[Closed] 93o, signature move..SAMPLE HAND! READ s&g-players!

takes me a while to realise this but this is smart play. hard to reason through it unless you have a good handle on chip modelling, but yeah, NH!

thinking what is the small blind doing calling if he is not prepared to call the big blind

he has 905 to call to win 4135 and he would know the BB is calling with any cards so why call

think you done the right thing Nick with nothing to lose

easy... SB is relying on implicit collusion. we are abusing that

implicit collusion:

where two players do not bet into each other to increase their chances of beating the shortstack, and thereby knocking another player out of the tournament, increasing their chip $EV.

Won`t SB be committed to call?
If we skip the part where SB can be slowplaying a monster hand, we are still up against quite tight range. If he realizes that we are pushing here with any two, then imo, we are in quite ugly spot) our equity will be miserable.

However, with assumption that our fold equity against SB is high, this move looks perfect to me.

Originally posted by xylere
Won`t SB be committed to call?
If we skip the part where SB can be slowplaying a monster hand, we are still up against quite tight range. If he realizes that we are pushing here with any two, then imo, we are in quite ugly spot) our equity will be miserable.

However, with assumption that our fold equity against SB is high, this move looks perfect to me.

I think 80% FE is enough here. You win the hand -> you win the tourney, you loose the hand, it's still +ev, since the next hand, you can push atc into bb, since he cant call, because of the crippled button. BU can't call, since hell call for 45 real dollars, and doesn't want to lose there. He won't be slowplaying monsters very often, since monsters don't come up often ♦. I mean, what are the odds on having AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT there? And Ak would be too dumb, hed never do that, since this is 27$, and he knows im a dangerous factor in this one.

Of course those rare cases where he does call bring us into a tight spot. But i don't think that will occur too often. Hes really relying on implicit collusion here, hence our move can easily be justified.

I dont think he suspects we have ATC here, since this is quite a rare occasion, and even on the ps-board, a pretty sharky place, pple are putting some question marks in the thread. Xylere is not a donkey, and he says "i would suspect atc", but at the same time, if a shark wouldn't do this, and we are a shark, then why not do it. His read must be: he has a big pair, we have to fold, coinflip is the best we can get, therefor we can't risk our 45$ for this one.

I'm sure these are the hands you're not meant to share nick nh

SB digs his own grave by calling into your big stack tbh, push or fold. Collusion with his stack surely aint gonna work

bad play with ATC

You can do this with a wide range of hands, but you shouldn't do it with the total trash. The SB can call you with ATC here, the fakt, that he doesn't know it allows us to shove a wide range, but some players, including me, will trap the BS into a shove here, I will often call with a good hand and hope you shove.

Your thinking is OK, but IMHO you miss some other Players have a brain too so you never have 80% FE.
Once more in a clear structure.
SB has great odds,
the other play is all in allready, he has to win against both of you and you have to win against the SB
SB has a chance to get a lot of chips, he is 3rd "for sure" when he folds, but he can play for the 1st place when he wins this hand

would you check it down? Maybe bet this flop? I think it's still an interesting/hard to play hand if I wouldn't shove. I do agree with you though, my range is a bit to wide here. But I hate implicit collusion, so Im not sure about what to do here.

I would check it down. you get great odds and your hand is trash, you could bet this flop, that isn't wrong, because if you SB folds and you loose you can collect the blinds for 1 more round, but I think you don't gain very much from that, because the other shorty might enter a pot very soon, but you could try it.

ok, i was discussing the hand again today. What if sb pushes, then you get great odds to call, as you can see. It's not much to call, and the pot is big, plus, you're committed to BU already, and its more then 1:2 pot odds vs. sb. Now, icm trainer was very helpful with this range:

55+, A7s+, A3s, A9o+, A3o, KTs+, K5s, KQo, QJs, Q9o, JTs J8s T8s-T7s T8o T6o 98s 93s-92s 98o 96o 43s

So is it me or doesn't this range make any sense? I mean, call Q9o, but not QTo, call 34s and A3o, but dont call A8o. Then we call K5s, but not K6s, K7s, K8s... is icm trainer saying, gogo gamble, dont look at you cards, just flip two coins, if theyre both heads, then call???

So, would you overcall ATC? And if not, why not? the odds are great? and if so, why not push ATC?

Ok, and s&g wizard says 95o+, so if we have 95o, can we push for FE, since we'd call a push with that anyway?

Ok, back to 93o, wizard says, if he (unknown) folds 30% of the time, its a good push.

I don't know, why the trainer gives you these ranges.

I wouldn't call that loose here, because you will very often loose 1k chips in this spot, and I like to keep the other players short, to bully them more.

unam, parse the scenario through sngwizard. i think icm trainer confused when overcall ranges become wider..

interesting play! Personally, I'm a fan of implicit collusion because the more players in the hand the better the chance of knocking out the SS and the better the chance of you making the money. And at the end of the day, that's really the objective here.

This play removes one other avenue of knocking out a player, but also reduces the number of players you have to beat so improves your personal chance of winning the hand. I think you have to prioritise making the money over winning the hand.

Originally posted by Pygmalion
interesting play! Personally, I'm a fan of implicit collusion because the more players in the hand the better the chance of knocking out the SS and the better the chance of you making the money. And at the end of the day, that's really the objective here.

This play removes one other avenue of knocking out a player, but also reduces the number of players you have to beat so improves your personal chance of winning the hand. I think you have to prioritise making the money over winning the hand.

making the money is a foregone conclusion with two ministacks and his relative monsterstack. this play aims to maximise his chiplead before the heads up.

Originally posted by chenny8888
unam, parse the scenario through sngwizard. i think icm trainer confused when overcall ranges become wider..

I didn't analyse the hand with the ICM trainer and I don't do it with SNG wizard, because these programs are bugged when there are super shortys around.

And I really don't know what you want to hear^^, I would make a cooperative play here, because the hand is too bad, even when I hit my pair on the flop I wouldn't make a move, because I gain almost nothing by making this marginal play, I see a much bigger edge in later situations, so for me there is no need to make a breakeven gambel here.

SRY this is not a mathematical problem, because ICM has it flaws with supershortys and so it comes down to a question of style and how big an edge I think I have against other players in conjunction with their stacks after this hand.

bored, threaddigging and came acros this one.

Cool hand, and intresting play by helemaalnicks.

What I was wondering about: assume you know for sure SB will check the hand down unless he's sure he wins (monster hand). So "standard" cooperation play, he never "steals" the pot.
Is overshoving still more +$EV? Sure you get great odds when you shove, and you increase your edge on the SB en CO for the ITM play (although not by much), while the risk the BU triples increases bigtime. So there's a pretty big chance you triple up the shortstack.
This means you can abuse the bubble longer if you lose the hand, but it also means YOU can bubble out.

So I think checking down is preferable here? Also, I disagree with the view that "implicit collusion" is always bad. I wouldent opt for it if I was SB (in this hand), but there are situations where I use cooperation play with regulars.

And as a final thought (about this hand); I don't think you have 80% FE here, although it can be pretty close. I dont think SB calls too loosely here, he's pretty shortstacked himself. I also think he often coldcalls "monster" hands.

Hi viewer88,

We concluded that an ATC push was not best here. And a call and a checkdown (bet on the flop is fine) is better.