Re: [ba-poker] Re: [FARGO] Is 3:2 Enough? Thanks

[William Chen <wchen_8369(deleted the rest)>]

--- Ed Fernandez <edf(deleted the rest)> wrote:
> Isn't it both?
> 
> Ed

Well, no.  I think if the BB is and the button are
both willing to take each other on, I would be willing
to give up a few chips for a few hands for the chance
that one of them will bust out.   

If the short stack is willing to "farm" a bit though,
then I think it's a grave mistake to fold the SB. 
Your position of being willing to cooperate pummeling
the short stack is fine except the button is clearly
not cooperating. The one direct shot I have at the
short stack, the maniac raises with anything on the
button.   This has just cost me quite a bit of equity!
 How nice would it be if he folded and then I could
pound on the BB, and how marginally nicer I have 66 in
case the BB calls.  The fact that the maniac will do
it again and again in this tournament (not to mention
future tournies) lessens my overall equity to the
point that even if it's slightly -EV immediately, I'm
gonna take him on.  I think most people in this thread
are underestimating the repeated play nature of this
situation.  

The other problem is that the small stack won't just
dribble away and die.  When he eventually takes on the
maniac, he will on average have a better hand, and be
odds on to win.  I have seen many 1-table tournaments
where the 2nd tall stack acquieses to the tall stack
pounding on the short stacks and the  #2 stack
eventually becomes the shortest stack on the table.
This is a really sad thing to happen.   I've *DONE*
this while trying to get into the top 3 places, and
after a couple of time, I've said nuts to that.  Now,
if it's close equity-wise, and I suspect my hand is a
3:2 favorite against a loose raiser online, I'm gonna
put my chips in  confidently and as fast as I can get
my slider across the screen.  Let there be no question
this hand is a clear call. 

Maybe in my next 1-table this guy will think twice
before he tries it again "hmm I want to pick on the
tight blind with my 75 but there's that psycho WCHEN
in front of me who will go in with ace-high." 

Same attitude short handed when I'm in the BB.  I'm
going to play a lot if I feel the raiser is on a
marginal hand.  I'm willing to give up a little bit of
tourney equity to really hurt his equity for attacking
my blind.  And if the SB is a loose player, all the
chips are frequently going in.  

I'm not talking about cutting off my right arm or
anything like that.  I'm talking about giving up a
marginal bit of equity to punish players for behavior
which significantly affects your equity. 

Bill
   









> 
> On Feb 2, 2004, at 2:39 PM, William Chen wrote:
> 
> > --- Ed Fernandez <edf(deleted the rest)> wrote:
> >> I think this is what I've been trying to say all
> >> along, and was not
> >> (perhaps) successful at getting my point across.
> In
> >> my opinion, how the
> >> short stack is reacting to the maniac (and to
> you)
> >> is the primary
> >> decision point for you as to whether you should
> call
> >> or fold.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >
> > Wait a minute.  You said:
> >
> >  If the
> >> short stack is
> >> letting himself get blinded off, why in the world
> >> would you gamble here
> >> with 66? You should be pounding on the short
> stack
> >> too, and once he
> >> gets busted, then you take your shots with the
> >> maniac.
> >
> > Crunch's analysis was that if the short stack is
> > willing to take on the maniac, you should fold. 
> Here
> > you are saying if the short stack is willing to be
> > blinded off, you should fold.  WHICH IS IT?
> >
> 
>