Something you guys dont do enough
 

Shoving over late position short stacker opens. The ranges here are just an example and feel free to make your own. My math reflects these ranges and shows you on the EV you are missing out on.

You have a few situations

Assume 20bb stacks

1) shortstacker 3x otb and you are the BB. There is their raise + sb + bb in the pot or 4.5bb. So you are risking 19bb to win 4.5bb. If we use

these ranges (the shortstackers will adjust and you will have to adjust your range accordingly)

equity win tie pots won pots tied

Hand 0: 66.810% 65.48% 01.33% 26771923296 542041176.00 { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ }

Hand 1: 33.190% 31.86% 01.33% 13026964656 542041176.00 { 22+, A2s+, K6s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }


So in this 40.5bb pot when called you will have 33.2% equity, or 13.45bb, so when your shove is called you lose 19-13.45bb or 5.55bb.

So this means that

0 (breakeven) = x*4.5bb -(1-x)*5.5bb

is the breakeven point

0=4.5x - 5.5 +5.5x
5.5 = 10x
x= 0.55

This means you only have to win the pot 55% of the time to be breakeven.

Now let's revist the shortstackers range - { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ } - this compromises 5.1% of hands. Many shortstackers attempt to steal is as high

as 40%.

5.1/40 = 12.75%.

They are only calling you ~13% of the time. of a required 45%. This is hugely +EV for you. huge. and hugely -EV for them and who wants them ruining our games anymore amirite?


----------------------------------------------------------

You can figure this out for a few more situations. The pot will always be the same so you only have to change a few things in our equation.

if they minraise out of the sb

0 (breakeven) = x*3bb -(1-x)*5.5bb
0 = 4x -5.5 +5.5x
5.5 = 9.5x
x = 58%

They don't have to fold much more often.

But skier, what if they widen their range?

Example A)

equity win tie pots won pots tied

Hand 0: 56.722% 54.42% 02.30% 69847911740 2951209546.00 { 44+, A5s+, KTs+, A7o+, KQo }

Hand 1: 43.278% 40.98% 02.30% 52593703184 2951209546.00 { 22+, A2s+, K6s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }


This time their calling range comrpomises 15.8% of total hands. or 40% of their opening range.

BUT our equity is better this time so in a 40.5bb pot we have 43.3% or 17.54bb. So now our equation is:

0 (breakeven) = x*4.5bb -(1-x)*1.46bb
0 = 4.5 - 1.46 +1.46
1.46 = 5.96x
x = 24.5%

Since they are folding 60% of their range this is hugely +EV.

Discuss.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

DOWN WITH SHORTSTACKERS

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

agreed

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

I just wanna add that you wanna be careful and make sure they are actually playing like this because they may adjust their opening range and make shoving some hands -EV, but if you keep track of how they are adjusting and keep stats you should be fine.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

good post, i do this a lot basically SNG style and agree that they fold a lot, some guys even 80% of the time

they don't adjust either obviously seeing as they are usually doing everything off a playbook

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

can't wait for OnYourBike's response

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

good post skier.

However, in the first example I think you need to make their range significantly wider.

edit: Im talking about the 99+ AQo+ AQs+

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

ty skier

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

Great post, always knew you need shove a wide range on them, good to see the math behind it.

I also agree that the in the first example that the SS range is wider then what you have implied.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

I posted in the crosspost in ssnl, but I'll post it here too. I'm a little confused as to what the conclusion is here? How wide can our shoving range be?

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

very good post, ty skier.

with the range you assigned for the shortie's button open, roughly what pfraise% would this guy have overall?

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

yah my ranges could be off esp theur calling range, but i just kinda threw this together to illustrate that shoving a wide range on them is profitable and not wrong.

As one guy pointed out in SSNL, it is possible that the top of the range is making up for a small loss for the bottom of the range, though I think this is not the case in this situation.

Maybe in a bit I'll post a few examples where they have more chips but you can just use my math to figure out the same.

Also, this is mostly for the shortstackers we all know and hate, not the shortstacking fish since the "regulars" are the ones with the high steal %.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

this is a very flawed post. you compare how profitable our 3betting range { 22+, A2s+, K6s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo } to their calling range { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ } in the first example. you say that we're going to make money when we shove. great.

but our 3betting range includes hands like AA that we're obviously shoving with obviously +EV. we just need to look at how we do with the bottom of our proposed range, a hand like JTo. if we're making money with AA, losing money with JTo, and making money on net then our range is still bad. we should only be pushing the individual hands that make money against his range (maybe a little more for meta).

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
if we're making money with AA, losing money with JTo, and making money on net then our range is still bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

if we're making money on net, cause he's folding a decent amount, given his attempt to steal is fairly high which was stated in op, how is our range still bad?

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

Man, now I have to readjust to this?

FU skiier.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if we're making money with AA, losing money with JTo, and making money on net then our range is still bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

if we're making money on net, cause he's folding a decent amount, given his attempt to steal is fairly high which was stated in op, how is our range still bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

We make more money if we don't shove hands that are -EV on their own. Good point, raise it in the SSNL thread if you want.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

skier- good math, but 40% is waaaayyy too high, and probably only true for exactly LittleZen.

Most shorties opening range UTG looks like 77+ AQ+ i would think if not tighter.

I think this mostly applies in the CO/BTN where they will open hands as weak as 87s and KTo occasionally. good post tho for sure.

also, someday someone should examine blind play vs shorties- i tend to minraise or go 2.5x when they r OOP

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is a very flawed post. you compare how profitable our 3betting range { 22+, A2s+, K6s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo } to their calling range { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ } in the first example. you say that we're going to make money when we shove. great.

but our 3betting range includes hands like AA that we're obviously shoving with obviously +EV. we just need to look at how we do with the bottom of our proposed range, a hand like JTo. if we're making money with AA, losing money with JTo, and making money on net then our range is still bad. we should only be pushing the individual hands that make money against his range (maybe a little more for meta).

[/ QUOTE ]

very good point. need some adjustment to these ranges and to mainly check the hands on the margin.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

sauce, im talking about specifically button and sb (and sometimes co). not utg.

schwza, while you are right i did [censored] up in the presentation a bit, my point was that pretty much anything with reasonable equity will show a profit by shoving over these guys.

So, let's take two of these hands

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 25.650% 25.02% 00.63% 406080276 10283238.00 { A2o, JTo }
Hand 1: 74.350% 73.72% 00.63% 1196617440 10283238.00 { TT+, AKs, AKo }


and we see that on avg we get 25.6% equity

0=4.5x - 8.63 +8.63x
8.63 = 13.132x
x= 0.66

So he needs to fold only 11% more than our collective range showed to breakeven (we have a lot more equity against a looser calling range as well) so it's still very likely profitable.

Some people suggested that their calling range might be flawed:

So if we use this range:


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 29.968% 29.21% 00.75% 894397800 23087820.00 { A2o, JTo }
Hand 1: 70.032% 69.28% 00.75% 2121026112 23087820.00 { 77+, AJs+, AQo+ }

we fill in our equation

0=4.5x - 6.85 +6.85x
6.85 = 11.35x
x= 0.603

Which still isn't much

So if they are opening { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo } (17.9% of hands) they are folding 65% of the time.

edit: was wrong to use A2o and Jto together since one does better than the other but im sick of redoing this [censored].

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
Man, now I have to readjust to this?

FU skiier.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha

nice skier

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

I dont think some people get the point that the optimal shoving range doesn't have to only include hands that are profitable when called (the whole AA and JTo thing...) The disparity between a short stack's raising range and calling range should change our shoving range (duh)

What we are looking for is an optimal game theory shoving range based on a couple different ranges that makes it so that the shortstack will lose the same ammount whether he calls or fold

This means if he is openning a large range we push more bluffs, knowing that the times we get called we may be behind.

I know most of this is common knowledge, but to the people who think that the OP is flawed because of the top/bottom of the range thing, i think you should reexamine your thought processes about why it was flawed.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if we're making money with AA, losing money with JTo, and making money on net then our range is still bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

if we're making money on net, cause he's folding a decent amount, given his attempt to steal is fairly high which was stated in op, how is our range still bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

We make more money if we don't shove hands that are -EV on their own. Good point, raise it in the SSNL thread if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

So shorty's raising 40% of his hands but only calling with the top 13% right...

27/40 = 67.5%, so 67.5% of the time this situation comes up he folds and we win his 3.5BB's + SB + BB for 5BB. 67.5% of 5BB = 3.375BB

The other 32.5% of the time, when he does call shove (13/40) we still have 33.19% equity and we win a 41.5BB pot. .3319 * 41.5 = 13.77 -----> 32.5% of 13.77 = 4.47525

3.375BB + 4.47525BB = 7.85025

Now 67.5% of the time he's gonna lose his 3.5BB when he folds to our shove. 67.5% * -3.5BB = -2.3625

And 32.5% of the time he gets it in with 66.810% equity. 32.5% of (.66810 * 41.5BB = 27.27615) is = to 9.011.

9.011 - 2.3625 = 6.648.

7.85025 > 6.648

I'm not sure exactly what those numbers represent but ours is bigger.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

agree with the OP to some extent, but be ready for shortstackers to adjust

in the first lesson of shortstacking that I posted, I talked about the same restealing stuff as something the successful shortstacker has to know

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

DON'T POST THIS MORE PEOPLE WILL BECOME SHORTSTACKS OMGOMOGMOGMG

awesome post skier - i am bad at math so i never did this.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck w/ analyzing this spot using game theory. You will go through a bazillion iterations of ranges, it sucks ass.

I spent prolly 2 hours on it b4 giving up.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

damn it i was thinking about writing this up for my senior thesis....

looks like it's gonna be plagerized after i read this post [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck w/ analyzing this spot using game theory. You will go through a bazillion iterations of ranges, it sucks ass.

I spent prolly 2 hours on it b4 giving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey a thread you can contribute too [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck w/ analyzing this spot using game theory. You will go through a bazillion iterations of ranges, it sucks ass.

I spent prolly 2 hours on it b4 giving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 hours LOL

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, this is true. that was the "(maybe a few more hands for meta)" bit at the end of my last post b/c i didn't feel like getting into it.

honestly i think the more interesting question is about deciding when to reraise a shorty when you are not in the bb and there are other normal stacks left to act.

but it's ok, stars will make all tables "deep stacked" (min 50 bbs and max 100) soon. *prays*

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, this is true. that was the "(maybe a few more hands for meta)" bit at the end of my last post b/c i didn't feel like getting into it.

honestly i think the more interesting question is about deciding when to reraise a shorty when you are not in the bb and there are other normal stacks left to act.

but it's ok, stars will make all tables "deep stacked" (min 50 bbs and max 100) soon. *prays*

[/ QUOTE ]

i like the way snrub thinks!

i think normal stacks know it's a marginal spot without huge holdings - that's not a situation i expect to come up too often.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

Good post.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck w/ analyzing this spot using game theory. You will go through a bazillion iterations of ranges, it sucks ass.

I spent prolly 2 hours on it b4 giving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 hours LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

This was for one very specific spot, BB vs a btn who opens xx%.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

thanks for posting this. didnt realize how the math worked out. good stuff.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, thinking about this some more, given that we lose money on some hands the shortstacker has to increase his range which gets our big money making hands called more often (and increases our equity with our [censored] hands) so it may not be completely correct that we can only anaylze the bottom end of the range and determine if those hands show a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck w/ analyzing this spot using game theory. You will go through a bazillion iterations of ranges, it sucks ass.

I spent prolly 2 hours on it b4 giving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

2 hours LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

This was for one very specific spot, BB vs a btn who opens xx%.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, poker must be a very intellectually rewarding experience for you. all those complexities!

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

There arent enough regular shortstacker who steal raise 40% for any of this to matter.

Also, lets not forget that the shortstacker in the blind can shove in over YOUR button raise with the same frequency and you are the one in the bad spot.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

I probably resteal too much if anything.

Re: Something you guys dont do enough
 

good job posting all this skier