Shortstacked 99 in big blind facing raise

[TheNewf]

This is a pretty easy push imo. I'm a tight player and I'm raising at least the following range:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 51.4744 % 50.88% 00.60% { 77+, ATs+, KQs, ATo+, KQo }
Hand 2: 48.5256 % 47.93% 00.60% { 9c9d }

And why do we think we have no FE? Villian is not even getting 2:1 lots of people can fold AT,AJ,KQ here, and it's unlikely they fold a smaller pair. Also, his range could still be looser than the above, maybe he's getting bored.

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pushing = folding; pushing OR folding > stop and go

Stop and go will rarely fold out the higher pairs (TT-AA). It will fold out overpairs that miss the flop, which is not a good outcome for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost a textbook stop-n-go situation. I found this in my notes from a post Greg Raymer made a while back (sorry no link)-

"If you were holding 99 in the big blind, that would've probably been the time for a stop-and-go. As was already stated, the stop-and-go play is where you are in early position, call a bet/raise, and do so with the intention of betting all-in on the next betting round. You do this because you think you have the best hand, but you also think the opponent has a good chance of getting out on you. You know if you re-raise now they will be pot-stuck and call, but if you wait for the next card(s) to be dealt, they could have enough room to fold."

I also found this from Greg-

"I tend to use the stop-and-go in spots where these criteria are met. First, I'm pretty sure I have the best hand now. Second, if I reraise, there is very little chance the other guy will fold... Finally, even though I can't raise enough to get him out preflop, I can bet enough on the flop that he will likely fold if he misses, even if he misses holding two overcards."

Stated another way - if he has an overpair or his overcards connect on the flop you're likely getting stacked anyway, but if he has 2OCs and misses the flop you can keep him from seeing all 5 cards by pricing him out ATF. (And there's also that rare instance where you get him to fold a better hand when 2OCs to his pair hit the board.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg is wrong (imagine that).

The scenario we are talking about is 99 and two overcards, when the flop misses his two overcards. If you push and he folds, you have 2800 chips 100% of the time. If you push and he calls, you have 4400 chips 75% of the time, and 0 chips 25% of the time. The second scenario, on average, is 500 chips more than the first scenario.

The "textbook" scenario of a stop-and-go is when you think you are behind, and yet you plan to play the hand to showdown anyway.

Now, there could be times when you want to reduce your variance. For example, you're at the FT, there are a couple of short stacks, and the money increase is significant. You'd be willing to trade a little cEV for some $EV. This isn't one of those times.

[mlagoo]

OP,

its a push

(c) Mike L. Goodman

[jcm4ccc]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

its a push

(c) Mike L. Goodman

[/ QUOTE ] You copyrighted this? Damn, I think I owe you some royalties.

[mlagoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP,

its a push

(c) Mike L. Goodman

[/ QUOTE ] You copyrighted this? Damn, I think I owe you some royalties.

[/ QUOTE ]

nah, MLG beat me to it [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[allenciox]

You quoted me out of context. I said, "If nath (or any other LAG player) were the preflop raiser, I would not hesitate to reraise all-in preflop here. You are likely ahead of their range..." where I was contrasting a LAG raiser where you would be ahead of their range against a tight raiser, where you aren't. If a LAG player raised me from middle position, I would raise all-in here without a second thought --- 99 is likely ahead of their range and they don't play as predictably post-flop.

[DonT77]

sorry AC, I missed that.

[DonT77]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...rue#Post6495926

It appears you are correct. Greg tries a 'stop-n-go' here with 89, clearly not a middle PP or hand that expects to be ahead. nh sir.

[allenciox]

Ok, here are some numbers. I am assuming that the raising range (88+,AJ+,KQ) specified in the original post. I want to contrast how my strategy outlined earlier compares to the preflop all-in raise.

First of all, some flop probabilities I obtained. Here are probabilities of flops:

Flop has at least one Nine: 12%
Flop has three overcards to my 99: 4.8%
Flop has two overcards and one undercard to my 99: 24.8%
Flop has one overcard and two undercards to my 99: 39.4%
Flop has three undercards to my 99: 19%

You will note the probabilities sum to 1, as they should. Here are each of the actions and my assumed results:

1) The case where I hit a set on the flop (12% of flops). Assume that 10% of the times I lose my stack (-1952), 20% I win the minimum (+900), and 70% I stack (+2452), for a net expected gain of 1701 TC.

2) The flop comes A x x (where x is smaller than 9) (8% of flops): Interestingly, in our original range, the probability that our opponent has an ace is 54/94 = 57%. But if the flop comes down with an ace, then the probability that he has one decreases to 39/79 = 49%. Let's assume that our opponent will fold to a 550 chip bet when he has KQ,88,99,TT,or JJ (we win 900 35% of the time), but will raise all-in with QQ,KK, or any of the hands containing an Ace where we will fold (we lose 950 65% of the time) for a net expected loss of -302. (note this is still better than check-folding, which is -400).

3. Two or more overcards to your nine (29.6% of flops). In this case, you are on average about 20% against your opponent's range. If we assume that your opponent always bets in this situation and you always fold, you lose 400.

4. K x x or Q x x (about 16% of flops): Only about 32% of the time (27/83) your opponent will pair the top card on these flops. Suppose that your opponent will call your all-in with an overpair or top pair in this case, and will fold all other hands: 43% you will get called: you will then win 2452 11% of the time and lose 1952 the rest. The other 57% of the time they will fold and you will win 900. This gives you a net expected loss of -639.

5. All other hands (34.4% of flops). Assume here that they go all-in with all pairs and AK (about half of their hands), and bet half-pot with all other hands. Then that they always call your all-in after their half-pot bet. In this case, your equity when they call all-in is 72% --- so 50% you lose 400, 36% you win 2452, and 14% you lose 1952, for a net of +409.

So, your net result is .12(1701) - .08(302) - .296(400) - .16(639) + .344(409) = +100 TC.

You will recall against this range, assuming no fold equity, that the raise all-in was only +14 TC. Based on these assumptions my play looks substantially better.

I will note that the K x x results and Q x x results are worse than check-folding, so they are hardly optimal. I think this was because I was assuming KQ would not be in the range they would raise with. If it is, I might play those flops the same way as A x x. But note that the result is still substantially positive even with this result.


Of course, I am making a variety of assumptions here which may or may not be correct.

Comments?

[AceLuby]

Doing the SNG w/ the best hand is -cEV, the point of the SNG is to do it with what you think is the worst hand (89s, 55-, etc) where you don't have FE PF by pushing, but may have some FE post flop.