Concept from Snyder's book that I disagree with

[nsidestrate]

Maybe I'm wrong. He talks about the situation where a short stack pushes all-in and you hold a strong hand like AK/QQ/JJ. Snyder says that you should not re-raise to isolate, but that you should flat call and let more players call behind you. It is my habit to raise hands like QQ in this spot.

What do you guys think of this? I find most of the book pretty insightful, so I wonder if I am making a mistake in this situation.

[Radford]

I remember reading that concept, and i disagree with it too. Why should you just flat call and let other players in cheaply, when you can get HU with the short stack and most of the time you will have him dominated.

I disagree with it too.

[toom]

I agree with you guys. Exceptions:

1) Pusher has a very small stack (less than 2x BB). I still probably re-raise, but not push. Someone might try a quasi-squeeze play behind me, and I've trapped them. Obv I wouldn't do that with JJ or QQ in EP, but with kings or aces, it might work out well.

2) Final table, where the $ev of inviting a couple of other big stacks to knock shorty out is often greater than the chip ev of isolating.

Snyder's book is fascinating.

[toronexti]

Anytime that a shorty pushes PF you have an option to either call or raise. This situation happens very frequently in tournaments so it's very important to understand how it can play out.

Let's take a simple example:

9 handed table, Blinds 1k/2k A100

BB stack: 60k
SB stack: 30k
BTN stack: 10k

It folds around to the button who as a shorty pushes.

In the SB you're dealt QQ. What should you do?

Ideally you want to get either isolated against BTN or get it all-in vs BTN and BB dominating both. So, to isolate most of the time you're going to reraise (in this instance the only correct reraise is to push). This makes it a tough decision on BB if he has a hand like 77 where he'd call BTN but now has to lay it down. The situation seems really simple - you want to isolate BTN so you raise to put a lot of pressure on the BB.

Let's say now instead of QQ you have a hand like A9, here you really want to get alone with BTN - but do you want to push? Probably not, what if BB wakes up with a hand? If you just call then you're putting in 33% of your stack and are relaying weakness. Or so it seems anyway.

Many players use 'reverse' psychology in this situation - or attempt to anyway. They call with the weaker hand 'pretending to want to induce a call' while reraising with the stronger hands 'to isolate.' In each case they're really looking for the opposite response from BB. So when they push they want to be read as weak and when they call they want you to try to squeeze and take it away from them.

Personally, I think that Snyder is right - but not for the reasons stated. If you're only 'isolating' with either weak or strong hands (depending on which you prefer) then you are telegraphing an enormous amount of info to your opponents. Reraising to isolate is dangerous if you're doing it regardless if you have A9 or QQ. So the only logical choice is to either always call or mix up your play so that sometimes you're pushing A9 and sometimes you're pushing QQ and sometimes you're calling with one or the other. *This is all if you're playing with the same opponents fairly frequently*

Another reason why calling to induce more calls is a good approach is contained within MH's article and his discussion of it here: Link. Basically by letting more people into the pot when you have the favorite hand what you're doing is, is increasing your variance which MH argues is needed to go far in tournaments and succeed.

I havn't read Snyders book so I could be way off, but that's my take on some of the reasons why he could be recommending just calling with strong hands behind an all-in.

[PauliF]

great post toro

[mchilger]

It depends .................

Matthew

[mchilger]

OK, maybe a little more analysis.

Here is just one situation. Let's say the blinds are 1-2 and the small stack pushes for $9K, you have 27K, and the average stack is 60K. The opponents behind you have more than you. There are 27 players left in the tournament with little difference between 27th and 11th in payouts.

With AA, I don't want people to go away. I want action and no one would be getting correct pot odds to call. Also, a stack of $43K is better, but I still need a lot more help. Now, whether I push or call would be dependant on which action I thought would be more likely to get action behind me (in some cases, you might get more action by simply pushing while is some cases calling might be better depending on image, opponents, etc). But the idea is that I WANT action - moreso against Ax but I'm willing to accept the risk against pairs for the action I get against Ax.

I think there are a lot of different permutations and situations where you can argue one way or another. Premium hands don't come along very often so I think it is important to try and extract as much value as possible from them, even if that means taking a little more risk.

I haven't read Snyder's book, but I think it is dangerous to put a rule to this type of play. Surely the stack sizes, type of opponents, players left in tournament, your hand, the number of opponents behind you, your position, etc. would impact a decision such as this.

Matthew

[nsidestrate]

Toro and Matthew seem to be focused on the psychology of getting the most action. Snyder's point is that you should be more concerned with eliminating the short stack instead of your own equity, as I read it. He equates raising to isolate with bluffing at a dry side pot after the flop. I'll provide a couple of quotes to illustrate:

[Radford]

I think there are times when you can just call, and other times when you can isolate another opponent to get HU with the short stack. I think it all depends on the situation.

If your near the bubble of a major tourney, or 1 place off from a FT, i think you can safely just call to allow other players in the pot to eliminate the short stack. i.e. to get in the money or get to a FT.

If for example the button has 10k, your the SB with 50k, and there is a big stack in the BB with over 200k. Blinds are 1k/2k. It is folded around to the button who pushes. Now, he could be doing this with any 2 cards. You hold A9, A10 or AJ in the SB, do you want to re-raise allin to isolate the big stack in the BB? probably not. You may elect to just call, and if the BB has any kind of hand he may call too if he has any sense. Then you can check the hand down, hoping to knock out the short stack. Although it runs the risk of not getting HU with the short stack with a good hand, it doubles the chance of him getting knocked out if you allow the BB to call as well.

That's probably the only time i would just call a shortys push. On the other hand there are occasions where pushing seems the more appropriate move.

Let's say that the stack sizes are exactly the same, the blinds are exactly the same and you hold exactly the 3 different type of hands, A9, A10 or AJ. But the only difference is that your nowhere near the bubble or the FT. For me my attitude changes, i would probably push with any of these 3 hands to isolate the big stack. It does run the risk of the BB actually having a hand, but for me it's the actual situation that changes whether i just call, or push.

[mchilger]

If each spot you move up in the tourney is important and the amount if chips not too significant, I agree with trying to bust your opponent. For example, 3 players left in a tourney and the amount of chips in the pot is not worth more than moving up a spot. In this case, it is more important to bust the player than win his chips.

Last year, my 53o hand at the WSOP small event. Small stack goes allin with short stack UTG, and several players call. Conventional wisdom would be take a flop and try to bust the player in order to make the final table. But the amount of money in that pot was very significant to me if I could win it so I gambled with a weak hand. This isn't exactly the same as holding AA-QQ but I think it explains the importance of determining which is more important, the amount in the pot or knocking out an opponent.

Matthew

[toronexti]

From the qoutes it sounds like he's talking about a situation where eliminating the player is more +$ev than getting the chips (or +t$ev). This situation most frequently pops up at a FT or the bubble of a FT. It can also be subjective if you're talking about a sum of money which is very significant for the specific individual.

[mash_tun]

IIRC, he talks about the reraise vs. call situation under a section titled "The Pack Mentality".

As has already been mentioned, he argues against isolation raising a shortstack all-in because he views getting to the final table in the fast, live MTTs as your primary goal....and elimination of players is the the primary way to make that happen.

To that end, he also advocates what I thought was a hilariously brilliant move...
I'll paraphrase it:

If you are chip-rich and it's getting to the point where there are many shortstacks, you should minraise with ATC if you are in late position and there have been 2 or more shortstacked limpers [in live MTTs, you'll see this an unbelieveable number of times...shortstacks with M's in the red zone limping in to try and see a cheap flop; this happpens much less frequently online...so I've yet to try it yet in an online MTT].

This accomplishes a few important things:

1-It confuses your opponents (why is he min-raising? Does he have a monster hand, looking to entice a call?). It can then help you to take the pot down with air versus tight/passive players, since you'll have position on the initial limpers post-flop.

2-It will nearly compel the limpers to call off another BB of their already dwindling stacks.

3-One (or more) brave/desperate shortstacks may decide to push after this, which all helps to...

4-Promote a wholesale redistribution of the chips at the table (sure, it may make one of the shortstacks substantially bigger, but it will push 2 or more of them closer to the brink of extinction....which helps you towards the primary goal of eliminating players to get to the FT).

[mchilger]

I have Snyder's book on my reading list but was told it was more for short-stack low M fast blind structure type of tournaments so I'll probably get to it in the Fall.

I will say that I think an overall mistake made by many players is overvaluing knocking out opponents. Who cares who gets knocked out? If I win the chips then that helps me accomplish my goal of winning the tournament. I see this sometimes in "dry" pots. If you hit something mediocre, you still want to protect your hand so that you don't give an opponent a free chance at winning the pot.

Of course there are exceptions:
- At a final table there will be a lot more situations where knocking out the opponent is the primary goal rather than winning the pot. I think before the final table I practically never think about knocking out an opponent.
- The pot size doesn't have a material impact on my chances to win a tournament
- There is a particular opponent I would like to see leave. If Negreanu or Brunson are to my left, I would put a lot more weight on knocking them out as I'd rather not have them around.

Toro, just read your example in detail. the 10K-30K-60K example. If you call the 10K and your opponent calls with 77, it isn't a terrible result. He is gettubg about the right odds to hit a set (assuming you're going allin), but he might dump off more chips to you on a favorable flop. Of course, with QQ, it is a lot more risky to do this because the flop might come AKx. But with AA this risk goes away.

Some opponents in the BB might even push with 77 or AQ trying to get you off your hand which would be even better. I think the further I am away from the final table the more likely I would be to take some positive EV risks to try and accumulate even more chips. This isn't to say I'm advocating calling all the time. As you say, you might just push allin to look weak hoping for a call.

Matthew

[nsidestrate]

I actually think a lot of ideas in his book have far more general applicability than just to fast on-line structures.

[Taardvark]