You're welcome.

I'm not shoving with any hand here. I do not want to go all-in, even with a premium hand (top 5%).

I think shoving all-in here is a Bozo move. (Sorry to be blunt).

If I did have a premium starting hand (which this is not), I'd limp to take a look at the flop.

Hero's immediate goal here should be to knock out BTN and secure second place. Once Hero has done that, he'll focus on winning first place. Unless second and third place pay the same (and that would be highly unusual) Hero should endeavor to not end up in third place. Best way for Hero to end up in third place is for Hero to shove here.

Why do you want to shove when your priority should be to wait until BTN posts the blind hoping BTN gets knocked out when BTN has to commit his chips.

I don't know the answer to that.

Buzz

Problem is that with this style of play you will be hoping a lot in many hands and lose many chips in the process. You will let yourself be pushed around. Your style of play will be picked up, and every time you are the second stack the big stack will use that to his advantage. One example about what can happen is that BTN will not commit in the big blind next hand. Another is the other villain folds in SB and increases the small stack. You will be in auto-fold mode every time you are on the button. I think the bleeding all in all doesn't pay off. But meh. Sometimes you can fold this hand, because of the possible immediate payoff in the very next hand. But you will never be the one knocking the small stack out. Even if you have two Aces with a low. You will miss that golden opportunity, giving the small stack a possibility to get back on his feet.

In my usage and understanding of words, "tight" and "nitty" do not mean the same thing.

My understanding is "nitty" means "unwilling to take risks and playing only premium hands." Advocating a sensible fold is not "nitty."

You didn't tell us what the payouts are.
I'm assuming second place pays more than third place.
A typical payout structure might be something like:
• 1st; X dollars,
• 2nd; 60% of X dollars,
• 3rd; 40% of X dollars.
something like that.

Let's say first place is $1000. Then, typically second place is $600 while third place is $400. In that case there's $2000 in the prize pool.

All three players are entitled to at least $400 each. And the players are really playing for the remaining $800.

1013+1721+266=3000
0.34+0.57+0.09=1.00

0.34*800+0.57*800+0.09*800
272+456+72=800.

To my way of thinking, if a settlement were reached now,
Hero would be entitled to 400+272=$672

If BTN gets knocked out and BB wins all his chips, then both BB and Hero are entitled to $600 and they would be playing for $1000.

And then Hero would be entitled to 600+0.34*1000=$940 in a fair settlement.

In other words, even if BB wins all BTN's chips when BTN gets knocked out, Hero's fair settlement share goes up by $268.
the math: 940-672=268

Here Hero should be much more interested in securing second place in the tournament than stealing the big blind.

The key to winning tournaments, I'm convinced, is surviving.

Accordingly, I advocated the survival line.

In my humble (honestly) opinion, stealing the big blind here is trivial and going all-in against an unknown hand held by BB would be an absolute blunder. Fair enough for anyone to disagree with me.

Honestly, no. (Sorry). We have no idea what BB's cards are and we are not given an indication of how BB will respond to the shove. (I think how BB will respond to the shove depends on the interaction between the two of you and probably also on BB's card sense.

I don't know. I did it my own fair settlement way.

OK. I can do that for you.

much much much tighter.

Buzz

because this is in the pokerstars hyperturbo thread I assume it is a 6 man hyperturbo. Those are by far the most common and in which case only top two get paid.

No. BTN has less than 9% of the chips in play. Hero's goal should be to knock out BTN. (And that should be BTN's goal too).

Hero should not care if BTN is knocked out by BB or by Hero. Neither should BB care who knocks out BTN. The important thing for them both is for BTN to be out of the running.

Here's why: So long as BTN is alive in the tournament, BTN has some chance of winning the tournament or taking second place. Thus so long as BTN is alive, BTN is entitled to some share of both first place and second place money. Once BB and Hero get rid of BTN, then BTN is no longer entitled to a share of first and second place money. BTN has lost his share of first and second place money to the remaining players in the tournament, (BB and Hero).

Not exactly. But, yes, having the big stack does enable one to push other players around, so long as one does not overdo it.

I think he'll try to. When I'm big stack I use being big stack to my advantage. (Don't you?)

I don't understand.

BTN may or may not commit. Hero should probably attack the big blind (raise) when BTN posts, and if Hero has too terrible of a hand to do that, then BB (who will have posted the small blind) should, if at all possible, attack. It's to both BB's advantage and Hero's advantage to see BTN (the small stack) knocked out of the tournament.

Get it? Both BB and Hero increase in net worth when BTN no longer has a fair settlement share of first and second place. If BB and Hero both understand this fundamental tournament principle, then they both will want BTN knocked out.

If that happens, the other villain is a ****ing idiot who doesn't understand tournament dynamics.

But yes, sometimes it happens that you're playing with someone who stupidly decreases his own share of the prize pool (and yours too).

Wrong! Horribly wrong!

I don't understand what you mean by "the bleeding." I don't think I'm advocating "bleeding."

I'm advocating actively going about knocking out BTN. You don't do that by shoving all-in here after BTN has already folded.

I think you have completely misunderstood me. I hope my response in this post straightens that out.

By shoving here, you're giving the small stack a very real chance to supplant you in second place. And although the small stack (BTN) only has about 9% of the tournament chips, if the small stack doubles up three times in a row (not at all impossible) then BTN will become the chip leader and favorite to win the tournament.

Buzz

Tried to move my last three sentences to another place in the post, they are concerning the "scared middle stack strategy" at later (and possibley previous) hands, but timed out.



And I want to remind we are not colluding with the big stack against the small stack, btw.

Thanks for the correction.

I don't think it changes much.

I can (rather easily) figure out, in terms of fair settlement, how much Hero and BB stand to gain by having BTN knocked out of the pot.

Both Hero and BB gain by having BTN knocked out of the pot (because BTN is no longer entitled to a share of first or second place in a fair settlement).

Buzz

We should be! I think it's called implicit collusion (where the big stacks gang up against a small stack at the final table in a tournament).

Collusion when there's no prior agreement and when nothing is agreed between players is not illegal. And it's a fact of life in a poker tournament. There's nothing personal about it. Everybody moves up (except the small stack) when the small stack gets knocked out.

But it's possible the other players in the tournaments in which you play do not understand this principle and will tend to attack a non-blood-and-guts Hero. And in that case Hero may have to adjust his play.

Buzz

Based on my observations of how the regs play in the hypers, I think the importance of busting the other player is over-rated in your thinking Buzz. Consider this situation: 3 handed, short stack BTN calls all-in for 1bb. SB, w 8bb completes. BB w 12bb shoves.

Would you say the BB made a mistake here? How about SB? Feel free to give them any hands you like. I'm genuinely curious, but I see fish play like SB hoping to check it down and regs shove tons of hands in BBs spot cuz they seem to prefer dead money.

Problem with only folding, hoping the small stack blinds himself out/busts, is you will lose nearly 2 big blinds every three hands in this setting. Costly. You will lose half your stack in ten hands. You will maybe not get even one better hand than this in those ten hands, or maybe one.

Maybe, but not necessarily. I'd need more information about the game and player interactions to comment intelligently.

Probably not. I'd need more information about the game and player interactions to comment intelligently. SB can fold and BB's action should affect future play, very possibly to the detriment of both SB and BB (and thus to the advantage of short stack BTN)

That's a possibility. The hand you posted and to which I responded in depth is very much different because BTN had already folded.

Whatever.

Buzz

That's not what I was advocating.

I think Hero's priority here should be to go after BTN (the much smaller stack) rather than BB (the big stack). See the difference?

I think Hero should fold here in order to go after BTN more effectively. (If Hero goes all-in here with this rather mediocre starting hand, Hero may not have any chips with which to go after BTN on the very next hand when BTN posts his big blind). Hero probably, but not necessarily, has a better starting hand than BB. However, shoving is just not worth the risk, in my opinion.

Buzz

You will have difficulties to go after the small stack, if not being prepared to take the risk of going against the big too.

Say you get AA when on the button. Do you fold instead of shoving, so that the big stack doesn't get a chance to call you?


No hand is an island.

Hero should be prepared to go against the big stack too.

But going after the big stack after the small stack has already folded seems ill advised.

Depends.

The idea is to put pressure on the small stack and a good time to do that is when the small stack posts the blind. You want the small stack to concede his blind or be forced all-in.

It may be impossible for you to achieve the goal of getting the small stack all-in, but that's the goal for which you should be striving.

You don't accomplish that goal by shoving all-in after the small stack has already folded.

Agreed.

Buzz

You have a good point worth thinking of. Though, a problem is you will not often get hands you can play against the big stack even from a pure chip ev perspective when you are on the button. The good thing with playing from the blinds is you have to invest less for a potential gain.

In the end you may just sit there, bleeding chips, according to my experience. Small stack gets split pots, and then doubles up. And then you get card dead, etc. And then you are the next to go, when you could have played for the win.

Well I did some calculations which seem to support folding here, but its close.

My icm equity if I fold is 38.3%. If Villain calls top 30% I'd have 37.9% (used the simplified method I described in my other post). I chose top 30% because if I'm shoving AJ(T6) and all better, those hands should be getting proper odds to call it off plus a little extra. It would be a good shove from my POV if he's calling top 20% or less.

Based on my experience so far I'd guess I don't have enough fold equity. AJT6ds would be an easy shove, AJ(T3) would also shove.

Not confident in my answer, but I'm more confident its a close decision, so that's useful at the very least.

I'm unable to follow the logic behind what you are doing. Sorry.

Buzz

That's not my experience.

I think you may be confusing what I am suggesting with how you have played yourself.

I'm only suggesting conceding this one particular hand. I'm not suggesting sitting there bleeding chips for any other hand.

Hero should only want to play hands where there's a chance to knock out the small stack. And since the small stack has already folded, there's no chance to knock out the small stack with this particular hand.

The only one who can get knocked out on this particular hand is Hero!

Buzz

Its a crude method, but is my approach correct?

buzz = confirmed nit.

wheres all the traffic

Sorry. I really have tried.

But I can't follow the logic of what you're doing.

Thus I'm the wrong person to ask.

Buzz

Shrug.

I think of a "nit" as someone who is unwilling to take risks and plays only premium hands.

Since I do occasionally bluff, and since I play in the neighborhood of 30% of the hands I'm dealt, I don't meet my own definition of "nit." Therefore I don't think of myself as a "nit."

But perhaps you have a different or broader definition of "nit," and perhaps I do meet your definition of "nit."

Tryptamean earlier in this thread suggested I advocate the "nitty" line. Maybe both of you are using slightly different definitions of "nit" than I'm using.

Although when I have measured the percentage of starting hands with which I voluntarily see the flop at a full (9 or 10 player) cash game table, it's in the neighborhood of (just under) 30%, I don't actually think of all of the starting hands I play as profitable.

I actually believe the number of profitable Omaha-8 starting hands is closer to about 15%. But I think I'm able to turn some of those fringe hands, the hands in the 16%-30% range, into profitable hands by timely aggression. And playing more hands than the top 15% of starting hands, I believe, gets me more action and makes me less readable when I do get dealt one of the better starting hands. That's the idea anyhow. (There's, of course, more to it than just that).

I do occasionally take risks at the poker table. Hopefully they're well timed and serve to mix up my play.

My best poker buddy lives for the thrill of risks. And he's very successful as a poker player... more successful than I am. As he describes it, he gets a rush when he takes a gamble. And it's the spice of life for him.

If he wasn't able to control the urge to take risks gambling, he'd be an addict and probably go broke. But his whole family is dependent on him and, perhaps because of those dependents, thus far he has been able to control his gambling urge.

But honestly I get no thrill from taking a risk. And if that makes me a nit in your eyes, so be it.

Buzz

I'll get out of this thread, at least for a while, and maybe it will pick up.

Buzz

i meant at the tables?