hero vomits and...? ($150 Stars)

[mikeymer]

assuming 47%, with chip equity, a double up does big things here, as it allows for resteals, and patience to get in significantly higher EV opportunites. I also dont like the possibility of dropping to 6-7 bb where multiple double ups could be needed to go deep.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
assuming 47%, with chip equity, a double up does big things here, as it allows for resteals, and patience to get in significantly higher EV opportunites. I also dont like the possibility of dropping to 6-7 bb where multiple double ups could be needed to go deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

well said. This is what I'm taking away from this thread.

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
assuming 47%, with chip equity, a double up does big things here, as it allows for resteals, and patience to get in significantly higher EV opportunites. I also dont like the possibility of dropping to 6-7 bb where multiple double ups could be needed to go deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would take 51/49 but not 50/50? Why?

Your comments about the difference between a 20BB and a 10BB stack are intriguing. This is the part I have trouble quantifying. How much does our $EV increase in this tournament if we have 20BBs vs. 10BBs? I honestly don't know the answer to this, and I think it is more complex than just calculating percentage of total chips held, or your Q. Maybe this is just not quantifiable. But, it seems like a very important question.

[A_PLUS]

Best Cellar, I realize you felt very confident in your range. But let's be realistic. You have seen this guy act from EP, what 25 hands? At best, you (or any poker player in the world), can have a sense of what his range could be.
You have only seen 70 total hands of his. It is very possible that in a those 70 hands, he was only dealt a decent hand twice. His range could be to raise A8+ KJ+ any pair from any position, and you have no way to know if that is true after 70 hands.

THAT is the problem with specific reads in online poker. They just dont make sense, without a ton of experience (multiple MTTs) with the player. You said things like, "He would NEVER raise 88 here." How the hell do you know? B/c he hasnt raised from EP in 20 opportunities? Be sensible. If your read was wrong, and he had 66, you would have brushed it off. Your memory of your conviction is being clouded by the fact that it was such a big hand, and that you were correct. It is the same type of thinking that gets us all to think that we are the unluckiest guy in the universe.

UCLA, 10xBB is a time you LOVE to take a small edge. Mikemer explained most of it. But also, you start to run into the opportunity cost of not doubling your stack, since you will be pushing from now on, every chip you lose is worth double those times you survive your upcoming all-in.

[adanthar]

I think I've posted '4 BB on Stars is a very bad thing' the last 4-17 times this thread has come up, but for whatever reason, no one ever believes me.

I might have pushed anyway, but it's very close *at best* because this isn't even 99. Tens, possibly.

[bestcellar]

[ QUOTE ]
Best Cellar, I realize you felt very confident in your range. But let's be realistic. You have seen this guy act from EP, what 25 hands? At best, you (or any poker player in the world), can have a sense of what his range could be.
You have only seen 70 total hands of his. It is very possible that in a those 70 hands, he was only dealt a decent hand twice. His range could be to raise A8+ KJ+ any pair from any position, and you have no way to know if that is true after 70 hands.

THAT is the problem with specific reads in online poker. They just dont make sense, without a ton of experience (multiple MTTs) with the player. You said things like, "He would NEVER raise 88 here." How the hell do you know? B/c he hasnt raised from EP in 20 opportunities? Be sensible. If your read was wrong, and he had 66, you would have brushed it off. Your memory of your conviction is being clouded by the fact that it was such a big hand, and that you were correct. It is the same type of thinking that gets us all to think that we are the unluckiest guy in the universe.

UCLA, 10xBB is a time you LOVE to take a small edge. Mikemer explained most of it. But also, you start to run into the opportunity cost of not doubling your stack, since you will be pushing from now on, every chip you lose is worth double those times you survive your upcoming all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then when is a read ever really completely relevant by these standards? Never. I had not played with this guy before, but I was very confident as to what he had. Seriously, I was 99% sure of his range especially after he open raised a UTG limp.

Here are some interesting things to think about:

During those 70 hands he had 5000 chips+ the entire time, well over 50-100x the big blind over the course of 3 levels. Did he loosen up whatsoever? Absolutely not. What does this tell you about his play?

If a player is going to be raising hands like KT+ or Ax UTG, UTG+1, UTG+2, MP1 there's a really good chance he would've had a hand in that range sometime in the 32 hands he was dealt in those positions. When you include any pair above sixes, we're talking about something like 15-20% of all hands. There's like a 60-70% chance he would've shown SOME strength before, particularly with a big stack. He had not. As I said, he was involved in like 2 hands prior to this, and both were not shown down. This player not only had a tight image, he had table respect too.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I've posted '4 BB on Stars is a very bad thing' the last 4-17 times this thread has come up, but for whatever reason, no one ever believes me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree for 4bb open-raises but there's a limper here.

[ QUOTE ]
I might have pushed anyway, but it's very close *at best* because this isn't even 99. Tens, possibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree the guy's range is probably pretty tight. I probably limp hands like 88, 99, AJs in this spot, so I'm guessing the average tight player does too. If the limper is super-loose this might change.

But even given a range of TT+, AK, AQ, I push for the reasons given in earlier posts.

Steve

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]

Then when is a read ever really completely relevant by these standards? Never.

[/ QUOTE ]
Online, after 70 hands, it is never correct to think that you can put some on a tight range with 99% accuracy. This is not a slight on you, it is impossible, for anyone.

[ QUOTE ]

I had not played with this guy before, but I was very confident as to what he had. Seriously, I was 99% sure of his range especially after he open raised a UTG limp.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have raised an UG limp with 77, I have also gone 70 hands while playing only 2 hands. My point isn't that you are wrong. You are most likely correct. The problem is with the degree of certainty you are giving your range. 99% is ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]

Here are some interesting things to think about:

During those 70 hands he had 5000 chips+ the entire time, well over 50-100x the big blind over the course of 3 levels. Did he loosen up whatsoever? Absolutely not. What does this tell you about his play?

[/ QUOTE ]

That he has only been dealt 2 hands that he found playable.

[ QUOTE ]

If a player is going to be raising hands like KT+ or Ax UTG, UTG+1, UTG+2, MP1 there's a really good chance he would've had a hand in that range sometime in the 32 hands he was dealt in those positions. When you include any pair above sixes, we're talking about something like 15-20% of all hands. There's like a 60-70% chance he would've shown SOME strength before, particularly with a big stack. He had not. As I said, he was involved in like 2 hands prior to this, and both were not shown down. This player not only had a tight image, he had table respect too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm a little lost here. Your stats seem to prove my point more than anything. 70% chance he would have been more active if he had a loose range, alright. So how exactly to we get to 99% certainty from there?

Your points about his stack size and table respect aren't really relevant. Their are tons of players who tighten up a lot when they have a big stack, and progressively get looser as the blinds go up. That is pretty much the 'old school' way of thinking about tournaments. As for his table respect, unless you are chatting with the table, you imagined that part. He played 2 hands, and won without showdown, that tells us nothing. Secondly, wouldnt having 'table respect' make a player more likely to raise an UG limper with less than a premium hand?


**Again, I am not saying you were 'wrong' in the conclusion you came to. All signs point to this guy being tight. The problem is, you have to leave some margin for error, b/c sans physical tells, putting someone one a range, is largely a probability question, and you do not have enough information to reach your degree of certainty. In fact, you were 'right', but my point is that you wont be 'right' 99-100 times. I think anything more than 80% for a tight range like this is a mistake.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to bed, and I don't really see how anyone can answer that question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can decide whether to push or fold without at least grappling with this fundamental question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pushing gives us a better chance IMO, because of what Mikeymer said, and because of what I said earlier in fancier words.

Diminishing returns on future shoves because we are gonna have less chips... If you double up now you will have like 24 bbs and a lot of room to do stuff, if you double up a few rounds later you will have like 18 bbs, and the blinds will be going up sooner and the average stack will be higher and etc etc./