|
|
| MTTSNG Discussion and analysis of MTTSNGs. |
07-16-2012, 08:49 AM
|
#16
|
|
journeyman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: GM-City
Posts: 388
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
icm fold ainec
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 11:17 AM
|
#17
|
|
old hand
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia/Micro stakes Stars tab
Posts: 1,740
|
Is BB opening a lot of hands?
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 02:59 PM
|
#18
|
|
adept
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,099
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wackyradish
icm fold ainec
|
What ranges do you give villains? I think it is close assuming any reasonable calling ranges.
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 06:22 PM
|
#19
|
|
centurion
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 186
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliquantum
What ranges do you give villains? I think it is close assuming any reasonable calling ranges.
|
Quote:
|
What range are u shoving here against big stacks? Both Big stacks were more on loose side.
|
I think something like 22+ A7s+ A8o+ KTs+ KTo+ QTs+ QJo JTs maybe more considering the reads given by hero. But maybe its where im wrong, maybe they are tighter than that but i would be suprised. I really think they call looser(especially the bb). Anyway vs that range its a fold i think.
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 08:01 PM
|
#20
|
|
newbie
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
This is actually a shove if one of these people is playing like a nitball retard, or if both of them are calling too tightly.
Given 2 wide calling ranges though, my voodoo wizardry tells me to shove something like 55+ ATo+ A8s KQs in this spot, pretty big icm disaster when you get called here. You can probably add 4 or 5 hands to that or something and it won't be awful.
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 08:41 PM
|
#21
|
|
adept
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,099
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish_but_lucky
I think something like 22+ A7s+ A8o+ KTs+ KTo+ QTs+ QJo JTs maybe more considering the reads given by hero. But maybe its where im wrong, maybe they are tighter than that but i would be suprised. I really think they call looser(especially the bb). Anyway vs that range its a fold i think.
|
If they are both calling that range, it is very very close in terms of $EV. And with 6bb, i'll take a breakevenish $EV play all day.
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 10:01 PM
|
#22
|
|
centurion
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 186
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliquantum
If they are both calling that range, it is very very close in terms of $EV. And with 6bb, i'll take a breakevenish $EV play all day.
|
why? personally, im more likely to take breakevenish $EV play when there's no small stack(about to be hit by the blind) than where there is.
explain me why it can be right but i dont understand
|
|
|
07-16-2012, 11:35 PM
|
#23
|
|
adept
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,099
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Well I tend to think that playing 100% according to ICM is a mistake so my opinion might be biased.
But also, there's a very real possibility that the shorty doubles up next hand and then we eat the blind and all of a sudden the roles are reversed, you have no FE, and you folded A3s OTB 2 hands earlier. ICM/SNG Wiz looks at each hand in a vacuum and doesn't account for future hands.
Point is though, I think its a really close spot, not a "snap" fold or shove. And because its such a meh spot, either option isn't a big mistake.
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 02:57 AM
|
#24
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: They see my trollin', they hatin'
Posts: 3,655
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
limp
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 09:47 PM
|
#25
|
|
centurion
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 186
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliquantum
Well I tend to think that playing 100% according to ICM is a mistake so my opinion might be biased.
But also, there's a very real possibility that the shorty doubles up next hand and then we eat the blind and all of a sudden the roles are reversed, you have no FE, and you folded A3s OTB 2 hands earlier. ICM/SNG Wiz looks at each hand in a vacuum and doesn't account for future hands.
Point is though, I think its a really close spot, not a "snap" fold or shove. And because its such a meh spot, either option isn't a big mistake.
|
what would be your pushing range?
|
|
|
07-17-2012, 11:04 PM
|
#26
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: They see my trollin', they hatin'
Posts: 3,655
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
lol. seriously. limp.
Maybe someone more ambitious than me can get out their calculators and show how the $ev changes when we limp, SB folds, BB jams, we fold. Or what happens to our $ev when we limp, SB jams, BB jams, and we call. Or when we limp, SB completes, BB jams, and we fold. Or when we limp, the SB completes, the BB checks, and the flop comes 4s7sJd.
I'm way too lazy to figure all that out. But limping is the right answer.
|
|
|
07-18-2012, 11:10 PM
|
#27
|
|
adept
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,099
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish_but_lucky
what would be your pushing range?
|
22+, A5+, A2s+, KT+, K9s+, QT+, Q9s+, JT, J9s+, T8s+, 98s+. 25%ish I guess.
The bottom of that range might be slightly -$EV, but given my reasons above, I'm OK with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pghfan987
lol. seriously. limp.
....
I'm way too lazy to figure all that out.
|
Me too.
|
|
|
07-20-2012, 06:12 AM
|
#28
|
|
deviation of equilibrium
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 27,370
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
surprised that noone flats here
pretty good spot for it.
with this stacksize and your handstrength every option is close anyway.
|
|
|
07-20-2012, 09:54 AM
|
#29
|
|
centurion
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 186
|
Re: 180-man 2.5$ A3s ICM
flatting is better than shoving imo. But yeah its close anyway
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM.
|