Should I fold AA pre-flop here?

I'm sorry I don't have pokerstove cos I'm a mac user. what could he have that means we fold aces because we have an edge I'm only asking not criticising or being clever Im not. but the one time I don't give a fuck about somebodies range is when i am calling a pre flop shove with aces it doesn't get better than that. kings i could find a fold even if i shouldn't but aces. I get the idea of not risking your stack at all when the bubble is about to burst, folding for this reason might be wrong mathematically but I understand it, but I don't understand this talk of range. sorry if i'm missing something obvious.

Originally Posted by kickass

I'm sorry I don't have pokerstove cos I'm a mac user. what could he have that means we fold aces because we have an edge I'm only asking not criticising or being clever Im not. but the one time I don't give a fuck about somebodies range is when i am calling a pre flop shove with aces it doesn't get better than that. kings i could find a fold even if i shouldn't but aces. I get the idea of not risking your stack at all when the bubble is about to burst, folding for this reason might be wrong mathematically but I understand it, but I don't understand this talk of range. sorry if i'm missing something obvious.

The part that you're missing: The fact that real money is worth more than Tchips. That's what ICM sets out to demonstrate. It tries to show you how much money your chips are worth at any given time, but as you get closer, and closer to the bubble, risking all of your chips, without the superhardcore nuts becomes dumber and dumber.

In this case, the shortie is getting ready to blind out, and will probably be swarmed out (all players will call/checkdown) and you're not in any danger of blinding out anytime soon. Your chips right now are worth 0 dollars, and in 1 hand could ostensibly have a real world worth of between 2 and 5 dollars. Clearly fold.

--The Payout structure is also appears cleverly laid out so as to make playing for 3rd or second as valuable or more valuable than playing for first. Which actually happens often in tournament environments.

Originally Posted by Ragnar4

--The Payout structure is also appears cleverly laid out so as to make playing for 3rd or second as valuable or more valuable than playing for first. Which actually happens often in tournament environments.

I think I read somewhere at FTR that , its better to finish 2nd twice , than 1st once . Is this what you are pointing out here ?

Originally Posted by celtic123

I think I read somewhere at FTR that , its better to finish 2nd twice , than 1st once . Is this what you are pointing out here ?

I've only seen the math in a few places, and I've never paid attention because tournaments are my thing, and you get warned not to mix the two games.

The last place I saw it explained was Mike Caro's latest book. I don't remember if he goes into the math, I do remember the natural language explanation was that in the tournament first place is penalized by having to split his winnings with the rest of the field. So It's more advantageous to play for the closest major shift in $ plateaus than to play for first place because the ICM begins to slough off over time.

Originally Posted by Ragnar4

--The Payout structure is also appears cleverly laid out so as to make playing for 3rd or second as valuable or more valuable than playing for first. Which actually happens often in tournament environments.

I used the standard 9-man SNG payout structure.

The only reason I'd fold here is because of the Button about to blind out in two hands. However I think most of us have seen some really low stack double up a few times in a row and survive the low stack on the bubble play.

It's true that the big stack is probably shoving pretty wide ranges here, but it also depends on if you have been paying attention and practicing ranges when the CO has been to showdown. If he's proven to be making right plays all game, then I could fold (again, only because of the short stack possibly blinding out). But if the CO's been loose and catching bottom pairs all game I'd snap call.


I'll probably call here anyway, and then curse when I realize I allowed the Button to profit, (or cheer when I take the commanding lead).

I think it's a fold (just from a purely ICM perspective).

as we're sitting we have 35.8% equity in tourney

If we call
& win we have 49%
call & lose 0%

Without doing the calculation (I know.. this is grounds for 'delete post')... just from looking at what we gain by calling & winning, in comparison to what we lose when we call & lose (35.8% vs. 49%) it seems like a fold. But this also isn't taking into consideration how 'if we call & win' how it'll affect future play in the game (dynamics of the game). Blinds are also still fairly low.

I guess I should actually do the numbers... 'but'.. I think it is a FOLD!!

Seems that many are focusing their attention on how wide villain is shoving here in this spot. Does it really matter? (I mean whether we're 81/19 or if villain has 32o & we're 87/13... I don't think this is what affects our answer much at all in this spot).

Originally Posted by Poker Orifice

I think it's a fold (just from a purely ICM perspective).

as we're sitting we have 35.8% equity in tourney

If we call
& win we have 49% < --- no 44.64%
call & lose 0%

44.64 * .85 = 37.95 = assumes 85% equity vs range.

37.985 > 35.8

This is a super +ev call guys. The fact that doubling up gives us a dominating lead makes it so. Yes ICM exists and thats why you need about 80% equity to call here.


Uhm, crap I'm pretty sure we don't get 49% of the prize pool if we win this . . edited.

Correct #s is 44.64 % of prize pool for doubling..