Exploiting being CL: Short-handed high blinds Reshoves w/o Fold Equity

[Collin Moshman]

Hi Guys,

Based on some of Indiana's recent 0-fold equity reshoving discussion (i.e., pushing all-in when an opponent is already all-in so that a showdown is guaranteed), I want to discuss situations where this play is warranted purely on a pot odds basis.

If the following conditions are met, strongly consider reshoving against an already all-in player:

1. You have a significant chip lead;
2. Assuming the still-active players fold, your reshove will be +cEV (no ICM necessary);
3. You find it unlikely a still-active player will overcall without a premium hand.

The underlying idea is that with a big chip lead, if you can risk a fraction of these chips as a +EV chip investment, then doing so will tend to be +Equity and so you should seize such chip edges.

I don't know if this is obvious, controversial, etc., so let's just look at a couple of examples.

Example # 1:

Blinds: 200-400, 25 ante
4-handed
Solid-playing CO shoves for 1400. You are the button with T7000. Both blinds have around T2500 each.

You should reshove VERY wide here. First, the blinds will almost certainly fold any hand but a monster with two prior all-ins on the bubble (even if you have a hyper-aggressive image). Second, losing 1400 to the short-stacked is far from a disastrous outcome; you are still a heavy CL with T5600, and you can still open-steal anytime you get the opportunity and have huge fold equity, as usual when bubble CL.

So with 700 sitting on the table from blinds/antes, and a 1400 bet, you are getting effective pot odds of 2100:1400, or 3:2. But if the CO is pushing wide -- and we should expect him to shove many hands here since he is a solid player by hypothesis, and he is about to be blinded out in a hand if he doesn't make a move -- then few hands will leave you worse than a 3:2 underdog.

More concrete: If he is shoving any pocket pair, any hand with a face card, or any lower-card hand with some suitedness/connectedness (roughly the top 60% of starting hands), then you should reshove hands as weak as:

Qs 6c, Js 7s, 8d 9d, Jc 8d,

because these hands figure to be better than a 3:2 against the CO's vast pushing range, and the other conditions described above are favorable.

Here is another, more extreme example.

Blinds: 300-600
3-handed
Button min-raises all-in (1200), and you are in the SB with a slight chip edge over the BB (say you have around 6500, him 5500). Now assuming the BB is not a shrewd player who is liable to realize what you are doing and overcall widely, you should reshove any two cards here.

Why? Well, the pot is 1200 (the bet) + 900 (blind money) = 2100, and it costs you 900 to call. Therefore you are getting significantly better than 2:1 on your chips -- if you knew with certainty the BB would fold, this justifies a call with literally any two. Depending on what kind of hand you think the BB needs to overcall here (usually it will need to be a pretty solid one regardless of the stakes and your image), you should reshove any hand that has at least some showdown potential (a face card, mid semi-connectors, two low suited cards, etc.) If the BB is oblivious to your hyper-aggressive play and will still need a premium hand to overcall, then even a hand like 2s 5d should be re-shoved as a favorable chip investment.

Another reason to shove junk hands in this example is that the alternatives are worse: if you smooth-call the BB may shove, putting you in a bad spot. And if you fold, then you allow the BB to make an excellent chip investment by calling. So be pro-active and reshove yourself.

In conclusion, when you are chip leader during high blind play, you can often make profitable reshoves even when a showdown is guaranteed.

Best Regards,
Collin

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You have a significant chip lead;
2. Assuming the still-active players fold, your reshove will be +cEV (no ICM necessary);
3. You find it unlikely a still-active player will overcall without a premium hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but this stuff makes me rofl pretty hard. Did you really just write a lenghty post that the meat of it was "if you have lots of extra chips, take +cev gambles"? You're kidding right? I hope we can expect more of this high quality advice in the future - and in your book!

*More laughing*

Did you need gigabet to come up with that, or come up with it all by yourself?

*laughing*

citanul

[Slim Pickens]

Why would you use a clearly-inferior metric (cEV) to justify a play when a much better one (ICM-derived $EV) is available? If you want to make a Gigablock argument, go right ahead. There are some good ones out there that make a lot of sense, but they should be framed as "-$EV immediately, but offset by creating larger/more frequent +$EV opportunities later" arguments and not this irrelevant cEV argument.

If you're just using cEV to quickly estimate that a play isn't horribly -$EV, that's less bad, but there are too many situations where neutral cEV plays are very, very -$EV to make this sort of generalization.

EDIT: In conclusion, I find your argument laughable.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
In conclusion, when you are chip leader during high blind play, you can often make profitable reshoves even when a showdown is guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man, I just read this part too. Too funny.

1) There is a much stronger point than the above quoted we can make, and it has to do with *all* spots, not just "high blind" spots.

2) The antithesis of the above statement would imply that one could never profitably reshove if there was a showdown gauranteed in high blind play. That would be, cleaning up your language, like you are stating that it should surprise us that sometimes when we have the best hand we should call or shove over a guy who is all in. WTF. Duh? No, everyone thought that late game play involved NEVER calling, EVER. Jesus.

So, in conclusion, in my two posts, what I find is a laughable hypothesis and a laughable conclusion to your post.

[Paul B.]

fight fight fight

[Collin Moshman]

Hi Guys,

I am not claiming that my post is original or ground-breaking, and for experts such as yourselves, I'm sure you are already familiar with this material and much beyond.

But I would like to think that the hand examples and reasoning is of some benefit to newer players. If not, then I guess I'm typing up these long posts for nothing... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Best Regards,
Collin

[Slim Pickens]

Re-cast the argument using $EV, showing (or at least explaining) why even though a play might -$EV immediately, it can create future +$EV opportunities that would not have existed otherwise and more than offset the original loss. Describe some of the common situations where these opportunities might arise, like when you're the big stack on the bubble and make many +$EV pushes with a particular arrangement of stacks. That would be a semi-quantitative explanation of Gigablock theory that might make more sense to more people than the original concept as presented.

[z32fanatic]

While I usually advocate taking any +EV spot (e.g. calling with any 2 getting >2:1) you have to consider how your image will change when you show down the bottom part of your range.

Obviously if your image is already crazy (you've already shown that you will shove a "bad hand") then it is rather likely that someone will overcall, just because the overcaller will have to finish in last place to bubble, and is definitely ahead of you. Obviously if your opponents are idiots then they won't overcall without a premium hand, but they really should be overcalling a lot if you're shoving wide here.

If you haven't shown down trash yet, you're probably going to ruin your image by calling with weak hands like Qs 6c (or even as weak as Qc 6h). It is probably better in this situation to just fold so you can continue to shove every hand after this. If you're showing that you are shoving wide, your opponents calling ranges will get much wider, which is really -EV for you.

This play works BETTER when your opponents have more chips, but still less than you. In the situation you gave, the other 3 stacks will be relatively even if you lose the hand (which you probably will). This would work way better if the chip stacks were more like:
bb400
UTG folds with 4000 chips
Button shoves 500 chips
Hero is SB with 5000 chips
BB has 4000

Here you can shove really wide because if you lose, the stacks will be this for the next hand:
UTG has 1400 chips
Hero is button with 4500 chips
SB has 3600
BB has 4000 chips

Now the SB and BB can't call you wide on this hand because the chip disparity is very wide, so you're in a really +EV spot again. Also, people are more reluctant to overcall your isolation shove because they feel like they have tons of chips and are going to cash a really large % of the time, so they don't get involved.

If all the stacks are closer, you're gonna get overcalled a bunch because it is unlikely the overcaller will bubble. Also, you have to keep in mind that if you shove trash, you're gonna get a big fat note about how much you shove, which is -EV longterm for sure. Also, people will say stuff like "wtf just check it down zomg!" if you show down 73o and if you lose this hand you're gonna get spite called way more often in this tourney.

I'm sure I left out some info, because my post is long and rambling. Basically the better odds I'm getting on the isolation, the wider I'm doing it. Sometimes you can get 4:1 on these calls, and just have to do it with anything really. There is also something to be said for remaining anonymous at the table, instead of cultivating the crazy image. Gramps is really good at being invisible, which is why I get called really wide on the bubble and he doesn't, even though he probably shoves wider than me in most spots.

[Collin Moshman]

Hi z32,

This is an excellent post, and your hand example is one I really like. One thing I have noticed about getting a crazy reputation is that it can have positive aspects as well. For example, the type of guy who's typing "omg wtf" often just thinks you're crazy, and while he will call you wider, he is also more reluctant to push on your blind because he does not distinguish between loose pushing and loose calling.

BTW, Slim I may have mispoken a little in my original post ... I'm certainly not saying to ignore ICM/equity, just that when you have a big chip lead and are considering investing a small fraction of those chips, then chip expectation becomes a much easier decision-making tool than equity expectation, even if it is inexact.

Best Regards,
Collin

[Indiana]

ZOMG COllin Do I get recognized in your SNG book? That would pwn big time. Can you say in your book that I have a boat, live in a million dolalr home in the Bay area and that I am the leading researcher in the world in futility rules and interim analysis for clinical trials? Could you also mention that I have a hot wife and the STTF loves me ?

LOLz