Rainkhan and the 33 versus Alex Kravchenko

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
Khan needs 44.18% pot equity to make this play break even. That's using ICM to model prize pool equity and also assuming Rahme never overcalls. I got Khan's folding $EV by assuming a pushing range of {22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo} for Kravchenko and a calling range of {TT+,AQs+,AKo} (4.08% given Khan has 33 and not accounting for Kravchenko's range) for Rahme if Kahn folds. I doubt Rahme's calling range matters that much since he's tight enough to almost never call there anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and he has more than that pot equity since he's ~45.4% equity. He loses a little of that if Rahme calls him, but gains a little from your analysis as I think Rahme will call a little wider if folded to (for instance he said he'd definitely call the one UTG all-in with his AQ).

In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

Add in the overlay from finishing first (both cash + future endorsement, invitations, etc.) and I think it was a clearly good play.

[benza13]

[ QUOTE ]
Having played with Rain a fair amount I think that AQ fold is pretty bad if he thinks Kravchenko is good enough to be pushing wide UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much experience with Rain, but his experience in SNGs suggests to me that Rhame should have had a massive boner seeing Khan try to isolate the intelligent shorty pushing wide UTG and then looking down at AQ.

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having played with Rain a fair amount I think that AQ fold is pretty bad if he thinks Kravchenko is good enough to be pushing wide UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much experience with Rain, but his experience in SNGs suggests to me that Rhame should have had a massive boner seeing Khan try to isolate the intelligent shorty pushing wide UTG and then looking down at AQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Khan must be isolating here with a fairly wide range though. ATo, mid pairs and better must be in his range imo. It turns out he's pushing much lighter than that in retrospect, but against an unknown I'd put him on that range if I were Rahme.

[El Diablo]

b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really makes no difference if you think he's weak. You still have 33. It's a real stretch to put hands like 22 and A2 in the raiser's range no matter what your read is.

I think this was one of the rare situations Phil Gordon got right. Online special, baby.

[s33w33d]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In his post bust out interview though Kahn claimed that he had a read on Kravchenko that he was weak on this hand. If you repeat the exercise but make it twice as likely that Kravchenko has the weak half of his range than the strong half this goes from a marginal but probably good play to a clearly good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really makes no difference if you think he's weak. You still have 33. It's a real stretch to put hands like 22 and A2 in the raiser's range no matter what your read is.

I think this was one of the rare situations Phil Gordon got right. Online special, baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's his definition of weak? 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (47.6%) is mathematically not much different than K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (50.8%) vs. 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

I'd also consider 44-66 "weak" too.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting debate.

Everybody seems to be taking for granted that Rahme was being super, super nitty after 40-50 hands, while in the big thread on this subject there are certainly those who will also maintain that the "pros" were not nits but just utterly card dead. I think blithely assuming that Rahme is folding as wide as he did there is a bit results oriented.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an interesting debate.

Everybody seems to be taking for granted that Rahme was being super, super nitty after 40-50 hands, while in the big thread on this subject there are certainly those who will also maintain that the "pros" were not nits but just utterly card dead. I think blithely assuming that Rahme is folding as wide as he did there is a bit results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked this part in Khans bust out intvw:

Q: "what did you thank of Rahme?"
A: "he folds a lot"

[GotQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
What's his definition of weak? 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (47.6%) is mathematically not much different than K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (50.8%) vs. 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

I'd also consider 44-66 "weak" too.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's quite a difference between 33 and 66. With a pair of sixes you can not only dominate the weaker aces, but also 4 different pairs which are all in Alex's range.

[sirtimo]

[ QUOTE ]
b,

Yeah, I think the real discussion here is Rahme's fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. He would have about 8 mil left after calling the two all-ins. If he really did have AQ how can you not call??