Is Harrington wrong here?
 

The obvious answer is "no," but I can't help but feel his AQ hand example on pg. 254 of volume 1 isn't the best play.

Your stack is at T1070, with blinds at 100/200. On the button after 4 folds in a one-table satellite, Harrington suggests raising to 600, leaving you with only 400.

His reasoning is that raises to 600 typically win the blinds at this table, but still...isn't an all-in better here with a hand as vulnerable as AQ?

Edit: I'm curious because lately I've had to make many tough decisions as to whether or not an all-in or a standard preflop raise is the best play. Is there a common threshold for when you cross into auto-push territory?

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

I think it was just lazy editing on his part and he meant allin. If he didn't mean to go allin, then its irresponsible of him to just put the hand in the book without any explanation as to why he would prefer raising 60% of his chips instead of just moving allin to begin with.

So in either case, there is some kind of error that was made.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

i cant really imagine what he was thinking here. obviously hes not folding at any point... so maybe he is thinking that a smaller bet will give someone the illusion of fold equity and they might come over the top with a weaker holding? i dunno. "its a PUSH"

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

I don't think it's simply an error since he even explains why it is correct to call your remaining 400 when the BB pushes on a bricked flop.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

I guess he's just saying that your chips are going in anyway, so perhaps that raising and leaving yourself a small amount behind is scarier than just pushing all-in, so you might actually have more fold equity that way. I could see that if you were playing in person and had shown you were a solid player, but online, when I see that sort of crap, unless I have a read otherwise I assume the other player is an idiot.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

Pushing and betting 60% here are essentially the same thing. He is saying anyone that is going to fold for 1000 is going to fold for 600. If you bet 600, get called and then push regardless of the flop, isn't it the same as preflop pushing? Your seeing 5 cards for 1000. He is saying there is no difference in fold equity here. The SB has 540 so he is irrelevant since a 600 raise will put him all in anyways and the big blind has 1240 so he is not "smooth calling" here either. The point of 600 to all in is moot.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

Edit: I'm curious because lately I've had to make many tough decisions as to whether or not an all-in or a standard preflop raise is the best play. Is there a common threshold for when you cross into auto-push territory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in most cases the common threshold for when you cross into auto-push territory is when your stack is equal to or less than 10xBB. In this scenario, the BB is 200 and your stack is 1040, well less than 10xBB.

KC

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

I think betting more than half your stack shows a powerful hand, it's asking for a call. Whereas, if you didn't want the call you would have gone all-in for maximum scare power in a hand you didn't want to play.

We all know that this hand will get you allin if called- but i think you'll get more folds with the 600 bet vs. the all-in bet.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

Betting 600 or going all in is pretty much the same. You're not going to fold, when you bet 600 of 1070. Not going all in but betting 600 is more scary for the other players. They know he's not gonna fold the other 400, so it seems he has a real powerhouse and actually wants other people in the pot. This bet seems stronger than an all in, I think.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

i respect a big raise more than an all in, late in sit n gos short stacks have a tendency to min raise w/ big pairs increasing the chances of getting called.

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

I think a push will get more calls from dominated A's than betting 60% of my stack.

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: Is Harrington wrong here?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think betting more than half your stack shows a powerful hand, it's asking for a call. Whereas, if you didn't want the call you would have gone all-in for maximum scare power in a hand you didn't want to play.



[/ QUOTE ]

Surely though this screws your chances of doubling up. A push in this position would get called by a lot of worse aces, Kx and a few Qx etc. If you are playing your hand like AA, then this is only ever going to be called by hands that are a lot stronger than that range

If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

Thanks for bringing this point up.
I thought about all in when I first saw this problem too.
But after reading more I changed my mind.

For the 2 new people on this board that haven't memorized the book yet:

The first idea that Dan was trying to point out is that you should pay attention to how much people fold for so that you will know the amount that will discourage action on the table. On this table it is $600 so he says that you should bet $600.

In the text the player AdQd bets too little (400) and the big blind calls for 200.

Flop comes 944, one diamond.
BB goes all in.
Dan gives some wise advice about pot odds. (You’ve got odds to call)
Hero calls and gets running diamonds for a flush.
Dan gives some wise advice about playing a flop with a small pair (it's a good time to bluff but both of you know that)

The BB in this example gets outplayed.


The OP raises a valid point but I would consider this:

If you're Dan 600 is a better bet.

1. You can outplay them postflop.
2. You have position so you can play the hand a little slower taking advantage of the position.
3. The fold equity between 600 and all in is not very much so you are only giving up a tiny bit of FE.

I'd try to alternate between 3bb and all in to try to vary my play.

If your post flop play sucks then an all is the right play.

Again, I think the OP's point is valid but I agree with Dan.
Ed Miller type short stack systems would have you pushing here but to progress you want to start playing post flop to increase your edge.

I used to go all in a lot with AK/AQ since you get to look at all 5 cards (Mason talks about this).

But now I've changed my play.
If I have position I play it slower sometimes and outplay my opponent postflop. If I don't have position then I would go all in here.

It's made a huge difference to my game.
It's really improving my postflop play.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert but just state Dan's case for him. For the record I should mention I suck at poker but I'm getting a ton of help from you guys.

Re: If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

[ QUOTE ]


1. You can outplay them postflop.
2. You have position so you can play the hand a little slower taking advantage of the position.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can you outplay your oponent with only 400 chips!?! Your position is irrelevant in this situation as we already established that you are getting all your chips in no matter what. As for the size of the raise, it is not very significant becuase any callers of your t600 bet will be calling any flop bet and vice versa. I would advocate an all-in because it could look weaker and induce calls by weaker hands such as AJ,A10,etc.

Re: If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

[ QUOTE ]

How can you outplay your oponent with only 400 chips!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can you outplay your oponent with only 400 chips!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question!

In the text you pick off a stone cold bluff.

Re: If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

Even if you push preflop, you are going to get called fairly often (at least in the micro buy-ins I play in). Getting called preflop is a happy result (unless the blind actually has a hand, which is very unlikely). I am looking to double up here. If my stack was bigger, then 3x raise, check flop, call bluff push from BB is fine. Here it's ridiculous to try to get cute with such a short stack.

-Gross

Re: If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can you outplay your oponent with only 400 chips!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question!

In the text you pick off a stone cold bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point they are making is that there is no way you can fold to a flop bet with 400 chips. so you're not "outplaying" anyone. you are just sticking your chips in because you're pot-committed anyway, and you're lucky to find villian on a bluff.

Re: If you\'re Dan 600 is a better bet Here\'s why.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can you outplay your oponent with only 400 chips!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question!

In the text you pick off a stone cold bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

the point they are making is that there is no way you can fold to a flop bet with 400 chips. so you're not "outplaying" anyone. you are just sticking your chips in because you're pot-committed anyway, and you're lucky to find villian on a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected.

I made a poor choice of words when I said, "outplay".

I guess I should have said, "... allow my opponent the opportunity to do something really dumb ... "