Is Harrington wrong here?

[Keyser.]

The obvious answer is "no," but I can't help but feel his AQ hand example on pg. 254 of volume 1 isn't the best play.

Your stack is at T1070, with blinds at 100/200. On the button after 4 folds in a one-table satellite, Harrington suggests raising to 600, leaving you with only 400.

His reasoning is that raises to 600 typically win the blinds at this table, but still...isn't an all-in better here with a hand as vulnerable as AQ?

Edit: I'm curious because lately I've had to make many tough decisions as to whether or not an all-in or a standard preflop raise is the best play. Is there a common threshold for when you cross into auto-push territory?

[curtains]

I think it was just lazy editing on his part and he meant allin. If he didn't mean to go allin, then its irresponsible of him to just put the hand in the book without any explanation as to why he would prefer raising 60% of his chips instead of just moving allin to begin with.

So in either case, there is some kind of error that was made.

[mlagoo]

i cant really imagine what he was thinking here. obviously hes not folding at any point... so maybe he is thinking that a smaller bet will give someone the illusion of fold equity and they might come over the top with a weaker holding? i dunno. "its a PUSH"

[Keyser.]

I don't think it's simply an error since he even explains why it is correct to call your remaining 400 when the BB pushes on a bricked flop.

[seke2]

I guess he's just saying that your chips are going in anyway, so perhaps that raising and leaving yourself a small amount behind is scarier than just pushing all-in, so you might actually have more fold equity that way. I could see that if you were playing in person and had shown you were a solid player, but online, when I see that sort of crap, unless I have a read otherwise I assume the other player is an idiot.

[jlocdog]

Pushing and betting 60% here are essentially the same thing. He is saying anyone that is going to fold for 1000 is going to fold for 600. If you bet 600, get called and then push regardless of the flop, isn't it the same as preflop pushing? Your seeing 5 cards for 1000. He is saying there is no difference in fold equity here. The SB has 540 so he is irrelevant since a 600 raise will put him all in anyways and the big blind has 1240 so he is not "smooth calling" here either. The point of 600 to all in is moot.

[KC50]

Edit: I'm curious because lately I've had to make many tough decisions as to whether or not an all-in or a standard preflop raise is the best play. Is there a common threshold for when you cross into auto-push territory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in most cases the common threshold for when you cross into auto-push territory is when your stack is equal to or less than 10xBB. In this scenario, the BB is 200 and your stack is 1040, well less than 10xBB.

KC

[tedtodd]

I think betting more than half your stack shows a powerful hand, it's asking for a call. Whereas, if you didn't want the call you would have gone all-in for maximum scare power in a hand you didn't want to play.

We all know that this hand will get you allin if called- but i think you'll get more folds with the 600 bet vs. the all-in bet.

[schavuit]

Betting 600 or going all in is pretty much the same. You're not going to fold, when you bet 600 of 1070. Not going all in but betting 600 is more scary for the other players. They know he's not gonna fold the other 400, so it seems he has a real powerhouse and actually wants other people in the pot. This bet seems stronger than an all in, I think.

[MikeSmith]

i respect a big raise more than an all in, late in sit n gos short stacks have a tendency to min raise w/ big pairs increasing the chances of getting called.