You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
to assume villian range is ATC is probably a mistake without prior history/reads
Well in that case, thanks for the comments guys and happy trolling on my posts.
Maybe just relax and have a cup of tea.
Your call is correct if you put villian on ATC, doesn't mean it's a great play.
Yes villian turns over 42, I would wager that you will face a better range next time unless you have specific reads.
If your reas are spot on, then well played.
That is the best line in this whole thread lol
Doubles i see you are bringing a bit of 2 plus 2 to Skypoker!
Is that a good or bad thing Larson7?
Something like A5+, 55+, KQ/KJ, possibly KTs?
Maybe even tighter.
Pretty sure Waller will be calling close to correctly anyway. Well I was before I saw this shove
The bottom cash spot pays the same as the top, whilst we have fold equity, we have a chance!
It's an old school "get your money in first" spot.
Auto allin!
I'm not going to read through this entire thread because it's late and the thread is huge.
Someone else has probably said this but when we raise the button, we can see the Big Blind's stack and he knows we can see it. In this situation we should not be min-raising intending to fold to a 9BB shove, and we should expect the villain to believe that he has no fold equity.
So when we min-raise we're repping a hand we're happy to go with. When the villain shoves, he should therefore have a hand that he's happy to go to showdown with. Those are the assumptions both of us should be making in the absence of particular reads on our opponent.
If we are min-raising here, it should be in the belief that the big blind is folding a high a proportion of his range. That would be a good spot to steal. However, if we believe that he's folding a high proportion of his range, when he shoves we should believe he's pretty strong. Now how do our pot odds look in the face of those assumptions?
You also have to bear in mind that, particularly in satellites, the value of our own chips is greater than the value of other chips - in the pot or our opponents' stacks. So when facing a call with 40% pot odds, we need to believe that we actually have far greater equity than 40% to make the call profitable in ICM terms.
Generally speaking, and I'm sure someone else has said this, we should be shoving or folding the button here with 100% of our range. We can't afford to be min-raise trapping because a) we're not going to get enough monster hands to maintain our stack this way, b) if we're min-raising with our monsters and shoving our weak hands, we're very transparent, and c) we want to be avoiding showdowns wherever possible, claiming chips without risking our stacks.
So we want to disguise our hand strength by shoving all the hands we intend to play when we're this shallow. You have to remember that claiming 100% of the value of the blinds, by forcing our opponents to fold, is better than claiming a 60%-70% edge in a big pot by calling. That's because the value of the first chip is far greater than the value of the last. That's ICM for you.
1. I don't like the initial raise - all-in or fold
2. I don't like the reshove either - need to take a chance at some point with the stack size, trying to get 2 live cards vs overcards is your only hope in this hand, but there must have been better spots to open shove earlier in tourney? Likely to be better spots in the next orbit so I'd wait. Have to think vast majority of the time button is calling unless on an absolute steal.
3. Final call - shouldn't have to make that decision - it's a result of the wrong decision at 1 but if you risk some of your stack pre with those blinds you need to be prepared to call. Something which should have been factored in at 2. I would say the call is marginal and trying to justify with maths is missing the key lesson from the hand which is you should have shoved.
In your last thread it was suggested that you keep villain's identity out of the HH. You seemed to take that point on board, yet have done it again.
You clearly have an aggressive playing style and aggression and position can go a long way in fast structure MTTs, it can also be a bit of a roller-coaster ride with big swings.
Don't get trapped into finding ways of justifying your play because the end result was good. You seem to be dismissing a lot of good feedback because it doesn't fit your perception.
On the evidence of the 2 threads I have commented on you seem to enjoy goading 2 respected forum regulars. Well it's got you noticed but my advice would be to tone it down. Both regs have responded and denied using the exact terms accused of. In both cases you end up mutually apologising and agreeing to move on.
Please keep the posts related to cards and situations and I am sure you will get quality feedback.
Forum dynamics in action - the personal stuff generated lots of traffic + once people see a popular thread more people are likely to comment.
Also agree that table dynamics/player history may impact line on the hand but we were not given any to go on.
If I haven't been stealing for a few orbits and BB is tight and has passed min raises before I might minraise but with stack sizes taken into consideration I would probably still shove. Might fold Q8 if have been "at it" a lot.
First: 24/11/2009
Last: 6/10/2013