Somewhat sick spot at Stuper FT

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Call and it isn't anywhere near as close as the responses so far would lead you to believe... fold here is a pretty significant error

[/ QUOTE ]VINDICATION! ONE TIME!

[billyjex]

[ QUOTE ]
Call and it isn't anywhere near as close as the responses so far would lead you to believe... fold here is a pretty significant error

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving "loose" ranges for the two players, 99+, AQs/AQo+, my equity against their range is 28.7%.

I have to call 118,804 to win 245,608, or needing 32.6% equity to call profitably based on pot odds.

I am not the best with poker math but think I did that correctly.

I can assume one reason why you'd like to call is for a bigger stack.

Another reason to fold also, to me, is that there's quite a bit of value in just having a stack, period.

Can you elaborate on why you think it's not even close?

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Call and it isn't anywhere near as close as the responses so far would lead you to believe... fold here is a pretty significant error

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving "loose" ranges for the two players, 99+, AQs/AQo+, my equity against their range is 28.7%.

I have to call 118,804 to win 245,608, or needing 32.6% equity to call profitably based on pot odds.

I am not the best with poker math but think I did that correctly.

I can assume one reason why you'd like to call is for a bigger stack.

Another reason to fold also, to me, is that there's quite a bit of value in just having a stack, period.

Can you elaborate on why you think it's not even close?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%, this is a fold. What really tips the balance is the fact that this is the final table and the discrepancy between chip EV and $EV is large; or as you put it, there is a lot of value in just having a stack.

Their range would have to be borderline maniac to justify this call. Something like 77+, AT+, KQ, which would give you ~36% equity.

[homanga]

I think the assumption that UTG is going to call and make it 3-way is unlikely. In that case given that UTG folds then putting the villains range as 99+ AQ+ gives you 50% equity which would be +EV.

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
Snap call

[/ QUOTE ]

[registrar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Call and it isn't anywhere near as close as the responses so far would lead you to believe... fold here is a pretty significant error

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving "loose" ranges for the two players, 99+, AQs/AQo+, my equity against their range is 28.7%.

I have to call 118,804 to win 245,608, or needing 32.6% equity to call profitably based on pot odds.

I am not the best with poker math but think I did that correctly.

I can assume one reason why you'd like to call is for a bigger stack.

Another reason to fold also, to me, is that there's quite a bit of value in just having a stack, period.

Can you elaborate on why you think it's not even close?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this subtle enough maths?

Given the reads, let's say villain opens 88+, AQ+ (and some randowm stuff a non-zero%) and calls two pushes with JJ+ and Shaefer shoves 99+, AQ+ 50% of the time and JJ+, AK the rest of the time. I think this is about as loose as we're looking at.

Is that an +cEV call? I guess it is.

Then, let's say it's neutral, how do the stacks look after we win or chop and how much more likely are we to make top 3? How much money do we guarantee the times we beat both?

I'm now guessing it's a call (I suck at maths). However, with OP's read on OR and RR, if we're looking at an opening range of 99+, AQs+ and a two push calling range of QQ+ and Shaefer's shoving range, assuming he has our read is JJ+, AK then I'm guessing that it's really marginal and, for me, the advantage of tripling or adding 50% is not enough to justify the risk that we bust out 9th a majority of the time.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, if someone is agressive, they are just cardracking, especially if they are a ranked pocket fiver. I end up shoving in lots of spots like this, but I really think that I, and many other 2+2ers need to learn that non-2p2ers aren't at all agressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.