Call a crazy push with AK late in a ps180? - Page 3

Jeff76 · #21 04-27-2007, 10:36 AM

Ah the psychology of donkish play!

Since this is quite an academic discussion, I'll let it go- you two are probably right. I've played a few to many 4/180s I believe [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

registrar · #22 04-27-2007, 10:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AQ is not a premium hand, according to the books, whereas AK is so I don't think people feel obliged to felt AQ.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree with that statement, but I don't think villain is trying to felt a hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I don't know what the verb 'to felt' means but hasn't villain just felted his hand?

Jeff76 · #23 04-27-2007, 10:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I don't know what the verb 'to felt' means but hasn't villain just felted his hand?

[/ QUOTE ]Hmmm, I've always thought 'felting a hand' would be ACTUALLY getting it all in, not just betting all in (meaning he was called). He might not want to go to the felt with AQ but still move in, believing that on average the blinds will usually just fold.

Regardless of the terminology, I meant that I didn't think he was looking for a call by moving in, so his range is wider than only hands he wants to show down.

glass_onion · #24 04-27-2007, 02:16 PM

HOH v 2 gives an almost identical example. Ok, he puts it at 3 different stack sizes, but here's the jist. . .

You are getting 1.07/1 odds on your money. If you are up against a pair you are 1.22/1 dog here, so it would be an idiotic call. You really have to factor in a few Ax hands for it to be an auto call. What range do you think he has?

My guess for an unknown is 66-JJ, as they wouldn't donk qq+. YOU are never against AA, KK. And I feel like you have to have a read against a guy to think he's doing it with SC or random 2 with M=15+.

Jeff76 · #25 04-27-2007, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you are up against a pair you are 1.22/1 dog here, so it would be an idiotic call.

[/ QUOTE ]If villain SHOWED me QQ I'd insta-call in this spot, and I don't think that's idiotic.

Why? Because even if I assume that I have a better than 45% chance to double up later in this tournament, I think that a double up here right before the bubble is worth more than doubling up later.

glass_onion · #26 04-27-2007, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are up against a pair you are 1.22/1 dog here, so it would be an idiotic call.

[/ QUOTE ]If villain SHOWED me QQ I'd insta-call in this spot, and I don't think that's idiotic.

Why? Because even if I assume that I have a better than 45% chance to double up later in this tournament, I think that a double up here right before the bubble is worth more than doubling up later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should quickly grab up all your money in the checking account and take it to the casino. Bet it all on black or red on the roulette wheel. Hell, a double up today is worth more than tomarrow, due to inflation and all. Some "pro" gamblers will tell you that you can't expect to win against the wheel, but they obviously haven't taken into account the double up principle

Jeff76 · #27 04-27-2007, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should quickly grab up all your money in the checking account and take it to the casino. Bet it all on black or red on the roulette wheel. Hell, a double up today is worth more than tomarrow, due to inflation and all. Some "pro" gamblers will tell you that you can't expect to win against the wheel, but they obviously haven't taken into account the double up principle

[/ QUOTE ]Your analogy is terrible. I don't even understand what "they obviously haven't taken into account the double up principle" means. My observation was simple. Villain has a 45% chance to double up here vs. QQ. If he believes his chances are less than 45% to double up by folding and finding a better spot, then he should take the 45% chance now. It's a tournament and hero won't make a significant payout without doubling up.

This has nothing to do with taking a losing bet in a casino. If this were the situation in a cash game and villain showed QQ this is obviously a muck. But this isn't a cash game, and cEV != $ev. I believe the advantage hero gains by doubling up now before the bubble, combined with the risk that he probably does not have a greater than 45% chance to double up due to the structure of the game, makes calling greater $ev than folding, even if it -cEV.

registrar · #28 04-27-2007, 04:31 PM

Nice post Jeff.

glass_onion · #29 04-27-2007, 05:11 PM

First, cEV does not equal $EV. It would be lesser than $ev. So you start out with what you admit is a -EV bet (qq vs AK) and add to that the fact that your 'payout' in chips isn't 1:1 in terms of money, it makes it EVEN more -$EV. And we all like money, right?

Or to put it more simply, 'why would a book lie to a person.'

I don't see how you can rationally disagree with this, unless you are saying that villians RANGE is fairly wide, ie. maybe A9+, 22+, KQs, for example, or any two. Others have suggested it.

I personally don't think so. Educated opinons differ. I try not to think that my opponents are completely ignorant, perhaps that's -EV.

Poisoned · #30 04-27-2007, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I try not to think that my opponents are completely ignorant, perhaps that's -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

in a 180, theyre mostly ignorant

but, you keep giving up these +EV spots, saying youll find a better spot. sure you bust ootm sometimes, but the times you win youll at leadt make the final table and make a run toward winning it. meanwhile, youll keep folding premiums to obvious weakness and blind down waiting for aces, and fizz out at final 2 table...