Ak Getting Squeezed

[simo_8ball 0]

I don't use all of these fancy programs.

They aren't fancy. In fact it's not even plural. Pokerstove is possibly the single most useful piece of poker software on the market. And it's free. You should use it.

Basically what you're saying is we need to win 42.66% of the time to make this an EVEN MONEY situation.And that we're going to win 48.61% of the time given his range? Meaning that in the long run, we're going to increase our stack by 6% (210 chips in this situation, ~1.7x the BB) every time we are in this spot. First tell me if that is the correct interpretation of your presentation thing.

No. we add 14% to our stack by calling.

Because that seems pretty close to me.If this was for less than a third of my stack it's an insta call. Cash game, instacall. But if you lose in this ever-so-slight +EV situation, it's over, you lose the tournament. If we win, are we in a postion to win the tournament? Not really.This is just too close, it's so not worth it to risk going broke.

14% is huge. It's not close. Really.Also, why are you overvaluing tournament life? It is an irrational fear.

[Zach6668 513]

Do I really need to dig up the old 2p2 thread about this?

[NEtwowilldo 0]

You'll blind yourself away waiting for that opportunity

Not quite, not with 35x the BB and no antes. And the reward when that situation does come pays you off with someone's entire stack.

[Zach6668 513]

Do I really need to dig up the old 2p2 thread about this?

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1Enjoy.EDIT - Even Smasharoo makes an appearance in this thread, lol.

[simo_8ball 0]

One thing all you math people are forgetting is the chances we have of stealing pots later on. This is a 45/55 situation or whatever. But what are the odds we are going to be able to steal several rounds of blinds from late postion when they double from 100-200/25 to 200-400/50? Pretty good, better than 50% considering that most people tighten up during this jump.

Ok, now you're annoying me."You math people". Please don't use that phrase. It gives a one dimensional view of poker mathematics which is completely wrong.I'm not forgetting the stealing chances, it's just that they are totally irrelevant to this situation. Those stealing chances don't disappear if you double up. If anything they become more frequent.What has 50% got to do with anything?

The best tournament players in the world absolutely do not look for marginal situations to play for their tournament life. This is an extremely marginal situation.

They don't look for them, but they don't turn them down when they get the chance. Unless they are Phil Hellmuth.

[GrinderMJ 0]

Netwo: You are seriously like, wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off in how you should be thinking about MTT poker. Not to be an ***, but you have a ton to learn and you seem to have a MAJOR leak in your game.

[simo_8ball 0]

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1Enjoy.

Possibly my favourite thread of all time.

[simo_8ball 0]

"GrinderMJMaking Poor Choices"That choice of avatar is poor.

[Zach6668 513]

Here's another good one:http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...amp;sb=5&o=

[simo_8ball 0]

Not quite, not with 26x the BB and no antes. And the reward when that situation does come pays you off with someone's entire stack.

FYPOh, and if the blinds go up to 80/160 while you are waiting you only have 20.

[ChrisRichey 1]

Net, read the 2+2 threads that Zach provided the links for. We are all here to learn, and thus must be willing to have an open mind. Simo and Grinder are very good players, who have a ton of experience and knowledge. Listen to them.

[SlackerInc 0]

Not quite, not with 35x the BB and no antes. And the reward when that situation does come pays you off with someone's entire stack.

35x the BB really isn't that huge. In my man Snyder's PTF book, a "short chip stack" starts at 30 BBs and under (as does Harrington's Yellow Zone). 30-50 BBs is considered "competitive", and you are at the low end of that range.Another good point Snyder makes (in debunking the Malmuth/Sklansky theory of "reverse chip value" is that you won't get a chance to take "someone's entire stack" later if their stack is bigger than yours. If you take some risks to go for a big stack, you will be able to get their whole stack when the chance arises.In fact, that Snyder essay relates well to this debate:http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/conten...alue_theory.htmScroll down to the section under the bolded heading "A Bad Model for Analyzing the Value of Early Risk in Poker Tournaments". He refutes exactly the kind of argument you make here (and which Sklansky and Malmuth made, but with a key logical error).I also recommend reading the list higher up of all the advantages a big chip stack gives you.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

http://philivey.com/phil-ivey-tips.php?learntips=67"There were also factors beyond the math that I should have considered. For instance, given the table dynamics, there was no need for me to risk one-third of my chips on this hand. If I had folded, I could have gone back to stealing, padding my stack while risking only a fraction of my chips. What's more is that, after I lost, I had to become more conservative, as I no longer had a big chip advantage over the other players. "Read this article.Is this not a similar situation? Granted we are not the big stack at our table in this situation but personally I feel that I am a favorite to outplay people at the $10 level and win more pots without a showdown. Show me all the math you want, I still don't see anything wrong with passing up a marginally +EV situation when you feel that your edge over the rest of the field is greater than this almost even money situation. If this was the 2001 WSOP final table (which was absolutely stacked) I would call, but I feel confident enough in my play that I can chip up slowly without having to engage in these big showdowns, unless I found myself at table full of professionals.Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot. Furthermore, I think the range Zach put the villain is a little off. He is putting more than half of his stack at risk. Is he really going to do that with pocket 6s or A J? Not if he is even a decent player. Run that back through pokerstove with the villain's range as 10 10+ and AQs+ . Which I think is much more accurate, then tell me how close it is.I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life? If you were sick in the head you might, but its EVERYTHING at risk on a slight favorite situation. It's the same case here. In this specific tournament, the hero has a bankroll of 3500 or whatever. Why would he put it all at risk when he's not even sure if he's slightly behind, and he could be far behind? Tournament poker is about surviving and thriving. You can thrive much easier later on without having to risk not surviving at all later. I don't see the point in taking that risk if you feel like you are a much better than 6 to 5 favorite against any one opponent heads up in position in a pot, which I feel that I am against the majority of the players at this level. Bottom line is that it is OK to pass up these situations when you feel that you have a better chance of slowly chipping up later.I agree that passing up +EV situations is a mistake in cash games, but to win tournaments, there are other ways to get chips more safely.Sorry we get into these disagreements sometimes, you guys are still my friends.

[GrinderMJ 0]

http://philivey.com/phil-ivey-tips.php?learntips=67"There were also factors beyond the math that I should have considered. For instance, given the table dynamics, there was no need for me to risk one-third of my chips on this hand. If I had folded, I could have gone back to stealing, padding my stack while risking only a fraction of my chips. What's more is that, after I lost, I had to become more conservative, as I no longer had a big chip advantage over the other players. "Read this article.Is this not a similar situation? Granted we are not the big stack at our table in this situation but personally I feel that I am a favorite to outplay people at the $10 level and win more pots without a showdown. Show me all the math you want, I still don't see anything wrong with passing up a marginally +EV situation when you feel that your edge over the rest of the field is greater than this almost even money situation. If this was the 2001 WSOP final table (which was absolutely stacked) I would call, but I feel confident enough in my play that I can chip up slowly without having to engage in these big showdowns, unless I found myself at table full of professionals.Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot. Furthermore, I think the range Zach put the villain is a little off. He is putting more than half of his stack at risk. Is he really going to do that with pocket 6s or A J? Not if he is even a decent player. Run that back through pokerstove with the villain's range as 10 10+ and AQs+ . Which I think is much more accurate, then tell me how close it is.I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life? If you were sick in the head you might, but its EVERYTHING at risk on a slight favorite situation. It's the same case here. In this specific tournament, the hero has a bankroll of 3500 or whatever. Why would he put it all at risk when he's not even sure if he's slightly behind, and he could be far behind? Tournament poker is about surviving and thriving. You can thrive much easier later on without having to risk not surviving at all later. I don't see the point in taking that risk if you feel like you are a much better than 6 to 5 favorite against any one opponent heads up in position in a pot, which I feel that I am against the majority of the players at this level. Bottom line is that it is OK to pass up these situations when you feel that you have a better chance of slowly chipping up later.I agree that passing up +EV situations is a mistake in cash games, but to win tournaments, there are other ways to get chips more safely.Sorry we get into these disagreements sometimes, you guys are still my friends.

You are right, everybody else is wrong. Keep passing up +ev situations, let us know how it turns out for you.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

You are right, everybody else is wrong. Keep passing up +ev situations, let us know how it turns out for you.

Don't be a sarcastic prick. We're all here to help each other. Look me up on the pokerdb and tell me what percentage of times I have been in the money compared to the best online players in the world. Like I said granted I play for smaller stakes, but I still like my approach.Answer me this question.You have played your friend heads up 1,000 times. You have beat him 780 of those times. The 1,001st time you play him, with 5,000 chips to start, 25,50 blinds that never go up, he moves all in on preflop the first hand, and you look at AKo/s. Based on his range, you know are a 55% favorite to win, because you went to your computer and looked it up on pokerstove. However based on your history of playing flops with him, you are a 78% favorite to win the match.Would you still call just because this is a +EV spot? Calling here is a big mistake because you will only win 55% of the time by calling, and you will win 78% of the time by playing flops against him.

[GrinderMJ 0]

Don't be a sarcastic prick. We're all here to help each other. Look me up on the pokerdb and tell me what percentage of times I have been in the money compared to the best online players in the world. Like I said granted I play for smaller stakes, but I still like my approach.Answer me this question.You have played your friend heads up 1,000 times. You have beat him 780 of those times. The 1,001st time you play him, with 5,000 chips to start, 25,50 blinds that never go up, he moves all in on preflop the first hand, and you look at AKo/s. Based on his range, you know are a 55% favorite to win, because you went to your computer and looked it up on pokerstove. However based on your history of playing flops with him, you are a 78% favorite to win the match.Would you still call just because this is a +EV spot? Calling here is a big mistake because you will only win 55% of the time by calling, and you will win 78% of the time by playing flops against him.

Here's what you don't get. Nobody (99% of people) has a big enough edge on the field playing small ball to pass up +ev situations, not you not me, not anyone. The best tournament players almost never pass up +ev situations because they realize they aren't good enough to and you certainly aren't good enough to either. You don't seem to understand how bad the structure generally is in online MTTs and how much you are costing yourself in the long run by passing up +ev situations. Seriously, it's a huge leak.

[SlackerInc 0]

Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot.

But you can do those things more easily with more chips.

I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life?

Flawed analogy. Unless, for some reason if you bust out of this tourney before the money you will never be able to play another one?I don't mind disagreeing btw. Nothing wrong with a good debate! :)ETA: if you are 78% against the field in tournaments you play, you should go pro and be on TV! I mean, I know you're a good player (didn't you win one of our tourneys?), but I'm just sayin'...

[Zach6668 513]

http://philivey.com/phil-ivey-tips.php?learntips=67"There were also factors beyond the math that I should have considered. For instance, given the table dynamics, there was no need for me to risk one-third of my chips on this hand. If I had folded, I could have gone back to stealing, padding my stack while risking only a fraction of my chips. What's more is that, after I lost, I had to become more conservative, as I no longer had a big chip advantage over the other players. "Read this article.

I'm not Phil Ivey. You are not Phil Ivey (I assume). Perhaps he is in the 1% Grinder was referring to.

Is this not a similar situation? Granted we are not the big stack at our table in this situation but personally I feel that I am a favorite to outplay people at the $10 level and win more pots without a showdown. Show me all the math you want, I still don't see anything wrong with passing up a marginally +EV situation when you feel that your edge over the rest of the field is greater than this almost even money situation. If this was the 2001 WSOP final table (which was absolutely stacked) I would call, but I feel confident enough in my play that I can chip up slowly without having to engage in these big showdowns, unless I found myself at table full of professionals.Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot. Furthermore, I think the range Zach put the villain is a little off. He is putting more than half of his stack at risk. Is he really going to do that with pocket 6s or A J? Not if he is even a decent player. Run that back through pokerstove with the villain's range as 10 10+ and AQs+ . Which I think is much more accurate, then tell me how close it is.

You understand that the title of this post has to do with us being squeezed. You know a squeeze play can be made with any two cards? Doesn't necessarily mean he has ATC, but PokerStove doesn't allow for a bluff %age. Furthermore, you don't think AQo, AKo make this play? Really?That's all I've got for now.I'm not a tournament player. I'm really just a theorist in this department, but it's interesting to me to see that we have a guy who final tabled the Sunday Million, and is an all around great tourney player (prolly ranked, I have no idea), and another great all-around player backing me up on this. I'm not trying to single you out NEtwo, but this has been debated ad nauseum in here, RGP, 2p2. If Paul Phillips and Greg Raymer aren't good enough to give up these edges, neither are you.It's not close.

[simo_8ball 0]

http://philivey.com/phil-ivey-tips.php?learntips=67"There were also factors beyond the math that I should have considered. For instance, given the table dynamics, there was no need for me to risk one-third of my chips on this hand. If I had folded, I could have gone back to stealing, padding my stack while risking only a fraction of my chips. What's more is that, after I lost, I had to become more conservative, as I no longer had a big chip advantage over the other players. "

If you fold you have to play more conservatively and 'chipping up' is more difficult than you are making out. Also, he is Phil Ivey, and he is playing with a slow tournament structure.Oh, and his statement 'factors beyond the math' is wrong. I kow what he means, but I hate people using such generic statements about mathematics. Those 'other factors' are part of the math. He means pot odds, but poker math is about much, much more than that.

Read this article.Is this not a similar situation? Granted we are not the big stack at our table in this situation but personally I feel that I am a favorite to outplay people at the $10 level and win more pots without a showdown. Show me all the math you want, I still don't see anything wrong with passing up a marginally +EV situation when you feel that your edge over the rest of the field is greater than this almost even money situation. If this was the 2001 WSOP final table (which was absolutely stacked) I would call, but I feel confident enough in my play that I can chip up slowly without having to engage in these big showdowns, unless I found myself at table full of professionals.

How many times does this need to be said? 55/45 is not marginal. Your intuition is wrong.

Go back to pokerstove, and add in all the percentages of us stealing bigger blinds against weak/tight opponenets in the big blind. Add in the percentage of pots we will win in position against one weak opponent. Add in the percentage of pots we will sense weakness in our opponents and pick up the pot.

Not what pokerstove does. Anyway, if you can chip away so easily without showdown, why would you ever risk your tournament life? Just keep chipping away until you win. Fold to an allin in all cases. Sorry to be sarcastic, but with an M of <18 and rising blinds you are only borderline comfortable. These 'better spots' aren't that easy to find. Blind stealing is not that easy. You need to steal the blinds about 1.5-2 times a round just to keep your M at a reasonable level.

Furthermore, I think the range Zach put the villain is a little off. He is putting more than half of his stack at risk. Is he really going to do that with pocket 6s or A J? Not if he is even a decent player. Run that back through pokerstove with the villain's range as 10 10+ and AQs+ . Which I think is much more accurate, then tell me how close it is.

equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	50.825%	  40.51% 	10.32% 		 374539788 	 95413566.00   { TT+, AQs+, AQo+ }Hand 1: 	49.175%	  38.86% 	10.32% 		 359277240 	 95413566.00   { AKo }

By calling you gain 480 chips. That's 15% of your stack. I'm not actually talking about this specific example though. Here I don't mind folding because I think SB's range does not include AQ, and TT would be rare. I haven't checked pokerstove, but I think against that range we would be marginally -EV (<42%).

I look at it like this. If you had 99 and I had AK off, would you put everything you own, assets, cash, personal property, everything, on the line in hopes of doubling it because you were a 6 to 5 favorite? What if you knew that you could work with those assests and at your job to slowly make more and more money in the future, but if you lost you were broke for the rest of your life? If you were sick in the head you might, but its EVERYTHING at risk on a slight favorite situation. It's the same case here. In this specific tournament, the hero has a bankroll of 3500 or whatever. Why would he put it all at risk when he's not even sure if he's slightly behind, and he could be far behind? Tournament poker is about surviving and thriving. You can thrive much easier later on without having to risk not surviving at all later.

Worst. Analogy. Ever. It's just horrendous. I don't even know where to start.Oh, 'survive and thrive' is the worst tournament advice you could ever give someone. It encourages weak tight play. Survive and thrive means don't move allin with combo draws. It means call down to see if you hit and then get paid.

[simo_8ball 0]

I don't see the point in taking that risk if you feel like you are a much better than 6 to 5 favorite against any one opponent heads up in position in a pot, which I feel that I am against the majority of the players at this level. Bottom line is that it is OK to pass up these situations when you feel that you have a better chance of slowly chipping up later.I agree that passing up +EV situations is a mistake in cash games, but to win tournaments, there are other ways to get chips more safely.Sorry we get into these disagreements sometimes, you guys are still my friends.

In these tournaments, if you chip up slowly you will get left behind and your M will drop. You need to chip up quickly. In the Sunday Million, 6k players drop to 1 in about 9-10 hours. You need to accumulate chips quickly.Oh, and yeah, this is nothing personal. I hope you do realise that. I'm sarcastic and curt, but it's just my views on this issue and nothing directed at you personally.

Don't be a sarcastic prick. We're all here to help each other. Look me up on the pokerdb and tell me what percentage of times I have been in the money compared to the best online players in the world. Like I said granted I play for smaller stakes, but I still like my approach.Answer me this question.You have played your friend heads up 1,000 times. You have beat him 780 of those times. The 1,001st time you play him, with 5,000 chips to start, 25,50 blinds that never go up, he moves all in on preflop the first hand, and you look at AKo/s. Based on his range, you know are a 55% favorite to win, because you went to your computer and looked it up on pokerstove. However based on your history of playing flops with him, you are a 78% favorite to win the match.Would you still call just because this is a +EV spot? Calling here is a big mistake because you will only win 55% of the time by calling, and you will win 78% of the time by playing flops against him.

If your friend is that bad I still call. If I've played 1k games against him I will take this edge, because it is likely that we will keep on playing more games and it becomes a cash game. You do realise how absolutely unrealistic 78% win rate HU is though? He could do better moving allin with almost every single hand preflop. Again, it's a bad analogy.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

Ugh. Agree to Disagree.I guess I'll keep playing like a weaktight ***** and that will keep me stuck at this atrocious 17.5% ITM and 2.7% win rate for MTTs with an average field size of 890. Lock it up.

[simo_8ball 0]

Agree to Disagree.

I don't agree to that.Oh, and spouting your statistics is pointless. If you are passing up 55/45 edges knowingly your results aren't as good as they could be.

[simo_8ball 0]

I heard David Singer talking about a hand recently where he flopped the king high flush, and Brad Booth overbet shoved with the nut flush draw. He commented that he felt he could fold there even if he knew Booth's hand because even though he is >70% to win, his tournament life would be on the line.This shows how even very good players can have very flawed concepts of what is correct.You having a 17.5% ITM and 2.7% win rate doesn't mean you can't improve.

[Zach6668 513]

I heard David Singer talking about a hand recently where he flopped the king high flush, and Brad Booth overbet shoved with the nut flush draw. He commented that he felt he could fold there even if he knew Booth's hand because even though he is >70% to win, his tournament life would be on the line.This shows how even very good players can have very flawed concepts of what is correct.You having a 17.5% ITM and 2.7% win rate doesn't mean you can't improve.

lol, I watched David Singer on FTP one night... playing LO8 for 5 BB buyins at a time, usually raising to get down to his last BB or 1/2 BB, and folding on the river, lol. So, I'm not sure exactly how much weight I'd put on his advice, lol.

[NEtwowilldo 0]

1. 2005 NLHE Final Table at the World Series of Poker:Three Handed between Joe Awada, Scott Fischman, and Kent WashingtonFischman Raises with JJ, Kent Washington goes all-in with AK.Fischman folds JJ face up, then proceeds to tell his friend that he knew Washington had AK, but that Washington is a sitting duck.2006 Main Event of the World Series of Poker:Player A (Dustin Wolfe maybe??) raises with A K. Humberto Brenes (with a stack around average) reraises with JJ. Folds back to Player A who goes all in, and has Humberto covered. Humberto stands up and says that he knows he has the best hand, but he is not a gambler, and proceeds to muck his hand.Now not only did these players pass with dead money in the pot, they passed knowing they had the best hand!!Maybe you could tell these multiple bracelet winners about all the flaws in their game, and how much they need to improve for passing up the +EV situations that they did. 2.And even though my heads up example is a little off topic and not the best analogy, it is still extremely foolish to take a 55/45 edge when you can just wait for a 78/22 edge.3. "Survive and Thrive" Paragraph title in the tournament hold 'em chapter in Play Poker Like the Pros. Page 169. Author Phil Hellmuth, ten time world champion of Texas Hold 'Em. (Hardly a "weak tight" player in my humble opinion)4. That article was by Phil Gordon, not Phil Ivey, not that it matters really. 5. I realize you can't put all of that stuff about stealing blinds and playing in position into pokerstove, which was exactly my point. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you can't just punch some numbers into a computer program and say, there you go, you're wrong, I'm right, see the computer said so.6. I, as well as several other people on this forum, have a considerable edge over the vast majority of the players remaining, with just under half the field remaining in a ten dollar donkament online. If it was the final table of the $100 rebuy, I would probably be the biggest underdog at the table, if I was ever lucky enough to make it so far in such a huge tournament, in which case I would make this call in a heartbeat.7. As far as the range of the villain, Zach said a squeeze play can be made with any two cards. However in this spot, the villain is putting over half his stack at risk to increase it by only about 1/10. It's safe to assume that he has a premium hand.8. As for the comment about never going all in, ideally you don't want to. Being all in means that you have a chance to be knocked out. When the decision is for your tournament life, you want to have a big edge. If this wasn't the case, Humberto and Scott both would have called in the situations I described above. However they understand that it was a marginal spot, which is why they didn't make the call. And yes, 55/45 is marginal, when you can get someone to commit a lot of chips when they are drawing slim in a later spot.