Poker Discussion
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
|
Out in 8th, no big deal. I expected to go deeper as I had plenty of chips at the FT, but that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes.
Here was the scenario in question, from the Final Table of the Stars $150
Some call this move intelligent, personally I think it was a brainfart....
Short stack is all in utg for 5300. Blinds were 2k 4k, it was 1300 for me to call from the BB with an ace in my hand. Now if gobboboy has a legitimate hand in the SB, then sure, a reraise to isolate the all in player makes sense. But to basically give protection to an all in player at the final table made no sense whatsoever imho. He had T high and helped the guy with 5300 chips stay alive. Of course that player doubles and triples up and then finds AA when myself and another player had already moved all in with AK, so now he is the huge chip leader instead of being out in 9th.
gobboboy has been doing great of late, and i wish him continued success, but I think this was a very low positive ev imho.
Dealt to brsavage [4h Ad]
Sinchron: raises 1308 to 5308 and is all-in
3Nemesis: folds
TexDuke: folds
phx99: folds
fumanchu: folds
iamzflo: folds
TopToad: folds
gobboboy: raises 42554 to 47862 and is all-in
brsavage: folds
*** FLOP *** [As 3h 7s]
*** TURN *** [As 3h 7s] [Jd]
*** RIVER *** [As 3h 7s Jd] [8c]
brsavage said, "thats a genius move with a player facing elimination"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
gobboboy: shows [Th 8s] (a pair of Eights)
Sinchron: shows [Td Tc] (a pair of Tens)
Sinchron collected 16416 from pot
brsavage said, "pure genius"
|
|
|
|
|
Playing hyper aggressive shorthanded is fine, I do it too but only when I have the chips to take advantage of it. With the blinds going up, I did not have even close to enough chips to play like a lagtard shorthanded.
|
|
|
standard, easy play with the stacks.
Unless someone can come up with an ICM argument against the isolation, it is just stupid to argue with the clearly +EV play.
|
|
|
|
I agree, I think it's an easy play. Overlays own.
|
|
|
This isn't about old school and new school, whatever that means. If by old school you mean the school of thought that says you should repeatedly pass on plus EV situations, I don't think its worthy of a label.
This is about being able to recognize +EV situations and taking them. This is about making correct plays that will make you money, and not doing so because you don't recognize why you should and are not analyzing the situation properly. Only in very rate circumstances should you consider passing on +EV situations, and this is definitely not one.
I am going out now, but if someone would do a pot odds analysis and use pokerstove (please take into account brsavages calling range in the bb) that would be great. This play is massive +EV, classic Ozzy shove.
|
|
|
your re-post (chris) makes clear whay my "I dont understand post" (above) tried to say:
why put your tourny life at (slim) risk merely for a very slightly better chance at 2.5 BB's (instead of 20% a 40% chance)? Risk-reward ratio says it aint worth it. In this case the passive play (call) is the way that will get you to top 3 $.
--tc
|
|
|
Might be...but when it comes down to it....You're shoving off with T8o.....
GL with that
|
|
|
|
would it make a difference if Gobbo shoved 27o instead? Cuz I would argue in favor of that play also.
|
|
|
|
For me, obviously, alot easier push then
|
|
|
What Jeff said,
There isn't really a debate here.
Ozzy probably makes the push with 3high here.
There isn't a "old school vs new school" debate. There is a mathematically correct and mathematically incorrect play.
The only two arguments against the play are ICM (which was already
stated only top 3 matter and prize diff at this stage is moot)
Or perhaps how old scohol thought , "i dont wanna risk all my stack
with 2k chips invested" This argument is pretty moot as the "variance"
of your tourney life is pretty small as BRs calling range is prolly
only AK and TT^ max.
|
|
|
|
Highlights:
Gbmantis: if the play is +ev then im all for it
Below: I say F eliminating a player and moving up 1 spot @ a final table, I play to win, and to win you need to gain ALL the chips in play
RandyLerch: Old school says late in a tourney its more valuable to knockout a player than to have a +EV chance at a few extra chips. New school says if you are +EV make the play end of story
N 82: This is a similar idea. No, the move won't succeed most of the time, as in this instance. But if it succeeds, you get paid very well for your investment and it succeeds often enough compared to the risk to make it worth it, IMO.
Brsavage: It folded to gobboboy and he pushes ALL IN FOR 47K TO WIN 11300.
Brsavage: I had 60k in chips and had him covered, so we can agree the only hand I call him with is obviously a monster. Had my other card been a click different, as in AA or AK, then gobboboy would have effectively risked his whole tournament with ten high.
these statements are contradictory... hes risking 47k to win 11300 (not true), and you are arguing that hes risking his stack yet point out yourself that you would need a hand at the very top of your range to call him, meaning you are folding almost every time!
Brsavage: When you in effect triple up a player who was on life support by isolating with ten high, then simple game theory would dictate that you have increased your chance of losing by maintaining a greater number of players you must defeat to win the tournament.
umm.... its about chips not players. Not sure why you are casually mentioning game theory when it would clearly point to a push anyway with any 2 from gobbo. You seem to be in the camp that would be against the game theory logic here, as your arguement is based upon "risking" chips when from a game theory perspective gobboboy isn't risking anything!
Brsavage, I think the BEST arguement you have made is that Gobboboy's stack isn't near good enough to give him leverage shorthanded on the bubble, and that he would rather eliminate a player then pick up some significant (but not huge) chips and possibly continue to be on the bubble. I don't agree, but I can understand that arguement and see how in SOME situations it might overwhelm the +EV of the situation. I think you are a good tournament player, don't take any personal offense to my disagreements with you.
Wachovia: It isn't about +EV in a hand
loooooooool
timzc1: why put your tourny life at (slim) risk
I usually just skip a post once I see "tourney life". The whole idea is just ridiculous. Gambler's ruin has SOME applications in a valid strategic analysis, tourney life does not.
johns05: Chris, this question may have already been asked and anwered, but out of curiosity if GOBO just flat calls from SB, do you then push to isolate with (I think it was A 4)? Just curious of what u would do if GGOBO flat calls the UTG all-in.....
If Chris DOESN'T push to isolate in that situation, he is making a HUGE blunder. He actually has a big stack on the bubble and can be hyper aggresive with it shorthanded, he has no reason to want the bubble to die and more importantly its massively plus EV to scoop up gobboboys chips and run his hand against the short stack.
iMsoLucky0: From an initial look though it looks like a play I would make almost 100% of the time. He's getting hella odds against a hand that was obviously a very wide range, and you've got to pick up a monster to call him.
N 82 50 24: HUGRBARG GIFAFI CATAFO
NOIAGAP.
THAT IS ALL!
-Jeff
|
|
|
|
I like the format of this post
|
|
|
|
why you getting so anal over this play? if he smooth calls kinda thing and tt holds, he triples up (asuming the A nvr hit), so actually he kept you from losing 1300 if you nvr hit your A, so be happy =D
|
|
|
I like the push for many reasons that have been mentioned. The other big reason to push is that if I dont, I run a huge risk of my tuff BB oppt isolating and shoving me out of the pot. That would be a catastrophe that in my opinion can not be risked. If it was some perfectly passive game and I could be sure that i limp BB limps and whoever pairs bets then thats another story. So basically I am saying poooooooooooooooooooosssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Thor
|
|
|
Repeatedly passing on +ev situations is not the same as passing on a +ev hand that might just be a -ev financial result due to the fact that it's a poker tournament in question involving humans, not a mathematical equation involving robots playing cards with values on them.
What a mathematical expected value never factors in is talent.
When Action Jeff pushes all-in for a huge amount with 2-4 off in the BB, over the top of the SB limper that has him covered, that is stupid, no matter what the EV is, or result (rigged). Action Jeff is OBV a great player, so why bust out trying to add a few BBs? Especially when a hand that limps in B vs. B will fold to a standard raise, unless of course they are trapping.
Why is tournament life such a terrible concept? You can't win a tournament that you've been knocked out of. There is an infinate amount of space between playing weak/tight and putting too much value on tournament life, and re-raising large stacked solid players from the BB for all of your chips with junk, because of what the odds of him calling are.
I think the answer is something in between.
|
|
|
wow great thread
not on any side (yet) but would like to ask the +ev guys if they would
call the all in if on the BB with the A4 if you think the SB is the
type of player who would make this move with any 2 cards? (or is it the
fold equity of the BB that makes the play)
thanks,
speed duck
|
|
|
|
|
Sortable Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|