KQ...it's not that good of a hand...is it?

[jogsxyz 0]

looshle, we're not agruing best short stack strategy. That's for another thread. wrto asks if one should call a 10XBB all-in bet. So here the disagreement is what most 10XBB bettors have? Half think he has a 'good' hand and the other half thinks it's a random two cards. The only stat that is real is the pot is giving 1.275 to 1. What chances the KQo has against a set of possible hands by the 10XBB all-in is imaginary or at least subjective. Tourney odds is too complex to calculate. Therefore 1.15 to 1 thru 1.4 to 1 is grey area. Worst than 1.4 to 1 is a clear fold. Better than 1.15 to 1 is a clear call. In this example you are risking about 1/4 of your stack. You should not make a play against correct pot odds for that much.Some say you can throw out pot odds in these situations. They are wrong. Pot odds is not a constant. They are different for each opponent. The opponent's style determine the pot odds for that opponent. It is correct to call an aggressive player and wrong to call a passive one. In SnGs a player with 10XBB is in no immediate danger of blinding out. Most are not playing the short stack style recommended by the books. This is the basis for my folding.

[Smasharoo 0]

In SnGs a player with 10XBB is in no immediate danger of blinding out. Most are not playing the short stack style recommended by the books. This is the basis for my folding.So your argument is that you play a lot of people who play poorly so you advocate making the wrong play?Whatever.I'm done with this one, it's been beaten into the ground. If you play with people who don't push all in with a short stack unless they have a pair or an ace, fold.If not, which is the majority of people I play with, call.Done.

[randomization 0]

I think smash is right on this particular issue. Against normal players, who have an idea of what to do in a SnG, we cannot assume they have an ace or pair in this situation. The reason is that with ten big blinds left, the player on the button could be stealing with close to any hand. Playing 4 handed, with those blinds, that player has to be making moves within a short period of time. Bob Ciaffone on the subject: "In a tournament, if the blinds are $100-$200 and you have $1,200, that blind money is worth a lot. If you wait for a solid hand — or even wait for any ace or any pair — you may well go broke on a worse pig than you are looking at now because you have blinded off most of your money." (In Ciaffone's case, the player is more short-stacked, but at a full table, you have to play the blinds less often, so I think the analysis applies). Nor does it make an especially big difference that the button is going all-in instead of just tripling the blind. Tripling is the normal bet, but when you get short-stacked enough, you want to push all-in because it's hard to fold your hand once you've commited a quarter or a third of your stack to the pot. Often in this situation you'll want to push all in anytime you're making a raise from late position. That said, I think smash is dead wrong that this situation is obvious. It's a borderline case, because the button has $1600 on $150 blinds which is not sufficiently short-stacked that you simply have to keep pushing all-in. Since it's not obvious how the button should play in this circumstance, it's not obvious how you should respond. After all, if the button will only play hands such as pairs or aces in this circumstance, the right thing to do would be fold. I just think that it's more likely that the button is willing to play weak hands, here.

[JFarrell20 1]

Good argument here Random. 150 blind with 1600 is not THAT big of a deal yet. He will see 3 more hands for 75 dollars and so I think he's going to look for a pair, an ace high, or even a King high (obviously WRTO's K should win in this case). I think it's too close to say whether you should call or not. And if that's the case, I think it's a fold. You've got to convince yourself to call, not to fold.

[Smasharoo 0]

Good argument here Random. 150 blind with 1600 is not THAT big of a deal yetYes, it is.The fact that you don't understand basic SnG theory doesn't mean most people don't.It's not close, it's a call.

[jogsxyz 0]

Smash, you still don't understand Farrell'spoint. If you fold the KQo, and find that oppis betting 72o or even QJs, it is not a fatalerror. Shrug it off. It should not affectyour game. Focus and continue playing. Youstill have one of the larger chip stacks. Ifyou call and are wrong, you have lost 1/4 ofyour stack and have been regulated back intothe pack. Smash, wrto, and others feel that it is thechip leader's duty to smash and stomp on theshort stacks. Farrell says he prefers to stompfrom the proactive mode rather than the reactivemode. Not calling the coinflips but forcingthe coinflips. As the aggressor you sometimesare given the pot. As the caller there's alwaysa race. You only expect to win half the races. SnGs have a set variance. But there's also avariance of the variance. By going out of yourway to participate in every coinflip race, youincrease the variance of the variance.

[JFarrell20 1]

Good argument here Random. 150 blind with 1600 is not THAT big of a deal yetYes, it is.The fact that you don't understand basic SnG theory doesn't mean most people don't.It's not close, it's a call.

Smash, this man will see 14 more hands for the price of 675 dollars. Meaning, even if he folds the next 13 hands he'll still have 925 dollars.AX is dealt 1/13 hands. A pair is dealt 1/17 hands. 1 or the other of these options theoretically will be dealt around 1 in 11 hands +/-. He's got time. If he was smart he'd wait for Ax or a pair. Doubling up with 925 puts him above where he was. Honestly, I play really well when I'm on the ropes. I have clung to tournaments MUCH longer than I should have. The trick is to be PATIENT. Give yourself a fighting chance! Don't just push in with anything, what is the point? Wait until you at least have a fighting chance. Sure, your stack will get eaten a bit but at least you'll be able to double up and still be in it. Look at Harrington, he was like 17th in chips and short-stacked and he wound up 4th. Be patient!!!You've got to find the balance of when you'll be dealt either Ax or a pair and how much will it cost me to see X amount of hands. This will tell you when it's time to push. It should come to you if you have poker instincts.

[randomization 0]

this man will see 14 more hands for the price of 675 dollars.Meaning, even if he folds the next 13 hands he'll still have 925 dollars.

Exactly. Based on your criterion for hands the button should play, he expects to lose almost half his stack before he has an opportunity to double up. He doesn't expect to gain any money at all, and the blinds will keep going up. Suppose he plays ten hands, and doubles up when he gets that Ax just before the blinds go up. He's even more short-stacked than before. But wait, it gets worse than that. The most likely thing to happen when he goes all-in with Ax or a pair is that the blinds fold to him. You're acting as if doubling up with these hands is guaranteed. But it's not. Remember that on your strategy, the players in the blinds are going to be folding hands as good as KQo to the button raiser. Not only that, you should also be folding A2, A3, A4, because those are as bad or worse than KQo against someone who has Ax or a pocket. So if the button plays the way you're telling him to, he raises once every 10 hands, wins nothing more than the blinds, then once in awhile is a big underdog when you call him with a strong ace or pocket pair. He will bust out very quickly playing like that. So what should that player change? He should start stealing more, with hands weaker than Ax or a pocket pair. Those weaker hands are what justify calling with KQ.

[JFarrell20 1]

Take what I said for what it's worth. Of course no strategy is perfect, however in my experience it's always paid off better to wait for a hand that gives me a fighting chance, not just push in "when it feels right". Besides, what if you see AA or AK or QQ, etc. within the next 5 hands?? It can happen. I do see your point about waiting too long to double up, but at least you will move in with something that, if called, will give you a great chance to double up.

[jogsxyz 0]

 Bob Ciaffone on the subject: "In a tournament, if the blinds are $100-$200 and you have $1,200, that blind money is worth a lot. If you wait for a solid hand — or even wait for any ace or any pair — you may well go broke on a worse pig than you are looking at now because you have blinded off most of your money." (In Ciaffone's case, the player is more short-stacked, but at a full table, you have to play the blinds less often, so I think the analysis applies).  

If you choose to quote Ciaffone, it would be nice if you provide a link. There are two points of differences from this thread and Ciaffone's example. Ciaffone is talking tournament, this is a SnG. There's a world of difference between 10 2/3 XBB and 6XBB.In SnGs I have seen players survive with fewer than 2XBB where two players needed to bust out. In tournaments with 5XBB you little chance of waiting out 10 players to go busted.

[randomization 0]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...d=13047&m_id=51Good call, jogsxyz, I meant to post the link but just left if out. I think that the fact that this is a SnG isn't a big deal except in one circumstance, which incidentally was not addressed by the guy who posted the thread (so I think it's probably not relevant), and that's what the stacks of the other two at the table were. If the guy on the button was the second largest stack, with the other two behind by quite a bit, then I think it becomes wrong to call, since he's likely to be playing more conservatively. But otherwise, I think the analysis stands. There's no reason to assume that the player should change his strategy unless he has an extremely credible chance to outlast the other two players.

[Smasharoo 0]

I think that the fact that this is a SnG isn't a big deal except in one circumstance, which incidentally was not addressed by the guy who posted the thread (so I think it's probably not relevant), and that's what the stacks of the other two at the table were. If the guy on the button was the second largest stack, with the other two behind by quite a bit, then I think it becomes wrong to call, since he's likely to be playing more conservatively.I agree.Seems unlikely given the OP description and stack/blind sizes though.

[jogsxyz 0]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a...047&m_id=51Good call, jogsxyz, I meant to post the link but just left if out.  I think that the fact that this is a SnG isn't a big deal except in one circumstance, which incidentally was not addressed by the guy who posted the thread (so I think it's probably not relevant), and that's what the stacks of the other two at the table were.  If the guy on the button was the second largest stack, with the other two behind by quite a bit, then I think it becomes wrong to call, since he's likely to be playing more conservatively.  But otherwise, I think the analysis stands.  There's no reason to assume that the player should change his strategy unless he has an extremely credible chance to outlast the other two players.

Thx for the link, random.When the blinds are 50/100, with 1000 in chips in a MTT you usually have well below an average stack. In a SnG your stack is not desperate. There is less need for the wild aggressive stance.Smash, in another thread you stated that some very lousy players can be lucky for a very long period in SnGs. Players who play a style that deviates from yours are not necessarily lousy players. Harrington and Hansen have styles at opposite ends of the spectrum, yet both have been successful in tournament play.

[Smasharoo 0]

Smash, in another thread you stated that some very lousy players can be lucky for a very long period in SnGs. Players who play a style that deviates from yours are not necessarily lousy players. Harrington and Hansen have styles at opposite ends of the spectrum, yet both have been successful in tournament play.That's so amazaingly meaningless I don't know where to start.I'm tired of seeing this bullshit "I'm ok you're ok" crap on this board. Poker *is* a game that accomidates many styles of sucessfull play, howevevr, it also has many situations where a certain decision has a very clear best choice.Folding AA every time isn't a diffrent "style" of play. It's a msitake.Not calling here is a mistake, not a stylistic choice.Understand?Harrington and Hansen both make this call without thinking about it.

[jogsxyz 0]

Harrington and Hansen both make this call without thinking about it.

You dont speak for Harrington or Hansen. Hansen rarely makes a quick nonthinking call. He only makes quick calls with high pocket pairs.

[Smasharoo 0]

You dont speak for Harrington or Hansen. Hansen rarely makes a quick nonthinking call. He only makes quick calls with high pocket pairs.You don't speak for Harrington or Hansen.You have knowledge of about 20 out of 1,000,000 hands they've played. You have less insight into how they play than Hellen Keller would.Feels stupid when you contradict yourself, dosen't it?They'd both call because it's that clear cut. The same way they'd both call if they had AA.

[jogsxyz 0]

You don't speak for Harrington or Hansen.They'd both call because it's that clear cut. I don't and I didn't. While you seem to thinkyou are their spokesman. Feels stupid when you contradict yourself, dosen't(sic) it?While you think strategy is black and white,I maintain it's grey. How I respond dependson what I think opponent is betting. On thisthread in the case of an all-in bet for 1/4of my stack in a SnG, I clearly said that Iwould FOLD to a random opp, an opp of unknownpoker style. Only if there were known infothat this opp must be called, would I call.So where's the contradiction?

[Smasharoo 0]

I can't possibly express how anal retentive and pathetic it is that you included (sic) in a quite of someone's post.Goes a long way to explaining why you'd fold this here.

[wrto4556 0]

The only arguement I can think of for folding, is the fact that I was stealing alot of blinds. If I fold I can still rais any unopened pot and pick up blinds and pots left and right. And back left again if I want to, because I was chip leader. I'm just a strong believer in making "loose" calls with the big stack. Not all of the time...but in most cases. (e.g. calling raise with 9d7d).

[jogsxyz 0]

The only arguement I can think of for folding, is the fact that I was stealing alot of blinds. If I fold I can still rais any unopened pot and pick up blinds and pots left and right. And back left again if I want to, because I was chip leader. I'm just a strong believer in making "loose" calls with the big stack. Not all of the time...but in most cases. (e.g. calling raise with 9d7d).

These decisions shouldn't be made in a vacuum.The standard the pros are using is the potmust offer 2 to 1. When it's 2 to 1 or better,think about calling. When it's less than2 to 1, think about folding.For pots where action is live after the flop,2 to 1 is too tight for my blood. Many toppros trust their judgment and play it thisclose. For mere mortals 3 to 1 and a willinglessto gamble should be the standard. You are outof position for the final three rounds.You should read Harry Demetriou's thoughtson the subject. Harry has been participatingon Daniel's quizzes. You may need to scrolldown to reach his post.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t=1041&start=40

[Knightmare44 0]

I have to say this is an easy fold - why get your money in (or his in this case) when you're at best 50/50 - and realistically you assume you're slightly behind in any ace-x or pair. sure he only has 1600 - but once you call - assuming you're behind to begin with - unless he has specifically k-j or q-j then he has 3200 and you 4000 . Suddenly you're not quite the chip leader you were - I'd MUCH rather wait for better than 50/50 odds. maybe he will continue to push but eventually you'll catch him when you have a-k/a-q and he has a-10- then you're a 73% favorite - or especially if you catch a big pp. Sure it's nice to knock people out- but I really don't think the risk was worth it, I've always preferred hands where I'm more than a 49% chance to win- and the "you have to win coinflips" etc. I don't think really applies - if the blinds are fairly high then in 2 hands he'll be posting again and his small profit is negated - bleh just going to stop typing cause this is getting to long but I think it's an incredibly easy fold. I'd rather have my opponent 1600+blinds then 1600+1600+sb

[Smasharoo 0]

I have to say this is an easy fold - why get your money in (or his in this case) when you're at best 50/50 - and realistically you assume you're slightly behind in any ace-x or pair. You're wrong.Most of the time you're ahead.

[jogsxyz 0]

You're wrong.Most of the time you're ahead.

You are a joke. Why are you conspicuously missing on Daniel's quizzes? Over 1000 posts, yet no post on the quizzes. Did you get them all wrong. Laughable.There no reason to assume you are ahead. It's no big thing if you fold and are wrong in this situation. What you don't want to do is call and be wrong.

[taerg_eht 0]

Sit-n-Go, you have accumulated alot of chips in the bubble with the blinds at 75/150. You have about 5,600. A small stack who has just lost alot of chips moves all in from the button for 1,600. You have KQo in the BB. What's your move?

It is a CALL here - based on the stage of SnG and stack ratios.Many who argue for a FOLD - seem to lack understanding of SnG's or tournament poker or both.

[Smasharoo 0]

You are a joke. Why are you conspicuously missing on Daniel's quizzes? Over 1000 posts, yet no post on the quizzes. Did you get them all wrong. Laughable.There no reason to assume you are ahead. It's no big thing if you fold and are wrong in this situation. What you don't want to do is call and be wrong.I never looked at them actually.I'll start answering them if you want. On the condition that when I get 10 right in a row you issue me a public apology and state that I'm a much better player than you and that you bow to my superior knowledge of the game.Let me know if you agree to that.