| |
Main
Date: 09 Jan 2009 19:41:55
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: SNG question
|
This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:57:02
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 9 2009 9:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
As usual in such a structure the RGP answer will be to sit around with
your thumb up your ass waiting for someone else to bust out.
The real answer is not to play broken structures.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:59:20
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
Wayne Vinson wrote:
> As usual in such a structure the RGP answer will be to sit around with
> your thumb up your ass waiting for someone else to bust out.
Who has suggested that? I haven't. I advocate limping UTG to try to
get the short stack out, not folding OR raising.
> The real answer is not to play broken structures.
What's broken about it? That's a typical satellite structure. Knowing
the right way to play close to the bubble is an important satellite
skill (since the "right way" is different than for cash tournaments).
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 22:51:06
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
In article <udns36xfj5.ln2@recgroups.com >,
Wayne Vinson <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
>The real answer is not to play broken structures.
Why? Wouldn't it be better to exploit broken structures?
Why should I pass up profit because the structure is sub-optimal?
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 15:04:03
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 4:51 PM, Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article <udns36xfj5.ln2@recgroups.com>,
> Wayne Vinson <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> >The real answer is not to play broken structures.
>
> Why? Wouldn't it be better to exploit broken structures?
> Why should I pass up profit because the structure is sub-optimal?
For a skilled player there's much more profit playing in structures that
actually encourage poker play. The "exploits" for broken structures tend
to involve everyone sitting around until the blinds get huge and no one
has any edge of any sort.
What would be good for you is of course entirely dependent on your poker
skill. It's possible the best structure for your might have the small
blind higher than the stacks to begin with and all places but one paid
thereby eliminating any poker play whatsoever and reducing the game to a
cut for dealer plus a coinflip between the blinds.
Personally, I want no part of that (or any structure that approaches it).
But I'm just funny that way.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:52:04
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
In article <3sus36xpk6.ln2@recgroups.com >,
Wayne Vinson <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
>
>For a skilled player there's much more profit playing in structures that
>actually encourage poker play. The "exploits" for broken structures tend
>to involve everyone sitting around until the blinds get huge and no one
>has any edge of any sort.
Well, that's not strictly true.
I played a few of these early on, and it was fairly common for
three players to melt down in the first two rounds. That can
only happen if the players in question are making truly egregious
blunders.
I think a skilled player is going to do best wherever his opponents
are making the biggest mistakes, but that's just a guess on my
part. If everyone is playing optimally, where's your edge?
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:35:08
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
Wayne Vinson wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 4:51 PM, Patti Beadles wrote:
>
>> In article <udns36xfj5.ln2@recgroups.com>,
>> Wayne Vinson <a7a88fc@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The real answer is not to play broken structures.
>> Why? Wouldn't it be better to exploit broken structures?
>> Why should I pass up profit because the structure is sub-optimal?
>
>
> For a skilled player there's much more profit playing in structures that
> actually encourage poker play. The "exploits" for broken structures tend
> to involve everyone sitting around until the blinds get huge and no one
> has any edge of any sort.
>
> What would be good for you is of course entirely dependent on your poker
> skill. It's possible the best structure for your might have the small
> blind higher than the stacks to begin with and all places but one paid
> thereby eliminating any poker play whatsoever and reducing the game to a
> cut for dealer plus a coinflip between the blinds.
>
> Personally, I want no part of that (or any structure that approaches it).
> But I'm just funny that way.
Rather snide, no? Maybe the problem is that you don't have enough poker
skill to understand the right way to exploit the satellite structure,
when "everyone is sitting around until the blinds get huge?"
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:38:32
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
UTG is an idiot.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:39:50
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 2:38 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> UTG is an idiot.
Why?
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
-------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:52:45
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> > UTG is an idiot.
>
> Why?
Because I said so....
BOOOOOOOOOONG ING!
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:27:44
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 9 2009 10:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
I don;t like the push. SS is CTD so i would limp with anything waiting for
him to push. Hopefully the others you play with are smart enough to call
and check it down.
Chris
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:32:14
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 2:27 PM, charrison100 wrote:
> I don;t like the push. SS is CTD so i would limp with anything waiting for
> him to push. Hopefully the others you play with are smart enough to call
> and check it down.
It's strange that so many people focused in on the UTG push. When I first
read about this hand it seemed to me that the UTG push was standard and
the call with AA was one of the worst plays possible.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:52:01
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 2:27 PM, charrison100 wrote:
>
>> I don;t like the push. SS is CTD so i would limp with anything waiting for
>> him to push. Hopefully the others you play with are smart enough to call
>> and check it down.
>
> It's strange that so many people focused in on the UTG push. When I first
> read about this hand it seemed to me that the UTG push was standard and
> the call with AA was one of the worst plays possible.
Yes, the call with AA was horrible, but the push UTG is a bad play as
well. Haven't you read the other responses on this? You want to entice
the short-stack to push, not run him out by raising. There are a lot of
hands he should push with, with the blinds coming up next hand, that a
raise can scare him into folding. You don't need a raise to get him
all-in, if he even calls he's utterly pot-committed to get his last few
chips in on the flop.
You also want to encourage the binds to call if the short-stack pushes,
to increase the chances of taking him out. Not run the blinds out.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:03:39
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 5:52 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> Yes, the call with AA was horrible, but the push UTG is a bad play as
> well. Haven't you read the other responses on this? You want to entice
> the short-stack to push, not run him out by raising. There are a lot of
> hands he should push with, with the blinds coming up next hand, that a
> raise can scare him into folding. You don't need a raise to get him
> all-in, if he even calls he's utterly pot-committed to get his last few
> chips in on the flop.
>
> You also want to encourage the binds to call if the short-stack pushes,
> to increase the chances of taking him out. Not run the blinds out.
No, you have it backwards. The people who are focused on the UTG push
just naturally assume that if you limp the short stack is going to
magically wake up with a hand and put his chips in. You also assume that
the second the short stack puts his chips in the pot that he folds. Both
of these assumptions are wrong.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 22:50:53
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 5:52 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
>> Yes, the call with AA was horrible, but the push UTG is a bad play as
>> well. Haven't you read the other responses on this? You want to entice
>> the short-stack to push, not run him out by raising. There are a lot of
>> hands he should push with, with the blinds coming up next hand, that a
>> raise can scare him into folding. You don't need a raise to get him
>> all-in, if he even calls he's utterly pot-committed to get his last few
>> chips in on the flop.
>>
>> You also want to encourage the binds to call if the short-stack pushes,
>> to increase the chances of taking him out. Not run the blinds out.
>
> No, you have it backwards. The people who are focused on the UTG push
> just naturally assume that if you limp the short stack is going to
> magically wake up with a hand and put his chips in. You also assume that
> the second the short stack puts his chips in the pot that he folds. Both
> of these assumptions are wrong.
Where do you get that? I assume no such thing.
I said that the button is MORE LIKELY to call if you limp instead of
push (which, if you have a good hand, is what you want him to do). I
also never said that it was a given that he will lose the hand -- in
fact, I pointed out that keeping the blinds in increases the LIKELIHOOD
that he will lose the hand. No one expects him to call, then fold for
his few remaining chips.
A savvy button may be suspicious of the UTG limping, but as he's the
big stack it doesn't necessarily mean much. As the UTG doesn't expect
anyone to raise (unless the button pushes, a trivial raise) he can limp
in with a lot of hands hoping to catch a flop and take someone out.
What does UTG gain by pushing? The most likely result is that everyone
folds and he gets the blinds, unless the button has a big hand. Then by
running out the blinds he gives the button protection and increases the
chances that the button triples up (the blinds' chips are already in the
pot).
I'm also not saying that the button is sure to fold to an UTG push. A
savvy button may reason, if UTG pushes, that UTG may just be bullying
and that he (the button) would rather go up against one player who
raised rather than three or four (even with two of them blinds). But
then UTG is still helping the button by raising, by giving him
protection from the blinds.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:49:36
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
In article <CYKdnZNQWpsitvHUnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@giganews.com >,
Joe Long <nospam@spam.com > wrote:
>I said that the button is MORE LIKELY to call if you limp instead of
>push (which, if you have a good hand, is what you want him to do).
I don't think that's true.
Blinds are 100-200, and the BB has 225. He has no leverage.
If he's playing rationally, he wants the maximum chance of
winning the hand. To that end, he is far smarter tossing
his chips into a protected pot than one in which he will
have to beat multiple hands. If UTG limps, the button is
pretty much guaranteed to have to beat at least three hands--
UTG, SB, BB, because they will all call and check it down.
When the biggest stack at the table jams, if the button calls
he is pretty much 100% guaranteed to only have to beat one
hand. He gets nearly as much money as if UTG had limped, but
he gets it a much higher percentage of the time. I'm rounding
here, but would you rather get 200+200+200+100 50% of the time,
or 200+200+200+200 25% of the time? That one is so easy that
you don't have to do the math. (And yes, the 25/50 percentages
are off, but they're still conceptually correct.)
Now, does that argue before or against UTG's jam? I think it
argues in favor.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 17:50:08
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
Patti Beadles wrote:
> In article <CYKdnZNQWpsitvHUnZ2dnUVZ_s7inZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Joe Long <nospam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> I said that the button is MORE LIKELY to call if you limp instead of
>> push (which, if you have a good hand, is what you want him to do).
>
> I don't think that's true.
>
> Blinds are 100-200, and the BB has 225. He has no leverage.
> If he's playing rationally, he wants the maximum chance of
> winning the hand. To that end, he is far smarter tossing
> his chips into a protected pot than one in which he will
> have to beat multiple hands. If UTG limps, the button is
> pretty much guaranteed to have to beat at least three hands--
> UTG, SB, BB, because they will all call and check it down.
>
> When the biggest stack at the table jams, if the button calls
> he is pretty much 100% guaranteed to only have to beat one
> hand. He gets nearly as much money as if UTG had limped, but
> he gets it a much higher percentage of the time. I'm rounding
> here, but would you rather get 200+200+200+100 50% of the time,
> or 200+200+200+200 25% of the time? That one is so easy that
> you don't have to do the math. (And yes, the 25/50 percentages
> are off, but they're still conceptually correct.)
>
>
> Now, does that argue before or against UTG's jam? I think it
> argues in favor.
Ah, someone has presented a rational case for UTG pushing, not just
saying "it's the standard play." And, you are right in your analysis --
I started to add something along those lines to a couple of my
responses, but deleted them.
It depends on how savvy a player the SS is, and what his cards are. in
the example under discussion, we know nothing about his skills or
playing style. I think that limping will get more players in that
situation playing the hand than folding, but I could be wrong, and you
are quite right that limping will actually get some to fold. The other
factor remains, though -- if you do get the short-stack in, you do NOT
want to drive out the blinds.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 02:18:50
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
In article <doGdnY1jX7pcq_DUnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com >,
Joe Long <nospam@spam.com > wrote:
>It depends on how savvy a player the SS is, and what his cards are.
Well, no. It only depends upon how savvy the short stack is.
You can't know what his cards are, so you can just affect
what the likelihood is that he will call with various ranges.
Clearly, there's some range that will cause him to call no
matter what you do-- AA, KK, AK at the very least. There's
a range where he will fold no matter what you do. And there
is a middle range where he will sometimes call and sometimes
fold... that's the only one you care about.
(There *might* be a little bit more complexity to this...
there might be a few hands that will move into or out of the
middle range based on limp vs. jam, but I think there are
very few of those so they aren't worth thinking about.)
A savvy player will recognize that he should call behind a
raise with the middle range, but should fold behind a call.
A less-savvy player may well do exactly the opposite. So,
given that you have a hand where you want the short stack to
call, you merely need to decide whether you think that ole
shortie is savvy or not-savvy. You can probably figure this
out by knowing how he got to be short stack.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 07:50:53
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> Blinds are 100-200, and the BB has 225. He has no leverage.
> If he's playing rationally, he wants the maximum chance of
> winning the hand. To that end, he is far smarter tossing
> his chips into a protected pot than one in which he will
> have to beat multiple hands. If UTG limps, the button is
> pretty much guaranteed to have to beat at least three hands--
> UTG, SB, BB, because they will all call and check it down.
You read the hand wrong Patti. BB has 2400 and Button is the SS with 225.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 19:04:07
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
In article <trpu36xp3d.ln2@recgroups.com >,
John_Brian_K <a7ecb57@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
>You read the hand wrong Patti. BB has 2400 and Button is the SS with 225.
Actually, I read it correctly, and my analysis was based on the
button having 225. I just described it incorrectly at the start
of the analysis.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:44:10
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 7:03 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 5:52 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> > Yes, the call with AA was horrible, but the push UTG is a bad play as
> > well. Haven't you read the other responses on this? You want to entice
> > the short-stack to push, not run him out by raising. There are a lot of
> > hands he should push with, with the blinds coming up next hand, that a
> > raise can scare him into folding. You don't need a raise to get him
> > all-in, if he even calls he's utterly pot-committed to get his last few
> > chips in on the flop.
> >
> > You also want to encourage the binds to call if the short-stack pushes,
> > to increase the chances of taking him out. Not run the blinds out.
>
> No, you have it backwards. The people who are focused on the UTG push
> just naturally assume that if you limp the short stack is going to
> magically wake up with a hand and put his chips in. You also assume that
> the second the short stack puts his chips in the pot that he folds. Both
> of these assumptions are wrong.
>
It's wrong the think anyone makes those assumptions.
If he doesn't call then it doesn't matter all that much anyway what
happens. You need to be prepared to give it up on the flop if he doesn't
call.
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:39:55
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 3:32 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 2:27 PM, charrison100 wrote:
>
> > I don;t like the push. SS is CTD so i would limp with anything waiting for
> > him to push. Hopefully the others you play with are smart enough to call
> > and check it down.
>
> It's strange that so many people focused in on the UTG push. When I first
> read about this hand it seemed to me that the UTG push was standard and
> the call with AA was one of the worst plays possible.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
I think the AA push was terrible as he was going against the only guy at
the table the could bust him. This is a spot I could fold aces.
At least when the Aces held up he was still in the game.
Chris
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 23:53:18
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
[super with 6 left, 5 paid. Button has appx 1 BB left. UTG
is a huge stack, BB is medium. UTG jams, BB calls with AA.]
In this case, the call by the BB was clearly made by someone
who does not understand supersatellites. It is a blatant
error.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 17:12:28
From: FangBanger
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 9 2009 9:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
why would you ever put another single chip in the pot that wasnt a blind ?
NO REASON TO EVER PLAY A HAND
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 10:44:00
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
we can't price a cash. our jam won't keep us from the money. shorty
passed on a nice price. big blind risked missing with aces. my guess?
an rgp freeroll for "all the marbles". cincy jams and types "my mcb is
filthy" - orangesfo folds his button, opting to maximize position and fold
equity on the next hand - poppinfresh calls in the bb - he ain't a no
gamble bump on a log and the mcb astard doesn't work on absolute.
sometimes you just have to read between the lines.
mo_charles
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 07:19:43
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 9 2009 10:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
My thoughts....
"You're retarded ass should be sitting out."
End of discussion.
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 10:07:00
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 10 2009 9:19 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> "You're retarded ass should be sitting out."
Fail.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 10:17:27
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 10 2009 1:07 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 10 2009 9:19 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > "You're retarded ass should be sitting out."
>
> Fail.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
Blah, blah. If I'm CL in a DON with 6 to go I'm sitting out....maybe
rubbing one out in the mean time.
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 06:58:23
From: Will_gamble
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
The money is not important to the BB and he has a boner for you.
On Jan 9 2009 9:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
**************************************************
On the wagon since 12/28/08
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 19:41:26
From: Lab Rat
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:31il36xl58.ln2@recgroups.com...
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
You should have limped, if only to get other big hands to limp and encourage
the ss to call. Notwithstanding that, BB is an idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 16:27:51
From: Eddie901
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
Hey, ratty, how long u been an RGPer?
Ed
On Jan 10 2009 10:41 AM, Lab Rat wrote:
> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:31il36xl58.ln2@recgroups.com...
> > This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> > some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> > hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
> >
> > 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> > blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> > Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
> >
> > I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
> >
> > ---
> > Morphy
>
> You should have limped, if only to get other big hands to limp and encourage
> the ss to call. Notwithstanding that, BB is an idiot.
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:25:40
From: nefletch
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
I guess I must be the donkey. I see no problem with
calling with AA. I'd do it
"Lab Rat" <robbie.buckley@optusnet.moc.au > wrote in message
news:49686d23$0$4046$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:31il36xl58.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
>> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
>> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>>
>> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
>> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
>> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>>
>> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>>
>> ---
>> Morphy
>
> You should have limped, if only to get other big hands to limp and
> encourage the ss to call. Notwithstanding that, BB is an idiot.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 09:10:08
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 10 2009 10:25 AM, nefletch wrote:
> I guess I must be the donkey. I see no problem with
> calling with AA. I'd do it
Another response on the subject:
ICM says you currently have an EV of .1996 of the prize pool. with bb
doubled at 4800, you at 3600 you have an EV of .1978 of the prize pool.
so if this was a $100 DoN you would lose 18 cents with the idiot calling
you.
the bb got .1946 of the prize pool. if he calls and wins he's at .1990
if he calls and loses he's at 0. so to call he needs a hand that wins
99.5% of the time. so he can not call with quads against a straight
flush draw on the turn. funny thing that.
either way you can shove any 2 cards there. and you probably should. no
matter if those people are dumb and call you.
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 19:08:21
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
FellKnight wrote:
> On Jan 10 2009 10:25 AM, nefletch wrote:
>
>> I guess I must be the donkey. I see no problem with
>> calling with AA. I'd do it
>
> Another response on the subject:
>
>
> ICM says you currently have an EV of .1996 of the prize pool. with bb
> doubled at 4800, you at 3600 you have an EV of .1978 of the prize pool.
> so if this was a $100 DoN you would lose 18 cents with the idiot calling
> you.
>
> the bb got .1946 of the prize pool. if he calls and wins he's at .1990
> if he calls and loses he's at 0. so to call he needs a hand that wins
> 99.5% of the time. so he can not call with quads against a straight
> flush draw on the turn. funny thing that.
Are you assuming that the BB understands this, and has the discipline to
fold a big hand?
> either way you can shove any 2 cards there. and you probably should. no
> matter if those people are dumb and call you.
I once found myself in a similar situation, where we were at the bubble
in a satellite, I think it was something like nine players left and
eight seats. I had too few chips to pay the blinds and was only a hand
or two away from the blinds. Two middle-stack players went at it, got
all-in, the smaller of the two lost and I got a seat.
Pushing UTG is a mistake here no matter what cards you hold. If you
have a weak hand, why risk giving the short stack chips to survive
another round? If you have a strong hand, why risk letting him escape
by telling him that and letting him fold? You only want to call with
hands likely to beat what the short-stack is likely to push with, and
not raise with anything, even AA.
There is almost no advantage in UTG winning a few more chips at this
point. What he wants is for one more player to go broke. If he pushes
and everyone folds he gets the blinds and antes, big whoop. He blew a
chance to take out the short-stack to do so.
Limping also keeps the blinds in the pot and further increases the
chances of taking out the short stack, if he makes his stand here.
The key concept here is that given the flat payout, you are NOT trying
to finish first -- your goal is to finish in the top five. Any play
that might win you a few more chips while blowing an opportunity to take
out the bubble is counterproductive.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:47:06
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 10 2009 8:08 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> > ICM says you currently have an EV of .1996 of the prize pool. with bb
> > doubled at 4800, you at 3600 you have an EV of .1978 of the prize pool.
> > so if this was a $100 DoN you would lose 18 cents with the idiot calling
> > you.
> >
> > the bb got .1946 of the prize pool. if he calls and wins he's at .1990
> > if he calls and loses he's at 0. so to call he needs a hand that wins
> > 99.5% of the time. so he can not call with quads against a straight
> > flush draw on the turn. funny thing that.
>
> Are you assuming that the BB understands this, and has the discipline to
> fold a big hand?
The point is the BB doesn't have to understand this, as the math holds
true regardless. In a situation like this he makes a mistake by calling
no matter what he knows. This mistake subsequently benefits everyone else
at the table, no matter what the outcome.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:38:53
From: garycarson
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 3:47 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 10 2009 8:08 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> > > ICM says you currently have an EV of .1996 of the prize pool. with bb
> > > doubled at 4800, you at 3600 you have an EV of .1978 of the prize pool.
> > > so if this was a $100 DoN you would lose 18 cents with the idiot calling
> > > you.
> > >
> > > the bb got .1946 of the prize pool. if he calls and wins he's at .1990
> > > if he calls and loses he's at 0. so to call he needs a hand that wins
> > > 99.5% of the time. so he can not call with quads against a straight
> > > flush draw on the turn. funny thing that.
> >
> > Are you assuming that the BB understands this, and has the discipline to
> > fold a big hand?
>
> The point is the BB doesn't have to understand this, as the math holds
> true regardless. In a situation like this he makes a mistake by calling
> no matter what he knows. This mistake subsequently benefits everyone else
> at the table, no matter what the outcome.
The math you talk about is not some kind of ultimate truth, it's a model,
and it at least implicitly assumes the BB knows what he's doing.
I think your conclusion holds up anyway, but the robustmess of your model
can't just be assumed only because it's "math".
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:51:05
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> The point is the BB doesn't have to understand this, as the math holds
> true regardless. In a situation like this he makes a mistake by calling
> no matter what he knows. This mistake subsequently benefits everyone else
> at the table, no matter what the outcome.
UTG is an idiot.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 12:53:03
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 2:51 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> UTG is an idiot.
That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:02:12
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 2:51 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
>> UTG is an idiot.
>
> That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
According to who? By raising he runs out the short-stack and if the
blinds fold (as they should) he gets the blinds. Big whoop, he's
accomplished nothing. If he limps there is a better chance that the
short-stack will play this hand, and that the blinds will come along,
maximizing the chances of eliminating the SS and ending the tournament.
The play may be "standard" in many circumstances, but that's one of the
problems with "standard" plays. They don't always apply.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:19:42
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 7:02 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > On Jan 12 2009 2:51 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> >
> >> UTG is an idiot.
> >
> > That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
>
> According to who? By raising he runs out the short-stack and if the
> blinds fold (as they should) he gets the blinds. Big whoop, he's
> accomplished nothing. If he limps there is a better chance that the
> short-stack will play this hand, and that the blinds will come along,
> maximizing the chances of eliminating the SS and ending the tournament.
>
> The play may be "standard" in many circumstances, but that's one of the
> problems with "standard" plays. They don't always apply.
>
>
> --
> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> Somewhere on the Range
Like Morphy said, pushing reduces the net chip stack of the entire table,
and thus hastens the end.
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 23:00:10
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
FellKnight wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 7:02 PM, Joe Long wrote:
>
>> XaQ Morphy wrote:
>>> On Jan 12 2009 2:51 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>>>
>>>> UTG is an idiot.
>>> That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
>> According to who? By raising he runs out the short-stack and if the
>> blinds fold (as they should) he gets the blinds. Big whoop, he's
>> accomplished nothing. If he limps there is a better chance that the
>> short-stack will play this hand, and that the blinds will come along,
>> maximizing the chances of eliminating the SS and ending the tournament.
>>
>> The play may be "standard" in many circumstances, but that's one of the
>> problems with "standard" plays. They don't always apply.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joe Long aka ChipRider
>> Somewhere on the Range
>
> Like Morphy said, pushing reduces the net chip stack of the entire table,
> and thus hastens the end.
Fell, you know better than that. This tourney isn't going to be going
on for another hour, it can be over on any hand, as soon as one more
player goes out it's over. Your own analysis on the maillist showed how
trivial the changes in net chip stack were. Enticing the short stack to
play the hand with the blinds in is more likely to end the tourney,
right then.
If the SS has a poor hand, it doesn't matter because he's folding anyway
to take his chances in the SB. If he has a big hand he's pushing no
matter what, but then why give him protection by driving out the blinds?
Pushing here is a play with little to gain and much to lose.
The key is that it is a flat payout -- there is absolutely no advantage
to stack size once it's down to five, because it's over and everyone
gets the same payoff.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 04:14:25
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 13 2009 1:00 AM, Joe Long wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
> > On Jan 12 2009 7:02 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> >
> >> XaQ Morphy wrote:
> >>> On Jan 12 2009 2:51 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> UTG is an idiot.
> >>> That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
> >> According to who? By raising he runs out the short-stack and if the
> >> blinds fold (as they should) he gets the blinds. Big whoop, he's
> >> accomplished nothing. If he limps there is a better chance that the
> >> short-stack will play this hand, and that the blinds will come along,
> >> maximizing the chances of eliminating the SS and ending the tournament.
> >>
> >> The play may be "standard" in many circumstances, but that's one of the
> >> problems with "standard" plays. They don't always apply.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> >> Somewhere on the Range
> >
> > Like Morphy said, pushing reduces the net chip stack of the entire table,
> > and thus hastens the end.
>
> Fell, you know better than that. This tourney isn't going to be going
> on for another hour, it can be over on any hand, as soon as one more
> player goes out it's over. Your own analysis on the maillist showed how
> trivial the changes in net chip stack were. Enticing the short stack to
> play the hand with the blinds in is more likely to end the tourney,
> right then.
Actually, I stated that the net change to your own chances of winning when
losing to the second biggest stack is negligible.
> If the SS has a poor hand, it doesn't matter because he's folding anyway
> to take his chances in the SB. If he has a big hand he's pushing no
> matter what, but then why give him protection by driving out the blinds?
> Pushing here is a play with little to gain and much to lose.
Incorrect. There is nothing whatsoever to lose.
> The key is that it is a flat payout -- there is absolutely no advantage
> to stack size once it's down to five, because it's over and everyone
> gets the same payoff.
I am aware of that. The fact remains that even if you are called and
lose, your chances to cash are in the 99% range. While I am not saying
that your method is inherently incorrect, nor that mine is inherently
superior, I am saying that pushing any 2 is a very reasonable play, one
that will hasten the end of the DoN. Your way will work too, and is
certainly better than the idiots who say "sit out!"
>
> --
> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> Somewhere on the Range
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 05:10:01
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 13 2009 7:14 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Jan 13 2009 1:00 AM, Joe Long wrote:
>
> > FellKnight wrote:
> > > On Jan 12 2009 7:02 PM, Joe Long wrote:
> > >
> > >> XaQ Morphy wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 12 2009 2:51 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> UTG is an idiot.
> > >>> That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
> > >> According to who? By raising he runs out the short-stack and if the
> > >> blinds fold (as they should) he gets the blinds. Big whoop, he's
> > >> accomplished nothing. If he limps there is a better chance that the
> > >> short-stack will play this hand, and that the blinds will come along,
> > >> maximizing the chances of eliminating the SS and ending the tournament.
> > >>
> > >> The play may be "standard" in many circumstances, but that's one of the
> > >> problems with "standard" plays. They don't always apply.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Joe Long aka ChipRider
> > >> Somewhere on the Range
> > >
> > > Like Morphy said, pushing reduces the net chip stack of the entire table,
> > > and thus hastens the end.
> >
> > Fell, you know better than that. This tourney isn't going to be going
> > on for another hour, it can be over on any hand, as soon as one more
> > player goes out it's over. Your own analysis on the maillist showed how
> > trivial the changes in net chip stack were. Enticing the short stack to
> > play the hand with the blinds in is more likely to end the tourney,
> > right then.
>
> Actually, I stated that the net change to your own chances of winning when
> losing to the second biggest stack is negligible.
>
> > If the SS has a poor hand, it doesn't matter because he's folding anyway
> > to take his chances in the SB. If he has a big hand he's pushing no
> > matter what, but then why give him protection by driving out the blinds?
> > Pushing here is a play with little to gain and much to lose.
>
> Incorrect. There is nothing whatsoever to lose.
>
> > The key is that it is a flat payout -- there is absolutely no advantage
> > to stack size once it's down to five, because it's over and everyone
> > gets the same payoff.
>
> I am aware of that. The fact remains that even if you are called and
> lose, your chances to cash are in the 99% range. While I am not saying
> that your method is inherently incorrect, nor that mine is inherently
> superior, I am saying that pushing any 2 is a very reasonable play, one
> that will hasten the end of the DoN. Your way will work too, and is
> certainly better than the idiots who say "sit out!"
>
> >
> > --
> > Joe Long aka ChipRider
> > Somewhere on the Range
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
I'd be sitting out. No reason to play at all.
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 05:50:14
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 13 2009 8:10 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> I'd be sitting out. No reason to play at all.
Well, you're wrong bub :)
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:00:58
From: CincinnatiKid
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 13 2009 8:50 AM, FellKnight wrote:
> On Jan 13 2009 8:10 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
>
> > I'd be sitting out. No reason to play at all.
>
> Well, you're wrong bub :)
>
> Fell
> --
> Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
Take your fancy maths back to Canada.
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:06:17
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 13 2009 9:00 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> On Jan 13 2009 8:50 AM, FellKnight wrote:
>
> > On Jan 13 2009 8:10 AM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
> >
> > > I'd be sitting out. No reason to play at all.
> >
> > Well, you're wrong bub :)
> >
> > Fell
> > --
> > Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
>
> Take your fancy maths back to Canada.
Amusingly enough, in a case like this, it's rarely about the math.
One time I was near the end of a $3R to the Sunday Million ($215). I had
more than double the chips of second place, 13 seats paid. I pushed every
hand from 20 down to 13, doubling my stack again in the process. Finally,
on the bubble, with the short stack about to be all-in on the BB next
hand, I pushed with 95s, got called by a healthy stack with KK, and hit
runner runner flush to bust his ass for $9. He stalked me for over a
week, harassing me for being a terrible player. You cannot buy moments
like that!
And you're telling me that your inner macho wouldn't push any 2 when you
have no danger of going broke? LIES!
Fell
--
Be Loud. Be Proud. Be Considerate!
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:02:51
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> > UTG is an idiot.
>
> That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
2400 was NOT guaranteed anything at this point. Fold? Noway. Now if the
stacks were flipped and 6000 had the AA and the 2400 pushed UTG I STILL
call.
Maybe I am the moron.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:10:39
From: charrison100
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 4:02 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> > > UTG is an idiot.
> >
> > That may very well be true, but his play here is standard.
>
> 2400 was NOT guaranteed anything at this point. Fold? Noway. Now if the
> stacks were flipped and 6000 had the AA and the 2400 pushed UTG I STILL
> call.
>
> Maybe I am the moron.
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John
Not a moron but the stacks are not switchable, if UTG has 2400 then the
push with a decent hand is good and the call by BB with 6000 is
automatic.
The way it was explained the UTG should have limped trying to entice the
SS into the pot and the UTG should have called then they could have
checked it down.
Since the UTG is the only guy at the table that can but the BB AND he
chose to push ahead of the BB I am saying that he should fold the AA.
Chris
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:16:00
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> Since the UTG is the only guy at the table that can but the BB AND he
> chose to push ahead of the BB I am saying that he should fold the AA.
>
> Chris
Easy call IMO and UTG is a moron.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:16:57
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 3:16 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> Easy call IMO and UTG is a moron.
You still haven't answered why you think UTG is a moron.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:32:16
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> You still haven't answered why you think UTG is a moron.
BB was down to 2200 the 1500 stacks do not matter right now because they
are not putting a penny in the pot with anything lower than AA. The
button is not calling anything anyway.
WTF was UTG trying to do? Steal 300? Big fucking whoop. If UTG had a
hand LESS than AA here he is a moron.
2400 is NOT guaranteed 5th.
Let us play this through our minds.
Short stack gets KJ and goes all in and the big stack feeling like he 'has
to call' does so with 5-9 and loses. then let us say 2400 stack gets QQ
and plays it and short stack goes all in and 2400 now is stuck with a
decision to call another 250 with QQ. I mean he has to call that right?
He calls and loses when an A hits the flop and gives shortie TPTK. Now
shortie is sitting with 1000 and 2400 stack now has 1850 when he just
folded AA 3 hands ago because it was a 'standard play' Next thing you
know 1500 stack decides to say fuck it and jams with AQ or something
stupid in his BB when big stack called the BB with JJ and now 'has to
call' the extra 1300 and AQ wins. Now you have a 3000 stack, 1500, 1500,
1850, 1000 4200 (roughly)
This scenario does not look as cut and dry. And to think 3 hands ago and
like 20 seconds ago 2400 stack folded AA.
So again WTF is UTG trying to do here? That is MY question to you.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:07:38
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
John_Brian_K wrote:
>> You still haven't answered why you think UTG is a moron.
>
> BB was down to 2200 the 1500 stacks do not matter right now because they
> are not putting a penny in the pot with anything lower than AA. The
> button is not calling anything anyway.
>
> WTF was UTG trying to do? Steal 300? Big fucking whoop. If UTG had a
> hand LESS than AA here he is a moron.
>
> 2400 is NOT guaranteed 5th.
No, he's not. It's poker, we don't play according to guarantees, but
what has the best chance of success.
In your scenario below, he gets very unlucky after folding AA. It
happens. But less often than him losing with his AA and being out on
that hand. If the BB wants to maximize his chances of making the payout
he will fold his AA, even though it is emotionally difficult for most
people to do.
> Let us play this through our minds.
>
> Short stack gets KJ and goes all in and the big stack feeling like he 'has
> to call' does so with 5-9 and loses. then let us say 2400 stack gets QQ
> and plays it and short stack goes all in and 2400 now is stuck with a
> decision to call another 250 with QQ. I mean he has to call that right?
> He calls and loses when an A hits the flop and gives shortie TPTK. Now
> shortie is sitting with 1000 and 2400 stack now has 1850 when he just
> folded AA 3 hands ago because it was a 'standard play' Next thing you
> know 1500 stack decides to say fuck it and jams with AQ or something
> stupid in his BB when big stack called the BB with JJ and now 'has to
> call' the extra 1300 and AQ wins. Now you have a 3000 stack, 1500, 1500,
> 1850, 1000 4200 (roughly)
>
> This scenario does not look as cut and dry. And to think 3 hands ago and
> like 20 seconds ago 2400 stack folded AA.
>
> So again WTF is UTG trying to do here? That is MY question to you.
>
> ========================================
> You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
> nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
> ========
> BOOM byae
> John
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:35:17
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 3:32 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> So again WTF is UTG trying to do here? That is MY question to you.
Trying to end the SNG.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:09:44
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> On Jan 12 2009 3:32 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
>
>> So again WTF is UTG trying to do here? That is MY question to you.
>
> Trying to end the SNG.
How is he trying to do that by pushing, which probably runs everyone out
and he just picks up the blinds?
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:38:30
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
> Trying to end the SNG.
By going all in when only AA is going to call? Button is NOT calling
anything here.
He has 3 more hands he can see. So again what is UTG trying to accomplish
here?
UTG is a moron.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 13:45:04
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
On Jan 12 2009 3:38 PM, John_Brian_K wrote:
> By going all in when only AA is going to call? Button is NOT calling
> anything here.
>
> He has 3 more hands he can see. So again what is UTG trying to accomplish
> here?
>
> UTG is a moron.
The mistake is thinking that the button is automatically going to lose as
soon as he gets his stack in.
By jamming UTG is in effect lowering every stack on the table as well as
making it a mathematical mistake for anyone to call, regardless of their
cards.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2009 17:26:48
From: Joe Long
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> The mistake is thinking that the button is automatically going to lose as
> soon as he gets his stack in.
No one has suggested that the SS is sure to lose this hand if he plays.
However, he is in desperation mode, with the blinds taking his
remaining chips in the next two hands unless he wins a pot. He's going
to call with any better-than-random hand unless someone runs him out.
> By jamming UTG is in effect lowering every stack on the table as well as
> making it a mathematical mistake for anyone to call, regardless of their
> cards.
That's going to run out the button with most of the hands he might have.
His hope is that one of the blinds will call and lose, or that his
chances will be better in the SB than against a raiser. The effects of
the stack-size changes are almost nonexistent in this situation, unless
UTG is called and loses. He has almost nothing to gain by jamming, he
stand to lose more.
The happiest man at the table when the BB called was the button. I've
been in that situation in a satellite, about to blind out on the bubble
when two of the big-stacks went at it and one of them went out.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:18:33
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
I think their point is that the player with T225 left and the BB at 200
will be out soon, so why risk anything?
Your aces could get cracked and he gets paid instead of you.
On Jan 10 2009 10:25 AM, nefletch wrote:
> I guess I must be the donkey. I see no problem with
> calling with AA. I'd do it
>
>
>
>
>
> "Lab Rat" <robbie.buckley@optusnet.moc.au> wrote in message
> news:49686d23$0$4046$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:31il36xl58.ln2@recgroups.com...
> >> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> >> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> >> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
> >>
> >> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> >> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> >> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
> >>
> >> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Morphy
> >
> > You should have limped, if only to get other big hands to limp and
> > encourage the ss to call. Notwithstanding that, BB is an idiot.
> >
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2009 08:56:28
From: nefletch
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
ok, after taking a shower, and having a soda, I guess
I'd probably fold also....
but I'd also question shoving like you did also
"nefletch" <aceking@bbc.net > wrote in message
news:0o-dnZsPwtGcI_XUnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@posted.mobiuscommunications...
>I guess I must be the donkey. I see no problem with
> calling with AA. I'd do it
>
>
>
>
>
> "Lab Rat" <robbie.buckley@optusnet.moc.au> wrote in message
> news:49686d23$0$4046$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:31il36xl58.ln2@recgroups.com...
>>> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
>>> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with
>>> this
>>> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>>>
>>> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
>>> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
>>> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>>>
>>> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Morphy
>>
>> You should have limped, if only to get other big hands to limp and
>> encourage the ss to call. Notwithstanding that, BB is an idiot.
>>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 22:26:09
From: eleaticus
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
"XaQ Morphy" <a1c5905@webnntp.invalid > wrote in message
news:31il36xl58.ln2@recgroups.com...
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
Many.
A. If the others aren't idiots 'you' should have bet in such a way as to max
the short stack coming in, just limped and hoped he would come in against
everyone/many.
B. Or, just folded.
C. AA was an idiot. he had no reason to call, even if he thought 'tou' were
an idiot bluffing on 72o.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
>
> -----
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2009 20:32:23
From: gtech1
Subject: Re: SNG question
|
Interesting question. BB has at least an 80% chance of cashing once he
calls. Does he have more than an 80% chance of cashing if he folds?
Probabaly, but not sure, and too drunk to do the math.
On Jan 9 2009 10:41 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> This was taken from another email list that I'm a member of. I believe
> some of you are members as well. Note that I had nothing to do with this
> hand, but I'm just pasting it from the original email:
>
> 6-handed. Top 5 all pay the same. 6th get zero.
> blinds are 100-200. I have 6000. BB has 2400.
> Short stack (button) has 225. Others have about 1500 each.
>
> I jam UTG. Short stack folds. BB calls with AA. Thoughts?
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
> "You...are just as funny...as Popinjay is" --Will in New Haven
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
|
