View Plans & Pricing

If you are signed in and are seeing this message, please be sure you have selected a user name in My Profile. The forum requires it.
A A A
Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
sp_TopicIcon
Is QT a Jam on btn, 7 left on Sunday Major FT
P-aire 146
Showing Marc Alioto How Its Done
Members
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
May 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
August 23, 2016 - 6:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Playing online in NJ.

Borgata / Party poker 40k gtd    Sunday Major.

The FT is pretty stacked w/ solid players.  I had CL at 1/30, 1/20, 1/9, …..  two villains are GOOD.  I’m sitting 5/7 now.  CL has 457k.  last has 122k

We are gtd $2122 for 7th…… 6th gets $2450 5th – $2875   2nd – 5500  1st – 8500

8k/16k/1k  blinds………  

I’m on the BUTTON w/ QTo  I just lost a small pot to villain (sb) when were we BVB.

Hero –  200k

sb – 380k

bb – 135k 

*Do you jam?  Do you fold?  ICM thoughts?

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
August 24, 2016 - 8:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

Personally I am shoving this, and I am feeling good about it. With no antes my Nash chart tells me Q T o is good as a shove all the way up to 19 bb from BTN, so with >6% antes its for sure in the zone.

I am not super excited, as I doubt it is getting called by worse, so I suppose it depends whether you are interested in laddering some or going for the win. There aren’t any super-shorties, so for me, this is a no brainer. 

Then again, the most I have ever won in a tournament is $2k, so hopefully some bigger guns will fire off their thoughts.

P-aire 146
Showing Marc Alioto How Its Done
Members
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
May 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
August 25, 2016 - 6:40 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Thanks for the reply Rice.  This topic has been brought up a time or two before.  Some of the pros answered.  I felt like my jam was good per the Nash chart and was fine overall. 

Curious what some of the PRO’s think.  

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
August 28, 2016 - 5:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I decided to re-pop the thread to the top. Got to get some pro input for one of the TPE legendary members! I think Matt and Dylan are away… hopefully Andrew will see this.

P-aire 146
Showing Marc Alioto How Its Done
Members
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
May 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
August 29, 2016 - 9:52 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Thanks bro.  I’m not Legend anything, lol.  I’m a player trying to learn more everyday.  Still pluging leaks. 

I felt fine with the move and spot.  I’m pretty sure it’s right, but when the SB or BB wakes up with a huge hand IT SUCKS.

Esp after having the CL at 30 left 20 left…… FT blah blah blah, lol.  It was a tough FT as well. 

samouflage
Sweden
Playing Freerolls
Members
Forum Posts: 13
Member Since:
May 26, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
August 30, 2016 - 5:13 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

A while back I started to use SnapShove in order to get better at these spots. It’s a pretty nice little tool to have handy when your are about to face situations like this. Plugging in 12.5 BB, 10% ante, seven players we find that to be GTO when moving in from the button you need at least QTo to be profitable.

So, well done, you got it right! 🙂

I do not know a lot about ICM so I guess that may change things a bit.

The complete range is 65s, 76s, 86s+, 96s, T7s+, T9o, J7s+, JTo, Q6s+, QTo+, K4s+, K9o+, A2+, A2o+. 22+.

Regards
Daniel

almofadinhas
Playing The Prelims
Members
Forum Posts: 586
Member Since:
June 2, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
August 30, 2016 - 12:03 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

You are pretty short, but 5 of 7, if the other two shorts are very likely to be all in, there is some reason to wait for a better spot; If they are not that short I am shoving QT.

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
August 30, 2016 - 2:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

Hey Daniel, just a word of caution there…

I also use SnapShove, and it is excellent, and I have been testing its chip EV output against Holdem Resource Calculator, and it is basically the same, but SnapShove is not an ICM calculator. It is a chip EV calculator.

For high ICM spots such as a FT, you want to be using ICMIZER or HRC to study these spots.

Obviously you cannot use HRC or ICMIZER in-game, whereas SnapShove is a phone app, so I know how handy it is. Some purists may say that we shouldn’t even be using SnapShove in game, but really this would be some kind of nonsense. In essence SnapShove is just a chip EV  Nash shove/call chart incorporated into an app., and no more harmful than that.

Edit: I just re-read your post and I see you mention ICM, my mistake. And yes, ICM dynamics can seriously warp Nash ranges. In fact the thread “Getting Started” in the GTO section has a lot of content about this.

MovieFX
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Balla
Members
Forum Posts: 309
Member Since:
December 30, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
August 30, 2016 - 4:31 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

It feels close to me depending on the blinds structure and table dynamic; how passive or active people are and where they are sitting; how often and wide are people defending and so forth, so hard to answer. With 2 players at 12-13BB I’m probably playing much tighter unless they are super-tight in which case I’m just opening most of my range since they are handcuffed and have to pretty much fold or shove. I might just min-open QT and fold to a shove. 

I’d rather shove 66-JJ and AT/KT for the high-card and blocker value though. If I think the blinds are aggressive maybe going with QTs but not QTo?

ICM calculations are important but if the blinds are defending a high frequency I think I’d rather be opening a wider range until they catch on rather than shoving to avoid inducing with my medium strength hole card combinations since I can safely fold if shoved on until the dynamic changes…plus I’m balancing with the top of my range where I DO want to induce.

I know we are only 19BB deep here but in a nice structure and with the CL only around 40BB I don’t think it is such an emergency that we must get this BB this orbit. Open-fold here and GII for 15BB in a few hands and we can still easily ladder.

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
August 31, 2016 - 11:04 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I can’t remember what I was thinking at the time but I thought we were shorter than 20 bigs when I wrote my first post. I only said we can shove up to 19 bigs according to my Nash chart, not that I would be.

I still might be though, because if we min raise we really are opening ourselves up to some ICM abuse, especially if the 2 players behind are good as you say they are.

Certainly NOT a no brainer though as I originally said.

Tbh I have a terrible feeling I thought we had 10 bigs lol, because I remember thinking “this is standard”, What a div I am sometimes… 

Edit: I see Daniel had us at 12.5 bigs, so i am not alone in getting this wrong! I’m not sure why we are all misreading it…it’s a  pretty easy one!

Yeah, I can see why you might want a pro’s input lol.

Radriguez
Grinding Micros
Members
Forum Posts: 73
Member Since:
September 29, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
September 3, 2016 - 9:59 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Do you have access to an ICM calc? Do you remember all the stack sizes. My ICM calc is down (HRC sub expired) (any other ICM calcs for the mac out there??) That should give you your answer. I’m very curious, as this is a common-ish spot in tourneys. On the one hand blinds should be calling pretty tight, on the other you have a lot to lose, on the other, only the SB can bust you, on the other, the ladders aren’t huge, on the other, it increases your stack by 12.5%… In my gut I suppose the old “chips you lose are worth more than the chips you gain” might be handy. I might actually raise-fold. I dunno. HRC anyone?

Radriguez
Grinding Micros
Members
Forum Posts: 73
Member Since:
September 29, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
September 3, 2016 - 10:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

And Moviefx- If the blinds are defending a lot, wouldn’t you want to tighten your opening range? Do I have this wrong?

theginger45

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 924
Member Since:
August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
September 5, 2016 - 12:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

This isn’t a spot for a Nash range, it’s an ICM spot. The stack size of the other players at the table has a massive impact. We know you’re 5/7 with 200k and one of the other stacks is 135k, but the stack size of the other remaining player does matter quite a lot.

It’s most likely a shove (although not a super happy one) if the other stack has around 135k, the same as the BB. But if the last stack has less than 100k, this is probably a fold. Since one of the stacks behind you can bust you, ICM has a huge impact here.

If you have 380k and the stacks behind you have 200k and 135k, it’s a shove all day. But the fact that you bust the tournament some % of the time when you shove here has to completely change your shoving range.

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
September 5, 2016 - 2:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I think I started the Nash ball rolling by misreading the stack size. However Matt, Nash is still relevant here surely? There is a thread in the GTO section where we were discussing my confusion over the relationship between Nash and ICM. It is actually a really interesting thread, at least it was to me, as it cleared up confusion I had carried for time, and was unable to find the answer to anywhere else. Roberto the CEO of Pokersnowie even messaged me saying how interesting he found it, as there is a lot of Snowie content in the thread. Well in truth he messaged about something else, but he did mention his interest in the thread. Hey! Don’t get your hopes up about the thread…it probably isn’t that interesting! But as I understood the conclusion to the thread, Nash and ICM, far from being mutually exclusive, are actually wholly related. And even if our ranges are 100%, this is still determined by Nash. ICM dynamics distort the Nash ranges.

Then again, maybe I misunderstood the whole kaboodle, but I don’t think so. Andrew draws a pretty clear line under it ultimately.

If you are interested I believe the thread is “Getting Started” in the GTO forum.

But don’t let me derail the thread…I’d be interested in your thoughts though Matt.

P-aire 146
Showing Marc Alioto How Its Done
Members
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
May 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
September 5, 2016 - 7:06 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Thanks everyone.  Really weird / tough spot I thought.  Thanks for all the feedback.  

Radriguez
Grinding Micros
Members
Forum Posts: 73
Member Since:
September 29, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
16
September 6, 2016 - 10:43 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

This is exactly the difference between Nash and ICM, I’m thinking. I’m not particularly good at either. But spots like this is probably where cash game regs make mistakes. Look at ICM, not Nash here. 

SIGABA
California
High Stakes Shark
Members
Forum Posts: 201
Member Since:
January 20, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
17
September 7, 2016 - 1:00 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Yep, I’m shoving this without much second thought.  If there is a shorty at the table with like 4-5bb, then I’m going for the fold.  But if the shortest was 135k, and he’s in the BB, then ship it in 🙂 

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18
September 7, 2016 - 2:37 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

Radriguez said:

“This is exactly the difference between Nash and ICM, I’m thinking. I’m not particularly good at either. But spots like this is probably where cash game regs make mistakes. Look at ICM, not Nash here.”

My point is that Nash and ICM are involved together…that Nash and ICM are wholly related, not mutually exclusive. Check out that thread in the GTO section and see if it is not really clearly answered. If I have misunderstood the thrust of the thread, I would love someone to tell me!

Radriguez
Grinding Micros
Members
Forum Posts: 73
Member Since:
September 29, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
19
September 8, 2016 - 1:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Ya I hear you Riceman. Yes they are related. They are just two ways of measuring the EV of a situation, really. It’s a way of measuring the value of your stack of chips. As you progress in a tourney, ICM will gradually become more of a factor. And by the time you get to the example is this thread, the best EV (using ICM at least) might be very different from the Nash solution. It’s all pretty interesting

Foucault

TPE Pro
Members
Forum Posts: 2067
Member Since:
December 6, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20
September 8, 2016 - 7:34 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Once again I think you all are muddying this discussion by not being clear about what you mean with the terms you are using. If by “Nash range” you mean “the range I would shove if I weren’t at a final table” then of course that won’t be applicable at a final table. However, the concept of a Nash Equilibrium still applies at a final table. It’s just that the equilibrium strategies will be different than what they otherwise would be, because of ICM.

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
21
September 8, 2016 - 5:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I mean that the chip ev Nash range is distorted by ICM dynamics to produce different ranges. But that these new ICM ranges are still Nash equilibrium ranges. And that it is not an ICM or a Nash spot, but rather an ICM and a Nash spot.

I tried to be as concise as possible in this thread because I do not wish to de-rail P-Aire’s thread. But I tried to be especially specific in the “Getting started” thread in the GTO section. 

This is all super-complicated stuff, at least to me! If I am ever involved in muddying any discussion, it is probably because I (admittedly) don’t understand it fully, and am also trying to get to the point where it becomes clear to me. I am certainly not being deliberately obscure. (btw I understand you were not targeting me directly Andrew).

I think you confirm my understanding in your post though Andrew. 

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
22
September 9, 2016 - 5:13 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

You know what? I was driving my wagon up to the Greenford roundabout on the A40 out of London today and I had some kind of face-palming moment…

I realised that ICM calculators such as HRC give Nash solutions in ICM spots.

And I therefore realised that my ideas regarding Nash and ICM are probably pretty pedestrian…

Of COURSE Nash is influenced by ICM. This is why we use ICM calculators! Ahh forgive me people, sometimes I get confused around some obvious stuff!

(btw I think you probably were targeting me directly Andrew lol!).

Radriguez
Grinding Micros
Members
Forum Posts: 73
Member Since:
September 29, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
23
September 15, 2016 - 11:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Hes talking to me too, I’m not saying it correctly. I say Nash when I mean cash game solution because I’m thinking about all those nash charts and stuff. But yea its still nash at the FT but ICM changes equilibrium solutions.

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
24
September 16, 2016 - 4:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory
0

I’m not sure Radriguez. You’re probably right, perhaps you also weren’t too clear, but Andrew has pulled me on my (lack of) clarity before. I am a well known long term thread-muddying miscreant here at TPE. There is no malice intended…usually it is because I have no idea what the hell I’m even talking about!

Anyway, hopefully P Aire is happy to let this thread go a little…hopefully you got the feedback you wanted.

So we have established the relationship between Nash and ICM.

I understand the concept of a Nash equilibrium applies at a FT.

But if I may put forward a quick scenario to illustrate my confusion: we are on the bubble and a short stack raises and we as a larger stack ICM shove ATC in order to abuse the ICM of the situation, is this 100% ICM-abusing range a Nash equilibrium range, or this shove nothing more than us being a horrid ICM abusing bastard, and unrelated to Nash?

There. I encapsulated my confusion in a neat package!

To be fair, I think this was answered in the GTO forum…but I use this example here to illustrate what I was uncertain about.

P-aire 146
Showing Marc Alioto How Its Done
Members
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
May 30, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
25
September 20, 2016 - 10:05 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

thanks Riceman and everyone else.  Yes, I did a nice discussion. 

I don’t mind my jam.  Just sucked that the SB woke up with JJ.  Still happy with the way I played.  On to the next. 

The Riceman
London UK
Hitting The Circuit
Members
Forum Posts: 731
Member Since:
February 5, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
26
September 21, 2016 - 3:36 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print
0

Oh btw P-aire I when I said “let the thread go a little”, I wasn’t meaning to shut it down. I was meaning that hopefully you don’t mind if it derails a little. Hope that was clear!

Forum Timezone: America/New_York

Most Users Ever Online: 2780

Currently Online:
13 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

bennymacca: 2616

Foucault: 2067

folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133

praetor: 1033

theginger45: 924

P-aire 146: 832

Turbulence: 768

The Riceman: 731

duggs: 591

florianm1: 588

Newest Members:

jankyjon

Elpokero

WhiteMountn

Jensen68

PotCommitted

kinser111

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 24

Topics: 12705

Posts: 75003

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 1063

Members: 11982

Moderators: 2

Admins: 5

Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos

Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1