Gus' 6,4 Hearts Call Against Tony G on PAD

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm suprised by the hostility you've shown in a thus-far great conversation. I'm not sure where it comes from, but so far I've enjoyed the ideas shared on this thread. I've learned a lot about the stop-n-go play and have had an opportunity to analyze it for myself. All of those things have been useful for me and hopefully others.

As for disagreeing with you (and others), the questions/issue is wide open (many others have agreed with me on this thread btw...see the posts above). What was important for me was to see the reasoning behind the use of stop-n-go for Gus at that particular moment. And after taking those points in and doing my own analysis, I felt it was not a good play (as I mentioned previously with my reasons. I'm not sure if you were expecting me to agree with you, but I have always approached this with an open mind.

-TheMan

[/ QUOTE ]

A good discussion involves new ideas being presented or atleast new ways of expressing the same ideas. This is just you repeating why you thought it was bad without understanding what people are saying about blinds and his stack size.

I saw one other person that agreed with you. I saw lots of smart people explain to you why he made the move. Its not very interesting. The OP was fine. Your original defense of your opinion was fine, but stop just repeating what you think without listening to what people are saying. 3-handed, the BB was 1/9 (I believe) of his stack, meaning he had ~18 hands till he was broke. And every hand he waited made doubling up that much less effective.

[theman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm suprised by the hostility you've shown in a thus-far great conversation. I'm not sure where it comes from, but so far I've enjoyed the ideas shared on this thread. I've learned a lot about the stop-n-go play and have had an opportunity to analyze it for myself. All of those things have been useful for me and hopefully others.

As for disagreeing with you (and others), the questions/issue is wide open (many others have agreed with me on this thread btw...see the posts above). What was important for me was to see the reasoning behind the use of stop-n-go for Gus at that particular moment. And after taking those points in and doing my own analysis, I felt it was not a good play (as I mentioned previously with my reasons. I'm not sure if you were expecting me to agree with you, but I have always approached this with an open mind.

-TheMan

[/ QUOTE ]

A good discussion involves new ideas being presented or atleast new ways of expressing the same ideas. This is just you repeating why you thought it was bad without understanding what people are saying about blinds and his stack size.

I saw one other person that agreed with you. I saw lots of smart people explain to you why he made the move. Its not very interesting. The OP was fine. Your original defense of your opinion was fine, but stop just repeating what you think without listening to what people are saying. 3-handed, the BB was 1/9 (I believe) of his stack, meaning he had ~18 hands till he was broke. And every hand he waited made doubling up that much less effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir, thank you for restating your point about the importance of making a play as the blinds go very high up. Yes, I can agree that if Gus had calculated the high blinds into his play, that would make a little more sense. Though I still do not like the play, I think it's not as bad given that scenario.

As for not listening to others opinions, I'm not sure what else to add. I read and reread and rethought everyone's points multiple times before posting anything back, so I certainly don't think your accusations are accurate. I'll simply leave it at that.

-TheMan

[theman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So other than a miracle flush/straight, which is statistically not llikely to hit (esp in shorthand versus ring game)

[/ QUOTE ]
am i missing something? do odds of things happening change in sh v. ring game(assuming he meant "full ring game")

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is something Antonio Esfandiari talks about in his cash game book (on shorthanded play). I don't recall specifically if Doyle deals with it in SS, but for sure Antonio talks about it and it's somewhat just a generally known fact.

But the basic idea is that suited connectors and gapped connectors play more ideally in a ring game, because when you call a raise with them you are more likely up against a big hand than shorthanded. A hand like Ace, King, Q's etc. will give you more live cards. In a ring game, ppl a theoretically less likely to raise (esp like in first position) without a big pair (or AK). Whereas shorthanded, you have ppl raising with much less stringent requirements. So Antonio's point was simply that that suited connectors are:

a.) more likely up against a big pair and live in full ring game.

b.) and if A is true, more likely to be profitable when played, so that if you hit your hand, you'll get paid off (since most ppl have trouble letting go of pair).

c.) more likely has live cards to catch.

-TheMan

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...i don't like Gus' move in that specific situation. not enough long-term equity. too unnecessarily risky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain what you mean by "not enough long term equity" and why a poker pro who can easily afford to win or lose the full $120,000 would be influenced by it in a 3 handed, high blind situation, with the short-stack (edit: in a winner take all event).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I dunno, I'm not a great math/probability guy. I could be wrong, but the "stop-n-go" tactic seems like a play that's got -EV overall...It requires too much to go your way to be worth the risk in my opinion...

a.) You're hoping Tony G doesn't have a hand (any pair or two big cards)..because if he does, he's going to call anything on flop with his stack vs. Gus'.

b.) You're hoping even if Tony G doesn't have anything that he doesn't now hit something on flop.

Half the time, let's say Tony has something...Well, on flop he's gonna call with any pair or two overs. The other half when he has nothing, he's gonna hit that flop 1/3 of the time and call. ...So only a small minority of the time will Tony not call Gus. And with Gus 6,4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] being such a dog and having to call 1/3 of your stack pre-flop with it when you're the ultra short stack...it doesn't make much good sense to me. I know it's a "play"...but I don't like it personally.

I think that play compared to calling or going all in with a better hand (even J-high) is much better overall and will have more equity.

-TheMan

[/ QUOTE ]

So where are you pulling your numbers from? You say "Half the time, let's say Tony has something...Well, on flop he's gonna call with any pair or two overs. The other half when he has nothing, he's gonna hit that flop 1/3 of the time and call." I say that he is more likely to have nothing and is betting out because he can. Gus can call or go AI (or fold obv but at that point in the game it's not much of an option anymore). If he calls then he gets to see a flop for free. What's wrong with that? The money is probably going in anyways but this is how you win tourneys. 64s is not so much of an underdog preflop to any non paired hand. The odds of any player picking up a premium hand at any time are not good so what makes you think that he wouldn't have a worse hand next time? A gapper like 83o or j2o and now he has no draws to hope for. The chances of Tony having a hand like Q7o is just as good and I wouldn't mind playing 64s in that particular position.

[Kimbell175113]

Theman,

Gus doesn't care what his cards are. They're not bad enough to fold against Tony's range, and they're not good enough to get all-in preflop and see five cards to a showdown. Honestly, the stop-n-go is THE ONLY option left.

[speedgun]

OP,

This discussion would have been a lot more productive and friendly if you had already known what a 'Stop-and-Go' strategy is, and why it sometimes is the best option you can take. Based on that if you asked some question like if it was an ideal spot to employ that tactic, then it would be a lot more interesting.

That being not the case here, what you should have tried was to take this chance of acutally learning something. See there is this thing that many good players immediately recognized as a feasible alternative way to play that hand, you had no idea why it was so, and all you want to do is repeating 'I DON'T UNDERSTAND'?

Here is link to a post from a well known 2p2er whose name happens to be Greg Raymer. Note that this was written 4-5 years ago.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/show...amp;o=&vc=1

[theman]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

This discussion would have been a lot more productive and friendly if you had already known what a 'Stop-and-Go' strategy is, and why it sometimes is the best option you can take. Based on that if you asked some question like if it was an ideal spot to employ that tactic, then it would be a lot more interesting.

That being not the case here, what you should have tried was to take this chance of acutally learning something. See there is this thing that many good players immediately recognized as a feasible alternative way to play that hand, you had no idea why it was so, and all you want to do is repeating 'I DON'T UNDERSTAND'?

Here is link to a post from a well known 2p2er whose name happens to be Greg Raymer. Note that this was written 4-5 years ago.

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/show...amp;o=&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree that I was ignorant of the term "stop-n-go" and the intricacies involved with that play. I appreciate the link to the Raymer discussion (though not exactly the same situation as Gus', it did provide some good overall insight). I certainly wish I had been more read/versed in that area.

As for your comment of me "repeating "I DON'T UNDERSTAND"...I don't recall making that statement that way. I tried asking for an explanation fo the stop-n-go after the very first poster responded to my thread and then based on the information I received on what the play involved, I responded with more thoughts/critisms of why it didn't make sense in Gus' case (all of that has been posted above). What I think didn't go smoothly was the problem caused by the gap in knowledge between those who already understood the stop-n-go fully and what I was being told and discussing in the above posts. It took a while, but once I understood it, I took the time to reevaluate that hand and still posted reasons why I felt it was not a good choice.

Upon yet another review, I think it's a marginal choice in that situation. I would only use it if I felt I had a very very accurate read of Tony. But that's just me (personal opinion and preference).

But again, I thank you and everyone else for the useful insights and would encourage you guys to continue engaging in more chats like these. I've enjoyed all the chats/analysis posted so far.

-TheMan

[Chuck Norris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So other than a miracle flush/straight, which is statistically not llikely to hit (esp in shorthand versus ring game)

[/ QUOTE ]
am i missing something? do odds of things happening change in sh v. ring game(assuming he meant "full ring game")

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is something Antonio Esfandiari talks about in his cash game book (on shorthanded play). I don't recall specifically if Doyle deals with it in SS, but for sure Antonio talks about it and it's somewhat just a generally known fact.

But the basic idea is that suited connectors and gapped connectors play more ideally in a ring game, because when you call a raise with them you are more likely up against a big hand than shorthanded. A hand like Ace, King, Q's etc. will give you more live cards. In a ring game, ppl a theoretically less likely to raise (esp like in first position) without a big pair (or AK). Whereas shorthanded, you have ppl raising with much less stringent requirements. So Antonio's point was simply that that suited connectors are:

a.) more likely up against a big pair and live in full ring game.

b.) and if A is true, more likely to be profitable when played, so that if you hit your hand, you'll get paid off (since most ppl have trouble letting go of pair).

c.) more likely has live cards to catch.

-TheMan

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, so it has nothing to do with statistics then really, right?

[fishboy]

theman,

You are the one that is correct in your analysis. These would be analysts that criticise you for not understanding the stop n' go play probably do not understand it themselves. The stop 'n go play is of little if any value if your opponent is aware of it. Tony G you can be assured knows well of this play. He is not the type of player that you would use it against. Especially if you are a seasoned professional. Hansen made a horrible call. That's it, period.

[betgo]

It is kind of a marginal play, but this is the point to it. Tony G. is probably raising 40% of his hands from the button, so 64s is not that big a dog. Hanson is getting pot odds with the blinds and antes. 64s is a good hand to stop and go, because villain will often make a big mistake by folding when he is way ahead with ten high or something.