$200 SNG Question

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
It slighly annoys me that good players bash mini-raising almost exclusively because no great players they know do it, when it is almost certain that mini-raising would be part of a theoretically optimal poker strategy.

And while in the real world mini-raising almost always means the guy doing it has big ears and a tail, mini-raising is not the reason why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that if minraising preflop were useful in real-world cash games, real-world cash players would've picked up on it by now?

I admit that I play practically no sit-n-gos, so low-M constraints may make it a worthwhile play on occasion. However, one of the sit-n-go guys in this thread is suggesting that open-pushing would be a lot stronger than the minraise here anyway, which makes a lot of sense to me.

I think the reason that nl players prefer pot-sized raises is because of "invisible antes": people play too loose preflop, across the board, and with positional pot-sized raises it's easier to take advantage of that. So, while a theoretical unexploitable strategy might incorporate minraises because savvy opponents fold to bigger raises, in actuality most everyone in hold'em poker is making the same exploitable mistake (calling raises loosely), and real world strategy adapts to take advantage of that.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It slighly annoys me that good players bash mini-raising almost exclusively because no great players they know do it, when it is almost certain that mini-raising would be part of a theoretically optimal poker strategy.

And while in the real world mini-raising almost always means the guy doing it has big ears and a tail, mini-raising is not the reason why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that if minraising preflop were useful in real-world cash games, real-world cash players would've picked up on it by now?

I admit that I play practically no sit-n-gos, so low-M constraints may make it a worthwhile play on occasion. However, one of the sit-n-go guys in this thread is suggesting that open-pushing would be a lot stronger than the minraise here anyway, which makes a lot of sense to me.

I think the reason that nl players prefer pot-sized raises is because of "invisible antes": people play too loose preflop, across the board, and with positional pot-sized raises it's easier to take advantage of that. So, while a theoretical unexploitable strategy might incorporate minraises because savvy opponents fold to bigger raises, in actuality most everyone in hold'em poker is making the same exploitable mistake (calling raises loosely), and real world strategy adapts to take advantage of that.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the point. In cash games where everyone has 100xBB, people play loose and will call 4xBB or whatever, so why miniraise.

In an MTT or SNG where you are trying to steal the blinds, a miniraise may be best as it gets the job done cheaper. It is harder to resteal against and easier to dump to action. Granted, you are more likely to get called and see a flop. With really tight play typical of late in SNGs and MTTs there are advantages to miniraising.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that if minraising preflop were useful in real-world cash games, real-world cash players would've picked up on it by now?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key argument, but I think the answer is no. The best no limit players are the ones that are expert hand readers and psychologists, not mathematical gurus.

But sizing preflop raises optimally is obviously not where the money is. I must be turning into an old carmudgeon at 26 to even care.

The last paragraph in your post is great.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason that nl players prefer pot-sized raises is because of "invisible antes": people play too loose preflop, across the board, and with positional pot-sized raises it's easier to take advantage of that. So, while a theoretical unexploitable strategy might incorporate minraises because savvy opponents fold to bigger raises, in actuality most everyone in hold'em poker is making the same exploitable mistake (calling raises loosely), and real world strategy adapts to take advantage of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the game every shifts to rock-dom, somebody should decide to make those invisible antes visible, so we can have our golden goose back.

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the point. In cash games where everyone has 100xBB, people play loose and will call 4xBB or whatever, so why miniraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

That kinda depends on what your hand is, you are making a strong argument for mini raising here.

[Jman28]

This is actually pretty close IMO.

It matters if this is live or online. People play so differently in SNGs live than online, so the unknowns range depends greatly on the details. If live, I'd want some appearence details. It makes a big difference whether he is a 22 yr old asian kid or a 70 yr old white guy.

This early in the SNG (meaning 9 people left) I actually believe in pushing somewhat small edges, especially as the stakes get higher (players get better). This goes against common SNG theory. My belief has to do with setting up optimal bubble situations. I've never proven my idea, but I've convinced myself of it.

Anyways, yeah. I would wanna be slightly +cEV to make this call vs. what I expected his range to be.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
You have gotten your starting 1500 in chips up to 2100. Blinds are 50-100. All nine players are still there. You open on the button for 200 with a pair of sevens. Big blind moves all in for 1300 total. You have never seen him before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't minraise in this situation because it encourages the blinds to shove over you.

Call. Close, though.

[Jackal69]

whee, another sitnspin quiz...! A few things:

- Im really glad Sheets typed all that out so no-one else had to...
- although as far as i can see (and i just got up) bb pushes for 1300 total, meaning its 1100 to us to win 1550?
- in this spot id almost always make it 250 (or push, depending on sb stack), giving me odds of 1050 to win 1600
- this and the fact we have chips back makes it a marginal call (1100 to win 1550 is really, really close).
- back me for PCA sheets? J ;-)

J
6
9

[MadAgenda]

The Approximate Distribution for the BB:

50% AK AQ AJ (1/2)AT = 56 holdings
30% pp 66-22 = 30 holdings
20% pp 99 TT JJ = 18 holdings
pp QQ KK AA = 18 holdings, but not harmonious with the push (these holdings almost seem negligable to the calculation in my opinion, he should be very comfortable making a modest reraise with QQ-AA b/c he has enough value to be
betting for value here, not denying odds with maximum force (something in the range of reraising half his stack seems much more correct for QQ-AA). A lot of the times when I see sequence discord in holdings that would otherwise would be considered "possible" holdings by less advanced players, I'll omit them from the distribution to make the calculation process more bearable for my math at the table.
so..
- After the push the pot is at 1550, 1100 back, now getting almost exactly 1.4 : 1 , calling here at 42% becomes the break even EV line...

Next bring the distribution in to decide how close the value of 77 is to the break even EV line:

Vs. overcards: you win slightly more than half the time of the 50% distribution - 28%

Vs. 66-22: you're a 4:1 favorite, or 24% of the distributed 30%

VS. 99-JJ: you're a 4:1 dog on 20%, so the suckout gives 4% more to the addition.

Now just add your edges - 28% + 24% + 4% = 56%

difference in break even line and distributive line = +14%

so it definitely looks like a +ev play, even if you want to assign some percentage to QQ-AA, but I might still lay down rather than put 3/5 of my chips at risk, for 1/2 of my chips it's a very hard decision, but at 1/3 of my stack im obviously moving toward an insta-call range with that distribution. It all basically comes down to how much of an edge you think you have at the table ... if you're weaker than half the players in the field, I'd lean toward the call at 1.4 : 1, if you consider yourself strong, then feel comfortable folding and picking a more +EV spot (for the majority of your chips) to better reflect your level of skill.

[pokerponcho]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
since we minraised, I deduce that we suck, so we should seek out coinflips/marginal situations rather than let the other players outplay us, therefore call

[/ QUOTE ]
wow i was going to post the exact same thing, ni han sir

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, letting your opponents continually put the heat on you in a sit 'n go is horrid! Nobody is going to buy that you actually have AA, and even if they do they now have implied odds to call and draw out with any two. You've basically stated "PLEASE OMG DON'T RERAISE ME, I'M NOT SO STRONG" and then he re-raised you. Now what? If I played this bad, my best chance would be to gamble here. But, if someone handed me the controls after this scenario... I'd tell the bugger to go play some candyland while I scoop 50% of the prize pool after FOLDING the 77 to the massive all-in. It's probably a bigger pocket-pair than yours anyways.

This would be a call, IMO, if you had AK or if he flipped his hand over and he showed AK. He probably has 88-QQ, AK, AQ. That does not look appetizing to me.

Oh, way to ruin your table image too. Perhaps that's just an afterthough?! I don't want my opponents to know that I play like a girl, or they are going to be making plays at me all night.

[Dot_the_Bot]

dope