Colin Moshman Pushing Tables

Rhett · #1 07-31-2007, 03:49 AM

Any opinion on his correctness? I find that in some cases, he is a little tighter than I am. Also, his chart is crazy-hard to remember. I usually just estimate if i need to have a top 30%, top 50% hand or whatever.

Here are some examples to show what I mean:

The idea is that this is a rule-of-thumb chart to give you a rough guide. He does not specify the number of players left, opponent stack sizes, etc.

So, with 7BB in the cuttoff, he recommends:
"54s+, 22+ A6o+, A2s+, K8o+, K4s+, Any two face cards, Any two suited cards T or higher, T8+, QTo"

At first glance, I figured this was just the printout of the top 35% hands or something from SNG power tools, but I don't think these recommendations correspond to any top % of Karlson-Skalansky hand rankings. In fact, I'm not really sure what his estimates correspond to.

stevi3p · #2 07-31-2007, 06:02 AM

I haven't seen the book, but don't really see how you can generate pushing tables without knowing stack sizes or how many are left in the tournament. A lot of pushing happens round bubble time, and here stack sizes are often more important than your cards.

I don't think there's a perfect way of categorising hands. e.g., Karlson-Slanksky rates hands to how they play if they were face up, which clearly isn't very logical. So I don't object to the author coming up with his own rankings. FWIW, I'm surprised K4s is higher than A5o, and Q9s.

Luisgallo · #3 07-31-2007, 06:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I'm surprised K4s is higher than A5o, and Q9s.

[/ QUOTE ]

K4s being superior of Q9s is pretty much logical.
I think putting K4s>A5o is not because he believes K4s is a better hand but simply because you are more likely called by a better A than a better K, so K4s if called has less chances of being dominated then A5o.

I actually do not dislike this.

ymu · #4 07-31-2007, 06:44 AM

I haven't seen the book either, but agree with stevi - I can't see how it's possible to do this, unless they are some very complicated tables with dimensions relating to stack sizes, number of players left and the calling ranges behind you. SAGE does something similar for HU, but that's a vastly simpler situation.

IFoldPktOnes · #5 07-31-2007, 11:20 AM

I've played around extensively with hand rankings applications to tournaments, K4s>A5o is quite logical under almost all circumstances where you are pushing 7BBs and K4s is near the edge of your range. You have to think in terms of range vs range, your opponents will need at least ~45% equity vs your entire range, resulting in a tight calling range against which A5o is often dominated.

Under similar circumstances K4s>Q9s will only occur if you assign calling ranges by Slansky rankings (or similar) which omit too many pocket pairs. For example against {99+,AJs+,AQo+} K4s>Q9s>A5o holds true. Slansky rankings are horrible for assigning tight calling ranges in tournaments. In my opinion Q9s>K4s in this situation and in almost all other realistic pushing situations. To illustrate this replace the above range with {88+,AQ+} or {88+,AQs+,AKo} and see how the equities change.

Also in the situation above when K4s>Q9s and you are not pushing Q9s then you should almost definitely not be pushing hands like A6o through to ATo, K8o, K9o, QTo, T8o+. All this leads me to believe these tables were based off the authors intuition.

Collin Moshman · #6 07-31-2007, 01:04 PM

Hi Guys,

These tables are certainly not absolute, since other relevant factors (most importantly opponent calling ranges) are not considered in these condensed tables. Instead I just wanted to give a basic guideline for the hands you should be looking to push when short-stacked at various positions.

I will be looking to expand/improve on this table, for future editions or simply to have as a useful chart for STTFers. So feedback on any aspect of these tables is quite welcome.

Best Regards,
Collin

kleath · #7 07-31-2007, 01:13 PM

Isnt that range a mistake in the CO with standard calling ranges? Each of the people left to act need to be calling 10% or so to make that type of range good, and I don't think any BB is ever calling that tight. I've found when I review hands that at least SNGWiz is having me play pretty tight from the CO w/ 7-9 BBs

Shillx · #8 07-31-2007, 01:19 PM

I haven't seen the book, but don't really see how you can generate pushing tables without knowing stack sizes or how many are left in the tournament.

Push % is basically independant of the stack sizes around you and the number of players left (n > 4).

It looks like his suggested range ammounts to about 35% and that is probably a bit high but not unreasonable.

fluorescenthippo · #9 07-31-2007, 01:24 PM

it looks a little loose with suited connectors but otherwise okay. also im assuming you have to do some work yourself. like if your stack is 7bb but half the people after you have 5 bb, then you really have 6bb, etc. and obviously play tighter on the bubble.

Slim Pickens · #10 07-31-2007, 01:39 PM

Without having looked into it in too much detail, I'm going to guess since they seem to be loaded up with suited connectors that the author assumes fairly stiff calling ranges for opponents. This might have been true at one time... one... beautiful... time in our past. All hand ranking systems must assume something about the opponents' calling ranges, even though most people never really get what that means.

The chart seems to be organized by stack size assuming everyone covers, which is a pretty good lower bound on your equity. Specifically it's worst-case for pushing, getting called, and losing. As always, we could argue about calling ranges forever and not solve anything. I'm sure there is a calling range that fits his pushing ranges exactly. Whether or not it makes any sense is left as an exercise for the reader I guess.