|
|
#61
07-20-2006, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
I disagree that this is a textbook stop-n-go situation. Remember this guy has not played a hand in 2 orbits (20 hands). He is in third position, still fairly early. Any individual player has a 2.4% chance of having an overpair to us. The range originally given is the top 8% of hands. If that range is reasonable (and I think it is for a tight player) then there is a 30% chance that they have an overpair to our 99. This hardly qualifies as "pretty sure" that I have the best hand now. We are a dog to their range.
The problem with a stop-n-go as opposed to a push is that the other player has more information to go on to decide whether to call our bet. It does decrease our variance, but at the expense of our expected value. 
|
|
#62
07-20-2006, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
I don't use SnG much, so I may be way off.
When I'm bb vs. an aggro OR, I had the idea it's a defensive move, an alternative to the AI that could save chips now and have the additional benefit of making the OR decrease steal attempts in the future.
|
|
#63
07-20-2006, 01:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
[ QUOTE ]
We haven't seen him play a hand in 2 orbits, but I'm not willing to give him credit for being a complete nit. He's a huge stack relatively early in a 20/180. That usually is not an indicator that someone is super tight. I think you're putting way too much stress on the read. [/ QUOTE ] Plus, everyone is ignoring the 2nd level read that this player thinks we are loose based on him getting moved to the table and us pushing twice, including once onto his bb. Against an unknown, perhaps we should consider opening his range up wider than normal to account for spite-raises (this is vital to LAG/semi-LAG play and almost irrelevant to TAGs unless the cards have required them to appear loose lately, which is probably why nobody has mentioned it, AFAIK). -D
|
|
#64
07-20-2006, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
Also...
Since there are 7 pages of discussion on this, I think its safe to say that it's close. By the Nath principle, we should do whatever is more aggressive in that case. Clear PUSH.
|
|
#65
07-20-2006, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
Just some initial numbers. If we assume that we have NO fold equity, that antes have not kicked in yet, that our 2152 stack is BEFORE posting our blind, and the range given in the initial post is correct then our E(raising all-in) = +14.24 TC (compared to 0 for folding). So raising all-in is better than folding. Adding ANY fold equity and adding anything to the initial raiser's range just adds to our EV here.
|
|
#66
07-20-2006, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that this is a textbook stop-n-go situation. Remember this guy has not played a hand in 2 orbits (20 hands). He is in third position, still fairly early. Any individual player has a 2.4% chance of having an overpair to us. The range originally given is the top 8% of hands. If that range is reasonable (and I think it is for a tight player) then there is a 30% chance that they have an overpair to our 99. This hardly qualifies as "pretty sure" that I have the best hand now. We are a dog to their range. [/ QUOTE ] We're simply 45% against that (tight) range. I don't see why anything else matters. Him having an overpair 30% of the time doesn't make our hand any worse than 45%.
|
|
#67
07-20-2006, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
[ QUOTE ]
When I'm bb vs. an aggro OR, I had the idea it's a defensive move, an alternative to the AI that could save chips now and have the additional benefit of making the OR decrease steal attempts in the future. [/ QUOTE ] Well, you're really not saving any chips if you plan to push ATF anyway - but the thought process behind the SnG is that you don't have any FE now, but you hope to gain some ATF or you hope to price out a hand like 2OCs ATF when you hold a middle PP. You could run a mimic-SnG, when you make your opponent think you have a middle PP and then push the flop with your whiffed 27o and try to get him to fold AK - that's certainly an option [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. Usually when a player calls 1/4-1/3 of his stack PF his push ATF is going to get some level of respect, but now we are clearly talking about a variant of the SnG play.
|
|
#68
07-20-2006, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, with more chips I'd be less inclined to SnG. With 11BBs here, our follow-up bet is almost the same size as the pot. You want your push ATF to be at least 1/2P to give your opponent worse than 3:1 odds (otherwise his call with 2OCs getting 3:1+ is correct). If we have more than 11BBs here, then I'd be more inclined to consider a fold or a call & evaluate line like AC suggests. In conclusion a SnG works best when your follow-up bet is at least half the pot and not too much more than the pot (e.g. 7-11BBs against a 3x raise with no antes). [/ QUOTE ] What is this? The bigger your stack when you push after the flop, the worse odds villain has to call. I'm not sure I understand what your meaning is here.
|
|
#69
07-20-2006, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that this is a textbook stop-n-go situation. Remember this guy has not played a hand in 2 orbits (20 hands). He is in third position, still fairly early. Any individual player has a 2.4% chance of having an overpair to us. The range originally given is the top 8% of hands. If that range is reasonable (and I think it is for a tight player) then there is a 30% chance that they have an overpair to our 99. This hardly qualifies as "pretty sure" that I have the best hand now. We are a dog to their range. The problem with a stop-n-go as opposed to a push is that the other player has more information to go on to decide whether to call our bet. It does decrease our variance, but at the expense of our expected value. [/ QUOTE ] From this post http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6611022 you say "You are likely ahead of their range", now you say "We are a dog to their range" - which is it? I'm also not clear on what you are advocating here - a push, or call and evaluate? (I'm not trying to bust your balls, okay maybe a little [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img], I just want to hear your thoughts -b/c I do respect your game and I think it does further our understanding of some of these intracate/marginal situations).
|
|
#70
07-20-2006, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Actually, with more chips I'd be less inclined to SnG. With 11BBs here, our follow-up bet is almost the same size as the pot. You want your push ATF to be at least 1/2P to give your opponent worse than 3:1 odds (otherwise his call with 2OCs getting 3:1+ is correct). If we have more than 11BBs here, then I'd be more inclined to consider a fold or a call & evaluate line like AC suggests. In conclusion a SnG works best when your follow-up bet is at least half the pot and not too much more than the pot (e.g. 7-11BBs against a 3x raise with no antes). [/ QUOTE ] What is this? The bigger your stack when you push after the flop, the worse odds villain has to call. I'm not sure I understand what your meaning is here. [/ QUOTE ] Well, with a bigger stack we start to gain FE and one key requirement for the SnG is that we have no FE PF. Also, a SnG with a larger stack creates an overbet ATF which has more risk & less reward.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
