on my phone but it doesn't matter if you can't have AA-TT or AK if they can't have anything in the top 20% of hands.

also, the reason i cant have anything in my example is because i overlimped, and not the raise size...

this is ridiculous. tons of people limp/shove AA at 1/2 if the table is aggro and there's enough money in the pot. believe me, there are few people sitting there going "oh he must have 22-88 to make that move, i'm going all-in for $250 with my 88". you definitely have FE against those hands, and they're so unlikely to begin with.

Isn't this a double-edged sword? I mean, I totally agree that someone could easily ship $250 into a nothing pot with a monster hand, cuz that's exactly what I do and I get called by one+ of these zillion limpers more often than not.

I might be being results oriented, but I've tried a similar type play a couple of times (i.e. a straddle, the world limps, the loose straddler puts out a tolerable raise, the world calls, I ship with a meh pair), and both times I'm called by JJ. Cuz someone also has JJ here. And someone always has AK here and calls us, but we're in great shape against those hands, so whatever.

GresultsorientedG

And my results oriented example comes in the form of...
1/3 game
I'm UTG, see TT. Raise to $15. Entire table calls.

Deep-stacked small blind raises to $105.

I ship 100bbs, everyone folds, SB calls and turns over JTs.

Both our results oriented examples show that our FE is very low. i.e. If part of our plan in OPs case was to fold JJ-77, then good luck to us.

What's more ridiculous? The fact that you shipped $250 into $100 pot when $100 raise will do the job?

Not sure why I would argue against someone who thinks I don't know how to play against LAG, and who can't understand the simple concept that I have explained so far.

even if we assume 77-JJ never folds. you still have to ask yourself how often someone has one of those hands, to determine the profitability of the play.

you don't though

Thanks troll, ignored.

this seems pretty exploitable and marginal, but at a live 1-2 table the first time is has to be anywhere from slightly +EV to modestly +EV. Given villain's chatter it's better than folding. (I would fold here otherwise). It's sort of a poor-man's backshove over a squeeze.

also I would encourage anyone who actually works out an EV equation to post their math, since that's the only way to isolate and correct errors in formal reasoning (I've posted some pretty hilarious mistakes).

i'm not trolling. i just have a very short tolerance for people who come on here and argue about stuff to prove a point, and will never EVER change their stance because they're not here to learn.

so go ahead and ignore me, from the looks of it you're not going to learn anything on this forum anyway.

As I say, I think it's 15% that one of the six behind us have JJ-77 (using Phil Gordon's rule). I haven't broken down the math us the above poster suggested, which is probably a pretty good idea, but I'm lazy, and bad at math. What do the numbers look like if 15% someone shows up with JJ-77 and always calls, plus add in someone "usually" (say 50%, fair?) showing up with AK/AQ here and callling? ETA: Whoops, I guess we know the villain has an A and is always calling...

I'm too lazy to google and it might help other people too. Would you mind quickly explaining PGs rule?

I would also say that the chance of getting called by those hands is way, way, way less than 100%. I hate to just pull number out the air but I would definitely estimate 50% to be closer to the true frequency than 100%.

Ok, here's my lame attempt at the math:

85% of the time we get HU with villain who has AK-AT (fair range?), where we will win 54% of the time:

.85 ((.54 * $190) - (.46 * $100)) = $48.11

15% of the time we get it 3ways vs AK-AT and JJ-77 (assume has us covered), where we will win 18% of the time:

.15 ((.18 * $425) - (.82 * $235)) = -$17.43

For a total EV of $30.68.

Wow, I guess it's not even close? And I haven't even included times someone with a worse pair calls us or someone else other than the villain calls us with a Ax hand that sucks up outs with the other villain.

Gwouldn'ttrustmymathG

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...hil&id=2665855

(I don't know how to stick in a link; just google Gordon Pair Principle)

Basically, C = (N * R) / 2

where, C = percentage of time someone behind us wakes up with a bigger pair than us, N number of players behind us, R number of pairs bigger than ours

Just read that PG's rule crap and aside from the lulz factor it is irrelevant here.

looks reasonable. and what really spikes the EV is when villain's raising range is even wider. so he's raising like A5s sometimes, and can't get away with such a short stack. for example this guy had A7o. so when i do this with 88 i get an even greater overlay. (just as an example)

I think this play is certainly fine, and to not make it would be leaving money on the table.

I also agree that shoving is best/better than say squeezing half of your stack.

I think that too many people are concerned about the hands that can call and not thinking enough about the hands that actually will call. In reality, you will see live players folding huge hands here face-up, proudly. For one, they are there for a time to play some poker and gamble. If they call off with AQ now and go broke, then they can't play later - this is the type of thinking the weaker players are using. They also don't want to look stupid, and may fold quietly just to save embarrassment if they are wrong. The more aggressive players probably would have attacked this pot at some point already, if they could. Regardless, they won't call off light, either.

Also, in this kind of pot, I think that just about every single player is encouraged from the get-go to play a bit more LAG. The double straddles promise a bigger than average pot which makes everyone a bit more eager to win it, and encourages some looser starting hands and some more aggression. Albeit, a bunch of callers doesn't really seem aggressive but, they have all put in 5bbs!

What I'm getting at here, though, is that I think there is some merit to discounting EVERYONE's range a bit because of the double-straddle. In that case, I think that 66 is even stronger here than most people are giving credit. IMO, 66 is like 99 here.

Is it possible a $10 double-straddle actually has the opposite affect, in that people tighten their calling ranges before getting involved in this big pot? I know in a limit game when the kill is on (i.e. the stakes double) that this is typically the case, and I'm wondering if that situation is similar to this one in NL...

I think raising ranges generally tighten when the straddle is on, as people think they are bloating the pot, but, oddly limping and calling ranges don't. This is likely the "there's already a lot of money in there" effect making people get tempted into the pot. Therefore, if you want FE in a straddled pot, you should raise BIG. Also, as a corollary, you probably want to tighten your flatting range against an opener not in steal position, as the open-raiser likely has a tighter range than usual.

I also think that GG's ranges and percentages for calling our shove are off. I would widen the ranges, but drop the percentages. i.e. I think the pp's calling us may go lower than 77, but I think all of them, up to JJ call WAYYY below 100%, like 50% or less. So I think we are getting called by another PP less than 15% of the time, and when it happens, we may not be behind. As for the straddler/raiser, I don't think he calls us 85% of the time, but when he does, I think his range is way wider than AT-AK.

Definitely a +EV move, imo.

as someone said before this is only like a 24 BB shove, If the straddler raises remotely light at all here this is +EV...so many ppl overlimped the first time around it's hard for anyone except the straddler to have a big hand...as an aside, it's also prob great for you table image

So, as the 1st straddler not only do u have horrible position you done get last option. Sounds like +ev to me.

I don't believe that everyone tightens up due to the double straddle. Perhaps some regs might avoid getting mixed up in this pot because they anticipate there might be an all-in pre-flop, or they don't want to spew 5bbs with a hand they might not normally play for 1bb. Generally, I think that most players, that aren't nits, are going to look to get involved. And the more players that do get involved, the more that will be lured in by the possibility of winning a big pot - i.e. one or two flat callers leads to more successive callers as they believe they are all priced in. So, to me, it seems like their ranges get wider and wider.

I can see why everyone would be tight in limit for the kill... because it's limit. Isn't everyone already playing pretty tight already? On top of that, a raise in limit, to steal the pot, can hardly have the effect that a raise in NL could. In other words, I can't imagine that you can win the pot as successfully in limit with pure aggression. So, it doesn't seem like as good of an idea to go to the felt with two 6's.

The thing is that most of the recreational players just aren't anticipating much at all. And they likely aren't anticipating that someone is going to try and steal this pot, and more likely so because of the successive calls that encourage it. And for those that might have considered it, they probably just don't care enough to fold for $10 when they might get to see a flop!

the EV of straddling is questionable to begin with, so... (consequently why i don't do it)

and people rarely double straddle. i think it generates action and causes people to make larger mistakes than normal, so i have no issue with it.