I'm sitting at the most crazy action table ever. I'm in SB with K9s $160 stack and UTG with $600 stack blind raised to $20. He does this every time he's UTG and keep in mind that the max buy in for this game is $100. UTG+2 who is a spewtard persian kid in his early-mid 20s repops to $40. He did this like literally 4 times in a row and it went to showdown and he showed 73o, 93o, J9o, and AQs. Everyone else folds and its on me.
I'm pretty sure I'm ahead of spewy persian kid and the guy who blind raised hadn't looked at his cards yet. Only reason I hesitate is because the very last time he min raised the blind raiser he had AQs. Then there's also the bb left to act. No guts no glory though right?
Assuming a range of ATC can someone actually do the math here? Cuz I've played quite a bit of 180 man MTTs and SNGs and these spots come up a lot. Since UTG is blind raising the BB effectively becomes $20 and if we assume the maniac is min raising $40 with ATC as he had down previously then it would be analogous to having an 8bb stack late in a tourney with a donk min raising in front of you. In that situation if the donk was a maniac I would be shoving K9s in a heartbeat.
So I think if we assume UTG+2's range is ATC this would be profitable the only question is whether he's bad enough to literally min raise a blind raiser with ATC 5 times in a row when the blind raiser literally hasn't folded once to the min 3bet.
Fold. Be patient and wait for a better spot. The way you described the situation you probably do have the better hand more often than not but honestly its just a straight gamble.
Assuming a range of ATC can someone actually do the math here? Cuz I've played quite a bit of 180 man MTTs and SNGs and these spots come up a lot. Since UTG is blind raising the BB effectively becomes $20 and if we assume the maniac is min raising $40 with ATC as he had down previously then it would be analogous to having an 8bb stack late in a tourney with a donk min raising in front of you. In that situation if the donk was a maniac I would be shoving K9s in a heartbeat.
So I think if we assume UTG+2's range is ATC this would be profitable the only question is whether he's bad enough to literally min raise a blind raiser with ATC 5 times in a row when the blind raiser literally hasn't folded once to the min 3bet.
But we aren't in a tourney, we are in a cash game. Why play a trash hand here for (maybe) a slight edge, when we can be patient?
Assuming a range of ATC can someone actually do the math here? Cuz I've played quite a bit of 180 man MTTs and SNGs and these spots come up a lot. Since UTG is blind raising the BB effectively becomes $20 and if we assume the maniac is min raising $40 with ATC as he had down previously then it would be analogous to having an 8bb stack late in a tourney with a donk min raising in front of you. In that situation if the donk was a maniac I would be shoving K9s in a heartbeat.
So I think if we assume UTG+2's range is ATC this would be profitable the only question is whether he's bad enough to literally min raise a blind raiser with ATC 5 times in a row when the blind raiser literally hasn't folded once to the min 3bet.
FWIW, playing 180 man MTTs is not quite the same as playing cash. Neither player is committed to calling your shove. They just fold and move on to the next hand. If you get their chips, they just buy in again.
There are other tools, but "running it" simply requires pokerstove. You can download it for free at www.pokerstove.com.
Against two random hands, K9 has 40% equity. However, their calling or raising hands are considerably better than ATC. If I was the button, I'd call and play. OOP, I happily wait for the next hand.
FWIW, playing 180 man MTTs is not quite the same as playing cash. Neither player is committed to calling your shove. They just fold and move on to the next hand. If you get their chips, they just buy in again.
Shouldn't this be to my advantage if they FOLD more in a cash setting than an MTT setting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by venice10
Against two random hands, K9 has 40% equity. However, their calling or raising hands are considerably better than ATC. If I was the button, I'd call and play. OOP, I happy to wait for the next hand.
Well I went ahead and did some math on my own and assuming 0 FE I need 42% equity to make the shove. So I'm 2% away from this being an exploitable shove where even if I show my hand they can't exploit me. With the added FE this looks like a snap shove and its not even close. I already know UTG's range is literally ATC because he hasn't looked at his cards yet, the decision hinges on the fact that UTG+2 is raising ATC which I'm only like 90% sure of. Is 4 orbits in a row enough of a sample size you think?
I'm sitting at the most crazy action table ever. I'm in SB with K9s $160 stack and UTG with $600 stack blind raised to $20. He does this every time he's UTG and keep in mind that the max buy in for this game is $100. UTG+2 who is a spewtard persian kid in his early-mid 20s repops to $40. He did this like literally 4 times in a row and it went to showdown and he showed 73o, 93o, J9o, and AQs. Everyone else folds and its on me.
I'm pretty sure I'm ahead of spewy persian kid and the guy who blind raised hadn't looked at his cards yet. Only reason I hesitate is because the very last time he min raised the blind raiser he had AQs. Then there's also the bb left to act. No guts no glory though right?
Sorry I have to go out but it seems you have some major misconceptions about exploitability.
Care to explain it to me?
I folded and hand went to showdown and Persian kid showed 53o. Let's assume that I knew 100% his range was ATC. Can someone actually do some math or are you just gonna tell me my math is wrong without explaining why.
Can someone actually do some math or are you just gonna tell me my math is wrong without explaining why.
The pot is $60. You jam with $160.
Let's assume one of them will call with the top 25% of hands. Remember, they're gambling.
56% of the time you win $60.
26% of the time you lose $160.
18% of the time you win $180.
You net $24.
My apologies OP, this is a good play under these circumstances. For those interested, the tighter you make the calling range, the higher the net. Hero is only 40% against two ATC ranges pf.
While not a likely scenario that cash players face often (short stacked, two maniacs and relatively huge raises and 3bets with ATC ranges), it is a reminder that we all need to fully evaluate each situation as potentially unique. OP, feel free to come back and contribute.
Let's assume one of them will call with the top 25% of hands. Remember, they're gambling.
56% of the time you win $60.
26% of the time you lose $160.
18% of the time you win $180.
You net $24.
My apologies OP, this is a good play under these circumstances. For those interested, the tighter you make the calling range, the higher the net. Hero is only 40% against two ATC ranges pf.
While not a likely scenario that cash players face often (short stacked, two maniacs and relatively huge raises and 3bets with ATC ranges), it is a reminder that we all need to fully evaluate each situation as potentially unique. OP, feel free to come back and contribute.
why get involved in a situation like this where there are is a lot of guesswork involved when you can just wait for a premium hand and get the same action from them?
My experience is that most 1/2 players aren't going to play a hand in this situation without a monster. He's going to get involved less than 5% of the time once Hero gets involved. Numerous times live and on-line I've taken out maniacs and had people actually thank me for getting the player off the table so they could go back to "playing poker."
A case where "virtue" has its own reward, usually a BI or two.
