Live spot v Rodders from Coventry

[Jon MW]

....
I completely disagree with the concept that maths is the be all and end all in multi-table tourneys.
....

This is a ridiculous statement.

....
We don"t differ much in our calculation % for hitting the set (1 in 8, 1 in 9 approx) but my argument is that this is set in stone for winning Cash Game strategy but in MTTs there is more to consider,  the chance to bust a dangerous opponent or create a "don"t F--k with me image for instance.
....

That"s still maths

[George2Loose]

The fact is that when you re shove 30 bigs your opponent cannot call very often so you"re either losing value or essentially bluffing with a hand (77) that is most likely dead when you"re called so you may as well have 82o

[AAroddersAA]

Quick question.

Why 4 bet him for half his stack? If he 5 bet shoves you cant like your AK that much but you have priced yourself in? Is a shove from you not a better option? Put the choice onto Brian?

Probably a stupid question, and this comes from someone who donated half my stack to Andy Cairns in a similar situation.

It is more habit than anything else I guess, it is what I do with my 4-betting range in this spot. I knew I was calling if he shoved and I knew I had little chance of being in good shape if that happened but it is no different than if I shoved and he called and it does balance and widen my range for when I do this with AA (which I would). So it makes future spots like this more difficult for my opponents.

I am guess it makes very little difference, I don"t think there are any 5-bet bluffs in Brian"s range here and his range for shoving here is likely to be pretty much the same as his range for calling if my 4-bet had been a shove.

I think overall this makes my 4-bet size slightly better than if I had just shoved but again it is a good discussion point and one I am pretty open to changing my mind about if somebody can give a good argument as to why 4-bet shoving is better here.

[deanp27]

If we call we don"t necessarily have to flop a set to win.

Would you expect that we would check fold a lot of flops?  yes quite a few but don"t think its purely "no set no bet" plus we can flop other equity such as gutshots & overpair etc that will give opportunity to play our hand strongly
Care to estimate how often % we may have to check fold? Not at the moment, at work but i"m sure someone can run it through Flopzilla or something. However it is less than 100% which is why I made my comment regarding those "purely setmining"
Sometimes, rarely? We will check call the flop and find ourselves in a really tough spot. Agreed. Don"t Really know Rodders that much and what his hand reading/propensity to barrel is like
Do we really give up much opportunity by just folding pre-flop? Not really but still prefer peeling and proceeding with caution over folding with our stack
I am certain that we can find better resteal bluff spots. Oh without a doubt, loads of better spots. I never advocated restealing as I said 3 betting was an utter disaster. FWIW shoving would be bad also

Just quick thoughts above. I merely made the post in reference to those that were saying that peeling is purely to hit a set.

[SirPercival]

Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?

[Jon MW]

Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?

yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.

[Joker161]

I agree with Zozzy.

Cash - you do the Maths, it doesn"t work out, you re-load. If your Maths is right, you win over the long-term. End of.

Tournament - especially early to mid tournie, survival is the key. I sometimes fold when the Maths is close, or marginally in favour of a call. Especially when the buy-in is big. Perhaps if you"re playing 20 $10 MTTs a day the Maths is dominant, but I only play one WSOP a year, so I need to be more careful!

[SirPercival]

Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?

yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.

If the probablity is changing because of a read then it"s not JUST maths. The information is being taken into account as part of the calculations I accept, but the information itself is not maths.

[Jon MW]

Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?

yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.

If the probablity is changing because of a read then it"s not JUST maths. The information is being taken into account as part of the calculations I accept, but the information itself is not maths.

You don"t need to enumerate a bunch of numbers for it to be maths, if it"s a factor that affects the probability then it"s part of the "sum" whether you"re using numbers or not.

[AAroddersAA]

Is having a really good read on your opponent still just Maths?

yes, you make your actions based on probability. If you have a read on them then that increases the probability that they"ll react in a certain way to what you"re doing.

If the probablity is changing because of a read then it"s not JUST maths. The information is being taken into account as part of the calculations I accept, but the information itself is not maths.

You don"t need to enumerate a bunch of numbers for it to be maths, if it"s a factor that affects the probability then it"s part of the "sum" whether you"re using numbers or not.

We are kind of arguing over semantics here guy"s. Yes, it is strictly speaking maths, it is not what most people think of as being part of the maths though, even though it is. Calling it just Maths is technically correct but not the best description for most poker players.

Pretty sure we all mean the same thing here and know what we mean :-)

Essentially a good read makes what would normally be a marginal mathematical call easier. Call it what you want, both sides are saying the same thing.

[Erimus]

Cheers for all the replies Guys, after I 3 bet I wished I had only flatted after Rodders had 4 bet but we have to play with the decision took at the time, looking back, a flat pre was the obvious choice, been getting a bit aggro in my online stuff lately and this perhaps spewed over into this game, sometimes this move works, this time it didn"t, it wasn"t terminal but it wasn"t the greatest move in the world, hey oh move on every days a learning day.