blonde poker forum

This is an 18-man final table.

SNG Wiz says this is a clear fold until Villain starts shoving more than 80% (which I think is unlikely).

Assuming he doesn't shove that wide, is this not a spot where we should be calling a reasonable amount?

If we fold, and the small blind goes through us, we have 3bbs and no fold equity.

(http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9273/tournament3646430531716.png)


Also an 18-man final table, on the bubble.

This is a reallllly clear SNG Wiz fold, even if Villain is shoving ATC.

However, the blinds are about to go up, which will leave us with 3bbs, and it feels like we're first in line to bubble. If we think villain is capable of shoving super-wide is there any argument for calling in this kind of situation? Also, if we call and win, we have a decent shot of coming 2nd. If we fold we're kinda playing for 4th.

(http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2104/tournament3646340481701.png)

In the 1st hand, did you set the minimum edge to what you think your avg winrate will be on the next hand if you fold (in this case substantially negative)?

For the second one I think it's still a fold, not just because wiz says it is but because I want to give people a chance to do something stupid rather than beat them to it. Our equity with the A7s isn't much better than the equity we'll have when we're forced all in blind in a couple of rounds, right?

I fold the first one - in teh hope we get a high card and a spot next couple of hands. 

2nd one i call for the reasons given

Yeah I set it to a negative edge but tbh I'm not really sure how to work out a valid number for this. What would you consider to be substantially negative? -0.25%? -0.5%?

Any further explanation as to how to work this kind of thing out would be greatly appreciated :)


Hands are here if that helps:

PokerStars Game #57655798763: Tournament #364634048, $55+$5 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IX (300/600) - 2011/02/14 17:01:41 WET [2011/02/14 12:01:41 ET]
Table '364634048 1' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: WRRRongTurn (2905 in chips)
Seat 2: dafnuni (3565 in chips)
Seat 4: epitomised (2950 in chips)
Seat 8: ZOUZOUNI1998 (3915 in chips)
Seat 9: xboxlucas (13665 in chips)
WRRRongTurn: posts the ante 50
dafnuni: posts the ante 50
epitomised: posts the ante 50
ZOUZOUNI1998: posts the ante 50
xboxlucas: posts the ante 50
epitomised: posts small blind 300
ZOUZOUNI1998: posts big blind 600
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to epitomised [Ad 7d]
xboxlucas: raises 13015 to 13615 and is all-in
WRRRongTurn: folds
dafnuni: folds
epitomised: folds
ZOUZOUNI1998: folds
Uncalled bet (13015) returned to xboxlucas
xboxlucas collected 1750 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1750 | Rake 0
Seat 1: WRRRongTurn folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: dafnuni (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: epitomised (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: ZOUZOUNI1998 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 9: xboxlucas collected (1750)

PokerStars Game #57656486544: Tournament #364643053, $25+$2 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level VIII (200/400) - 2011/02/14 17:15:47 WET [2011/02/14 12:15:47 ET]
Table '364643053 2' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 2: suzukiweize (5395 in chips)
Seat 3: BIGsexy85777 (3675 in chips)
Seat 4: fivefifty (3820 in chips)
Seat 5: heffs976 (2175 in chips)
Seat 6: push0rdie (1730 in chips)
Seat 7: kid on poker (7220 in chips)
Seat 8: epitomised (1830 in chips)
Seat 9: pokerguru69 (1155 in chips)
suzukiweize: posts the ante 25
BIGsexy85777: posts the ante 25
fivefifty: posts the ante 25
heffs976: posts the ante 25
push0rdie: posts the ante 25
kid on poker: posts the ante 25
epitomised: posts the ante 25
pokerguru69: posts the ante 25
kid on poker: posts small blind 200
epitomised: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to epitomised [9c 5h]
pokerguru69: folds
suzukiweize: folds
BIGsexy85777: folds
fivefifty: folds
heffs976: raises 1750 to 2150 and is all-in
push0rdie: folds
kid on poker: folds
epitomised: calls 1405 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (345) returned to heffs976
*** FLOP *** [7d 7h 5d]
*** TURN *** [7d 7h 5d] [7c]
*** RIVER *** [7d 7h 5d 7c] [6s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
epitomised: shows [9c 5h] (a full house, Sevens full of Fives)
heffs976: shows [2s Ad] (three of a kind, Sevens)
epitomised collected 4010 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4010 | Rake 0
Board [7d 7h 5d 7c 6s]
Seat 2: suzukiweize folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: BIGsexy85777 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: fivefifty folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: heffs976 showed [2s Ad] and lost with three of a kind, Sevens
Seat 6: push0rdie (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: kid on poker (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: epitomised (big blind) showed [9c 5h] and won (4010) with a full house, Sevens full of Fives
Seat 9: pokerguru69 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Yeah ran it through wiz and apparently there isn't an edge low enough that makes the 95o a call :-). As to what degree of negative edge we should be taking, I'd say that has to be a judgement call and your extensive experience makes your guess way better than mine. I don't even know what -0.5% or -0.25% mean exactly, I would be thinking in terms of what's my ICM equity going to be assuming I fold this hand and the sb, then calling the shove if my equity is above that.

I don't know what they mean exactly either :)

The % = % of the prize pool in terms of EV difference between shoving(in this case calling) and folding.

Ok so perhaps I do know what it means but I don't really know how to interpret it :)

think i call the first one and fold the 2nd one

This isn't right is it? (Or rather, it's an explanation of the wrong thing). The 'edge' %age is a value you can choose to reflect your skill advantage or disadvantage, which in turn affects the equity value of your stack. So if you tell Wiz you have a +1% edge it will tell you to avoid a coinflip (with no ICM factors), whereas if you have a -1% edge it will tell you to take it.

I think it is supposed to be measured in terms of %age of the prize pool, but as you say, God knows how you're supposed to assess it.

I think the second one is 'beyond Wiz' as you say. In fact I think this might be a really good example of a situation where it hasn't got much of a clue what's going on.

Wiz obviously struggles with bubble spots where the stacks are very short and very similar, because it wants to attribute almost as much equity value to a stack of 100 as to a stack of 101, even though the stack of 100 is going to get eaten up by the blinds first. I'm guessing it's doing that here, and largely disregarding what your instinct tells you, which is that you're next in line and highly likely to bubble.

By the way:


I don't think this is right, as if we're all-in on the bubble in the big blind as the short stack, it basically gives all the stacks that just cover us licence to get involved with decent hands as well - so we could well be looking at having to win a 3-way or even 4-way all-in to get into the money.

Back to Wiz's failings and the edge issue though - I think it's worth noting here that even if we knew how to assess our (negative) edge correctly as we consider calling with the A7s, Wiz doesn't allow us to estimate what our edge will be if we call here and win.

At the moment, our edge is massively negative - basically, we've got 2.6k back that are worth less than 2.6k. The chipleader has 13.6k that are worth more than a standard 13.6k, because the relative sizes of the other stacks means he can just grind them all down to almost zero, assuming everyone plays 'correctly'.

But what is our edge if we win the hand? Then we'll have like 6.9k and he'll have 10.7k and everyone else is on 3k, so he's now lost a big chunk of his positive edge and (given that we know what we're doing and that all the other stacks are still trying to outlast each other) we've probably got a positive edge now as well.

So while Wiz says we don't gain enough equity by calling off 2.6k as a 60% favourite to get a 6.9k stack, its calculation is basically nonsense, since we're effectively calling off less than 2.6k and effectively getting more than 6.9k. I say it's nonsense, only in the sense that it's using numbers that don't really mean anything - maybe its conclusion is still correct. Whatever, it comes down to a lot of judgment - game flow, skill of the other players, how you think the big stack will change his play if you double up off him, etc etc. So I wouldn't worry about Wiz too much here and would go with your instinct. Fwiw, I think I'd call.

1st one I have to fold.  As for options thereafter, you can either piggy-back someone else's shove with a gambling hand (if you believe there is zero F/E) or if it does fold round to you on a subsequent hand, you could try the old 'limp-n-go'

Whether you call off with 9-hi or one of my suggested alternatives, you are obviously in a crap spot and need to gamble to get out of it.

2nd one is a teaser.  I don't mind the call here though, for the reasons you give.  As an alternative, if you decline to play this hand, it has to be with the 100% commitment to shoving ATC (not the next hand into the CL unless you get a hand ldo) into the Supernova guy.  When you do that, if the CL gets out the way, the SN guy probably has a hand like 95o and has the same decision you had to make in the first hand.  If the CL gets in the way, well meh, them's the breaks and you are going to have to win a flip.  You know how to do that..

I'm with Simon on hand one, I'd fold and be looking to limp & go or call with any remotley connected hand before it gets to my next bb.

2nd hand I am probably folding for a couple of reasons. Firstly I dont know your hud but the BB looks quite loose (is that 27 VPIP?) so you never know, he may call even though he would probably be nuts to. If the supernova is a reasonable player he will probably shove UTG the next hand to avoid being in the same sorta situation and if he doesnt, he may be nitty enough to fold if you shove (whenever I see a supernova I think NIT, which is probably wrong). Also, if I am going to shove either hand I would min raise, so someone else has to reraise to bust you and avoids that slim chance you get called in two places.

Remind me what the payout is for 4th in an 18 man? Its double your buy-in right? In the moment I would probably fag out and stall and play to cash.

Just looked at the payouts, I'd probably actually call the 2nd one, payouts were a lot more top heavy than I remembered.

Also its suited n that.

I sigh fold hand 2.

Erm, pretty sure that what I was saying! The edge is just how - or + you want the diff % to be which is a measure of the prize pool between shoving and folding.

Ah OK, I geddit, apologies.

You make some excellent points man, ty for input. I think I've been putting too much weight on what Wiz says recently. There are spots arise where it isn't appropriate, and if Wiz was a bot, I swear it would blind down to 1 big blind half the time!


I never limp-n-go unless I have less than 2 bigs. Is this something I should be doing more? If I was to go with next hand instead of 95 I would be "TARPing" to 1200 if it folds round


Yeah 27 VIP but stats are filtered for # of players at the table and stack size, so 27 is probs fine. I use the same read with Supernovas, it's usually right, but this guy is a decent reg so it doesn't apply in the same way.



I think maybe folding the 95 is right, but calling with 97 or something is probably okay. I kinda want to call with the A7s now. It's a table full of regs so it's probs the best spot I can really hope to get, and the upside is pretty decent.

If you have under 2bb then limp & go. If everyone is super shallow and you think that you can get people to fold for 2.5x shoves, then shove, because I certainly have been in a few games where people will still fold this shallow. But assuming you think they have to call, I would min raise your slightly more than 2bb stacks because if you are getting called anyway, may as well try to force one of the blinds to raise the other one out of the hand to boost your equity and every now and then you might get lucky and they all somehow fold pf.

BTW, its amazing how many times I have seen multiple opponents fold to my 1/18th of pot all in bet on the flop afterwards.

If you think you have zero F/E, then the limp'n'go works with however many bigs you have zero F/E with.  In reality with 3 bigs, bad players will fold to the shove 'some of the time' and multi-tabling regs will fold to the flop bet 'some of the time' due to distractions when they would have auto-called your shove pre.  So the more bigs you have in your stack, if you still believe you have zero F/E, the limp'n'go gets better and better because you have more ammo to follow it in with?

also the other good thing about min raising/limp & gos is that even some of the decent regs have no fucking clue what you are doing and assume you are terrible or have misclicked, and its never a bad thing for them to think you are shite.

I was fascinated (but pretty lost) by most of this thread - ^^^ this looks like a really interesting point, forgive the newbie in here, but is this basically ICM, or is that a different calculation?

Apologies for the external link, and the in-joke pun, but in the name of education I think it's worth it.  Hood explains brilliantly the role of SNGW....

cliquey (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36/stt-strategy/3k-post-how-learn-good-them-sngs-tl-dr-625856/)