PokerStars - $3.30+$0.20|500/1000 Ante 100 NL - Holdem - 9 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

CO: 6.1 BB (VPIP: 11.32, PFR: 9.89, 3Bet Preflop: 10.53, Hands: 106)
BTN: 7.03 BB (VPIP: 16.39, PFR: 16.00, 3Bet Preflop: 3.49, Hands: 302)
SB: 16.36 BB (VPIP: 13.64, PFR: 15.00, 3Bet Preflop: 42.86, Hands: 22)
Hero (BB): 12.85 BB
UTG: 8.75 BB (VPIP: 0.00, PFR: 0.00, 3Bet Preflop: -, Hands: 5)
UTG+1: 13.73 BB (VPIP: 100.00, PFR: 100.00, 3Bet Preflop: -, Hands: 1)
MP: 5.08 BB (VPIP: 15.00, PFR: 11.11, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 20)
MP+1: 16.83 BB (VPIP: 14.41, PFR: 13.27, 3Bet Preflop: 8.00, Hands: 120)
MP+2: 11.31 BB (VPIP: 18.52, PFR: 21.05, 3Bet Preflop: 25.00, Hands: 27)

9 players post ante of 0.1 BB, SB posts SB 0.5 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 2.4 BB) Hero has 8 8

UTG raises to 8.65 BB and is all-in, fold, fold, fold, fold, CO calls 6 BB and is all-in, fold, fold, Hero calls 7.65 BB

Flop: (24.7 BB, 3 players) 2 7 6

Turn: (24.7 BB, 3 players) 6

River: (24.7 BB, 3 players) 9




Ok so on default ranges HRC absolutely hated this, giving my call as -0.77 and a big fat red mark lol.

I thought this spot is never going to be GTO as utg is wider and therefore so is c/o

I widened utg range a little bit to make it more realistic, but not by all that much. The co call with a10 even with this wider range as regards best response was very negative so I widened his range and kept a10o at the very bottom. I'm assuming this was the very bottom of his range, so to reflect his call that we now know includes Ax as low as a10o I widen his range rather significantly from 11.4 to 14.9% ( I balanced his wider ax with a couple of extra pairs 77 and 88 as it happens)

My call was then marked as +0.31 and 77 was +/- 0.0

Of course this value now reflects the information that the c/o range now includes a10 do we think this is much looser then player pool?

How many players left here?

Actually I'm not sure but the money bubble wasn't particularly imminent.
(My read was utg and co was wider then HRC defaults would be and I wouldn't make this assumption if I felt they were likely to be locking up a min cash).


but we are far enough in, that the effectives are getting very short so it must be on the horizon.

i wouldnt mind a call if they were regs. Im not sure utg shoves wide here if he's a unknown. close spot

Without checking icmizer id call, close for sure tho

It's borderline but I call this.

Also some people UTG overreact to the looming big blind and push trash.

Unless I have screwed up in chipev mode HRC has this as a reasonable call with the Nash ranges.
http://hands.holdemresources.net/?id=1be74xnwu8eq6

Of course it is probably approaching the bubble so a decent amount of icm may be coming into play. There are 98k chips on the table and this would be itm in normal 180s but in re-buys I think there are perhaps 40+ players left.

On chip ev HRC has the balanced Nash ranges as utg opening 17.3%, the CO calling 11.5% and the BB calling both with 9.4%, so including 55+.

If I do have the stacks etc, correct I suspect both the utg and co could be tighter, also the late stage will bring in some amount of icm tax and I think this would eat into profit so roughly so 66/77 would be somewhere around the break even point in $ev.

I got different results. Are you running it with the right payout distribution. 27 places paid?

No I had it set to chip ev mode, ie, winner takes all.

With perhaps 40 to 60 players left (well probably more left actually) I don't think you should use the 180 payout structure - if anything you could perhaps set it up as a 90% 10% structure for an icm approximation or go to the trouble of trying out it's multi-table mode but I think that often seems too tight to me.

You would normally only use the 27 structure in the final table part of the game.

The average bubble factor at 45 left in a 180 is 1.21, which is the same as 9 handed in 50-30-20 SNG, so probably SNG payouts would get you a closer answer than 90-10 or 100-0.

handy to know

Yep, quite interesting although I think the real situation is a bit complicated and it comes down to some sort of judgement.

Over the last year or so I've come to the conclusion I should increase the 'icm-tax' I apply in review. I used to think 40+ in 108's would still be pretty close to chipev as the bubble is at 29 players and even then it's just a low min-cash bubble and drops backs down before the 19 players bubble.

I suppose the bubble factor score is another indication that some decent level adjustment is still needed. I think I will try increasing upwards slightly the adjustments I make and then see how it goes over time.

icm nits. why dont you all start adjusting when it's 179 left? we closer to the money then ever before right?

Well in an oddball way I suppose this is what we are discussing, how much adjustment to make from chipev when 179 left, how much with 100, 45 etc.? Far from the money it's likely to be none - but as you do near the money it would help to adjust properly. (Remember that you always need to have the correct range for opponents hands and the inaccuracy in this may dwarf the effect of any icm like adjustment - no need not to put some thought into adjustments though).

I think it is my fault that we have used the 45 players left point - in the actual hand I think it is more likely to be 60 to 80 players left.

... and also slightly oddly it seems your advice is a bit nittier than my slightly icm based advice . In review I would still call regs or non-regs with 77.
You are right that regs will be a little looser from utg than non-regs but like most things it gets complicated. Regs push a wider % but much more narrowly defined, non-regs play a far more scatter-gun range, often you see very wild hands like K6o, T7o etc and with much more capping from limps or small raises of some good hands. Overall, the non-regs have a tighter push percentage but made up with more bad hands - this pretty much would even out their tightness compared to regs. Maybe a reg will push to a 16% while a random just 13% (but spread wider) but I think the best call percentage will still be roughly the same for both, imo calling down to 77 here would still break even in $ev, and even if only 45 left.

Well I used 45 because it's the last number I could easily read off my 1000th post thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...ctors-1504943/

- though I can recalculate it for further out now.