Peter, the trick isn't to worry about what happens in this particular hand or tournament, but to think about what happens if we play this same situation a thousand times. If we min-raise here, knowing that we're going to be called and will have to play the flop out of position, will that be more profitable in the long run than shoving or folding?
If we shove pre-flop, we don't mind being called because we have a strong hand and will probably be favourites. If we say we will be called 30% of the time and will be a favourite, we add the expected profit from that to the 70% of the time we get the shove through and win the pot without a showdown. That is the expected return from the shove and we can say that it will certainly be very profitable.
There's a very important element to DYM's, MTT's and STT's that actually tells us that the first chip is more valuable than the second, which is more valuable than the third, etc. That is called Independent Chip Modelling and basically means that taking down the 250 chips at no risk to our stack can be better for us than getting our full stack in the middle as a favourite, and that's particularly true in a DYM or near the bubble of a satellite. So we're actually happier to add that 25% to our stack than we are to get it all-in as a 70% favourite, because those first chips are more valuable than the rest.
If we call or min-raise, knowing that we're going to see a flop, it's not so easy to work out how profitable it will be. We know that our AK will miss the flop 2/3 of the time, and that means that if we can't then win the pot by c-betting, we're in trouble. Even if we can win the pot by c-betting a lot of the time, we still have to ask if that's more profitable for us than shoving pre-flop would have been...
When we make our decisions, it can't be about "caution" or "fear". We just make the decisions that are most +EV. If we make the most profitable decision in the long-run, whatever the result of this particular hand, we've made the correct decision. If we're making decisions out of cautiousness or fear, we might save ourselves in any given hand, but in the long run we're losing money.
So the best thing in this hand, I think, would be to shove pre-flop. We know that we're going to take down those 250 chips a large proportion of the time. Most of the time we're forcing our opponents to fold a worse hand than ours, though. In cash poker, that would be bad but, because it's a DYM we prefer them to fold their hands with 50%, 40% or 30% equity, since those chips in the middle are more valuable than chips in the opponent's stack.
I think rancid was referring more to the secondary debate around DoubleAAA's suggestion, rather than the original post. I think I actually didn't address the OP either, so I'll do that now. Posted by BorinLoner
Peter, the trick isn't to worry about what happens in this particular hand or tournament, but to think about what happens if we play this same situation a thousand times. If we min-raise here, knowing that we're going to be called and will have to play the flop out of position, will that be more profitable in the long run than shoving or folding? If we shove pre-flop, we don't mind being called because we have a strong hand and will probably be favourites. If we say we will be called 30% of the time and will be a favourite, we add the expected profit from that to the 70% of the time we get the shove through and win the pot without a showdown. That is the expected return from the shove and we can say that it will certainly be very profitable. There's a very important element to DYM's, MTT's and STT's that actually tells us that the first chip is more valuable than the second, which is more valuable than the third, etc. That is called Independent Chip Modelling and basically means that taking down the 250 chips at no risk to our stack can be better for us than getting our full stack in the middle as a favourite, and that's particularly true in a DYM or near the bubble of a satellite. So we're actually happier to add that 25% to our stack than we are to get it all-in as a 70% favourite, because those first chips are more valuable than the rest. If we call or min-raise, knowing that we're going to see a flop, it's not so easy to work out how profitable it will be. We know that our AK will miss the flop 2/3 of the time, and that means that if we can't then win the pot by c-betting, we're in trouble. Even if we can win the pot by c-betting a lot of the time, we still have to ask if that's more profitable for us than shoving pre-flop would have been... When we make our decisions, it can't be about "caution" or "fear". We just make the decisions that are most +EV. If we make the most profitable decision in the long-run, whatever the result of this particular hand, we've made the correct decision. If we're making decisions out of cautiousness or fear, we might save ourselves in any given hand, but in the long run we're losing money. So the best thing in this hand, I think, would be to shove pre-flop. We know that we're going to take down those 250 chips a large proportion of the time. Most of the time we're forcing our opponents to fold a worse hand than ours, though. In cash poker, that would be bad but, because it's a DYM we prefer them to fold their hands with 50%, 40% or 30% equity, since those chips in the middle are more valuable than chips in the opponent's stack. Posted by BorinLoner
That was a very interesting post, particularly interested in your paragraph on ICM which I have heard about, but had no idea what it is!
Hmmm, I did raise the hand (rather than shoving pre-flop) knowing that if I missed the flop, I would just fold and continue with what would still be a decent chip stack. I knew that if an A or K came down on the flop, I would probably be ahead - even if he had a pocket pair. However if I shoved pre, and got a call, I would be in a coinflip situation if he had the pocket pair.
I do see what you're saying, and if this was an MTT then I totally agree to shove pre, but as the top three players recieve the same prize here - and I had a healthy chip stack (relative to other players anyway), surely it is better to focus on chip preservation rather than gaining chips? I guess that was my mentality as I knew in a few hands time we would be down to three players purely because others had knocked themselves out.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here? : Ahh, that makes more sense! Thanks haha :-) In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here? : That was a very interesting post, particularly interested in your paragraph on ICM which I have heard about, but had no idea what it is! Hmmm, I did raise the hand (rather than shoving pre-flop) knowing that if I missed the flop, I would just fold and continue with what would still be a decent chip stack. I knew that if an A or K came down on the flop, I would probably be ahead - even if he had a pocket pair. However if I shoved pre, and got a call, I would be in a coinflip situation if he had the pocket pair. I do see what you're saying, and if this was an MTT then I totally agree to shove pre, but as the top three players recieve the same prize here - and I had a healthy chip stack (relative to other players anyway), surely it is better to focus on chip preservation rather than gaining chips? I guess that was my mentality as I knew in a few hands time we would be down to three players purely because others had knocked themselves out. Posted by peter27
The thing to remember is that PPs aren't that easy to come by for a start. Secondly, if you shove, how often does he call, maybe 10% max? so 90% of the tie we have an even healthier stack and push one of the shorties even lower into the danger zone which is good on the bubble of a DYM. Thirdly, it's only a coinflip against PPs... if he calls with AQ/AJ/AT/KQ etc, you're absolutely miles ahead.
We're always dependent on our opponents making mistakes if we're going to make a profit in poker. However, if we're not committing to hands as strong as AK, we need our opponents to be so bad that they take themselves out of the game, while we just sit there.
Some of the time that will happen. The vast majority of the time, it won't. We can, and frequently should, play a tight range of hands if we know our opponents are going to make lots of mistakes. That range can't be so tight that we're not willing to commit with AK and just 10BB.
This is an especially big problem if, when we get our strong hands, we choose to commit some of our chips to the pot - in this case more than 20% of our stack - and later fold anyway. That's much worse than just folding the hand at the first opportunity. We may still have the best hand and we're folding our equity in the pot, having contributed many of our valuable chips to it.
If we're doing this, we're the player that is making the big mistakes. We're the one that's knocking themselves out. We're just doing it over the course of three or four hands, rather than one.
Chip preservation can only be achieved by winning pots, otherwise the blinds eat us up. So to preserve our chips, we have to be willing to put them on the line sometimes.
Peter, if you get the chance, I'd suggest trying a few of the regular, play-to-a-winner sit and go's this week, while it's double points. It's the opinion of many that they're a far better way to learn the skills you'll need.
It's also a lot more fun having the opportunity to be the outright winner.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here? : The thing to remember is that PPs aren't that easy to come by for a start. Secondly, if you shove, how often does he call, maybe 10% max? so 90% of the tie we have an even healthier stack and push one of the shorties even lower into the danger zone which is good on the bubble of a DYM. Thirdly, it's only a coinflip against PPs... if he calls with AQ/AJ/AT/KQ etc, you're absolutely miles ahead. Posted by Lambert180
I agree with all three points, but they all have the possibility of him calling (obviously), and surely the last thing I want is somebody calling my shove given the aim is to get into the top three? I mean, it is possible that he could have a pocket pair and beat me? I guess that I felt comfortable enough on chips to not shove pre-flop. As I learnt yesterday in a DYM, sometimes it's just better to let others knock themselves out and preserve your own chipstack.
Having said that, I totally understand why you are saying shove and in any other tournament other than DYM, I would totally agree! I really respect your opinion Lambert, after all you are a professional now! Do not want you to be offended that I don't agree with what you're saying, but my DYM experience tells me differently. Maybe I will come round to your way of thinking eventually with more and more experience though.
+1 to Lambert We're always dependent on our opponents making mistakes if we're going to make a profit in poker. However, if we're not committing to hands as strong as AK, we need our opponents to be so bad that they take themselves out of the game, while we just sit there. Some of the time that will happen. The vast majority of the time, it won't. We can, and frequently should, play a tight range of hands if we know our opponents are going to make lots of mistakes. That range can't be so tight that we're not willing to commit with AK and just 10BB. This is an especially big problem if, when we get our strong hands, we choose to commit some of our chips to the pot - in this case more than 20% of our stack - and later fold anyway. That's much worse than just folding the hand at the first opportunity. We may still have the best hand and we're folding our equity in the pot, having contributed many of our valuable chips to it. If we're doing this, we're the player that is making the big mistakes. We're the one that's knocking themselves out. We're just doing it over the course of three or four hands, rather than one. Chip preservation can only be achieved by winning pots, otherwise the blinds eat us up. So to preserve our chips, we have to be willing to put them on the line sometimes. Posted by BorinLoner
Interesting words ... but with the blinds 50/100, and with the way everyone was playing, I knew the tournament would be over in 1 or 2 orbits. I felt like even if I called and then folded post-flop (which I didn't do), then I would still have the chips to make the top three.
Peter, if you get the chance, I'd suggest trying a few of the regular, play-to-a-winner sit and go's this week, while it's double points. It's the opinion of many that they're a far better way to learn the skills you'll need. It's also a lot more fun having the opportunity to be the outright winner. Posted by BorinLoner
I could do that! I won't play too many because for my diary it's better to play DYM's at this stage - but I'll play a couple over the next few days :-)
Why does everyone think that a certain type of play is the 'correct' play. Just because all the pro's use similar style and all them amazing training videos teach it, how about making your own play instead of being sheep? Otherwise you'll be creating a lot of rake for sky moving all that money backwards n forwards.
Why does everyone think that a certain type of play is the 'correct' play. Just because all the pro's use similar style and all them amazing training videos teach it, how about making your own play instead of being sheep? Otherwise you'll be creating a lot of rake for sky moving all that money backwards n forwards. Posted by RUNGOODPLZ
It's not really a question of a certain type of play being "correct", it's a matter of which of the lines we can take will be most +EV. Sometimes particular lines can be demonstrated to be more +EV than others and sometimes lines can be demonstrated as -EV and, therefore, incorrect.
The "correct" line is just the one that figures to be the most profitable. The most +EV line will differ when we have reads from when we're in a vacuum.
In this hand I think we can definitely say that the long term EV is better with a pre-flop shove than any other line. Unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary, we can say that the pre-flop shove is likely to be correct in these circumstances.
"Interesting words ... but with the blinds 50/100, and with the way everyone was playing, I knew the tournament would be over in 1 or 2 orbits. I felt like even if I called and then folded post-flop (which I didn't do), then I would still have the chips to make the top three." - peter27
If we're that sure that our opponents are going to knock themselves out, then we should probably be folding pre-flop with the AK. The pre-flop min-raise, intending to play fit-or-fold on the flop is just too expensive when it costs us 20% of our stack. It's also possible that we hit the flop and lose our stack to a hand that would have folded to our pre-flop shove.
You also have to bear in mind that the other players at the table will see that you have become shorter stacked and may very well alter the way they're playing.
Generally speaking, it's definitely going to be best in this type of situation to shove pre-flop. If we're really certain that the other players are effectively going to bust each other, then we can afford to fold every hand except AA and sit on our stack for as long as possible. That's a very big risk to take, though, because a lot of the time our read may prove to be wrong.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here? : It's not really a question of a certain type of play being "correct", it's a matter of which of the lines we can take will be most +EV. Sometimes particular lines can be demonstrated to be more +EV than others and sometimes lines can be demonstrated as -EV and, therefore, incorrect. The "correct" line is just the one that figures to be the most profitable. The most +EV line will differ when we have reads from when we're in a vacuum. In this hand I think we can definitely say that the long term EV is better with a pre-flop shove than any other line. Unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary, we can say that the pre-flop shove is likely to be correct in these circumstances. Posted by BorinLoner
Yeah I mean in general though, I'd defo be getting this all in but that's me. But I see too many people that must sit on twoplustwo 24/7 looking for the next terms/trends. These theories like GTO, ICM, triple range merge backflip frontflip, people just level themselves too much, how about just playing poker
+1 BorinLoner on the 6max If you are playing for enjoyment and to learn then definitely play 6max I am testing a theory that dyms are better for multi-table grinding - but 6max is much more fun and you need broader skills. Posted by Phantom66
Well, I find all poker enjoyable, so that's not a consideration. I have a diary going on the poker chat section of the forum and I'm trying to build up a bankroll, that's why my preferance is towards DYM's right now. Actually, my favourite type of poker is timed MTT's. I will play a few 6-max games over the next few days though :-)
Why does everyone think that a certain type of play is the 'correct' play. Just because all the pro's use similar style and all them amazing training videos teach it, how about making your own play instead of being sheep? Otherwise you'll be creating a lot of rake for sky moving all that money backwards n forwards. Posted by RUNGOODPLZ
They don't? That's why there is a debate going on ..
"Interesting words ... but with the blinds 50/100, and with the way everyone was playing, I knew the tournament would be over in 1 or 2 orbits. I felt like even if I called and then folded post-flop (which I didn't do), then I would still have the chips to make the top three." - peter27 If we're that sure that our opponents are going to knock themselves out, then we should probably be folding pre-flop with the AK. The pre-flop min-raise, intending to play fit-or-fold on the flop is just too expensive when it costs us 20% of our stack. It's also possible that we hit the flop and lose our stack to a hand that would have folded to our pre-flop shove. You also have to bear in mind that the other players at the table will see that you have become shorter stacked and may very well alter the way they're playing. Generally speaking, it's definitely going to be best in this type of situation to shove pre-flop. If we're really certain that the other players are effectively going to bust each other, then we can afford to fold every hand except AA and sit on our stack for as long as possible. That's a very big risk to take, though, because a lot of the time our read may prove to be wrong. Posted by BorinLoner
This is a very good point and something I hadn't actually considered. I can see where you are coming from a bit more clearly now. I guess one of my issues is that I have a problem with AK. Everytime I have this hand, and go all-in pre-flop, I lose to a pocket pair - that's every time, without fail. It's very annoying. Maybe subconciously that was another factor which meant I didn't shove.
Actually, I do believe a strength I have over other players is the ability to know when I should be playing loose and when I should be playing so tight because other players will be knocking each other out.
Well, if we're talking about doing it over a limper, we're never talking about doing it over good players. Good players don't limp. If we're talking about raising into an unopened pot for 40-50% of our stack, to rep big hands... then I don't know what on Earth we're thinking, to be honest. Posted by BorinLoner
As to the raising 50% of our stack... I actually remember seeing something about this a while ago and still see some merit in the play. (didn't necessarily have to be 50% of our stack, could have been a lot more) - the point is we are trying to create more fold equity against good players. eg. a good player might well call a shove with A7 but when we raise this amount it might make them fold a lot of hands that they would otherwise call us with. Obviously if this player has seen us use this play a lot then it becomes pointless but in a vacuum vs an unknown it's a decent way of creating added fold equity.
Gripsed (a youtube user with a lot of videos on his channel) who's a very good poker player used a similar "strategy" on the final table of a tournament that he recently took down. When I say similar though, he raised like 90% of his stack and left 10% on the table. It probably didn't make much of a difference, but for the small % of chance that it did it was worth it.
The good thing is that even if this strategy doesn't work IT CANNOT BE EXPLOITED (except in some situations which I'll talk about in a bit) - we have over 1/2 our stack in the middle and can profitably shove any flop if for some reason we get to a flop. If we're in position we can encounter a problem though when we get a flat call and then our opponent decides to donk shove flop. eg. We have 44 and the flop is AKQ and our opponent puts us all in. A tricky spot which we could have avoided by just shoving pre. So this play works best in the SB/BB where we are guaranteed to be acting first post flop.
As DoubleAAA said though it can also be good against weak players. The hand he posted with the AA is a prime example. Those that are saying "But we ended up in a situation where opponent had the right odds to put it in" are being results orientated. Most of the time we are going to be at least a 70% favourite to double up when we get it in on the flop. And this is what we want - yes, picking up blinds in a tourney is good but mainly in situations where we're only going to be a 55% fave at best. When we are a massive favourite we WANT to gamble.
Well, if we're talking about doing it over a limper, we're never talking about doing it over good players. Good players don't limp. If we're talking about raising into an unopened pot for 40-50% of our stack, to rep big hands... then I don't know what on Earth we're thinking, to be honest. Posted by BorinLoner
As to the raising 50% of our stack... I actually remember seeing something about this a while ago and still see some merit in the play. (didn't necessarily have to be 50% of our stack, could have been a lot more) - the point is we are trying to create more fold equity against good players. eg. a good player might well call a shove with A7 but when we raise this amount it might make them fold a lot of hands that they would otherwise call us with. Obviously if this player has seen us use this play a lot then it becomes pointless but in a vacuum vs an unknown it's a decent way of creating added fold equity.
Gripsed (a youtube user with a lot of videos on his channel) who's a very good poker player used a similar "strategy" on the final table of a tournament that he recently took down. When I say similar though, he raised like 90% of his stack and left 10% on the table. It probably didn't make much of a difference, but for the small % of chance that it did it was worth it.
The good thing is that even if this strategy doesn't work IT CANNOT BE EXPLOITED (except in some situations which I'll talk about in a bit) - we have over 1/2 our stack in the middle and can profitably shove any flop if for some reason we get to a flop. If we're in position we can encounter a problem though when we get a flat call and then our opponent decides to donk shove flop. eg. We have 44 and the flop is AKQ and our opponent puts us all in. A tricky spot which we could have avoided by just shoving pre. So this play works best in the SB/BB where we are guaranteed to be acting first post flop.
As DoubleAAA said though it can also be good against weak players. The hand he posted with the AA is a prime example. Those that are saying "But we ended up in a situation where opponent had the right odds to put it in" are being results orientated. Most of the time we are going to be at least a 70% favourite to double up when we get it in on the flop. And this is what we want - yes, picking up blinds in a tourney is good but mainly in situations where we're only going to be a 55% fave at best. When we are a massive favourite we WANT to gamble.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here? :Gripsed (a youtube user with a lot of videos on his channel) who's a very good poker player used a similar "strategy" on the final table of a tournament that he recently took down. When I say similar though, he raised like 90% of his stack and left 10% on the table. It probably didn't make much of a difference, but for the small % of chance that it did it was worth it. Posted by F_Ivanovic
I can't see how it made the slightest bit of difference at all tbh. Anyone who owns something even reminiscent of a brain would realise if someone has 14xBB and they raise to say 12xBB that it is essentially a shove. I wouldn't assume anyone is doing that with AA but not 88 or w/e and so fold 99 for example. If someone raises to 90% of their stack pre, then my range to stick them all in would be identical to the range I'd call a shove with.
That's easy for me and you to see but it might make a difference to some players. Like I said though it doesn't need to work anyway as it can't be exploited. 50-70% raise might be better in trying to look stronger than you are.
That's easy for me and you to see but it might make a difference to some players. Like I said though it doesn't need to work anyway as it can't be exploited. 50-70% raise might be better in trying to look stronger than you are. Posted by F_Ivanovic
I think it comes back to us needing to believe that the villain sees us as a moron that plays in such a transparent way for this 90% or even 50% stack raise to be perceived as strength. As Lambert says, we're just never going to be give credit for it if we've shown we can tell the difference between our backside and our elbow.
Whether it's a good idea to do this half-stack raise against a weak player with a monster hand depends entirely on our read as to whether they'll call more often than they would for our full stack. If that's the case, it's fairly obvious what we should do. Of course we want to bet the greatest amount the villain will call.
As I said though initially I was talking that it works best in a vacuum where villain knows little about us. Everyone ITT has said that raising 50% just screams of strength so it doesn't make sense for you to not alter your shove/call range... if I saw an unknown doing this I too would think it looked strong and so would maybe tighten up my range for calling/shoving. If I saw a player I knew doing this then I would probably keep my range for GII the same. Then again if I hadn't seen them make that play before I would err on the side of caution.
As far as needing reads on villain - yes, reads help but if they're playing a lot of hands chances are they'll call a 4/5bb raise after limping. But they may fold to a shove. Yes they might call a raise with the same frequency as a shove but I'd rather have that read first before deciding that just shoving is better than raising.
Peter, if you get the chance, I'd suggest trying a few of the regular, play-to-a-winner sit and go's this week, while it's double points. It's the opinion of many that they're a far better way to learn the skills you'll need. It's also a lot more fun having the opportunity to be the outright winner. Posted by BorinLoner
I owe you a MASSIVE thank you! Played in 4 x £1 Six-Max (Speed) events today, as part of my diary, with the results: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd - cashed in all four, really helped my bank roll along!!
Comments
If we shove pre-flop, we don't mind being called because we have a strong hand and will probably be favourites. If we say we will be called 30% of the time and will be a favourite, we add the expected profit from that to the 70% of the time we get the shove through and win the pot without a showdown. That is the expected return from the shove and we can say that it will certainly be very profitable.
There's a very important element to DYM's, MTT's and STT's that actually tells us that the first chip is more valuable than the second, which is more valuable than the third, etc. That is called Independent Chip Modelling and basically means that taking down the 250 chips at no risk to our stack can be better for us than getting our full stack in the middle as a favourite, and that's particularly true in a DYM or near the bubble of a satellite. So we're actually happier to add that 25% to our stack than we are to get it all-in as a 70% favourite, because those first chips are more valuable than the rest.
If we call or min-raise, knowing that we're going to see a flop, it's not so easy to work out how profitable it will be. We know that our AK will miss the flop 2/3 of the time, and that means that if we can't then win the pot by c-betting, we're in trouble. Even if we can win the pot by c-betting a lot of the time, we still have to ask if that's more profitable for us than shoving pre-flop would have been...
When we make our decisions, it can't be about "caution" or "fear". We just make the decisions that are most +EV. If we make the most profitable decision in the long-run, whatever the result of this particular hand, we've made the correct decision. If we're making decisions out of cautiousness or fear, we might save ourselves in any given hand, but in the long run we're losing money.
So the best thing in this hand, I think, would be to shove pre-flop. We know that we're going to take down those 250 chips a large proportion of the time. Most of the time we're forcing our opponents to fold a worse hand than ours, though. In cash poker, that would be bad but, because it's a DYM we prefer them to fold their hands with 50%, 40% or 30% equity, since those chips in the middle are more valuable than chips in the opponent's stack.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here?: That was a very interesting post, particularly interested in your paragraph on ICM which I have heard about, but had no idea what it is!
Hmmm, I did raise the hand (rather than shoving pre-flop) knowing that if I missed the flop, I would just fold and continue with what would still be a decent chip stack. I knew that if an A or K came down on the flop, I would probably be ahead - even if he had a pocket pair. However if I shoved pre, and got a call, I would be in a coinflip situation if he had the pocket pair.
I do see what you're saying, and if this was an MTT then I totally agree to shove pre, but as the top three players recieve the same prize here - and I had a healthy chip stack (relative to other players anyway), surely it is better to focus on chip preservation rather than gaining chips? I guess that was my mentality as I knew in a few hands time we would be down to three players purely because others had knocked themselves out.
We're always dependent on our opponents making mistakes if we're going to make a profit in poker. However, if we're not committing to hands as strong as AK, we need our opponents to be so bad that they take themselves out of the game, while we just sit there.
Some of the time that will happen. The vast majority of the time, it won't. We can, and frequently should, play a tight range of hands if we know our opponents are going to make lots of mistakes. That range can't be so tight that we're not willing to commit with AK and just 10BB.
This is an especially big problem if, when we get our strong hands, we choose to commit some of our chips to the pot - in this case more than 20% of our stack - and later fold anyway. That's much worse than just folding the hand at the first opportunity. We may still have the best hand and we're folding our equity in the pot, having contributed many of our valuable chips to it.
If we're doing this, we're the player that is making the big mistakes. We're the one that's knocking themselves out. We're just doing it over the course of three or four hands, rather than one.
Chip preservation can only be achieved by winning pots, otherwise the blinds eat us up. So to preserve our chips, we have to be willing to put them on the line sometimes.
It's also a lot more fun having the opportunity to be the outright winner.
Having said that, I totally understand why you are saying shove and in any other tournament other than DYM, I would totally agree! I really respect your opinion Lambert, after all you are a professional now! Do not want you to be offended that I don't agree with what you're saying, but my DYM experience tells me differently. Maybe I will come round to your way of thinking eventually with more and more experience though.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here?: Interesting words ... but with the blinds 50/100, and with the way everyone was playing, I knew the tournament would be over in 1 or 2 orbits. I felt like even if I called and then folded post-flop (which I didn't do), then I would still have the chips to make the top three.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here?: I could do that! I won't play too many because for my diary it's better to play DYM's at this stage - but I'll play a couple over the next few days :-)
+1 BorinLoner on the 6max
If you are playing for enjoyment and to learn then definitely play 6max
I am testing a theory that dyms are better for multi-table grinding - but 6max is much more fun and you need broader skills.
The "correct" line is just the one that figures to be the most profitable. The most +EV line will differ when we have reads from when we're in a vacuum.
In this hand I think we can definitely say that the long term EV is better with a pre-flop shove than any other line. Unless there is a compelling argument to the contrary, we can say that the pre-flop shove is likely to be correct in these circumstances.
If we're that sure that our opponents are going to knock themselves out, then we should probably be folding pre-flop with the AK. The pre-flop min-raise, intending to play fit-or-fold on the flop is just too expensive when it costs us 20% of our stack. It's also possible that we hit the flop and lose our stack to a hand that would have folded to our pre-flop shove.
You also have to bear in mind that the other players at the table will see that you have become shorter stacked and may very well alter the way they're playing.
Generally speaking, it's definitely going to be best in this type of situation to shove pre-flop. If we're really certain that the other players are effectively going to bust each other, then we can afford to fold every hand except AA and sit on our stack for as long as possible. That's a very big risk to take, though, because a lot of the time our read may prove to be wrong.
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here?: They don't? That's why there is a debate going on ..
In Response to Re: Did I make mistakes here?: This is a very good point and something I hadn't actually considered. I can see where you are coming from a bit more clearly now. I guess one of my issues is that I have a problem with AK. Everytime I have this hand, and go all-in pre-flop, I lose to a pocket pair - that's every time, without fail. It's very annoying. Maybe subconciously that was another factor which meant I didn't shove.
Actually, I do believe a strength I have over other players is the ability to know when I should be playing loose and when I should be playing so tight because other players will be knocking each other out.
Whether it's a good idea to do this half-stack raise against a weak player with a monster hand depends entirely on our read as to whether they'll call more often than they would for our full stack. If that's the case, it's fairly obvious what we should do. Of course we want to bet the greatest amount the villain will call.
Good suggestion