Home
(1 votes) 
August 21, 2012
Offline
IPoker, $3 Buy-in (150/300 blinds, 50 ante) No Limit Hold'em Tournament, 9 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager – The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.
MP2: 6,553 (21.8 bb)
MP3: 6,016 (20.1 bb)
CO: 16,952 (56.5 bb)
Hero (BTN): 17,100 (57 bb)
SB: 8,096 (27 bb)
BB: 19,774 (65.9 bb)
UTG+1: 1,970 (6.6 bb)
UTG+2: 17,520 (58.4 bb)
MP1: 7,960 (26.5 bb)
Preflop: Hero is BTN with 8h 8c
UTG+1 raises to 1,920 and is all-in, 2 folds, MP2 raises to 6,503 and is all-in, 2 folds, Hero ???
Looking for thoughts on this spot. MP2 had been pretty tight overall at the table although he was a 10bb stack most fo the time playing finding a standard spot to double with KK.
August 23, 2012
Offline
This looks like a very easy fold with a 22bb reshove over a UTG+1 6bb shove. Without running any numbers, my guess would be to reshove with TT+, AKo, AQs+. Although that range may need to be tighter with your read on MP2 and us being 57bb effective with the BB.
On a side note, why is there a UTG+1 and no UTG in your hand history?
Edit*
I ran the number through nash. Here are the equilibrium ranges for purely +cEV.
UTG: 31.2%, 22+ A2s+ A3o+ K4s+ K9o+ Q8s+ QTo+ J8s+ JTo T9s 98s
MP2: 9.8%, 44+ A9s+ AJo+ KJs+
BTN: 5.9%, 88+ AJs+ AQo+
MP2’s reshoving range in nash is wider than I would expect from a player in game so our overcalling range should be tighter as well. Factor in any ICM and/or the edge that you have on the field and the range I guessed seems appropriate.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
Pack,
Apologies in advance for what may be a naive question, but when you say “ran the numbers through Nash”, what exactly do you mean? Do you have a tool that calculates this for you? I'd be very curious to see it, if so.
Thanks!
Andrew
August 21, 2012
Offline
I guess what is still confusing me about this hand is that I think we are so ahead of UTG1 shove, and that I think MP2 range might even be wider now cause of maybe his perceived wideness of UTG1 and that would warrent taking a shot here. I'm still having trouble fitting in the two big blinds in this spot theory wise in my head.
also, i'm thinking about how there being no ICM implicatation (mid-late tourney) that I could take a spot like this know to really chip up as we approach the bubble and ITM.
curious how what others think of the above ramblings.
May 31, 2012
Offline
this to me is just an easy fold you have 57bb so you dont need to take margianl spots which this definately is imo.
August 23, 2012
Offline
Foucault: I used the Nash ICM Calculator on HoldemResources. It calculates the equilibrium shoving ranges for a particular hand. You can add in specific payout structures which will greatly influence the ranges. Another good thing to understand is that equilibrium ranges mean that if you and your opponents were to adjust to one another infinitely, those would be the completely unexploitable ranges. Using equilibrium ranges in game is often not the best play because it assumes that your opponents are playing perfectly which is usually far from the truth.
Here is the link: …..shicm.html
Chuck Blaze: Even though there is no ICM in this spot, if we assume that we have an edge on the remaining players then we should call tighter. In this spot I think think it is reasonable to cut off the bottom of the equilibrium reshoving range to account for an edge and the likelihood that both players are not likely to be shoving as wide as nash suggests.
ashj22: Your reasoning is actually backwards. The larger your chip stack, the more willing you should be to take marginal spots. I recieved some advice from a professional Super Turbo player and coach who was very adamant about that fact. And naturally, the converse is true as well. This logic doesn't apply to cash games or tournaments with a payout structure of 1. With that said, there is some influence from ICM all throughout tournaments even when it isn't completely obvious which we should account for in playing.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
Thanks, Pack. I do know what the equalibrium part means, was just curious what tool you were using to solve it. 🙂 I didn't know that existed, thanks! Also I agree with your comment to ash about being more willing to take marginal spots when they don't threaten the last of your chips (which isn't exactly the same as having a large stack – if you had a 10x average stack, you still wouldn't want to put it in “marginally” against another 10x average stack).
May 31, 2012
Offline
packallama said:
Foucault: I used the Nash ICM Calculator on HoldemResources. It calculates the equilibrium shoving ranges for a particular hand. You can add in specific payout structures which will greatly influence the ranges. Another good thing to understand is that equilibrium ranges mean that if you and your opponents were to adjust to one another infinitely, those would be the completely unexploitable ranges. Using equilibrium ranges in game is often not the best play because it assumes that your opponents are playing perfectly which is usually far from the truth.
Here is the link: …..shicm.html
Chuck Blaze: Even though there is no ICM in this spot, if we assume that we have an edge on the remaining players then we should call tighter. In this spot I think think it is reasonable to cut off the bottom of the equilibrium reshoving range to account for an edge and the likelihood that both players are not likely to be shoving as wide as nash suggests.
ashj22: Your reasoning is actually backwards. The larger your chip stack, the more willing you should be to take marginal spots. I recieved some advice from a professional Super Turbo player and coach who was very adamant about that fact. And naturally, the converse is true as well. This logic doesn't apply to cash games or tournaments with a payout structure of 1. With that said, there is some influence from ICM all throughout tournaments even when it isn't completely obvious which we should account for in playing.
I DONT AGREE MY REASONING IS NOT BACKWARDS AT ALL.
July 17, 2012
Offline
Easy fold here, dont need to race at this point, have a good stack – let it work a little.
July 6, 2012
Offline
fafafafafafafafollllllllllllld!
NASH is a great tool for sure. Betudontbet says he uses NASH to guide him to FTs every session.
also check out flopzilla, if you guys haven't yet.
flopzilla.com
March 8, 2013
Offline
Ash, your reasoning isn't “backwards” but that doesn't mean it's right. If you have 1203971289741203651BB, you should be perfectly happy getting 50.00001% on 20BB, right? Sure, if you are a small stack, you are more likely to take a mariginal edge for your whole stack, but your willingness to get X chips in at 51% should generally (not always) go up when you have more chips.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
9 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:
alexalex2015
oneout2many
JLPicard
Jackarmi
WSOPstar2B
LuckyEva
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 11988
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
