[Two double ups and we are chip leader.]

I am talking about when we are on the final table and in the money, however, and whilst recognising that we should be playing to give ourselves the best chance of winning, I do wonder if the presence of similar sized stacks on the table ought not to make a difference?  Two double ups and we are chip leader.

one last point even though you're already convinced. it's much easier to get those 2 double ups if you haven't just passed

Agreed.  It's just so obvious to me now!  And I described 6,3 suited as a powerhouse when compared to 7,2 off, but what difference are we actually talking about?  5-6% improved equity!
OMG, thanks everyone for removing the blindfolds; you've supplied me with the poker equivolent of the red pill in the Matrix!

P.s.  Stacks are deep enough to grant implied odds to simply set mine, so just calling and seeing what the texture of the flop is before committing any more chips was an option here also I think.

Yeah I think you should be shoving 7 2 and 8 3 happily.

Chances are they both fold
If we get looked up by two overs we just need a bink.
If we get looked up by a big pair, then oops.

But its these spots that give you a chance to get back in the game.
Once your down to 3 bigs you need to get 2 or more double ups.

You should always be playing to win as in the long term this should win you more than laddering.

Convinced.com!  Amen to this post.  Really appreciate the input and I now feel ready now to break free from my self-imposed shackles; I feel liberated; I'm a new man!  Look out future final tables cos no holds barred!  All future winnings dedicated to posters on this forum  )

Yep, fair comment, it's a fair rap.  Thanks everyone, you've convinced me that I'm a closet nit  ;o)  I'm gleefully shoving with 6,3 suited by the way.  Even nitty me recognises that for a powerhouse.  I'm talking about trash like 7,2 and 8,3 when there's more of a psychological barrier. 

I am talking about when we are on the final table and in the money, however, and whilst recognising that we should be playing to give ourselves the best chance of winning, I do wonder if the presence of similar sized stacks on the table ought not to make a difference?  Two double ups and we are chip leader.

Am I thinking about this wrongly saying I have no problem shoving with any two as a short stack when far from the money, but am less inclined to do so in the scenario described if folding means moving up a money spot when someone busts out on the next hand?  Twice I've reached the final table as the short stack and finished third and fourth by playing conservatively.  Granted shoving with any two might have yielded wins instead, but just as likely an earlier exit...

Confused.com

Oops, sorry Stuart.  Ur the wrong target for my exasperation as you have given me something constructive.  10 BB?  As big as that?  Really?  Bearing in mind that the average stack is less than 10BB by that stage...
[/quote]
[/quote]

how can he know you push with a wide range when youve been blinded down to 3bbs?

The fact you have only 3 BB's probably means you have a really tight shoving range up to now or you wouldnt have got that low.

If it folds to me on the button and i have 10 bigs or less im struggling to not shove any two, the lower and dirtier the two the better.

Sigh, it's just so tedious continually being told off for letting one's stack to get so low.  Like, does no-one else ever get crippled by losing a race or suffering a bad beat?!  Every question I've ever asked about playing a short stack always gets a barrage of responses assuming I'm a nit  /

Oops, sorry Stuart.  Ur the wrong target for my exasperation as you have given me something constructive.  10 BB?  As big as that?  Really?  Bearing in mind that the average stack is less than 10BB by that stage...

how can he know you push with a wide range when youve been blinded down to 3bbs?

Erm, like because we play the same tournament at the same venue, every Tuesday night! 

how can he know you push with a wide range when youve been blinded down to 3bbs?

The fact you have only 3 BB's probably means you have a really tight shoving range up to now or you wouldnt have got that low.

If it folds to me on the button and i have 10 bigs or less im struggling to not shove any two, the lower and dirtier the two the better.

Sigh, it's just so tedious continually being told off for letting one's stack to get so low.  Like, does no-one else ever get crippled by losing a race or suffering a bad beat?!  Every question I've ever asked about playing a short stack always gets a barrage of responses assuming I'm a nit  /

it's too situational, my range completely changes depending on whos on my left.  Their chip size, their range for calling, my position in tourament, when blinds are going up, payout structure etc etc asre all important factors.

Granted all of the above.  Okay, let's give you the actual scenario.  Final table, in the money, but shortest stack of 7, with between only 3 and 4 big blinds left.  Player to immediate left is tight-ish and the next player along knows your game well and knows you push with an appropriately wide range in these spots and is very capable of making correct calls.  Both of these players barely have you covered, however.  So, just how lame, on a scale of woefully lame to horrifically lame is folding any 2 cards when folded around to you in the small blind or button?

I think this hand illustrates the advantage of position very well. I mean the guy can make a bet like that after you've checked the last 2 streets and you will have no clue what it means. Considering the guy is described as loose, good & very active that bet could well be just because you checked the last 2 streets. Not betting the turn with 2f/d's on board kinda suggests you're weak, and checking river kinda confirms it. The same applies to villain though because you'd think he'd bet a K on the turn himself, and he's not vb jamming one on the river imo. So it appears like he floated the flop. That said if you can fade some miracle flush you prob win, so suppose call.

+1, but dunno if I can find the call, and the trouble stems as skolsuper says from the size of your out of position 3bet.  I don't think I 3bet aces even as small as that; maybe about that with position. 

Having 3bet, however, the next problem is what should your plan be for later streets if your Cbet on the flop is called, because check check turn and river is going to look weak.  How would the villain expect us to act on the flop with aces, a big king or a 5?  I'm probably in the minority here, but I think our checking the flop looks scarier to the villain.  I think an unorthodox check-call, followed by a two-thirds pot-size lead on the turn whatever the card brings can look super scary, (albeit less effective against strong players), plus gives us a much clearer position about where we stand. 

All that said, we've got to be reasonably happy with only 1 over card on the flop and might want to Cbet now to avoid being confronted with another over card.  The 8 on the turn is a good card for us though, so if we fired the first bullet, I think we have to go ahead and fire the second and bet pot on the turn and give up on the river if called again. 

Ugh, ugly spot, good post. 

I imagine opinions may vary greatly, but after bottling a few opportunities last night at DTD to shove with junk (easier online!) as a crippled stack when folded to me in the small blind or button (good argument for not looking at my cards perhaps) I'm interested in knowing at what point in terms of Big Blinds (or 'M') that people think the maths dictates it's +EV any two?  Granted, player types and stack sizes to act after you are a major factor in the equation, but for argument's sake let's just assume that they are playing 'perfect' poker (and yes I know that that is purely subjective!).

Feels like a mathematically provable scenario to me, so if any of you probability geeks fancy putting some numbers on it, I'd be most appreciative

yeah fold air, you have a much better chance of taking on a lighter hand, and possibly being in a 3b pot in the later scenario, obv if you have suited or something then jam.

this

+

jamming with a 'kinda hand' (suited connected anything) could get you extra value by being called in say 2-3 spots and then iso'd by someone behind. Obv this isnt something you can control, but you could make a fair assessment given playing styles on the table

Agreed.  I'd have no qualms whatsoever about jamming with a suited connector, even a 1 or 2 gapper.  Obviously it's a no brainer with any pair, any ace or big king or queen... 

Thanks RF, I was beginning to think I was in a minority of one to believe that folding might be best...

There's absolutely no way I'm getting 8 folds after me with a 3BB shove, especially when running antes are factored in...

Whereas, I can think of a couple of reasons players might be wary of attacking my pot-committed BB.  Namely, that they fear others will perceive any raise to be a steal and be tempted to re-raise with a likely stronger hand or re-steal with a weaker one, or maybe, they don't want to risk damaging a solid image.  So what can happen is that better hands than mine fold in early position, potentially leaving only marginal hands in late position to take a stab at my blind...