A2o in CO M of 4, 14xBB

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
playing a hand faceup profitable implies an unexploitable play

saying something is an unexploitable play does not mean you could turn it faceup profitably...

DUCY PEOPLE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon I edited that in 2 seconds, also it probably is unexploitable face up, although it's close. I know it doesn't mean something is unexploitable, however I was talking about it being unexploitable with the hand face up, not unexploitable from some game theory perspective.

edit - did some slightly bad math multiplying the antes, so probably slightly negative EV if everyone plays perfect.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
M=4.3, ~14bb, 3 to act, somewhat passive table, you have a connected A, shove.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of shove equity, being connected doesn't make A2 better than A6.

It goes something like:

AT >>> A9 > A8o > A5o > A7o > A6o > A4o > A3o > A2o

in terms of shove equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually A7 is better than A5 in these spots, mainly because 66,55 stuff can be expected to call.

[ASPoker8]

i'm almost certain shoving A2 from the CO with these antes and this stacksize is unexploitable

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm almost certain shoving A2 from the CO with these antes and this stacksize is unexploitable

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect if its face up its very very slightly -EV, but ok I'm sure its ridiculous close. I've done a lot of work on this in the past and my work says it's extremely close. Probably very very marginally -EV, but of course almost no one is calling A3-A8, so open shoving will almost certainly be +EV.

In fact, if you had A3o , opening allin with your hand faceup is almost certainly unexploitably +EV....so its very close.

[ASPoker8]

I actually think that face up its +EV and by a lot.

I'll see if I can find the tables though

[KingDan]

I don't think I've ever been at a table where openshoving A2o here wouldn't be profitable.


Against people I don't consider to be good I think raise folding > shove > fold but against somewhat competent players I would just stick it in.

edit: skimming the responses IIRC openshoving faceup is is marginally profitable but I'm a little rusty.

[ASPoker8]

I asked Imsakidd

Openshoving face up is -ev by 300 chips or so [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. He did the math.

I still think openshoving is the best option @ a normal table. If the 3 players behind are relatively straightforward/nitty, raise/fold becomes lightyears better.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
I asked Imsakidd

Openshoving face up is -ev by 300 chips or so [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. He did the math.

I still think openshoving is the best option @ a normal table. If the 3 players behind are relatively straightforward/nitty, raise/fold becomes lightyears better.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at asking IMSAKIDD

[Body Man D]

I just got back from Vegas and played several live MTT's. From what I saw, shoving here is way more +EV than it would be online. Live nits don't understand pot odds etc. and would easily fold better hands to a shove but call a standard raise.

I vote Shove > Standard raise > Fold.

[shaundeeb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I asked Imsakidd

Openshoving face up is -ev by 300 chips or so [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. He did the math.

I still think openshoving is the best option @ a normal table. If the 3 players behind are relatively straightforward/nitty, raise/fold becomes lightyears better.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at asking IMSAKIDD

[/ QUOTE ]

hes done this math more then most mtters and less then the best stts, I think shortstackers are very good at mtts mid to late stages for this fact and is why most mtters would make very profitable shortstackers.