Second Chance, 10 Left, Blinds Battle

[NYWalker]

[ QUOTE ]



Blinds: t7500/t15000
(Ante: t750)
6 players


Pre-flop: (6 players) uclabruinz is SB with 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
4 folds, uclabruinz calls t7500 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t27000)</font>, BB checks.

Flop: 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (t34500, 2 players)
<font color="#cc0000">uclabruinz bets t20000</font>, BB calls t20000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t54500)</font>.

Turn: K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (t74500, 2 players)
uclabruinz checks, <font color="#cc0000">BB bets t30000</font>, uclabruinz calls t30000 <font color="aaaaaa">(pot was t104500)</font>.

River: 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (t134500, 2 players)
uclabruinz checks, <font color="#cc0000">BB is all-in t456730</font>, <font color="#cc0000">uclabruinz calls all-in t149954</font>.
Uncalled bets: t306776 returned to BB.

Results:
Final pot: t434408


[/ QUOTE ]

My first thought about villain's river push is villain has polarize hands - either air or flush. But after looking at the turn's pot size (105K) and ucla's remaining stack (149K), I think villain was valuebetting the river. Because of ucla's stack size, pot size and the river card, assume villain value bet 80K at the river, most hands in ucla's range would fold. But shove the river looks like a bluff and is likely to get called by worse hands.

I would play the flop the same way, if I check/call the turn, I fold to a push if a diamond hits the river.

If I decide to call any river push, I may crai the turn.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
completely unexploitable

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't matter at all, because it's terrible. I'm a big fan of the raptor theorem ("unexploitable play sucks ass") and this is a good example of it right here. you're on the FT bubble and you want to shove 14 BB to win ~2 with a hand that's like 35% against villain's likely calling range? please do it with my 10-20 BB stack at the table, because I'll cheer you on the whole way. it's unexploitable and +cEV all the way to the Sklansky bank for everyone else collecting your dollars.

if you want to wind up all in PF for some reason, the way to do it is to limp/RR.

[CrazyJDEight]

I'm a moron so you could please explain?

Is it because $EV!=cEV at this stage in the tournament?

[WarDekar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
completely unexploitable

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't matter at all, because it's terrible. I'm a big fan of the raptor theorem ("unexploitable play sucks ass") and this is a good example of it right here. you're on the FT bubble and you want to shove 14 BB to win ~2 with a hand that's like 35% against villain's likely calling range? please do it with my 10-20 BB stack at the table, because I'll cheer you on the whole way. it's unexploitable and +cEV all the way to the Sklansky bank for everyone else collecting your dollars.

if you want to wind up all in PF for some reason, the way to do it is to limp/RR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, and maybe it's not the most +EV way to play the hand, but it's not "terrible" - Folding PF is terrible

Paul,

Were you betting 100% of flops, or did you like this one particularly?

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
completely unexploitable

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't matter at all, because it's terrible. I'm a big fan of the raptor theorem ("unexploitable play sucks ass") and this is a good example of it right here. you're on the FT bubble and you want to shove 14 BB to win ~2 with a hand that's like 35% against villain's likely calling range? please do it with my 10-20 BB stack at the table, because I'll cheer you on the whole way. it's unexploitable and +cEV all the way to the Sklansky bank for everyone else collecting your dollars.

if you want to wind up all in PF for some reason, the way to do it is to limp/RR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Shoving is terrible? Please explain to me how it is terrible. You'd rather play it oop vs a big stack? Yea, limpreraising is an option, but ucla hasn't given us any indication that BB would raise us light if we limped. Since we'd basically have no FE if BB raised to 45-60k, he'd have to be raising somewhat light for a lrr to be profitable. If UCLA had a read that BB will raise our limp with ATC, then sure go for the lrr. But I don't see that read in the OP.

I think people grossly overestimate the difference between cEV and $EV late in MTTs, especially online MTTs. The difference between 10th and 9th is miniscule, irrelevant. Passing up on marginal but definite edges due to the bubble is just stupid. Plus shoving preflop isn't even that marginal. It's worth ~2/3 of a BB and at the same time negates our positional disadvantage.

And it's not like our monster 14bb stack affords us to just chill out before the final table. There's antes and a blind increase can't be more than 15 minutes away. We aren't guaranteed to "find a better spot" before we have blinded away a bit and the blinds have gone up, significantly reducing our FE.

btw with a few more bbs i'd rather limp

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
completely unexploitable

[/ QUOTE ]

that doesn't matter at all, because it's terrible. I'm a big fan of the raptor theorem ("unexploitable play sucks ass") and this is a good example of it right here. you're on the FT bubble and you want to shove 14 BB to win ~2 with a hand that's like 35% against villain's likely calling range? please do it with my 10-20 BB stack at the table, because I'll cheer you on the whole way. it's unexploitable and +cEV all the way to the Sklansky bank for everyone else collecting your dollars.

if you want to wind up all in PF for some reason, the way to do it is to limp/RR.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, except this is a terrible example of the raptor theorem. actually I'd never heard of it before, but I'm guessing he wasnt talking about +cEV plays being -$EV because of payout structures. If he was, he should probably reword his theorem.

[uclabruinz]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul,

Were you betting 100% of flops, or did you like this one particularly?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the time, I liked this one. While it may look a bit suspicious that I'm representing an ace when I completed preflop, villain really has a hard time continuing the 67% of the time he misses this flop (or if he has a flush draw). That was my thinking at the time, but now I tend to agree with Adanthar that it probably was better to just check/fold. I would have had 13 BBs left, enough to look to resteal at some point in the next orbit or two.

Adanthar,

You said you would have taken some other preflop/flop combination, but hate open shoving. Could you describe in more detail what exactly you would do in this situation?

[KingDan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
tough decison. fwiw i would just shove preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that unexploitably +EV? We don't have big antes, and any kind of thinking villain is going to know my range is wide and does not include top hands, since my stack is perfect for a raise to induce a shove with a big hand. He has a big enough stack to call comfortably. Unless this is mathematically unexploitable, I think shoving is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea I jam pf un1ess I have good reason not to.

Fwiw you can shove k8o faceup with 30bb no antes. Here its an abso1ute no brainer.

Adanthar if it were c1oser I wou1d agree with you but I fee1 1ike its so massive1y +ev here that chip ev/ $ev concerns arent rea11y re1evant.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
You said you would have taken some other preflop/flop combination, but hate open shoving. Could you describe in more detail what exactly you would do in this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

vs this opponent, limp/RR (and then c/f here), raise/call or raise/fold [if he shoves a big range obviously this isn't an option] are probably all better than this.