blonde poker forum

PokerStars Hand #116661333000: Tournament #910932679, $69+$6 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XVI (350/700) - 2014/05/25 18:50:12 CET [2014/05/25 12:50:12 ET]
Table '910932679 8' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: TiltMeHarder (4733 in chips)
Seat 2: diamanto13 (50303 in chips)
Seat 5: uWannaLoan? (25394 in chips)
Seat 6: Päffchen (12428 in chips)
Seat 7: danger0us (15262 in chips)
Seat 8: pads1161 (46867 in chips)
Seat 9: RomeOpro (10653 in chips)
TiltMeHarder: posts the ante 85
diamanto13: posts the ante 85
uWannaLoan?: posts the ante 85
Päffchen: posts the ante 85
danger0us: posts the ante 85
pads1161: posts the ante 85
RomeOpro: posts the ante 85
danger0us: posts small blind 350
pads1161: posts big blind 700
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to pads1161 [range/]
RomeOpro: folds
TiltMeHarder: raises 3948 to 4648 and is all-in
diamanto13: folds
uWannaLoan?: folds
Päffchen: folds
danger0us: raises 10529 to 15177 and is all-in
pads1161:


i opening/3betting every hand, 2 from moey. my first bb sicne being big stack

both regs,

66+,ATs+,AJo+

I'm probably calling 88+, AJs+, AQo+

But Tomsom always has good maths/equity calcs in these situations so I'm prolly gunna be using his range from now on ;)

Are 6's really a call?

Ash

Really calling ATs but not KQs? Why so?

KQ+ AJ+ 88+

At the risk of stating the obvious, are we all that keen to get involved? Should we be looking for reasons to call or recognising the reshove is 0% light and narrowing our range a bit, to factor in the situation?

These ranges look ridiculously wide to me.

Unless it's a turbo and we're in a rush to get the chips I'd be really tight.

Probably going with AQ and 1010

Not overly happy with the AQ but can't fold it. KQ easy fold as is AJ. 99 I might have to flick it in if I was feeling lucky or my name was pads1161.

It's Pleno...on a Sunday...

yeh id be looking sl tighter too

How wide do we think shorty is here on the bubble? How many players left/paid?

If their ranges were both on the wider side I think AT, 55, A9s could be considered

General line would be 66+, AJ+, ATs+

Hmmmm......

I'd not noticed that re-shover is SB. That obviously widens his range a bit. Still can't bring myself to go as low as 66 though, probs go as far as 88 and also add in AJ.

It's certainly not going to be a surprise to see him turn up here with 55+ and maybe KJs, KQ+ but I'd still want to err on the side of caution.

You really wanna burn 15k? I think we should be tight here 1010+ AQs+
Happy to keep bubble going and keep opening and three betting loose opens

Think I'm TT+/AKo

I'm not intending to be rude, but if I saw anyone folding nines here I'd be like...

(http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/836/372/3bf0c965686980c091b640a90648df44_crop_north.png?w=759&h=506&q=75)

Oh i misread the hh, thought the original raiser had a stack left. 88+ATs+AJo+ unsure about KQs

77/66 > KQs in multiway all ins according to nash.  Forgetting ICM for a second and just looking at cEV, 66 would net 1826 chips and KQs 599.

So we have significantly more equity.  Even 55 has more equity netting 1003 chips.

Does that factor in how short shover one is and that shover two is in the SB?

It most certainly does.  In fact we can probably ISO wider because the initial shover will probably be shoving much wider than nash would suggest (I know I would be), and as danger0us is a decent reg in the SB he would probably expect the EP shover to be shoving wider and therefore iso'ing wider.  I kind of think that my initial range is a bit 'worst case scenario' and we are probably OK to go a bit wider if anything.

77 / A10 +

Wow that's surprising. I'd be snapping KQs in every situation I'm also calling AJo/ATs. Guess that's a significant leak. Ty.

@ Tomsom
Hmmm, I know sod all about tourney stuff like ICM and suchlike (find that stuff mundane and boring). But I do understand equities and Nash. Seems to me that KQs is likely to have better equity in a three way coup than small pairs. How have you calculated the Nash recommendation? Is it using a static hand ranking (i.e. call with the top x% of hands) or a hand ranking that adjusts based on whether pot is HU or three way? My instinct tells me that KQs would be further up the hand rankings in a three way coup than small pairs. But ofc I could well be wrong, feel player etc lol ;)

It's odd cause to my mind it feels like KQs should have more equity as well.  I have used ICMIZER which as far as I'm aware uses a hand ranking system that adjusts and is meant to be one of the better pieces of analysis software on the market.

I just put the suggested Nash optimal ranges into Equilab (forgetting ICM tax which will be the same for both hands anyway), and it thinks that KQs has 35.34% equity vs both ranges and 66 has 35.33%.  I'm now in process of trying to puzzle out why it favors 66 cEV wise.

99+ AQo+ looks good to me

what range are we putting in for dangerous here?

A9+ maybe KQss. Then probably 77+ excluding KK and AA

FWIW I would call AJ+ 88+

do guys think dangerous cares about it being 2 from bubble?

I couldnt resist clicking call with 88+ AQ+

i would prefer 66 to AT vs better players and vice versa. my thinking is better players shove wider so have more combos of non pair hands, therefore im flipping more often with a tiny edge. whilst weaker players will shove tighter therefore AX blocks hands and narrows there range towards pair more frequently and KX

personally id find it harder to fold 66 than AJo here

i folded ajo

What did villain have?

a9 and kq.

flop was jjj

I'd be going for 88+AQ here