The Freakonomics of Tournaments: A Preview (74s UTG at final table)

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Nath, interesting post for sure. Aren't you worried though that in one single hand your table image can go from TAG to "maniac who will push any two" with a play like this? All of a sudden, you're getting played back at with far more than 21% of the hands that BB would have called with before and the +EV of any similar play just went down the toilet.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at the idea that my image is ever TAG. My image is usually that of a complete lunatic who is not only raising all sorts of random garbage but also calling with it. And who wants to take a hand that might be marginally +cEV against a psycho who's definitely calling and might have you crushed?

If I folded to reraises all the time people would play back at me much more frequently. But since they KNOW I'm calling that keeps them in line.

[InternetJunky]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at the idea that my image is ever TAG. My image is usually that of a complete lunatic who is not only raising all sorts of random garbage but also calling with it. And who wants to take a hand that might be marginally +cEV against a psycho who's definitely calling and might have you crushed?

If I folded to reraises all the time people would play back at me much more frequently. But since they KNOW I'm calling that keeps them in line.

[/ QUOTE ]
This makes sense to me if you were talking about attacking middle stacks this way, but if I were short-stacked facing someone like yourself I'd be willing to go to war with far more than 21% of my hands in the blinds.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
This makes sense to me if you were talking about attacking middle stacks this way, but if I were short-stacked facing someone like yourself I'd be willing to go to war with far more than 21% of my hands in the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, you and everyone who says "I'd play at you with way more than 21% of my hands":

GIVE ME A [censored] RANGE OF HANDS YOU WOULD PLAY BACK WITH, KNOWING I WILL CALL, AND TELL ME WHAT % OF TOTAL HANDS THAT IS. I DID.

[mornelth]

here's about 26.1%.. 22+,A2s+,K9s+,QTs+,JTs,A2o+,KTo+,QJo.

If I see a bigstack raising 74s I'll play back from a shortstack with above range.

Having said that - I really like your opening post and I am learning from it.

[mornelth]

Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]


I really like this line of thought on this OP. Sometimes working it backwards shows you what you wouldn't see working it forward. Like an inventor or programmer working an existing product from completion to beginning in order to improve it. Reverse engineering isn't an out-of-the-ordinary concept in poker, but I think improves the understanding of this particular thought process.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent really read the HOH books, but is there any logic/reasoning behind this? It seems really ridiculously dumb.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent really read the HOH books, but is there any logic/reasoning behind this? It seems really ridiculously dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also think this is pretty dumb. 'rule' and 'calling with any two' should never be related.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrington mentions "the 10% rule" - when a shortstack pushes and it's 10% or less of your stack, you should call wih any two". Here you do the SAME THING but slightly in reverse - you bring action TO shorty in BB with just about any two. Also gives you some FE in the process, too.

I likes...

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent really read the HOH books, but is there any logic/reasoning behind this? It seems really ridiculously dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh...close but wrong. p. 287 of HOHII. Only if I have at least 10x the chips of a player, will I put him A/I w/Any Two. Not call his A/I with any two. He is counting on a few folds in some situations.

Shermn

[nath]

Also it only applies at the final table.
And he will call with a ridiculous range if he has a 10:1 CL over the pusher. See his hand from the 1995 WSOP FT where he calls Dastmalchi's all in with J3o.