2 from bubble

[Tal]

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?

[theprawnidentity]

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.

[youthnkzR]

77 / A10 +

[mulhuzz]

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.

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.

[Honeybadger]

@ 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

[theprawnidentity]

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.

[action man]

99+ AQo+ looks good to me

[action man]

what range are we putting in for dangerous here?

[PathFinder]

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+

[Oxford_HRV]

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

[pleno1]

99+ AQo+ looks good to me

i folded ajo

[PathFinder]

What did villain have?

[pleno1]

a9 and kq.

flop was jjj

[lolwutwasthat]

I'd be going for 88+AQ here