Kq In Pushbot Mode

[HighwayStar 8]

Yea, my adjustment is moving in more than before.

[sennin 0]

Yea, my adjustment is moving in more than before.

qft

[HighwayStar 8]

ok that's not quite trueOn the bubble in 180 mans I get very nitty with a short stack, < 8 BBs, almost playing to min cash since I know they add up.However, when I have the semblance of fold equity I'm shoving my stack in whereever I feel I'm pushing an edge..looking to double up if possible, take down decent % additions to my stack otherwise. I really don't mind taking a race to get to 30-40 BBs.I did some analysis of results and I found in 4.40s I make $7.71 / tournament - over quite a large sample (although it should be higher $ imo)$0.68 of that comes from min cashing - which more often than not (I'd guess 60%+) is where I go into the money very short stacked and get it in behind and lose. The times I go into the money higher, after having say doubled to 25-30 BBs like in this spot or having just had a big stack all through, I'm often pushing towards the top 6 - where I make $6.60 of that $7.70, and if I win a race/run good I push towards to the top 3 where I make $5.45 of it (about 75% of the tournament $)I also get a large number of 19th-30th places. Note this is purely for 180 mans, for MTTs I think you should be shoving a lot more with the short stack since min cashing in MTTs is completely pointless.

[SlackerInc 0]

I did some analysis of results and I found in 4.40s I make $7.71 / tournament - over quite a large sample (although it should be higher $ imo)

That's impressive--I assume this is on PokerStars? What's your player ID? I don't have my results precisely tabulated like you do, but judging from SharkScope (I'm SlackerInc1 at PokerStars), I'm making about $4 per 180. I tend though to have a lot of top two finishes (with more wins than second place, I'm fairly sure) and a fair number of 19-30 finishes myself; so I'd guess your better overall results might have more to do with superiour play when the bubble is further away. Can't prove that though.Alan

[HighwayStar 8]

May be slightly misunderstood, I make $3.31/ tournament, $7.71 overall.I 15-20 table til I'm deep in a few which is quite a decent amount /session. Usually 30-40 /session at peak timeI think I'm capable of better since my HU conversion is currently 3/18 due to sucking at HU/playing bad. I douobt much more than $5.50 profit/ tournament is doable multitabling though.

[MovingIn 0]

I asked in my very first post in this thread whether he had been stealing blinds and antes from MP or mainly from LP, and whether he had tried to steal when the blinds had him way outchipped. Not sure I ever got the answer to those questions, but they make a big difference.

In this particular instance, his raise is from a prime stealing seat, the hijack. You can't think of the hijack seat as MP. If a villain's going to steal, this would be a seat to do it from, probably even moreso than the CO or Button.If this had been a raise from a true MP seat or even EP, I give it far more credit for representing a strong hand. It appears the gap in our perspectives is that you don't think a raise from the hijack is anything other than a premium hand. So be it.

[SlackerInc 0]

May be slightly misunderstood, I make $3.31/ tournament, $7.71 overall.

Ah okay, so about the same as my profit.-Alan

[SlackerInc 0]

It appears the gap in our perspectives is that you don't think a raise from the hijack is anything other than a premium hand. So be it.

Nice straw man there. I never said such a thing, and wanted more info about his past behaviour. But I think his range only includes a few hands that we are clearly ahead of, and he's going to call when we shove most of the time. As I said, KQo is not far ahead of a total bluff!

[MovingIn 0]

People steal from the hijack seat, Alan. But you seriously don't think an open raise from the hijack seat from a deep stack, late in a tournament against short stacks, is a steal attempt.

[SlackerInc 0]

People steal from the hijack seat, Alan. But you seriously don't think an open raise from the hijack seat from a deep stack, late in a tournament against short stacks, is a steal attempt.

Your grammar's a little hard to follow there. Was that supposed to be a question?In any event: the blinds are not "short stacks": just the opposite. The CO and button are short stacks, but it is the blinds he'd actually be stealing from. I guess what I'd say is: if you think most of the time villain here is making a steal with ATC and is very likely going to fold (assuming you get past the big stacks in the blinds), then I suppose it doesn't matter what cards hero holds: he can make the resteal with ATC himself. But if this is at all based on the big bad scary KQo representing hero well if and when he gets called by someone, then I'm just not with you. KQ isn't way ahead of many hands, and in fact it's behind the majority of hands villain might hold IMO. And personally, if I'm villain and hero has a LAGgy image as he stated, if the blinds fold and it comes back around to me, I call 90% of the time.

[MovingIn 0]

Here's why a hijack steal here makes sense: The CO and Button are short, therefore a raise from the hijack can buy the button. Unless they're loose, the blinds probably won't call a raise without a good hand at this stage since chances are far too likely that defending the blinds could lead to a shove from the hijack on the flop.Think a little less about your cards and think a little more about tournament dynamics. Again, that villain tabled AQ doesn't nullify the point unless this villain never steals from the hijack seat in this situation, ever.

[SlackerInc 0]

Here's a hand which (though of course it doesn't prove anything, any more than the results of the OP's hand does) was "inspired" by this thread. Bubble of a 27-man SNG, I'm fourth of six left but with a very low M and two other shorties breathing down my neck. When I saw the KQ pop up I thought "hey, perfect hand to steal a round of blinds and antes with and increase my stack by 40% or so". However, when the hijack seat raised, my initial intent was to fold, wait for a better spot. But in honour of you all, I went for it and bubbled...yay.PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $3.00+$0.40 Tournament, 400/800 Blinds 50 Ante (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comButton (t15715)Hero (SB) (t3815)BB (t5842)UTG (t2810)MP (t8743)CO (t3575)Hero's M: 2.54Preflop: Hero is SB with K, Q1 fold, MP raises to t2400, 2 folds, Hero raises to t3765 (All-In), 1 fold, MP calls t1365Flop: (t8630) 6, 5, 10(2 players, 1 all-in)Turn: (t8630) 2(2 players, 1 all-in)River: (t8630) 6(2 players, 1 all-in)Total pot: t8630Results in white below: Hero had K, Q (one pair, sixes).MP had J, A (one pair, sixes).Outcome: MP won t8630

[SlackerInc 0]

Here's why a hijack steal here makes sense: The CO and Button are short, therefore a raise from the hijack can buy the button. Unless they're loose, the blinds probably won't call a raise without a good hand at this stage since chances are far too likely that defending the blinds could lead to a shove from the hijack on the flop.Think a little less about your cards and think a little more about tournament dynamics. Again, that villain tabled AQ doesn't nullify the point unless this villain never steals from the hijack seat in this situation, ever.

Dude, your condescending attitude and straw man tactics are tiresome to say the least. Let's review:--"Again", I have not once stated that the results of this one lone hand prove me right. I suspect had the results gone the other way, you'd be crowing "look! he was stealing, see?" but hopefully you'd no more be results-oriented in that case than I have been in this one. I made my case before the results came out and I stand by it.--Even if hijack is stealing, KQo is not far ahead of a steal! Hero has very little fold equity, so on the bubble he's rolling the dice hoping to be ahead like 55-45 or 60-40 at best (but quite often he'll be behind).--Why no reaction to Cop's post? He agreed with me, but all the flames are directed my way. It's okay, I can take it; but I'm just saying.--Please, spare me the lectures about "tournament dynamics" as if I were some greenhorn who plays his cards only rather than paying attention to position, stacks, M, player tendencies, etc. I am a winning player, and I will shove with complete junk, even on the bubble, if I'm in a situation where, for instance, my M is low, it's folded around to my SB, and the BB has been tight. --And I don't just sit there and get buffeted by tournament conditions and peter out in low cashing spots. How else do you explain that in 291 180s (again, I'm SlackerInc1 at PokerStars if you want to check SharkScope for yourself) I've won six, came in second four times, but only twice finished 18th and only once 17th? That, combined with the fact that I've never finished 19th, 20th, or 21st should indicate to you that I don't just straggle along near the bubble (though it also indicates I don't make foolish moves around the bubble either).

[sennin 0]

Here's a hand which (though of course it doesn't prove anything, any more than the results of the OP's hand does) was "inspired" by this thread. Bubble of a 27-man SNG, I'm fourth of six left but with a very low M and two other shorties breathing down my neck. When I saw the KQ pop up I thought "hey, perfect hand to steal a round of blinds and antes with and increase my stack by 40% or so". However, when the hijack seat raised, my initial intent was to fold, wait for a better spot. But in honour of you all, I went for it and bubbled...yay.PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $3.00+$0.40 Tournament, 400/800 Blinds 50 Ante (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comButton (t15715)Hero (SB) (t3815)BB (t5842)UTG (t2810)MP (t8743)CO (t3575)Hero's M: 2.54Preflop: Hero is SB with K, Q1 fold, MP raises to t2400, 2 folds, Hero raises to t3765 (All-In), 1 fold, MP calls t1365Flop: (t8630) 6, 5, 10(2 players, 1 all-in)Turn: (t8630) 2(2 players, 1 all-in)River: (t8630) 6(2 players, 1 all-in)Total pot: t8630Results in white below: Hero had K, Q (one pair, sixes).MP had J, A (one pair, sixes).Outcome: MP won t8630

Uhm...the difference here is you haven't a shred of fold equity....

[SlackerInc 0]

Uhm...the difference here is you haven't a shred of fold equity....

I didn't say it was exactly the same. But I don't believe the OP has fold equity either; and besides, I've been hearing from people here that you want to double up, not just take down pots preflop without a fight. If KQo really was much of a hand, I should be glad to get it in when my M is down to 2.3 or whatever it was.

[MovingIn 0]

Alan, if you believe you're correct, and you're truly secure with your play, you should be able to let it stand without blowing up and citing your stats and record. I may criticize your tightness in these situations, but I never said you were a bad player that can't turn a profit. That said:- A steal is done with ATC. KQo, a top 10% hand, is ahead of much of that range. Where do you get the impression that KQo is only a step up from garbage? To say you don't believe you're far ahead indicates you believe a steal from the hijack requires a particular range. That would be a semi-bluff. A steal is done with ATC, and KQo leads most of that range.- I'm not responding to Cop because I'm not discussing this hand with him, and he's not discussing it with me. I'm discussing this hand with you.

I will shove with complete junk, even on the bubble, if I'm in a situation where, for instance, my M is low, it's folded around to my SB, and the BB has been tight.

And what about open raises from late position? Like the hijack seat? I'm more interested in how you'd handle the actual situation we're discussing than a hypothetical blind vs blind situation.Look, for someone with a lot of tournament experience, your posts DO indicate the style of a tight player that bases all of his play on his cards and believes that bluffs and spew don't occur nearly as often as they do. I wouldn't mind you showing us otherwise, in fact I'd welcome it... but you simply haven't. You err on the side of caution in these discussions time and again. This sort of low-risk tightness can win at NLHE MTTs, but every big win require running well. It's a style far better suited to limit MTTs, where the money has to go in gradually and players can't be blown off of pots. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest you'd make a tremendous limit MTT player, whether in Hold'Em or other games.I notice, in citing your stats, you didn't post an ROI, which is by far the most important of any player's stats. I did check SS as you requested, and your listing shows something close to 100% ROI for the $4.40 level out of nearly 2000 tournaments with about $844 in profit... pretty good compared to most, sure, and while you could even cite your early losses as a reason that's not higher... there's also a spike of several big wins in succession once you turned it around, which could be positive variance. 100% ROI is probably the potential ceiling for such a style. A more tactically aggressive style can consistently net about 200%, variance both ways included. Ultimately, all this belies the point that you shouldn't need to belabor the point if you're secure with your abilities and performance, and that a raise from the hijack isn't the same thing as a typical UTG, EP or MP raise where the raise only indicates hands like AJ+ and 99+. People steal from the hijack seat just as much as they do from the CO or Button, and players steal with ATC. "Steals" with strong cards aren't steals at all, and your explanation of why you would consider KQo a weak hand against a steal still makes little sense to me.

[HighwayStar 8]

Def have ton of FE in the OP, esp in a 4.40, you'd be amazed sometimes when you get folds.

[HighwayStar 8]

100% ROI is probably the potential ceiling for such a style. A more tactically aggressive style can consistently net about 200%, variance both ways included.

I've often wondered what the ceiling of 4.40 ROI is, shaundeeb says 200% but he's a sicko. Maybe 170-200% < 4 tabling130-150% mega multi tabling.Gotta have a good sample size (I'd say 2000 tournaments) to get a decent estimate of your ROI, which still isn't accurate since you'll probably improve in that time.Definitely need to be laggier to get up to 200%, TAG will net more consistent results though.

[SlackerInc 0]

MovingIn, I'm going to just indent your comments so I can interact:

Alan, if you believe you're correct, and you're truly secure with your play, you should be able to let it stand without blowing up and citing your stats and record.

I enjoy a good debate and have no problem with strenuous disagreement. What I don't appreciate is when I sense a condescending tone that seems to express an attitude of "you don't know what you're talking about, let me set you straight". If that was not your attitude, I apologise.

A steal is done with ATC. KQo, a top 10% hand, is ahead of much of that range. Where do you get the impression that KQo is only a step up from garbage?

Well, wouldn't we agree that ace-rag offsuit is garbage? Yet it's ahead of KQ. So is every pair down to deuces. And aside from Kx and Qx, which make a pretty small proportion of the hands that we'll be up against, I don't believe it cracks 60 percent against random junk hands. To me that's only a step up from garbage, but to each his own.

A steal is done with ATC,

I really don't think this is true most of the time (I think people fold 93o and the like in this position pretty consistently), but see above--KQ is not far ahead of ATC.

I'm not responding to Cop because I'm not discussing this hand with him, and he's not discussing it with me. I'm discussing this hand with you.

Ummm...we're all discussing it: it's a public forum.

Look, for someone with a lot of tournament experience, your posts DO indicate the style of a tight player that bases all of his play on his cards

See, right there: that's an insult. You should know that's very insulting to any knowledgeable poker player. The fact is that my position, the action in front of me, my opponents' tendencies (including those still to act), my table image, the effective stacks, the tournament structure, etc. all matter to me more than my cards. But if someone has raised in front of me, and I don't have enough chips to have much FE (and we disagree about that in regards to this hand, but c'mon: it's 2-1 when it comes back around to him), then my cards do matter because I'm going to assume that if I play we're going to be turning our cards face up and going to showdown.

You err on the side of caution in these discussions time and again. This sort of low-risk tightness can win at NLHE MTTs, but every big win require running well.

But see, I really don't think I play the way you think I do. In a big MTT, my preferred style is to see a lot of flops with a lot of suited connectors, suited aces, small pairs, etc., and look to hit a big hand and hopefully go up against a player who overplays a top pair type hand (or worse). Ask those who played with me last year even in our little 9-18 man private tourneys: I love me a suited six-five!Now, this is well suited for the long blind levels of a 180--in the early rounds. In that stage, I am definitely a loose, splash around type player (I model myself after Gus Hansen to a large extent--no TAG he I'm sure you'd agree) who prides himself on being able to play well after the flop. And that's not just in terms of draws and trying to get big hands: I think I'm also good at playing hands like medium pairs even when overcards flop and villain is betting (I feel like I can sniff it out when they've got me and when they don't a good portion of the time). But as Dan H. points out in HoH v2, different playing styles converge to a great extent when blinds get high and stacks low. And that's where things are in the hand we're talking about in this thread.Incidentally, I very recently decided, after looking at my results in a variety of formats, that though I really enjoy playing a lot of hands and splashing around in the slow structure 180, it's not that profitable in terms of the time it takes compared to that average $4 return. And I don't feel like I can play the loose style I'm talking about if I'm massively multitabling. So just for the sake of a better hourly ROI, I decided starting tonight (well, last night--Halloween) to just focus on nothing but $5.50 27s, playing as many as I can at a time and playing TAG for the early rounds and then doing a lot of situational shoving in the endgame. If you care to take a look at my Sharkscope graph again, you'll see that I netted nearly another $200 in just a few hours, and I think this is going to be my main pursuit for the foreseeable future (with 180s being an occasional leisure activity).

It's a style far better suited to limit MTTs, where the money has to go in gradually and players can't be blown off of pots. I'll even go out on a limb and suggest you'd make a tremendous limit MTT player, whether in Hold'Em or other games.

That's kind of you to say (really), but actually I can't stand limit. Borrrrring and stifling.

People steal from the hijack seat just as much as they do from the CO or Button, and players steal with ATC.

Maybe this does go on more than I'm aware, and though I still don't appreciate some of the insulting remarks you've made, I do find it interesting to hear more about this "hijack" concept.But taking it to a multilevel thinking perspective, there's a hitch that occurs to me. Let's say for the sake of argument that all the players involved (in the KQ hand that is the OP of this thread) are knowledgeable, thinking players who have the same understanding that you do: namely, that a raise from the "hijack" seat is likely to be a steal with ATC. You seem to feel this is common knowledge (otherwise you wouldn't assume it to be a steal at all coming from an unknown but "solid" villain). Wouldn't the big stack in the BB then have a strong incentive to play back at the raiser, in fact perhaps shoving on him since it's near the bubble and villain's stack can't hurt the BB too badly in any case? And--taking the multilevel thinking one step further--if our villain in the hijack seat knows the BB knows this, doesn't it actually make it a mistake after all to make this raise against a deepstacked BB?There's an interesting thought to ponder, eh?

[SlackerInc 0]

Incidentally, here are a couple hands I saved from last night's play to perhaps disabuse you of the notion that I keep my powder dry until I have a big pair or AK or whatever. One went well, the other not so much:PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $5.00+$0.50 Tournament, 75/150 Blinds (8 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comHero (CO) (t1490)Button (t1105)SB (t3035)BB (t1755)UTG (t2585)UTG+1 (t2635)MP1 (t2240)MP2 (t2025)Hero's M: 6.62Preflop: Hero is CO with 8, 92 folds, MP1 raises to t450, 1 fold, Hero raises to t1490 (All-In), Button calls t1105 (All-In), 3 foldsFlop: (t2885) 2, 8, 6(2 players, 2 all-in)Turn: (t2885) K(2 players, 2 all-in)River: (t2885) 4(2 players, 2 all-in)Total pot: t2885Results in white below: Button had Q, Q (one pair, Queens).Hero had 8, 9 (one pair, eights).Outcome: Button won t2885I had a lot of outs after the turn! Oh well.Hmmm...it doesn't seem to want to let me post another hand in the same post and still keep the formatting. I'll post the other one separately...

[SlackerInc 0]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $5.00+$0.50 Tournament, 200/400 Blinds 25 Ante (5 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.comButton (t8325)SB (t7863)BB (t7262)Hero (UTG) (t3800)MP (t13250)Hero's M: 5.24Preflop: Hero is UTG with 4, 3Hero raises to t3775 (All-In), 2 folds, SB calls t3575, 1 foldFlop: (t8075) 10, 3, 4(2 players, 1 all-in)Turn: (t8075) 5(2 players, 1 all-in)River: (t8075) Q(2 players, 1 all-in)Total pot: t8075Results in white below: SB had 6, 6 (one pair, sixes).Hero had 4, 3 (two pair, fours and threes).Outcome: Hero won t8075Phew. Escaped by the skin of my teeth on that one. Most of the time, they do fold though, honest! (In each of these hands I had recently shoved with premium hands and showed them afterward.)

[Gallo 1]

This HH is from a respected member on this site but I've edited his name out, cause I'm not sure he would want it posted.PokerStars Game #XXXXXXXX: Tournament #XXXXXXXXX, $10+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level X (100/200)Table '116555020 101' 9-max Seat #1 is the buttonSeat 1: orb$1ne (10547 in chips) Seat 2: ouid420 (7288 in chips) Seat 3: assiesette (9601 in chips) Seat 4: renbraid (4184 in chips) Seat 5: AB_Poker_12 (7900 in chips) Seat 6: masta1disast (5095 in chips) Seat 7: Selius (6250 in chips) Seat 8: XXXXXX (3295 in chips) Seat 9: Dankvart (3813 in chips) orb$1ne: posts the ante 25ouid420: posts the ante 25assiesette: posts the ante 25renbraid: posts the ante 25AB_Poker_12: posts the ante 25masta1disast: posts the ante 25Selius: posts the ante 25XXXXXX: posts the ante 25Dankvart: posts the ante 25ouid420: posts small blind 100assiesette: posts big blind 200*** HOLE CARDS ***renbraid: folds AB_Poker_12: folds masta1disast: folds Selius: raises 400 to 600XXXXXX: raises 2670 to 3270 and is all-inDankvart: folds orb$1ne: folds ouid420: folds assiesette: folds Selius: calls 2670*** FLOP *** [3h 7c Jh]*** TURN *** [3h 7c Jh] [Js]*** RIVER *** [3h 7c Jh Js] [Tc]*** SHOW DOWN ***Selius: shows [Kh Qs] (a pair of Jacks)XXXXXX: shows [Kd Qd] (a pair of Jacks)Selius collected 3533 from potXXXXXX collected 3532 from pot*** SUMMARY ***Total pot 7065 | Rake 0 Board [3h 7c Jh Js Tc]Seat 1: orb$1ne (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 2: ouid420 (small blind) folded before FlopSeat 3: assiesette (big blind) folded before FlopSeat 4: renbraid folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 5: AB_Poker_12 folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 6: masta1disast folded before Flop (didn't bet)Seat 7: Selius showed [Kh Qs] and won (3533) with a pair of JacksSeat 8: XXXXXX showed [Kd Qd] and won (3532) with a pair of JacksSeat 9: Dankvart folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[MovingIn 0]

That you decide to take 'You come across as a tight player' as an insult, Alan, is your choice. The idea of this forum is to solicit criticism of our play. Even when asking for advice on how to play a hand, in turn by showing hand histories and how we play a hand to a given point, we solicit criticism. Our responses to advice inquiries also invite criticism: disagreement on how to play a hand is inherent criticism of another's methods. I get plenty of criticism here for my posts. It's expected.Criticism and insults are different things: one is meant to deride and the other is meant to be constructive. If I wanted to insult someoneu, I'd be far more obvious about it. Nothing I posted here is meant to insult you.Again, if you play more aggressively than your responses let on, then terrific. That said:

But see, I really don't think I play the way you think I do. In a big MTT, my preferred style is to see a lot of flops with a lot of suited connectors, suited aces, small pairs, etc., and look to hit a big hand and hopefully go up against a player who overplays a top pair type hand (or worse). Ask those who played with me last year even in our little 9-18 man private tourneys: I love me a suited six-five!

Seeing a lot of flops is one thing, and a good thing. Landing in a questionable spot postflop and opting not to play it aggressively most of time is another. A player typically does not hit enough big hands to build a big stack on purely solid play. You have to be able to aggressively swipe some pots that your cards probably couldn't win at a showdown.The hand in question is postflop in the later stages of a tournament, which isn't exactly the early blind levels of a 180. Players at the stage in question are more gunshy, and many players take advantage of this gunshy tendency, stealing a lot more than early in an MTT where preflop and flop steals get called a lot lighter.The hijack seat is very much like the CO. Players can and do steal from this seat. Assuming you have PokerTracker, note the frequency of open raises from the hijack. If players are only playing premium hands here, it should be something like 5-10% of every hand that is folded around to that seat pre. I bet it's higher than that.Now, defending with KQ... KQ against ATC:

equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 61.456% 60.43% 01.02% 15211323060 257635740.00 { KQo }Hand 1: 38.544% 37.52% 01.02% 9444274260 257635740.00 { random }

KQo is also a top 9% hand, with KQs in the top 5%. The sort of selectivity that tells us not to play KQ would leave us folding at least 90% of the time to a hijack steal attempt (assuming we would play some hands ranked below KQ such as lower pairs). That pretty much validates a steal attempt with ATC by villain, since even if you don't fold the blinds, you can at least buy the button ~80% of the time against the CO and Button (assuming both consider a KQ type hand unplayable against a raise), where you can steal the pot postflop if the flop misses your opponent. And that assumes you get a call from either blind or both. And if someone reraises villain and he has nothing, he can just dump the hand. It's easy to get away from a steal attempt if it fails. A steal attempt is such a profitable play on average with ATC when you have the chips to comfortably do so that it's a surprise when an open raiser in these spots does turn over a real hand, as happened here with AQ.

Wouldn't the big stack in the BB then have a strong incentive to play back at the raiser, in fact perhaps shoving on him since it's near the bubble and villain's stack can't hurt the BB too badly in any case?

If we shove behind the hijack, would that not change BB's course of action? BB may be able to beat or re-bluff a steal attempt, but what are we overshoving with? Even if we were to flat (which I wouldn't necessarily advise here), the BB has to consider whether can beat or bluff two players, and many in BB's spot wouldn't get too aggressive here, especially out of position, without some sort of real hand.

[SlackerInc 0]

That you decide to take 'You come across as a tight player' as an insult, Alan, is your choice.

No. It was saying I am a "player that bases all of his play on his cards" that I found an insult!

The hand in question is postflop in the later stages of a tournament

You mean preflop, right?

Assuming you have PokerTracker

I don't have it, was not familiar with it, but I Googled it just now and it is definitely something to think about. Actually, I am a Johnny-come-lately to most of this stuff, in that I just recently got Tournament Indicator a couple weeks ago (all those 180s I won, I did with just the Pokerstars client and my mouse, no help from any software).

If we shove behind the hijack, would that not change BB's course of action? BB may be able to beat or re-bluff a steal attempt, but what are

we

overshoving with? Even if we were to flat (which I wouldn't necessarily advise here), the BB has to consider whether can beat or bluff two players, and many in BB's spot wouldn't get too aggressive here, especially out of position, without some sort of real hand.

Right, but I was broadening the issue out from this specific hand and focusing on the hijack seat's decision as to whether to go for a steal. Taking for the sake of argument your scenario: he assumes he's going to "buy the button" as you said, and thus his move is targeted at the blinds rather than the shortstacks. So my point is: if he raises, and the CO/button/SB all fold as expected, why would the BB just go down meekly? If this is a transparent steal most of the time as you say, and most solid players will know this, then why wouldn't the BB play back at the raiser with just about anything? And then, if it did become common practice for a big stack in a BB to resteal in this situation, wouldn't that then make it a bad idea to go for the steal in the first place unless the BB's stack was more comparable to the raiser's? (This goes along with Phil Gordon's advice to pick on medium stacks rather than big or short stacks.)