Stop and Go with AK

[seke2]

Ok, give me a reasonable possible holding for Villain and a reasonable RANGE for Hero where Villain is an 8:1 dog, please.

[burningyen]

Deleted my post when I saw the word "range."

[seke2]

[ QUOTE ]
Deleted my post when I saw the word "range."

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, give me a reasonable possible holding for Villain and a reasonable RANGE for Hero where Villain is an 8:1 dog, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

after the flop?

Just an example:


324,720 games 0.094 secs 3,454,468 games/sec

Board: As Ac Ad
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 10.2014 % 08.03% 02.17% { 76s }
Hand 2: 89.7986 % 87.62% 02.17% { 22+, ATs+, ATo+ }


You can throw a lot of other broadway hands into hero's calling range (too much trouble to include all of them), but it's actually still going to support the > than 8:1. Remember you are looking at it from villains perspective on your possible calling range and whether he has the 8:1 or not.

[Foucault]

Rockin,

We know what our cards are. Villain has to assign us a range. Our objective is to deceive him about our range such that he, on the belief that he is playing correctly against that range, makes a FTOP mistake against our actual holding, which is known to us but not to him.

If we can beat a flush, then we want Villain to believe he has the odds he needs to try to draw out on us, since we know he does not. If we cannot beat a flush, then we would prefer Villain folded rather than call getting the odds he needs.

This is very basic stuff. Have you read Theory of Poker? You should cool it with the arrogant tone, because it only emphasizes how fundamentally misguided your thinking is here.

(I have a feeling you are going to say something like, "how do we even know Villain is even on a flush draw?" The answer is that this is just an example of a mistake he could make.)

[seke2]

Ok, so there's one that is just barely worse than 8:1. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
You should cool it with the arrogant tone, because it only emphasizes how fundamentally misguided your thinking is here.


[/ QUOTE ]


Your kidding right? Your speaking for Steve and I'M being arrogant. Geez, this is not good.

If I've come across in the wrong way I apologize. I only stated it was funny and that I disagreed. Again if perceived differently, then I apologize.

As far as ranges, I AM looking at it from villains perspective, see my last post on a somewhat related subject concerning getting 8:1 odds.

[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
Our objective is to deceive him about our range such that he, on the belief that he is playing correctly

[/ QUOTE ]


One BB does not give villain or hero a whole lot of room for deception.

Our calling range of a 3xbb SEMIshove is pretty wide.

[stevepa]

I agree with everything Foucault's said, plus he expresses things much more clearly than I do. Our goal when SNGing is to make villain make FTOP mistakes. He won't always make them but by pushing preflop, we give him no chance to make a mistake (unless he misclick folds). We make money by inducing mistakes from our opponents. Note that I'm not saying we should do this if, for example, he had another 12k behind (instead of 4k) because then many of his postflop folds are correct. In this particular case (the OP) we may occasionally induce him to make a horrible fold (from a FTOP perspective) by SNGing.

To those people who think this is a stupid hand, I think you need to seriously look at why you read 2+2. It shouldn't be to read a hand and say "next time I'm in x situation I need to do y." It's a forum to discuss poker concepts and improve the way you think about the game. The end result may be similar (i.e. you'll play better) but in the long run, understanding the reasons behind a play are far more important than the plays themselves. I think this thread has shown that many people, though they may play pretty well, misunderstand some fairly basic poker concepts.

Steve

[Moose747]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everything Foucault's said, plus he expresses things much more clearly than I do. Our goal when SNGing is to make villain make FTOP mistakes. He won't always make them but by pushing preflop, we give him no chance to make a mistake (unless he misclick folds). We make money by inducing mistakes from our opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a problem in this logic. The SNG does indeed allow opponent to make FTOP mistakes that he would not be able to make had we pushed preflop. However, it also allows opponent to make correct FTOP decisions that he could not make preflop. The scenario that's between presented, wherein villain folds only when an A or K flops and he doesn't have a piece of it, illustrates this. Villain would have called with 55 had we raised preflop, but now he folds on the AJ8 flop. In both cases he makes correct decisions by the FTOP, yet the results are marginally different.

The question I ask is whether it's realistic for villain to fold only when an ace or king flops and it doesn't hit him. I believe that most villains willing to fold 55 when AJ8 flops would also fold 55 when Q96 flops. The reason I believe this is that I think there's a correlation between players who'd willingly fold when getting ridiculous odds and players who don't understand the difference between lower and higher overcards.