Call?

[TightEnd]

8 left

flat payout to top three

blinds 6,000-12,000

you are second short stack, on bb with 100,000

 

Short stack pushes 42,000 in from the cut-off

Folded to you

Chip leaders have 600,000 plus, 2m in play

Short stack is a conventional tight player, has hung around for level after level, doubled up a few times, dropped back again/blinded away

60,000 in the middle its 32,000 to you

Call?

[Newportlad]

I dont particularly like it, but i call here.
You need to gamble to get to the top 3 where the money improves (and the medals start)

[jezza777]

In a flat payout scenario I think it is a pass. 1/3rd of your chips is a high price.

[Longy]

I would call, he has to be super tight to pass this. If you think he would pass big broadways here it is a fold, but not even most nits pass qjs here with 3.5bbs in the CO in an unopened pot.

[Dewi_cool]

I fold & look for a better hand next orbit (when sober) all in if drunk

[jezza777]

He should be pushing practically any 2 here but if he is tight and conventional it does narrow his range. He definately pushes any A most K's and some good queens. I just think that in a flat structure your chips are a lot more useful for raising with than calling with A2.

Sorry Longy I dont really understand your post. "I would call, he has to be super tight to pass this. If you think he would pass big broadways here it is a fold,"

[Longy]

He should be pushing practically any 2 here but if he is tight and conventional it does narrow his range. He definately pushes any A most K's and some good queens. I just think that in a flat structure your chips are a lot more useful for raising with than calling with A2.

Sorry Longy I dont really understand your post. "I would call, he has to be super tight to pass this. If you think he would pass big broadways here it is a fold,"

Yeah sorry bit lazy with my English there. Im calling. This is essentially a pot odds question, with 8 left and this structure anything that is +ev is closely related to +CEV (chip equity). So we need to be around 35% to win the hand (2 to 1 odds to call).

So to get to this we need to assign villain a range and thats what im doing. If kq is in villains range thats about breakeven point, any looser and the more we gain by calling, any tighter we loose more by calling.

--
 232,873,344  games     0.005 secs    46,574,668,800  games/sec

Board:
Dead: 

   equity    win    tie          pots won    pots tied   
Hand 0:    35.090%     33.65%    01.44%          78361835      3354267.50   { Ah2h }
Hand 1:    64.910%     63.47%    01.44%         147802974      3354267.50   { 22+, ATs+, KQs, ATo+, KQo }

My view is that most people even if they are tight are pushing wider than this range including hands like qjs.

[jezza777]

I agree that qjs is well in the range here however in a flat payout structure I still fold. I don't think it is as simple as a pot odds question. If you go broke here you are done and I think that I would sooner push any two from the button than call here. A shortcoming in my game perhaps.

Also chips change value during tournaments, " what you gain by winning a chip is not quite as much as you lose when you lose a chip" there fore should we take this into account when calculating pot odds? Especially in a fixed payout structure.

[TightEnd]

you are not broke if you lose, you have 68,000 left and a sliver of fold equity for one orbit into anyone bar the two big stacks

[Graham C]

I call with a cringe for effect.  Ax is above the shove range first in for a shorty and she can't wait much longer

[jezza777]

you are not broke if you lose, you have 68,000 left and a sliver of fold equity for one orbit into anyone bar the two big stacks

Yeah good point - pisses on my bonfire

[Longy]

I agree that qjs is well in the range here however in a flat payout structure I still fold. I don't think it is as simple as a pot odds question. If you go broke here you are done and I think that I would sooner push any two from the button than call here. A shortcoming in my game perhaps.

Also chips change value during tournaments, " what you gain by winning a chip is not quite as much as you lose when you lose a chip" there fore should we take this into account when calculating pot odds? Especially in a fixed payout structure.

I understand where you are going here and alas we are not privy to the exact structure. I would be surprised by using ICM here that we found that +cEV and +EV were that far apart. I think villain range here is always going to be wide enough to give us a margin of error that any ICM effect is still going to make the call +ev.

[jezza777]

I think I agree the call is +ev, the range here is so so wide its not funny. I just think that chip preservation is more important than making thin +ev calls at this stage. We can pass up a possible +ev situation now to give us more(better) +ev situations in the future. It is unusual for me because normally ev is  god I just feel differently here.

[AlexMartin]

Call, i dont think its too close either. His range is wiiiiiiiide.

[NoflopsHomer]

I pass. Better to push ATC than call here.

Oh, and wot Jezza sez.