Two allins, you figure either:

(a) both guys have pairs or
(b) both guys have big broadway cards or
(c) one guy has a pair, the other has big cards

you're only a big dog if one of the guys has AA or KK, but you're probably not a favorite to win against 2 allins, unless it's AQ and AJ. Then again, you have the chance to triple up or so.

I don't know, maybe some of the odds gurus can take a shot at it.

I'd probably fold AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not quite a tripleup because Khan has about 60% the stack of Rahme, while Kravchenko has about 20% the stack of Rahme.

Wasn't there some Bill Gazes hand something like AK vs. JJ vs. TT where he was fine with AK since he had to hit an A or K anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Kd 492990 35.96 873540 63.73 4224 0.31 0.361
Ts Th 249207 18.18 1117323 81.51 4224 0.31 0.183
Jc Jd 624333 45.55 742197 54.15 4224 0.31 0.456

so throw in 2 underpairs vs AK, and your EV goes from 46ish to 36ish

[BrandiFan]

[ QUOTE ]
The $10M win bonus was only for Lee W.

[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC there's a 1 mil bonus for the stars players.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The $10M win bonus was only for Lee W.

[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC there's a 1 mil bonus for the stars players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of which Khan was one. I think there was a 2nd and 3rd bonus too of something less, but forget details.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there, but AK is a really really hard choice. Two allins, you figure either:

(a) both guys have pairs or
(b) both guys have big broadway cards or
(c) one guy has a pair, the other has big cards

you're only a big dog if one of the guys has AA or KK, but you're probably not a favorite to win against 2 allins, unless it's AQ and AJ. Then again, you have the chance to triple up or so.

I don't know, maybe some of the odds gurus can take a shot at it.

I'd probably fold AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not quite a tripleup because Khan has about 60% the stack of Rahme, while Kravchenko has about 20% the stack of Rahme.

Wasn't there some Bill Gazes hand something like AK vs. JJ vs. TT where he was fine with AK since he had to hit an A or K anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Kd 492990 35.96 873540 63.73 4224 0.31 0.361
Ts Th 249207 18.18 1117323 81.51 4224 0.31 0.183
Jc Jd 624333 45.55 742197 54.15 4224 0.31 0.456

so throw in 2 underpairs vs AK, and your EV goes from 46ish to 36ish

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but putting in T1,000,000 to win T3,000,000 and you have 36% equity is better than T1,000,000 to win T2,000,000 and you have 46% equity /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
He evolved tournament strategy beyond HoH I/II and most great tournament players seem to believe in it .

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence please....

[Pudge714]

Having played with Rain a fair amount I think that AQ fold is pretty bad if he thinks Kravchenko is good enough to be pushing wide UTG.

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
Khan needs 44.18% pot equity to make this play break even. That's using ICM to model prize pool equity and also assuming Rahme never overcalls. I got Khan's folding $EV by assuming a pushing range of {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo} for Kravchenko and a calling range of {TT+,AQs+,AKo} (4.08% given Khan has 33 and not accounting for Kravchenko's range) for Rahme if Kahn folds. I doubt Rahme's calling range matters that much since he's tight enough to almost never call there anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and he has more than that pot equity since he's ~45.4% equity. He loses a little of that if Rahme calls him, but gains a little from your analysis as I think Rahme will call a little wider if folded to (for instance he said he'd definitely call the one UTG all-in with his AQ).

In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

Add in the overlay from finishing first (both cash + future endorsement, invitations, etc.) and I think it was a clearly good play.

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]
Having played with Rain a fair amount I think that AQ fold is pretty bad if he thinks Kravchenko is good enough to be pushing wide UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much experience with Rain, but his experience in SNGs suggests to me that Rhame should have had a massive boner seeing Khan try to isolate the intelligent shorty pushing wide UTG and then looking down at AQ.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having played with Rain a fair amount I think that AQ fold is pretty bad if he thinks Kravchenko is good enough to be pushing wide UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much experience with Rain, but his experience in SNGs suggests to me that Rhame should have had a massive boner seeing Khan try to isolate the intelligent shorty pushing wide UTG and then looking down at AQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Khan must be isolating here with a fairly wide range though. ATo, mid pairs and better must be in his range imo. It turns out he's pushing much lighter than that in retrospect, but against an unknown I'd put him on that range if I were Rahme.

[El Diablo]

b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really makes no difference if you think he's weak. You still have 33. It's a real stretch to put hands like 22 and A2 in the raiser's range no matter what your read is.

I think this was one of the rare situations Phil Gordon got right. Online special, baby.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really makes no difference if you think he's weak. You still have 33. It's a real stretch to put hands like 22 and A2 in the raiser's range no matter what your read is.

I think this was one of the rare situations Phil Gordon got right. Online special, baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's his definition of weak? 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif (47.6%) is mathematically not much different than K/images/graemlins/spade.gifJ/images/graemlins/spade.gif (50.8%) vs. 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif.

I'd also consider 44-66 "weak" too.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting debate.

Everybody seems to be taking for granted that Rahme was being super, super nitty after 40-50 hands, while in the big thread on this subject there are certainly those who will also maintain that the "pros" were not nits but just utterly card dead. I think blithely assuming that Rahme is folding as wide as he did there is a bit results oriented.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting debate.

Everybody seems to be taking for granted that Rahme was being super, super nitty after 40-50 hands, while in the big thread on this subject there are certainly those who will also maintain that the "pros" were not nits but just utterly card dead. I think blithely assuming that Rahme is folding as wide as he did there is a bit results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked this part in Khans bust out intvw:

Q: "what did you thank of Rahme?"
A: "he folds a lot"

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
What's his definition of weak? 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif (47.6%) is mathematically not much different than K/images/graemlins/spade.gifJ/images/graemlins/spade.gif (50.8%) vs. 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif.

I'd also consider 44-66 "weak" too.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's quite a difference between 33 and 66. With a pair of sixes you can not only dominate the weaker aces, but also 4 different pairs which are all in Alex's range.

[sirtimo]

[ QUOTE ]
b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. He would have about 8 mil left after calling the two all-ins. If he really did have AQ how can you not call??

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a real stretch to put hands like 22 and A2 in the raiser's range no matter what your read is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these hands are definitely in the range of a good shortstack player, less than 9 blinds deep (not considering antes), playing 6 handed.

[GotQuads]

A2s and 22 are definitely in his range, the problem is he rarely has those hands.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really makes no difference if you think he's weak. You still have 33. It's a real stretch to put hands like 22 and A2 in the raiser's range no matter what your read is.

I think this was one of the rare situations Phil Gordon got right. Online special, baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's his definition of weak? 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif (47.6%) is mathematically not much different than K/images/graemlins/spade.gifJ/images/graemlins/spade.gif (50.8%) vs. 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif.

I'd also consider 44-66 "weak" too.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, if you can eliminate or reduce big pairs from his range, then your equity becomes a lot higher, making a close decision not that close.

[Roland32]

I watched this hand live on streaming. I have played with RainKhan quite a few times, and actually verbally called middle PP (turned out he had a small pp) THis is a play I used to make alot myself, I have been berated in the past for it too, but I still think it is the right play if:
1. You can put Rahme on a fold (mind you he has the advantage of visibly seeing him, as well as putting him on a range) With Rain making comments like he fols alot, I think that justifies his read in this regards
2. Is he in a huge hurry, no. DOes he need to still get moving, yes. The best part of taking a probably coin flip here is that it doesn't give you the death blow when you lose. This is a great time to take a ride on the variance train.
3. The only thing I fing questionable is that I think the original push is tighter than RainKhan gave credit for, and KJ really is on the bottom of his range. But that is pure opinion on my part.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

well, if you can eliminate or reduce big pairs from his range, then your equity becomes a lot higher, making a close decision not that close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see what reason there is to think this. If we're positing that we're supposed to read Kravchenko as good enough to push light there because he's shortstacked, one would also presume that he'll realize it's blazingly obvious to limp or weakly raise KK+ there. So I don't think weakening the range makes any sense.

[Slim Pickens]

I made a little mistake in my first calculation. Khan needs 44.38% pot equity to call Kravchenko's push.

Here's some numbers to get started.

(chip stacks in 1k's)/(prize pool equity in $k)
(Kravchenko, Khan, Rahme)

Khan folds and Rahme folds:
(3310, 9195, 15915)/(1546.463, 2459.075, 3248.561)

Khan folds, then Rahme calls and wins, eliminating Kravchenko in 6th
(0, 9195, 19225)/(956.243, 2541.074, 3625.601)

Khan folds, Rahme calls Kravchenko and loses
(5630, 9195, 13595)/(1908.229, 2429.108, 2972.046)

[Slim Pickens]

Khan pushes, Rahme folds, Khan wins and eliminates Kravchenko in 6th
(0, 12505, 15915)/(956.243, 2922.728, 3289.466)

Khan pushes, Rahme folds, Khan loses to Kravchenko
(5780, 6725, 15915)/(1946.395, 2092.404, 3237.937)

[Slim Pickens]

Khan pushes, Rahme calls, Khan wins main and side pots
(0, 21550, 6870)/(956.243, 3852.229, 2253.401)

Khan pushes, Rahme calls, Rahme wins main and side pots
(0, 0, 28420)/(956.243, 1255.069, 4486.323)

Khan pushes, Rahme calls, Kravchenko wins main pot, Rahme wins side pot
(8100, 0, 20320)/(2407.889, 956.423, 3733.200)

Khan pushes, Rahme calls, Kravchenko wins main pot, Khan wins side pot
(8100, 13450, 6870)/(2272.926, 2951.263, 2094.028)

Now we can start arguing about hand ranges.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

well, if you can eliminate or reduce big pairs from his range, then your equity becomes a lot higher, making a close decision not that close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see what reason there is to think this. If we're positing that we're supposed to read Kravchenko as good enough to push light there because he's shortstacked, one would also presume that he'll realize it's blazingly obvious to limp or weakly raise KK+ there. So I don't think weakening the range makes any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

well I was taking into account Rain's statement that his read was that the push was light.

also Kravchenko doesn't have nearly enough chips to limp or weakly raise, he only has 1 move.

[Pudge714]

UTG should be shoving really wide here if the calling/reshoving ranges are as follows.
UTG+1 88+,AQo+,ATs+
CO 66+,AT+
BTN 55+,ATo+,A8s+,KQs
SB 44+,A9o+,A7s+,KJs+
BB 44+,A8o+,A4s+,KJs+
It is +CEV to shove.
22+,A2+,K4o+,K2s+,Q6o+,Q2s+,J7o+,J2s+,T7o+,T2s+,97 o+,95s+,86o+,84s+,76o,74s+,64s+,53s+
I don't know enough about the respective players and there calling ranges, but that should give you an idea of how wide he can be shoving here against nitty opponents.
If he is capable of shoving close to that wide 33 seems like a call and if Rainkhan is isoing that wide AQ seems like a pretty easy call as well. Slim can you calculate how much pot equity the BB needs to call.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim can you calculate how much pot equity the BB needs to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not quite that simple since there's a main pot and a side pot, so there's one too many degrees of freedom to calculate it explicitly. We really have to start plugging in some hand ranges.

[GotQuads]

I don't think we can put Khan on 33 here, I think we need to give him a somewhat tighter range, better aces and mid pairs+

Otherwise it is being results oriented since the shove with 33 is considered questionable by most here.

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we can put Khan on 33 here, I think we need to give him a somewhat tighter range, better aces and mid pairs+

Otherwise it is being results oriented since the shove with 33 is considered questionable by most here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We put Khan on a pretty wide range, as he is likely isolating against a very wide range.

What should Rahme's calling range be is the question

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we can put Khan on 33 here, I think we need to give him a somewhat tighter range, better aces and mid pairs+

Otherwise it is being results oriented since the shove with 33 is considered questionable by most here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm at that final table I put Kravchenko on a wide pushing range and Khan on something close to the correct over-push range against it. 33 is on the low end but it's definitely in there.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we can put Khan on 33 here, I think we need to give him a somewhat tighter range, better aces and mid pairs+

Otherwise it is being results oriented since the shove with 33 is considered questionable by most here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm at that final table I put Kravchenko on a wide pushing range and Khan on something close to the correct over-push range against it. 33 is on the low end but it's definitely in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's debatable whether 33 is in the correct range. That's just your personal opinion. Quite a few here think it is not correct to shove that.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we can put Khan on 33 here, I think we need to give him a somewhat tighter range, better aces and mid pairs+

Otherwise it is being results oriented since the shove with 33 is considered questionable by most here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm at that final table I put Kravchenko on a wide pushing range and Khan on something close to the correct over-push range against it. 33 is on the low end but it's definitely in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's debatable whether 33 is in the correct range. That's just your personal opinion. Quite a few here think it is not correct to shove that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If 33 isn't a shove it's very close. It's definitely close enough that a smart player in the BB who understands how both Kravchenko and Khan play should be allowing for 33 in Khan's hand range.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we can put Khan on 33 here, I think we need to give him a somewhat tighter range, better aces and mid pairs+

Otherwise it is being results oriented since the shove with 33 is considered questionable by most here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We put Khan on a pretty wide range, as he is likely isolating against a very wide range.

What should Rahme's calling range be is the question

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, a pretty wide range, now that's accurate

I hope you understand the calling range depends on the shoving ranges? So obv it is the shoving ranges that matter which automatically gives us the correct calling range for Rahme.

[JoeSchmo]

[ QUOTE ]
- Hero's skill edge is quite high on this table and slow structure/relatively deep stacks means time to find better spots

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this based on exactly? Rainkhan beats low stakes SNGs, loses at high stakes SNGs and most of the table are professionals. Skill edge "quite high"????

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim can you calculate how much pot equity the BB needs to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, we need the following probabilities, all of which depend on hand ranges. I'm ignoring split pots.

<ul type="square"> Rhame scoops if he calls
Rhame loses the main and wins the side if he calls
Khan beats Kravchenko if Rahme folds
[/list]

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- Hero's skill edge is quite high on this table and slow structure/relatively deep stacks means time to find better spots

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this based on exactly? Rainkhan beats low stakes SNGs, loses at high stakes SNGs and most of the table are professionals. Skill edge "quite high"????

[/ QUOTE ]

I was Hero in my post. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slim can you calculate how much pot equity the BB needs to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, we need the following probabilities, all of which depend on hand ranges. I'm ignoring split pots.

<ul type="square"> Rhame scoops if he calls
Rhame loses the main and wins the side if he calls
Khan beats Kravchenko if Rahme folds
[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

The last one is pretty easy.

Given the loose range you want to put Khan on, that would be about 60/40 in favor of Khan. With the tighter range I suggested, it would be more like 65/35. In both cases I'm putting Alex on approx. a 40% range. Overall experimenting with several ranges I get results from 55%-65% in favor of Khan, so maybe 60/40 is ok to use here.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slim can you calculate how much pot equity the BB needs to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, we need the following probabilities, all of which depend on hand ranges. I'm ignoring split pots.

<ul type="square"> Rhame scoops if he calls
Rhame loses the main and wins the side if he calls
Khan beats Kravchenko if Rahme folds
[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

Rahme scoops about 50% with JJ+,AKs,AKo

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slim can you calculate how much pot equity the BB needs to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, we need the following probabilities, all of which depend on hand ranges. I'm ignoring split pots.

<ul type="square"> Rhame scoops if he calls
Rhame loses the main and wins the side if he calls
Khan beats Kravchenko if Rahme folds
[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

The last one is pretty easy.

Given the loose range you want to put Khan on, that would be about 60/40 in favor of Khan. With the tighter range I suggested, it would be more like 65/35. In both cases I'm putting Alex on approx. a 40% range. Overall experimenting with several ranges I get results from 55%-65% in favor of Khan, so maybe 60/40 is ok to use here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah, then you just plug in the equity numbers from my previous posts for all the different possible outcomes. My point is you can't solve the three-handed problem the way we did for the two-handed problem, where we just used prize pool equities and calculated how much pot equity Khan needs to make a call break even.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]

Well yeah, then you just plug in the equity numbers from my previous posts for all the different possible outcomes. My point is you can't solve the three-handed problem the way we did for the two-handed problem, where we just used prize pool equities and calculated how much pot equity Khan needs to make a call break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be no problem, but we need computer help. Doesn't SNGWiz support custom payout structures as well as 3-handed problems? I recall in contrast to SngPT it claims to handle 3-way situations.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well yeah, then you just plug in the equity numbers from my previous posts for all the different possible outcomes. My point is you can't solve the three-handed problem the way we did for the two-handed problem, where we just used prize pool equities and calculated how much pot equity Khan needs to make a call break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be no problem, but we need computer help. Doesn't SNGWiz support custom payout structures as well as 3-handed problems? I recall in contrast to SngPT it claims to handle 3-way situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing we need a computer to do is run hand ranges against each other. That means we have to put Kravchenko and Khan on hand ranges first before trying to do anything about what Rahme should be calling with.

[suzzer99]

Slim, are you doing ICM or just cEV?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim, are you doing ICM or just cEV?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be pretty easy to do both, and pretty silly to just do cEV if you're going to go to the trouble of figuring out the impact of the side pot on things.

[DrewDevil]

So, are we now saying that BB should have called with AQ, or not?

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Slim, are you doing ICM or just cEV?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using the ICM to calculate prize pool equities.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing we need a computer to do is run hand ranges against each other. That means we have to put Kravchenko and Khan on hand ranges first before trying to do anything about what Rahme should be calling with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I know. Why not use the top 30% for Alex and 10% for Khan as an approximation.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slim, are you doing ICM or just cEV?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using the ICM to calculate prize pool equities.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is the breakeven (for Khan) starting range for Kerchinko (or whatever) assuming Rehme calls TT+, AK? And how does that range shift if we add $10 mil to first?

[THAY3R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there
...
I'd probably fold AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[Slim Pickens]

I'm going to use these hand ranges:
Kravchenko: {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QJs,A3o+,KJo+}
Khan: {22+,A8s+,KJs+,ATo+,KQo}
Rahme: AQo

With those, main pot equities are (ignoring splits):
Kravchenko: 0.28603
Khan: 0.37661
Rahme: 0.33736

The side pot is a little harder because the only situation we care about is when Kravchenko wins the main. It means AQo probably missed and I think is going to make Khan's range fare a little better on those boards against AQo, but for now I'll just assume they split 50/50.

EV_call=0.33736(4486.323)+0.37661(2253.401)+0.2860 3(0.5*3733.200+0.5*2094.028)
=3195.628

EV_fold=0.56062(3289.466)+0.43938(3237.937)=3266.8 25

Mucking AQo wins by about $71,000.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to use these hand ranges:
Kravchenko: {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QJs,A3o+,KJo+}
Khan: {22+,A8s+,KJs+,ATo+,KQo}
Rahme: AQo

With those, main pot equities are (ignoring splits):
Kravchenko: 0.28603
Khan: 0.37661
Rahme: 0.33736

The side pot is a little harder because the only situation we care about is when Kravchenko wins the main. It means AQo probably missed and I think is going to make Khan's range fare a little better on those boards against AQo, but for now I'll just assume they split 50/50.

EV_call=0.33736(4486.323)+0.37661(2253.401)+0.2860 3(0.5*3733.200+0.5*2094.028)
=3195.628

EV_fold=0.56062(3289.466)+0.43938(3237.937)=3266.8 25

Mucking AQo wins by about $71,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

I looked at the numbers you posted earlier, it seems close with AQ but AK looks like a clear call.

Whether Khans range includes the smallest pairs is probably of minor relevance with AK/AQ.

Good post Slim

[candyman718]

I know this is not a sophisticated mathematical point, but it seems like a lot of the above posts are putting your opponent on a hand (or a range) that would justify a call. What have you witnessed from the initial raiser that would indicate that he would go in so lightly?

BTW, in general I hate the SB's play here with anything less than 66.

[ZBTHorton]

I said this once in the thread, and nobody listened.

One thing none of you are factoring in, is how few hands they are playing per hour, and it's impact on the players stacks/m's/whatever.

They played 14 hands per hour. This is kind of like playing a turbo online. RainKhan doesn't have the liberty of waiting around for "more +cEV" situations. This is +cEV. +$EV. And +EV in general.

This push is so amazingly standard it's not even funny. The only discussion I can see from this hand is Rahme's fold...but given how tight RainKhan had been playing, I think his fold is okay.

[MyTurn2Raise]

i find myself in agreement with ZBTHorton over and over on this final table

I'm happy to be in his camp

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I said this once in the thread, and nobody listened.

One thing none of you are factoring in, is how few hands they are playing per hour, and it's impact on the players stacks/m's/whatever.

They played 14 hands per hour. This is kind of like playing a turbo online. RainKhan doesn't have the liberty of waiting around for "more +cEV" situations. This is +cEV. +$EV. And +EV in general.

This push is so amazingly standard it's not even funny. The only discussion I can see from this hand is Rahme's fold...but given how tight RainKhan had been playing, I think his fold is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Even in a turbo structure you cannot win money that is not in the pot yet. If you have a large M you have a large M. Only if the blinds are about to double up next hand and you're UTG there's some resemblance of logic to what you're saying. This was not the case and Khan was in the SB.

[Jasper109]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I said this once in the thread, and nobody listened.

One thing none of you are factoring in, is how few hands they are playing per hour, and it's impact on the players stacks/m's/whatever.

They played 14 hands per hour. This is kind of like playing a turbo online. RainKhan doesn't have the liberty of waiting around for "more +cEV" situations. This is +cEV. +$EV. And +EV in general.

This push is so amazingly standard it's not even funny. The only discussion I can see from this hand is Rahme's fold...but given how tight RainKhan had been playing, I think his fold is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Even in a turbo structure you cannot win money that is not in the pot yet. If you have a large M you have a large M. Only if the blinds are about to double up next hand and you're UTG there's some resemblance of logic to what you're saying. This was not the case and Khan was in the SB.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was thinking as well, but thought I was missing something.

There was only one time all night (Kravchenko, I believe) when a player should have been in push/fold mode and he doubled up very soon after that.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I said this once in the thread, and nobody listened.

One thing none of you are factoring in, is how few hands they are playing per hour, and it's impact on the players stacks/m's/whatever.

They played 14 hands per hour. This is kind of like playing a turbo online. RainKhan doesn't have the liberty of waiting around for "more +cEV" situations. This is +cEV. +$EV. And +EV in general.

This push is so amazingly standard it's not even funny. The only discussion I can see from this hand is Rahme's fold...but given how tight RainKhan had been playing, I think his fold is okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.) The "turboness" of an event should have a very minor effect on one's play in the current hand, unless it is totally absurd like blinds double every 4 hands. When the blinds go up, deal with it then. We went through this discussion about 2349781234789123 times in the STT forum after turbos became the standard format for STT pros.

2.) It takes 3 levels = 6 hours for the blinds to double at the ME final table. Even at 14 hands an hour, this is not a turbo structure. So even the argument that you should accept a lower minimum edge does not hold water. There is plenty of time. Look how long the damn thing lasted even after so many early bustouts.

3.) Khan's push is far from "amazingly standard". It is "highly marginal". It is a very tough spot. You are not giving up much either way. There are many, many factors to consider. See the detailed analysis above. "Amazingly standard" would be calling with QQ+. Please don't overstate whatever case you may have.

Other than that... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[speedgun]

In this long thread, Arnold Snyder believes a turbo tournament should be played differently but Mason Malmuth hates the idea.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&amp;vc=1 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=6585664&amp;page=5&amp;fpart=all &amp;vc=1)

[suzzer99]

There is no question in my mind a regular $109 sng should be played differently than a $60 turbo (similar toughness). But it's probably not by as much as people think.

[curtains]

offhand seems pretty clearcut to me, but not doing any huge research.

[sheetsworld]

I really think Alex's shoving range here is significantly tighter than people are estimating. I believe that KJs is the very bottom of the range, for a number of reasons. The big chip stack of Yank and his propensity to make big calls is one factor. The huge jump in real money which a player can achieve by calling and busting Alex, a braclet winner and good player, is another. Alex is no [censored] and he must be fearful of this extra incentive to call him, which severely tightens his range in my opinion. I would be shocked ofr him to turn over anything less than what he did.

I really have him on 22+,A9s+,kq+,kjs+ MAYBE...which, if I am right, would make the 33 shove pretty miserable approaching 40% equity I think.

Those utg shoves, even 6 handed, are usually stronger than people think .


sheets

[speedgun]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no question in my mind a regular $109 sng should be played differently than a $60 turbo (similar toughness). But it's probably not by as much as people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree a turbo tourney will be played differently from a normal speed table, for example less number of hands will be played in the Green Zone, but the real question is will you play an exactly same hand, in the exactly same blind level and exactly same relative chip counts, differently because it is a part of a faster structured tournament.

[suzzer99]

Yes. In a regular if the table is tight I may get involved in more pots because I know I can't just fold to the bubble then start shoving. I may have to steal some blinds, which rarely is a requirement in a turbo. So maybe I raise J9s from the CO where I would normally fold in a turbo. Or maybe I call a button raise with KJo from the BB because I know other players are thinking similar.

Conversely if a table is crazy I may not want to shove or steal in a borderline spot, since I can afford to be more patient and wait for someone to throw me their chips.

These aren't giant differences, just borderline hands that could go a different way between the two formats.

[speedgun]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. In a regular if the table is tight I may get involved in more pots because I know I can't just fold to the bubble then start shoving. I may have to steal some blinds, which rarely is a requirement in a turbo. So maybe I raise J9s from the CO where I would normally fold in a turbo. Or maybe I call a button raise with KJo from the BB because I know other players are thinking similar.

Conversely if a table is crazy I may not want to shove or steal in a borderline spot, since I can afford to be more patient and wait for someone to throw me their chips.

These aren't giant differences, just borderline hands that could go a different way between the two formats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for the argument's sake, in a slower tourney you will have a lot more chances to get a hand better than J9s before the bubble.

Anyway, it is interesting that Snyder is actually recommending exactly opposite as his strategy, i.e. play more hands in the turbo and accumulate chips earlier. Of course his arugment is more applicable to an MTT.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think Alex's shoving range here is significantly tighter than people are estimating. I believe that KJs is the very bottom of the range, for a number of reasons. The big chip stack of Yank and his propensity to make big calls is one factor. The huge jump in real money which a player can achieve by calling and busting Alex, a braclet winner and good player, is another. Alex is no [censored] and he must be fearful of this extra incentive to call him, which severely tightens his range in my opinion. I would be shocked ofr him to turn over anything less than what he did.

I really have him on 22+,A9s+,kq+,kjs+ MAYBE...which, if I am right, would make the 33 shove pretty miserable approaching 40% equity I think.

Those utg shoves, even 6 handed, are usually stronger than people think .


sheets

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right sheets, but part of the discussion is not just what Alex' range might be, but rather what Alex range SHOULD be. Players are likely going to give him credit for some kind of a hand due to his tight play. Pudge gave an approximation of his correct shoving range earlier.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there
...
I'd probably fold AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this? I am not trying to hold myself out as an authority on this situation. Is AK an obvious push here? Why or why not? What about AQ?

I genuinely want to hear what you and the other top players think. "lol" doesn't help much.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this? I am not trying to hold myself out as an authority on this situation. Is AK an obvious push here? Why or why not? What about AQ?

I genuinely want to hear what you and the other top players think. "lol" doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the whole thread. I think it's safe to say that AK,QQ+ are pushes at the very least. AQs and JJ are probably too.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Rahme really had AQ, how did he stop the blood from spurting out of his eyes?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was ridiculously tight for most of the FT. He probably would have folded AK here too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it correct to fold AQ or AK there? Not berating his play, just curious to what you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely would have folded AQ there
...
I'd probably fold AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this? I am not trying to hold myself out as an authority on this situation. Is AK an obvious push here? Why or why not? What about AQ?

I genuinely want to hear what you and the other top players think. "lol" doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can use the numbers from my last post, but replace all the pot equity numbers I put in for AQo with those for AKs. My guess is that AKs and AKo are quite profitable overcalling hands for the BB.

[Slim Pickens]

Using the range I put Kravchenko on to claim claim Khan's push was good...

Kravchenko: {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo}
Khan: {22+,A8s+,KJs+,ATo+,KQo}
Rahme: AQo

With those, main pot equities are (ignoring splits):
Kravchenko: 0.29175
Khan: 0.36913
Rahme: 0.33912

If Rahme folds...

EV_call=0.33912(4486.323)+0.36913(2253.401)+0.2917 5(0.5*3733.200+0.5*2094.028)
=3203.247

EV_fold=0.56044(3289.466)+0.43956(3237.937)=3266.8 16

It's still the same fold with AQo.

EDIT: ...and it's almost exactly break-even with AQs.

EDIT2: It's a +16,400 overcall with AKo.

[snagglepuss]

did rahme def have AQ here or is this an assumption?

i thought he claimed after the hand to have had 44? because a 4 spiked on the river?

then again i was completely out of it while watching it.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
did rahme def have AQ here or is this an assumption?

i thought he claimed after the hand to have had 44? because a 4 spiked on the river?

then again i was completely out of it while watching it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rahme said AQ before the flop came out IIRC. 44 I think is the presumed hand for Yang in the QQ Childs hand.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think Alex's shoving range here is significantly tighter than people are estimating. I believe that KJs is the very bottom of the range, for a number of reasons. The big chip stack of Yank and his propensity to make big calls is one factor. The huge jump in real money which a player can achieve by calling and busting Alex, a braclet winner and good player, is another. Alex is no [censored] and he must be fearful of this extra incentive to call him, which severely tightens his range in my opinion. I would be shocked ofr him to turn over anything less than what he did.

I really have him on 22+,A9s+,kq+,kjs+ MAYBE...which, if I am right, would make the 33 shove pretty miserable approaching 40% equity I think.

Those utg shoves, even 6 handed, are usually stronger than people think .

[/ QUOTE ]

Sheets,

In general I agree with you, but the blinds are decimating him the very next hand (he goes from 2.2M to 1.9M) and he goes from being 1/4 of the next smallest stack to 1/5th, and these guys are going to bust him. It probably behooves him to make a move here, no?

Certainly we can make some assumptions, such as:
1. This is the best hand Alex got this orbit
2. He's certainly aware that everyone is hoping to bust him
3. They're generally not going to call with a marginal hand on the off chance of getting him up to 5M.

I tend to believe Khan's claim that he had some 'weak' claim from Kravchenko, but I don't know how that helps him with 33 (other than feeling he didn't have JJ+ or something *shrug*).

The good thing is that if Rahme knows Kravchenko's range is tight there, and if Rahme thinks Khan knows this too, it makes AQo a very easy fold.

[bigj0e03]

is calling really bad?

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
is calling really bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you liked my pushing and overpushing ranges it is. They'd have to be a lot wider to make AQo a call. AQs was breakeven.

[bigj0e03]

i meant calling with 33

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
i meant calling with 33

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's basically a simple push/fold decision where most of the STT people want Kravchenko to be pushing wide and everyone else thinks he's pushing much tighter. Calling/overpushing with 33 is correct against the range Kravchenko should be pushing UTG to make the single hand be +$EV (def +cEV). The debate is whether he's actually pushing that wide. We're also ignoring the total nit in the BB, but he got into the debate by claiming to have folded AQ.

[xPeru]

Nice work Slim:

I'm summarising this as; Krav's shove was a bit light, but correct. Rain's overshove was correct and Rahme's fold was ... correct.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bigj0e03]

but if you just call with 33, then the guy in the bb almost always calls with hands such as AQ, KQs, etc, and then you just check down anything but a set and if the big blind bets you just fold post flop. Thoughts anyone?

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice work Slim:

I'm summarising this as; Krav's shove was a bit light, but correct. Rain's overshove was correct and Rahme's fold was ... correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Kravs shove was definitely correct (KQs afair) while Rain's overshove was very light.

[GotQuads]

Ok sorry, seems Krav had KJ, not sure if suited or not. Maybe a bit light, but Rain's overshove with 33 was light in any case.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you just call with 33, then the guy in the bb almost always calls with hands such as AQ, KQs, etc, and then you just check down anything but a set and if the big blind bets you just fold post flop. Thoughts anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

33 plays poorly 3-way, why would you want to invite somebody else in? To try to knock out a player? Don't like it, with the top-heavy payout structure and getting Alex K. healthy immediately if he does win the 3-way pot.

Plus the BB might think your call is weak and shove over it, with hands that he just would have folded if Hero had shoved (e.g., AQ), and now you have to fold and have simply spewed b/c BB would have called Alex K. with those hands anyway.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you just call with 33, then the guy in the bb almost always calls with hands such as AQ, KQs, etc, and then you just check down anything but a set and if the big blind bets you just fold post flop. Thoughts anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

With ultra-nit Rahme in the BB, this probably works. It leaves Khan with a pot-sized bet behind and I doubt Rahme will bet postflop without the nuts.

[GotQuads]

It doesn't seem to make a huge difference calling there with a nit in the BB who will rarely call or overshove. The problem is if Rahme has exactly AK and overshoves, we fold the best hand.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't seem to make a huge difference calling there with a nit in the BB who will rarely call or overshove. The problem is if Rahme has exactly AK and overshoves, we fold the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rahme shoving is not a "problem." Rahme's shoving range from the BB there if Khan calls is extremely tightand if he does push, I know Kravchenko is about a 3:1 underdog and 33 is at least 2:1.

One of the most common mistakes people make playing tournament poker is to call a big bet because not every hand in the opponent's range beats yours. This "you might fold the best hand if he has exactly *blank*" is fish-talk.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't seem to make a huge difference calling there with a nit in the BB who will rarely call or overshove. The problem is if Rahme has exactly AK and overshoves, we fold the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rahme shoving is not a "problem." Rahme's shoving range from the BB there if Khan calls is extremely tightand if he does push, I know Kravchenko is about a 3:1 underdog and 33 is at least 2:1.

One of the most common mistakes people make playing tournament poker is to call a big bet because not every hand in the opponent's range beats yours. This "you might fold the best hand if he has exactly *blank*" is fish-talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the reason for calling other than to fold to a push? We can't play for set value here and we're OOP if called.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't seem to make a huge difference calling there with a nit in the BB who will rarely call or overshove. The problem is if Rahme has exactly AK and overshoves, we fold the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rahme shoving is not a "problem." Rahme's shoving range from the BB there if Khan calls is extremely tightand if he does push, I know Kravchenko is about a 3:1 underdog and 33 is at least 2:1.

One of the most common mistakes people make playing tournament poker is to call a big bet because not every hand in the opponent's range beats yours. This "you might fold the best hand if he has exactly *blank*" is fish-talk.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the reason for calling other than to fold to a push? We can't play for set value here and we're OOP if called.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kravchenko loses a lot of pot equity if BB overcalls with any live cards. Every other player at the table gets about $125,000 in additional equity if Kravchenko busts. Rahme in with live cards makes it about 1/2-1/3 = 17% more likely he busts. If anything Rahme won't bet enough postflop so Khan never has to worry about folding the best hand.

[Slim Pickens]

Should Khan just call with 33?

Assuming:
<ul type="square"> Kravchenko is pushing {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo}
Rahme will call with {TT+,AQs+,AKo} if Khan folds
Rahme will overcall with {66+,AJs+,AQo+,KQs} (7.67%) if Khan flat calls
There is no further action in the hand
[/list]

This gives three-way pot equities of...
Kravchenko: 0.30710
Khan: 0.23979
Rahme: 0.45311

EV_call = 2488.124

From before, Khan folding was worth 2460.898. Khan pushing and never getting called by Rahme was worth 2468.665.

call&gt;push&gt;fold

EDIT: If Rahme overcalls Khan's push with {QQ+}, pushing is worth a little less: 2457.730, making it definitely call&gt;&gt;push/fold.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Should Khan just call with 33?

Assuming:
<ul type="square"> Kravchenko is pushing {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo}
Rahme will call with {TT+,AQs+,AKo} if Khan folds
Rahme will overcall with {66+,AJs+,AQo+,KQs} (7.67%) if Khan flat calls
There is no further action in the hand
[/list]

This gives three-way pot equities of...
Kravchenko: 0.30710
Khan: 0.23979
Rahme: 0.45311

EV_call = 2488.124

From before, Khan folding was worth 2460.898. Khan pushing and never getting called by Rahme was worth 2468.665.

call&gt;push&gt;fold

EDIT: If Rahme overcalls Khan's push with {QQ+}, pushing is worth a little less: 2457.730, making it definitely call&gt;&gt;push/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your model yet. Why is Rahme never shoving? Looks silly to me to call with AA and check it down.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should Khan just call with 33?

Assuming:
<ul type="square"> Kravchenko is pushing {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo}
Rahme will call with {TT+,AQs+,AKo} if Khan folds
Rahme will overcall with {66+,AJs+,AQo+,KQs} (7.67%) if Khan flat calls
There is no further action in the hand
[/list]

This gives three-way pot equities of...
Kravchenko: 0.30710
Khan: 0.23979
Rahme: 0.45311

EV_call = 2488.124

From before, Khan folding was worth 2460.898. Khan pushing and never getting called by Rahme was worth 2468.665.

call&gt;push&gt;fold

EDIT: If Rahme overcalls Khan's push with {QQ+}, pushing is worth a little less: 2457.730, making it definitely call&gt;&gt;push/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your model yet. Why is Rahme never shoving? Looks silly to me to call with AA and check it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not necessarily exactly "no further action." What it really is saying is that Khan never puts any more money in with a worse hand. It's ignoring a set-over-set situation where Khan goes bust to Rahme in the side pot and Kravchenko makes some wacky straight to win the main pot. There just aren't that many ways for Khan to get the rest of his stack in without a winner. He knows that when an old nit either pushes preflop over a raise and a call or bets postflop into a dry sidepot, he's got the nuts or close to it. Kravchenko gains almost no pot equity against the range Rahme pushes over Khan's call, likely {QQ+}. In other words, it's very hard for them to go Khan&gt;Kravchenko&gt;Rahme against the very top end of Rahme's range. It's like 1% of about 2% of the time Rahme has a monster.