$50 SnG bubble play.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Quit treating us like baby's and idiots that need reminding of such basic concepts.

None of my comments here were specifically addressed to anyone in particular, but when I glanced through the post the first time, there seemed to be a ton of concepts that people failed to grasp. I am the farthest thing from an expert (although slightly ahead of donkey), so if I sound like a know-it-all (which I certainly am not), please take it with a grain of salt. I only try to re-hash the concepts that guys like Harrington have tried to instill in me, and sometimes I may get them mixed up and am completely wrong in my thinking (usually in scenarios that involve differences in M), but I'm not entirely convinced as of yet that a fold here is as bad as some have indicated (let alone bad at all). Amazon tells me that they have shipped to me yesterday Harrington Volume III, so perhaps it will shed some light on a similar situation.

Smash says calling is better now, but close.Again you misread.WRTO is a tourney authority?A year ago?that was all before HoH and we all learned more about shortstack play.I think your logic is embarrissing and your inability to answer questions directly and so forth, not that you think folding is a long term better decision.That's just bad judgement.

Zinger!Did I misread Smash's changed opinion? Not going to try to find it, so I will take your word for it. My logic is embarrasing? Really? Its that flawed? Hmmm. May as well just slit my wrists now to save time.

[Actuary 3]

rocket...perfect example here.you ignore the fact that you were corrected about Smash's current opinion and just leave it(read the edit later..ok..cool)you are like my wife.always switching directions to avoid direct answers.this is minor example, to make point.you do it a lot.

[Rocketwadster 0]

rocket...perfect example here.you ignore the fact that you were corrected about Smash's current opinion and just leave it

I didn't ignore it. You said I mis-read it, and I don't feel like scrolling through 4 pages of this topic again to find it to see if you are correct or not, as I believe you, so I just dropped it.Sure, there may be things that I sometimes don't bother going in to when asked (like am I a winning tournament player), usually as it is either insulting or why bother arguing any further back and forth when you know the other guy isnt going to give in (even though I am fairly set in my ways, I do occassionally see the light, such as the recent flopped set post with queens, and admit it right there and then).Do we really need to start discussing/comparing ROI's, money won and all that (a la Smash vs Wintermute and thanks for the car and all that)? I could start spouting off about my ROI of 64.26% on Full Contact Poker (one of many sites I have played on) playing 88 - $5 SNG's (35 Limit, 53 No Limit), but where does that get us? I would come across as bragging, and yet would be simply trying to provide some shred of evidence to you that yes, I am a winning player, despite some of my "embarrasing" thoughts on various scenarios.I have been nothing but forthright in posting hands in various forums that I look like a complete buffoon on (see anything I have posted for proof of that about Razz, Stud, or some of my early Omaha and Omaha 8 material, heck, just about every LHE hand I post is one that I lost). I'm as honest as they come around here when it comes down to pointing out my own faults. However, I feel no need to point others faults out to them in such as fashion as you have done.If this was the old west, i'd slap you with my glove and demand satisfaction, Sir!...lol

[Actuary 3]

rocket,I thought we could harass each other and understand it's notthing but good ole fashion forum teasing.don't take me seriously.and that's a darn good ROI.I would not play anymore on that site, it's bound to drop

[Rocketwadster 0]

rocket,I thought we could harass each other and understand it's notthing but good ole fashion forum teasing.don't take me seriously.and that's a darn good ROI.I would not play anymore on that site, it's bound to drop

some of it stung man...a lot.but, did I not put a lol at the end? lolI know it was, hence the reason I cashed out and went elsewhere (for now). That was where I had like 7 bubbles in 12 SNG's (I mentioned them months ago in a few posts of the hands I posted).

[Mashchit 0]

If this was the old west, i'd slap you with my glove and demand satisfaction, Sir!...lol

Actually, I think you'd have just shot him. If you were a Brit like me then you'd probably have indulged in some glove slapping and denounced him as a cad and a bounder.Anyway, interesting discussion and I'm glad that you two have kissed and made up.

[darkrider88 0]

READ HARRINGTON ON HOLDEM 3 He has almost this exact problem in there. If I recall correctly, he says that when you and one other big stack are in the hand, in almost this exact situation (4 handed 1 table 50 30 20 Sng) and the big stack pushes, you can only call w/ AA or KK. He then spends 4 pages explaining the math. It is a very tight fold, but it cannot be called incorrect (unless you want to disagree with Harrington).

[Rocketwadster 0]

READ HARRINGTON ON HOLDEM 3 He has almost this exact problem in there. If I recall correctly, he says that when you and one other big stack are in the hand, in almost this exact situation (4 handed 1 table 50 30 20 Sng) and the big stack pushes, you can only call w/ AA or KK. He then spends 4 pages explaining the math. It is a very tight fold, but it cannot be called incorrect (unless you want to disagree with Harrington).

Yeah, I just got that book late last week and saw those questions. This is definately a fold if you follow Harrington's logic (like I TRY to do), which makes my previous answer 100% correct. So suck it Actuary...lol

[Actuary 3]

Yeah, I just got that book late last week and saw those questions. This is definately a fold if you follow Harrington's logic (like I TRY to do), which makes my previous answer 100% correct. So suck it Actuary...lol

Post exact problemAnd I'll let you know if he is correct.do it.

[darkrider88 0]

Actuary, I'm at work right now, but when I get home I'll post up the exact problem. In the meantime buy the book, it's worth the 30.

[Rocketwadster 0]

I'm at work, book is at home. Here's the gist if memory serves:I'm right - your wrong.LolIf memory serves, it was 4-handed, 100-200 blinds, Two people at 5000 chips (we are one of them), two people at 1000 chips each. We are in BB, UTG is other big stack who pushes.He gives numerous examples where he modifies the blinds and the chip stacks slightly, and gives us the ranges that we should be calling with in different scenarios. Very insightful. Ive only read it through once, so I don't recall exact details. Working ont he second run-through currently.

[darkrider88 0]

I'm at work, book is at home. Here's the gist if memory serves:I'm right - your wrong.LolIf memory serves, it was 4-handed, 100-200 blinds, Two people at 5000 chips (we are one of them), two people at 1000 chips each. We are in BB, UTG is other big stack who pushes.He gives numerous examples where he modifies the blinds and the chip stacks slightly, and gives us the ranges that we should be calling with in different scenarios. Very insightful. Ive only read it through once, so I don't recall exact details. Working ont he second run-through currently.

That is pretty much it. Harrington gives UTG a really large/loose range too

[Actuary 3]

Actuary, I'm at work right now, but when I get home I'll post up the exact problem. In the meantime buy the book, it's worth the 30.

I"m still not sure HoH2 was worth it.So much already on here or common sense.I think I might need HoH1, as the early parts are tougher for me.Always getting bet into after raisng preflopSeems I rely on a cdu later on to make the money too often.Wish I could steal some pots.As is, at the 20$ level, still do fine due to lots of bad players.I"ll guess in Harrigtons example that Hero is more ahead of other stacks than he is here, relative to the blinds

[darkrider88 0]

HOH II is solid, but HOH III is much more beneficial to the advanced player IMO. HOH II is much more preflopped based (which can become somewhat automatic), where HOH III really focuses on post-flop play and how to think about marginal situations when your M is above 20. My two cents.

[Rocketwadster 0]

I concur with darkrider above. Volume III also gives numerous examples of actual hands from various tourneys with pros, giving you an insight into what each pro involved in the hand was (probably) thinking. He points out numerous "mistakes" that the pros made in the hands, which takes guts in my opinion if the pros themselves didn't provide him with any input about the hand (I don't think it says in the book anywhere whether the pros themselves provided him with any comments.The bubble info is very insightful as well, with numerous examples showing the subtle differences that the amount of the blinds make, your M, etc.

[Actuary 3]

cool.Maybe I will get it.in smashes hand he has 2.5 BB more than short stacks and the big stack has 3 BBs more than Smash.We can't afford to pass up this call

[Rocketwadster 0]

I"m still not sure HoH2 was worth it.I think I might need HoH1, as the early parts are tougher for me.

You read HOH II without loking at HOH? Interesting. That explains a lot. Lol.

[Actuary 3]

You read HOH II without loking at HOH? Interesting. That explains a lot. Lol.

on a serious note, how would that mess me up specifically?Or how is that reflected ?

[darkrider88 0]

While we are on the topic...What is your opinion of Super System 2's effectiveness in 100 NL games? Seems a little overaggressive to be successful today.

[Rocketwadster 0]

on a serious note, how would that mess me up specifically?Or how is that reflected ?

Impossible to accurately say, as I only know you through your insults directed to me, and the few hands that you post. I have no idea what other sources of information you have absorbed, nor your playing experience.

[Actuary 3]

Impossible to accurately say, as I only know you through your insults directed to me, and the few hands that you post. I have no idea what other sources of information you have absorbed, nor your playing experience.

ahh, you make me sounds like a bad guy.I"m certainly better late stage than early.But HoH3 seems to make HoH1 obsolete or at least not necessary, no?Assuming I'm decent

[mk 11]

good god, somebody kill this thread dead.

[psujohn 0]

Actuary has read SSHE so there's little to gain from reading HOH1. Sure SSHE is about Limit and HOH1 is NL tournies but HOH1 spends an awfully long time discussing pot odds, implied odds and counting outs that SSHE covers better.I'm solidly in the "play to make the money" in SNGs camp but I don't think you can compare that hand in HOH3 as stated here with the OPs hand in this thread. The relative distance between the big and short stacks and the relative shortness of the shorts stacks is really what drives this decision and it's very different in the two examples.

[Actuary 3]

interesting, no one has posted the exact situation.rocket? darkrider?

[Rocketwadster 0]

interesting, no one has posted the exact situation.rocket? darkrider?

Sorry, I had a ton of other things to do this weekend that didnt involve plagiurism...lol