Along for the ride

[Phil Van Sexton]

The table has been very aggressive and I've had no chances to steal without seeing a raise before it gets to me. My opponents seem to be suprisingly solid.

The blinds go up next hand.

The villian has been particularly aggressive. Maybe I have no FE, but he does. Do I piggyback on his raise and hope the extra money in the blinds make up for my indifferent hand? If not, what hand do you need here?

$50/5 PartyPoker, Big Blind is t150 (7 handed) Converter on pregopoker.com

UTG (t1815)
UTG+1 (t1625)
MP1 (t1195)
Hero (t630)
Button (t2340)
SB (t720)
BB (t1675)

Preflop: Hero is in CO with 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
<font color="gray">UTG folds</font>, <font color="red">UTG+1 raises to t1625</font>, <font color="gray">MP1 folds</font>, <font color="gray">Hero ???</font>

[1C5]

I am not sure exactly what you would need but I would fold this.

[FUJItheFISH]

how has he been aggressive? does he push every other hand?

pvs

you may get a chance to piggyback within the next few hands with an even larger overlay since the blinds go up after this hand. im compelled to muck this K8.

[pineapple888]

Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a range to call, probably AT+ 66+. I'd have to be sitting at the table, though.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a range to call, probably AT+ 66+. I'd have to be sitting at the table, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain is solid, do you think that range is ahead of his utg+1 when he is not in need of chips? I don't.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a range to call, probably AT+ 66+. I'd have to be sitting at the table, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain is solid, do you think that range is ahead of his utg+1 when he is not in need of chips? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said Villain has been the most aggressive at an aggressive table, and you are getting kind of desperate here. If Villain is solid, of course I tighten this up.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a range to call, probably AT+ 66+. I'd have to be sitting at the table, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain is solid, do you think that range is ahead of his utg+1 when he is not in need of chips? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true. His position and stack do make a difference here, though he was pushing whenever he got the opportunity (which wasnt that often at this table).

I do think AT+ 66+ is slightly ahead of his range, and I don't think you need to be ahead to call here. I folded this hand, but it got me thinking. For example, I think folding KJ here would be wrong.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a range to call, probably AT+ 66+. I'd have to be sitting at the table, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain is solid, do you think that range is ahead of his utg+1 when he is not in need of chips? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true. His position and stack do make a difference here, though he was pushing whenever he got the opportunity (which wasnt that often at this table).

I do think AT+ 66+ is slightly ahead of his range, and I don't think you need to be ahead to call here. I folded this hand, but it got me thinking. For example, I think folding KJ here would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need at least a chance to be ahead. Think about how often you'd be dominated or crushed w/ KJ. When 40% is your best shot, I think that's a very bad sign.

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. This is reasonably amenable to a SNGPT analysis, if anyone feels like doing it, to at least set a lower bound if you assume everyone after you folds (although this is a risky assumption, of course).

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, in the best-case scenario that everyone folds, you still need to beat Villain. I see zero justification for calling here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as a range to call, probably AT+ 66+. I'd have to be sitting at the table, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain is solid, do you think that range is ahead of his utg+1 when he is not in need of chips? I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably true. His position and stack do make a difference here, though he was pushing whenever he got the opportunity (which wasnt that often at this table).

I do think AT+ 66+ is slightly ahead of his range, and I don't think you need to be ahead to call here. I folded this hand, but it got me thinking. For example, I think folding KJ here would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need at least a chance to be ahead. Think about how often you'd be dominated or crushed w/ KJ. When 40% is your best shot, I think that's a very bad sign.

But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. This is reasonably amenable to a SNGPT analysis, if anyone feels like doing it, to at least set a lower bound if you assume everyone after you folds (although this is a risky assumption, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you are certainly better than 40% vs 22-TT, but you make a valid point. At the time, I gave him a much bigger hand range than seems correct in retrospect.

I dont have SNGPT handy, but you need to win 47% of the time to make ICM happy if everyone else folds. However, I asked the question because I don't think ICM accurately reflects quite how desparate my situation is here, and I was wondering what the humans thought.