Most Ridiculus HU session EVER

Ok so I pwned the bubble. I pwned my opponent. I know I didnt do much wrong. How have I not won?

I wanted to post this first to check it was ok (although im pretty sure it is aside from maybe missing the 32o shove!!) and secondly as an answer to how I feel about HU in turbos and how I play when the blinds are high. (I believe I responded to a post today on how to play HU and this I guess should prove I wasn't kidding)

PokerStars Game #8406351327: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:28:48 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (11365 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (2135 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
GingerW1zard: posts small blind 400
Tesch73: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [Kc 5h]
GingerW1zard: raises 10515 to 11315 and is all-in
Tesch73: calls 1285 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [Jh 9s Qs]
*** TURN *** [Jh 9s Qs] [6c]
*** RIVER *** [Jh 9s Qs 6c] [9h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Tesch73: shows [8h Td] (a straight, Eight to Queen)
GingerW1zard: shows [Kc 5h] (a pair of Nines)
Tesch73 collected 4270 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4270 | Rake 0
Board [Jh 9s Qs 6c 9h]
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (button) (small blind) showed [Kc 5h] and lost with a pair of Nines
Seat 4: Tesch73 (big blind) showed [8h Td] and won (4270) with a straight, Eight to Queen



PokerStars Game #8406356138: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:29:09 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (9230 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (4270 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts small blind 400
GingerW1zard: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [As 3c]
Tesch73: folds
GingerW1zard collected 900 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (big blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (button) (small blind) folded before Flop



PokerStars Game #8406357787: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:29:15 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (9680 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (3820 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
GingerW1zard: posts small blind 400
Tesch73: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [6s 4s]
GingerW1zard: raises 8830 to 9630 and is all-in
Tesch73: folds
GingerW1zard collected 1700 from pot
GingerW1zard: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1700 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (button) (small blind) collected (1700)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (big blind) folded before Flop



PokerStars Game #8406360657: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:29:28 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (10530 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (2970 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts small blind 400
GingerW1zard: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [9d 5d]
Tesch73: folds
GingerW1zard collected 900 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (big blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (button) (small blind) folded before Flop



PokerStars Game #8406362335: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:29:35 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (10980 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (2520 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
GingerW1zard: posts small blind 400
Tesch73: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [7d 2s]
GingerW1zard: raises 10130 to 10930 and is all-in
Tesch73: calls 1670 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [4c 7h 3c]
*** TURN *** [4c 7h 3c] [4h]
*** RIVER *** [4c 7h 3c 4h] [9h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Tesch73: shows [4s 7s] (a full house, Fours full of Sevens)
GingerW1zard: shows [7d 2s] (two pair, Sevens and Fours)
GingerW1zard said, "LOL"
Tesch73 collected 5040 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5040 | Rake 0
Board [4c 7h 3c 4h 9h]
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (button) (small blind) showed [7d 2s] and lost with two pair, Sevens and Fours
Seat 4: Tesch73 (big blind) showed [4s 7s] and won (5040) with a full house, Fours full of Sevens



PokerStars Game #8406367345: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:29:56 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (8460 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (5040 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts small blind 400
GingerW1zard: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [2c 6d]
Tesch73: folds
GingerW1zard collected 900 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (big blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (button) (small blind) folded before Flop



PokerStars Game #8406369064: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:30:03 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (8910 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (4590 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
GingerW1zard: posts small blind 400
Tesch73: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [9h 4c]
GingerW1zard: raises 8060 to 8860 and is all-in
Tesch73: calls 3740 and is all-in
*** FLOP *** [3h 5s 9c]
*** TURN *** [3h 5s 9c] [8d]
*** RIVER *** [3h 5s 9c 8d] [3s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Tesch73: shows [Ad Ac] (two pair, Aces and Threes)
GingerW1zard: shows [9h 4c] (two pair, Nines and Threes)
Tesch73 collected 9180 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 9180 | Rake 0
Board [3h 5s 9c 8d 3s]
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (button) (small blind) showed [9h 4c] and lost with two pair, Nines and Threes
Seat 4: Tesch73 (big blind) showed [Ad Ac] and won (9180) with two pair, Aces and Threes



PokerStars Game #8406374756: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:30:28 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (4320 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (9180 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts small blind 400
GingerW1zard: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [9s Ks]
Tesch73: folds
GingerW1zard collected 900 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (big blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (button) (small blind) folded before Flop



PokerStars Game #8406376334: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:30:35 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (4770 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (8730 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
GingerW1zard: posts small blind 400
Tesch73: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [3h 2c]
GingerW1zard: folds
Tesch73 collected 900 from pot
Tesch73: doesn't show hand
GingerW1zard said, "**** man"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (button) (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: Tesch73 (big blind) collected (900)



PokerStars Game #8406378602: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:30:45 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (4320 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (9180 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts small blind 400
GingerW1zard: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [Kc 5h]
Tesch73: folds
GingerW1zard said, "3 big wins"
GingerW1zard collected 900 from pot
GingerW1zard: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (big blind) collected (900)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (button) (small blind) folded before Flop



PokerStars Game #8406380365: Tournament #42844720, $6.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2007/02/12 - 14:30:52 (ET)
Table '42844720 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (4770 in chips)
Seat 4: Tesch73 (8730 in chips)
GingerW1zard: posts the ante 50
Tesch73: posts the ante 50
GingerW1zard: posts small blind 400
Tesch73: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to GingerW1zard [Jh 3c]
GingerW1zard: raises 3920 to 4720 and is all-in
Tesch73 said, "thats all it takes"
GingerW1zard said, "aye"
Tesch73: calls 3920
*** FLOP *** [7s 9s 9h]
GingerW1zard said, "wow"
Tesch73 said, "gg"
*** TURN *** [7s 9s 9h] [9c]
GingerW1zard said, "4"
*** RIVER *** [7s 9s 9h 9c] [Tc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Tesch73: shows [9d 7d] (four of a kind, Nines)
GingerW1zard: shows [Jh 3c] (three of a kind, Nines)
Tesch73 collected 9540 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 9540 | Rake 0
Board [7s 9s 9h 9c Tc]
Seat 3: GingerW1zard (button) (small blind) showed [Jh 3c] and lost with three of a kind, Nines
Seat 4: Tesch73 (big blind) showed [9d 7d] and won (9540) with four of a kind, Nines

And he was right. All it takes to make up for terrible bubble play is a flopped straight, a full house calling with 74, pocket Aces, and quads.

Just make sure you keep folding those SBs dude

:shock:

Did you basically push every hand you had? I'm confused.

Running your game through SAGE...
64s is a wrong push
72o is a wrong push
94o is a wrong push
The final J3o was fine (your ratio was 6 and PI was 25, worst all-in hand with ratio 6 is PI 25).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xioustic

Did you basically push every hand you had? I'm confused.

Running your game through SAGE...
64s is a wrong push
72o is a wrong push
94o is a wrong push
The final J3o was fine (your ratio was 6 and PI was 25, worst all-in hand with ratio 6 is PI 25).

---

^^^That's interesting. I need to study that some more. However ginger, I would just chalk it up to being unlucky.

I can't possibly chalk this one up to being unlucky. If you followed SAGE, I would, but you pushed way too many HORRIBLE hands in too short of a period, leading to the shortest (and relatively unluckiest) HU session I've seen.

It's easy to get carried away when you're that stacked against an opponent, but pushing the hands I mentioned above is basically unacceptable to me.

Ok, this pisses me off a little Xioustic but I'll blame SAGE not yourself.

A normal HU calling range, which is SO much looser than most $6.50 players will adopt gives the following

64s is +0.8%$EV
In fact he would have to call more than 70% for it to be a bad push

72o is +0.7%$EV at the normal range (which is HUGE) but is break even if he calls with 70%

94o
is +0.3%$EV at my HU range, although you would expect him to call far tighter than that range because he is back in it now.

My HU CALLING range on SNGPT is 22+,A2+,K2s+,K5o+,Q6+,J7+,T8+98+ and most opps won't call that wide, especially when you consider he is tight enough to keep folding SB.

Now if SAGE disagrees with good old ICM and SNGPT then SAGE can kiss my arse.

FUCK SAGE

also to extend on my earlier reply.


ginger its fine, when blinds are this high mixing it up dont wont and push/fold is the norm. 32s meh thats in hindsight to results. opp called with some loose hands so maybe its a good fold. 32s normally shouldnt be shoved tho you should check HU section in SNGPT, you do have it right??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

Ok, this pisses me off a little Xioustic but I'll blame SAGE not yourself.

---

By all means, be pissed off at me. I'm just going by what little I know, and what you did in this HH contradicted what I know.

Reading your SNGPT analysis, you said for the majority of your hands he'd have to call with more than 70% of his hands. Well, looking at the hands he's flipped over, he seems more than happy to do that. 74s is 80% OR WORSE. 97s is 60%. This guy is loosey goosey.

Ugh, alright, fuck SAGE I guess. But I mean, minus SAGE in mind, I can't see ever shoving 64s, 72o, and 94o being any good. The whole point of shoving is to be able to show down the best cards at the end or to steal the blinds. The opp has already shown to have a large calling range, why not wait until we get at the minimum a face card to shove? I mean, if you asked Harrington himself in this situation I can't imagine he'd play it the same with those hands in your situation.

I just have a hard time believing it was necessary to make this HU match so short. Sure, it should have been shovey, but ATC shovey?

HoH2 says the following about those hands:
72o (below 10% hand)
64s (below 20% hand)
94s (below 30% hand)

I mean, these are hands that should be folded in heads up pushy situations, right? Sure, you can call the SB with anything to see a real cheap flop heads up, but you can't SHOVE with anything, can you, even with blinds this large?

Or don't listen to me. I don't know anything. I'll just sit back and lurk. I'm kind of put off by this post now. SAGE is just a rough method of figuring out if it's a good move or not. I've never loaded up SNGPT because I can't afford it, and to tell you the truth, I don't think I'd want to buy it until I was playing something beyond $6.50 turbos.

Maybe I'm just not shove happy enough. I've always seen HU as a lottery most of the time, especially when blinds get this big. Shoving everything seems to make it even more so.

I think this is fine, with the possible exception of the 94o hand which I might have folded since opp is showing a propensity to call very wide. Weird though because it seems that opp would call a push wider than they would push themselves given how often they folded their SB ?!?!??!

The problem with SAGE, Nash Equilibrium etc. is that they assume that your opps play perfectly as the BB according to those systems which in the overwhelming majority of cases they do NOT. Let's take an extreme example where opp will only call in the BB with AA or KK and fold everything else. In this case I shove 100% because I know that 99% of the time they will fold. Conversely if I know the BB will call a push with 100% of hands I have to tighten my range to above-average hands that will win at showdown.

By the time it gets to HU, you should have a good read on your opp so your play should be tailored to that opp. Whilst SAGE and NE are useful theories to show that you actually need to shove/call wider than most do, I don't think that adopting such a formulaic approach is the most +EV way to play HU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

(although im pretty sure it is aside from maybe missing the 32o shove!!)

---

I read HoH2's Heads Up section last night before I crashed and I distinctly remember it saying 32o is no good. In fact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrington on Hold'em Volume II p.367

By the way, the weakest two-card holding heads-up, with the hands played to the end, is trey-deuce offsuit. This differs from the weakest two-card holding at a full table under the same conditions, which is seven-deuce offsuit.

---

Were you joking or serious when you said you missed the 32o shove?

we see what your saying X.

HoH doesnt suit SNGs so much. examples he has (in memory) arent of shortstack situations like above.

SNGPT is gospel here but less so in other situation. it basically depends on various factors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da GOAT

we see what your saying X.

HoH doesnt suit SNGs so much. examples he has (in memory) arent of shortstack situations like above.

---

HoH has a short excerpt on high M vs. low M confrontations. He doesn't have much experience with the latter, which is what we're dealing with right now. HU hand rankings are still the same though, regardless of blinds.

So today I learned that it's OK to shove 64s, 72o, 94o, and apparently 32o in a situation where the shortstack is 7x or less the BB in a series of 11 hands. Weird. Seems to go contrary to everything I've ever learned about these situations.

I can't see myself ever making these moves. I don't have the balls. I'd fold the cold cards and let our chipcounts equal out a little instead of throwing caution to the wind and letting some of the worst cards in heads-up poker dictate whether we hit 1st or 2nd.

What you don't understand sir, is that fact that we are trying to make +$EV plays according to ICM. If a shove is +.8%$EV that means that you are giving away money by folding.

Shoving 64 (which was not even a tough decision) is good because we make most of our money when he folds. We are not thinking I must have the best hand for showdown. We want him to fold a large portion of his range, which he should anyway since calling a push means you do have to show down the best.

He called with some terrible cards but was a mega nit till then so I couldn't know his calling range would be so stupid. Plus the folding SB led me to think he was tight.

It's not about having balls, it's about making decisions that make you money. You may scoff at me only being at the $6.50s, but my roll is $570 now from $150 and i'm playing $6.50s because i'm learning to multitable where it is cheap and where I have huge ROI.

The $16s are full of 16-20 tablers from 2+2 who know ICM theory inside out. Some of them have made $16k+ (e.g. spacegravy, loonatwok) just this year and just on the $16s. The real money in SNGs is there IMO and it is most definately in having a solid knowledge of ICM.

I don't need balls when it comes to shove fold. I need to analyse if mathematically I am choosing the right play and then I need to make it. Results are irrelevant (although often pretty funny as in this case), the correctness of the decision mathematically based on some judgement of opps calling range is what is relevant. I think 94o was a fold with this guy. Against a normal HU opponent, I shove the 32 with these stacks and so do many of the best turbo players on this forum I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

You may scoff at me only being at the $6.50s, but my roll is $570 now from $150 and i'm playing $6.50s because i'm learning to multitable where it is cheap and where I have huge ROI.

---

Don't worry about that. I'm still mainly playing $5.50s, so by all means, you're playing at higher stakes than me. You've also got double my net roll on both the sites I play at. My bankroll is $280 combined at the moment, and I started with $30. Doesn't make my poker-penis any larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

we make most of our money when he folds

---

I understand this concept, but it seems with blinds this big, we're actually making our most money when he calls and we've got a better hand. That only happened a few times in these 11 hands, and we lost that one time. It appeared your biggest loses were from your worst hands with marginal +$EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

What you don't understand sir, is that fact that we are trying to make +$EV plays according to ICM. If a shove is +.8%$EV that means that you are giving away money by folding.

---

Can we fold hands with marginal +$EV (like the hands mentioned) and push ones with more than marginal +$EV and still be shoving a reasonable amount of time? Would this not be a better alternate strategy with these cold cards and this opp? I mean, sure, the blinds are large, but he's still going to be an all-in monkey whether or not we get cold-carded for three hands in a row. I understand that you like to make mathematically correct plays, but you should know, there are more cards in the deck and more hands to be played if you fold the pure garbage (32o and 72o especially).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gingerwizard

He called with some terrible cards but was a mega nit till then so I couldn't know his calling range would be so stupid. Plus the folding SB led me to think he was tight.

---

I just like the "equilibrium play" here for that reason. I assume that the opponent is playing the same way I am, and watch how he reacts to the all-in moves I make. What does he call with? What range can I put him on? Opponent's play can change DRASTICALLY when you hit heads-up, so I go the safe route and start a whole new notebook on him, discard all the information I had on him earlier, and adjust my little equilibrium if I deem it necessary.

What I most don't understand about all of this is when you shove, you're saying you can show the best hand down to the river. When blinds get this big and ranges get this insanely large, you're going to REALLY have to show the best hand down to the river when he calls, or all those all-ins you've been using to steal your blinds are completely nil.

Hell, I've always felt my heads-up game has been weak. Maybe this is why.

if blinds were smaller then i would say yeah to losing marginal +EV for better EV situations but only if these factors exist;

blinds to stacks isnt crippling
im better than opp, which i always am :wink:
we CAN wait for a better hand (or limp marginal instead at lower cost :wink: )

but once blinds get so high that folding an orbit loses the chip lead for example any bit of +EV MUST be taken, it does not make sense to wait. for example we see ginger still didnt get any good cards so if he was to wait it would of been very poor idea since obv the cards he got sucked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da GOAT

but once blinds get so high that folding an orbit loses the chip lead for example any bit of +EV MUST be taken, it does not make sense to wait.

---

Theoretically, following SAGE, he should have folded 64s [gained 1700], 72o [lost 1670], and 94o [lost 3740], he'd have ... 3730 more chips (check my math). That's a pretty respectable size, even considering the blinds (that's almost 5xBB, which is a pretty large amount of chips).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da GOAT

for example we see ginger still didnt get any good cards so if he was to wait it would of been very poor idea since obv the cards he got sucked.

---

We couldn't possibly know the cards that came afterward because we never got to see them, but there's ACTUALLY a 60% chance that he gets dealt hands better than those three I posted above for any given hand because those hands are simply so bad. Folding those three hands also opens the potential for receiving 3 new hands since we're actually the bigstack for the majority of this time. And I think SAGE at this point says it's alright to shove basically anything in the top 50% or top 40%, maybe even looser.

But fuck SAGE. gl.

I tend to be better than 1.6% better than my HU opponents. So, if I have +.8% EV I don't want to REDUCE my edge by blindly following mathematics, especially against a donk who I have seen make exceptionally loose calls. YMMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biondino

I tend to be better than 1.6% better than my HU opponents. So, if I have +.8% EV I don't want to REDUCE my edge by blindly following mathematics, especially against a donk who I have seen make exceptionally loose calls. YMMV.

---

When the blinds get this large and the smallest stack is this small, being better than your opponent does not dictate the outcome, the strength of the cards and the size of your stack do. I'll blindly follow mathematics any day of the week in a HU lottery (which this essentially is).

Your ability to play good poker only becomes a factor in HU when it's a high M confrontation. This was an exceptionally low M confrontation.

Reviewing ICM concepts and SNGPT analysis, these all seemed correct plays to make. I'll admit it is reasonable to chock it up to variance with regards to that analysis. Maybe I'll understand when I can afford SNGPT and take more time reviewing ICM. I'll do so as soon as I feel it's time to introduce those concepts into my game. Until then, ignore my SAGE vs. SNGPT/ICM arguments. I really subscribed to the idea of SNGPT/ICM but now I'm not so sure looking at these plays.

by shoving every hand the EV is reduced by the fact each hand is not in isolation. Each time you push the calling range has to increase. While semi valid with low M's, I cant help but feel that if you folded/called occassionally the pushes will have higher ev.

I'm a bit confused too...and I certainly don't know all the theory yet and I'm working on it all the time and trying to learn but basically you shoved every had but 32 o...isn't it really just coming down to luck at this point? Seems like a coinflip to me.

so much level 1 thinking here its scary. bar tai's comment.

If you are confused at all here or miss understand its fine, if you stick it out and ignore most of this thread you'll be fine. this thread includes so much miss understood concepts i dont even know how to put it right. let it die :(

anyone who is serious will just buy SNGPT out of their own pocket i hope. it so worth it i dont even remember what price it was.

I agree chief. (unless you are putting me into the level 1 group too).

Until you've studied the "math" via SNGPT or by hand you'll really struggle to get what we are saying here. And saying it again and again won't change it. At least try to study the 64s if nothing else. Use Tai's ICM post and do the mathematics for yourself. Only then will you understand why I shoved it, Why Tai would have shoved it, Why GOAT would have shoved it, Why the people who have made more moey from SNGs than I have ever seen would have shoved it ALL DAY LONG.

It's like I say to my students: The only way you'll ever appreciate that something is true is to prove it for yourself.

Well I'm sure I'm 100% wrong in my thinking but I can't think of one time doing things the way I currently do them that I've lost to a guy who had 1/6th the chipstack I did in a heads up battle. I still think shoving some of the hands you did seems completely crazy.

Maybe in two months I'll understand why you did it.

Any tool is only as good as how well it is used. Given op is calling with 74 offsuit the ASSUMPTIONS that were used to base the calculations above are incorrect. His calling range was far wider than the ASSUMPTIONS that were taken and plugged into "the poker maths bible".

I understand easily the idea of pushing any two be +EV in certain situations and from using the Prego site I fully understand that EV increases with the increase if the blinds compared to stack sizes. Individually I do not disagree with any of the pushes.

What I disagree with is that pushing every hand is +EV. To analyse each push with the same calling set is a mistake imo. Especially when the op has announced (by calling with far worse) that it is incorrect. He basically called with atc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

Any tool is only as good as how well it is used. Given op is calling with 74 offsuit the ASSUMPTIONS that were used to base the calculations above are incorrect. His calling range was far wider than the ASSUMPTIONS that were taken and plugged into "the poker maths bible".

I understand easily the idea of pushing any two be +EV in certain situations and from using the Prego site I fully understand that EV increases with the increase if the blinds compared to stack sizes. Individually I do not disagree with any of the pushes.

What I disagree with is that pushing every hand is +EV. To analyse each push with the same calling set is a mistake imo. Especially when the op has announced (by calling with far worse) that it is incorrect. He basically called with atc.

---

Yes but would you assume he would call with 74o? Sure after he does things need to be rethought, but assuming he will call with74o and you will almost always be wrong and giving away lots of $EV. This HU was interesting because opp was playing irrationally. (Folding SB every hand and calling shoves with air)

I think the only shove that he really called with "air" was the first one...he then had AA and at least his others were suited...not that they were great hands by any means

My arguement centres around the fact after several repeated shoves you know they are taking the micheal. And you know are calling with almost anything very soon.

Yep for the first shove ur set of hands was probably too wide. Towards the end I would think it was too narrow.

Good to have some people on my side, even if they are level 1 thinkers... I thought maybe I was crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuddyWicket

Any tool is only as good as how well it is used. Given op is calling with 74 offsuit the ASSUMPTIONS that were used to base the calculations above are incorrect. His calling range was far wider than the ASSUMPTIONS that were taken and plugged into "the poker maths bible".

---

This is kind of what I was getting at, but ginger is right considering you can't make the assumption your opponent is completely nuts.