Shoving range: For UTG, and UTG+1(100r FT)

[timex]

Another major error is that

1) The guys with 6 and 8 bets are calling much lighter than 99+,AQ+
2) The BB has 300k, so the average ends up being more like 130-140k

I wasn't playing the tournament, so I don't have the payout structure,

Probably something standard like 30,20,13,10,8,6 or something.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? But pushing 100% is simply a ridiculous play. I never saw anyone give any reason why the guy would be pushing 100% here.

[stevepa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? But pushing 100% is simply a ridiculous play. I never saw anyone give any reason why the guy would be pushing 100% here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are idiots and somehow think that pushing any two here is better than calling any two in the bb next hand. Someone once told them raising>calling and dammit that's all they need to know.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw assuming that UTG will push a random hand is completely absurd as they have absolutely no FE. No one with any functioning poker brain should ever do so. It's good to do these calcs, but why take an assumption that makes no sense at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were at the table with them earlier then I think it would be pretty easily to know whether they were shoving 100% or not. -- so yes here it is still to assume that but at the table it could be very fair assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh? But pushing 100% is simply a ridiculous play. I never saw anyone give any reason why the guy would be pushing 100% here.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people are idiots and somehow think that pushing any two here is better than calling any two in the bb next hand. Someone once told them raising>calling and dammit that's all they need to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah but what reason would we have to assume this is occuring in some random internet tournament? I mean sure maybe the guy has any 2, but I can't imagine a reason to assume this to be the case.

[aejones]

lol, so many people don't grasp the concept of 2-3 bb play in tournaments, some of you are right about that

i don't rly know what my range would be i don't know much math i would probably just go by my gut feeling

[stealthmunk]

IMO you should never shove here and a cold call or a minreraise is always the more +EV play.

[NoahSD]

I shove like 55/AT/A9s/KQ.

[Mr.Poker]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you should never shove here and a cold call or a minreraise is always the more +EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my feeling aswell, there is a massive difference between shoving and iso min-raising. Min raising by far looks like the strongest play and what you would likely do with the top end of your reraising range. I think therefore it is best to do it with the lower part of your reraising as well, and gives you a chance to reassess if the CO or BB comes over the top.