Theory question regarding fold equity

[Supwithbates]

In a multi-table tourney, say you're shortstacked with ~9 BBs after posting in the BB. Say the aggressive button raises into you, and his range is practically ATC.
You hold A8o. Folding is out of the question. However, given your holdings, unless he has something you dominate (a worse 8, or a worse ace) shoving does not force a mistake from him, he would be correct in calling for the 60/40. You have no fold equity.

Is this the type of situation to use a stop and go? It seems weird to me to question getting in with what is likely to be the best of it, but then again, poker is about forcing your opponent to make a mistake...

[markbris]

I would only not get it in preflop if I thought my hand was worse then his. The reason for a stopngo is to get him to fold hopefully, if you figure he is raising ATC then you want to move in and you want him to call. So move it in i say.

[JCool]

If you have determined that A8 is ahead of his range and that he will be calling 100 percent of the time, then it is obviously +EV to shove.

A stop and go might be a better idea if you were holding something like say 98 instead of A8

[Supwithbates]

[ QUOTE ]
I would only not get it in preflop if I thought my hand was worse then his. The reason for a stopngo is to get him to fold hopefully, if you figure he is raising ATC then you want to move in and you want him to call. So move it in i say.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't want him to call if he's getting the pot odds to make it profitable, which he is. He's going to call and he's going to be correct in doing so, so obviously it would be better for us if he folded. The question is, should we shove on the flop, or shove preflop where we're assured a call by a hand that we're probably ahead of?

[Supwithbates]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have determined that A8 is ahead of his range and that he will be calling 100 percent of the time, then it is obviously +EV to shove.

A stop and go might be a better idea if you were holding something like say 98 instead of A8

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it's +EV to shove as opposed to folding, but is it +EV to shove as opposed to stop and go?

The fundamental theory of poker states that whenever a player plays his cards differently than he would were yours turned faceup, you profit. Shoving preflop does not achieve this goal, unless villain is some sort of nit that is going to fold stupidly. Assuming he has a head on his shoulders and plans on calling with his entire PF range, shoving doesn't achieve a mistake and therefore can't be optimal. I would assume this is doubly the case in tourneys, where survival becomes an end in itself: we really do WANT him to fold.

An example to prove my point: Say you have AK and opponent has QJ. Opponent raises half your stack, and you go allin. Opponent is getting 3:1 on a call, so obviously he's going to. However, in the longrun we profit more if we can induce a fold from villain than if he calls because he's playing incorrectly. Therefore, our goal should be to find a line with the most fold equity even though we're certain we have the best of it.

This thinking is standard in ring, is it somehow flawed due to the different nature of tournaments? From what I've read on tourney theory, ie chips losing value, importance of survival, etc., it should be even more true in tourneys from my understanding.

[shaundeeb]

sng>shove for many reasons that are very math intensive and then go into player tendencies and calling ranges on diff flops. The ranges are just too wide but trust me sng here.

[Kyle Flynn]

i def. sng.

Maybe get him to fold that Q9 on the flop... so he can't get to see/hit the turn and river.... and suck your ass out