Should I get invoved in this pot?

[Mingdu]

[ QUOTE ]
Gamble - Push
Conservative - Fold

You don't want to see him turn over AK...

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a gamble to NOT take +ev situations in most cases. Especially so here as you cover both villians and would still have an above average stack if you crash.

I really don't see the problem here

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I am making the assumption that calling here (or shoving) with AQ is a marginally close cEV play (maybe slightly -cEV mayble slight +cEV).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't really had time to digest all that you're saying here, but on my first read this sticks out to me as a problem. I don't think theres anything marginal about pushing here, I would say its full blown +EV.

Interesting stuff though.

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire analysis hinges on the assumption that this is marginally close EV. Given that OP doesn't give us any real reads (like the ones I might have if I were at the table the entire time) I made that assumption. If calling/shoving here is widely +cEV, then by all means do so. Most often when I am at the table, I'll have a better feel for ranges and will just know if this is +EV or -EV right out and not have to consider much beyond that. But sometimes when I am not sure, (as I am here) I'll consider other variables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your post Sherman, though I'd push and just tend to think that more chips is usually just better. It's worth noting, however, that the table dynamic affects the utility of your stack. Sometimes at some tables, a big stack is golden, sometimes not. Here, I'd suggest it would be worth it because it gives you enormous leverage (like in this hand) over stacks that don't want to bust. Also, when you have position on a big stack who's throwing a party, it's a good time to have a big stack. The essential point about considering stack utility I think is very valid though.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I am making the assumption that calling here (or shoving) with AQ is a marginally close cEV play (maybe slightly -cEV mayble slight +cEV).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't really had time to digest all that you're saying here, but on my first read this sticks out to me as a problem. I don't think theres anything marginal about pushing here, I would say its full blown +EV.

Interesting stuff though.

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire analysis hinges on the assumption that this is marginally close EV. Given that OP doesn't give us any real reads (like the ones I might have if I were at the table the entire time) I made that assumption. If calling/shoving here is widely +cEV, then by all means do so. Most often when I am at the table, I'll have a better feel for ranges and will just know if this is +EV or -EV right out and not have to consider much beyond that. But sometimes when I am not sure, (as I am here) I'll consider other variables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your post Sherman, though I'd push and just tend to think that more chips is usually just better. It's worth noting, however, that the table dynamic affects the utility of your stack. Sometimes at some tables, a big stack is golden, sometimes not. Here, I'd suggest it would be worth it because it gives you enormous leverage (like in this hand) over stacks that don't want to bust. Also, when you have position on a big stack who's throwing a party, it's a good time to have a big stack. The essential point about considering stack utility I think is very valid though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all true. I'd also have to consider table dynamics. Again, I am assuming typical 4/180 bubble and people are desperate to win $4.00+. So I am assuming that you will be able to pick up some easy pots with PF raises in the next orbit or so. If your table has been pretty aggo and you don't figure to have much opportunity to steal, I'd probably be getting it in here.

In a nutshell, sometimes the best plan for a particular hand isn't the best plan for a particular tournament/table. Usually it is. In this situation, it is hard for me to tell (w/out being there) if the plan for the hand and the plan for the tournament agree or disagree.

[PantsOnFire]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, you didn't mention the meagre payouts before the final table. And even then, the money doesn't get good until 5th or 4rth. To me, and to many in these $4 tourneys, there isn't really a bubble since the difference between $0 and $6 isn't that much of a concern. Making the final table in these is main objective of most players.

One other factor in this decision is the outcome of losing to Button but beating CO. That side pot would almost cover any loss to Button.

You make a good case but in this situation I still decide to move in.

[seke2]

There is definitely a bubble, even in low-stakes games. Just from a psychological perspective, most people want to make money from playing. It validates their ability that they were able to cash in the tournament. Not to mention the fact that people just want to feel like they haven't wasted the time they invested in the game.

The point about the sidepot that PantsOnFire noted is also pretty important and not something to ignore, it's another factor that makes pushing +cEV here.

[dave6]

I also think this is an easy push. CO is usually folding here (minraise tells me he wants to be able to get away from the hand), and you're ahead of button's range (probably at least 88+, AT+; you could also see lower pairs, weaker aces, or KQ depending on the player). Even if you run into QQ/KK/AK, you're losing relatively few chips in the long run because of the overlay.

Also, the 4/180's definitely have a bubble. 2+2ers may not care about $8, but many other players do.

[8Adam8]

shove

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, you didn't mention the meagre payouts before the final table. And even then, the money doesn't get good until 5th or 4rth. To me, and to many in these $4 tourneys, there isn't really a bubble since the difference between $0 and $6 isn't that much of a concern. Making the final table in these is main objective of most players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played with a villain last friday who literally time-banked every single hand from the last three tables until she reached the FT. EVERY SINGLE HAND. Even when we went H4H, she time-banked. People definitally care about the bubble, even in 4/180s.

The nice thing was, she was on my immediate left which led to maximum blind stealage.

[jbright]

I tend to agree with Sherman that this is probably a marginal situation from a pure EV perspective.

The minraise from CO is sort of confusing, he doesn't really have enough chips to do any raise but an all-in, so while its possible he's making only a feeble attempt at a steal, its also very possible he's slowplaying AA or KK. He's risking 20% of his stack with a minraise at time when that 20% could mean the difference between in the money or not. If he had something like TT or JJ, he would definitely just push preflop, while if he has something like AT or AJ he'll definitely fold to your push, so if you have him dominated you only get his original t1250 and don't get his stack.

But its the button who really raises a red flag here. He's short, but still has enough to probably skate into the money (only 5 more to get knocked out and shorter stacks are out there). So would he really want to try a resteal against a hand that is almost priced in to call, and with a big stack behind him in the blinds? This is a very risky move so close to the money if he's a typical player who gets tighter on the bubble. So there's at least a sizable chance he's got AK or QQ-AA here.

Also, AQ is a hand that can pinched in a 3way all-in. If one player has AK and the other has a small or mid pair, AQ is only 20% to win (-EV). If he's against two lower pairs, he's only about 35%, which is really just a marginal situation. And get this: against AJs and a middle pair, he's STILL only about 30% to win, which is also a marginal EV situation.

Of course the side pot might alter things in OP's favor a little, as would a coinflip against the button if the CO folds (dead money in pot)... but when you put it all together the best case scenarios still arent that great from an EV point of view, while the worst case scenario (one of the villains has AA or AK) makes OP a huge dog.

That's why I think Sherman's added analysis of the risk/reward of either winning or losing 6K chips is right on here. Going from 18K to 24K is pretty good, but going from 18k to 12k is really disappointing and puts him back in the medium stack range where stealing and making moves becomes a lot tougher.

Maybe it's being a bit conservative, but with a nice strong stack heading into the money it doesn't seem like the best time to put 1/3 of it on the line with AQ against a raise and reraise.

Incidentally, If this was a bigger money tournament and I knew button was an experienced shark-type player, I'd be more inclined to think he's restealing with a weak or medium hand... but at this level most players really want to get to the money so I'm more inclined to give him credit for a big hand.

[kenny7]

Really interesting this one.Posts like this is why this is a very good forum.My intial reaction would have been to call here,CO raise looks like a steal,which means button's range is pretty wide.

However,I think both Sherman and Seke2 are making some excellent points here. The psychology of the players are really important here. I think a lot of good players forget that. In a $4 tourney like this,I'm pretty sure that the majority of players are very happy with a cash,any cash.

I was also thinking it's not that far fetched that CO has AA here,he's praying for a push or a call so he can double up,but maybe I'm just overthinking......

Have to say though,the more I think about this hand,the more I give button credit for a big hand. I think Seke2 is spot on,the validation of finishing in the money,it's a big deal,and if we have this player pegged as your average low-stakes guy,I'm leaning more and more to a fold here.

I understand that in another tournament,this is instapush,but considering all the factors....I think that you will find yourself up against a big hand a large % of the time here.

Completely flip-flopping on this one,really good arguments both ways.

Wrote this post while doing a few other things,see from the previous poster that I'm not the only one considering AA for CO here. Darn,hoped I'd be the first one to throw another monkeywrench in here.....