Thursday, July 24, 2008

A Night Back At The Stars 16's

Well, tired with short-stacking the PLO last night I decided to clear some Stars bonus at the SNG tables... playing 30 or so games, mostly at the $16s.

Fun to return to the tables where I spent so long... and I'm pretty certain that the standard of play at them has got worse rather than better. 10-4 sooted was never a UTG min-raising hand back in the day right? How about an EP raise then all in with (missed) K-J (oh and a show for good measure).

Since when did that same K-J (different player) become a bubble call for all of ones chips at BB150? The same guy proclaiming that he 'had the odds' after the player he busted complained.

Had my share of horrific beats to be sure, and managed a couple of suckouts too - showing a profit at the end of my first proper SNG session for 6 months despite my 'rust' with the push / fold ranges.

Here is a thought for today that came up in the SNG session but can relate to almost any form of poker. It concerns re-raising, specifically when either you, or your opponent are short. Here is an example from a game last night.... from memory:

5 or 6 left BB200 no antes

Raiser - 2nd to act has 3000 odd chips and makes it 600
Shorty next to act has 1200 ish chips and raises all-in

Now, shorty had A-3 offsuit and lost to a pair of 10's... not very interesting yet. The point I wanted to make is that this player did not raise with his A-3 off - he effectively called an all-in with it. Do you see why? Offering his opponent more than 3/1 on the call, with the chips to spare (ok, so not to give away) meant that the call was 100% mandatory with any legitimate raising hand... could it have been a bluff (the initial raise)?? No! Not 2nd to act of 6 with a comfortable stack.

If your all-in re-raise offers 2/1 or more to an opponent with chips (or even without so many) then you are effectively deciding to call an all in.

Would you call an all-in from someone who has already indicated strength with A-3 off? well, would you??

Oh, one more thing, this error works the other way around too - sometimes at the bubble.

GL at the tables, Mark

No comments: