Ty. Sure, a blocker is a card that your opponent might play if he had it, so if you have blocker he is more likely to fold. We can expect it to only be a small consideration.

We can think about blockers on all streets.

Plz show me where in your OP blockers are quantified. I can't just assume the things that you haven't written. We can't use an (icm calculatro?) in game it has to come from memory, which is developed by practice and review.

By saying we "open slightly wider" as your conclusion w/ blockers is evidence to the point I'm trying to make. There is not accuracy in "slghtly wider" and you will be missing value or leaking chips when these spots come up. The best way to know would be play out the hands, review them later, and repeat.

OK, got it. Are you advocating min raising with blockers instead of 3bb raising? If so, when and why?

We should not necessarily try to quantify them any further other than understanding the order and implication of blockers. If we use and icm calculator to try and find a specific % of adjustment, we run the risk of incorrectly adjusting in certain spots.

You are suggesting we can use an icm calculator, to review certain specific spots and then we can use those results to apply to all spots or a broad array of spots on the tables but I think this is going to be the opposite of accurate.

It is not a specific view that will help us with the broad view, it is the general understanding of the game that will help us with specific spots.

I am not suggesting I am quantifying a certain % of folds per specific blockers, but rather I am pointing out that doing homework on specific hands does not count as quantifying either.

We should be using our homework to help us build general and correct understandings of the game, while dispelling any decisions not made on mathematical rationally.

No your question is one of a slightly different subject, another topic I could not find the answer to but through observing the fundamentals of the game I finally have some understanding of.

Here i have dealt mostly with min raising because it is more prevalent in 180 turbos.

The act of 3xing vs minraising has to do with the reasons that we raise preflop, which you should spend time becoming quite familiar with. I find many regs are not so quick to answer such a question of why do we raise preflop.

Yes I have noticed that too. I have been varying my raise amounts and been getting good results. Ill definitely do some research. I do like the min raise.

I think before we start experimenting we should build solid fundamentals which includes 3xing preantes mostly and moving to min raising around 25bbs poker and antes poker.

Again when we understand all the reasons to open preflop then we will intuitively know when to switch.

When thinking of why we raise i think questions like why we fold jts and 78s utg but open them from hj/cu etc. helps.

You are definitely being overly theoretical here. This is fundamentally flawed and it isn't actually better than all these guys just "playing by feel". This sort of theoretical analysis isn't possible at tables, and we all have to default to heuristics.

Also, if you aren't winning money/haven't moved up after 60,000 games in these, you have a SERIOUS problem. It doesn't take more than 5 or 6 sessions with a good player to be able to win pretty consistently at these games... so if you are losing your entire approach is wrong.

I am going to hazard a guess and say your short-stack play is atrocious if you aren't winning at these. Not trying to flame, just genuinely diagnosing your game. The other guy is right...if you are r/fing with 10 BBs consistently and coming with bogus theoretical justifcations, look no further for why you are losing.

Hey guys,

I found out I have a few spots I have big trouble with because I don't know what to do with them.

1:
AJ/AT from EP around 15-20 BB deep. I learned you shouldn't raise-fold with these stack-sizes, so are these just open folds in EP? I just have trouble open-folding AJs, but I guess we're usually behind against a 3b shove?

2:
A-rag from the button around 13-20 BB deep.
Should I just open-shove it 13 BB deep, (without antes) and how about when there are antes? Is raise-folding an option with a slightly bigger stack like 18 BB? or would you suggest min-raise calling A2/A3 ?

thanks !

1. You should often/most of the time fold, unless there are some small stacks whose 3bet you can call.

2. A rag is fine there without antes and even better with antes. If the players on the blinds are really nitty though = they 3bet only really good hands then minraise/fold is better than a shove(this is pretty rare though other than fishes but they like to call anyway for "it is so cheap"... or if there are fishies who like to call minraises, you'd be better off shoving it.

With 18bb stack or such, raise/folding is okay if the players are tight... Once again if it's likely that they flat from the blinds then you might not want to open it unless they play straightforward.

You can't really minraise call anyone with A2/A3 because you don't get the odds unless their range is super wide. You could only call smaller stacks, maybe 7-8bb or less? Unsure if you'd get the odds for that though... But then again you are better off going all-in if they are that small stacks because otherwise they will call you with a hand htat has good equity vs your ace rag.

Is this what happens, players make too correct decisions?
Explain to me what fundamentally flawed means and show me how it is so. Are you suggesting we can win poker with Jedi skills?

It is clearly possible to do on 30 tables at a time.
Nobody said I didn't win money after 60k games, nobody said I haven't moved up.


5 or 6 days of playing poker is a laughable sample size.

I don't think that suggest our entire approach is wrong.

This is because you didn't understand what I said about deriving nash equilibrium shove ranges from our min raise fold strategy.

Thanks but you haven't actually seen my game and you should be careful to judge such things based on not having enough information.

The theory is not bogus, you have not shown it to be bogus, and my suggestion is you talk to some really good winning regs about when it is ok to raise/fold a short stack.

Yes but how often? And specifically when?

But what % of hands must they play for us to profitably raise? It doesn't help to say nitty or not, we need to know exactly HOW nitty.
How tight? If they flat? Flat how much? We should not guess such numbers.
But how wide?
Maybe?
Yes we are not sure, and why are we so against getting called with a worse hand?

What you want to ask and know is WHY we aren't supposed to raise fold such a stack. Then we can know when it is OK to do so.

Sometimes even if we are behind a shove in hand equity, we should still call.


These are question that can be answered by exploring and understanding the fundamentals of the math behind each play. Most regs do not understand them and therefore are not able to answer your questions in correct form. This leaves you knowing the answer, but since you don't understand WHY, it causes you to ask general questions and make your raise based on feel. What happens is you (or others) eventually begin to believe that poker is partially a feel game, and that 'feel' is mathematically correct. To move on and up in the game we have to dispel this myth, and learn the fundamentals behind each decision.

this is fascinating stuff. I initially thought OP was just some idiot who had swallowed a poker theory book and was spewing out random pages all over the place, but now I'm leaning towards some sort of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman type character who's discovered turbo SNGs and is determined to understand every minute detail of the game. Either way, I for one am enjoying watching the regs get mad at him!

Well firstly I am no such savant. But we should refer to Kim Peek rather than Hoffman. Is it really that taboo to look at our fundamental basics? I am claiming others get emotional on the issue because they don't want to admit they do not understand the foundations of the game.

I know high stakes winning players that can tell you such and such a hand is a raise, but if you ask them why, they admit they do not now. This attitude will not suffice in the future 180 man arena (and therefore not in mtt fields) as the new generation will have laser opening ranges, and then laser 3bet shoving ranges. Its really not hard to mentally compute if you properly understand what is going on.

First of course we have to get over the stigma of 'mathematical' poker vs feel. But as many good regs have pointed out to me, they don't want the general field to learn about such things. And others who believe math is voodoo do not want their core beliefs rocked, and so there comes the emotional mind.

There is much more to get upset about in the OP, we just have to read it more carefully and discuss it more intently.

From my understanding seems like you want to show off. You're very very cocky my friend, even if you are right (and I think you might be). You come to a forum where you know most of people don't have your approach to the game and won't help you with what you seem to want, while in the other hand you know\have talked to oracles who know all about it. So, even if you're right, your attitude is quite bad.

You should want to study with them and not open people's eyes to this approach in a public forum (which, if everyone one day manage to learn, will be the end of the game). For instance, I have a very mathematical approach to the game and you opened my eyes for the fact that it might not be enough.

You seem like John Nash running behind the ducks trying to understand their erratic moves. Except that he's a teacher, so he'd contribute the the world with his achievements. While if such approach is right at 180's, it will contribute to the end of the game (and someone tell me If I'm wrong and why).

Because there is a misconception out there that there is not much room to expand in the realm of 180s strategy. This may have happened because players are afraid to share strategy out of fear the games will dry up.

In another discussion we might talk about what will dry up the games faster, discussing fundamentals or advertising such a game has nowhere to improve on strategy.

This is great.
I started turbo SNG's from the $1 90's. After 2.8k games I am playing the $2.50 180's. Have around 700 games to date. Working with SNG wizard helped me a lot with adjusting my ranges. I found myself in spots where min raise/ folding 10bb is just fine. Sorry for the long semi-brief introduction.
I was really thinking about some solid min raise ranges. It is very hard for me to come up with exact ranges and balance them. I am working on it as well as learning the foundation. I really love your approach and thinking. I will love be part of this thread and find a solid math. solution about min raise and better understanding of all the variables that should be taken in to account.
P.S. I started from scratch after having very solid 6-max cash game foundation. I have a coach who is pretty good player. I am working on solid a foundation in the 180's, this is my main goal! I see winning reg's that have leaks in their fundamentals. I don't want this to be me.
I totally agree with you on this,it looks to me that making a +EV move without knowing the whole spectrum of reasons behind= solid leak.
Thank you for this thread!

Adyo:

1) I am not suggesting Phil Hellmuth "feel poker". I am just saying you can't do this sort of minute range calculation while playing many tables. To further clarify, trying to narrow down whether we should our re-shove range should Q8s vs Q9s in a particular spot is basically a waste of time, since the difference is minute, and the answer varies too much based on factors we can't know. Nor is theoretical analysis always going to give you the best answer. Theory won't tell you that shoving TT over a 2x raise in level 1 can be good but against some players at 2/180s, it absolutely is. That's what I mean by you being overly theoretical. If you are a genius who can process all the gameflow dynamics/variables along with your uber complex math/strat, all the better for you, though I am not sure why you are playing MTT/SNGs rather than the One Drop.

2) I am a "good winning reg" and moreover I have discussed MTT short-stack play with world class players. I know some winning regs like r/fing micro-stacks but doing this profitably depends upon a set of assumptions which are often very wrong, and it is a huge mistake against the population sample you will find in 180 man tourneys.

3) I didn't say that they will start winning in 5 or 6 days, or that 5 or 6 days sample would matter. I said those skills could be developed in 5 or 6 sessions which is very different.

4) Losing over a 60k tourney sample on Stars 180s would suggest your strategy was hopelessly flawed (though I know acknowledge you aren't actually losing over those samples).

5) All comments made on the game were on the hypothesis that you were losing, which I seem to have incorrectly inferred from your earlier statements.

No probs, glgl!

Are you saying I cannot do it, or you cannot?

Are you sure its a waste of time or is more optimal? Why do we feel that making broader decisions are better than more accurate ones?

What are these factors that we cannot know?

How would we get a better answer or the best answer apart from using theory?

Yes good fundamental theory will tell us exactly that. I am not sure how you would propose we do it otherwise.

At what point can we decide we are being over theoretical? My experience is when players find out there is a more accurate way of looking at a spot, they tend to close off to the discussion as it makes them feel like there past decisions are all of a sudden losing value.

I am nowhere near genius, but I think the math/strat discussed in op is not complex.

Which assumptions are their, and which are often wrong? Most importantly of all why is it a huge mistake?

Look to clarify, I am a huge fan of theory in general. I think "over-theoretical" means when you are playing based on flawed assumptions of how your opponent will respond, for instance, blindly using Nash for push/fold ranges.

If by "theory" you just mean deeply analyzing situations that's fine and I don't really ahve an issue with it.

Your strategy as posted in your OP involved a huge degree of observation and "if they play like this I play like that" sort of stuff. I am assuming that adhering to that strictly while mass multi-tabling is difficult though I may be wrong.

R/fing with a micro-stack basically attempts to win pots when our opponents don't have strong hands, but also get away when he has very strong ones. This is the only advantage it has over a shove. Therefore for it to make sense, there has to be an implicit assumption that your opponent will treat as analogous to a shove- not flat-call, not rejam wide or even normally. I just don't think enough people regard min-raises from 8 BB stacks that way.

I'll grant your point that of course there are some players against which it is good. It's so difficult to identify them, there are so few of them, and in general the chances of false positives are higher than any benefit you derive from those one or two times you get away from a cooler that it's not worth it.

Is there a way to play without making assumptions on our opponents responses? Or is it that there is a flawed assumptions and a not flawed assumption, and then are you able to show me the flaw so then we can correct it?

No I mean having the correct fundamental basis from which to work off of. Otherwise our analysis will be flawed, as well as our perception of the game.

Yes we should gather a huge degree of observation, and entertain many factors in making each decision. This allows us to gain more and more edge in such a competitive field. 30 tables seems doable for an experienced grinder, but thats likely only possible if we first work on our 1 tabling decision making skills.
I am not sure that is the only advantage. For instance we can now r/c our nut hands and retain balance with our r/fs

I am not sure what option you are suggesting we are hoping for. If villain flats then we will make adjustment to own them post flop, if villain jams wide we will adjust our short min raise strategy to strong hands. If they shove 'normally' we will usually be playing optimally this way.

How do you feel most people respond? I think that most people don't understand min raise/opening theory in short stack poker and this causes there 3bet responses to be quite exploitable over the long term. But we have to open our own game up to allow villains to open theirs. What we need are specific notes and specific adjustments.


Remember that what you describe here can be mathematically quantified and that whatever the cev gain is, it must be multiplied by each hand, by each spot, in each position, on each table, in every tournament for each session each day of the year for each year we play. And just as importantly as the general fields knowledge increases it will be more and more important make these adjustments and take these spots just to break even.

You say that we will "make the adjustments" but a lot of the time, if people are flat-calling and/or shoving the hands they would call if we shove or slightly wider than their calling range, then the only "adjustment" we can make is to not r/f at all.

Tell me this, aren't there a lot of opponent strategies where your "adjustment" would be to not have a r/f range at all? If so what are these strategies?

Also regarding flat-calls, you give them excellent pot odds by min-raising (and if you don't minraise you give yourself a terrible risk/reward ratio and burn more chips when you fold), and I don't see what way there is of having a r/f range and simultaneously "adjusting to own them post-flop".

And to clarify, I am against having a r/f range in these spots. I am not against min-raising and then calling shoves.

Edit: Also I have to say this. A lot of your strategy depends on the VERY flawed assumption that you will see enough hands to find out exactly what strategy your opponent is using (and this is not even going into what happens if he changes his game, or plays differently against you).

I don't think any of your supporting statements lead to the only adjustment is not not r/f at all. There are tons of spots where r/f is greater than shoving.

no I don't expect this to happen very often at all.
Yes you point it out, but I don't think you realize the ramification. If we give them a good price it means we give them a good chance to make a mistake, and we get paid on mistakes not on shoves.

When we find our villains flat we can adjust our min raise range to show up with dominating post flop hands, once we learn our villains flatting tendencies.

Are you against it because it is not optimal, or because its not the strategy you employ at this time?

You cannot just write 'flawed' in front of assumption and then it is so. I agree the strategy is based on having strong reads on your opponents and understanding their habits and motivations. This takes strong observation, careful study, and very good note taking skills. You seem to be suggest that such careful planning is voodoo, and that a more feel based method will yeild better results. I am suggesting if we don't implement these things at a minimum we will begin to fall behind to the new generation.

If you feel that ignoring these things and continuing to use basic minraise/shove strategies that ignore such preflop and post flop adjustments is best I think you'll find that your result are even with the par of the field.

This is because stables are so prevalent now, there are 100's of horses that are being taught all the same abc 180 style.

yes this is adjusting to adjusters, and eventually meta game, and mixed meta game. But we might agree you cannot have strong meta game without strong and varied fundamentals in our preflop open/3bet/ post flop game.

I think you are misunderstanding some of my points.

1) On flat-calls. I knew you are going for having a range that dominates him. The issue is when you have a micro-stack to begin with this dominating range will end up being strong enough to call his shoves, which begs the question of why we are raise/folding at all.

2) I think raise/folding will be sub-optimal if your opponent plays well. I think specifically that if your opponent plays optimally, the only correct adjustment will be to not r/f micro-stacks.

3) On flat calling mistakes. There are only two types of mistakes he can make; 1) making bad calls- which is difficult because he has such good odds and with micro-stacks the Reverse Implied Odds reason for not calling wide no longer applies. and 2) Playing sub-optimally on the flop, which I am not going to address because this is not in our control obviously and assuming he is competent, he won't.

4) Since you say there are "tons of spots" where r/f is better, give me some instance or instances (against opponents that are not simply uber-nits).

5) I couldn't agree with you more about stables and everyone playing the same style. I play very differently from almost any reg out there and think it actually helps me that once I see one of them play, I know how they all play.