GigaBet razz play

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bringin knows you are reraising with anything (and I am obviously raising with anything), then he should call or reraise any two cards 6 or lower.

A29 versus A2J is 62-38. If the bringin has 2 wheel cards and his cards are live, he can know that he is at worst slightly behind and usually ahead of the 9. So in this situation, the bringin should play.

If the bringin has 2 cards 6 or lower, and the cards are not especially live, it is borderline, and probably a fold, not knowing how loose you were reraising.

Maybe the bringin should play about 5% of the time. In practice, some people will be intimidated by the reraise, but some may play overly loose, so I would expect the bringin does play about 5% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your logic is flawed here. You started this topic in a well recognized poker forum on the internet. You chose to post the hand in a place where it didn't belong, because you felt that certain readers of the poker forum(anyone who reads a poker forum is light years ahead of most of the poker players out there in the world, who don't read it)wouldn't understand it.

Not only that, in the op, you stated that it was "an example of a high-level aggressive isolation play," and in a later response you stated that I may be the only person who would actually execute this play.

After all of that hype, you are now stating that a random player, online, in a relatively low buy in event, was on to my play? Not only on to it, but so certain that I was making the play, that he should be able to increase his calling range from no playable hands in that position, to 20% of everything that is dealt to him?


I play in all the major events, against weak players and WC players alike. I play online every day as well, once again, against weak players and WC players alike. Something that I have noticed through all of this play, across such a dizzying spectrum of skill level, is that everyone is dealt the same cards at the degree of frequency.

It is that reason, and that reason alone, which is why those "high-level" plays are so safe to make. People realize, that in the heat of the moment, I could have actually been dealt a real hand, this one time, maybe...just once. A real hand.

Because of the real hand syndrome. It usually just isn't worth the risk to put your money in marginal situations, just because you may or may not know that this may be a good spot for a "high level play."

[betgo]

I appologize if I offended you. I know you are a great player and I respect your play.

I posted this because I thought it was an interesting play. This was the correct forum. I thought it was interesting because it shows your strength in reading people and situations. I know you are a very strong player, and particularly good with reads, tournament and SNG situations, and taking advantage of these using aggressive plays. I thought the play was interesting because it shows your approach and the strength of your tournament play.

I thought it was a bad play, because it didn't work mathematically with razz. I still think so, although it doesn't lose many chips on the average. As you stated, you don't have that much experience with razz and couldn't do the calculations in the few seconds you have. I pick up a lot of chips in the razz portion of the tournament, and many people make much more serious errors.

As for the bringin not defending because he would be risking 1/4 of his chips and it was fairly near the bubble, I am not sure this is the case. I believe they were paying 3 or 5 places with an SNG style payout and there were 2 tables left, so there is some truth to this, but we are pretty far from the bubble.

You understand the psychology of when people will play weak tight better than me. However, if you felt you were getting odds to play with QJ9, I don't see how it would be incorrect for the bringin to play if he had 34J, live wheel cards.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did you find your way into a HORSE tourney anyway? Betgo didn't specify if this was the final table or not. If it was, and I'm the bring in with two bike cards in the hole, I am calling 100% of the time. You guys can discuss whether this would be an expert or donkey play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't the final table, but if it was the final table, it would be incorrect for the BI to call with 2 bike cards in the hole. Most payout structures start doubling each spot with 3 players left. So getting to that bubble is relatively important.

If this table were set up as the final table, with a normal payout structure, the BI would have to play this situation relatively tight. While he is in a comfortable situation relative to the other players at the table, only one person has him covered and he has at least a 2 to 1 lead over the next closest to him. His situation compared to the ante blind structure is not that favorable.

He cannot put 10% of his chips in play knowing that his equity in the pot isn't even close 33%. Even if he believes he can gain a little equity by freerolling me, by betting the pot dry side, his position in the tournament isn't secure enough to put chips in the middle knowing that the situation is -cev, especially when the chips in question are a meaningful part of your stack.

Beating the all in player doesn't really help your situation, as he is very short anyway and the bubble that you will break doesn't create a significant jump in prize money.

In the unlikely scenario that you beat both players, and bust both, the money that you make will double in that individual situation, but your equity isn't going to double.

Before the hand started, your equity was approximately 20% of the prize money left, maybe a little lower, but close enough anyway. Assuming you bust both players, your equity is now approximately 30% of the prize money left.

Unfortunately, the players you busted took some of that money away, so you now have 30% of something that just decreased in value. Because neither of the players involved in the hand really stood to threaten the BIs place in the tournament, win or lose the hand, busting them for the sake of busting them just gives them the money that they were going to get anyway, just a little sooner.

Because 1st gets such a large percentage of the prize money, taking unnecessary risks at inconsequential bubbles is, well, unnecessary.

If you are the chip leader, then I would call with two bike cards, because your frequency of getting first place is not going to change by much whether you win or lose the hand.

However, for the player in question, if he loses the hand to me, his frequency of getting first place just changed dramatically. If he loses to the all in player, he is in essentially the same boat as he was before the hand, but with a few less chips(which add up to real money at this stage.)

The thing is, the 10 or 12% of the time that the BI will win the showdown against both players, his approximate value in the tournament will not increase a significant amount, simply because your situation in the tournament isn't really that much different than before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me explain why I call here. It is only 10% of my chips, that much is true, but my equity is probably about even with both of you:

http://www.propokertools.com/simulator/s...amp;h4=&h5=

Notice this is giving you credit for at least one baby in the hole (which you didn't have, but I can't know that). While it's true that I most likely have to lay it down if I catch above a 9 (or a pair) on 4th st and you don't, I have a reasonable chance to knock out both the short stack and a dangerous, aggressive player on the same hand. I know that if I catch good on 4th st I'm in a pretty good position since you'll likely try to bluff me out regardless of your hole cards, but you don't have enough chips left to charge me all the way to showdown. Against a conservative player, or one showing a 7 or better, I go away to a 2-bet regardless of hole cards and hope you take out the gnat.

BTW, lots of razz players would call from the BI here but for much worse reasons. Play the game a little more often and you'll see this is true. You'll also see that it's a very rare and advanced play to reraise from the BI against a likely bluffer simply because you're in such a poor position by having the high hand on board. With a J on board against a 9 door, a 3-bet would be horrible but a cold call may not be. That's the difference between razz and HE.

[betgo]

Yeh, I agree that if the bringin has two low cards, it is close in cEV whether he should play. How live the cards are is important.

From a tournament strategy standpoint, if the bringin has a quality hand, it is probably a good play for the bringin to gamble to knock out two short stacks and two of the best players in the tournament (I have been tearing up these HORSE tournaments). I am not sure if the SNG considerations that the bringin should play ubertight to cash apply that much.

In any case, the bringin may not play rationally or correctly. A lot of times the bringin will be intimidated by the action, but I think he plays a significant percentage of the time.

I calculate Gigabet's reraise rather than folding is -100cEV if the bringin always folds.

If the bringin reraises with two wheel cards and all the money goes in, Gigabet is 12% to win the main pot and 22% to win the side pot. His expected loss on the side pot is 750 chips and his expected loss on the main pot is 250 chips, for a total expected loss of 1000 chips. If the bringin reraises, it is actually better in cEV for Gigabet to fold.

If the bringin reraises 10% of the time and folds the other 90%, then Gigabet's reraise is -200cEV compared to folding. I am pretty sure the reraise is a bad play, but it doesn't lose that much on average. It shows Gigabet's strength as a tournament and SNG player, but his lack of experience with razz.

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
I appologize if I offended you. I know you are a great player and I respect your play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never respond to something that offends me, I was just trying to put a heavy sarcastic undertone to that response.

[Wetdog]

Try reading this for some explanation of block theory.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I appologize if I offended you. I know you are a great player and I respect your play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never respond to something that offends me, I was just trying to put a heavy sarcastic undertone to that response.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you responded intelligently, instead of just calling betgo a troll or something, lol. Does this recent interest in HORSE mean you're gunning for the mega event this summer at the WSOP?

[Gigabet]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this recent interest in HORSE mean you're gunning for the mega event this summer at the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this recent interest in HORSE mean you're gunning for the mega event this summer at the WSOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we should talk...

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
Try reading this for some explanation of block theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I finally had a chance to read and digest this thread, and I offer the following thoughts regarding how Gigabet's theories may play in a razz tourney, or the razz portion of HORSE. In a fixed limit game, you have a slightly different definition of what constitutes a "block" of chips and where the "line" dividing the field is placed. The key "block" size in limit games is having enough of a stack to charge another player all the way to showdown in a hand. Even if you're below the average chip stack, you have much more teeth as an opponent if you can play till showdown rather than being all-in on a 5th st bet (in stud type games) or on the flop in flop games. In a lot of the other HORSE games it's difficult to predict just how big a block you're going to need to play through a showdown since there can be a lot of multiway pots and a lot of raising even HU. This will happen occasionally in Razz, but in the vast majority of hands you can control the pot size well enough to know that a stack of 4-5 BB will be enough to guarantee you this leverage.

So for Razz (and for stud to a lesser extent) the block size you're after is 5 BB. The interesting thing in the OP example is that if the bring-in folds and Gigabet wins the hand, he now will have a stack of almost 5 BB and will be much more effective in his aggressive style unless he has to wait many hands and gets anted down. If the bring-in calls, even if he doubles Gigabet up plus the rest of the pot, Giga will have roughly 8 BB and the bring-in would have about the same. Isn't there some value in trying to deny a dangerous player the chance to acquire a full block of chips if you don't risk giving up a full block yourself in the process? (Obviously you have to have a decent chance of winning the hand, but I have already established that in previous posts.)