Top two paid: $233 first/$99 second. Do villain's lines make a difference here? Player behind? What about ICM considerations?

***** Hand History for Game 1111111111 *****
Tourney Hand NL Texas Hold'em - Thursday, July 14, 12:52:18 ET 2016
Table Turbo $60 (85814228) (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Seat 1: Player1 ( 3382 ) - VPIP: 28, PFR: 13, 3B: 5, AF: 3.2, Hands: 118
Seat 4: Player4 ( 2150 ) - VPIP: 25, PFR: 15, 3B: 4, AF: 6.0, Hands: 183
Seat 6: Hero ( 3468 )
Player1 posts ante of [15].
Player4 posts ante of [15].
Hero posts ante of [15].
Hero posts small blind [75].
Player1 posts big blind [150].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ 7d 7s ]
Player4 raises [430]
Hero ???

Fold. Calling is terrible, and shoving isn't +ev especially considering ICM.

Wrong

Ranges tho. Let's talk about ranges, in particular his opening % and the % hands he calls with (plus our equity vs that second range).

Wrong

It isn't - and saying wrong isn't at all helpful in any way - but I saw a trend, and I wanted to be on board from the ground floor.
I just want to belong.

ACB - people still use ranges to analyse hands? I thought one word answers had replaced strategy discussion?

Gifs > One word answers

Meh I don't like when people give awful answers stated as fact.

But isnt: "Wrong" a rather awful answer (assuming the questioner wants to learn the whys) stated in a factious way?

Please can someone talk about formatting. Might be the bottle of red but I can't even read what gwan!

I'm not sure I posted my answer as a 'fact'. I know I didn't explicitly state "My opinion would be to fold here" but I do think its implied as there's very few facts in poker.

I still don't quite know why my answer is wrong. My overall preference is to be the aggressor on the bubble. We'd be out of position and not really sure where we'd be if we called. And if we shove and we're called are we really fist pumping here? We're flipping at best right?

As far as ranges go, Player4 is kind of short and he's on the button 3 handed, I honestly don't know how to put that on an accurate range.

I know my thinking isn't nearly up to par with you guys but I would be interested to know why my thinking is incorrect, which I understand it is.

This forum is best IMO when we have people of all experience/skill level responding to threads and I hope my answers in the past haven't shamed people into lurking instead of posting.

While some responses are surely 'more right' than others, having a community where people feel free to discuss their opinions is going to lead to more critical thinking about seemingly standard spots and ultimately, improvement in all of our respective games.

/soapbox

First off, your answer didn't take into account both his raising range and the range/frequency that he calls our shove. Both are crucial elements needed to determine whether a shove here is +EV or not. There are players who open super loose and almost never call, there are players that only have a tight opening range and snap off shoves with all of it, and there are players in between.


I don't disagree with this, in theory, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the situation at hand. Our goal isn't to be an aggressor, it's to take the most +EV lines/spots possible. Often, that's done by being aggressive.

Here, we do have a spot to be aggressive -- by reshoving a small pair vs a button open.

Not a huge fan of calling here, especially readless. Might be my least favorite option if we're folding to postflop aggression.

A huge part of our equity in this hand comes from fold equity. So if he's raising a wide range and folding most of it, we pick up the pot often without a showdown.

If called, are we happy? I don't assume we'd be ahead of the range that calls a shove, but often we'd be flipping so I wouldn't be terribly unhappy. Regardless, if he's folding 99% of the time (I know he's not, but I'm using that as an example) then it's a massively +EV play even when snaps off overpairs.

Agree with all u say here. But imo in this forum there has always been an issue with "free thinking".

Like, I remember that Gigabet Block Theory, where iirc people thought he was trolling. If you reread that thread now, you realise he talked about what we now call FGS. Next lvl **** completely disregarded by all.

This forum has always struggled from the "sng formula". Which leads to a lot of simple answers, aka "just put into icm calc".

I remember Glitlr getting shat on, we he started to "disregard ICM" (what people called it) or as he put it "think outside the box". Despite being a crusher and a very kind and helpful person on this forum.

There has been some great discussions, but imo I always felt that if you want to seriously get into the mater, you are better off doing it yourself or with a small group of trusted people (who put in ~equal work).

Also most people who post OPs dont seem to care about the theory behind it, they just wanna know what line to take with tptk vs a fish or what range to shove from btn vs 2 unknowns w/10 BBs.

Like no offense to the op. But I read his op, and it seems to me that he is at the very beginning of his SNG journey. Do I really want to spend hours giving a strong respons considering all the most important variables? Is this what he wants, does it actually help him at this point?

Or should I rather just link him to a thread explaining ICM/Bias against confrontation basics, with a simple generic answer how to play this spot?

With most OPs, I feel the latter. Thats at least my perception.

Great post!

You didn't support your thinking so how would we know if it is correct? You just said "fold, calling and shipping is bad". An opinion is worthless without backing it up.

You turned it around. You take a position and then ask why that is wrong. You should be taking a position because of reasons, reasons which can be discussed. It is ok to be neutral you know, no need for random opinions to be spewed.