I would fold here just because he is a loser and you have a good edgeover him. But it has its downside too.Pretty close spot, there are some semibluffs which can do this JhTh, QhXh  and you can beat (not huge equity) but mostly I don;t think calling here will make you more money than folding and taking it down later on vs losing player.Just my view.Cheers/

STP: I think that your edge over a losing player is never as big as you think it is.  In the short term, luck is king.  I think it's important to try to focus as much as possible on making the best play possible (in the long run) given the information you have.  The only time I would agree with folding here, is if this was the ONLY match you were ever going to play.  That way you could 'wait for a better spot' and 'get it in good'. Given that most people have the goal of putting in a lot of volume, and having a good hourly rate, I think shoving here is best.  I think the general weak player could check raise with QX, Straight/Flush draws, Random air bluffs trying to make shoving profitable.  Obviously you will run into 2 pairs and sets as well, but I think you will see this less often than the rest of his range.    Its a high variance play, but given that I think your equity is good against his whole range, it will improve your volume and most importantly your hourly rate. Just my 2 cents.

Thx for the view mate, as I said it's  a pretty close spot which occurs rarely.But looking at your're comment you say thatluck is king on short term, agree,but what's the relevance in that? I'm thinking in the long run too as it's normal. Regarding the edge, I don't agree with you, I believe you are almost exclusively making money over losing players and a really close spot(so early inthe match) like this won't bring you a better EV than folding as you can outplay your opponent and put the money in with more than ~45-60% equity which I think this spot will bring you. Or you're a rb pro then a call would be better than a fold.regards and nice blog :)

STP:Thanks for the nice words!What I mean is that I don't agree with the 'find a better spot' mentality anymore.  The 'find a better spot' mentality comes from assuming that you have a much bigger edge than what is true.  It was actually HokieGreg who told me he thought that most people are dillusional about how big their edge is in a HUSNG.  I imagine that a lot of this comes from the fact that luck plays a huge part in the short term, although I can't speak on his behalf.  I hope that makes better sense? In a format where you start with 75bb and the blinds increase quickly, its important to take an edge no matter how small it is.   I think that if you are playing a deepstacked format, or no blind increase, or you knew you were to play a large amount of games vs this opponent, then you can make an argument for finding better spots. Point being, for all we know, there might not BE any better spots than this one.  If we believe this to be a marginal +EV play.  Then we should make it.  Having said that (lol) I ran a range in pokerstove, which came out with hero having 45% equity in the hand.  Lol, so after all I said it looks like folding would be best.  To be clear though, I would fold because it would be a -EV play.  Not because I think it might be a marginal +EV play, but would rather find a better spot. Gusth: Treating a readless losing player as a general losing player at your stake level is a pretty good idea.  I had no idea what they were like at the stakes you play :)  FWIW, I see a lot of people do really spazzy things early in a game at the stakes/site I play.  That was part of the reason I would be inclined to shove.   

I would very much disagree that "finding a better spot" is not the best approach vs a fish. Or let me rephrase it better: "exploit his tendencies."Let me say few things about hand first. We know villain is losing player. Thats fine. But lets look at his line. Check calling flop for 2/3 potsized bet. And then checkraising scary turn for almost 3.5x. This is a horribly strong line, and his raise size is way too big in comparison with what most people will raise to. That leaves you with two options:1. villain is super clueless about poker and is pressing buttons with a marginal hand2. villain has a super strong hand and is overplaying it like most fish willNow, in the era where poker is so widely popular and you can find some information about it in every corner of internet, everyone can find some guides about how to play this or that, and try to apply it, with more or less sucess. Therefore, most of the time i will go with option 2 and say that villain in this spot has two pair, KK, AA or sets 95% of the time.Back to my previous claim. Finding better spots vs fish is gold. Once you play with a fish a little and get to know him, you will more often then not find terrible leaks in his game, that will to some extend be exploited by you if you adjust accordingly. So not folding to a line that I think every played today knows most of the time represents nuts would be a real shame.

With regard to the hand, most people percieve the check call, check raise line to be very strong (especially against a losing player), so I can understand why you would insta fold.  The variable in the equation in my opinion is that its so early in the match.  It is not uncommon to see players (especially losing players) get very out of line in the early stages of a match, hoping they have fold equity.  So if there is a small chance he is spazzing, then I don't think a shove is *THAT* much worse (if at all) than folding. Gusth said that the generic losing player at his stakes is a loose passive player.  If that is true, then I think folding is fine. Once I ran a range in pokerstove (not any spazz hands included), it didn't look good for us.  So after crunching numbers, I accept that shoving is not going to be +EV.  Had our equity have been 51% or better in the hand I would have shoved.  With regard to theory, we will just have to disagree then :)  I don't think its fair to say that 'exploiting his tendencies' is another way of putting 'finding a better spot'.  HUSNG structure (especially turbo), moves very fast.  The next hand you play after this AQ hand might be the last hand you play.  Or perhaps you get a cold deck for the rest of the match.  Finding better spots in other forms of poker (much longer structures) I think is fine, but not so much in HUSNG.  Not enough better spots (if any) will arise in a 10 minute match vs any player.    I don't think giving away 25% of effective stacks in a hand where you are marginal favourite is a winning play in the long run.  I accept that AQ in this situation isn't a marginal favourite, but I'm talking about the theory.  You are basically saying that you can win those 340 chips back in better spots.  I don't think you will find enough better spots in the long run.  Let me ask you a completely hypothetical question.  You are playing a losing player, and he 3 bet shoves over your 2.5x open.  This is 1st hand of the game.   In this silly hypothetical question we KNOW he has 88 and you have AK.  Do you call? 

Sure, time is of issue when playing SNG, but still there is enough time to find some of villains obvious leaks. Who knows why he is a losing player? Maybe he plays 40% of hands IP and folds 90% to steal. Maybe he calls 100% oop and folds 90% to cbet. Maybe he commits flopped bottom pair to 3 barrels. If he has any of that he is giving me my 340 chips back.Just remember, we are playing bad player here, and if it just happens that we run on a cold deck its fine because most of the time we will win. Sure thing, early in match, some villains count on fold equity, but in this case I think there is air miniscule amount of time. And trust me...I am stationy enough to know that weak player + big bet sizing = nuts. In appropriate situations ofc (not in spots where bluffs are transparent or range is polarized to nuts or air).And about that last question: if I KNOW its 88 why would I call 50/50 if I am sure I can win later on with lets say 75% certainty? Though due to my nature I would probably just snap call, hope to win and expect a rematch. :D

We will just have to disagree I think.  I don't agree with any of your last post, but thats fine.  Thats why discussion boards are beneficial.  One person challenges anothers point of view, and someone has to come up with solid evidence to support their theory.   The last part you wrote illustrates my point exactly.  You think you can beat a losing player with 75% certainty.  If thats the case why does no-one have a 75% long term win rate?  I think you are over estimating how big your edge is over a losing player.  In the hypothetical example, you are making the best EV play in the long run.  Calling is better than folding chip EV wise.  So you make that play over and over again and not only are you making money in the long run, but your games will go faster.  More games equals better $ per hour in the long run plus more VIP points (if you're into that kind of thing).  I don't want to misquote Hokie Greg, but I'm pretty sure this is how he explained it to me when I also shared the same point of view as you.  I could be wrong, but to me it makes sense.  

Makes perfect sense and I totally agree with you  but in the spot above it's still a fold.You're getting the right arguments but the 88 ak example is waaaay different than the hand posted above. If the villain was a reg I would call there as his range gets widerbut vs an average player it's a pretty clear fold even if it's close(which usually is).

Yeah, for the record I also think its a fold. 

Okay, well, 75% is a random number I threw up. Even if some number high as that was possible, I doubt that there will ever be a player with that result, because noone will be ever result oriented to that extend and noone will bother to hunt only approved longterm losing fish, because that would obviously be time consuming and not very efficient. But lets say in a long run I can beat any losing player with 51% certainty and that therefore I am definite winner and he is a definite loser. Even if you take only that into account, that is still better then equity I have with AK vs 88. :PBut what you say is very much true, its a EV decision and brings better hourly.P.S. If Zynga Poker ever goes to real money market you will see that there will be 90% ITM HUSNG players. :))))))))