$4.40 180 Sng Close To Bubble

[Cappy37 0]

As for Harrington's material, I disagree that it is becoming less and less applicable.

Harrington still has many good concepts for any aspiring player to learn from.That said, nearly *any* poker book is geared toward a.) live play or b. ) live tournaments. There is ridiculously littly big name literature out there that fully translates to the short-stacked nature of Stars/Tilt online tournaments. Ace-rag (yes, ace-8 IS ace-rag) is just about the worst possible hand to shove in any instance once you hit the orange and red zones. It's even worse when you are deep enough for any form of post-flop play.

[outsider13 0]

As for Harrington's material, I disagree that it is becoming less and less applicable. He states that as you get into the Orange Zone, as previously mentioned, your ability to play certain ways is limited. As you move down in the zone, you're no longer able to raise pre-flop then hope to push people off the pot after the flop. You're simply trying to take down whatever pots you can as quickly as you can. Our hero was basically at the bottom wrung of this zone and facing both of the blinds in 4 hands. His options were very limited and his ability to wait for a suitable hand in better position was on life support. Also, it's worth mentioning that the HoH is widely regarded as one of the best tournament tutorial series on the market.I still haven't seen the outcome anywhere in the thread other than the board being double paired. Maybe our hero had QQ77 with an A kicker vs pocket 6s?

Harrington's material IS dated, however there are a number of thing I learned from his books. But if you going to say that 18bb is on life support, I think that is flawed. I don't want to derail the thread though so I'm done.

[sennin 0]

Harrington's material IS dated, however there are a number of thing I learned from his books. But if you going to say that 18bb is on life support, I think that is flawed. I don't want to derail the thread though so I'm done.

Indeed. 18bb is a very playable. I dont consider myself on life support till im lower than 10bbs, even then Im still fairly comfortable.

[SlackerInc 0]

18bb (M7) is far from a place where you need to do this though. I'd advocate a shove at perhaps a 10bb range, but in this position, you are behind by 3 stacks that have you covered and you have a weak A .... and a playable stack. The only possible thing you could hope for is a call by a weak pair which is highly unlikely. I just think it's a reckless move risking 7000+ for 1000 chips because in reality, you are never ahead if you are called and are only hoping for a steal and your shove screams weakness. And fwiw, A8 is no better than KQ. Often you'll be completely dominated and drawing to 3 outs.

A8 suited is far better than KQ offsuit. You don't think you're often completely dominated with KQ? And in the other hand, someone had already raised, whereas here there is first-in vig.Also, I love how you just breezily state "18bb (M7)" as if one is just a conversion of the other. You said you'd advocate a shove "at perhaps a 10bb range", when 10bb without antes is an M of 7 just like hero has in this hand.We also need to look at Q, and at the payout structure. He's likely to fizzle out and not get to the final table unless he stays aggressive and picks up some chips. (Again, bizarro world that the argument seems reversed: but as I said, I like to shove with I've got FIV and a hand that if behind still has a reasonable chance to make the nuts.)

[SlackerInc 0]

Isn't it worth mentioning that in 4 hands he's going to realistically lose ~14% of his stack just from blinds and antes (more if the blinds/antes go up in that time) and leave him with an M of 6? He's at the lower end of the Orange Zone (M=6-10 "HoH2") and he has first in vigorish. HoH2 advocates pushing with hands as low as middle suited connectors, small pairs, and gapped paint when your M gets this low if the pot is unopened. A8 suited is certainly strong enough to justify a push especially since he's realistically going to lose 14% of his chips with hands worse than this one in only 4 more deals and loses that much more FE for the next rotation (not to mention that the table CL will be in the BB when Hero is on the button. An attempt to steal if it folds around loses it's effectiveness).

QFT, dude, QFT.

[SlackerInc 0]

Harrington still has many good concepts for any aspiring player to learn from.That said, nearly *any* poker book is geared toward a.) live play or b. ) live tournaments. There is ridiculously littly big name literature out there that fully translates to the short-stacked nature of Stars/Tilt online tournaments. Ace-rag (yes, ace-8 IS ace-rag) is just about the worst possible hand to shove in any instance once you hit the orange and red zones. It's even worse when you are deep enough for any form of post-flop play.

I love how this hand keeps getting dismissed as A8, not mentioning the fact that it's suited. As I mentioned before, I'd rather shove with A8 suited than AJ offsuit. And in any event there's a difference between A8 and something like A5. First off because of 66 and 77, which are two very possible hands that could call you, but second because there are "any ace" type players that will call with weaker aces and an 8 kicker can play.In any event, though, as the other side argued in the KQ thread, the cards we hold are not that relevant most of the time. Mostly here (especially because it's on the bubble) we add 15% to our stack.Seems to me that the section of HoH we're talking about is dealing specifically with short-stack situaions, despite the complaint you make that it doesn't translate to online "short-stacked" tourneys. Besides, to me a 180 isn't terribly shortstacked. I find myself in the Green Zone in those things for a long long time thanks to the 15 minute blinds, and even the final table is usually still reasonably deep. If you translated the number of hands you get at each blind level, it would beat most tournaments you could find at casinos for $100 buyin or more.One more interesting point here: Arnold Snyder's Poker Tournament Formula book advocates shoving much earlier and much lighter than does HoH2. Snyder I think would be saying to shove with something like K2os here, precisely because of the fast structure of most tournaments compared to the slow WSOP style he feels Harrington is writing about. I find his line a little bit too kamikaze-ish (and after having discussed it on his site, I'm now mentioned--that is, my screen name is--in his sequel, btw), but I don't see how you can say that in a faster structure we need to be less aggressive about shoving preflop than Harrington advises.

[HighwayStar 8]

cdsacdsjio, there is no possible way A8 is a good shove here.AND, KQo is a better shove, by about 2% - and AJ is the best of the lot - none of them are good though.Hand 0: 65.219% 64.88% 00.34% 1173158028 6129324.00 { 66+, AJs+, AJo+ }Hand 1: 34.781% 34.44% 00.34% 622776348 6129324.00 { KQo }Hand 0: 67.178% 65.77% 01.41% 378402492 8095680.00 { 66+, AJs+, AJo+ }Hand 1: 32.822% 31.41% 01.41% 180740292 8095680.00 { A8s }Hand 0: 64.698% 58.47% 06.23% 973181304 103627026.00 { 66+, AJs+, AJo+ }Hand 1: 35.302% 29.08% 06.23% 483924132 103627026.00 { AJo }You'd have to make this either the tightest table ever, or the craziest, to make shoving A8 a + play, and I imagine on the tight table raise/fold is waaaaaaaaay better. I'll have a fiddle around since I like this new tool.

[HighwayStar 8]

Ok, on a tight tight table - if you're getting called by AQ+, 99+ and reshoved by a few more pairs, aces and KQ - which isn't unbelievable -shoving becomes a + 18.62 chip play. However, raise/fold is far superior +120 chip play on this table- neither are particularly great though.If you're on a maniacal table, where get played back at by any pair, broadway, suited aces down to A8 and your shove is called by any pair, KQ, A9+, None of the options are good, raise/call is the b est at -161, raise/call and shove are about -400, so on this table open folding is by far the best play.

[HighwayStar 8]

Isn't it worth mentioning that in 4 hands he's going to realistically lose ~14% of his stack just from blinds and antes (more if the blinds/antes go up in that time) and leave him with an M of 6? He's at the lower end of the Orange Zone (M=6-10 "HoH2") and he has first in vigorish. HoH2 advocates pushing with hands as low as middle suited connectors, small pairs, and gapped paint when your M gets this low if the pot is unopened. A8 suited is certainly strong enough to justify a push especially since he's realistically going to lose 14% of his chips with hands worse than this one in only 4 more deals and loses that much more FE for the next rotation (not to mention that the table CL will be in the BB when Hero is on the button. An attempt to steal if it folds around loses it's effectiveness).

Once the blinds pass, you still have a ton of Fold Equity on a resteal let alone a shove, no need to be getting too worried yet. Even if the blinds are about to go up, you still have 11 BBs and can shove liberally into 1/2 players for more chips when you next get vigorishI don't think shoving anything is the best play here, maybe 88/99/TT but I'd still rather raise/call. For me, depends entirely on how long til the blinds go up in those spots.

There are better spots to get chips though. First, I'd rather shove 72o into 1 person than A8 into 5 people, 3 of whom have me covered. Yes2nd, I'd rather shove 67s into 5 people than A8. This way you know you'll be live and will have flush and straight possibilities. Yes3rd, Harrington's material is becoming less and less applicable to online poker. If his material states to shove up to 26bb in this spot, that is completely ridiculous imo. Harrington is still very useful but there are certain concepts which are a bit outdated, I also haven't thought in terms of M for about a year.

[HighwayStar 8]

I'm guessing that K2o shove is with the idea that if you double up you're a more powerful stack etc - which is an idea I like although I don't think you need to give up quite that much equity to get to that spot here.I'd rather be shipping in my 15 BB stack on a resteal next time I'm in the SB/BB in an attempt to double (a la the KQo thread) - you also take down more chips when they fold there - than when you shove here and take down blinds+antesShockingly 76s is a worse shove than A8s in hand #1, not by much though

[Cappy37 0]

I'll translate what Highway is trying to say into commonspeak:1. ) Gather a crayon and napkin2. ) scroll out the hands that really have A8 in trouble3. ) scroll out the hands that really have KQ in trouble4. ) Take deep breath5. ) Realize that A8 isn't quite the 'shoving nuts'6. ) Read more books from 2004 about how to beat Internet Poker in 2008.

[outsider13 0]

Also, I love how you just breezily state "18bb (M7)" as if one is just a conversion of the other. You said you'd advocate a shove "at perhaps a 10bb range", when 10bb without antes is an M of 7 just like hero has in this hand.

This is 18bb, or an M7. They are both the same here, taking in account for the antes. I'm not making this up! Just wow.

[SlackerInc 0]

This is 18bb, or an M7. They are both the same here, taking in account for the antes. I'm not making this up! Just wow.

"Just wow" = my thoughts exactly about your posts, since all this talk of BBs is like buying your pants based solely on your inseam without regard to waist measurement. And yes, I'll value a book written way back in the olden times of 2004, by a player of legendary ability, over the smack talk of a bunch of anonymous Internet posters who think they've got it all figured out so much better than Dan Harrington. Pfffft. GMAFB.

[Cappy37 0]

Slack, your new avatar just arrived.

[HighwayStar 8]

Yes, Harrington is a poker god. Yes, his book is a bible for tournament poker.You use M, we use BBs, it's hardly the end of the world. I haven't thought in terms of M and the various zones for about a year - I, and almost everyone I talk to, are far too used to playing various stack sizes in terms of how many Big Blinds and wether there are antes or not - which is essentially the same thing as M just under a different guise. So M/BBs, it doesn't matter.But-HoH is just a start, when I first read it I thought I could beat the world but I really couldn't. My game has developed so so much from what I learnt in that book.-Some concepts in his books are now outdated - especially online. The game changes at a crazy speed these games, what was a good play 5 months ago could be a terrible one today. I cite -an excellent article by AJKHoosier - the current number one ranked online player - about the evolution of the game. It's just natural that parts of HoH are going to be out of date. I seem to recall he advises opening 3x-5x when he opens preflop which is just not done by successful players online these days.I also don't think you can just dismiss the advice of a decent number of successful players who are all fairly up to date on how the game plays these days. It is good to debate these things, but it seems you can never be wrong on an issue. Your comment about the A8 being suited making it a better shove than AJo here is absolutely mathematically incorrect.I would read HoH to see if he actually advocates shoving A8s here but I can't find the right passage. My shovebot chart says A8 is a good shove with an M of 5.1 or less with 5 people to get through - you have 7.1 - all the maths I've done on it says it's -EV also

[sennin 0]

"Just wow" = my thoughts exactly about your posts, since all this talk of BBs is like buying your pants based solely on your inseam without regard to waist measurement. And yes, I'll value a book written way back in the olden times of 2004, by a player of legendary ability, over the smack talk of a bunch of anonymous Internet posters who think they've got it all figured out so much better than Dan Harrington. Pfffft. GMAFB.

Sign up for PXF and learn how tournaments are played now.Bax, Sheets, Hoosier, PearlJammer > Harrington, sry to burst your bubble. If you're not willing to adapt to an evolving game thats fine

[outsider13 0]

"Just wow" = my thoughts exactly about your posts, since all this talk of BBs is like buying your pants based solely on your inseam without regard to waist measurement. And yes, I'll value a book written way back in the olden times of 2004, by a player of legendary ability, over the smack talk of a bunch of anonymous Internet posters who think they've got it all figured out so much better than Dan Harrington. Pfffft. GMAFB.

What are you trying to defend here? That shoving is right or my math is wrong. Your comments make no sense. Sorry that I have learned most recently from people who talk in BB rather than M. Nonetheless, it accomplishes the same thing.

Sign up for PXF and learn how tournaments are played now.Bax, Sheets, Hoosier, PearlJammer > Harrington, sry to burst your bubble. If you're not willing to adapt to an evolving game thats fine

QFT

[MovingIn 0]

Here's the thing with A8s 4 off the button: once we get this short, we need to tighten our range, but get more aggressive with the range we choose to play. We're looking to isolate someone and double through. Any hand we play must be a high percentage hand. A8s is a spec hand that relies on implied odds, and we just don't have the stack to safely see if we can hit our flush by the river.The only way I see opening with this hand at this stage is if we were in a stealing seat, and even then we may have to open shove.

[SlackerInc 0]

What are you trying to defend here? That shoving is right or my math is wrong. Your comments make no sense. Sorry that I have learned most recently from people who talk in BB rather than M. Nonetheless, it accomplishes the same thing.

Look, I may be wrong about shoving A8s here, though I find it hard to believe (and I'm not sure either side can prove their case, because it partly depends on speculation as to what range our opponents will call with, and that can never be set in stone). I don't know if Dan H. would shove this hand in this situation, though I'd note that he shoved J9s with a deeper stack (and after having been raised) on PAD (admittedly, he busted out first as a result). I also question whether analyzing this in terms of average number of chips won is really the right metric. After all, you never win (or lose) that number of chips, and this is not a cash game where you can just deal with averages. You usually take down the blinds and antes, while sometimes you double up (or knock someone out), other times you bust out (or double someone up). As I think Highway Star was saying, there is a debate in the poker world as to whether (as he correctly surmises) Snyder is right that you have to just try to get a bigger stack and go deep, regardless of statistical odds, because it is only with a big stack that you can go deep in a tourney. So if you double up a little less often than you bust out, but when you do double up you can use those extra chips as a club to get more and more chips, a play could be profitable even if the simulations say otherwise.Anyway, all those points of theory are highly arguable. But what I don't see as arguable is the idea that using BBs "accomplishes the same thing" as using M. That's like saying your GPS unit "accomplishes the same thing" if it stops being able to tell your longitude and can only report latitude!I will grant, btw, that M is not perfect. An M of 10 because you have t1500 and the blinds are t50/100 with no antes is not exactly the same as an M of 10 because you have t3750 and the blinds are t50/100 with an ante of t25. In the latter case, the starting pot comes more from a diffuse contribution from antes and less from the blinds, so there is more incentive to play (for one thing, with the antes you can limp and perhaps see a flop for about 1/4 of an M, while by definition without antes limping costs 2/3 of an M) and yet less incentive for the BB in particular to defend. But it surely makes no sense to just say you have 15bbs in the first hand and 37bbs in the second, as if you are really over twice as deep!Harrington also adjusts "effective M" depending on how many are at the table; this has its own problems as while it works in terms of the "how many hands you have until you're blinded out" measure, it doesn't address the ratio of risk/reward in terms of starting pot vs. your stack. But it should still be taken into account in some way.So maybe we need some complex formula (using logarithms perhaps?), or maybe it just isn't possible to have a single numerical referent in a game that can or cannot have antes and where issues of structure (and Q, how well you are doing compared to others) have to be taken into account. But whatever M's deficiencies, I thnk it's clear that simply speaking in terms of BBs in general terms (for instance, "I wouldn't shove A8s until I was down to X number of BBs") is far worse.BTW, am I really the only one who uses Tournament Indicator? Because it keeps track of everyone in terms of M.P.S. This is an interesting discussion, thanks to all for the thought-provoking posts.

[Cappy37 0]

Look, I may be wrong about shoving A8s here, though I find it hard to believe (and I'm not sure either side can prove their case, because it partly depends on speculation as to what range our opponents will call with, and that can never be set in stone). I don't know if Dan H. would shove this hand in this situation, though I'd note that he shoved J9s with a deeper stack (and after having been raised) on PAD (admittedly, he busted out first as a result).

I'd shove J9 over A8, too. The key with hands like KQ and J9 (etc) is they flip well versus mid pairs, and are less likely to be dominated by most aces. Most the hands that "hurt" a hand like J9 *dont call all-in shoves* in most spots. Yeah, QJ can hurt J9 badly, but QJ doesn't call off for 15 big blinds more often than not.The equation is simply the likelihood of stealing the pot + how our hand fares if we do run into a real hand. You can shove *anything* for the first half of the equation.. When we talk about stealing ranges we are mainly concerned with the showdown potential aspect of the "move". We don't care that A6 is say, 57-60% over a hand like Q9.. What care about is how A6 fares against hands that might call our shove vs. how Q9 fares against hands that call our shove.Actually, if you want a good laugh, pretty much everyone that's chimed in on this topic got to watch me shove A8 into AK right after the money bubble burst in a 4.40 tonight.. so ummm.. Yeah, that was embarrassing with a peanut galllery razzing me about A8..

[SlackerInc 0]

-HoH is just a start, when I first read it I thought I could beat the world but I really couldn't. My game has developed so so much from what I learnt in that book.-Some concepts in his books are now outdated - especially online. The game changes at a crazy speed these games, what was a good play 5 months ago could be a terrible one today. I cite -an excellent article by AJKHoosier - the current number one ranked online player - about the evolution of the game. It's just natural that parts of HoH are going to be out of date. I seem to recall he advises opening 3x-5x when he opens preflop which is just not done by successful players online these days.I also don't think you can just dismiss the advice of a decent number of successful players who are all fairly up to date on how the game plays these days. It is good to debate these things, but it seems you can never be wrong on an issue.

Good points. I'll respond in order:-I agree that HoH is just a starting point. I have all three volumes, but I also have over a dozen other poker books. The one I bought most recently--Gus Hansen's Every Hand Revealed--I credit with really charging up my game. (It should be noted that his book is pretty new, and Gus plays a lot online.)-I read the article you linked to, and found it very interesting. However, I think it really is likely to apply mainly to medium and high buyins. A sample paragraph to illustrate:

A little while ago, it was standard to make this kind of re-raise because most people feel it looks stronger than just reshoving, meaning it was done mostly with weaker hands. Nowadays, most people recognize this, and consider that sort of re-raise to be weaker. So, I am making it with KK to convince him that I am trying to make my hand look stronger and induce him to play with me.

This is what Sklansky calls "multilevel thinking", the goal being to be one level higher than one's opponent. But as Sklansky points out in his NLHE book, high level moves are wasted on players who utterly lack sophistication. Most of the players I find in the $5.50s I almost exclusively play are like three levels behind where he's at, though paradoxically this means I'd play the KK the same way, lol. In my case, though, I'd be doing it for a much simpler reason: a shove might scare the villain off, while a smaller reraise might tempt him in.I also find that a lot of players are either calling stations or maniacs (and Tournament Indicator helps me to tell which); so I value bet the calling stations if I have a strong hand, but tend to check against the other types (and then either fold or call depending on the strength of my hand). I think what Dan H. says about online tourneys (at low buyins) in HoH is still generally true, that bluffs are a waste of chips against a lot of these players until you get near the bubble or beyond. -Re: "it seems you can never be wrong on an issue", hey--it takes two to tango. Seems to me there are a lot of people who think I can never be right! I'm just defending my positions; isn't that what you and everyone else is doing? I actually feel like one big difference is that others are saying things which imply (or even state explicitly) that my opinions on how to approach hands clearly go against the Generally Agreed Upon Current Laws of Poker or something. And to me, that's just silly. There is always going to be disagreement even among top players on playing styles and approaches to hands, much less among a bunch of hackers.

[SlackerInc 0]

We don't care that A6 is say, 57-60% over a hand like Q9.. What care about is how A6 fares against hands that might call our shove vs. how Q9 fares against hands that call our shove.

If you want to know why I get irritated with the tone of some of these posts, this is a perfect example: sometimes you guys seem not to give me credit for knowing anything about anything. What you are talking about is the same concept as why AK is a far better hand than 22, even though the ducks are a slight favourite HU against AK (but against a range of unknown hands a villain might hold, AK is far stronger).I would reiterate though that I think there is a case to be made in tournament situations for plays that might, on average, lose more chips than they gain, just because waiting around with a meagre stack doesn't allow you to use your poker skills and earn more chips, when you might as well try to grab some chips and start doing some damage, or just move on to the next SNG if you bust out. (And this idea is mentioned in HoH btw.)

[Cappy37 0]

If you want to know why I get irritated with the tone of some of these posts, this is a perfect example: sometimes you guys seem not to give me credit for knowing anything about anything. What you are talking about is the same concept as why AK is a far better hand than 22, even though the ducks are a slight favourite HU against AK (but against a range of unknown hands a villain might hold, AK is far stronger).

Bingo. 99% of what someone turns over when you have 22 is a coinflip, or far, far worse. I understand your irritation, believe me. Look at it through my eyes for a second: I view these strat forums as an education tool. When I'm pointing out the obvious as clearly and concisely as possible, i'm not doing so to "dress you down", I'm doing so for the benefit of the lurkers and newer players. When i make a point to reiterate over and over how weird hands like KQ and J9 hold up better against ranges vs. an ace-rag type hand, i'm not doing so because i dont think that you grasp the concept. I'm doing it for the benefit of the guests and newer players. When Highway or Copernicus toss out the raw data, that's *great* for us, but numbers can scare the hell out of typical students of the game. Also realize when folks are telling you to look into the higher roller online articles and PXF type sites, it's not because they think you breathe through your mouth and suck at poker, its the opposite: you've got the basics covered (HOH/SSHE etc) and are ready to evolve by absorbing literature and videos that are geared specifically toward what we all wanna do: beat online poker.

I would reiterate though that I think there is a case to be made in tournament situations for plays that might, on average, lose more chips than they gain, just because waiting around with a meagre stack doesn't allow you to use your poker skills and earn more chips, when you might as well try to grab some chips and start doing some damage, or just move on to the next SNG if you bust out. (And this idea is mentioned in HoH btw.)

Very true, especially considering how quickly most online tourneys get into push/shove mold because of the smallish starting stacks and the rate of blind increases compared to live play.

[SlackerInc 0]

When Highway or Copernicus toss out the raw data, that's *great* for us, but numbers can scare the hell out of typical students of the game. Also realize when folks are telling you to look into the higher roller online articles and PXF type sites, it's not because they think you breathe through your mouth and suck at poker, its the opposite: you've got the basics covered (HOH/SSHE etc) and are ready to evolve by absorbing literature and videos that are geared specifically toward what we all wanna do: beat online poker.

Okay, I misunderstood you--my sincere apologies. Thanks for the explanation!So, as for those online videos...I looked at the link, and boy is that pricey. I guess I would really have to commit to playing at higher stakes (and still getting a decent ROI) if I shelled out for that stuff.

[Cappy37 0]

Okay, I misunderstood you--my sincere apologies. Thanks for the explanation!

Well, i did post a pic of a brick wall, I'm hardly blameless in this

So, as for those online videos...I looked at the link, and boy is that pricey. I guess I would really have to commit to playing at higher stakes (and still getting a decent ROI) if I shelled out for that stuff.

Yeah, that's the rub: stuff like PXF and poker tracker, etc.. all costs more money than the typical guy grinding 50-200 bucks up is gonna be comfortable ponying up to the table. It's a royal pain as well because rake is killer at the micro limits (especially in split pot games), so it truly is a "grind". If you are playing 20s and 30s, etc.. a Tracker-type program is the best money you can spend, and the PxF type stuff is icing on the cake.