I'm the Chipleader w/ 7,7 vs. the 2nd Biggest Stack, Pre-flop

[jason75]

[ QUOTE ]
77 is a lot better HU than multiway right? I was just saying that I don't like calling 3 blinds, and then being forced to call another 3 w/o seeing the flop. Also bloats the pot when I don't want it to be big yet. Any sort of bet on the flop to even try to take it down is going to have to be like half my stack or something (1800 PF, 4-5k on the flop).

Not to mention what if it goes

raise, I call, BB pushes, CO repushes. Now we have to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you'd have to call 3 then 3 more BB's . . . . If BB pushes, then CO is going to make this an easy decision . . . if he calls, I think we push, if he pushes, we fold . . . if he's a moron and folds then we're heads up with a lot of dead money (perhaps he's a moron who had junk or a very weak hand and was just angling for the blinds - I wouldn't completely discount this).

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah i agree with this jason. villain would call the 900 more from the BB's all-in with all of the hands he would open-raise with, and almost surely would've reraised to isolate the BB with premium holdings. that means we're very likely to have villain beat, and so we push to isolate the dead money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see a lot of people do this with AA and KK. QQ or less I can understand isolation shoving (CO that is), but why would AA or KK isolation shove? I prefer to actually build a little side pot against SB than to shove him out of the pot. A raise is fine with AA or KK after BB shove, but why push SB out of pot with a shove?

[Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]

Just so you know, raising and then folding to a REraise is going to be pretty close to -EV as a play. If it is not -EV, it is definitely the least +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

disagree. the times you reraise and fold to a shove, you lose +2850. the times you reraise and he folds you win +1350. he would have to be 4-betting you all-in about 1 out of 3 times for this to be slightly -EV. but he is not 4-betting this often given his opening range of hands vs. his 4-betting hands.

and i can't see flat calling being of a greater EV for reasons already stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are discounting flat calling as being more +EV than raising and folding? I'd like to see the math that supports that. 1 in 8 times we hit a set and a large percentage of the time when we hit a set we get villains stack. Other times we win uncontested on a low card flop or an OESD gutshot type flop by being aggressive on our draw, still others we win after hitting our draw and get villains stack. A lot of possible scenario's, but the most relevent is 1 in 8 times we hit a set, that's 1:7. Assume we get villains stack 40% of that time and 30% of the time we get say 1/4 of his stack and 30% of the time, he doesn't put another penny in (guess we should add somewhere, 5% of the time he hits a hand that can beat our set of 7's). Raising and folding can't possibly be more profitable than calling or raising and calling reraise/shove. Obviously I'm too lazy to do the actual calcs, so I could be convinced otherwise if I saw the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained previously that villian's stack is barely enough to neutral EV for set value. So the only overlay we're getting is those other scenarios (Overpair/OESD etc). But we know villian is a good player, so he's probably not paying us off/stacking us a lot more of the time than normal.

Your approximations are wildly optomistic.

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just so you know, raising and then folding to a REraise is going to be pretty close to -EV as a play. If it is not -EV, it is definitely the least +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

disagree. the times you reraise and fold to a shove, you lose +2850. the times you reraise and he folds you win +1350. he would have to be 4-betting you all-in about 1 out of 3 times for this to be slightly -EV. but he is not 4-betting this often given his opening range of hands vs. his 4-betting hands.

and i can't see flat calling being of a greater EV for reasons already stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are discounting flat calling as being more +EV than raising and folding? I'd like to see the math that supports that. 1 in 8 times we hit a set and a large percentage of the time when we hit a set we get villains stack. Other times we win uncontested on a low card flop or an OESD gutshot type flop by being aggressive on our draw, still others we win after hitting our draw and get villains stack. A lot of possible scenario's, but the most relevent is 1 in 8 times we hit a set, that's 1:7. Assume we get villains stack 40% of that time and 30% of the time we get say 1/4 of his stack and 30% of the time, he doesn't put another penny in (guess we should add somewhere, 5% of the time he hits a hand that can beat our set of 7's). Raising and folding can't possibly be more profitable than calling or raising and calling reraise/shove. Obviously I'm too lazy to do the actual calcs, so I could be convinced otherwise if I saw the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've explained previously that villian's stack is barely enough to neutral EV for set value. So the only overlay we're getting is those other scenarios (Overpair/OESD etc). But we know villian is a good player, so he's probably not paying us off/stacking us a lot more of the time than normal.

Your approximations are wildly optomistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dave, sorry I didn't read through wherever you posted this, must have missed it, but where are you coming up with there being no implied odds to play for set value. We have to call 600 chips for his raise. We need to be getting at least 7:1 implied odds to play for set value. Stacks are plenty deep for the implied odds.

[Messy Harry]

Thanks to everyone for making great arguments. This has been helpful for me.

I re-raised from the big blind to 2300, the big blind folded, and Mr. 8500 insta-shoved. I did call and he flipped over A,Q offsuit. He hit an overcard and I lost.

While I am going to re-read all the responses several times to digest them further, at this time I think I am more of the mindset to call the pre-flop raise and "play poker" as some have suggested. I made this post because I wanted to be sure I wasn't just being results oriented since I lost the flip.

This isn't to say I would never again re-raise out of the small blind, as of course I will. However, in this particular instance this sequence of events had me in a spot I didn't want to be in (when he shoved) and more importantly, one I didn't have to be in, given my position at the table and in the tourney.

While I was surprised that the villain turned over A,Q off (I would think A,K would be the minimum hand I'd see here), I can also understand that my re-raise (and perhaps some of you might rightly say it was too small of a re-raise) may have appeared to just be a re-steal by the big stack at the table, thus yielding the shove.

I agree with another poster who said a re-raise shove by me screams low or middle pair. But if for some reason I was determined to play a big pot with the 7's (and I really shouldn't have been at this juncture), I would rather push and make him call w/ A,Q.....but I don't think that's the right course of action here (unless you're strictly re-raising for metagame purposes) since you only get called by hands that beat you, and it's also not worth putting your whole stack in just to win villain's 900 raise.

[jason75]

I think often some posters here underestimate how many mediocre players there are out there and assume everyone is playing very tightly. Many players who would raise with AT in the CO would call a push with it . . . I've seen it far too many times to be convinced that giving them ultra tight ranges for 3 and 4-betting is correct.

I think this just speaks to the variance of our analyses here . . . particularly given that we never have as full a picture as any of us would at the table.

But I think this produces some really interesting discussion . . . . .

Anyway, just my 0.02 here.

[Dave D]

[ QUOTE ]

Dave, sorry I didn't read through wherever you posted this, must have missed it, but where are you coming up with there being no implied odds to play for set value. We have to call 600 chips for his raise. We need to be getting at least 7:1 implied odds to play for set value. Stacks are plenty deep for the implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, we're in the SB, and villian made it 900 to go, so we have to call 750.

I messed up the math some in my previous post, but nevertheless when villian has 8500 and we have to call 750, we're getting like 11.5:1 (w/ the blinds). I suppose you're right there technically, but I mean, that assumes we're stacking him every time basically. OP said he's a good player, so we're probably stacking him less often than we think. I think realistically our long run EV here is like 50% of 11.5:1 (I think if we make a set, we're getting him to put all his chips in a lot less than usual, especially b/c he looks to be stealing pretty clearly).

Otherwise, most of the time we're gonna have situations like a J92 flop, where we're playing OOP, and probably usually folding to a c-bet. Overall I just fold here.

[mlagoo]

dave,

while we're not stacking him everytime, we also don't have to make a set to win the pot. it's like ... if he has an overpair, we're likely stacking him everytime we hit a set. if he doesn't, we're likely winning the pot some of the times we don't hit a set.

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]

that assumes we're stacking him every time basically. OP said he's a good player, so we're probably stacking him less often than we think. I think realistically our long run EV here is like 50% of 11.5:1 (I think if we make a set, we're getting him to put all his chips in a lot less than usual, especially b/c he looks to be stealing pretty clearly).

Otherwise, most of the time we're gonna have situations like a J92 flop, where we're playing OOP, and probably usually folding to a c-bet. Overall I just fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are not getting villains stack here that often, then by the same token our odds of winning the pot UI also go up when we miss our set.

Very interesting thread. I like the discussion, since LP battles are one of the most crucial parts of going deep into a tourny.

[mmmmmbeeeer]

[ QUOTE ]

Dave, sorry I didn't read through wherever you posted this, must have missed it, but where are you coming up with there being no implied odds to play for set value. We have to call 600 chips for his raise. We need to be getting at least 7:1 implied odds to play for set value. Stacks are plenty deep for the implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're calling 750, since we're sb.

in general, i think people overestimate how often flopping a set leads to stacking an opponent. this is especially true in this case b/c A) opponent is good and, more importantly, B) since his opening range is very wide, the vast majority of the times we flop a set villain is not going to also have a hand with which he is willing to stack off.

and the times we don't flop sets, i just can't see us making chips. our hand is inherently difficult to play. we're out of position. the guy is seemingly a good player. you mention being aggressive with our draws, but in fact our opponent is more likely than us to hold some sort of hand with which he can flop a draw and get us off the best hand.