Online Final Table Hand in Blinds Short-Stacked (1 Viewer)

[Tarheel4Life]

You think I have zero fold equity here?

If the original raiser doesn't show up with AA here, you think they are risking half their stack with 66 or even AJ with a cold-caller in-between still to act?

And if they do fold and the cold-caller is willing to commit almost their entire stack with KQ there, we are roughly 60/40 with bonus dead money to double up

Put yourself in the other guys shoes. If you're the original raiser holding 66 or AJ, what do you do when you have to risk half your stack with another player behind?

Or if you are the guy with KQ off and the original raiser folds and this is for almost your entire stack?

I just think dealing in absolutes here, like I have zero fold equity against opponents ranges here, is wrong

I agree. Only a Sith deals in absolutes. It is known. That is the way.

 

[upNdown]

But you'd still need somewhat accurate ranges for the other players.

Right. Which makes those charts pretty useless for an online donkfest, in my opinion.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of either ignoring ICM or they make the mistake of trying to solve it. It really isn’t rocket science. You’ll learn all you need to know about it after playing a couple hundred tournaments. And after that, all you really need to know is PAY ATTENTION AND THINK. Look at the payouts, look at the stacks, look at the action that has happened before you. Then and only then, look at your cards, because they probably matter least in these situations.
FWIW, my first reaction to this post was “puke. This is a suck situation. I hate it.” Shortly followed by “I guess I have to fold the damn A10 here.”

 

[Steve Birrer]

Here's my simplisitc take. Too much reliance has been put on ICM and models. The problem is they are based on outcomes over a zillion hands. Nobody but guys playing tons everyday play enough hands for variance to even out. I am sticking to the simple look at this hand. Bad spot where we are likely behind, maybe behind two players, and a good potential we are dominated. Folding for a better spot.

I am giving the original raiser some credit. Assuming they are not a dummy they see your stack size and know they may face a shove. So to me they likely have something in that spot.

 

[Zr1]

.

 

[Legend5555]

Nobody but guys playing tons everyday play enough hands for variance to even out.

Indeed a simplistic take. Just because you can't see the results of making correct decisions without a large sample size doesn't make the decision any less correct.

Should I sometimes hit on 17 in blackjack or stand on 16 vs a dealer showing 10 just because I don't play enough hands to see the fruits of making the correct decision?

 

[Steve Birrer]

Indeed a simplistic take. Just because you can't see the results of making correct decisions without a large sample size doesn't make the decision any less correct.

Should I sometimes hit on 17 in blackjack or stand on 16 vs a dealer showing 10 just because I don't play enough hands to see the fruits of making the correct decision?

I get the point you are trying to make but you have made huge apples to oranges when comparing poker and blackjack. Blackjack is 100% math.

 

[upNdown]

Blackjack is 100% math.

Of course, that's pretty much what the GTO people will say about NLHE.

 

[Legend5555]

I get the point you are trying to make but you have made huge apples to oranges when comparing poker and blackjack. Blackjack is 100% math.

You claimed that nobody but grinders play enough for variance to even out. That is irrelevant to making the correct decision in a hand of poker using all available information.

 

[Steve Birrer]

You claimed that nobody but grinders play enough for variance to even out. That is irrelevant to making the correct decision in a hand of poker using all available information.

Totally agree with your last sentence and that was my point in the first place.

 

[Legend5555]

Totally agree with your last sentence and that was my point in the first place.

You seemed to make a distinction between why a correct decision a grinder makes is or may not be the correct one for a recreational player based on number of hands played in which the variance can be seen to even out. I was saying that correct play is correct play no matter the sample size.