Sometimes SNGs aren't poker: Open-Folding QQ 3-Handed?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, here's what I'm doing if I'm the villian.

If you fold, I fold to keep shorty alive. Then I open push next hand because you can't call from the BB. Then, from the BB, if you limp or raise standard I push from BB (again, you cannot call). Now, we're back to the original table position, except with different stacks.

Hero (t2695)
SB (t5975)
BB (t330)

Of course, the above is the situation where Hero simply folds every time, costing him the least amount of money possible. If Hero ever called, standard raised, he'd have less. If this continues, hero will lose 300 chips/orbit to me until he takes a stand.

Given this, open limping is much better for hero (and obviously better than a standard raise since I will be pushing any two), since in that case the chip stacks will look like this one orbit later.

Hero (t2495)
SB (t6075)
BB (t30)

This is clearly a better situation, since BB will be eliminated this hand (this is stars remember, so he doesn't get a showdown). At this point, you can start playing normal HU poker against the big stack.

So obviously Calling >> Folding.

Now, if you instead push this hand, I'm not going to call you with a wide range. Your range here for pushing is very small since you're pushing such a big stack. I can cause you to lose quite a bit of equity if I want to spite call you, but then I lose quite a bit of equity myself. Since I'm not Johnny Beef, I'm not spite calling you here just to cost you equity. From my standpoint, a call is only profitable if it's +cEV to me, so I'm not going to have a hand frequently enough to call you where I would believe it's +cEV for me (I will believe that you're pushing a range like TT+, AK, AQs+) here, so I really need at least QQ to call.

Therefore Pushing >> Calling

QED.

Corollary: Hero should limp/fold the vast majority of his hands here.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the corollary, he should limp/fold EVERY hand here.

As for pushing>calling, I disagree but don't have time to think of sneaky explanation as to why. Work's out! yaba daba doo!!!!!

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
On the corollary, he should limp/fold EVERY hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only hands hero shouldn't limp/fold here are the ones he pushes.

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
As for pushing>calling, I disagree but don't have time to think of sneaky explanation as to why. Work's out! yaba daba doo!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I just ran this through SNG-PT, and if Hero is pushing the range I stated, then the correct calling range for SB is QQ+. This happens just over 1% of the time, so you'll be eliminated about 0.8% of the time and double up about 0.2% of the time. I doubt that villain calls more than 5% of the time here, and you won't get eliminated more than 2% of the time, so again pushing >> calling.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, if you instead push this hand, I'm not going to call you with a wide range. Your range here for pushing is very small since you're pushing such a big stack. I can cause you to lose quite a bit of equity if I want to spite call you, but then I lose quite a bit of equity myself. Since I'm not Johnny Beef, I'm not spite calling you here just to cost you equity. From my standpoint, a call is only profitable if it's +cEV to me, so I'm not going to have a hand frequently enough to call you where I would believe it's +cEV for me (I will believe that you're pushing a range like TT+, AK, AQs+) here, so I really need at least QQ to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this analysis is complete enough to show conclusively that pushing is better than just calling. If I limp and get pushed over by any two, as it sounds like is the likely case given the description of the big stack, then it's not obviously clear to me that it's unprofitable to call. Nor is it clear to me that just winning the blinds while still running the risk of big stack calling (I think big stack is calling a substantially wider range than QQ+ here, whatever it is that you may do) is superior to that play either.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for pushing>calling, I disagree but don't have time to think of sneaky explanation as to why. Work's out! yaba daba doo!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I just ran this through SNG-PT, and if Hero is pushing the range I stated, then the correct calling range for SB is QQ+. This happens just over 1% of the time, so you'll be eliminated about 0.8% of the time and double up about 0.2% of the time. I doubt that villain calls more than 5% of the time here, and you won't get eliminated more than 2% of the time, so again pushing >> calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

But BB's equity is 0. so getting the blinds even 99% of the time isnt worth it. Furthermore, busting 4x more than doubling up hardly seems worth it. Also, I doubt SB is correctly calling only QQ+.

Not sold...but hey, not saying pushing is stupid, just a difference in style.

Edit: Hint, he is surely calling with AK ...not saying its correct, just saying its "common"

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How often is BB busto? Isn't it reasonably possible that the short stack doubles up a couple times giving him more sticking power (perhaps enough so he even has a chance to make the money).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
After posting the BB has 130 behind and is still sitting out like he has been the whole way.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB is busto in 3 hands no matter what. If BB was playing this would be a push every time. The fact that he is sitting out and you are 100% guaranteed 2nd and 35% of the prize pool makes it a fold (or a limp if SB is savy enough to fold here if you do and push on your blind).

[/ QUOTE ]

I should just stick to surfing while playing. Didn't understand that sitting out didn't mean folding a lot, it meant he was disconnected or away from the table.

I mostly play Party and never notice someone sitting out (I think I remember a clear indication/notice the few times I've played Stars). Is there some easy way to tell someone is sitting out or disconnected on Party (other than the fact that he is insta folding every hand).

~ Rick

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now, if you instead push this hand, I'm not going to call you with a wide range. Your range here for pushing is very small since you're pushing such a big stack. I can cause you to lose quite a bit of equity if I want to spite call you, but then I lose quite a bit of equity myself. Since I'm not Johnny Beef, I'm not spite calling you here just to cost you equity. From my standpoint, a call is only profitable if it's +cEV to me, so I'm not going to have a hand frequently enough to call you where I would believe it's +cEV for me (I will believe that you're pushing a range like TT+, AK, AQs+) here, so I really need at least QQ to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this analysis is complete enough to show conclusively that pushing is better than just calling. If I limp and get pushed over by any two, as it sounds like is the likely case given the description of the big stack, then it's not obviously clear to me that it's unprofitable to call. Nor is it clear to me that just winning the blinds while still running the risk of big stack calling (I think big stack is calling a substantially wider range than QQ+ here, whatever it is that you may do) is superior to that play either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about the thread from earlier which discussed the following situation:

Blinds 50/100

BB 800
SB(You) 3200
Button 6000

Button pushes 50% here, and it's only OK to call with AA. This situation is similar, but here shorty is even shorter--plus, he's disconnected and will get blinded out if we just wait. I haven't run the numbers, but it might even be correct to fold AA if you call and then he pushes. In any case, QQ is a clear fold.

Edit: I botched that link

[sanmarcosrun1]

I tend to fall in the category that goes with instantly pushing this hand given the fact the villian will put you allin with a standard raise. My thought process is if you are willing to call this allin then you should put the test on the villian. You are basically playing heads up already. I don't think the villian is willing to call here with anything less than ak. The best way I have found to combat the aggressor like this in a sitngo situation like this is to lean on him. I understand you want him calling you with trash like this but I just think pushing has better value here than calling and then pushing. Say you call and ace flops you have no idea if villian has that or not. I would rather dictate when I go allin rather then letting the aggressor dictate my play. In this spot I would rather just run the risk of only winning the blinds and outplay the villian headsup.

[GreekHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
But BB's equity is 0. so getting the blinds even 99% of the time isnt worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB's equity isn't quite 0, but it's close. The problem is that SB's equity isn't 0. You lose equity to him if you call/fold or limp/fold. You can force his equity to be 0, but you're doing so at the cost of some of your own equity.

Also, if he's calling infrequently enough that you bust 4x more often than you double through, then you're gaining equity the 99% of the time he folds, which should more than make up for the difference. If he calls with TT+, then your double up to bust ratio is one, and anything more than that and you will double up much more frequently than you bust.

Since SB is apparently a thinking player, he's certainly not calling more than 10% here and probably not more than 5%. A range of 10% would be 55+,ATo+,A8s+,KQs, which seems very wide to be calling a 15xBB push. Against that range, you will still win 2/3 of the time, so you will only bust 3.3% of the time when pushing, double up 6.7% of the time and win the blinds 90% of the time. The less frequently he calls, the less frequently you bust, which increases your equity when you push.

[gumpzilla]

I had missed that this pays out two, so mea culpa on my earlier comment that suggested otherwise.

Assigning equity results 2/1/0 - not entirely right, but pretty close - let's say pushing wins the blinds 100% of the time and nothing else. Our equity following pushing is 1.33. Getting into an all-in confrontation gives us 1.68 when we win, 0 when we lose. So, if we suppose that limping means we get pushed over by any two, we need to be confident that we'll win 1.33/1.68 = 79.2% for limping to be superior. Equity of QQ vs. a random hand: 79.9%. Consider that pushing will do slightly less well than just winning the blinds if the player is calling only with hands that beat us, as you suggested, and it seems to me like the numbers suggest that limping might be very slightly superior. It's close, at least.

EDIT: Going back and putting in .65/.35 to be a little more rigorous about it, it pushes the desired victory percentage up closer to 81%. Wacky.