Originally Posted by Pascal LeFiscal
what sort of "non-numerical way"? poker is maths...
dj, I read your post and I don't know what you are saying, honestly. you talk about stuff like info you have on players, table dynamics, and then say you have looked at all this to decide that you should call 2/3 of the time. maybe you could explain what you considered to come to this?
If poker is math, and you play all odds, you are beatable, you will be playing like a bot. Yes, math plays heavy in poker, but it is not the be all and end all of our decision making prowess. At least it should not be.
I already listed the main ingredients in my logic making;
-huge stacks are not in this hand,
-button/shorty is in bad shape, and knows he needs to do something, and the opportunity to button shove just presented itself.
-fixed liability with decent cards
-Your M of under 3
-add in that next hand we are the SB, and there are serious stack considerations ahead.
Take this example a bit further, and add reads on the players. The whole process might change. Maybe it doesn't change. Or reverse positions, same stacks per player, but for sure you shove on the button (with QTo) into the smaller BB. But in the stated scenario, we are calling, and while I have stated that most of the time, I'm calling this because I have reasonable odds, and am closing the betting, I may not always do it. Then there is the whole tourney situation. It might be that I am not far from average stack and that will affect my decision. I may decide 'damn, I woulda shoved here, but he got there first!' That happens fairly often.
Poker, as has been said over and over, is not so much about the cards, as it is about the players, and position. In this case tho, it is more about the cards. Buttons shove eliminates position, but it offers a fixed bet as compensation.
I don't really know what you want. The situation is a dynamic one, not a static, cut and dried call with few outside implications.