In $11 30k

[Poker Addict 0]

PokerStars Game #19689722358: Tournament #100869288, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level VIII (150/300) - 2008/08/17 - 15:22:05 (ET)Table '100869288 252' 9-max Seat #8 is the buttonSeat 1: chek - raise (5020 in chips) Seat 2: sognafish (3350 in chips) Seat 3: zag4life (2079 in chips) Seat 4: jdog42 (1095 in chips) Seat 5: Natedogg112n (6845 in chips) Seat 6: M|ssFatale (7301 in chips) Seat 7: C|iFFy6 (3175 in chips) Seat 8: patoche92 (9714 in chips) Seat 9: djangooo7 (24140 in chips) chek - raise: posts the ante 25sognafish: posts the ante 25zag4life: posts the ante 25jdog42: posts the ante 25Natedogg112n: posts the ante 25M|ssFatale: posts the ante 25C|iFFy6: posts the ante 25patoche92: posts the ante 25djangooo7: posts the ante 25djangooo7: posts small blind 150chek - raise: posts big blind 300*** HOLE CARDS ***Dealt to chek - raise [3d 8c]sognafish: folds zag4life: folds jdog42: raises 770 to 1070 and is all-inNatedogg112n: folds M|ssFatale: folds C|iFFy6: folds patoche92: folds djangooo7: folds chek - raise: calling 770 to win over 1700????

[copernicus 0]

yes, I think you have to go with this one.

[Biff Goods 0]

really? with 38off?

[copernicus 0]

really? with 38off?

You only need 30% hot/cold equity to make this a call, and against a random hand you have 37%. Against a top 50% hand youre right around 30%, and it gets ugly from there. Its not my favorite spot to call , and any kind of read that would indicate villain doesnt push light might get me off the hand, but he really should be pushing ATC. Lose and you still have 80% of your starting stack left, and of course the deeper you get the easier call it is.

[MovingIn 0]

Plus, think of what it'll do for the table image to call an all-in with 83o (even though it's a small all-in). Others may be more reluctant to bluff you after a call like this.

[Aces Rule 0]

You only need 30% hot/cold equity to make this a call, and against a random hand you have 37%. Against a top 50% hand youre right around 30%, and it gets ugly from there. Its not my favorite spot to call , and any kind of read that would indicate villain doesnt push light might get me off the hand, but he really should be pushing ATC. Lose and you still have 80% of your starting stack left, and of course the deeper you get the easier call it is.

Certainly don't want to argue with the math BUT I just hate making this call with such garbage and for over 10-12% of my stack - and only the 3rd high stack at the table! First, it takes 22% of my stack - dbl what my stomach can handle - and after losing which is a pretty sure conclusion, the villian has now dbled up and has 50% of my stack to at me with - neither is good for me. Then there is my stack vs the average and that of the Chip leader - giving up 20% to shorty isn't helping my stack vs the leaders - just too expensive for my current posiiton. Ya sure the math is good enough but the cost is simply too steep for an almost sure loss. Get me a larger stack and less loss (say -10%) and I might get frisky once in a blue moon - otherwise, elect djangooo7 as sherriff - at least he can afford it! Maybe if they were sooooted -

[copernicus 0]

Certainly don't want to argue with the math BUT I just hate making this call with such garbage and for over 10-12% of my stack - and only the 3rd high stack at the table! First, it takes 22% of my stack - dbl what my stomach can handle - and after losing which is a pretty sure conclusion, the villian has now dbled up and has 50% of my stack to at me with - neither is good for me. Then there is my stack vs the average and that of the Chip leader - giving up 20% to shorty isn't helping my stack vs the leaders - just too expensive for my current posiiton. Ya sure the math is good enough but the cost is simply too steep for an almost sure loss. Get me a larger stack and less loss (say -10%) and I might get frisky once in a blue moon - otherwise, elect djangooo7 as sherriff - at least he can afford it! Maybe if they were sooooted -

This is a big tourney in level 8. A 5k stack is garbage, even if it is 3rd high at the table. If its a very tight table and youre fairly certain to see folds to first in vigorish soon then I can see waiting. Otherwise Im going with the math.

[HighwayStar 8]

I think I call due to a 6k stack carrying more power than a 5k stack at this stage. If you lose you still have enough fold equity. Added to that there is an image bonus if you show down 83o, people won't try to bluff resteal you as often after this/you may get paid off more often with strong hands, if that sort of thing is ever noticed in an $11 tournament.Added to that, the math says call, just.

[throwemaway 0]

I think I call due to a 6k stack carrying more power than a 5k stack at this stage. If you lose you still have enough fold equity. Added to that there is an image bonus if you show down 83o, people won't try to bluff resteal you as often after this/you may get paid off more often with strong hands, if that sort of thing is ever noticed in an $11 tournament.Added to that, the math says call, just.

Isn't your post basically summing up Gigabet's block theory? It has been a really long time since I read about it, but I'm pretty sure this is an application of it..Unfortunately, the meta game affects of the theory aren't in affect as much since this is an $11 donkament

[Poker Addict 0]

I called because of what Copernicus said. He was absolutely shoving any two here. Just ended up having me dominated by having the 8. I still think it's a call because of the huge odds and I look extremely tight folding here because the other players don't know I have 8 high when I fold.

[Aces Rule 0]

I called because of what Copernicus said. He was absolutely shoving any two here. Just ended up having me dominated by having the 8. I still think it's a call because of the huge odds and I look extremely tight folding here because the other players don't know I have 8 high when I fold.

Each style has it pros and cons and while MovingIn likes the idea of calling this with 8hi to ward off bluffs, I tend to take another take on this call - if you're that loose to call with 8hi what are you willing to push with? Being short stacked I think I prefer the tight image b/c very soon I'm going to be gambling in an attempt to steal the blinds and I need the tight image to help me fold marginal hands. If I had a large stack I'd be more inclined to call since it would slowdown a lot of moves against the big stack b/c he'll call with anything - but then, he can afford it!! Shorties have enough FE problems without blowing their tight image along with it making this weak a call - except for the math of course...

[HighwayStar 8]

Each style has it pros and cons and while MovingIn likes the idea of calling this with 8hi to ward off bluffs, I tend to take another take on this call - if you're that loose to call with 8hi what are you willing to push with? Being short stacked I think I prefer the tight image b/c very soon I'm going to be gambling in an attempt to steal the blinds and I need the tight image to help me fold marginal hands. If I had a large stack I'd be more inclined to call since it would slowdown a lot of moves against the big stack b/c he'll call with anything - but then, he can afford it!! Shorties have enough FE problems without blowing their tight image along with it making this weak a call - except for the math of course...

Good stuff. Maybe if we develop this image which is going to get us called light when we shove short, it's going to mean we can shove a hand like K8o from the CO with 10 BBs and get called lighter and be ahead meaning we won't be stuck at 10 BBs for long and THEN we'll have an even better image to work with and a resteal stack.This is very high variance though and probably about 15 levels above the level the $11 donkaments players are at so entirely unneccessary in this case.

[copernicus 0]

Isn't your post basically summing up Gigabet's block theory? It has been a really long time since I read about it, but I'm pretty sure this is an application of it..Unfortunately, the meta game affects of the theory aren't in affect as much since this is an $11 donkament

Yes, its probably related to GBT, although I usually tend to think of that when making decisions with large stacks. Chipping up here is more important than the 20% of your stack that you lose and as long as the math supports it thats enough. GBT here would strengthen that argument. Youre in the same block whether you win or lose, so go for it.

[Aces Rule 0]

Yes, its probably related to GBT, although I usually tend to think of that when making decisions with large stacks. Chipping up here is more important than the 20% of your stack that you lose and as long as the math supports it thats enough. GBT here would strengthen that argument. Youre in the same block whether you win or lose, so go for it.

Not just a few forum scribes make cracks about Sklanski bucks and when I see statemenst like the above in bold it kinda reminds me of those cracks. With all due respect Cops since the math is obviously on your side however the school of hard knocks has taught me a few lessions too. 20% here, 20% there and geeezz before you know it you're crippled but hey the math supported those calls! Every player goes thru several turning points in their tournement careers and one that really impacted on my game was the one where I learned NOT TO BE A SHERRIFF when short to medium stacked. Since I started taking a hard look at what my stack position was and how hard a call would hurt me and stopped making marginal calls with just about ATC b/c the math was right, my making final tables has dbl and maybe tripled! I bust out fewer times and always later on average when leaving those marginal (or worse) calls for when I have the stack to afford it. Am I worried about getting too tight an image - nope! The math is all very well and good but it has to be applied with due consideration of what that call will do to you stack and poisiton if you're always calling as the dog. Getting 2:1 and needing only 30% to win has a flip side that seems to get ignored - YOU LOSE 70% OF THE TIME! Big stack can take that chance - shorties can not! CALLING with garbage IS NOT a short stack strategy - at least not in my game - so going in as a dog and most likely to lose is not a survival tactic for a short to medium stack that I can endorse even if the math does support it. But my drummer has a slightly off tune beat anyway

[TravisG 0]

the thing is, if you have a shortish stack like that. you have to go on a run shortly anyways or otherwise you'll barely make anything than the first level of the money. you won't get any good long term equity out of just stealing the blinds all the time. get that loose image and double up with TT later when they loose-call you with A-x. if you happen to only get the 2-7 every hand for the 2 next rounds, without a lucky double up, you're out anyways, if you have those 700 chips + or not. it really doesn't matter. the math just totally dominates here.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

I would be more inclined to call if I had a stack of over 6k, this is close but i would call.

[Aces Rule 0]

the thing is, if you have a shortish stack like that. you have to go on a run shortly anyways or otherwise you'll barely make anything than the first level of the money. you won't get any good long term equity out of just stealing the blinds all the time. get that loose image and double up with TT later when they loose-call you with A-x. if you happen to only get the 2-7 every hand for the 2 next rounds, without a lucky double up, you're out anyways, if you have those 700 chips + or not. it really doesn't matter. the math just totally dominates here.

It's one thing to PUSH weak but quite another to CALL weak. You're confusing making a weak defensive call with the math supporting that decision vs going on a short stack strategy with you as the aggressor! Oh ya, the math may be supportive but it hardly dominates when you're calling as a known dog. The math doesn't say you should make the call it just says you'll be adequately rewarded for taking the chance if you do and win! The math can not say it was a good or bad decision to call - only that the pot odds are adequate to justify it!

[mk 11]

i'm a huge station and i think i fold here. intuitively it just seems right since your hand is so so weak and letting this go will leave you with an ideal reship stack whereas calling and winning puts you in 22 BB range which is a tough stack to play and calling losing puts you in 13 BB territory which is an ok reship stack but is dangerously close to an open shoving stack. in summary, i'd just much rather fold and reship on someone when i have a hand that actually has showdown value.

[copernicus 0]

! Oh ya, the math may be supportive but it hardly dominates when you're calling as a known dog. The math doesn't say you should make the call it just says you'll be adequately rewarded for taking the chance if you do and win! The math can not say it was a good or bad decision to call - only that the pot odds are adequate to justify it!

Which is the essence of every poker decision. Math dominates unless there are some overriding metagame or payout issues (which actually are still math, just a couple of levels deeper). I dont see any overriding factors here.

[Poker Addict 0]

I haven't really seen a good reason to fold yet. I mean I understand that I don't want to look to loose because I will be shoving soon. But the odds are just very solid here and my stack is really functionally not much different if I lose or fold. 83o being what, the bottom 5% of starting hands in poker might play into a bit. So do you fold J3o or T5o here too? What's the bottom call? 87o? If I would fold this hand, it would not take much more for it to be a call.I put this out there for this exact discussion. These situations happen a ton and where do you draw the line? Because I see a ton more folds here then I think should happen.

[MovingIn 0]

Isn't your post basically summing up Gigabet's block theory? It has been a really long time since I read about it, but I'm pretty sure this is an application of it..Unfortunately, the meta game affects of the theory aren't in affect as much since this is an $11 donkament

If players in general put any degree of serious thought and personal development into playing $2.20s and $4.40s (and a lot of players here do, let alone players on 2+2 and readers other other poker forums, sites, and materials), we need to give a little more credit to players in an $11 MTT and their ability to interpret what we do and what we show down. Mindless donkeys exist at the $11, but you're not facing a sea of them, and if we're this far in, the likelihood that we're sitting with savvy, observant players who will take something from seeing us show down 83o substantially increases.

[Poker Addict 0]

If players in general put any degree of serious thought and personal development into playing $2.20s and $4.40s (and a lot of players here do, let alone players on 2+2 and readers other other poker forums, sites, and materials), we need to give a little more credit to players in an $11 MTT and their ability to interpret what we do and what we show down. Mindless donkeys exist at the $11, but you're not facing a sea of them,

There actually is a sea of donkeys at $11 mtt's.