![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
I am playing no limit tourney yestereday. We start with 5000 chips. Blinds are 25-50. I get JJ in middle position. There is one limper. I raise to 250. Player to my left calls as does the limper. Flop is 9s 8d 2h. Checked to me. I bet 600. Both players call. Turn is a 10c.
It is checked to me. What is my play? I have open ended straight plus an over pair.
Do I check or bet? If I bet how much?
Results and my play tomorrow.
WW
what were results WANNA WIN ???
Here is my take on the situation. It is still fairly early in the tourney, but the pot has developed into a nice chunk. Everybody with a hand worth chasing might go after it.
There are quite a few hands your opponents could have called your preflop raise with, including something like QJs for the limper?! But since he checked on the turn, he is either slowplaying or still waiting for improvements. You could also be up against two pair by now, if someone had 89s, or T9s. These hands would also have called your Bet on the flop. But they could also have two overcards to the flop such as AJ or KQ (I believe AK would have reraised before the flop). In that case, you certainly do not want to give a free card and jeopardize the pot.
Against two low pair you still have 13 outs, and I doubt you will get a reraise on the turn from 89, if you were not already reraised on the flop. The hands you should be afraid of are AA, KK, QQ,(rather unlikely) 99, 88,(both would have been slowplayed on the flop), TT and QJs, the latter being your nightmare, since you are drawing to 3 outs to split. Although I think QJs is a possibiliy, I would still bet out on the turn to avoid giving a free card to hands like AQ,AT,KT,KQ,A9,A8,...
Since the pot has gotten quite large, the bet would have to have enough leverage to chase out the better draws or at least make them pay. I would probably bet at least $1600 to discourage hands like AJ (2 overcards and 8way straight) to take you on.
I am fairly knew to the site and discussing poker plays in general, so I would certainly appreciate comments.
Jan.
The thing I did not mention is anything about the two players. The initial limper was not a very good player. I was not worried about him. The caller of my raise is a good player. I was not happy when he called my flop bet.
I decided to go all-in on the turn. I figured I have an open-ender and an overpair. Only the guy on my left calls. He shows QQ. The river doesn't help me and I am out.
This is a perfect example of position. He had it on me. If I have position on him in the same situation I check.
WW
AA is a 60% favorite, but here is the original problem.
You bring in a raise with (T50), then next player an all-in raises (T300) followed by TWO all-in callers for (T300).
I don't know what you read the field as having, but one of those all in callers (first pot either has played yet) has to have AA as well.
If your AA is against the other AA, then you are only a 60% favorite to win half the pot (double your stack). Wich actually is only about a 2:1 (not 3:1) favorite to double up or bust out in the first round 5/10 blinds. So, is it worth it?
OK it may be a little irrational to put someone else on AA in a PokerPages tourney,(if it were a real tourney, then you almost have too)
"One of the callers has to have AA". Are we talking about the same tournaments ? Pokerpages freeroll, right ?
You have completely avoided my point anyway. What other situation could you be in where you can be more certain having of an edge this big ? Maybe you could construct one that might occur very occasionally, but often enough so that you can pass this up ?
I'm not going to get involved in a lengthy discussion over this. Your argument makes no sense and the onus is on you to convince me (and the rest of us), not the other way round. Like the dude said, if you want to pass AA pre-flop, stick to chess.
Andy.
Fair and simple proposition you request.
Off the top of my head, I'm thinking...early rounds, able to limp with hands like J10s, 99, KQs etc...in late postion, hit your flush, straight, or set and become a 10:1 or better favorite to top pair, best kicker, or two pair (keep in mind we are talking pokerpages, and if they heit top pair or two pair, you are getting their stack in this position).
Now, how can you accuse me of avoiding YOUR point???
Fisrt of all you write: ""One of the callers has to have AA". Are we talking about the same tournaments ? Pokerpages freeroll, right "
In my reply before that (and numerous other) I acknowledge the fact that it may be overcautious to put any player on AA, however I was right and if it was a real tourney, with the same situation, you would be foolish not too as well.
I believe the point a lot of people are missing is that this is A TOURNAMENT. In tournaments you don't make money on any given hand. The edge in this hand doesn't earn you squat in $$$$. You can however lose every chance of making any with it.
In a tourney, I don't see AA as the best hand preflop, therefore I have postive EV with it. I see a "spot" wher I am a 2:1 favorite to double up or go broke eearly in the game when the blinds are tiny and the action is jumping.
What do I need to play in this spot if I'm not going to play AA. Nothing. I don't want any part of this spot at this level of the toruney.
What hand do I need to play at all then? Same four limpers, unraised pot, me on the buton calling $10 with 45c and a flop of A23o, or 45Ko or 445 or you get the point. These hands I will push all in, and do you think Mr Ace or Mr King pair is folding?
Money game: AA no question, I beat them into the center.
Tournament: I don't think it's that clear cut, not in the least.
Right, I'm going to bring this to a close. This is my last post on the subject (but feel free to respond).
I take your point that you can be a bigger favourite on the flop. But how often ? Let's take a pair. You get dealt a pair every 13 hands, and flop a set 1 in 8 of those. Bob Ciaffone estimates that a flopped set gets beaten 1/4 of the time which sounds about right (so in fact your edge is no better than heads-up pre-flop with Aces). Plus you need someone else to have enough of a hand to pay you off with (which admittedly isn't much on Pokerpages).
You can also limp with JTs and the like, but how often do you flop a completed hand ? 2-3 % of the time ?
In the meantime the blinds are going up quickly and you haven't got many chips. You do NOT have enough time to wait for your 10:1 overlay.
All poker decisions are about risk and reward. You are overly concentrating on the risk aspect. The reward if/when you win this hand is a very large stack at this stage which means you can ride out more than one bad beat and that you can make a lot more speculative calls before getting anted away.
Finally "The edge in this hand does not earn you squat in $$$$" is simply plain wrong. If Greg can't convince you of this then I'm not even going to try.
Enough ! If we agree to differ that's fine by me. I'm not bashing my head against this wall indefinitely.
Andy.
What if this situation came up in every tournament you play? Would you muck AA every time? To put it another way, you're telling me you advocate dumping a chance to quadruple your stack 3 out of every 4 times because you're afraid of going broke early?
You seem to play alot of tournaments, how well is another matter, but my question is:
If you knew that in 3 tournaments you were going to quadruple your stack early, giving you the big stack to bully the rest of the table with, that you would pass up this opportunity because in the 4th tournament you're going broke?
Pussy...
Pussy?
Retard?
"a chance to quadruple your stack 3 out of every 4 times"
AA wins 75% of the time in a four handed pot all the way to the river? Sorry chief but that is clearly wrong. In the samples some one was kind enough to run, the best AA got in this spot was 62%. That is only 2 wins (and a lot of these times would only be double not triple quadruple because you would split.) to each bust.
Thats it, 2 wins to each bust. What does quadrupling your stack here do? It goes from T300 to T1200. If you ever played the PP tourneys that is no big shit in the first round, this is no limit, so your whole stack is on the line every hand, and you will have to call many crazy hands, especially early.
I've said many times if this was mid/late tourney where the win will get you to the final table or payout, then I beat them into the pot, but early on, I am not giving myself a chance to make it to the final table by risking my whole stack at 2:1 when the players are poor and better spots are easy to come by.
You're the one with the fuzzy math here. In this spot AA is a 3:1 favorite. Also, you are rarely gonna split this pot. Very seldom is AA going to be out against you especially in a PP tournament. Even in the "real" world, AA is an unlikely holding for anyone other than you to have. It does happen but not often enough to be any kind of a factor in this discussion.
Now for the early quardruple up. You think having a commanding chip lead early is a non factor?! You are given the power to bust anyone at the table while they cannot bust you in one hand. It also lets you see alot more of those speculative hands you seem so fond of playing. In fact, the game plan that you described as being in favor of is greatly helped by this kind of early play that gets you the big stack.
You're dead wrong on this topic. If you had seven opponents I could reason with you but with only three hands to beat the call is automatic. It is correct because you are a huge favorite against the hands you are up against. You probably have two of them drawing to two outs and another who needs to hit something to give him a draw.
Before you argue that AA is likely to be out against you, think about this. The all in raise comes from AK or AQ suited, Queens immediately call, and the next guy has Kings and calls. How big of a favorite are you now? On top of that, my scenario is a far bigger favorite to happen than for you to up against AA in any of the other hands. Your logic is flawed.
Pussy....
The following is the situation being discussed. There has been a lot of good arguments on both sides and after reading them I fall squarely in the middle. On PokerPages I call. At the WSOP $10,000 tournament I have no idea (I would probably call since I know most of the other players are better than I am and I need to get lucky sometime)
"You bring in a raise with (T50), then next player an all-in raises (T300) followed by TWO all-in callers for (T300)."
What about the situation where UTG brings it in for a raise to T50 and there are three callers and you are next with AA. Would you go all in? I beleive Gator would not. Would you just call to see how bad the flop looks and what happens with the betting? If the flop is ten high garbage, would you call when UTG goes all in and everyone calls? I beleive Gator would not and I understand why but does this change the situation for any who would have called all in preflop in the previous discussion?
"What about the situation where UTG brings it in for a raise to T50 and there are three callers and you are next with AA. Would you go all in? I beleive Gator would not. "
If you are saying UTG raises 50, then two limpers call the 50 and its up to me, then no. I probably would push all in almost always here. I hope to win it there or get heads up, if not oh well.
Andy,
You said,"AJ may not be a monster 5-handed, but we're not 5-handed here, we're heads up because everyone has passed, right?"
If you consider the combination of a five handed table and playing heads-up in the blinds, AJ is a great hand to have. With the table being five handed it decreases dramatically the quality of hands that have been dealt out. Please don't ask me to do the math, but maybe someone that's reading this can. There are alot of hands that will call a raise from the small blind at a five handed table. Of course, this depends on your opponent.
I would never back down if someone called in the big blind the odds are against this person having a hand. I would always bet the flop in this situation.
I missed the "or" in "AJ suited or not a monster hand" in your original post. In fact we pretty much agree on the play of the hand.
Andy
The Bicylce's having their $40,000 April Fool's Weekend Tournament right now. I played in their $60 limit hold'em event last night, and they've changed their round times from their traditional 20 minutes to 17 minutes. The floorman told me all four events have 17 minute rounds. It seems like a minor point, but their daily $15 tournaments still have 20 minutes rounds, but for $60 you'd think......ah screw it. Their tournament coordinator wants to go home a little earlier, so I guess that's that.
I sarcastically asked them, "Why don't you just change it to 14 or 12 minutes, heck...why not just an even ten and we'll all be home in two hours?"
I just hope their up and coming "mini world series" events have longer rounds.
Four hours into the 120 buy in, optional 120 rebuy no limit tourney at Foxwoods yesterday, I busted out with the following hand under the following conditions.
I have 4,000 in chips, making me about 4th at the table. The blinds are 150/ 300 with a 50 ante. The limits increase every 30 minutes.
In the BB I look down and see AsKs. Everyone folds to the LB who raises to 900. LB is the chip leader at the table who plays solid hands. I put him on a pair, AK or weaker, and possibly KQ suited. He had surrendered his LB several times to me before, so I realized that the chances that he could be stealing were minimal. At this point, I figure that my chances are about 50/50. My chip position is not great, so I decide that it is time to make a stand. I push all in, and he calls immediately.
On the flop, the second card out is a king, and when i turn over my cards, he turns over KK.
This was my first big NL tourney, and I'm pretty happy about my overall performance. Thinking back on this play, I'm not sure that I would have done anything differently. I would appreciate any feedback at all since I tend to lose with AK in NL more than any other 3 hands combined.
Thanks in advance for your help.
captmarlow
I wouldn't have messed with the chip leader at this point with the way you describe his play. If you are dead on correct with your read that the situation is 50/50 for you, then why put all your chips in with no advantage?
The sb is only going to fold if he is on a steal which you claim is very unlikely, so muck and play with the fish.
nt
I think you made a big big mistake here. You had chips to protect and were not in any trouble. Your call of a solid player with AK is foolish at a full table - it's ok to bet with that hand but not to call and raise a good player with it in this situation.
Once you realize AK can't beat a pair of 2's unimproved you will cashing a lot more. Don't be to tough on yourself Ak is the toughest hand to play but you have to be good eneough to dump it in these situation.
Suddenly it all becomes clear. I'm sitting here wading through posts about folding AA pre-flop and folding AK in the big blind when everyone has passed to the small blind and I'm thinking, this is a joke, right ? Then I check the date.
Good one. Please don't tell me this wasn't a joke, or else the only thing I can say is, please come and sit on my left any time.
Andy.
captmarlow,
I would have played it exactly the same way. You had 4000 in chips. Since, each round is costing you 450 in blinds and 500 in antes you do not have many options. If you wait another round you will be down to 3000, and one more time around the table you will have 2000. Then you will really need to get lucky and probably have to win several hands with worse opportunities. Then once you get shortstacked you will be called because you have lost your betting power by trying to play with a tiny stack. If you had won this hand you would have had a stack of chips and could steal chips more easily from smaller stacks.
The blinds and antes are high at this point in the tournament to play the hand any other way. What are you going to do, muck it? Your stack is too small to muck the hand. Calling would be even worse, especially if a ace or king didn't fall. Considering your stack size at this point, the only right play is to move in because you need to see all five cards.
I've made this play with AK many times. When you hold AK you reduce the possible combinations of aces and kings. In this situation, you will not run into a pair aces or kings very often. If your opponent has a pair or queens or less you will win approximately 49% of the time. So, this is a coin flip situation. But, at the rate of the blinds and antes you do not have the luxury of waiting to be a favorite.
For those of you that still do not agree this is the right play, I suggest reading Sklansky's essay Hold'em Essentials in his Poker, Gaming, and Life book.
For one thousand'th time ring game strategy and tourny strategy are vastly different. Clearly this is a fold situation based on the unfolded events. For some reason you failed to see that this solid player is raising out of his big blind. What could he have?55?nope it had to be a big hand of JJ or better. Remember that he is the table chip leader as well. Why relinquish that for a non-premium hand? The correct play here based on this situation is to fold. By the way if you are gonna mention books how about T.J's on no-limit hold'em?
Actually the solid player is raising from the SB (LB = little blind).
A solid player in the SB can be stealing with a wide variety of hands in this situation. He could well have any pair. But he could also have any ace or any decent king or queen. Although the solid player had not stolen in other situations does not guarantee he is not stealing now. He may have a higher standard of steal cards from the SB then some players.
I would find it awfully tough to fold AKs in this situation. I might go all-in but I also thing a call is justified.
If you just call and the SB goes all-in and the flop has missed you then you can muck. If the SB checks then you can go all-in on almost any flop. Now in this situation you would have called the allin and would have been busted.
Ken Poklitar
Since you are not in any trouble yet, the raiser is a solid player AND in a blind when he makes a big raise, you have to fold this hand.
As my mentor in our no limit tourney has tought me, think "either I am a very small favorite, or a very big underdog" this being when you are contemplating a big call with a medium or small pair.
In this case I would go further. Either you are a small underdog to QQ or any less pair, or a big underdog to KK or AA.
I think you played it correctly. If he has a good but not great hand he is going to fold. This includes all pairs up to TT or so, depending upon the SB's read of you. So, of all the little pairs that are slightly ahead of you, you're going to win right now over half the time anyway. When you do get called, it will be by a worse A or a pair QQ or lower much more often than AA or KK. When it is AA or KK, you are well behind, but overall even when you are called you are winning chips against the entire weighted range of hands he might be holding (assuming that Ax where x is low enough and KQ are in the mix).
So, you fold, you lose. You call, and you're too susceptible to a bluff bet on the flop (against any real player, but who knows about this guy, unless you tell us). You raise, you win more than half the time since he folds, and when he calls you still win often.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Story on other topics forum.
vince
Situation Pot limit tournament during the rebuy period 7 handed - blinds are at T50 I am on the button with AcKd. UTG (about T1500) calls as does the player to his left (chip leader on about T4000), all then fold to me (T1250) I raise T250. The blinds fold and UTG and chipleader call.
Flop 6sQhJd. Both check UTG is loose and Chipleader is fairly solid although I have noticed he will get involved with an under pair on the flop. What should I do?
Ross,
I would be inclined to check and re-assess my position on the turn against most opponents. You might get lucky and hit a Ten, if the K or A comes you might have to be careful but this is a slightly tricky situation where you're just going to have to play some poker !
Andy.
Andy Thanks I tend to agree in hindsight. I bet T400 they fold. Thought process I knew UTG was weak and could be discounted. Chipleader was solid so I knew he was not holding trips, no way would he have given 2 players a free shot at a possible straight. He might hold top pair but I am sure he would bet that for the same reason he would bet trips. Hence I took the check as weakness. The chipleader said he thought I must have a pair of Aces after he folded.
Only after the event did I see the error of my ways. Given that he had called a raised pot with 1 caller,what on earth was the Chipleader holding that was n't worth 10% of his stack? Maybe he was not so solid after all.
By the way this hand was in the Russell Square Friday Night tournament. Some of those beginners must be pretty quick learners!!
Some of my decision are made based on what I've done recently. If I've been playing lots of hands and it might be perceived that I am stealing, I might play this hand diferently than if I have not played a hand in a while.
An example, I was playing in a NL tournament last night and got JJ. I'm the first in and made a normal bet and all fold. Next hand I get A9s. I make the same bet and everybody folds. Next hand I get ATs. Normally, if i'm the first in, I'll raise with that hand, but because I had raised the previous two hands and nobody called, I thought it was better to just call on this hand.
Any comments, not necessarily on the hands above, but in general about taking into consideration what you have done on the previous two hands.
JohnnyD
Yes, definitely. Especially with a hand like ATs where most of it's value is from stealing. Whenever anyone plays after you raise with this hand, you don't like it. Now that you suspect you're much more likely to get played with, then I would not raise the hand, and probably fold it.
The best is when that third hand is AA. Now, somebody with ATs is reraising you preflop, and then calling your all-in.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I plan on playing one or two of the $1500 wsop events. I am a competent player at holdem (limit and no limit), stud and omaha 8/b and omaha high. Which of the games does a player stand the best chance playing in. Any comments greatly appreciated.
Hmm, what does competent mean? Experienced winning player? Semipro? First, this is off the top of my head, but I don't think there are any holdem tournaments that are only $1500, but there are a couple that are 2k IIRC. It also depends on what your goal is. Is it to win a bracelet? If so, the hold'ems are the toughest to do so as they usually have the largest fields because everyone plays holdem. You might just want to pick a couple $1500 weekday events that you're OK at with the smallest fields. You can probably check pokerpages to get a feel for what it was like last year. But no matter what there are going to be a lot of good players in these events. Anyway, I guess all I can recommend is play whatever game(s) you like the best.
JG
Great job in the New England Poker Classic. I guess this means that we have start to paying more attention to your posts.
Yep,
congratulations again to you and Vince.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I saw your name in the money on Saturday.
Congrats Nicolas,
Ken Poklitar
Thanks Ken,
I had an above average stack when we got to 3 tables. Unfortunately (or maybe I made a mistake but I don't think so...), I had to lay down AQ preflop when I raised it and it crippled me a little bit.
I managed to get to the final 2 tables. I'm pretty happy with my result as it was my first big event.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Is what I would term not paying attention to his posts all along..
Of course, my advice is either worth listening to, or isn't, whether or not I actually win anything, right?
The saying about "those who can, do, and those who can't, teach", is wrong. But, it is sometimes true that you can get good advice from those who can't do, while often you can't get good advice from those who can do, IME.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The saying about "those who can, do, and those who can't, teach", is wrong.
Well technically maybe you are correct. But in general the greatest participants (historically in sports) have not faired well as teachers (coaches). Some of the greatest coaches were mediocre players at best. Stengal, Lasorda - Baseball, Auerbach-Basketball. Ted Williams one of the greatest hitters of all time had a horrible time trying to coach baseball. I believe it has something to do with a perfectionist attitude among the great. I can't say for sure though. I've never been that good at anything.
vince
I meant that it was wrong because it is (usually) phrased as an absolute statement. As in 100% of those who teach are teachers because they can't do.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Vince,
I agree that in the world of sports, this is very often true. The very top players often make moderate/poor coaches because they find it hard to explain to less gifted sportsmen what they could do without even thinking. The top coaches were often moderate players who had to think very hard about their game just to keep up with the more naturally talented.
Doesn't have much to do with poker but I think it's an interesting topic.
Andy.
Doesn't always hold true,many great footballers have gone on to be successful in top flight management.
Some have indeed, but I'm thinking of the real greats. Pele ? Maradona ? Instinctive players of this type do not in general make good coaches.
Intelligent men like Beckenbauer and Cruyff (the Dutch potentially being an exception because they have a football culture where every player has a tactical opinion rather than the "Yes boss" UK mentality) have become great coaches but I feel they are the exception.
Andy.
A point to look at here is, does anyone sit down with a "poker teacher" or coach? There are those i.e. Greg and many others that write books or publications, that are sharing their knowledge with all of us (and in case you don't hear it "Thank you!"). Is this a benefit?? For a vast majority of us, YES. It is up to each of us individually to study, learn and apply this knowledge (as well as experience at the tables!) to our individual game. Even the best players continue to study and learn. You can lead a horse to water............ (or a fish to a poker table!)
Congrats!!!! I went to Pokerpages before coming here and noticed you won the 7CS event. Way to go. Maybe you can bring it to the WSOP and parlay it into even more.
JohnnyD
nt
Folding AA preflop.... Hmmm , even if I could think up a scenario, I'd never do it. I, as most of us do, play the game for FUN mostly. The day I start laying down the best hand preflop, even when a possible dog to the field, is the day I quit playing. Even if I only win in a particular instance 1/3 of the time (and I can't imagine AA would be that low often) I still will win 1/3 of the time. I've played many a hand like that that wasn't AA, and so have you.
Remember to have fun and keep playing hard! But Play! Don't lay down!
Of course, but its a TOURNAMNET. One best hand preflop doesn't amount to squat. You have to consistently outwit, outplay and outlast your opponents. I find the game to be most fun when I win $$$$.
And you are NOT a "possible dog to the field" in this case. You are a small favorite. I just don't think that small edge is worth busting out at this level.
You can't win a tournament in the first round, but you can lose it.
While it certainly is true that you can't win a tournament in the first round but you can lose it, there's no better way to give you a better chance to win it than by going in with aces.
What the heck do you want?
You have to accumulate chips. You stand no chance (usually) to do it if you fold aces here. Remember that every chip you get now will get you double when (if) you double through later on.
I see situations where I would muck AA in a tourney but, early in the tourney, as it has been said, there's no way I'd do it. You are looking at agreat opportunity of getting a man's stack. This can help you dominate the table and bluff more because opponents will be more afraid of playing with you since they know you can set them all-in. etc...
If you are willing to muck aces here, I guess you never get to the final table with a commanding lead.
That's just me...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
The flaw in Gator's argument is that he seems to think that having T1200 isn't all that much better than having T300 early in the tourney. If I've misinterpreted you, please let me know. I disagree with this viewpoint.
Even if it's true that you can limp in with a lot of speculative hands cheaply, and often then get your money in with even better than 3:1 odds, that doesn't mean that you should pass in this spot (AA vs. a field of opponents).
First, as Nicolas states, when you later run into another big stack, you can win more from them. So, the chips you win now can grow exponentially later.
Second, if you get unlucky later, you still have a decent stack, maybe even a (less) big stack. At a minimum, when you get unlucky later, you don't go broke. So, taking a risk now at 3:1 can reduce the risks you take later. Or allow you to take them at all.
Third, even if the opportunities you find later are better than 3:1, they've got to be a lot better than you might think. If you get 10:1 later, but have limped in a dozen times (and eventually folded the hand) before you reach the 10:1 spot, you can't win as many chips because you've bled away a significant fraction of your stack. Oftentimes, you'll find you've bled away half of it, and now finally you get it all in at 10:1 and double back up. But, you're only at where you were anyway when you passed on AA, and haven't gained ground (while the field is lapping you).
So, even at pokerpages, I don't think you can easily and quickly find enough opportunities that are so much better than this chance with AA that folding here is justified. If the field were truly that weak, you should be winning (advancing to the next round) at least half the time you play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is my complete explanation for folding AA pre-flop in THIS case.
Lets assume that we have a tell on one of the other players that moved all in, and unlikely as it occurs, it does happen, we know that he also has AA. In this situation, you will split about 60% of the time and lose the other 30%. That makes you only a 2:1 favorite to DOUBLE. Is that a risk worth taking at this point? I don't think so. If you do, than that is the root of our difference, I wouldn't risk going broke as only a 2:1 favorite to double up in the first round of a tourney almost ever.
Now come one, what are the chances that another player is really holding AA? Am I being too much of a weenie? Paranoid? Too tight? You really have to look a the situation to determine. Sure straight flushes are extremely rare, but what's the probablity of someone having one when there are four opened straight flush cards on the board? Not so distant anymore? A rare situation to predict before the cards come out, but that means nothing when you find yourself in the situation.
If you re-examine the case: there was the blinds, a limper, then I raise about the size of the pot, next player re-raises all in (about 300), Another player calls about 300 all-in, followed by another caller 300 all in. Everyone else and the blinds fold I have about 250 or so to put me all in if I call. The two callers have played maybe three hands bewtween then both (40th or so hand into the game (including the limit hands Pokerpages warms up with).
Now what are the chances of another AA? Really, what hands are out there? If I had KK, I don't think anyone would suggest calling. Why not, it's the fourth best starting hand you can have? Oh, because #1 or #2 or #3 is probably out there considering the action. OK, so if I have hand #3 (AA), #1 or #2 can't be out there? It can and might be. It was.
One thing to keep in mind is that at this point in the tourney I will still feel comfortable with my 250 chips, there is no desperation to double up yet. And the chances of getting AA again on the next hand is the same chance it was to get on this hand. I don't even need a hand that good, just an oppurtunity to be a bigger favorite.
Sometimes you have to lay down the best looking hand to get a better spot. I've watched the 1998 US POKER CHAMPIONSHIPS dozens of times and it still ammazes me the lay down Ken Flaton makes with two pair. Surrindar Sunar limps in late, and Ken is in the BB with 5-10. The flop Ac 10c 5s. Ken is short stacked (smallest at the table) makes a fair bet, Sunar thinks and calls. Turns a club. Skyhawk checks and Sunar moves all-in. Flaton mucks, and goes on to win the tourney (down 10:1 at one point). Surridar was playing AA.
Ken was short on chips and it seems almost crazy to fold two pair, it leaves him with almost nothing. Did he think Sunar had the flush? If Surrinder did, why would he bet it all, he would want the call right? (this hand can make a great discussion itself) Gabe Kaplan made the comment that most of the pros that he interviewed about the hand would have had to call. If you wanted to put number on the hand like the AA we've been talking about, the two pair probably wins here 60% of the time. There is no way that Ken could know that his hand is no good here (unless he had a "tell" which he didn't) and the odds of being the favorite with the 6th best hand are too good to fold. I've convinced myself that the only reason that Ken could decide to fold is that the 40% chance of losing was to big of a chance, and he was will find a better spot to move in or blind out waiting. Maybe he finds one, maybe he doesn't, maybe someone else busts out first.
I remember when Chiu folded KK to Asmos all in raise in the first TOP (I saw it live). Chiu had the chip lead and could cover Asmos smaller stack, lose and still be in it. He folds KK, Asmo flashed the rockets.
Top players fold big hands in tourneys. Top players fold marginal favorites when the situation calls for it. TJ does not make so many final tables by calling every bet when he's "probably" the favorite.
Fossilman is a respected winning tourney player. He wouldn't have folded. He may be right.
I haven't played in many or in the big events, but I have been very successful in tourneys. I've won over a grand in the Paradise one table $10 and $20 games. I played the two table tourney the Luxor used to run 4 times. I won three of them. I played one tourney at Sunset Station (100 players?) and made the final table (6th finish). I played one NL tourney at the Orleans and made it down to 4 tables without ever rebuying. Is my play also correct? I think it is.
One thing for certain is that this situation will probably never come up in a real life $$$ game. My inital raise and the push all in would most likely allow me to isolate one (maybe the second) hand as the favorite I'm looking to be.
By no means do I advocate folding AA routinely in early rounds. This hand study was the result of a unique situation, and I think it cannot be removed from that context and be made into a general strategy. I would play the hand the same way again under the same circumstances.
Please note that none of your examples of great folds are on point. None of them are early in the tourney, and none of them are AA preflop.
If you could ask TJ, Flaton, Chiu, or any other well-known pro, they would tell you to never fold AA early in a tourney before the flop. Never.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
The point that both "great folds" and my AA example all have in common are they are favorites to win in the long run yet are being folded for a greater cause.
Both of your examples were of great players folding hands that appeared to be very strong, yet in reality they were BEHIND the opponent. David Chiu did not fold KK because he didn't want to risk a lot of chips, he folded because he read Asmo for AA (at a minimum, that's what he said to reporters). Similarly, if we could ask Ken, I'm sure he would tell you that he decided he was behind trips or a better 2 pair, and that is THE reason he folded his 2 pair.
Preflop, AA is never behind. Preflop, and especially early in a tourney, it is NEVER correct to fold AA. Please ask any top tourney player you wish, and they will tell you the same.
Feel free to respond if you like, but I feel like I've beating this drum too often, and will pass on further comments.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Playing a NL tourney on the weekend.
We are down to 3 tables. Blinds are 400-800. I have 4400 (average to lower stack on table).
I am in BB with K4o.
There are 5 limpers. Button raises 500 and goes all-in. SB folds. I decide to fold and everyone else calls. The SB was surprised I folded. He figured I should call with anything.
Certainly if I was the last to act I would call the 500 with anything but with so many limpers and my chip total I did not want to be raised.
Ken Poklitar
I have to agree with you.
The possibility of getting reraised is certainly there, as an opponent could push it in to get it heads up with the all-in player and be happy with some dead money. Also, K4o is likely to be dominated. Plus you can't bluff this pot.
Although the pot odds look good, I would tend to throw it away unless the mix of players is very passive and a reraise is very very unlikely.
This is close to 11% of your stack (I assumed you had 4400 after posting, if not, then it's 14%). I'd tend to wait for a better hand. Make it suited and we could talk... although I'd be happier with a suited ace since a lucky flush would give me the nuts...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
If I do the math right, assuming everyone else calls, you are risking T500 and the pot will hold T9000. Easy call, even though you probably need 2 pair or better to play on. If you call and somebody raises behind, it is likely to be an all-in decision for you, and you should probably fold. Leaking off T500 like that isn't so terrible, as you still have plenty of chips to raise with preflop for another round. I say go for it and hope to get lucky.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I see what you mean Greg, I thought about that, I just can't see myself (yet) making that call with K-4o against that large of a field. I'll make it next time.
On that subject, considering you have to flop at least 2 pair to win (most likely), would you even look at your cards here before calling ?
I don't think you would, just want to make sure.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Nicolas wrote: > would you even look at your cards here before > calling?
Of course.
I might want to raise.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Playing the same tourney as my previous post. It is in the rebuy part of the tourney.
Blinds 25-50. I have T1800 (average stack).
UTG+1 raises to 150. He is a fairly new tourney player but seems pretty solid. He has made money in 2 of 3 tournies that I have played with him. Lady beside me calls the 150. She is pretty weak and calls raises with a wide variety of hands. I am next to act. I have AKs. I want to push UTG+1 off his hand. I make it 800 to go. UTG+1 folds. Lady adds an extra 125 and goes all-in. I call.
Lady shows 87s. Flop is KJx. I win a nice pot.
UTG+1 had JJ and he would have flopped a set. The question is if you are UTG+1 do you muck JJ during the rebuy period? He knows that I am a solid player and I am probably re-raising with a high pair or two big cards. He later said that if the lady didn't call his raise he probably calls.
JJ is a tough one when re-raised.
Ken Poklitar
This depends on how much you get for your rebuy dollar. This is a very scary hand to play, but if you can be back in for cheap, why not. It is still a good hand. IMO
Derrick
Rebuys are $20 for T1000. Buy in was $45 for T1000.
This was the 3rd level. Rebuys until end of the 4th level.
Ken Poklitar
I would do it then, your rebuys are less then half of the original buy in for the same amount of chips. If I was way ahead maybe not... you can only rebuy if your out of chips, why risk a big stack.
Derrick
Sorry I forgot to mention that the UTG+1 player had T2500. So had me covered.
Ken Poklitar
I think it all depends on his chip position, The raising of blinds, how early it is..
etc etc etc...
This is a hand that my brother played in the No limit event on Friday. There were two tables left and the blinds were 2k-4k with 500 antes. My brother was in the big blind with 18,000 after posting. This was a pretty small stack at this point in the tourney. A guy who had been playing fairly agressivly raises to 15,000 from early position and somebody in late position goes all in for about 16,000. My brother has AQ suited.
What's the move?
Thanks for any responses.
Goodie
Peace
I can't say. The first guy is playing aggressively, so there is a pretty good chance he doesn't have AK or a pair QQ or better. What are the chances that the all-in-er doesn't have one of those hands? If I can say with a high level of confidence that neither of them has me dominated, then I would call here. Against 2 underpairs, or 1 underpair and a worse unpaired hand, the AQs will win more than it's fair share. This call is pretty marginal though. If I had the same hand in the small blind, with 18K left after posting 2K, I would fold, as I also would on the button. It is already having 4K in the pot that hooks me here, as if I beat the early aggressive player, I win the 14K side pot, which drops down to 10K if I'm the small blind, and down to 6K if I had 18K on the button.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well done Greg!
First, thanks to all of you who said nice things about me for my recent tourney win. I appreciate them all, and thank all of you for helping me to be a better tourney player than I was yesterday, and the day before, etc.
Here is what I consider to be the most interesting hand I played throughout the tourney.
We are rather late into the event, with 5 full tables at this point. 3 tables get paid, but the money for finishing at the 2nd and 3rd tables only varied from $300-600, so surviving for that wasn't a big deal in and of itself. In either event, I was very short-stacked, and wasn't going to even creep into the money without winning some chips.
Structure is T200 ante, T500 bring-in, T1500/3000 betting. I have lost a hand, and have T5400. Everybody antes and I catch the bring-in with the 3h. Ding, my stack is at T4700. Player to my immediate left completes to T1500, is called by a Q and then a K. I look and find 6c3c in the hole. The cards that have been folded do not include any 3s, 6s, or clubs. Also, only a single 4 or 5 (I forgot) was folded. So, my hand is almost 100% live. Do you call against at least 1 and likely 3 overpairs?
I called. T3700 now. I catch the 7c, and nobody else catches anything that looks useful to them, nor do any 3s, 6s, or clubs come out. The K checks, I check, the J bets, and is called by both players. Do you call again? I did. The pot is now T12,100, and I only have T3700 if I fold. Plus, it still looks like I can win if I catch a 6 or 7, and if I catch a 3, I am probably at least 70% likely to win. T2200, and pot-stuck for sure.
I catch an A on 5th street, with 2 of them already accounted for, and call all-in when the K bets. All call. On 6th and 7th streets, the J and Q also end up all-in, with 2 sidepots being formed. First, the K and Q showdown, and Kings up beats Queens up. Then, the J loses with Jacks up. My turn. I have a pair of 3s and an A, with no flush or straight outs. The K caught one of my 3s on 6th street. There is one 3 and one A unaccounted for. After a slow peel of the card, I see and A and slap it down on top of my cards with a shout of joy! It is definitely the emotional peak of the tourney.
After this pot I have T23,200, with an average stack being still somewhat less than T20,000. I win the next hand with 2 big pair to eliminate another player, and have over T27,000. I coast for a little while before winning a few good-sized pots and turning into the chip leader. When we go to the dinner break I have over T90,000, and remain one of the big stacks for quite a while. I later go down to T54,000 after losing a close one. Finally, I win a big pot, and regain a dominant chips position. From about 13 or so players on to the end I am almost always in the chip lead.
BTW, I admit to getting very lucky in this tourney. Pulling that A was a HUGE lucky catch. I also made a gutshot wheel on the river to eliminate the 9th place finisher, caught three running 7s to turn pocket tens into 7s full (against AKQ it turned out) to eliminate the 5th place finisher, and turned rolled-up Ts into quads to eliminate the 4th place finisher. However, despite all these grand hands, I was also able to overcome a lot of poor luck early. There were quite a few times I made what I felt were excellent laydowns, as well as timely bluffs, to win or save chips. So, I am pleased. Vince kept telling me he's the better stud player, but I think we'll have to save that issue for later determination. I might be better than he thinks. If I'm terrible Vince, be sure to let me know why, or how else am I going to be worth backing in the $1500 stud event at the WSOP?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Well my career earnings in Stud tournaments is negative so take what I say with a grain of salt.
So it looks like there is T6600 when you have the decision with (63)3. You probably have the correct odds to take another card for 1000.
On 4th street I am not sure I would spend any more money with (63)37. But with only 3700 left maybe it is time to make a stand.
Glad it worked out!
How many of the WSOP tournies are you planning to play?
Ken Poklitar
.
This hand happened in last week's NL HE event at the NEPC at Foxwoods. After talking to Fossilman, he agreed with my play as I thought he'd do, actually. I am posting it here so that everyone can think about it. I got some criticism at my table when I made the play but I still feel it was fine.
We are down the the last 33 players. It paid the top 30. There was 577 000 in play. I have about 26 000, which is an above stack size. At this stage of the tournament, things change, as a player getting eliminated means we are 1 player closer to the $$$. On this hand the BB is all-in. Blinds were 1000-2000, antes of 500 (if I recall everything correctly). The table was 9 handed.
I get pocket Jacks UTG. What is your play?
Do you:
1- raise the standard (3-4x the BB)
2- limp in so that others can do so too so we can all pound on the BB and (probably) eliminate him.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I think I would raise 3x BB. Make it 8000 to go. Try to make it headsup with the BB or get one other caller at the most.
I don't like limping because you are asking for other callers. You will get callers and they will have overcards. And now you feel obligated to check it down which makes any overcards a killer to your hand.
Ken Poklitar
nt
I would go for option 1. My rationale is as follows 1.You are almost certainly in the lead however if he can beat a pair of Jacks head to head then he has reasonable chance of beating the hands that limp in late to try and get in on the action. 2. Even if he catches a hand head to head he has a total of T5000 which given the the blinds still leaves him as a clear favorite for a quick exit. If he wins a multiway pot he could be in a much better position. 3. Since when has poker been a team game ? You have a hand to defend here, soft playing it could cost you dear.
Or have I missed some cuinning ploy here ?
It's the third level of a $100 Paradise tourney. Blinds are 25-50, limits are 50-100. (Structure is 10 entrants start with T800, top 3 get paid 500/300/200). I have T1200, which is the biggest stack so far. I open-raise on the button with AdAs, the small blind calls (has about T700 before this hand), and the big blind folds. The small blind seems to be pretty loose, he previously cold called my open-raise from middle position with Q8s or some crap like that. The flop comes 986, all clubs. The small blind checks, I bet, and the small blind check-raises. I have no idea what to put him on, as he could easily have hand like Tc9 that is drawing very live, or something that's drawing almost dead. I elect to just call, he bets the offsuit Q turn and I just call, he bets the offsuit 4 river and I just call. He has KQs and my aces are good.
In a ring game I would have gladly popped him on the turn or river, but I've gotten a bit gunshy in these Paradise tournaments because they tend to be crapshoots, and the last few times I've gotten big hands beaten in the middle stages it's really decimated my stack. Did I play too passively?
-Sean
That is really a hard decision to make. If he is a bad loose player then you can put him on nearly anything in terms of his actions.
Luckily blanks hit the river and the turn (in terms of the flush) But I probably would have raise on the river.
In this situation he would of course most likely call...
I am really not smart enough to answer this one. Greg? Andy? Rounder?
... I don't know the first thing about limit poker :-)
Andy.
The guy probably wouldn't have check-raised you on the flop with a flush, he'd wait for the turn. I think you could put him at best on Ac or Kc and another card (maybe 9,8,6 for a pair or 7 for a straight draw). He's a tricky player to do it with two overcards, but I like his move. In a normal game you might want to pop him back on the flop, to see where you stand for real, but in a tourney, you might be wasting chips, I'd call him down. The extra bet on the turn you think you may have "lost" is not that much. Chips you have or worth twice of what you can win, so you need to be really sure you are taking it doen before you make thin value bets in a tourney.
If you're behind, you lose the least. If you're ahead, you induce him to continue bluffing.
If you're ahead, but he's got a good draw, he won't fold if you raise anyway, but you'll lose more or win more as a result. While it's a shame to give up potential profit, I probably play the hand like this in a ring game as well. So, factoring in the things above in the first paragraph, this may be the highest EV play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman and I agree on the play of at least tourney hand!
Its midway through a pot-limit hold'em tourney, and the blinds have just increased to 300-300. I have a stack of 1400 which is well below the average stack of about 3600.
I'm sitting there waiting for a hand to put my chips in with but I never get a hand that seems worth it. Anyway, so it ends up with me UTG, and I get dealt Q2o. I decide that there is a decent chance that I can get everybody to fold, and if not it should be heads up, so I make it 1200 to go. Its folded round to one off the button who has exactly the same size stack as me, and he calls. On the flop I check, he puts the last 200 in and I call. He turns over AJo and I'm out.
Do you think I should have folded and waited for the blind hand, or do you think it was better to make a stand then?
Andy.
I think you did the right thing. Playing it this way gives you an extra chance to win (when everyone folds). If you let the blinds go by you'll only have 800 left and you're much more likely to get called when you make your stand.
5x the blind in this format is just enough to pass if you have total garbage but with a hand of any value I would raise.
You don't mention how many players are at the table - the fewer there are, the more it should point you towards raising here.
Andy.
Andy,
I still think your post on shortstacked is one of the better ones on the subject. I have tried to follow it when I am unfortunate to be in the situation.
Now in AndyP's situation he has Qx. That has some high card value. In my NL tourney on the weekend blinds are 500-1000, antes 200. Table has 8 players. I have T2700. I am hoping for something to make my last stand. I get nothing and now I am UTG. I plan to raise with anything but I find 74o. Most hands are being raised and then folded to the raiser. A few hands are getting called.
I fold 74o. Would you go all-in? What is the worst hand you would raise with in this sitation? As it turns I would have won the hand. It is folded to SB who folds with 92o. BB turns over 63o.
Ken Poklitar
Ken,
Tough one. There is little doubt that you will have to play either this hand or the next. Next hand you ought to find some better cards, but it will almost certainly be raised in front of you so you will lose the potential to win without a fight.
Whatever your standards you will occasionally find a situation which is right on the edge in terms of which course you should take. Happily though, when this is true, when you're wrong you're only slightly wrong (in terms of EV of course, let's not be result-oriented) so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Think about the make-up of the table and how likely it is that everyone will fold. Who's in the blinds ? Are they calling stations, do they have a lot of chips ? If yes then tend to fold, if no then tend to play.
Alternatively toss a coin and pray :-)
Andy.
Andy.
The only thing I'd add is that if you are going to call the extra 200 when he bets it on the flop (as you should, you are pot commited), then I'd bet it myself regardless of the flop. Don't even look at it, well, look at it but bet anyway. You never know, I've seen the other muck it here because, as you say, he is short stack.
Say the guy has pochet eights and the flop comes T J A, he might fold...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
This is my complete explanation for folding AA pre-flop in THIS case.
Lets assume that we have a tell on one of the other players that moved all in, and unlikely as it occurs, it does happen, we know that he also has AA. In this situation, you will split about 60% of the time and lose the other 30%. That makes you only a 2:1 favorite to DOUBLE. Is that a risk worth taking at this point? I don't think so. If you do, than that is the root of our difference, I wouldn't risk going broke as only a 2:1 favorite to double up in the first round of a tourney almost ever.
Now come one, what are the chances that another player is really holding AA? Am I being too much of a weenie? Paranoid? Too tight? You really have to look a the situation to determine. Sure straight flushes are extremely rare, but what's the probablity of someone having one when there are four opened straight flush cards on the board? Not so distant anymore? A rare situation to predict before the cards come out, but that means nothing when you find yourself in the situation.
If you re-examine the case: there was the blinds, a limper, then I raise about the size of the pot, next player re-raises all in (about 300), Another player calls about 300 all-in, followed by another caller 300 all in. Everyone else and the blinds fold I have about 250 or so to put me all in if I call. The two callers have played maybe three hands bewtween then both (40th or so hand into the game (including the limit hands Pokerpages warms up with).
Now what are the chances of another AA? Really, what hands are out there? If I had KK, I don't think anyone would suggest calling. Why not, it's the fourth best starting hand you can have? Oh, because #1 or #2 or #3 is probably out there considering the action. OK, so if I have hand #3 (AA), #1 or #2 can't be out there? It can and might be. It was.
One thing to keep in mind is that at this point in the tourney I will still feel comfortable with my 250 chips, there is no desperation to double up yet. And the chances of getting AA again on the next hand is the same chance it was to get on this hand. I don't even need a hand that good, just an oppurtunity to be a bigger favorite.
Sometimes you have to lay down the best looking hand to get a better spot. I've watched the 1998 US POKER CHAMPIONSHIPS dozens of times and it still ammazes me the lay down Ken Flaton makes with two pair. Surrindar Sunar limps in late, and Ken is in the BB with 5-10. The flop Ac 10c 5s. Ken is short stacked (smallest at the table) makes a fair bet, Sunar thinks and calls. Turns a club. Skyhawk checks and Sunar moves all-in. Flaton mucks, and goes on to win the tourney (down 10:1 at one point). Surridar was playing AA.
Ken was short on chips and it seems almost crazy to fold two pair, it leaves him with almost nothing. Did he think Sunar had the flush? If Surrinder did, why would he bet it all, he would want the call right? (this hand can make a great discussion itself) Gabe Kaplan made the comment that most of the pros that he interviewed about the hand would have had to call. If you wanted to put number on the hand like the AA we've been talking about, the two pair probably wins here 60% of the time. There is no way that Ken could know that his hand is no good here (unless he had a "tell" which he didn't) and the odds of being the favorite with the 6th best hand are too good to fold. I've convinced myself that the only reason that Ken could decide to fold is that the 40% chance of losing was to big of a chance, and he was will find a better spot to move in or blind out waiting. Maybe he finds one, maybe he doesn't, maybe someone else busts out first.
I remember when Chiu folded KK to Asmos all in raise in the first TOP (I saw it live). Chiu had the chip lead and could cover Asmos smaller stack, lose and still be in it. He folds KK, Asmo flashed the rockets.
Top players fold big hands in tourneys. Top players fold marginal favorites when the situation calls for it. TJ does not make so many final tables by calling every bet when he's "probably" the favorite.
Fossilman is a respected winning tourney player. He wouldn't have folded. He may be right.
I haven't played in many or in the big events, but I have been very successful in tourneys. I've won over a grand in the Paradise one table $10 and $20 games. I played the two table tourney the Luxor used to run 4 times. I won three of them. I played one tourney at Sunset Station (100 players?) and made the final table (6th finish). I played one NL tourney at the Orleans and made it down to 4 tables without ever rebuying. Is my play also correct? I think it is.
One thing for certain is that this situation will probably never come up in a real life $$$ game. My inital raise and the push all in would most likely allow me to isolate one (maybe the second) hand as the favorite I'm looking to be.
By no means do I advocate folding AA routinely in early rounds. This hand study was the result of a unique situation, and I think it cannot be removed from that context and be made into a general strategy. I would play the hand the same way again under the same circumstances.
So far almost everyone has disagreed with this idea. I don't really think you'll ever change your mind...
Why would Gator ever change his mind when he is always right? And as he pointed out, such a good tournament player.
Maybe my mind is not the one that should be changed?
I find it much harder to believe that there is never a proper place to fold AA than the popular viewpoint that AA should always be played.
BTW I nver said I was "such a good tournament player", those are your words. I was only stating my tournament experience as a barometer to how well I've done to how full of shit I am.
I don't mind your interpretation, but don't be a pussy about state your opinion and not fire sarcasm. Where is your rock solid analysis of how that hand should be played?
Gator,
I will say this. You are persistent. I think it is great that you are not backing down even though no one is really agreeing with you.
When Greg brought this topic to the tourney forum the discussion was AA against 3 other hands with the potential to quadruple up. Everyone except you feel this is a no-brainer. Even if you know that someone has AA you are still a solid favorite to double up. Again I think this is a no-brainer.
Everyone has their own style. I know many players that will risk their whole stack on a small percentage edge. You are obviously not that type of player. If someone makes a big raise and you are sure they have AK and you have a pocket pair then you will fold since you don't like your chances. Even though your pocket pair is a slight favorite it is no where as good as the example with AA even if we assumed someone else has AA. My question to you is when would you ever call a preflop raise for a large percentage of your stack? Obviously with AA against one player you would call. But if you have KK or QQ, would you risk it? Most players would. But there is a chance that you are up against an overpair. Are you going to be willing to raise with JJ in middle position? Someone might have an overpair after you. There are no guarantees.
It is possible that if you play limping NL poker that there are certain tournaments that it might work. I would guess that your style requires longer rounds where the blinds don't increase too much. As you continue playing NL tournaments if you have success then that is great.
Ken Poklitar
Good response, and you hit on some true points. The problem is that, at least in my game, there is no "always" or no "every". Examples:
"If someone makes a big raise and you are sure they have AK and you have a pocket pair then you will fold since you don't like your chances"
In many situations, you are right on. But my decision to fold or play is not that simple. I must evaluate all the following, the chip situation (how many I have compared to my opponent), the betting levels, how close it is to the money, the quality of remaining players, and the chance that my read of two overcards to my pair is correct. Based on these qualifications, I can list off many times where I would beat the raiser into the center and then many times I would muck without thinking.
"But if you have KK or QQ, would you risk it?"
Again, I firmly believe that in a tournament you have to weigh mcuh more than the percentage a hand wins and loses. So the question you ask lacks so much situational information, it is impossible for me to answer. I don't know if you don't realize this or was just keeping things brief.
"Are you going to be willing to raise with JJ in middle position? "
See above
"I would guess that your style requires longer rounds where the blinds don't increase too much"
You are 100% correct here. As a matter of fact, the powers that be (i.e Sexton etc..) and the top pros are constantly trying to find ways to do this in event structures. Also, they are trying to spread out the winnings into the later places. I wonder why...hmmmm?
At Vinces suggestion I am crossposting here from the Other Topics Forum.
The SARGE Registration page is now up online.
June 7th,8th,9th & 10th. Register at www.conjelco.com/sarge.html but if anyone has any questions,send me an E-Mail. Here are the Basics:
SARGE (Southern Area Rec.Gambling Excursion) will be played at the Horseshoe Hotel & Casino in Tunica,Mississippi the weekend of June 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th.
Thursday, June 7th, 8PM Razz (7 Card Stud Low) at the Horseshoe Poker Room. $80.00 + $15.00 Entry Fee + $5.00 Dealers
Friday, June 8th, 8PM Pot Limit Omaha at the Horseshoe Poker Room $80.00 + $15.00 Entry Fee + $5.00 Dealers
Saturday, June 9th, 11AM No Limit Holdem at the Horseshoe Poker Room. $100.00 + $15.00 + $5.00 Dealers
The (3) first place finishers and the Best All-Around Player will 'qualify' for an entry into the Tournament of Champions.
The Horseshoe Hotel and their neighbor (30 second walk) the Gold Strike have each set aside 30 rooms for SARGE attendees. The rate will be $35.00 for Wednesday, Thursday & Sunday nights; and $65.00 per night for Friday & Saturday nights. To make room reservations call 1-800-303-7463 and ask for Teresa in the Poker Room. She can make reservations for both Hotels.
If you have any other questions let me know.
Randy Collack
I was playing in a no limit hold'em tournament this past weekend. I'm not involved in the pot that came up. One player with a short stack goes all in pre-flop and gets 2 callers. Both callers have medium size stacks. On the turn the guy who is all in has KJ and catches a K to give him 2 pair K's over J's as he turns his hand face up. The dealer says wait a minute the other two guys have money and he picks his cards back up. The river is dealt, the guy who is all in is awarded the pot. The hands are turned over and then mucked and the cards are collected by the dealer. So both guys who had chips checked it down and turned over their cards on the river. I turn to one of the guys on my right and say isn't there a rule against turning your hand over like that? He says "Oh yeah" and starts screaming for a ruling by the floor. At this point I wish I wouldn't have said anything but I thought the hand was over (perhaps I should have said something earlier?) and that since the pot had been awarded and all hands were in the muck and collected that nothing would change. WRONG! The floor ruled that the guy who was turned his hand over had a dead hand and the guy who was doing the griping should be awarded the pot since he had the best hand. The only way the floor could verify this is by asking the players at the table. I don't think that this ruling was right. If the pot has been awarded, the hands are in the muck, and the dealer is getting ready to shuffle how can the floor do this? At what point does the time expire for getting a ruling? Is it when the dealer starts dealing the next hand? If it would have been my KJ I wouldn't have gone as quietly as the guy who had them did.
You must have been playing at Sandia. The few times I've been up there for a tournament, they enforced that rule rigidly. In the big tourney last Labor Day, at the final table, I saw them kill a player's hand who would've otherwise won the tournament, for what was essentially a minor technicality (he had a chip in front of him but he and everyone thought he was all-in).
Was this even an accurate use of the rule. When I have played in tournaments, such as the USPC, the rule has been that you cannot expose a card with the purpose to induce some reaction from another player. This was clearly not done to induce any reaction, since the player was already all in.
its the case of a rule being made up with good intentions then having people with no brains trying to enfore and apply it. certainly if someone turns their hand up mistakenly thinking its over or he is all in and doesnt understand, he shouldnt be penelized. and after a pot is over(when the dealer starts shuffling for the next hand) the past hand is just that. and the floor needs to learn that asking players what happened is not any better than asking the dealer.
How much should you tip a dealer when you win a satellite ?
in a big event if you win it ? (say you win 20K)
should all the top finishers tip ?
I had a conversation with another player this weekend and we disagreed with the correct way to do it.
Thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Nicolas,
Mike, the tournament director at Foxwoods, told me that 3% makes for a nice tip and dealers are very happy with that amount.
John
PS. I leave 5% if I make $100.00 or more on the Sat. events. Of course, if I won 20k, I'm sure I'd seek more advice on an acceptable amount.
First, my thanks to Nicolas for not mentioning my name. He may be referring to me in his post, although he certainly could have talked to many others about this issue.
At Foxwoods, I simply don't tip for tourney wins. I don't like the FW method of having a tip pool for all the dealers (poker, pit, everything) that is averaged out for the month and paid out like a wage to the dealers. It means that my tipping or not tipping isn't really very important to each dealer as I give it to them, and that it is not as capable of doing the job that a tip is supposed to do, i.e., reward good service and punish bad.
If I tipped some amount, let's say $800, out of my $22,000 win last Saturday, that is a meaningful amount of money to me. However, to the dealers, it is not a meaningful amount. The absence of my tip means that each dealer in the entire house will earn a few pennies less that month. To me, it just isn't worth it.
When I play in Vegas or California, or anyplace where the tip money goes directly to the dealers who just dealt the tourney, I am a generous tipper. Here at Foxwoods, I'm not a tipper at all. I'm sure some disagree with me, and I may be wrong. But that's how I feel about it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It really wasn't meant for you Greg...
Really...
I was just asking what I should have done if I had won more in the NL event. Hopefully, I'll have that opportunity in the future...
Would you tip for a satellite too ??
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Greg,
I agree with many of your reasons, but I also believe good dealers should be rewarded. I advocate dealers keeping their own tips. I do not tip poor dealers, even though I fully realize the gesture is a futile one.
Also, I can't agree that a tip's "job" is to punish; poor dealers, like poor waiters, cab drivers, or other workers who depend on tips, should be earning an income that's not dependent upon tipping.
John
Eric Shapiro has a way of accomplishing this and taking care of the dealers when he doesn't win any money at all. He brings rolls of 50c coins to tournaments and tips after every hand he wins. Not the best of all possible worlds, but a way to make sure your tip money goes directly to those who gave you service.
I've considered this idea myself. However, what about when he WINS the thing? He could say he's already done his tipping, but that doesn't keep the dealers from that specific tourney from getting screwed, so to speak. It is true that when he loses all the dealers are getting a bonus from his hand-by-hand tipping, but that doesn't make them feel better, I would imagine, when he wins and they lose out on 40-50% of their typical pay that day.
I always tip generously when the tips go directly to the tourney dealers, even when I finish so low that I hardly make a profit. I also tip in satellites, some amount that is a fair hourly wage to that dealer who just sat down for an hour or more to deal to us.
On the plus side, because of Foxwood's policy, I've saved a lot of money on tourney tips since moving here.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Figuring out how much you should tip after a big tournament win is a VERY NICE problem to have
Greg, as a bartender who works in a club that uses a tip pool, I have to strongly disagree with you on this issue. Tipping a good dealer, like a good bartender, is not a monetary issue, when looking on a case by case basis. If I serve you very well and you tip me 2$ on one drink, as a bartender, it is double the average tip I usually get. But it hardly matters to me financially! It is the gesture that matters.
If you decide that you've had an exceptional dealer in a tournament that has a hold, tip him/her a buck! He/she will get the message you're sending. Not tipping at all is looked down upon in my profession because of the type of person it represents, not necessarily because of the small amount of money we lose.
At Foxwoods, you can't tip the dealer individually. All you can do is give a tip to an employee, who then drops it down the tip shute (where it is later collected and pooled among all the dealers).
So, even if one or more of the dealers did a great job during the tourney, by the time I'm at the window getting paid, they don't even know if I tipped or not. Therefore, they're neither complimented nor insulted.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This was posted by me in the thread "NEPC" on the Other Topics Forum. I would welcome any comment from the Tournament Forum regulars.
The context is that Vince and Greg (correct me if I'm wrong) regretted in hindsight making a deal for the full amount when it might have been more satisfactory to save a small amount of money and the trophy and play for that, which I agree with.
-------------------------------------------------------
There is a point to be made here. Two years ago in Vienna there was a very large Stud tournament (the one Phil Hellmuth won last year). The casino made a very big thing of the final table and while there was no actual sponsorship of the competition, it was very high profile and many potential sponsors may have been keeping tabs.
When it got down to 3 players, they chopped it all and walked away. The organisers were not at all happy and it may have set European poker back considerably in terms of sponsorship, who knows. Had they come to some kind of arrangement similar to what Greg mentions above, then they would all have been guaranteed some decent money, the organisers would have got a finish and poker in Europe could have been advanced.
Now I don't begrudge anyone the right to negotiate a deal (as long as they don't whinge at me if I say No) but for a high-profile tournament I think players should take the organisers' wishes into consideration.
Deals were very strictly forbidden in the Poker Million for this reason (they wanted a proper finish on TV). This was not an ideal situation, but it came about because of previous problems in this area. I believe that banning deals in this way is bad for the game because it will only drive it underground in terms of players making agreements before the final table starts, which looks like (and quite frankly is) team play. However, if it happens, poker players will only have themselves to blame.
Andy.
Your points are well taken.
However, I'm also critical of those tournament organizers who have implied that major sponsorship is right around the corner. I think that we all agree that this is not the case.
I agree, I think it's an absolute pipe-dream. Still, the Poker Million did have 250K added although that may have been a one-off (the event is scheduled for this year but I think the field will be much bigger and they may not add any money).
Any steps we take in the right direction can only help.
Andy.
I think that this is a non-trivial distinction. For kicking in the extra 250k, the Ladbrokes or whoever it was probably have a reasonable expectation on a return for their investment. In a situation where the entirety of the prize pool is that which is contributed by players and that the players are actually paying the house a premium (entry fee in addition to the buyin) to play, the players can certainly make a legitimate argument that their interests trump.
JG
I think 2 + 2 should be the first to sponsor a player. And just to get the ball rolling I'll volunteer to be the sponsored player. Hmmm.. maybe I mean backed player.
vince
There is no reason a dal cant be made....to be settled up LATER, and then play it out for bragging rights anyway. Or TOC entry, or a trophy, or a bracelet, etc, etc.
I've never WON a no limit at Foxwoods, I got 2nd once, and split 3-4 way 4 other times at the end....more a time pressure of it's LATE then any thing else. But that is a baby tourny.
If it's the players money then we have every right to do what the hell we want with it. If it's a sponsors money, then deals should be outlawed.
btw.. take it from me.. the last 3 did a deal in the poker million.
Cheers,
Keith
I do deals when it's in my best interest and I refuse deals for whatever reason I choose. But in my opinion, once you pay your entry fee, it's the tournament's money, not the "players money" and the tournament should be able to set the rules and say "no deals".
JohnnyD
Lets say you're playing a limit hold'em tourny, 4 tables left, final table gets paid. Blinds are up to 200-400 w/ 400-800 limits and you have just T375 remaining. The button is one to your left. There are 2 callers, a raise from a small stack, next player calls 2 bets cold, guy to your right with a huge stack makes it 3 bets to go. Noone has folded (the table is 9 handed).
Do you throw your 375 in regardless of your cards? If not are how loose are your calling standards in this spot? Would it make any difference if the huge stack had cold-called instead of raising?
Interesting problem. Clearly you have to win some showdowns to make the money, being this short-stacked. Here, with all the raising, it certainly appears that there are 1 or more overpairs to whatever random hand you're holding. If that's the case, and your hand is unsuited and unconnected, you are about a 6:1 dog to beat the overpair. But, you're getting more than that here. What are the chances that most of these people are going to fold before the flop/turn/river? If I thought the blinds plus the first 2 limpers would all fold to the 3-bet, then I would go for it probably. You have to beat 3 quality hands, but there is a decent chance that some or most of them will fold before the river by being bet/bluffed out by another hand.
If there weren't so many of them, or you thought everybody would stay in at least to see the flop, then I'd wait for the next hand.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have played a few times in a tournament of the following type: Limit holdem (except it is NL on final table). 60 players start with T1,500. It is Freezeout. 7 places pay: 40%, 20%, 13%, 9%, 7$, 6%, 5%.
Two times I've had T10,000 with about 14 players left (so average is about T6,500, but many stacks are short, and none are huge). Blinds are about T500 & T1000 or T1000 & T2000 at this stage.
Question: what should my strategy be in this type of situation?
Results: 6th and 14th. Where did I go wrong?
Dirk.
I had three $300+ tournaments last year where I was chip leader with 6 remaining players. I finished 5th twice and 4th once.
I made the same mistake all three times. I overplayed my stack and tried to bully the smaller stacks. I allowed others to double through, while reducing my stack. I did not exercise patience. I don't know if this is your mistake, but it's something to consider.
JohnnyD
I don't think I was overaggressive. In the second tourney I lost my stack with JJ then QQ in two hands, with best hand til river.
If anything I was wondering if I should play ultra-tight and watch the small stacks drop out.
Dirk.
Try to resist the temptation to play tight when just out of the money. This is the spot where aggressive play can really pay off - in the long run. If you have around 15% of the total chips in play or higher, you want to avoid confrontation with another large stack, but you should still be pressurizing the smaller ones. With less than 10% of the chips in play you should be busy busy busy !
Andy.
Without hand examples or more details it is tough to say what you did wrong.
I will say with those blinds compared to the stacks that no one is in great shape. I would rarely limp at this point. I would try to be the 1st one in and raising with good solid hands. If you are playing short handed then hands values go up.
Ken Poklitar
What area of the country has the best tournament players in the United States? If you look at the Dalla Rankings, several California players score high each year. But lots of NE players are scoring big at Foxwoods and lots of Southerners are scoring big at Tunica.
In the recent issue of CardPlayer, it list 35 tournaments that qualify for Dalla points. Of the 35, 24 of them are in California. So, have many of the good players moved to California because of the number of good tournaments, or do they just score high because they have more opportunities to play?
My personal opinion, while playing styles and game choices might vary, the talent is pretty well spread around the country. Any comments?
JohnnyD
Here at Foxwoods, we do not have anywhere near the depth of talent that exists in California. There are simply so many more tourney opportunities, especially in SoCal, that there is a much larger pool of competent players in every tourney you enter out there.
I'm not so sure the same is true if we are talking great players. There are a few out here, and proportionally, maybe that's enough. But the average tourney entrant here is much less experienced and less skilled than those in California.
I think it's simply that you can only play 1 tourney per day out here. In SoCal and Vegas, there are daily tourneys morning, noon, and night for the tourney buffs. Thus, no matter what your schedule, you can fit in a lot of tourneys if you wish. Also, there are only 3 major tourney series out here, and until last year, 2 of them were at the same time. Thus, until you travel, you can only play in a dozen or so major events per year. If you work a regular job and your attendance is pretty much mandatory, then you only get a few weekend majors per year, no more.
I doubt that there is anything inherently superior about the players at any venue. Those out West simply have more opportunities to practice when it comes to tourney play.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, am I missing an opportunity to get to the Fox ?
I thought Foxwoods only had the NEPC and the WPF, what's the third one?
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
The assumption was Northeastern poker in general, or so I thought, not just FW and MS poker. Until 2000, the USPC and the WPF were at the same time every December.
Once they have a convention room finished, the Sun poker room is planning on hosting at least one annual tourney series. At least, that's what some of the floormen have told me. However, if the convention room is getting booked solid year-round by regular conventions, I imagine the poker room will be told tough luck.
The reason they don't do one now is that they just don't have the space to host it. The present poker room has no room to stuff in extra tables, and there is no other usable space nearby. So, if they had a big tourney, they'd have to limit the number of entrants, AND completely shut down all live games while the tourney started. Not a profitable situation.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think it's the geography more than anything else. There are just waaay more tournaments available to players who live in California to play. The rankings don't measure who the "best" player is. They merely measure who scored the most with some fudge factor for stakes. How many tournaments were there in Arizona last year that qualified for the rankings? I wouldn't be surprised if it was zero. But still I could name 10-20 strong tournament players from the state (plus JohnnyD) who could play my money over many of the Cali phenoms. I think that what Nolan is doing is cool and interesting for the game(tho I am sympathetic to the argument that overemphasis on tournament play and results is unhealthy for the long-term viability of the industry -- not sure if I agree 100%, but it's not without merit), but everyone should remember that the results measure activity as much as success.
JG
Johnny D, are you from Houston ?
I lived in Houston until about a year ago. I am now in Scottsdale, AZ
Do I know you??
JohnnyD
Yeah Johnny D but do they have an egocentric website listing their accomplishments? Ralph Malph told me. The Arizona sun must be getting to you buddy.
Damn Russ, that's pretty rough
By the way.....contrats on your win in Reno. I was there during part of the tournament and didn't see you.
JohnnyD
Setting: World Poker Open Tournament: $500 buy-in Pot Limit Hold 'Em w/ rebuys
Hi, I'm a long time lurker and this is my first real post. This happened yesterday at the WPO.
UTG has T4000, I'm to his left with about T5200, blinds are 75 and 150. UTG makes it T525 to go. I'm immediately to his left. I look and find JTs. Both of us are in a above average chip position. Until then, I've been playing only premium hands, but for some reason I decide to gamble and call. Player in middle/late position (MLP) calls too.
Flop comes JTx, rainbow. UTG checks, I check, and MLP checks.
Turn is another rag. UTG checks, I bet T1500, MLP folds. UTG thinks for a while and raises all-in, an additional T1700. Now I'm thinking he has AKs or KK maybe even AA. I call immediately.
River is a K. I flip up my two pair and UTG mucks and is out.
I'm sure I misplayed this hand. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Also, just in case you were wondering, I got busted out the tournament in 27th place, by John Bonetti. Pretty stupid mistake... I'll save that for another post (er... maybe a roast?).
Thanks, Dru
That's about 10% of your stack, and more than 10% of what you can win (from the raiser). How many stacks are behind you that are higher than yours?
I really don't like the play. What if the flop had been J-rag-rag, and a rag turn. What do you do when he check-raises (or bets) the turn? After checking the flop, he might have AK and be bluffing. He might have AA or a set and be slow-playing. You're putting yourself in position to have to make a tough read. If you're great at those, then fine. If you're not, good luck.
Now, if you had reraised preflop, that would be different. You could be trying to win preflop by representing a big pair. Even if he calls preflop, he is likely going to check-and-fold unless he has KK or AA, or if he hits a big flop.
This way, you can win the pot pretty often, and not have to be guessing so much. If he raises again preflop, he has pretty much said AA, and you have to fold, but you took your shot. Plus, it's not even like you lost respect at the table. They'll figure you had a hand like QQ or JJ and had to fold to another raise. No big deal.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Your analysis makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the advice!
Regards, Dru
Concur with your assessment, Greg. BUT, once Dru has gotten himself to where he is at post-flop (JTs) pockets and JTx rb flop, did he not further compound his first error by checking the flop after UTG checks to him? Once he flopped top 2, was not the proper move there to bet T1500-1600 or so?
I would have probably folded pre-flop but I think that from the flop onwards the poster did well to get all his opponent's chips in when he was drawing pretty slim.
Andy.
Even though you have position on the UTG, you don't have position overall. For him to be in that position with a decent stack size you have to figure that he has a strong hand. As for me I would have folded.
I don't mean this as a challenge to their credibility, but I'm wondering if any authors of poker books are planning to play in the big event at the WSOP? I've always been a book person and am very grateful for all of the poker literature we have at our disposal. My question revolves more around curiousity than anything.
You find yourself faced with an all-in raise in the first half hour of the WSOP $10,000 buy in event. You have $9500 in chips left if you fold. You will be all-in and heads up if you call. The pot will stand at 18k
Mr. David Sklansky, gazing from the rail, peeks at your hand and in his infinite wisdom informs you, that your hand is a 2:1 favorite (win 60%, lose 40%) based strictly on the texas hold'em simulation he just ran through in his head.
Of course this a tourney, and in tourneys, as you know there many other factors that must be considered, not just percentages. And unfortunately, as David's lack of tournament scripture will tell you, he informs you that is all the advice he can give you now, he'll leave it up to someone else to explain.
Your on your own, with heart pounding, $10,000 hard earned cash on the line as well as the depression of being within the first ten people eliminated. On the other hand, you cant shake the ESPN image of 1 million in cash being brought out in a cardboard Spring Mountain Valley water box, and new gold bracelet with your name on it.
What do YOU do? Call or Fold. What were some of the "many factors" you considered (assuming there are any, you ARE the statistical favorite to win the hand, do you really need anymore?)
This is a hypothetical situation and any similarity to any hand real life or fictional is coincidental. No 2+2 authors have been paid for any appearences in this post. This hand is advertisment and does not imply endorsement of any particular play.
So which are you, 2-1 favourite or 60-40 favourite ? I think that makes a bit of a difference.
Andy.
O
No hesistation.. Call.
To win the event you need to win alot of even money shots... to get all my money in 2/1 fav is a great chance of getting alot of chips early and being able to dominate the table.
Remember the 10k isnt yours any more... it is now part of the prize money you are shooting for.
Btw.. i would rather be one of the first 10 out... than knocked out 1 from the money.
Cheers,
Keith
OK, I like the way you have phrased this actually as it cuts straight to the point. Do I take an even money race for all my chips in the first round of the WSOP when I am 2/1 favourite ?
In a word, yes. I have such a small fraction of the total chips in play (1/500 ?) that the decreasing utility of additional chips does not apply. I am inclined to play in any situation when I have the best of it.
If it was a smaller tournament with a weak field then that might be different (although 2/1 is almost always enough I would have thought). However, it's the WSOP. Not only am I unable to outplay the majority of my opponents, in fact they are liable to outplay me IMO. So if I found myself in this competition (say by winning the Pokerpages warmups, ha ha) I would actually be gambling in zero EV situations and maybe even small negative ones.
If you [think you] can pass up a spot like this in a competition against virtually all the top players in the world, because you think you'll find a better one later, then you really [think you] are one hell of a player.
Andy.
First of all, watch what you say, I really don't think you mean this following statement literally. If you do, then I think that is a leak in your TOURNAMENT strategy: "I am inclined to play in any situation when I have the best of it"
Maybe you are just refering to games in which you feel if the cards break even all around you are a big underdog because of skill? I agree that would be the best play.
So on the other hand you suggest that folding a small edge may be the best play for someone with greater skill than the majority of the field. That, I agree with too.
"If you [think you] can pass up a spot like this in a competition against virtually all the top players in the world, because you think you'll find a better one later, then you really [think you] are one hell of a player."
No where in the above post or any ever did I imply or suggest anything resembling that comment. I will state it for the record so there is no confusion. I do not think I am one hell of a player agianst the worlds top players, and knowing this I most likely would not fold this spot, it may be my best chance, unless I got lucky and all the fish (in the WSOP???) are at my table.
Which brings us back to that AA hand. In PokerPages tournaments, I would go as far as saying 65% (wild guess) of the players have never done any reading or serious thinking on NL, nonetheless played against real opponents. In this case, I think I'm better than 65% of the field and wold fold a 2:1 favorite, sacrifice the instant gratification for the bigger reward.
You know, I think that mostly we are in agreement.
"I am inclined to play in any situation when I have the best of it". This comment applies to the specific scenario being discussed, in the early rounds of a large tournament against a high-class field. We agree that it does not apply all the time.
As for the last paragraph, it depends on your definition of "you" (do you think I could make a good President ?). I meant anyone who thought that, not necessarily _you_ :-).
Andy.
Ok, here are my thoughts...
As I was reading your post, I was thinking exactly what Andy stated. So I totally agree with him and TheHawk. Like Andy said, in a tournament where you feel outcasted, you should go for every opportunity you get when you are a favorite. I would certainly feel the opposition at the WSOP could outplay me later on.
Also, I believe that no matter what the opposition, noone should pass on this opportunity. Being a 2:1 favorite is a solid edge and shouldn't be missed. Unless the field is really atrocious and even then I'd probably go for it anyway. This is like folding with top pair on the flop because your opponent has a 4 flush and put you all-in. I would not do it. Would anyone?
You have to accumulate some chips in any tournament. You don't get 2:1 shots that often. Heck, Greg advises (if I remember correctly) to even go for it as a 11:10 favorite here. I'll let him elaborate. He's probably right.
IMO there is only one play here:
CALL, CALL, CALL
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Gator, your point about sometimes folding, even though you have a small edge, is correct. IF you are much better than the field as a whole, and there are no rebuys, and your edge in a spot is small enough, and it's for all (or most) of your chips, THEN folding can be the higher EV play.
2:1 (33%) is NOT a small edge.
5% is a small edge. If my edge (in my estimation) were down towards 10%, I would then start to consider the questions about is this field so weak I should give up this opportunity. Anything higher than that, I go for it. However, it would have to be a field at least comparable to pokerpages before 10% would even be worth more than a moment's consideration.
I will admit right now that I have not give so much thought to where to draw the line that 10% is an absolute line for me. It could be that I will later decide that it should go up or down a little. However, it will NEVER get anywhere near 33%, I am sure.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
As I am sure everyone else stated, with a 2-1 edge it is a Call. Being able to double up early in a no rebuy NL tournament is real important. You now have the ability to play your A game. You can sit back and wait for good cards, you can push small edges, you can steal blinds. Everyone has to respect a big stack because they know you can push them out on one hand.
Ken Poklitar
I would fold this early in the tournament. I still have a healthy stack, and I hope to hit a better situation.
Derrick
After reading Andy's point about being against the best players in the World. I would call. I just could not compete against these players in the long run.
Derrick
.
To set this up for my discussion, lets suppose you have two black AA’s and the flop is xxx with 2 hearts. You happen to see the opponent’s hand and he has Kh9h in the pocket. This would be about a 2:1 situation in your favor. You know if a heart falls, you are beaten. I am discounting all the other possibilities you each have.
Now if this were an everyday or weekly or moderate payoff tourney that one might play in on a regular basis, I would always call. But this is the WSOP. If the proposition were stated this way, would you accept it: I will give you a 2:1 proposition in your favor. If you win, you will receive $10,000 in chips, during the first round, and double your stack. If you lose, you forfeit your right to continue in the tournament. You will gamble a chance to win a measly 10K early in the tournament against a chance to share in the $5,190,000 prize pool.
I think doubling your stack early in the tournament means little. The blinds are low at this point and there will be other opportunities to win pots without risking all your chips. Later, circumstances may be different and situations will occur where you should go all in.
If you were in 46th position, one out of the money, you certainly wouldn’t take this chance, because you can assure reaching the money if you manage your chips correctly. I just look at this as a very extended version of that type of chip management situation.
I am certainly not the world’s best player. In fact, I have only played three limit money tournaments in my year and a half low limit poker career. My only NL tournament experience is the PokerPages Warm Up in which I have managed to get to round 2 five times. I am in this weekend going for my final attempt to gain round 3.
I know this experience counts for almost zero, but, I have learned and improved because of it. And, I tell you, if I were to gain the opportunity to get to the WSOP, I would play with the attitude and confidence that I could make the money. I would play as smart, as tight and as aggressive as I could. I would gamble, bluff and steal when I thought I could get away with it. Would I risk losing that chance in the first round? Hell no.
Alden,
See "Any NL Tourney NON-PREDICAMENT II (quiz)" post that I just did. I can't believe that you would fold in my situation that I describe.
I think you are vastly underestimating what doubling up means in a tournament.
Ken Poklitar
You are too used to playing with opponents who will do all the work for you if you let them. That is, they play poorly and gamble too much throughout the tourney. In this case you can sit back and let everyone bust out without risking much at all. The WSOP will not be like this, trust me.
So far, that makes a total of the two of us. Any other players in this corner.
i think that those of you who advocate folding epitomise why the top pros see the Big One at the WSOP as such great value due to the fact there is so much dead money in the event.
What i mean by this is that there are so many players whose ambition is limited to a) not being the first out b) surviving the first break c) surviving the 1st day etc. - the top players love this and egowise couldn't care less if they were the 1st out. they don't go around saying 'well, i came 296th and outlasted 4 former champions'.
the fact that this scenario is placed in the context of the WSOP illustrates this point. the question surely has the same merit if it's a £10 buyin tournament as we all want to make the 'correct moves' at the right time - regardless of what the tournament is. (in fact i'd be more inclined to fold - though still wouldn't - in a smaller tournament purely because the line up won't be as tuff as in the WSOP)
$120 NL tourney, with a single $100 rebuy at Foxwoods last week. Very tough table. I have been playing extremely tight for 3 hours. We have only lost 1 player. Since the break (when the rebuy period ended) we've seen maybe 3 or 4 flops and with the exception of a couple of all ins, NO rivers. Blinds are 75-150. I have around T1600 on the button. All fold to me I raise to t375 with A,J off. BB - a tight, solid player with around T2700 - asks my chip count, deliberates for around 30 seconds or so and calls the extra T225. I can't recall him calling a single raise (heads up) since we sat down. He has either folded or reraised. Based on this, I put him on either big suited face cards or AA. Flop comes 3,K,8 rainbow. He checks, I check behind him, fearing the possibility of AA plus the fact that this guy is very capable of reraising me as a bluff and I’ll have to fold. Turn is an off suit J so the board is now a total rainbow. He bets all in. Hmmmmmmmmm. The all in bet changes my thinking. He doesn't have AA or he would have bet smaller or check raised. Same with a set of 8's right? Any K I can put him on he bets with after the flop - he has to put me on an A and this player is NOT giving me a free shot at it. So, the only hand he can have is a J with an A or Q (or maybe a 10), a smaller pair or the bet is a bluff. I call. River is a blank and as the dealer is pushing the pot he says "how the !#*# can you call that bet". Am I crazy or was it a good call? Thanks in advance.
Tom
I think it really depends on the opponent.
With your raise to T375 before the flop he only needs to add an extra T225 into a T600 pot. So he probably does not have crap but he could have a wide variety of hands.
Since it is headsup, even if he flopped a nice hand he might check it to you wanting you to commit some chips so he can go over the top. The question of course is now the Jack shows up and he goes all-in. I agree with you that if he has a set he probably would slow play the turn.
I do think he could have a King but he probably has QT or a weaker Jack then you. He might even have a weak two pair.
I don't think it was a bad call. It was a tough choice since you are commiting all your chips. You seemed to have a read on him.
So did you see what he had?
Ken Poklitar
Any bet is usually good to call if you think you got the best hand, right ?
Your reasonning seems fine due to what you think of this player. If you truly think he's betting an inferior hand then a call is fully justified. Isn't it how it works ?
I think you did fine.
On another note, beware, sometimes tricky players will push all-in with aces, to make you think they are stealing.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
You read your player, put him on a hand (or a small range of hands), and made the appropriate decision. Case closed.
To answer his question, tell him directly and unemotionally "I knew you were bluffing."
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Right. I'm sure you all have seen the first TOC video where David Chui folded KK preflop. Somebody could have said "How could you NOT call that bet with KK". And later where he called a big bet on the river with only king high. Somebody could have also said here "How can you call". But in both cases, he did an excellent job of reading the situation and his opponent.
JohnnyD
In tournaments where the blinds are going up very quickly, I have noticed that the more looser players usually perform better. Lately I have loosened my play from late position more than usual and have seen some solid results. Have I just been lucky, or is this correct.
When blinds double up rapidly, as in satellites you definitly have to loosen up. This does not mean to play crap just be willing to push every small edges you have, because you may never get those aces and kings.
This can mean raising with inferior hands, calling with smaller connectors on hope of flopping big, etc...
Being tight as in ring games or as in a full tournament is not the correct strategy, you have to make a move rapidly.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Should you play more loosely right from the beginning, or are there optimum points to switch techniques. If you win the first two hands and find yourself the leader with 1200 dollars [PP minis] should you continue to play tighter or looser.
I have played in 6 of the ten dollar minis with one first, one second, and one third place.
Have played in aproximately 25 five dollar minis with one first, three or four seconds and probably 7 or 8 thirds.
And played 1 twenty mini finishing out of the money.
I would play pretty tight until the blinds slowed down some of the crazies, then I could make some raises work out of late position. However first place and second does seem elusive in these things.
It all depends on your stack size at the beginning of the event versus the blinds.
The more your stack is big, say like in a satellite with a starting stack of 1000 and blinds of 10-20, the more you should play your normal ring game strategy, if you do accumulate chips, then fine, you'll just have more breathing room and thus less gambling in the early rounds. But if you fail to get some chips, then you have to take more chances sooner.
You should always have in mind the amount you'd need to be ok. So, if the blinds are 50-100 and you have 400, then even doubling up won't get you out of trouble. Thus you need to gamble now, and be prepared to do it again if you survive.
The Paradise tourneys play like satellites. Blinds usually increase each 15 minutes in satellites, that's about 8 hands played, in the PP tourneys, it's every 10 hands. So, in the beginning, with T800, you should play your normal ring game because blinds are 10-15. As soon as you get to round 3-4 then you have to gamble more of your stack is still unimproved. With a stack of 1200, you have some space. Push your small edges and hope for the best. There are some tourneys I'v played that I could almost fold myself in the money. So, as always, take into consideration the strenght of your opponents.
I'd also add that I think the vig is too big in the 5$ tourneys. (1$) Play 10$ ones or higher.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I think it probably is correct, yes. The higher the blinds compared to your stack size, the looser you should play. And you should be playing these extra hands in late position where possible.
Andy.
You are in the big one at WSOP, and you believe you are a 2:1 favourite to an all-in bet that has you covered.
I believe many people would call... But now you have to do this more than once to make it to the end right?
If you have to do this 3 times to make the money, your chances are not that good, are they? 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 is 8/27... you are now the 2:1 dog to make the money. How do you get around this? Or is a 33% of making the money good enough? If seems very good considering the field you are playing, but what do you think?
Derrick
In the manner in which you parsed it, it appears to be a bad thing, but if each one of these represents one round where half the field is eliminated, you're a 2:1 dog but on something in which you're getting a 7:1 price. It's a given you're going to need to win some confrontations to advance in the tournament. Then you might as well be availing yourself of the confrontations in which you are quite the favorite. There are of course a lot of other factors, but what unwritten alternatives are there in the example you gave? Do you want to survive the cuts at a 50% clip or a 67% clip?
JG
In most tourneys, around 10% of the players make the money. If you make the money 33% of the time, you're doing exceptionally well, especially if those finishes are equally spread out over positions 1 thru n (where n is the lowest position that's in the money).
The only way getting all the money in with a 33% edge is bad is if you're doing it so rarely that you're getting blinded away between confrontations, or if you're in one of those rare circumstances where you should fold even having such an edge (like one out of the finish in a super-satellite).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Explain to me how you're going to make the WSOP final without ever risking your stack. Better still, keep the secret to yourself and win it every year :-).
Andy.
You could be better then a 2:1 favorite when you risk your stack Andy.
For instance calling a flop with a pocket pair and hitting your set even bottom set.
If you slow play your hand until the turn, you will know if there is a straight or flush possible. In this case (unless you are against an over set), you are usually at LEAST a 4:1 favorite. If you make the move first, you also may pick up pots uncontested. I think this is a big part of winning the big one.
I admit you can't wait to flop a set AND get action on it, but it is possible. I believe you can increase your odds by hitting a big hand on the flop, however, it costs you chips to try. I really don't know the right answer.
Brunson won the big one 2 years in a row, correct? The chance that he was a 2:1 favorite when he went all in 6 times in 2 years is quite unlikely (1 in 64). If you only consider the 6 times in 2 years you were a 2:1 favorite and went all in, your chances of winning the big one twice consecutively is 1 in 64. This is only considering 6 hands of the tournament. I also think you will have more then 3 big confrontations each tournament, but I have never been there so I can't give a real number.
I know I would be inclined to put in when I was a 2:1 favorite, but I have never played in a field of 500, and I have never played against such great players.
What I really want to know is what hands did Brunson go all in with to win twice in a row? I would bet that many of the times, he was greater then a 2:1 favorite.
Derrick
Brunson won twice with a ten and a deuce.
I think both time he got a full House (I'm sure of one time).
I don't know when he put the money in and what his hand was at that moment.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I should read more carefully...
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. However, in Bob Ciaffone's account of his 1987 third place finish he says that eventual winner Johnny Chan won _12_ even-money hands on his way to the title, and those were just the ones Bob saw.
I've never played in the WSOP. However I contend that if you habitually pass up situations where you are 2/1 favourite (or have a similar edge against the pot odds), you are toast in this event. Maybe someone who has played at this level could comment.
Andy.
Please note that I would never ever recommended "habitually" folding 2:1 favorites. This situation would only applies to the early (first/second rounds or day or whatever the T structure is) and maybe around one table from the money. Of course this also depends on your stack size at the time as well. If I miracualously doubled on the first hand of the WSOP and then this hand came up on the second, I would be in the center faster than the better as a 2:1 favorite since I would not be going broke and have plenty of chips if it doesnt't go my way. And the situation only involves where you double chips (not triple or quaruple) my internal jury is still out on that one.
You are on the button with Ax suited... 3 limpers to you... you decide to limp...
Flop comes 3 low cards with 2 of your suit... action is checked to you.. what chip positions would you need to bet? To what extent does the number of limpers impact your decision? In early pos would you ever check raise a nut draw? What about putting in a small bet to try and get free river card? Obviously the nature of your opponents is the major deciding factor.. but what other considerations are there??
Alot of questions i know.. but its something ive been thinking about recently.. and i havent decided which is the best strategy.
Cheers,
Keith
In late position I think betting the flop really depends on how the flop looks. If they are going to give me a free look at the turn then I probably will take it. If I have lots of chips then I might bet the pot and try to steal it.
In early position I usually would just check it. If my ace or kicker has hit the flop then I would bet a smaller amount (maybe 1/4 or 1/2 pot) and hope no one raises me.
In the 1st round of one the pokerpages tournies I had A4x in middle position with two callers after me. The flop had an Ace with one of my suit. I made a 1/4 pot bet. I was called by 4 players. The turn was also my suit. I was pretty sure my Ace was not a winner but now I had a nut draw. I increased the bet and again was called by 4 players. When the river gave me another of my suit I was again able to bet a bit more. I was raised all-in and of course called.
I think the only time in early position I would check-raise a nut draw is if my chips are in good shape plus my kicker has hit top pair.
Ken Poklitar
First hand of any NL tourney. You are in the big blind.
It is folded to the small blind. The small blind seems to like his cards but only calls the bet.
You look at your two cards and you see the Ace and Eight of spades. A reasonable hand heads up but you will wait for the flop.
Flop is King, Seven and Duece of spades. You have flopped the Nut Flush. You are already planning how you are going to take all the chips from your opponent.
Now aren't you surprised when your opponent pushes his whole stack into the pot. "All-in" he says.
You look at your own cards again and make sure you see what you think you see. You look at that beautiful flop. Yes, you have the nut flush. There are no straight flush draws. No straight draws. As you ponder your decision, your opponent says "Let me make this easy for you". I have 77. "I have flopped middle set".
Now what do you do?
Well I know what 99.9% of all players would do. They would fling their chips in the middle and say "Call".
And then you spot Mr. David Sklansky on the rail. You show him your two cards. He says to you. You are about a 2-1 favorite. About 65% to 35%.
Call or fold?
Ken Poklitar
Good post ken.
For the record I would call. ;)
This is obviously the same exact situation as the one I posted below, wearing a different mask. Forget if its the nut flush or nut low flush, or even that you were lucky enough to flop a flush, you will still go broke 35% of the time with this hand. The other 65% of the time you will have 20,000.
The top players will tell you, that you don't want to go broke on the first day, that is the biggest mistake in this event. You can't win it here or even be that much closer with the 20,000, that's like 0.5%, so you fold and have .25% of the total chips. Not a real big difference in the grand scheme of it all. Of course having that extra 10k will make you a tougher opponent and certainly CAN create more opportunities to accuire chips but there are NO guarantees of anything, execpt you lose everything if the 35% comes up. There will be plenty of spots to pick up chips without having to go broke on any one hand if you play well.
I fold. But I can make it pay off. I'd say "I see you've got the three sevens, and I didn't come here to 'gamble' on a small favorite so I'm laying this down [show hand here] the nut flush because I'm only a 2:1 favorite and that's not big enough for me to lose all my chips if I get unlucky and you catch."
I don't think you will be called the next time or two you move all in. Not if there are sane people at the table.
I wasn't going to be drawn on this, but not only are you going to pass this hand, you're going to show everyone ? Are you insane ? If this is some kind of troll, OK great, it's gone far enough so please explain the point you are trying to make.
Andy.
nt.
If you mean the one titled "Exactly", you say "in real life I could steal any pot at will after that move".
You really have a spectacularly low opinion of your opponents. I suggest you are playing too many free Internet tournaments. If you think you can run over an entire table at the WSOP by showing one big fold, think again. Isn't anyone smart enough to figure you out ?
This is absolutely my last word on this, I have nothing more to say.
Andy.
Sure, if you show it you might not get called next time you push all in. But people may push all in versus you every hand. If I knew my opponent wouldn't call unless they were a huge, huge favorite, it would be very worthwhile to steal pot after pot.
Which is why when I move in on you with 10-5 off, I know you are going to fold. If it were for real money, you would never call the bet seeing the nut flush folded, unless you had the nuts yourself. Desipite any argument you many comeback with, you know in real life I could steal any pot at will after that move, especially with the tight play described below. Don't argue with that.
No one will be stealing any pots from me. In the first round of a tourney (especially one with slow increase in levels as the WSOP) I am playing my best ring game strategy and only premium hands, (straight out of TJ's book) if anyone is in a pot with me (especially looking to steal) at this point, they are in trouble you can be sure of that. The levels are so slow and insignificant here, even TJ says the game isn't really NO Limit untill the third or fourth round of this event. The people pushing stacks around at this stage are sometimes referred to as fish.
Next you'll be saying in the following situation: First hand of the WSOP. You have A9. Some guy has A8. After the turn, the board is 8899. He bets all in and shows you his hand. You show your hand to the rest of the players and say "I fold, Im afraid he's going to make quads on the river".
An extra 10K isn't going to win you the tournament on hand #1, but if you don't think you'll be pushing the rest of the table around for the next few hours, I think you should think about tournament strategy some more. You might get knocked out, sure, but it's not often someone is going to let you double up when you have the stone nuts.
If you are using you stack to push around other opponets early in a NL tourney than you are playing a fishy game. Very fishy. You will find yourself trapped by the stealthy sharks who lie in wait while it costs very very little to fold everything, for this type of fish to push him around.
"it's not often someone is going to let you double up when you have the stone nuts"
no they are going to do it to themselves, pushing players around in the first level.
"I think you should think about tournament strategy some more"
You should do the same.
What kind of edge would you want to move it all in in round 1? 100%?
Would you call the all in with A9 on board of 9988?
What kind of edge? Good question. In the first round, I really don't want to be pushing my stack all in. Give me a case and I'll make a decision. McEvoy and Cloutier both have written that they've make it through the first round without ever having to risk a serious portion of thier stack, many times.
More important than anything else If theres a situation that it must be, I want to be the one moving MY stack in with the edge. I want to put the rest of the field to the decision. They have to decide if thier hand is good enough to call me. A point TJ makes is that you only want to be a "caller" when you are setting someone up.
In our AA case, If I'm the one pushing all in with AA after the inital raiser, and get two callers (one with AA) I don't feel bad at all about my 2:1 edge. The 2:1 edge is pure math based on five board cards. When I push that AA my chance of winning is much better than 2:1 considering the # of times I will win the pot uncontested, so even when I am called by three players I still have the best of it (I'd guess 10:1 favorite at least when I move in). I can't help it if three other's are inclined to call, but by being the final caller I am and always will only be a 2:1 favorite.
BTW why would you bet your whole stack in the first round with AA, most of the times you will only win the blinds, who is going to call?
Ken,
Give up playing tournament poker if you don't call. Even Rounder would call. I'm sure of it.
In the real world this would probably not happen. But, two years ago I was waiting for a satellite at Binion's. While waiting I watched this hand. It was a $270 entry to win a $2500 chip.
This was an early round where six players limped in. The flop was Kd Td 7d. Middle position player moved in, the player on his left called, and then even the player on his left called. The others folded. If you had Ad Jd would you fold? Guess what everyone had.
i said it regarding the folding aces preflop post and i'll say it again. if you refuse to call with the best hand there is no point showing up to play poker - play chess, there are no outdraws
It was a rhetorical question for Gator.
I can't believe anyone would fold in this situation.
Ken Poklitar
Again, if one is going to fold here then he'd be welcomed in my game any time. Like Andy said, if you're also going to show it, it would be almost a bigger mistake... no... I take that back, folding is a bigger one. If you do show it, then it would be a pleasure for me and other players to run you over in the next rounds, if you make it there. I don't know where you play and whom you play against but in the world I live in, players aren't all atrocious (sadly), most of them have knowledge and moves, and if you are going to pass up on this opportunity, then I really don't see how you could be sucessfull in the future.
I really can't see your logic here. Poker basically is a game of pushing the enveloppe when you are a favorite to win at the showdown. Like Greg said in the other post, being a 33% favorite is a heck of an advantage. Not one that should be passed. To be successful in a tourney you have to be willing to bet your whole stack when you feel you are going to win a larger percentage than loosing.
I recommend you (Gator) revise your strategy and see the results, we could talk about it for a long time, it doesn't seem to get to you. Think about it for a while...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
"Poker basically is a game of pushing the envelope when you are a favorite to win at the showdown"
Excellent ring game strategy. I use it myself in the regualar games I play. I take it you don't play many tournaments, or haven't been successful in many have you? Not with that scope.
Tournaments are about money management period. The texture of the game changes dramatically. On one hand being hand a 2:1 favorite could be the gamebreaker, and on another, it may be less than worthy of taking a risk.
You can not just consider being a 2:1 favorite and mechanically play the hand, not in a tourney.
I am going to respond one last time, as I can see you really don't get it.
Although money management is certainly important in tournaments, it's certainly not the only aspect. There are risks to take in tourneys and if you don't get that, well... I'm thinking that maybe you do get to some final tables, but I'd bet you rarely get there with a big chip lead. You'll never get there with a big chip lead if you never take a chance in the tourney. (and I'm not talking about being a 2:1 favorite, that's just having way the best of it)
Personnally, I really don't care if you listen to my advice or not. I would, however, be really concerned when guys like Fosillman and Andy Ward, the 2 players from which we learn the most in this forum, strongly disagree with your strategy. When one of them posts something different from what I thought to be the correct play, I do some serious rethinking, I think you should too.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
PS: for the record, I enter 2 tournaments per week on average (this is not counting the Paradise ones) and I must say I have won much more than my fair share. I mostly learned it from Greg and Andy.
Personally, I'll stick with TJ's advice and my own experience. I always think a lot about every serious response to the posts I'm interested in especially the ones from the better players; I read and post because I WANT to learn and think.
That doesn't mean that their answers are alwys right, or there isn't a different or better way. I have a mind of my own, and can think for myself, but I don't know everything there is to know, that is why I value the thoughts and ideas of everyone, agree or not.
As far as not making the final table with a chip lead, that is completetly unimportant. I could give you my reason, but I'll leave you with another quote from TJ and and let you figure it out.
"Any time you you are head up with an opponent who has a 3:1 chip lead over you, remember that you are still only two allin hands away from winning the tournament"
"That doesn't mean that their answers are alwys right, or there isn't a different or better way. I have a mind of my own, and can think for myself, but I don't know everything there is to know, that is why I value the thoughts and ideas of everyone, agree or not. "
At least we agree on that :-)
Andy.
n/t
My post below stands. I would fold. My reasoning was explained in the Quiz I thread.
A poll was taken last year among about 40 to 50 top tournament players regarding folding AA against an all in pre-flop in round I of the WSOP. They split about 50-50 on the question.
Arguing this is like arguing religion or politics.
"A poll was taken last year among about 40 to 50 top tournament players regarding folding AA against an all in pre-flop in round I of the WSOP. They split about 50-50 on the question."
Where did you read/hear this?
Ken Poklitar
It was about a year ago, so my memory is hazy on this. I believe it was in Card Player, but I am not sure. It is true, and I did read it. The poll was taken at a conference that the players attended.
.
there was an article about folding AA preflop in the WSOP and the survey was about 50/50. the scenario, however, was totally different. it was down to the final 4 and having AA in the big blind with the chip lead. all 3 players had gone all-in in front of you. do you call with the best hand and try and win it here? or, fold and, quite probably, play heads up with half the chips for the title.
totally different, i'm sure you'll agree
Absolutely. Half-remembered anecdotes (and quotes from books taken out of context I might add) are not going to help us here.
Andy.
Are u just trying to argue with me for fum? I'm going to look for the article, but on the meantime chew on the concept that folding AA preflop is the key issue here, and if 50/50 of the pros would fold a minimum 2:1 favorite to win the entire shebang on one hand (or go broke) you think they are going to push it all in as a 2:1 favorite in the first round or bust? gimme a freakin break.
the difference is if they fold in this situation they go heads up for the WSOP with 50% of the chips.......think about it!!!!!!
Hmm thinking...., heads up, even money matched, against a world class opponent or as a 4:1 (2:1 if AA is out twice) favorite with all the money already in, to win the whole thing.
Well I still don't have a good answer (I guess thats why the pros are split 50/50).
Maybe you could enlighten me since you talk like you have it all figured out.
(Maybe we have mixed communication on the subject, but the major issue I'm concerned with is folding the AA in the first round; the later case is another can of worms but the logic is the same, it's about giving yourself a the best chance overall, not just taking the best of it on one hand. The beauty is that the hand is AA as well in both examples. Now the point I would like you to address is: If a 50% of the pros were to consider folding AA in that example (for whatever reasons) think about the reasons for doing it in the first round (blinds slowly increasing and all poor players reamin) when the reward is to go from having .001% of the chips to .003% as a 2:1 favorite and the risk is losing it all, no chance at any payoff.
against three solid all in players, you may not be a 2:1 favorite.
Ohhhhhh Lord. You have AA, it's already been established that the worst case scenario for AA preflop three handed is: against The other AA, KK and another suited connecetor in which it is a 2:1 favorite to take down half.
If you fold AA in the 4-handed example, you likely end up moving from 4th place money up to 2nd place money at zero risk, and THEN you have half the chips and a 50:50 chance at winning it all. It is the free move from 4th to 2nd place money that motivated some of the players to say they would fold in this scenario, I believe. NOT their desire to avoid taking a risk of losing despite having a significant mathematical advantage.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Is this tourney rebuy or no rebuy. If rebuy...go for it (If ya have the funds).
If not rebuy, the question you have to ask is..."Will winning this pot gain me enough strategically to warrant the risk of going out?
I say no way...
By the way, I have folded pocket aces in one-table satellites where there was more than one caller (I went on to win)...
If that was a winner-take-all satellite, folding AA is even worse again.
Andy.
I'm sorry Andy, but for you own sake you should very much pray that it is never decided that foding AA is the proper play in certain cases.
Because I don't think you could do it. You are just way too closed minded to new concepts.
I've had about enough of this. Three years ago I did not know the first thing about poker. In the last 6 months I have cleared over $20,000 playing part-time twice a week. Either I am open to new concepts which I have learned or I have worked it all out for myself and I am a fucking genius.
This correspondence is closed.
Andy.
Maybe you could've been up 25K.
Guys,
Let's talk some real strategy here. This is unbelievable! Almost all of these situations concerning pocket aces are without the details of the exact situations that they occurred. If we are going to discuss a situation, lets do it in context of the situation.
i had a question as to which types of hands are good to play in a tourneys when going heads up with someone. for example, are Ax, Kx, and Qx considered raising hands and can i call a raise with these hands. lately i feel like my heads up game has been costing me extra chips by not being aggressive enough with hands like these. i have been doing all right with the way i've been playing which is sometimes folding these hands(mainly when there is a raise, but i just wanted to know what other people think. and i have one final question: what book, if any, would be a good purchase for improving my tourney play? thanks!
Pedro,
Ace anything is huge heads up. Don't pay much attention to whether your cards are suited heads up. Play big cards and see a lot of flops. Don't call raises with junk but if you feel he's raising with junk, re-raise him and show him a bluff after he folds. Take control and make him passive. If he is ultra-aggressive then trap him. Make him think he's in charge and check raise him a few times.
Russ
No-Limit Hold'em daily tournament($10 dollar rebuys, rebuy period not over)
(the details aren't that important but here's a few)I have black/pocket nines in the big blind, 4 callers, no pre-flop raise. Flop is 9-8-5 all hearts. I bet out(the size of the pot), two fold, one guy calls, then the last player(very loose) on the button, who has a MAJOR boner for ANY flush draw, goes all-in. His stack is half the size of my average size stack, so I go all-in to try to isolate him.
The guy who only called is now bewildered about what to do and starts to think. At some point he states that he flopped a straight(he had no heart in his hand), and starts to think some more.
Now here's my question: I have a pretty conservative image, so if I were to say to this guy,"Save your money", implying that his straight is no good, and then he tosses his hand, would that be considered unethical?
I didn't do it, but I was tempted, and I'm certain the chances of this particular guy dumping his hand would have gone way up, but I just wasn't sure how it would be viewed. [it would be one thing to say it with a sinister grin on your face while half laughing against somebody you know well, but using a simpathetic sincere tone of voice against somebody you don't know very well(or not at all) is something else.]
-Don
in this situation it absolutely is - go ahead and say what you like. the reason i say this is because he was the one who started discussing hands - how do you know he's telling the truth? he's unsure as to what to do so he announces his hand in order to illicit some information - most likely a tell by how you and the other guy react.
he's the one acting unethically if anyone. if he'd said 'i've flopped a straight, i fold' that's fair enough but he didn't.
by the way in the UK it is illegal to talk about your hand in this way - i'm undecided as to whether or not it's a good rule or not, some see it as an extension of the game and a type of bluff or double bluff.
It is technically illegal but it still happens. I am loath to call someone for it (and get their hand folded) but I have seen it done. Maybe I should !
Andy.
I think heads up this isn't an unethical play, but there is another opponent in the hand. If he is on a flush draw he wants this player to call, and your angling in this situation hurts him.
Derrick
It's part of the game. I hate the idea of poker players becoming whimpy. "He lied to me, boohoo."
The question of morality is not the only one here: what if you want to tell the truth later?
Example: AA in late stages of a tournament, you set a trap that has got 50-75% of an opponents chips in the pot before the flop.
Flop comes, he bets an underpair, you go all in and say "I have aces" because you don't want him to draw out on you. If you lied before, he'll probably call, putting you at risk of busting out. If you hadn't lied, you might get that big pot without a fight.
At last year's Orleans Open (the final NL event), I was sitting next to a well known tournament player and figure in the poker world. Three of us saw the flop and he was first to act. He made a bet. While the second player was thinking about what to do, this well known player leaned over to me and wispered "hey, you better get out". The flop totally missed me so I folded. But I didn't believe him and I didn't think saying that to me was the right thing to do. I only wish I had a hand, because I would have reraised in a heartbeat.
JohnnyD
My first post, but I've played local tournaments for several years.
Limit HE Tourney, rebuy period has ended. I have T1000 in chips, blinds are 50-100, table has 2 very loose players and one or two moderately loose who have chips from lucky play. I have already folded with A-K after the flop, and stolen once with A-J. Most of what I have is from a rebuy. Mid position I have 10-10 and open raise, player to my immediate left, a very loose player, calls, and the BB, a chip leader and moderately loose, re-raises. I call, player to my left calls.
Flop comes A-Q-10. BB bets, I raise, player to my left raises and BB caps it. At this point, I feel I'm pot committed with only T500 to go, so I call. When a rag comes on the turn and the river, I'm all in. BB shows A-Q, my loose nemesis to my left shows K-J for the flopped straight, and I'm done. My earliest exit in a long time.
Questions: Should I have re-raised on the flop to get heads-up? I had seen the BB play before, and he was capable of 3 bets with only 2 big cards and no big pair. Plus, he had seen me laydown cards (the A-K hands) after a re-raise on the flop. I thought I had him on the flop, and indeed I did. I thought about a re-raise, but decided the loose player would call anyway.
Should I have folded to the cap on the flop? I thought I was in trouble with bottom set and a straight on the board, but at that stage of the tournament, short stacked, I needed chips, and thought that calling with a wing and a prayer was better than folding and trying to survive with T500.
Any other comments?
"In no limit, the more chances you take, the more chances you have of getting busted...You learn survival, that's the thing you have to learn to win tournamnets."
"You have to be selective in the hands you play in NL holdem. In tournaments, the one overriding factor that you always have to consider is, 'I must survive to have a chance to win'. You have to think about this all the time. This is why I play a conservative game early. I don't worry about how many chips I have early in the tournamnet; I'm a plodder. I know that opportunities will come."
"Everytime you play a pot, your whole idea in playing it is to get to the final table. Everytime you have to make a decision, (for example about callin a bet) you should be thinking to yourself 'If i call this be and I'm wrong, I won't be getting to the final table.' With this thinking always in your mind, all of the margianl hands you are dealt should be easy to throw away. It's different when you know that it's not a marginal decision - it's pot you have to call." [I'm not sure how to interpret this last line]
Think about all this the next time you call all in in the first round with a 2:1 edge.
TJ says "I know that opportunities will come."
What exactly do you think he is talking about here? You don't think flopping the nuts and being bet into is an opportunity? For instance? Or having someone go all in before you when you have AA? These are the high edge situations that TJ is looking for, trust me. Get his opinion on this, I'm sure he'll tell you you have to play AA in this situation, and the nut flush in the other situation, etc.
You are way to distracted by "hands". Quads is crap whn your opponent has a straight flush. Everything is relative.
We'd have to ask TJ his meaning, I don't want to be misquoting him because I could be wrong, but I think he is looking for much much more than a 2:1 edge when he says "opportunities" early in this tournament. Key concepts here: EARLY and the "AA and FLUSH" situations are purely 2:1 favorites despite the hand strengths.
To the bat phone Robin......
Hmmmm ... not sure what you are calculating, but A-A is approximately a 4-1 favorite over any hand before the flop. Unless you have someone drawing dead or at only a few outs on the turn, you aren't going to find many situations better to get your money all-in. However, the general gist of your point is not so bad: there are no great hands, only great situations.
Not if there is another AA and two ther hands out. Do the math.
Sure, if there is another A-A out, the situation changes dramatically. I didn't see any mention of that above.
It's been posted many times. The thread started with this scenario:
First round of the WSOP blinds 25/50, you get AA in mid positon, early player bets, you make a pot size raise, then next player goes all-in, follwed by another late postion player going all in and then the original bettor goes all in. Do you call with AA and risk going broke as a 3:1 to favorite (I say thats a small edge in the early rounds, some claim that it is huge edge)or do you fold and look for a better situation or situations to play your chips? It's quite possible considering the action so far that the other aces are out. If they are, you are only a 2:1 favorite to split and double up. If you do play and lose, you are out your $10,000 and chance to win. If you play and win your chip total goes from .001% of the total to .006% at best. Please, feel free to weigh in.
I've been too busy trying to make enough money to get back to the WSOP to be keeping up on the forum.
In my only decent shot at the main event, I had A-A once in two days and won only the blinds. The problem in the early rounds is that unless someone has a really big hand, you aren't going to get any preflop action. So the reality is that you can make more money with other hands in better situations. Thus, it would not bother me to throw it away.
Omaha junkies should recognize a key concept here: it is not good poker to commit a lot of money to draw at half the pot.
The other point is that you are talking very tiny blinds here. With 10k in front of you, you realize how trivial 25-50 blinds are.
If you cannot throw this away, you probably cannot throw away top pair when you flop it. If you cannot do that, you cannot win the final event of the WSOP.
That makes about 4 of us that would throw it away and wait for better spots while the blinds are very small and the poor players are still around. You cant's win the tourney on the first day, but you can lose it.
Fold!
Why? Because you came to play poker not no foldem Holdem. You didn't come to get lucky. Sure you know that somewhere along the line you may need to get lucky but there is a time and place for everything. The early round of a tournament where your skill has not had time to give you the edge you were planning on having is not the place to let someone else get lucky at your expense. Fold.
vince
Havn't heard from them in a while on this subject. Are you guys still adamant about never folding AA preflop early in a tourney??
I've been busy playing tourneys for the last few days, so haven't been reading or posting.
I am glad to repeat, however, that early in a tourney there is no time in which it is correct to fold AA preflop. In a winner-take-all tourney, early or late, it is never correct to fold AA preflop.
After the flop, entirely different, of course.
Up above, when you counted Earl as #4 in your converts, I don't think you counted right. I don't think Earl meant folding AA preflop is correct; I think he meant being able to get away from the hand postflop (but I might be wrong, hopefully he'll clarifty).
Also, if Vince is agreeing with you about folding AA preflop, or folding to a big all-in bet when you KNOW you're a 2:1 favorite, then shame on him. He knows better.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"Also, if Vince is agreeing with you about folding AA preflop, or folding to a big all-in bet when you KNOW you're a 2:1 favorite, then shame on him. He knows better."
Shame on me then. I fold in the first round of the world series final. Suppose all 9 opponents called the bet?
vince
A poll was taken last year among about 40 to 50 top tournament players regarding folding AA against an all in pre-flop in round I of the WSOP. They split about 50-50 on the question.
Arguing this is like arguing religion or politics.
This is the rirst mention of this since the thread has been started as far as I know. Was it really? Where did you hear this, is it recorded anywhere, I'd like to read it.
Thanks for the info. I'm going to research the article
...it's about as much research as you need
Can't remeber, but I definitely read it somewhere. I wish I could find it. I will do some research.
I know from personal experience, having played in tourneys with TJ on a few occasions, that he does not consider 2:1 a marginal edge. I've seen him make calls early in a tourney where the best he can hope for is to be a 2:1 favorite. Of course, more than a little money had already gone into the pot, so he was getting more than a 1:1 return on the call.
I wish TJ read this forum, and could reply. I'm sure that he would tell you that he has NEVER folded AA preflop early in a tourney. Yes, postflop. And yes, he may even have done it once or twice when it was very late in the event (though I doubt it). Never early and preflop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Also, I don't think TJ always plays EXACTLY like he wrote in his book.
JohnnyD
When the situation was AA preflop and you're a 2:1 favorite, most people were in genral disagreement with me (that you should not fold), but there was some feeling from those people that there could be logic (me being wrong) at least something to debate, behind it.
Then ohKanada posted his quiz where you flop the nut flush and you are 2:1 to a set on the second hand of the WSOP. I suggested folding again. The responses were generally "ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FLIPPIN MIND!!!!"
Now what really scares me, is the vast difference in sentiment about the two hands. It is scary because as most of you know, It is the same EXACT situation whether the hands are AA preflop, nut flush on the flop or calling the river with Q high. A 2:1 favorite is a 2:1 favorite to win the hand and double up regardless of the cards and hand values that compile it. You know who you are.
Many poeple have stated that doubling from 10k to 20k is a very significant increase in the first round. No one has offered a reason why except you will be a greater force at the table and can survive a couple more beats. All very valid points. But as you can see, from TJ quotes I posted below, that during the first day, you want to play very conservative, if you are fortuante to get a big stack early, you protect it, not try and play more hands...
Of course no one says that you have to follow TJ's advice or he's right about it. Free country, Your choice.
I at least offered the point that if the WSOP was say 600 players doubling from 10k to 20k would increase your stack from .001% of the chips to .003% of the chips. To me this is not a very significant chip gain to risk busting on ANY hand ONLY at this level. Any other situation would require a completely new evaluation before dterming what to do in a 2:1 situation.
The problem with this thinking is that the better players will run you over if you refuse to take a stand when you have a 2-1 edge. That is why super-aggressive players like Hellmuth, Ungar, and Brunson had particularly great success in tournaments. They adjusted and exploited their opponents' overly-tight play, moving chips with impunity, but rarely CALLING bets.
It is similar to playing a ring no-limt game against scared money. There is no easier game to beat, and I would prefer it ti even a table full of calling stations. But maybe that's because I get a lot more mediocre or outright doggy hands than monsters.
I think TJ's play early in a tournament and his written advice is designed to perpetuate the notion that he always has the goods. He then uses this image to rob people silly once the blinds are high enough to make it worth the risk. If you review his later stage play in the WSOP, you will notice that he isn't always holding a duke when someone plays back at him.
I definately agree with you on TJ's strategy. At one point he advocates going in with 7-2 if the "time is right".
Players will not take advantage of me for folding a 2:1 favorite early, for how will they know I am laying down a 2:1 favorite? Keep in mind, that I would only do this play early, as all the good players are staying out of pots without premium hands. In most mid level situations you are going to have to call, but this result WILL be getting you closer to your goal of getiing into the money. The levels move faster and as you the money is more signigicant so you can't pass on a 2:1 opportunity.
Gator,
I can see one reason for using your strategy of folding favourites early in a tournament:
If you play better than most of the players, so you can depend on building your stack beacuse of your superior skills in other situations.
Now, I would think this will apply to very few players.
If you give up a lot of EV when you do have the best of it - in possible all-in situations - you must win the chips someplace else, and probably outplay your opponents to a certain degree.
The Balrog
"If you can't spot the winner at the table, it's you."
Making him fold when he is 2:1 favourite. Anyone disagree ?
Andy.
Agree 100%. I tried to make this point in a prior thread in long-winded fashion, but it didn't seem to resonate.
I guess they get their opponents to fold 2:1 favorites at the later stages, when it REALLY matters. Of course, I generally find it is much harder to get opponents to fold later in the tournament when the blind/stack ratio is so high. But that's just me.
That is a good definition for outplaying your opponent on any given hand in a ring game. But this is the Tourney forum, so I'm more interested in definitions for this game.
The only definiton I know of outplaying your opponent in a tourney is using appropriate money management stategy to ensure yourself a payout, optimally in the top three places.
Since you seem to have the dictionary handy, maybe you could tell me a better one.
In this case, you're not making him fold as a 2:1 favorite. He's making himself fold. You're not outplaying him; he's outplaying himself.
Actually, I haven't decided whether I agree with this or not. I have some thoughts on this whole subject which I'll expand on if I get around to it.
The payout structure of the tourneys I play is rather strange. No matter how many players there are, only 3 places are paid. Deals are commonplace and I would like to do some work on the math. Before I do so I would be grateful if someone could check if my theory is correct. I have ignored differences in skill.
Example: 3 players remain and only 2 prizes are paid. The stack sizes are A= 3000, B =2000 and C =1000. My first question: is considering what happens when all the players go all-in blind a reasonable model?
In this example, if all the players go all-in the following are the outcomes:
A=3000 B=2000 C=1000 -1/6 of the time, A=3000 B=0 C=3000 - 1/6, A=0 B=5000 C=1000 - 1/3, A=0 B=0 C=6000 - 1/3.
Another question: once 2 players remain is it reasonable to assume that their chances of winning are in direct proportion to their stack size?
If my theory is correct the approximate share of total prize money due to each player is as follows: A 16% B 38% C 46%.
Does this seem reasonable?
In my example 1st prize is twice as much as 2nd.
I believe you got it right ! I’ve calculated the excact numbers to be: 16.03 37.78 46.19
I'm looking to buy a tournament software package so I can practice a bit at home. I would rather play live tourneys but there are next to none in the Chicago area. Anyway, does anyone have any experience with the acespade or wilson software? Or can anyone recommend another software package? Thanks in advance for your help! Sorry if this is considered an off-topic post.
Thanks, Dru
In my opinion, you get better experience playing on the internet against real people. Three choices, PokerPages, PokerSpot and/or IRC. These aren't great, not like a real tournament, but better than a software package.
JohnnyD
I'm not entirely sure that playing in _free_ tournaments on the Internet is better than playing against a good program.
If the software is good enough and you use it sensibly you can learn a great deal.
Andy.
I have the wilson tournament program. I like it although the NL games are too easy. I win the big one too often in the program.
I looked at the acespade website and I do like the ability to be able to configure blind structures. Wilson has 10 or 15 different blind structures. I would like to be able to configure it to look just like upcoming real tournies.
I do agree that real tournies is the best practice.
Ken
If you want to play tourneys at home, you can play on flipside.com - The level of the players is weak but it's free practice and there are a number of tourneys every night. It's a great way to sharpen your skills. You can also play tourneys at Poker Paradise.com
I recently received the payout schedule from Binions for the final event.
Did you know that if there are 624 entries you will get more money for winning second place? It states that first place will get $1,500,000. Second place pays 27.5%. That's right they will pay second place $1,716,000.
If there are 625 or more entries, third place will pay more than second place. First is $2,000,000, second is $1,000,000, and third pays 25.5%.
So, I guess third is sometimes better than second. Now, what strategy should I use?
When it's down to three-handed, make a deal!
Maybe TJ suggested that payout. Just kidding. Is it possible it's 27.5% after you deduct the $1.5m from the pool??
JohnnyD
nt
That's the answer, mah. I just got my copy in the mail and if you add up all of the percentages, you get 100%, after you take out the $1.5m and the flat $15,000, etc amounts.
JohnnyD
JohnnyD,
If that's true then 3rd only pays 622,200 if there are 625 entries. But, I wonder if we can make them pay 25.5% like they advertise for 3rd place. It does not say after the other places are paid. Maybe, we can get a lawyer to make them pay.
Assuming you want second place; When it gets head-up you can't just 'Dump', because they'll make you turn your hands over and you could win. So you'll have to dump'em off in big chunks(your chips that is, not turds).
how can i become a dealer? don't you tourney pros think this is way too much. the usual 10 to 30 thousand tip for winning the wsop championship event is going to jump up to be hundreds of thousands. what a joke. Am i missing something?
what happens now is that those who just came in the money didnt often tip, and now in effect they are tipping 3% as well. second third and fourth usually didnt give quite 3% but now have to. basically every 30 tournaments the floor and dealers take one for themselves. and what about the dummies that feel compelled to tip after winning anyway, they really take a hosing down. where is pt barnum when we need him.
Ray,
You got it. I urge all players not to tip at this event or any other that automatically takes a hold.
Not that I am going to the WSOP but I think the trend of holding out a certaing percentage is good. 3% might be too much for the big one. My understanding is if you did tip $10000 that you would be taxed on that $10000. Atleast now you won't get taxed on money you don't actually get.
Ken Poklitar
do you know how much 3% actually is at the WSOP? say 1st event 400 enter the $2000 holdem. 3% of 800000 is 24,000 thats probably more tip than anybody has tipped for the big one. you do the math on the big one
I didn't say 3% was the correct percent. I said I like the concept. I would guess somewhere between 1 and 2 is more correct for big buy-in tourney's.
Ken Poklitar
oh.....still 1 or 2% is still quiet high. they should come out with a fixed figure that is reasonable
Andy Ward Wrote, "I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. However, in Bob Ciaffone's account of his 1987 third place finish he says that eventual winner Johnny Chan won _12_ even-money hands on his way to the title, and those were just the ones Bob saw.
've never played in the WSOP. However I contend that if you habitually pass up situations where you are 2/1 favourite (or have a similar edge against the pot odds), you are toast in this event. Maybe someone who has played at this level could comment.
Andy."
The first question I have is whether or not Chan won 12 even money all ins (or crippling type hands). It is easy to call an all-in bet when you figure to be even money when it won't take a huge slice of your stack. For instance, you have 2's in the BB and a late position player raises all-in about 10% of your stack, and it is folded to you.
These are a lot easier even money calls to make then going all-in in the same situation.
Also, like Andy, I would love to hear comments from people who have been in the WSOP about hands they went all-in with.
Andy, I hope it is alright for me to do this???
Derrick
Fine. I exoect the hands weren't all all-in but it is reasonable to assume that at least some of them were.
Andy.
Tom McEvoy only busted one player out of the WSOP he won.
At the Orleans two weeks ago. I am an absolute rookie at NL HE, but I have read a few books and articles to try to have a feel. Game ends rebuy period w/ 104 players. This hand occurs when we're down to 27...I'm pretty happy I made it this far. 9 at my table.
Hand before (irrelevant probably) on the button, I tried a steal with A2s and lost over half of my stack. Just curious...bad move to steal with this hand assuming fairly tight blinds and 1050 in pot (I tried steal with 1000 and was reraised 600 more against by AJs)? Now I am down to 1500 chips after the ante. Ante is 50 each and blinds are 200 and 400. Total in pot is 1050. I appear to be short stacked, but I am actually fifth at the table.
Player three off the blinds goes all in with 1300. He has gone all-in twice each orbit for the last three orbits and has not had much resistance. When he has had resistance, he has mucked his hand, so I cannot be 100% sure he is stealing, but it seems reasonable. I look at my cards and see AJs in the cutoff. What do I do here? Clearly it is raise or fold.
The hand before is relevant. If I have this right, there is 1050 in the pot, plus your 1000, plus his 650 call (at least, depending on his position) plus 600 raise, which makes 3300. Presuming his raise is all-in [I sense I am going to regret saying this but I am 100% confident here] you have pot odds to call and then some. You are only a 5/2 dog. Or did you call, it's not clear ?
On the second hand, if your opponent is aware of [what I believe to be] correct short-stack strategy then he could have a lot less than AJ and I would be inclined to go all-in.
Andy.
Easy call. 9 hands is going to cost you 1050. You didn't mention your position but is important, you may not get 15 more hands and each one drains your stack with the ante. I believe this T pays only the final table, so your going to have to play a hand soon. I don't doubt this is it.
I wouldn't get my hopes up too much that guy has crap, and he's not mucking anything this time because hes commited. But your read that he may be moving with less than premium hands adds much more value to your call.
I'm going to disagree with both of the other responses and say that I would have played both hands quite differently. Here's why... in the first hand, I believe that A-2 is a horrible hand to try to steal with, being suited doesn't matter. The most likely hands you'll run into when the blinds resist are pairs and A-x. Their A-x will always be bigger than yours, so you're a big dog most every time they call or reraise. Also, the pot odds don't matter. I believe this is a very important point in tournament strategy... there are no such thing as pot odds in tournament play. If you don't believe me we can have a separate thread on that concept alone and get into the nitty-gritty. With the second hand it's a clear call, but I wouldn't reraise all-in. You don't have enough to truly "isolate" with a strong raise, so don't waste your last $200. There's a chance nobody behind you will call and you could end up saving yourself another shot at a pot (albeit tiny). If anyone behind you likes their hand they'll reraise to get you all-in, so you'll likely have a chance to donate your last chips... but at least make somebody work for it. Every chip means something and the less you have, the more it means. As a general rule, if you find yourself ever saying "I might as well go all-in 'cuz I'm so short anyways," you are probably making a mistake. good luck- Craig H.
In the first hand, I believe he made the absolute right move by trying to steal the blinds and antes with A2s. The pot is 1050 at this point and only the blinds are left to act. You are giving up way to much if you don't. Sure, if they do call or raise you, you might be in trouble, but how often will they? He stated there "hadn't been much resistance" to another players attempts. This is a perfect hand to "steal" with, anything much stronger would not be a "steal" but a value bet.
In the second hand, you have me really confused. You say you wouldn't push all in at first(extra $200) but (quote) "You don't have enough to truly "isolate" with a strong raise, so don't waste your last $200. There's a chance nobody behind you will call and you could end up saving yourself another shot at a pot"
You don't realize that if you do push your whole stack and no one does call, you will be refunded the $200 win or lose. If anyone does raise, your can't fold your last $200, you might as well push it all, for that reason and that it looks stronger to move in, than to count out your chips and just call. You may get someone to fold that might not if you move in versus call.
I have to agree with Gator about going all-in the second hand. It was definitely a situation where I wanted to isolate, and even though mathematically 200 shouldn't make much difference, the perception of two players going all-in might be enough to keep a third player out with a marginal hand, whereas a call seems to invite a call (maybe just perceptually, but I think that perceptions matter here).
I understand what you both are saying, but I feel it is a common error. True, the extra 200 is refunded if nobody calls. But by just calling, there is a possibility that a mediocre hand or small stack behind you will also just call and give you a chance to see the flop and save $200 if worst comes to worst. The raise really doesn't offer you any power, and having players all-in may give others MORE incentive to call, when they may have been willing to just call the initial bet without raising you all-in. It's just an example of one opportunity to potentially save yourself a chance to see one more hand when 99% of tournament players would reflexively go all-in.
I think your way off base here buddy. If you just call and another player calls, there will be about 3250 in the pot. I don't think there is a flop out there you could fold AJ on if you are getting 16:1 for two more cards. You say you could save $200 if "if worst comes to worst". Please tell me what flops you would fold this hand on. Most players are going to come out swinging on the flop regardless of the cards, you will almost always be facing a call or fold from the cutoff, and rarely have a chance to lead at the flop.
There is no way you can "save" half a small bet on this hand, If you decide to play the AJ here, you are commited to the hand, no question about it.
You may as well push all in indicating a strong hand than call, indicating a mediocre hand, which may invite a call.
Folding any flop with AJs for T200 when there is T3000 in the pot is very weak.
Please don't start a new thread on pot odds not mattering in tournaments. I just don't have the energy for it. Consult the archives instead.
Andy
PS They do.
This should be underneath "Pot Odds do matter" by ThePrince below.
Andy.
If you wish, you could start a new thread on the subject but if you think pot odds are irrelevent in tournament play, you are missing on some great +EV plays.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Steal bettor had an A5o. Of course, I had raised all-in (call +200) with AJs.
The nasty part was that the small blind (the same player who had called my previous steal attempt) went all-in himself with a KK after me.
No Ace on the flop, no 5, no Jack, and no other help. KK wins...two players out of the tournament and $10 bounty paid to the Small Blind player.
To his credit, the SB was very gracious in victory after cracking me over the head two hands in a row, but I still couldn't stop thinking about this hand and whether I'd made the right move.
I think the best lesson learned for me was that 4 hours of tight, solid play can go POOF very quickly! I knew that already in my mind, but once it happens, the point really sinks home.
Thanks for all the advice. Looking forward to see if there are any more comments.
Mojay
So in this case the extra 200 didn't matter. Playing your hand in that circumstance is still the correct play. Nothing you can do about KK except draw out... which was entirely possible.
"4 hours of tight, solid play can go POOF very quickly". Indeed they can. But this should not stop you from making the correct play.
I made a bad strategic mistake in the last big tournament I played. I was chip leader on the table with 3 tables left. Instead of playing aggressively as the situation demanded (I was chip leader but still needed more as I had less than 10% of the chips in play) I tried not to jeopardise the hours I had already put in with predictable (in hindsight) consequences, I busted out in 14th.
If you passed your hand to an expert player to play, he would not need to know how long you had been playing for to make the best play. You [we] should play as of the now !
Andy.
You did fine on both hands.
When the blinds are way up there, you have to steal pots. Having an Ace-deuce is a good opportunity. Of course, sometimes you don't even need cards. Go for it. I you run into a better hand, then them brakes.
On the AJs hand, I think you should call. The player could be looking to play any ace or any 20 hand (KT, QJ) against most of them you are the favorite. As Andy and Gator have said, you should, of course, go all-in.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
On your first hand I don't think you raised enough on your steal attempt. You only raised 600. The BB is being given the odds to call with almost anything.
On the second hand, I don't like calling raises with AJs but in this situation the all-in raise is not necessarily a big card raise since he is short stacked. Plus you are short stacked as well.
With only 200 extra I would go all-in.
Now if that 200 was 1000 then with AJs I would only call. If someone else calls as well then you could bet out on the flop and hope the other player folds.
Ken Poklitar
Right. I know I said I wasn't going to post on this any more about three days ago but I can't help myself sometimes. I believe that the central difference of opinion on the issues we have been discussing over the last week is as follows. I believe that, in the early rounds of the tournament, if, for example, you treble your chips then you are trebling your chances of winning the tournament (and making the final table, making the money, etc.). Gator and his, er, associates (?) do not. First of all, is this a fair statement of the situation ?
Here is why I believe what I am saying. This is a paraphrasal of an argument by David Sklansky on heads-up play. Suppose that in the first hand of the tournament, you treble up. You now have 3 times the buy-in, while everyone else has 1 buy-in. If we play a large number of tournaments from this point, and all players are equally skilled, you will neither lose nor win chips over the long run. When you win a tournament, you end up with n buy-ins in chips, where n is the number of players. When you lose, you end up with nothing. For the net flow of chips to be zero over this time, you must win 3/n times. Compare this to your chance of 1/n at the beginning.
So, if you have a 50% chance to treble up on the first hand (say), this is worth taking over the long run. 50% of the time you lose ; 50% of the time you increase your chances from 1/n to 3/n.
I believe the problem is two-fold ; firstly, the psychological aspect of the immediate punishment appears larger to people than the delayed gratification ; secondly, people simply do not believe that their chances are increased as I have explained above.
Comments welcome,
Andy.
I do not doubt the validity of your case one bit, it seems prety solid.
You also state clearly in the second paragraph exactly why it does not apply to the early rounds of the tourney and exactly why it might be the best move to fold. I just don't think you realize it. Here it is, your quote:
"If we play a large number of tournaments from this point, and all players are equally skilled, you will neither lose nor win chips over the long run"
In the early point of a tourney all players are NOT equally skilled. There are a lot of poor players, and you should not be on of them. You should feel that if you play your best, you should win this tourney. If you don't, then you are wasting your money and time playing the tourney hoping to get lucky, in which case you can play any hand you want, what does strategy matter if you are going to rely on luck in the long run.
I take your point, but that was merely a simplification to clarify the mathematical aspects. If you are a skilled player, your chance at the beginning is more than 1/n. When you treble up, your chance increases proportionally to more than 3/n.
You believe that the edge you have over your opponents is so large that the risk of busting out is not worth the reward of the kinds of edges we are talking about. I believe it isn't. That may be where we have to leave it.
Andy.
Andy,
You are correct. From my experience this is the case. Last year when I played the $125 No-Limit Hold'em, with unlimited rebuys for the first 80 minutes at the Orleans Open, there were several players that did not rebuy. What happened is that they lost all there chips by the second or third level. The players that did the rebuys survived futher into the tournament.
Gator wrote "You should feel that if you play your best, you should win this tourney. ....... what does strategy matter if you are going to rely on luck in the long run."
Please provide examples of situations where you will not have to rely on luck and how often you expect these to occur during a tournament.
I don't think I understand your questions but I'll shoot:
Q: "Please provide examples of situations where you will not have to rely on luck"
A: Situations where you have the best of it.
Q: "how often do you expect these to occur during a tournament?"
A: I "expect" it every time I play a hand, unfortunatley I'm not that good...yet
Just to clarify, when you have the best of it, you can still lose the hand, obviously (hopefully it doesn't cost you the tourney too). That is bad luck. Just don't be the guy needing the "luck" in that hand and you will come out on top more often than not. You can't win 'every' time.
I have a philosphy towards the game that I don't think many others do. I hate bad luck, but it doesn't stop there. It would be hypocritical to despise being unfortuante, but to be happy with good fortune. So I hate good luck too. Good luck for you means bad luck for someone else, I am not happy with being lucky, I want to be better.
Remember that the cards are going to break even over the long run. If I am dealt AA three times in a row, I don't see that as good luck, because I've gone days without seeing rockets. This is how I define good luck: when you make the wrong decision, but it pays off anyway.
If I never make a wrong decision in a tourney, I will be hugely successful. I won't win or place in every one (thats the nature of cards) but the results would be spectacular I'm sure.
I hope that answers your question
Gator wrote:
Q: "Please provide examples of situations where you will not have to rely on luck"
A: Situations where you have the best of it.
does having aces preflop qualify as a situation where you have the best of it?
Gator wrote:
Just to clarify, when you have the best of it, you can still lose the hand, obviously (hopefully it doesn't cost you the tourney too). That is bad luck. Just don't be the guy needing the "luck" in that hand and you will come out on top more often than not. You can't win 'every' time.
exactly. that's why you must play aces preflop.
In an earlier thread, I stated that I had read an article saying that a group of expert NL tournament players had split on the question of calling an all in bet holding AA early in the WSOP final event.
I went searching for the article. I found the article that I was thinking of, but I was mistaken about the question the article posed. It is a much different question, but does show how pros can split on a strategy question.
http://www.cardplayer.com/newcp/articles/080400/q.html
It speaks for itself.
It is interesting but it has nothing to do with all the recent threads we have been having.
Ken Poklitar
"It is interesting but it has nothing to do with all the recent threads we have been having."
No, I think it has everything to do with them. Sure the scenario is not the same, but the concepts and rationales used to decide call or fold are exactly the same.
You have the best hand preflop, but we know that there is really no such thing as a good hand, only good situations.
There are arguments, for and against, calling or folding. The article points them out nicely.
For folding: "Where is the equitable risk vs. reward by calling in this situation?" they moan. They insist that even though there is a number of different outcomes to the above situation, their overview definitely is more risk adverse and mathematically sounder with respect to the financially practical side of tournament play."
For calling: "They all seem to think that if a player cannot call preflop with aces in this or most any similar situation, he should not even play the game - and his photo has no place in a poker gallery that is reserved only for titans, not gutless warriors. Several well-known players said that even if they thought that it may not be the "correct" thing to do, they would go ahead and call, anyway.
There are more, some spelled out, some implied, if you care to find them.
As I stated in my post.
Tyro,
The problem with this situation is a lack of information. What are the blinds at this point in the tournament? If you muck the aces, what are your chances of finishing in first place? Can you outplay your opponents if one of them has 75% of the chips?
I would go along with TJ Cloutier and play the aces in this situation. I'll assume that the blinds are very high and that is why everyone went in. Of course I doubt very much that this situation would ever occur.
Good article and certainly things to think about. BUT, this is way not the same scenario as the one discussed last week.
Last week, we were talking about mucking aces in the early rounds of a tournament. A clear error, IMO. This situation takes place when there are 4 players left. Folding here has an INSTANT cash reward. Maybe some players would very much appreciate the extra $ given to the second place finisher, as it would give them some breathing room. Other players would only care about the title (like TJ), enticing them to call here, when they have the best of it and hopefully get it over with right away.
There are times to fold the aces, sure, but please don't compare this situation with the one last week, if one fails to see the differences then he really don't understand this game.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Geez, did some of you not read my entire post?
I did not say it was the same scenario as last week. I clearly said: "It is a much different question, but does show how pros can split on a strategy question."
Then, how did you come up with this statement?:
"There are times to fold the aces, sure, but please don't compare this situation with the one last week, if one fails to see the differences then he really don't understand this game."
Ouch.
Please re-read my entire post.
I apologize Tyro. I know what you said in your post. I know that you meant that even high caliber experts can disagree on a subject. In fact my comment was not and still is not directed at you.
My post should have been posted under Gator's second post. In the one where he says he sees many similarities between the 2 situations. I strongly disagree with that.
Sorry for the misunderstanding...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Thanks Nicolas. That was a very nice post. Apology accepted. I did not want to put you on the spot. I always read and enjoy your posts.
Alden
I think you stongly disagree that there are similarites in the article and posts because you cannot extract the abstract concepts from the hand. Your thinking is confined to the absolute situation, not the logic that decides to call or fold. If you reread Q's article and try to get insight from it, you may see the parralells. If not I will gladly point them out to you.
Of course there are conceptual similarities. However, I think you are taking some of these concepts, particularly risk-aversion in tourneys, and applying them to situations where they are not germane.
Folding AA preflop when down to the final 4 in a tourney is not very similar to folding AA preflop on the first hand (or otherwise early-on).
The concept that sometimes you should fold when you think (even know) you have the best of it exists in both situations. The degree to which this concept dictates the optimal course of action varies tremendously in these (and other) situations.
Pulling concepts out of real or hypothetical situations is a great learning tool. Applying those concepts indiscriminately may take away much of the value of that learning.
Let's get more concrete. You've said that you would fold in a spot where you know you're a 2:1 favorite because the other player raised a very small pot all-in. I disagree. Now, let's say instead it's the first hand of the WSOP main event, so blinds are very small relative to stacks (25,50 blinds and 10K stacks). I have 3c3d in the big blind. All fold to you in the small blind, you raise all-in, and show me AdKd. I know I'm a very slight favorite (~1.2% edge) to win here, but I would fold. In this case, the concept that I should avoid going broke with a small edge, because I will pick up larger edges later, does apply (if I'm at least a slightly above-average player or better). However, when we make me a 2:1 favorite (33% edge) instead, nobody is so much better than the field that they should fold. NOBODY.
The thing is, one of the things that makes somebody better than the field is that they recognize more accurately when they have an edge, when they don't, AND they take advantage when they do. If you are folding when you have a big edge on individual hands, then you don't have an overall edge over the field anymore. You will be paying too many blinds, and limping in too often and missing the flop, to make it up on those occasions when you do find yourself with a huge edge postflop. What good does it do you to have an 80% edge for a T5,000 pot if you've bled away T2,000 finding it? You're winning T2500 80%, losing T2500 20%, for a situation that earns you an average of T1500. But, if you spent T2,000 waiting for this opportunity, you're not gaining ground on the field.
Even on pokerpages, the huge opportunities just don't come up often enough to pass on the merely big opportunities. Actually, I would consider 2:1 huge anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Wow. Great post. Hard for me to challenge your thoughts here but I'm afraid that is precisely what I must try and do. You focus on big opportunities.
"However, when we make me a 2:1 favorite (33% edge) instead, nobody is so much better than the field that they should fold. NOBODY."
You are right NOBODY is so much better than the field that... But the fact that NOBODY has a big edge over the field is not the issue. The issue is what is the best strategy for WINNING the tournament. Your philosophy takes into account the edge you have and only that. That in effect is near perfect ring game strategy. Or any pure gambling situation. The only other factor that need be considered in these situations is the size of ones bankroll.
Tournaments are different animals. My guess is that you're success in tournaments comes mainly from your agressive play. I don't see you as one that makes a lot of calls in a tournament but instead takes the initiative and makse the move. Still not to the point am I. When analyzing the situation one finds himself in during tournament play there are prime factors that must be considered. One of the most important skills a tournament player must master is stack management. Why? Because a tournament cannot be won in the early stages. You must survive to a point where your tournament skills can have the effect you are planning on. Gambling early on, in my opinion, is a mistake.
"What good does it do you to have an 80% edge for a T5,000 pot if you've bled away T2,000 finding it?"
A very poignant but decieving question. Again not the point. You are not "bleeding" away chips looking for a situation with an 80% edge. You are minimizing chip loss until your bets have more strength behind them. You are only playing prime situations, hoping to win them without much of an investment early in the tournament. Especially when your stack is great in comparison to the cost of playing (ante and/or blinds). Don't forget that while you are minimizing your chip loss others are gambling. Creating large and small stacks in comparison to yours. When you get to the point where the size of the bet becomes significant you now begin to go hunting. You attack the smaller stacks. If the get lucky and beat you you will still have chips left to try and get lucky. When you are short stacked is the time to gamble not when you have a big stack and can be knocked out by an opponent that gets lucky. You effectivel nullify your skill over a lesser opponent when you allow yourself to gamble with him for all the marbles.
So what do you have to say to that!
Vince
Greg has been kind enough to respond, and I totally agree with his post. I'll just say I've given my opinion on the subject all last week in numerous posts and I think I've said enough.
You are entitled to your opinion, let's move on...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I played in the $330 limit holdem tournament at the NEPC on thursday. I finished 11th and got $450. 11 - 15 payed $450. There is only one place that I can think of that is worse than finishing 11th in this tournament. That may be 16th. Then again, maybe not. Remember this "Do not stop playing just because you made the money".
vince
Vince,
Some players are satisfied with just getting there money. You should take advantage of the players and try to win a big pot when you're just a few places from the money. I believe it is worth the risk to go broke to finish higher.
Good Luck
mah
I did that! It worked! I doubled my chips and had a medium stack with 16 players left! I played some pretty good poker up to that point.
It was once I made the money that I blew it!
vince
Vince,
That's the problem. Once everyone makes the money they start to loosen up. Usually, you will get called. This is actually where you need to go into survival mode for a little while.
For Limit hold'em,
In daily tournaments with only 15 or 20 minute rounds(not satellites), do you need to loosen up significantly in all positions? It seems like you'd need to since you have so little time to sit around and wait for Sklansky type hand chart recommendations. And if you do need to loosen up, by how much?
Early position: open raise with as little as?
Middle:?
Late:?
Thanks for any help
the best answer is vague. you need to loosen up to the extent the blinds dont get you. faster than the field. so if your chip position is much lower than the fields average than you need to start thinking about correcting that soon or bye, bye.
I just qualified for Round 3 of the Poker Pages WSOP warm up tourney. I played in a practice event this morning and went out on this hand. Mid way through tourney I have a med stack of about 700. I get 10,10 UTG and raise the $50 blind by $100. Everyone folds to a generally decent player who goes all in with a bit over $400. They would raise with any big pair or with AK, AQ, KQs maybe even a little less because of their chip stack. So I called, leaving me with $150.
Turned out they had AA and I was gone after the SB.
Was it a dumb move to call with 10,10 or did I just have a little bad luck in that I happened to go against AA?
TT might be a bit weak for UTG at this stage of the tourney. That's because if someone reraises you big, you're going to have to dump. If that's the real range of reraising hands, you are in trouble and should fold. The classic big-dog or small-favorite scenario.
8======D
When you raise UTG and you get reraised ask yourself the following questions:
Does my opponent understand position?
He knows you raised under the gun. If you are a solid player and he is a solid player what hands could he possibly have. There are some players that will raise all in with AK, because they want to see five cards and they know that they have approximately a 50/50 chance to beat any pair except for AA and KK.
But, the possiblity that he has either AK, AA, or KK. Should make this a fold from a solid player.
Is my opponent taking a stand with a weak hand?
This you observe from watching him. Does he protect his blinds? If he doe not, he probably is a tight player.
I think you see where I'm getting with this. It comes down to player evaluation. I would not be very to fold in this situation.
.
Sorry, all I wanted to say was don't raise by x1 the BB...
n/t
Here is another reason why pot odds do matter in tourney play.
In no-limit, you have the opportunity to cut down an opponent's pot odds by raising more than in limit. Because if you don't, your opponent is getting so much implied odds he should sometimes call with pretty much anything. No-limit is sometimes all about implied odds.
For example, let's look at a hand I played recently. Look in the archives for the whole thing. I had 6-2 suited in the BB. We were at the beginning of the tourney and I had about 1000 in chips as did my opponent. The blinds were 5-10. The player raised to 20 all folded and it was up to me. Right there, I'm getting 3:1 on my call, so, unless I'm against an overpair, I'm getting sufficient pot odds to call, because no hand is less than a 2:1 underdog unless it's against an overpair. But, I'm getting HUGE implied odds so a call is pretty much a no-brainer here regardless of what I have. So I did call, turned trip 2s and won a nice pot. The point is, had he raised to 40 then I would have been getting 5:3 (1.66:1)instead of 3:1 cutting my odds significantly (by half). Sure the implied odds are still there but still, it would have been a closer one than with only 1BB to call. Most players don't bother to think about that, they see a raise and fold, but better player see the whole picture, which is getting that whole stack in front of the opponent.
It is usually recommended to raise 3x the BB when you do raise. If you keep a standard raise amount, you will be more difficult to read. I see players under raise or overraise when they hold a big hand or a weaker one. I usually raise 3x the BB wheither I am stealing or if I have AA.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Another option to consider when raising is who you want to call you and how many of them. I think the 3x rule is OK until you get to know your competition.
Sometimes a smaller raise will get a few callers that you would not mind having, but limits other players from limping in with garbage.
But, sometimes you want to raise more to limit the field to just one person. This can be done when you reraise.
Of course, sometimes it's good to vary your play.
Anytime I raise or reraise, it's player dependant, it's a different situation, it's what do I want to accomplish...etc...
But I think as a general rule of thumb 3x is good. Then you make your adjustements.
I surely agree sometimes it's good to deviate from it.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
n/t
I agree with Mah.
This is player dependant. On what hands could this player be doing this ? Is it possible he'd be moving in with any pair?
It's impossible to get a read online so you have to rely on the information you got from this player in the previous hands. If he is very tight and only going to reraise with AK and up (AA and KK), then you should fold. If he's a loose cannon who could be playing this way with AK, AQ, AJ, AT, 99, 88, 77, KQ, etc and the bigger pairs, then you could be a favorite against many of these. Sometimes a very small favorite but still one. Then you have a call.
Also, as Darren has stated, you should have raised to 200 assuming the BB is 50.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Congrats on making Round 3!
I would have raised slightly more than you. I would have made it 200 to go.
When you get re-raised you know that there is a very good chance they have 2 overcards or a higher pair. In a pokerpages round 1 tourney I would call. In round 3 or against real opponents the decision is solely based on your read of the player. If he only has 400 then he has 8x the blinds so he is not quite shortstacked but he is getting really close.
Ken Poklitar
I would like comments on the following hand I played.
It is limit holdem freezeout. 14 players remain. (2 tables of 7 obviously.) 7 places pay. I have T10,000. Average stack T6,500. Blinds T500 & T1000.
I have A9o and open for a raise in middle position, hoping to steal blinds. Old, old guy on button calls, Blinds fold.
Flop: KKJ (suits irrelevant throughout)
I bet (last ditch attempt), he calls.
Turn: 4
I check, he checks.
River: 8.
I check, he bets, I fold.
(So I lost T3,000 on the hand. I never got anything good after that. Immediately after I had taken the blinds, the final table was formed and I was seated in the big blind again. I clung on for 6th).
Any comments on this hand?
Dirk.
With blinds of 500-1000 and close to the final table steals are often successful.
If I am 2 off the button in your scenario I would probably attempt the steal. I also have no problem with your flop bet and the check and check/fold.
Ken Poklitar
Played perfectly IMO. I would have done the same thing.
Derrick
I'm in the $11 (cost of entry) tournament at paradise poker. There are 4 of us left. The blinds are $200, $400. In total there is $8000 at the table.I have about $400, another player has about $400 the other $7200 is shared amongst the other two players. The payout is as follows: 1st $50, 2nd $30, 3rd $20, 4th $0. Basically I figure it will be difficult to win and I want to wait out the other low$ player to slip into third and make a bit of money. Ok.
I'm small blind, (puts me in for 1/2 my money), the BB has lots of money, the other rich guy is next and the low$ guy has the button. UTG folds and low$ player calls, putting him basically all in. So now I have a decision. I can fold, and hope that the BB can beat him and I fall into 3rd. The problem is then I will only have $200 and basically NO chance of going better than 3rd. If I call, I am all in and if I lose the hand I finish 4th, no money.
What kind of hand do I want to have to play this hand? Surely I can't lay down rockets or anything, but where is the line drawn. If I have a hand like AQ, do I just assume fold and hope I can fall into third? How do I decide what kind of hand I want in that situation? (If I fold, I don't have to play the next two hands and low$ needs to go through the blinds)
Any comments?
The decision you have are you happy with 3rd or do you want 1st place?
I think with only 400, you should be happy with 3rd place. The prize difference from 2nd/3rd is only $10. If you can sneak into money you should be happy.
I would only play AA/KK/QQ in the SB. I think AK is a fold in your situation. QQ is a close call/fold.
Ken Poklitar
I would fold a lot of hands here, if not all of them. The way I understand it the short stack will be in the BB in 2 hands, so, even if he makes it here (by doubling up this hand), he'll probably have to go for it again in 2-3 hands, before you have to post your BB again.
Even if you triple up here you still need help so I'd fold now. If I'd play, it would probably be only Aces or Kings. No AK here...
BTW, the short stack should have raised all-in instead of only calling preflop.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
If you fold you will have T200 left.
The other short stack is basically all in on the button.
If you call you will also be all-in.
I would call all-in (raise all-in) with A's, K's, and Q's. The button is in a very tough spot here. He will have to play a blind hand if he doesn't find a hand in the next 2. He could have almost anything. If he doubles through here he will have T1000, but he will have to play the BB and SB ahead of you, this will put him at the advantage. If you call you have to win, or you are done. The BB is going to put you (and/or the button) all-in with any 2 cards, so you must have a made hand to call.
The button is correct to call with any 2 cards here. The reason is that he will be put all-in on his BB if he doesn't win. He knows that you are most likely going to fold, and he will have to play an all-in random hand before you anyway. Here he gets some dead money. In the next position both blinds are likely to call and check it down the entire way (unless they make a hand). I would say his chance of winning is even money here, but he picks up your SB to make the bet a +ve expectation.
You have to hope he loses or the fortunes are reversed. He basically has a 50% chance of making the money unless you have A's, K's, or Q's. If he even has a single chip left he will fold and see if the BB can suck out on you.
Just My Thoughts.
Derrick
In our home no limit tourney, we assume there is a minimum bet on the flop that is equal to the big blind. Is that correct?
I also assumed that the mimimum would double on the turn and river. Is that correct?
KJS (who NEVER bets the minimum)
In most NL tournaments I've played the minimum limit remains the amount of the BB throughout the hand. Of course, it doesn't come up that often.
Nope, the minimum does NOT double on the turn. The minimum is always the amount of the big blind, unless you are going all-in with less. Also, the raises must always be the double of the bet (or raise).
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
If it's your game you can make the rules. I've seen it where the minimum DOES double on the turn and river. That the case at Fort McDowell and I don't remember if it is at Gila River here in the Phoenix area.
JohnnyD
x
I consider myself a pretty good ring player. I recently started playing in more tournaments. My success has been minimal. The question I have is it better to be more aggressive in the early rounds when the limits are smaller, or is it better to play tight early and aggressive later. Comments welcome
Tight aggressive play is the way to go the whole way. Play good positional poker. Don't raise with crap.
Early on you can play a few more drawing type hands but be careful chasing draws.
Later on if you have created a tight image, you can use this image to start stealing pots.
Ken Poklitar
I am relatively inexperienced with tourneys too, but working on it. Take these thoughts accordingly.
I feel that early chip leads especially in no limit tourneys are as ephemeral as the clouds. It seems to me that those with early chip leads usually don't have them later on. My attitude is that early on I play very tight though agressive. I am raising only with group one hands though will occasionally slip in with a draw if there are a lot of callers and no raises and have excellent position.
I will not chase the draw though. I think chasing draws in tourneys is sure death.
Later on I become more agressive and will loosen somewhat on my starting cards, while eliminating draws almost entirely.
Play a good ring game in the beginning (if it is limit) or a tight aggresive NL game. You will be able to play drawing hands in the early rounds because more people will be limping. Don't play drawing hands if the pot odds aren't there (in limit) or if the flop costs you a large percentage of your stack. For instance in NL you can limp with AXs if you can limp for 5% of your stack. If you hit, you can double through against someone playing a weaker flush. In NL steal cautiously in the beginning. The blinds are generally too much of a risk to steal early on. For instance, you have A8o and put in a steal raise from the cut-off and only the BB calls. Flop comes A-3-4, you are very likely ahead, but don't marry the hand. You could also be drawing dead, or way behind. If I bet out here and get called, I am very cautious.
Later when the blinds increase, you will generally be entering the pot with a raise. Play tight aggressive until the final table. As the table decreases in players start playing looser.
You also have to learn what to do short stacked. Here try to find a good situation to double through with. It is best to try to double through against a single opponent, and you may have to be the dog when you do this. When you are desparate try to make sure you are drawing live.
It is often better to have less of a hand against one opponent then a good hand against 3 opponents.
Just my thoughts.
Derrick
Thanks for your all of your reponses. Just to add a few more thoughts. Obviously, chip count seems to be most important throughout the tournament. I was just confussed about when it was most important to try and build you stack. I have taken a no fear attituted early in the tournament and have said to myself that I do not want to be in a pot unless I was raising. It seemed to work early, but after awhile, the bluffs stop working. But believe me I wasn't raising with J-10 off-suit. I normally had good cards. But when the flop has one picture with rags, it seemed that stealing becomes harder and harder as the tournament progesses. Is this true? How agressive is too agressive? Thanks again
Just got back from a NL tourney with unlimited rebuys/add-ons. Initial buy-in is $40 and that gets you 500 chips. After that, you can rebuy or add-on for $20 for an additonal 500 chips if you are under 500 or at the end of the third-round. This is the first time that I played in a tourney with this type of structure. I have some observations and questions.
I saw a lot of players fork out an extra $40 or $60 to get more chips. It seemed like people were less scared about going bust because of the unlimited rebuys. The tourney started with 39 players and there were 71 rebuys/add-ons. Is this normal?
I didn't really like this type of system and opted not to rebuy/add-on at the end of the third round. My thinking was why invest another $40 or $60 IF I don't end up in the money? Let's say you end up spending $100 total on the tourney. The top 9 get in the money, but to get your $100 back, you would now need to finish in the top 6 (or something like that). I discussed this with another player and he told me that the additional rebuys/add-ons are well worth it because it can really help you double up big if you hit a hand. I understand this thinking, but all the unlimited rebuys/add-ons just didn't seem like it was worth it. Can some of you guys please shed some light on this for me? I hate to say it, but I'm really confused.
At the end of the third round, I had about 700 chips and blinds were going to start at 75-150. I didn't add-on, but practically everyone else at my table did. I was probably one the shortest stack in the tourney. However, due to some tight/aggressive play and a little luck, I was able to get the final table and split first place with 2 other guys!!! We each got $700. I don't know if the payout is something to consider when thinking about rebuys/add-ons, but first place was $1200, second $600, and third $300.
Thanks in advance for your comments.
I will always get the addon in this type of tourney. My attitude going in is that this tourney costs me $60 not $40. I have listened to Greg's advice for this and even when I am chip leader I do the addon.
71 rebuy/addons are not necessarily that many. In the Saturday NL tourney I play, one week there must have been 30 rebuys at my table alone. The player beside me made 6 or 7 rebuys plus the addon.
I agree that players are much looser during the rebuy period. During that time I play good cards but you really need to play the table. The same week there were 30 rebuys at my table players were going all-in on complete crap. Plus the betting was way off. Players were continuely overbetting the pot.
I don't like to have to rebuy but sometimes your good cards fail.
Congrats on the win.
Ken Poklitar
Jace,
The rebuys and the add-ons are a great advantage. Especially, if they cost less than the original buy-in.
I'll give you two examples from two No-Limit Tournaments that I played. Last year at the World Poker Open in Tunica I played a 500+40 No-Limit Hold'em tournament. The total prize pool was $101,850. In July, I played the Orleans Open 130+30 with unlimited rebuys for the first round (I think it was 80 or 90 minutes). Anyway, the prize pool for the Orleans event was $139,970. I did three rebuys of $100 each. So, for me this event was costing me $460, but was a much better value. Each buy-in or add-on was $600 worth of chips.
I did a rebuy whenever I hit the elegable point for rebuying, which is if you have less than $600. By the end of the first round and after doing the add-on I was the chip leader at my table $3200 in chips. I played in this tournament for six hours until I goofed. Anyway, I thought this type of event was a much better deal than the one in Tunica. By getting an early chip lead it allowed me to play real poker for a bit.
In these situations, you just do the math. The rebuy/addon chips are cheaper than the original buyin chips. The prize pool consists of both types of purchases. Every time you buy a cheaper chip, you're taking value away from the original buyin (expensive) chips. So, every time you take a rebuy or addon, you're making a +EV play. Every time somebody else does it, they're taking EV away from you (and the rest of the field).
Take every single rebuy/addon you're eligible for, when they're cheap. Never encourage another player to take a rebuy/addon (unless they are almost totally hopeless, in which case they're so bad that they give up more EV when they take from a rebuy).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
NL HE tourney, 90 players remaining, blinds at $50-$75, I have circa $3K. 1st and 2nd place win $10K WSOP entry plus $500. cash. Rebuys over.
It is folded to me and I have K-9s in the cutoff. An iffy hand but both blinds are loose and are deep in chips. I open raise for $300. Only the SB calls. He is playing and making many hands.
Flop brings Qs,Jc,8s. Gutshot and second nut flush draw. I bet $300., SB calls.
Turn brings the Kc. SB looks at board and then moves all-in, he has me covered. I have about $2,600. left.
With top pair, flush and straight draw, I think I am behind. Likely 2 pair but straight possible either on the flop or turn. But why not checkraise as I have been leading?
I figure I have about 12 outs, maybe another 3 if a river nine is good. Still, I am about a 3-1, 4-1 dog if he has the hand. If I win I double up to $6K and will be close to a chip leader. If not, I am gone. After thinking it through, I decide to muck.
He then flips over J-9! I had him practically dead!
Raising in the cutoff with K9s was questionable. What about the rest of the play?
I agree that raising preflop was questionnable, mostly because you said the blinds were loose so more likely to call and the blinds are still smallish.
Anyway, I would have bet more on the flop. You bet 300 in a 675 pot. I usually bet around 3/4 of the pot so a bet of 500 seems fine. He's getting more that 3 to 1 on his flop call so he might go for it with a hand he would have folded for 500, which is really what you want him to do here.
On the turn this is really about reading and gauging your opponent. If you think he's got you beat then consider the odds,etc... as you did, if not then call.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
You misread the player. Happens all the time. Remember this hand and this player, and take it into account next time. However, if he's a good player, he knows you're going to remember (that's why he showed his cards), and he'll try to take advantage of your adjusted opinion of him.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In an earlier post there has been suggested that a pre-flop raise in NL tourney should be min. of 3 times the big blind. it was also suggested that having a standard amt you raise no matter what the hand is a good disguise for your hand.
What is the right kind of raise post flop if you plan on raising? Three times the pot? Double the pot?
And should this be roughly standardized as well?
Preflop: The 3xBB preflop raise is a good starting point if no one has entered the pot. If I only have 5xBB then I would go all-in instead of leaving myself with a small bet. If there have been limpers then I may increase my raise. If there has already been a raise then it really depends.
Postflop: There really is no standard postflop raise/bet. I try not to overbet the pot. There may be situations where it is good to do so but it is unusual. If I am first in I will usually bet the pot but as usual it depends. Sometimes I will bet 1/4 to 1/2 the pot. Underbetting the pot might be done when I have either a drawing type hand or a monster hand.
Of course the amount of chips I have also makes a big difference. If the pot has 200 and I have 350 then I may well go all-in for the full 350 instead of just betting 200 which would leave me 150. The reason is if I get called I would only have 150 and would almost for sure get called again.
The key is not to bet/raise in such a way that a keen opponent will know what you are betting/raising with.
Ken Poklitar
If you want to take this method all the way, pretend you're playing pot limit, and always bet/raise the pot when you're going to bet/raise.
So, if the pot is 500, and the opponent bets 400, a pot-sized raise is to make it 1700 total to go. If the opponent had bet 300, it would be 1400 total. If nobody has bet, you bet the pot of 500.
This will totally disguise your hand (except for physical tells, of course, which is a completely different subject).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg, are you saying that's the right thing to do, or just presenting it as an option?
Against some opponents, I'll underbet the pot wanting a call and with other opponents I'll underbet the pot want them to fold. Same with overbetting.
It might be good to tell a new player to just bet the pot...that way you're not giving anything away. But an experienced player, if they're reading the table correctly, should be able to manipulate with his betting.
JohnnyD
Yes, John, you're right. If you can successfully manipulate the players, then vary your betting to do so. If you're playing somebody who is good at reading you, it might be best to just bet the pot every time, as they may be getting more information from your bet sizes than you intend.
So, yes, I sometimes bet much less than the pot, and very occasionally much more. The majority of my bets are from 1/2 to the full pot. As I gain more and more experience, I bet the exact pot less and less often.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I will apologize to Andy in advance and then reopen the topic of pot odds in tournaments. Let's assume, for the sake of brevity, that everyone understands that a call with appropriate pot odds is correct because the expected (positive) value of the hand will be realized as the number of trials increases. It can be argued that whether or not you are playing in a tournament is of little or no relevance with regard to this statistical fact. There are, however, many factors which can distort the relevance of statistical facts. One factor is risk/reward ratio. A common example of statistical distortion from this factor is a standard state lottery. If the odds of winning a lottery are 6.5 million to one, it becomes "correct" to buy a $1 ticket whenever the jackpot is more than 6.5 million dollars, and "incorrect" whenever it is less than 6.5 million. Though statistically sensible, it would be ridiculous to base your lottery decisions on the pot odds. Who cares! it's just a dollar, and the reward is so disproportionate to the risk that it doesn't make any practical difference whether the jackpot is 6 or 7 million dollars. (in my opinion, the odds against are so absurd that it is not worth the effort of pulling the bill out of my wallet, so I never buy a ticket, even if the pot odds are overwhelmingly lucrative) The converse to this example is Russian roulette. If someone offered me a million dollars if I survived the game of pointing a singly-loaed six-shooter at my head, I would politely decline, in spite of the fact that I would be turning down a chance to make a cool million as a five to one favorite. There are several stages in a tournament when the risk/reward ratio of any particular play is skewed significantly enough to obviate the pot odds (every stage if fact, I would argue). A second point I will suggest is that a tournament represents a series of independent, non-reproduceable events; as opposed to live play which represents a potentially endless series of recurrent and reproduceable events. For any particular hand in a tournament there are a sufficient number of collateral concerns (ie, stage, pace, relative stack size, payout structure, opponents, buy-in, emotional investments, etc) to render the exact circumstance non-reproduceable. So you will never be able to realize your EV over time because your number of trials will only be one. In live play, while there are indeed several other collateral concerns, none of them have as large an impact on your ultimate fate as they do in a tournament. For example, you will have several opportunities to take advantage of a situation where you are given the appropriate pot odds to draw at a flush against three opponents in regular live action play. But if you were down to 10 players in the WSOP main event with a medium stack in front of you would you draw at a flush against several opponents? If you could play in the WSOP main event every day for the rest of your life you could argue that the play would earn you money "in the long run". In tournaments, there is no "long run". So I will conclude by suggesting that tournament success is dependent on the utilization of a wide array of skills, tactics, and decision making tenets... none of which involve the calculation of pot odds. -Craig H.
Pot odds always matter, they are simply not the entirety of the answer.
If you're getting 8:1 to call on the turn for the nut flush draw in HE, it can readily be argued that you should never fold. If there are reasons to fold, then there are other problems of greater significance than how to win the most money in the game (e.g., you're overbetting your bankroll).
Now, same hand in a tourney. It can no longer be argued that you should never fold. There will be spots where a fold is correct. But not many. The pot odds matter a lot, and if the decision were a lot closer, a fold would become correct more often. However, what if you were getting 20:1? Even in a tourney there would almost never be a situation where folding is correct here.
All I'm saying is pot odds matter, but not as much as in a cash game. In a cash game, you estimate your EV and if it is positive, you play accordingly. In a tourney, sometimes your monetary EV does not correspond to your chip EV, and you are often more likely to fold (and sometimes to play in a spot that is -EV in a cash game).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
for some reason I like you Fossilamn. It's because of posts like the one above. No, it's not because you are cute.
vince
n/t
yes they do. Pot odds do matter.
In fact, there is a long run in tournaments. The long run may not be today in this event but it's certainly there in the next 100 tournaments you enter. The best player may not win today, but after 100 events, he will have done better than a weaker one. The same applies when making a decision on a hand. You may not get there now but in the long run you will. Like in the folding the aces preflop thread, they may get cracked now but most of the times, they won't and that's the point. There's your long run...
Often times, players fail to see that making the money in the next 10 events you enter is usually not as rewarding financially (and definitely mentally) as winning one and not making it in the 9 other ones. Thus, your goal should always be to win it all. Of course, I'm happy when I do finish in the money but the big picture is winning the tournament and that's what I always try to do. There's your long run... Mike Caro once said that the winner of any tournament ALWAYS got lucky during the tournament and he's right. You have to go for it sometimes and hope for the best. Everytime I made to the top I got lucky at some point.
If there is 5000 in the pot and your opponent goes all-in for a thousand and you have 1500 left and the nut flush draw on the flop then you should definitely make the call. There is so much in the pot. Making it will get you closer to a big finish, even if not making it will leave you crippled. This is a definite +EV play and you should take it. You need those chips eventually if you are going to win so why not go for it now when you have a reasonnable chance of getting them. Flopped sets and str8s are hard to come by.
Of the top of my head, I can think of two situations recently discussed here regarding pot odds. You can look in the archives. The first one is a hand where Fossilman decided to go for it with a pair of threes with a six kicker in 7 stud because there was already 3-4 callers in front of him (all of his cards were live). Usually, this hand should go in the muck. For the right price and reward, it becamed playable. Rightfully so, the pot odds were there.
Second example, look for a thread in which OhKanada discussed playing K-6offsuit in the BB after a raise and he could expect a lot of callers. I think he was getting a chance at a pot of 9000 for an extra 500. As Fossilman stated at the time, he would play any cards here, the pot odds justify it. And they do...
Pot odds an implied odds are part of the game and you should use them to your advantage, in any type of poker.
Hope this helps,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Nothing to do with the forum but I will be taking a few days off, and I am definitely not going to get involved in this.
Nic and Greg are right on the money IMO. Take it or leave it.
Andy.
I am in mid position in NL tourney. I have a large stack of 2700. Blinds are 20/40. I call with AJo and four others call.
Flop is J108 rainbow.
I bet 2X the pot of apprx. 200, get raised same amt by player with apprx. 600 left in front after raise. I have a little under 2K.
Turn is a 9. I check. Oponnonent bets 400. I raise him the rest of his 200 chips. (My thought here is that if I'm calling 400 I'm going to call 200 on river so might as well take a stab at dropping him.)
River is a blank. He turns over KQo for a straight, taking down my Top Pair, Top Kicker.
Any comments? Was this a stupid play on my part? I couldn't lay down the AJ.
This is not a good flop for your hand--even more so in an unraised pot. You didn't mention the actions of the other players wich I believe to be very important. You might have been a severe underdog to the field. This may sound stupid but I don't think a reasonable bet is called for --either move in (i don't like it either) or underbet the pot with the intention of dumping to any action. I don't think KQ made the right decision either--he should have either dumped or moved in on you on the flop--it sounds like desperate play on his part--when his stack in relation to the blinds didn't call for it. I am not the most experienced player in the world and I am interested in what the other comments re: this hand will be--it souds like the type of hand that is just too diffucult to play in a tourney.
Not sure if this is a serious tourney or if it's something like PokerPages, if it's a cash tournemant with the usual mix of fish, average and decent players, I'd consider folding AJo in early position, it's hand that's easily dominated, even if you raise with it, your opponents will still call with AQ and AK and when you flop an Ace your out of position and trying to second guess your opponent.
Post flop, I'd probably have folded to the re-raise just because I'm out of position and not quiet sure where I'm at, my opponent is short stack but not desperate, his raise indicates strength. You made a good read and got pot committed...
When you build up nice stack in the middle of a tourney you should use to bully and intimidate the shorter stacks, you can play more aggressive and possibly target a few more steals (don't become reckless), however playing a more marginal (read dominated) hands in early position is not something I'd add to my arsenal as my stack increases.
good luck, D.
Darren makes several good points, the best of which is that you were out of position on this hand. Playing from early-middle position in a tournament is a sure-fire way to lose your chips and wonder whether you did the right thing or not. It's probably best to only play from middle position with powerful drawing hands in pots that you think you can get into cheap with a chance of building on a nice trap. Personally, I'd rather play 10-J suited from the middle for a reasonable call than A-J off. The hand plays more easily and will leave you with fewer decisions post-flop. With your example, assuming I was in the hand, I would have reraised him all-in on the turn and hoped for the best.
I post on all the forums here but have never posted on the Tournament forum until recently. It is a very nice break from the other forum. On this forum, every answer is thoughtful and useful. Thank you very much.
You guys should write a book! ;-)
Does anyone know where I can get copies of the espn coverage of the world series of poker prior to 1993? i can't find the 1996 series anywhere either. let me know if you can help!
Greg
Although I can't help you, I can tell you that the reason you can't find the 96' one is because they did not film it that year.
BTW/ There is a great documentary on the 84' series with interviews with Stu Ungar, Jack Keller, Doyle Brunson, Slim, etc. It's hard to find, but worth it if you find it.
Good Luck
Howard
For WSOP videos before 1992, click on "Favorite Links" in the left column and go to The Gamblers Book Club.
My favorite is the single tape covering 3 years including the second Chan win and Hellmuth's victory. A bit more expensive but IMO worth it. I think that's as far back as they go however...
Good luck!
Towards the end of a PL HE Tourney we are five handed. There will be a chip count in around 15 minutes if we can't do a deal (which has already been vetoed by chip leader), and only 3 prizes will be awarded. I have ~20k out of 152k chips in play. Blinds are 2.5k, 1-1 off the button. I need to get more chips to get in the cash. Preferably by doubling up. There has been very little resistance to pre-flop raising, so I raise on the button with A6o and win.
Next hand, I have A8s, UTG passes, so I raise again and get called by one of the blinds. (I figure them for a pair (middle to low) or two big cards. Flop comes Jxx with two of my suit. Opponent says all-in, which is more than my remianing ~13k. Is this a must call situation?
I called figuring that I win with 9 flush cards and maybe the Ace is good too. 13k to win 33k in the pot and an almost certain money finish. If I pass I have to likely double through twice to get anywhere.
Any comments appreciated as always
Dave Veitch
When we were both all-in we turn over the cards and thay show 77. Great since I now have three extra outs (8's) and now have the flush cards, aces and eights for a win, making me almost even money over tha last two cards.
If you know they have 77 does this change the play of the hand at all?
Is their pre-flop call a bad play? I think it is. I would be inclined to fold that to raise in this spot given that you are unlikely to better than even money. (They have more chips than me but not enough to guarantee any cash)
thanks again
Dave Veitch
I thin he should have reraised preflop actually. You are right that he is not much better than even money, but he may be able to get you to lay down, and at this point he needs to win chips soon, so taking an even money shot is not a bad idea.
the purpose of the chip count?
When they count the chips are the prizes awarded based on chip count, and anyone in 4th place or below gets nothing? Do they not play it out until 1 person has all the chips (in the absence of a deal)? I'm guessing this is the case, which means you're playing in a tourney with a totally shitty format. The chip leader is probably stalling on every single decision, just to waste more time before the chip count takes place and he wins.
IME, these types of events are often run for a specific number of hands (to eliminate the utility of stalling for time), and they still suck with that format.
You have to win quite a few chips quickly to make the money here, so I don't see how you can fold your flush draw with A overcard. Heck, he could have a lesser flush draw where your A high is good if he doesn't pair. It looks like you're winning about half the time, or more, and the situation requires a call even if you know you're somewhat of a dog.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
At the chip count the top three stacks get the money and the rest get nothing. This has started to become an issue more often at this game as more players have been attracted in the last year, and the games have taken longer to come to a conclusion.
Normally there will be a deal before it gets to this stage with anything between 4 and 8 players. The chip count is in place to ensure the tourney finishes before the casino closes.
There are normally 50 - 70 players at this game. My personal opinion is that the payout srtructure should be flattened, to include at least 10 per cent of players. And not more than 40% for 1st. (Currently 50%/30/20 split). I would prefer an earlier start time, giving us more chance to finish naturally, (ie one person has all the chips) and a flatter payout.
It seems to me that flattening the payout would speed up the final table since you will lock up some cash a lot earlier.
I would love to hear what others have to say about this so I can formulate an appropriate suggestion to the cardroom so that they change the payout structure. The current one seems quite unusual as far as I can tell. I suspect it remains from a time when the average attendance was maybe only 30 or so.
You're definitely right about the stalling. I won the hand I described when a flush card came. We made a deal not long after, but I certainly would have stalled completely as I was certain I had enough chips for at least third.
Thanks Again
Dave
In a NL tourney you are sitting in mid position with a reasonable stack, enough to overbet the pot if you wanted to. The pot is say $300 with two limpers. You are holding AA.
What is the goal here? Do you want to trap the limpers? Do you want everyone to fold and steal the pot? (Pot at this point represents roughly 20% of your total stack.)
Does that change if your holding is only KK?
What if you have a hand like AKs or QQ?
Thank you all.
When I have AA (or KK, or AK, etc.), and there are limpers, I usually raise the pot or thereabouts. I don't think about raising an amount to get it heads-up, or an amount to trap, or the like, unless my stack is pretty short, and there won't be much postflop action. If I raise the pot and get 2 callers, fine. I'll win more when I win, but face a greater risk of loss.
I try to never give a free card by not raising, because usually you win more without doing so anyway, and you'll hate yourself if you let in a weak hand that beats you.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In his book, `Suzuki' suggests playing a solid game early. On the other hand, Malmuth agrees with other writers suggests you take risks early to try to build the bigger stack you need later on. But what does this mean, and can it be correct? Let's analyse this mathematically.
Suppose we have a tournament with a percentage payout. For any stack size X, let F(X) be your (statistically) expected payout. (This may be an an oversimplification, since your expected payout depends also on other stack sizes, position of button, blind size and other factors, but let's keep it simple.)
The aim of the game is to maximize your expected payout F(X), so you should never make a play with a negative expectation in your (change of) expected payout F(X).
What properties does the function F have:
Obviously F is `increasing', that is, if X>Y, then f(X)>f(Y), which is just to say that the bigger your stack, the bigger your expected payout.
Also it is `convex', that is, if A>0, B>0 and A+B=1, then f(AX+BY)>Af(X)+Bf(Y), which is just to say that the chips in smaller stacks are worth more than the chips in bigger stacks.
Ya still with me?
This implies the following:
Theorem (i.e. fact): Any play with a negative expectation in your (change of) stack size X, also has a negative expectation in your (change of) expected payout F(X).
Corollary (i.e. conclusion that follows from the theorem) You should never make a play with negative, or zero, expectation in your stack size. Also, some positive expectation plays for stack size X, may be negative for expected payout F(X).
For example, if you have a 50% chance to win or lose an amount Z you should not take it, since f(X)>0.5f(X-Z)+0.5f(X+Z).
So what exactly does it mean to gamble it up early?, and how can it be correct?
Could big stacks have some additional power that would mean the chips in big stacks weren't worth less than those in small stacks after all? (I doubt it.)
Comments?
Dirk.
It is my guess that when Mason said to take risks early, he did not mean -EV plays. I think he meant to go ahead and gamble with those plays that are so close to neutral you can't be sure if they're +EV or -EV, and certainly those plays that are clearly +EV.
IMO, it is best to play your normal ring game strategy early, assuming that this strategy is adjusted for the present game. That is, try to win chips early on, since you have to build a stack to reach the finals, and do so even at the risk of going broke, as long as the play is clearly +EV. Later, as you get close to or in the money, you sometimes need to give up chip EV and make the more cautious play in order to survive and move onto/up the ladder. Thus, you sacrifice chip EV in order to increase monetary EV.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"even at the risk of going broke, as long as the play is clearly +EV"
Tell me o +EV master what is clearly +EV? In stud if you start with Kings over Queens that is clearly +EV and you should play if you are sure your opponent has queens or less. But to play your normal ring game early in a tournament is not your best strategy. Especially if you are me. In my normal ring game I make plays on third street that are not clearly +EV. They are plays designed to give me an advantage later in the hand or in the game itself if certain things occur. The risk in ring games is worth the potential gain. But in a tournmanet the same may not be true. I opt for a solid "in the lead" type game early in a tournament. Of course when you are as good as I am you can play any style game and win. Probably not true for a guy old enough to be called Fossilman.
vince
Geezez, Vince....I can't wait to hear Greg's response to this one! "O + EV Master"??? LMAO!!!! I can't wait for the next Tuesday nite tournament...Am I gonna have to referee this one if U 2 end up at the same table?
C U 2 soon!!! Thanks for putting a smile on my face with this post after last weeks events.
Hey Turtle, what Tuesday night tourney are you talking about ?
What kind of forum is this?
Enrique:
Tueday nite NL tournament @ Foxwoods.
I think that you will find that average stacks have the greatest value per chip. The problem is that the average stack value is increasing throughout the tournament so it is virtually impossible to mirror the average stack all the time. Building up an above average stack early would make it easier to manage your stack at the optimum level.
In a freeze out you would risk an early exit by playing loose and pay more in a rebuy tournament. So the question is, do the advantages of being able manage your stack throughout the later stages outweigh these costs.
from mcevoy's tournament poker, and a few other sources about playing tourneys, it seems like common practice that when u r short stacked u pick a hand and try to get all your money in preflop so u get a good return on your money in 4-5 way action...
now i was thinking that instead of reraising to trap everyone in preflop, u save 1 last bet that u can throw in on the flop no matter what hits so that u can get raised and cut other people off to improve your chances of winning the pot.
ex: u have 300 in chips and the blinds are 50-100... ure in the bb w/ a KT or something and 4 people r in for a raise so u can either: 1) reraise all in and get "multiway action on your money" since ure already committed to the pot.
or i think its better to: 2) just smooth call and bet out on the flop hoping u get raised to cut off some of the other players in the multiway pot and thus increase your chances of winning the pot.
why is it more commonly accepted to just reraise preflop and get more for your money??? i figure there is already plenty in the pot and if u win it ull be in great shape anyways.
peter
Well, in your example, in a limit game, after the flop the hands that have the greatest chance of beating you are probably going to stick around anyway, and only those who have little chance of beating you (and the others) are going to fold. So, you only win a little bit more often, but you fail to win those few bets of dead money when you do so.
Now, if it's you and 2 opponents, then getting one of them to fold has a lot more merit. If you save a bet to get 2 out of 5 to fold, those 2 weren't going to win very often anyway. But to get 1 out of 2 to fold postflop probably does add quite a bit to your chances of winning.
In most tourneys, especially late in the going, you aren't going to see many 5-way pots anyway. Things are usually much tighter at that point than a typical ring game in the same casino/cardroom.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I played in the Mirage NL hold 'em tourney last Friday (saw Malmuth walking in the casino, but I digress).
The hand that killed me was as follows:
I have AQ in early position. The table had been very tight. Blinds are $100-$200 and I make it $600. A player who had just moved over to the table (so I don't know much about her) moves all in for about $1600, which I could just barely cover (I had about $1100 left). I mucked.
I found out later she had QQ but that does not change the fact that I think I should have had called, since I more or less got blinded off 20 minutes later. Should I have taken my shot? I am not an experienced NL player....
If I get re-raised with AQ I normally will muck it like you did unless I know something about the player. It also depends on when the blinds are increasing. T1100 with blinds of 100-200 is a short stack but you still have some raising power. Even when the blinds increase to 200-400 you can go all-in and you might not get called.
Ken Poklitar
Well, if you call it's 1000 to win 2500. How likely is it that she has the big pair? Against QQ you win about 30% of the time, so you've got odds to call. Against KK you're almost exactly 2.5:1 to win, so it's an even money call, so to speak. Only against AA are you losing chip equity by calling (and AK, which is a 3:1 favorite over your hand).
I realize that you can't know what a new player is likely to be holding. However, given your anemic chip stack, as well as hers, I would tend to give her less credit for a big hand, and reluctantly call. I mean, she MIGHT have a worse A, though I don't expect it. And she certainly can have a pair lower than QQ, against which I hate to fold when I'm almost 50% likely to win.
BTW, even though I think you should call here (since she's not a known tight player), that doesn't mean I think you should have gone all-in preflop, which some people might suggest. By making a standard raise, you have T1000 left for 2 purposes. First, if you get called by a blind, and they bet into you on the flop, you can get away from your hand if that appears to be the best choice. Second, if you get called by anybody, and there is no bet yet when it is your turn, you have enough left to bet more than half the pot. This is a very significant amount, and is enough to get somebody to give up their hand if the flop didn't help them out. So, even if the flop doesn't help you, I would tend to bet it and put pressure on them. When the flop is K high rags, it looks very scary to you. But, unless they have a K, it looks scary to them also. This is the perfect time to bet it out all-in, and maybe convince those pocket tens to fold.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm new in tournament plays and probably mostly on luck won 2 out of 12 Low sLimit I entered at Tropicana and two additional trips to the finals. Luck because in the first tournament I won, I had my last $100 chip UTG with 50-100 blinds, went all in with KQ suited and flopped a 2nd nut straight to bring up my stack after which, I got good hands, made the right decisions and won. The second was luckier in that with 1 $100 chip in the BB with 50-100 blind, I flopped a full house with 9-4o. Again, made the right decisions later in the game and won it again.
My last trip to the finals table was better in that I was the chip leader through what I believed were correct plays - tight-aggressive early in the tournament to accumulate chips, getting good reads on opponents etc., loosening and making timely bluffs at the later stages.
In the finals table with 7 players left, I got KQs in the BB with $1000-2000 blinds. Everybody folded and it was heads up with SB who I gauged to be not a very solid player. I have successfully bluffed him twice earlier to steal his blinds. He was second in chips and called. I raised, he re-raised, I called. Flop was AAX. He bets, I raised, he re-raised. I thought for a moment and folded and lost a lot of chips. I was not able to recover and wound up in 5th place. The SB guy eventually won the tournament. When I asked him later, he said he had QJo and would have folded if I re-raised again.
Any comments as to how I played the hand? Did I chickened out on the flop? Also, being the chip leader at that time (although not much more than the 2nd and 3rd guys), should I have waited on the sideline for the other guys to knock each other and just waited for good hands later rather than being aggressive. BTW, I projected an image of being really solidly tight and aggressive and was never caught in any bluffs.
All comments are welcome especially to the seasoned players. Thanks in advance.
I don't think you chickened out. Against most players you would be guilty of over-aggression on this hand, not chickening-out. I think the guy might be lying to mess with you. If he isn't lying, then just remember that you might have to call this guy down more liberally in the future.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
i agree
i'm sure he was lying to you - he definitely had an ace or a terrific read on you
in response to your other query - yes, i think it's a good idea not to mess with another big stack unless you have a powerful hand - at the final with chips and reasonable blinds it's preferable to play pretty tight at the beginning and loosen up a bit when it gets 4 or 5 handed
Been out of pocket. What were the results at Tunica?
Thanks Dino.
Dino,
Try this link:
http://www.pokerpages.com/tournament/schedule332.htm
Seeya! Dru
First off, no dis meant to Jeff Shulman; he had a great year in 2000, esp. for a fairly new player. I also think he got a bad rap on the 77-66 hand, and I like the changes made in CP(ya'll don't really miss Susie Isaacs' April Fools column, do ya?).
However, his current column is likely the worst analysis of a NLHE tourney hand I've ever read, and crammed with logical inconsistencies. For starters, KQT ain't the joint for J9, and Berry Johnston doesn't call for 20% of his stack hoping to hit 54-1 shots on the flop.
And as for Nolan Dalla(great writer & nice guy)'s odds list, ranking Jeff ahead of such no-names as Men the Master, Barbara Enright, and Lyle Berman, simply because at one stage last year Jeff had ~40% of the chips: By that logic, Hugh Vincent should be listed in the top 70, as in '94 he had ~55% of the chips at the start of Day Four.
I began playing small tournaments about 18 months ago.I like limit hold-em and stay to this game.My initial experience was very positive.I managed final table appearances aproximately 1 in every 4 1/2 attempts.This lasted for 15 of the 18 months I have been playing.In the past 3 months I have entered 12 tournaments with 12 early departures.I remain tight aggresive but seem to misread situations and players.My confidence is low and frutration is very high.I plan to play the $2000.00 WSOP event.I need advice to turn this ebb around or to know not to play the wsop event.All replys welcome.Thanks-LTW.
If I don't say it, somebody else will. 12 isn't statistically significant. Or, put another way, from a statistical point of view, 12 bad results is meaningless.
That doesn't mean you haven't made mistakes, or good plays, that you should learn and improve from. But you can't just say I've done bad 12 times, there MUST be something wrong with my game.
Also, you say you've only played low limit tourneys. Then playing in a $2000 buyin event must be a big deal. It's likely to make you nervous and cautious even if you're feeling great with your game. If you're feeling a lack of confidence, then this is not the time to move up to the big leagues. If $2000 is a meaningful sum of money to you, and it's loss will hurt you financially or hurt your ego a lot, then I'd recommend passing unless your confidence returns.
Plus, I'll be in that event, so the best you can reasonably hope for is second place. ;-)
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Say fossil man-thanks for the reply.Will be doing what I can to max my confidence.Wont be too intimidated so long as I dont know who the big boys and girls are.If all is well you may have to take a second place.LTW.
Hey LTW.
I would recommend posting some hands and situations on the forum.
Good luck if you play one of the WSOP tournies.
Ken Poklitar
Thanks all for the excellent thread...this is one best I have read in a long while... It is refreshing to have a discussion where the retoric doesn't degenerate into pettiness. When I read THIS thread, I feel that I am in the company of PLAYERS.
Again, Thanks!
Here's one for you ohKanada-Playing garden city $120.00 buy in limit hold-em.110 players.Down to 18.I'm on the button.Small blind is a rock.Big blind is passive but has a knack for calling at the right time.She is now chip leader at our table.I'm down to 3 small bets.I haven't seen a hand in two rounds.Trying to defend my blinds has cost me.I know I don't have to pick a fight as I have a round to go before my blind returns,but I look down to discover Q 9 diamonds.Every one folds to me.The small blind motions his cards to the muck.I know he isn't going to defend his small blind.Q9d looks good.I cant tell if big blind will call but imagine she has to given my chip count.I raise-she calls.Flop comes10-10-6 no diamonds/rainbow.Now what?
I made a post below, and decided to repost it as a new thread. Since my post addresses the core issues of THE topic that we've been debating so much lately, I thought it merited it's own thread rather than being somewhat buried halfway down the page.
Gator wrote in a post entitled for The Prince: "I think you stongly disagree that there are similarites in the article and posts because you cannot extract the abstract concepts from the hand. Your thinking is confined to the absolute situation, not the logic that decides to call or fold. If you reread Q's article and try to get insight from it, you may see the parralells. If not I will gladly point them out to you."
The article and posts Gator are referring to are as follows. The article is a CardPlayer article where a bunch of well-known players were asked whether they would call or fold with AA preflop if down to 4 players in the WSOP, where all three opponents had gone all-in before they acted. Thus, you can call and win the title about half the time, or you can fold and face one opponent (with second place money now being locked up). The post refers to the general concept of facing an all-in bet very early in the tourney where you know you are a 2:1 favorite. Thus, 1/3 of the time you go broke early, and 2/3 of the time you double up early.
In response I wrote: Of course there are conceptual similarities. However, I think you are taking some of these concepts, particularly risk-aversion in tourneys, and applying them to situations where they are not germane.
Folding AA preflop when down to the final 4 in a tourney is not very similar to folding AA preflop on the first hand (or otherwise early-on).
The concept that sometimes you should fold when you think (even know) you have the best of it exists in both situations. The degree to which this concept dictates the optimal course of action varies tremendously in these (and other) situations.
Pulling concepts out of real or hypothetical situations is a great learning tool. Applying those concepts indiscriminately may take away much of the value of that learning.
Let's get more concrete. You've said that you would fold in a spot where you know you're a 2:1 favorite because the other player raised a very small pot all-in. I disagree. Now, let's say instead it's the first hand of the WSOP main event, so blinds are very small relative to stacks (25,50 blinds and 10K stacks). I have 3c3d in the big blind. All fold to you in the small blind, you raise all-in, and show me AdKd. I know I'm a very slight favorite (~1.2% edge) to win here, but I would fold. In this case, the concept that I should avoid going broke with a small edge, because I will pick up larger edges later, does apply (if I'm at least a slightly above-average player or better). However, when we make me a 2:1 favorite (33% edge) instead, nobody is so much better than the field that they should fold. NOBODY.
The thing is, one of the things that makes somebody better than the field is that they recognize more accurately when they have an edge, when they don't, AND they take advantage when they do. If you are folding when you have a big edge on individual hands, then you don't have an overall edge over the field anymore. You will be paying too many blinds, and limping in too often and missing the flop, to make it up on those occasions when you do find yourself with a huge edge postflop. What good does it do you to have an 80% edge for a T5,000 pot if you've bled away T2,000 finding it? You're winning T2500 80%, losing T2500 20%, a situation that earns you an average of T1500. But, if you spent T2,000 waiting for this opportunity, you're not gaining ground on the field.
Even on pokerpages, the huge opportunities just don't come up often enough to pass on the merely big opportunities. Actually, I would consider 2:1 huge anyway.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
This is a repost from "For the prince" thread.
Wow. Great post. Hard for me to challenge your thoughts here but I'm afraid that is precisely what I must try and do. You focus on big opportunities.
"However, when we make me a 2:1 favorite (33% edge) instead, nobody is so much better than the field that they should fold. NOBODY."
You are right NOBODY is so much better than the field that... But the fact that NOBODY has a big edge over the field is not the issue. The issue is what is the best strategy for WINNING the tournament. Your philosophy takes into account the edge you have and only that. That in effect is near perfect ring game strategy. Or any pure gambling situation. The only other factor that need be considered in these situations is the size of ones bankroll.
Tournaments are different animals. My guess is that you're success in tournaments comes mainly from your agressive play. I don't see you as one that makes a lot of calls in a tournament but instead takes the initiative and makse the move. Still not to the point am I. When analyzing the situation one finds himself in during tournament play there are prime factors that must be considered. One of the most important skills a tournament player must master is stack management. Why? Because a tournament cannot be won in the early stages. You must survive to a point where your tournament skills can have the effect you are planning on. Gambling early on, in my opinion, is a mistake.
"What good does it do you to have an 80% edge for a T5,000 pot if you've bled away T2,000 finding it?"
A very poignant but decieving question. Again not the point. You are not "bleeding" away chips looking for a situation with an 80% edge. You are minimizing chip loss until your bets have more strength behind them. You are only playing prime situations, hoping to win them without much of an investment early in the tournament. Especially when your stack is great in comparison to the cost of playing (ante and/or blinds). Don't forget that while you are minimizing your chip loss others are gambling. Creating large and small stacks in comparison to yours. When you get to the point where the size of the bet becomes significant you now begin to go hunting. You attack the smaller stacks. If the get lucky and beat you you will still have chips left to try and get lucky. When you are short stacked is the time to gamble not when you have a big stack and can be knocked out by an opponent that gets lucky. You effectivel nullify your skill over a lesser opponent when you allow yourself to gamble with him for all the marbles.
So what do you have to say to that!
Vince
"playing prime situations" "time to gamble"
I am not clear how it is gambling or not a prime situation when I flop the nut flush and the other player pushes it all-in. He is the one gambling.
Ken Poklitar
"I am not clear how it is gambling or not a prime situation when I flop the nut flush and the other player pushes it all-in. He is the one gambling."
What's the whole situation you are referring to here? My post addressed preflop aces.
One point about gambling, just because you have the best of it on one hand in a tournament doesn't mean that you are not also gambling. If your opponent is weak and he knows that he doesn't stand much of a chance against you in a protracted poker match wouldn't it be to his advantage to try and win it all in one hand even if he is just a little behind. Johnny Chan in his first article for CP made a very revealing and poignant comment. When he got heads up with his opponent on the final table he was behind in chips. He felt that he was a better player and usesd a chop him up strategy. He refused to let his opponent win a big pot from him. He kept attacking and winning small pots until he destroyed the other player. In short he used skill to out play his opponent. All in poker is luck poker!
vince
If his opponent had moved in, and Chan was holding AA, he would have called. If not, then his opponent with a chip lead could win by simply betting all-in at every opportunity, right?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Hey, come on. The final table heads up is a big difference than the first round against 4 opponents. I think you are just skirting the the issue with remarks like those above. I'm not trying to prove anything here, just discuss the issue.
Vince
I'm not trying to skirt anything. Maybe we don't have the same issue in mind.
Here is the issue as I understand the debate. Early in a tournament, should a very good player fold a hand where they enjoy a significant advantage (e.g., they are a 2:1 favorite to win the pot from this point forward) rather than play the hand and risk going broke? Or, in more exact terms, and again assuming you're a very good player, should you play a hand early in the tourney that will require you to go all-in where you'll double up 2/3 of the time, but go broke 1/3 of the time? Or, in more general terms, early in a tournament, should a very good player almost entirely avoid situations where they will be risking lots of chips even though they're getting very much the best of it in terms of chip EV?
Please feel free to redefine these questions if you think I'm addressing the wrong ones. Or simply let me know the questions you're addressing.
I think that in the specific examples that have been discussed (AA vs. 3 opponents and 2:1 advantage vs. 1 opponent), Gator and a few others have advocated a position that is much too risk adverse to be optimal. I agree that the better a player you are, the less high-risk gambling you should seek in a tourney. However, this concept of risk avoidance, if carried too far, results in you no longer being a better player than the field.
I will avoid a situation where I must gamble for all my chips with a 2% edge. I will seek situations where I can gamble for all my chips with a 33% edge. Where the line between these two should be drawn depends upon how good a player I am, and how strong/weak the field as a whole is. The weaker the field, the greater the edge you can pass up if the situations calls for a lot of chips to be bet. The stronger the field, the more you must take advantage of every situation that offers +EV in terms of chips.
Let me know where we disagree on the definition of the issue, and let me know if we still disagree on the "answer".
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I agree with your definition of the issue as you stae above. When I said you were skirting the issue it was because you alluded to my example of Chan playing heads up at the final table. I only introduced that situation to emphasis the skill aspect of poker vs the gambling aspect. Poker to a professional or serious player is akin to a Casino's view of a dice game. The difference is that we seek the edge where the Casino has a built in edge. But we both exploit our edge. The Casino has a huge advantage that we do not have. That is, infinite bankroll. Consequently, we must make adjustments for our limited bank roll. This is true in ring games but even more so in tournament play. It is extremely dificult to envision a situation in which Aces would be folded early in a tournament. But it is an ideal discussion point.
The result of this discussion may be two different approaches to tournament play. You ask if we still disagree on the answer. I think the jury is out as far as I am concerned. The problem with this issue is that my point of view is quite frankly the only one that has a practical chance of being tested. My strategy can be applied and evaluated in every tournament. Yours on the other hand will only apply in very few situations that will hardly yield enough data for any statistical significance. From that point of view I doubt if Iw ould ever fold Aces in the situation described even though I believe it is correct to do so.
Vince
Vince,
In one of the many posts that have been made on this subject I crafted a scenario where you flop the nut flush on the 1st hand of the tourney. Your opponent has flopped a set. He goes all-in. This gives you a 2 to 1 edge. I was surprised when gator and a few others said they would fold. Most responders on 2+2 and on RGP would call.
So the point being, folding AA preflop in gators original scenario is equivalent to folding a nut flush on the flop in my scenario.
I can't see doing either.
I think the issue is where does a person draw a line. Most responders would clearly call allin with a 2 to 1 edge. Some responders like Gator would not.
I would fold if it was 52/48. I would call if it was 66/33. As we have seen a few players would fold at 66/33. Would they fold at 80/20 or 90/10. Who knows at what point they would call all-in on the 1st hand of a tourney.
Ken Poklitar
"So the point being, folding AA preflop in gators original scenario is equivalent to folding a nut flush on the flop in my scenario"
Is it? The A,A is at least getting 3 to 1 for his 2 to 1 call. You may be getting little more than even money if you know your opponent flopped a set. Knowledge here is the key. You know that you are against a set? Are you saying that this deciision is a no brainer? That you must call. If you call you DIE 1/3 of the time. Death is final in a tournament. The long run does not have much meaning when you are dead. If you win, how much have you increased your chances of winning the tournament at this stage? Is that increase in probability worth the risk of early death? If you don't know what your opponent has and if you konow he is capable of running a bluff or betting top two or second flush in this scenario the decision to call may now become more compelling. But becuase you are ahead does not mean you will finish ahead.
vince
Gator's original scenario was AA vs AA vs QQ vs ?. He folded his AA because he was sure someone else had AA. He was happy with the fold because the QQ hit a Q and he would have been out. We simmed the situation and he had a 62% to split the pot. So he was about a 2:1 chance to double up. If someone else did not have AA he would have about a 2:1 chance to quadruple up.
In my "setup" scenario, the opponent showed you his cards so you know that he has a set. With the nut flush you are roughly a 65% to win and to double up. My scenario was attempting to show a flop decision where you are the same 2:1 favorite and one where I couldn't imagine anyone folding. Of course I was wrong and a few players would fold.
I understand that if you lose you are out of the tournament. I will take the 2 of 3 times where I have a huge chip lead early plus I still have the "dead money" in the tourney and I can increase my lead.
Ken Poklitar
Vince wrote: > You are right NOBODY is so much better than the field > that... But the fact that NOBODY has a big edge over > the field is not the issue. The issue is what is the > best strategy for WINNING the tournament. True. But part of the strategy for winning is recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities where you're a big favorite. If you pass on big opportunities just because there is a risk of going broke, what you have left probably won't be a winning strategy (and it certainly won't be your best possible strategy).
> One of the most important skills a tournament player > must master is stack management. True.
> Why? Because a tournament cannot be won in the early > stages. You must survive to a point where your > tournament skills can have the effect you are > planning on. True but misleading. Just because you can't win early doesn't mean that it isn't to your advantage to win chips early. When I tell someone that they can't win it early, I'm usually trying to curb their overly aggressive play, play where they're pushing edges that are actually -EV rather than +EV. Play so aggressive that their opponents know what is happening and have started to trap them rather than fear them.
Likewise with survival. It is 100% true that you can't win if you don't survive. However, to fold and ensure survival at the cost of passing up a highly advantageous opportunity is missing the point. You survive so you have more time to find more big opportunities. You don't survive so you can pass them up. Not only do you have to survive to make the final table, you have to win some chips. 100 players enter a tourney, the final table players will have an average of 10x what they started with. You aren't going to make it to the final table unless you do better than just hang on with 1x. Heck, in most tourneys, 1 small bet at the final table is more than the total of chips you started with. You have to win before then, and build up enough chips in order to survive to the final table. You won't win a sufficient amount of chips very often if you're passing up big edge opportunities.
> You are not "bleeding" away chips looking for a > situation with an 80% edge. You are minimizing chip > loss until your bets have more strength behind them. But, you can't just minimize loss. You must also win chips in order to reach the final table.
> You are only playing prime situations, hoping to win > them without much of an investment 2:1 is a prime situation, even when it's for all your chips. And, unless the field is chock-full of almost hopeless players, you won't find enough big edge opportunities for small amounts of chips to grow your stack to a final table stack.
> Don't forget that while you are minimizing your chip > loss others are gambling. Creating large and small > stacks in comparison to yours. When you get to the > point where the size of the bet becomes significant > you now begin to go hunting. You attack the smaller > stacks. If the get lucky and beat you you will still > have chips left to try and get lucky. When you are > short stacked is the time to gamble not when you have > a big stack and can be knocked out by an opponent > that gets lucky. You effectivel nullify your skill > over a lesser opponent when you allow yourself to > gamble with him for all the marbles. But, if you gambled early (when you clearly were getting the best of it), you will now have a big stack and can hunt EVERYBODY. Plus, what will often happen if you've been playing too conservatively is that your stack is smaller than most. Plus, you're now so short-stacked relative to the blinds that you only have 1 or 2 orbits to find a hand and commit to it. As such, you often have to risk everything on a coin-toss type of hand, where you lose half of the time or thereabouts. The only thing you've achieved by avoiding the earlier gambles is that you'll now go broke in the middle stages more often. If you had gambled early with the big edge, you'll be in the middle stages with a big stack more often than you'll go broke early, and you can now take the time to find opportunities that are still clearly to your advantage, instead of being forced by the rising blinds to take a shot now where your edge is small (or negative).
> So what do you have to say to that! The strategy you propose will result in lots of finishes in the top half of the field, close to the money, and in the bottom of the money (to some degree). I think my strategy will result in a higher than average monetary return, and more in-the-money finishes (both high and low in the money).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"The strategy you propose will result in lots of finishes in the top half of the field, close to the money, and in the bottom of the money (to some degree). I think my strategy will result in a higher than average monetary return, and more in-the-money finishes (both high and low in the money). "
I'm not sure I can argue strongly here. You certainly have more experience and I put a high premium on proven track records. I will say that I don't believe your strategy will result in more in-the-money finishes but again, I'm not sure. Of coures one tournament win may be worth 6 or 7 in the money finishes. But playing my way has resulted in a high positive return on my money (with my limited experience).
vince
If one is a good player, sure, his return on investment will be good but couldn't it be better?
Couldn't you win or place higher more often by going with Greg's strategy instead of yours?
Maybe not, maybe it's your style, I dunno. Vince, you seemed like a good player when I saw you at the NEPC, maybe that return would be higher if you took those chances early on?
Just thinking...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Prince,
"maybe it's your style, "
This more than anything may be the deciding factor for me. Which style are you comfortable using? One would hope that they are flexible enough to adapt the style that optimizes their chance of winning. Unfortunately that is not always the case. If being aggressive and I am normally aggressive is your style and you have a "go for it" attitude you can't argue with Greg. I have trouble arguing with Greg as it is but it is doubly hard since I believe in aggressive play. Honestly, I find merit in both ways of approaching tournament strategy. Lot's of help, huh? BTW- It does my heart good to know there are young vibrant thinkers out there like "The Prince".
vince
I said below I was done on the subject, because I feel I have debated enough with Gator (and others)in numerous posts last week.
Since you insist, Greg, I'll respond one more time, as it is a very important concept to tournament strategy.
First of all, I totally agree with your post.
Second, as you said, noone, even on pokerpages, sould think he or she has such a significant edge over the opposition that they should consider having a 2:1 edge a small one. I mean, who are we kidding ? You and I agree this is a HUGE edge to have and I'd take my chances with this edge any time.
I think that folding aces should be done in some situations (tho they don't come up very often). The situation in the article in CardPlayer is certainly not the same than early in a tournament. As folding aces on the bubble for sound reasons, I don't see any good reasons to fold them early on, whatever the number of opponents will be in the hand. Gator also said he would fold the nut flush on the flop if his opponent showed him a set... I really don't get it...How can one be succesfull? Poker is gambling and in tourneys as in ring games, you have to push those edges.
When I enter a tourney, I want to win it, not finish in the money, I want it all. To get there you have to gamble at times, just gamble intelligently, when you have an edge.
Folding when down to 4 players has an INSTANT reward, both a financial one and a strategic one, as you will be heads up after this hand. Folding early on has no rewards, it's even -EV. As I've said before, there are so many reasons why you don't want to fold the aces early. Here are a few:
1. Having the luxury to double/triple/quadruple up early on with a significant edge is a great opportunity.
2. Having the biggest stack at your table will enable you to pressure more your opponents.Your opponents will be more reluctant to enter a pot with you with marginal holdings because they know you can break them. And you know that.
3. Having some breathing room in tournaments is sooo precious, I hate being short stacked all the way.
4. You can bluff more sucessfully, steal blinds more succesfully.
5. If you get a solid hand against a big stack you will double more chips and thus have a much bigger stack.
All of that while the player who folded his aces sits there with a below average stack... :-)
You need those chips, you need to go for it when you got the best of it, that's the essence of poker.
Gator: You quote TJ a lot, if he wouldn't fold his aces four handed at the WSOP with probably a smaller edge, do you really think he would fold them early in the tourney with one much bigger?
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Is the main issue being argued here:
1) the concept of not folding hands that have strong advantages, even though you risk getting knocked out (at whatever point)?
2) The smarter strategy between:
a- locking up 2nd place money, with weak chance to take first vs.
b- taking AA as your chance to win the tourney outright, vs. giving up guarenteed 2nd place (with shot at first place) while risking a tie for 2nd or 3rd or 4th (would the money be combined and then split?) by getting knocked out?
If #1, then I have little argument with y'all. If #2, then the higher placing guarantee would seem to take presidence.
It is NOT the same situation as getting AA earlier in the tourney, because you aren't guarenteeing a win at that time- just probably more chips to contend with. While important, that is MUCH different than determining the EV of locking second vs. big hand's chance to win a shootout with 3 other players...
I didn't see the original post- am I missing something?
That's basically it. Look in the archive, it all started with a repost from Fossilman called: Ever fold AA preflop?
Then a series of threads on the subject...
I would also add that making the call when 4 handed in the WSOP is player dependant. TJ indicated that he would call, I'm sure he'd appreciate the payout increase from 4th to second (by folding), but I'd bet he'd want the title more. Thus he'd go for it now.
The extra $$$ given to the 2nd place would make some players fold the aces here and take their chances later.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
.
I haven't read the other posts in this thread so I may repeat what someone else has already said.
In a tournament, especially a big one like the WSOP final event where there are no rebuys, the value of the chips at the beginning of the tournament are their face value (assuming you get chips on a one-to-one exchange for your money). However, as we all know, because of the percentage paybacks that these tournaments employ, your chips change as the tournament progresses, and this effect becomes stronger as the tournament progresses.
What this means is that early in the tournament you should be less inclined to make unusual plays when compared to a standard ring game than you would be later in the tournament. (It still might be right to make an unusual play because gaining additional chips might come in handy as the limit progresses, but that is really another issue.)
So in my opinion, it could virtually never be right to throw away a pair of aces before the flop early on in this type of tournament. Yet laying down what could easily be the best hand very late in a tournament before you get involved in any action just might be correct in certain situations.
"In a tournament, especially a big one like the WSOP final event where there are no rebuys, the value of the chips at the beginning of the tournament are their face value"
"it could virtually never be right to throw away a pair of aces before the flop early on in this type of tournament"
Given that the first statement is true does not necessarily follow that the second staement is true. Chip (stack) management as has been shown is key to winning a tournament. Stack management must consider risk versus reward. Because the value of the chips at the beginning of the tournament are their face value does not mean they can be used in the same manner as a ring game. One must consider the nature of tournament play when deciding to risk chips at any stage in a tournament. In a ring game one can go into their pocket and replenish their stack. Not so in a non-rebuy tournmanet. This difference must be weighed when considering whether to risk chips or not.
What this means is that when faced with a decision that commits all or part of your chips, you must weigh that decision with regards to it's influence on your goal of winning the tournament. If the risk out weighs the reward then you must act accordingly. If that means folding Aces early then so be it.
vince
Except that the factors that you mention do not have much impact early in this type of tournament. If you do consider them, as you should, you will always play the aces.
"Except that the factors that you mention do not have much impact early in this type of tournament. "
In a tournament everthing is relative. That consideration given each factor is heightened as the tournament progresses may be true but from the openning gun of a tournament through the final hand each decision a player makes has an impact on his results. Not much early on, you say? Then why risk losing all your marbles on one hand if winning it won't have much impact on your results? I can tell you that losing all your marbles early on has the same impact that losing all your marble later on has, death! There are quite a few regular tournament players that won't sit at the table and play and until the limits have gone up to a meaningful level. They fold Aces and don't even know it. Are they making a mistake by playing this way? They don't think so.
"If you do consider them, as you should, you will always play the aces."
No sir, I always consider these factors and I won't always play Aces. I'll play to win. If folding Aces is the best play in my judgement then I'll fold them. What is it about Aces them make them so powerful that grown men will lose all their marbles over them? It's not like they wear skirts for cryin out loud.
vince
Vince wrote: > What this means is that when faced with a decision > that commits all or part of your chips, you must > weigh that decision with regards to it's influence on > your goal of winning the tournament. If the risk out > weighs the reward then you must act accordingly. True. These statements are all correct.
> If that means folding Aces early then so be it. OK. But it never will if it's early and preflop. The reward is always more than enough to justify the risk when you have this big of an edge. ALWAYS; if it's early and preflop.
Vince, you're thinking of the right things. You simply are, IMO, overvaluing the risk component and undervaluing the reward component in this situation. Or, put another way, you're putting the right things on your scale, but forgetting to take your thumb off the risk side of it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"You simply are, IMO, overvaluing the risk component and undervaluing the reward component in this situation."
Why did you qualify your remark with IMO? If you feel that I am undervaluing the reward componenent then I'm sure you have a rational reason for stating this and not just an opinion. Do not misunderstand, I ascribe a very high value to your opinion. That's not my point. I am very willing to listen to the reward component. In fact I honestly believe that I can be easily swayed towards your way of thinking here. It's just that I want a little more... no not proof, just a little more.
vince
I think we already know my position on the hand, so I don't want to restate the old stuff. I do want to point out some clarifications and things to think about.
One thing I have posted numerous times that no one has taken a crack at (I'd like to hear your opinion on this Greg) is that if you do call and win, you chips only increase from .001% of the total chips to .003% of the total chips. This is not a very significant increase in postiion. Yes, you will dominate your table, and that will be big, but you are no way anything near being closer to a top finish, the only certainty, is you are gone if you lose. I think in smaller tourneys like the NEPC with around 150 players, a double in the first round is 4x more significant, and may be biasing your thinking Greg, (maybe not).
I agree with Vince on the fact that you are not bleeding your stack, yet waiting for the levels to become significant. You should be able to build your stack some (maybe not as dramtically as a early double) At this point I would easily play the two Aces.
If you fold early, I think you have two things working in your favor: (two things I value in a tournament) TIME and weak plyers. This gives me a better chance to build my stack without risking it all. Smaller tourneys don't afford you the time to play a conservative game as does a four day one.
Theres just too much to remember to say, from all those insightfull posts above, and I really don't think anyone is going to change thier philosophy. I aslo don't believe anyone should, it's comparing apples and oranges. (I do have one topic I will start a new thread on that concerns me about it all) Read this article from Andy Glazers bi-monthly newsletter to explain, (must be luck), it arrived in my mailbox today:
"Before you even plunk down an entry fee for a tournament, much less sit down at the table with your opponents, you should have a clear set of reasons why you are entering and a clear set of goals for the tournament.
"Getting a little thick-brained with the WSOP so close, are we, Andy?" you might ask. "I enter tournaments because I like poker and I want to win money!"
If those are your reasons, that's not a bad start to the planning process, but they aren't anywhere near complete. For example, the "I like poker" reason could mean you like playing:
1) Against strong players. 2) Against weak players. 3) Long sessions. 4) Short sessions. 5) So that you can socialize while you play. 6) Super tight. 7) Super aggressive and wild.
I could go on and on, but I hope you're starting to see the point: the wisdom of deciding to play tournament poker, and to enter certain types of tournaments, varies depending on what "I like poker" means to you.
"The majority of tournament players lose."
A much more complex and financially relevant question arises under the "I like to win money" reason. First of all, it isn't at all clear that playing in tournaments is a good way to win money, for most players. As with ring players, the majority of tournament players lose, and for the same reasons: the house rake (in this case, the entry fees), and the relatively disproportionate amount of money taken out of the games by the very best players.
Still, let's assume you're either a winning tournament player, or someone who has reasonable hopes of becoming one (as a talented but inexperienced player well might be). Even then, you have to decide whether your goal is
1) To "get into" the money. 2) To finish very high in the money. 3) To win the tournament.
Believe it or not, the strategies you adopt in playing your hands can vary considerably depending on which of these goals you value most.
If, like many tournament players, you would LIKE to win the tournament, but realistically think that isn't very likely and would be happy getting into the money so you've had a nice little payday, gained some experience, and have a story to tell your friends about how you finished in the money, you probably should, in many tournaments, play somewhat more conservatively.
You'll certainly guarantee that you'll last reasonably long this way, and so you'll gain some experience. If you pick up some hands, you'll also stand a decent chance of making the money. Unless the deck completely hits you in the face, though, you probably won't win the tournament, because you won't accumulate enough chips to own a playable stack when the blinds and antes start getting high.
What If You Want More?
If your goal isn't merely making the money, but finishing high in the money or winning the tournament, you shouldn't play like a madman, but you will need to play more aggressively and take more chances in an effort to accumulate chips. While it's true that many tournaments have been won by the player who sat in 9th chip position at the final table, many more have been won by the player who came in with the chip lead.
"There are always a few players desperately trying to hang on to make the money."
Many good players "steal" tournaments, or at least the chance to finish high in tournaments, by playing very aggressively just as the money round is approaching. There are always a few players desperately trying to hang on to make the money, and unless they wake up with a huge hand, they will practically give the aggressive raiser their chips.
This kind of aggressive play often means you will exit a tournament early, but for players whose egos can handle it, there's nothing wrong with that. If they are paying 18 places, it doesn't matter if you finish 20th or 200th. You're out of the money either way. The only thing that finishing 20th does for you is give you a sad story to tell your buddies, a little more tournament experience, and a lost opportunity to play in side games with other players who busted out early and who thus might be on tilt.
A Dramatic Ladder Climbling Lesson
There isn't a huge difference in strategy between aiming for a high finish and aiming to win, but the game plan can still change. For some people, and especially in some highly prestigious tournaments, winning the trophy and owning the title is worth a lot more than the mere cash. In the 1993 WSOP Championship event, John Bonetti and eventual champ Jim Bechtel each had about $1,000,000 in chips while relative amateur Glenn Cozen had less than $100,000.
With a ladder step from third to second worth about $220,000 in real cash, and the blinds quite high, any sane player in either Bonetti's or Bechtel's position focused solely on money would have avoided a major confrontation with the other big stack, and only taken on the hopelessly short-stacked Cozen.
Bonetti, although not prepared to throw $220,000 out in the street and spit on it, was more focused on his chance to win the tournament, and so when the flop hit his A-K with an ace, he committed all his chips in a confrontation with Bechtel. Bechtel held pocket sixes and had flopped a set, knocking out Bonetti and giving Cozen a $220,000 Christmas present in May. Was Bonetti wrong to play his hand that way? It depends. How many WSOP winners can you name? Now, how many WSOP runner-ups can you name?
"It's your life, your goals, and your priorities."
It's not always about the money. Sometimes it's about the trophy. Whatever you want is fine: it's your life, your goals, and your priorities. Unless you figure out what target you're trying to hit before you start the tournament, though, you may find that it's awfully hard to hit a target you can't see."
Can anyone tell me who the favorites are to win Round 3 of the Warm-up? Did any top players make Round 3? Did any try and miss? Just wondering...
Bill
I am generally considered the leading contender by most knowledgeable sources.
Oh, I must have heard wrong. I could have sworn they said leading PREtender ;-)
BTW, I read all the profiles over there and liked yours the best!
Good Luck this weekend!
wgb (whale)
n/t
I find that amusing since you are new to the NL tourn scene by your own admission. I know for a fact that some TOP pros that have REAL life tournament championships are in round 3. They must not be knowledgeble.....or you are that arrogant.
I'm pretty sure it was a joke. You know, sarcasm without the smiley face. ;-)
As I've said before, don't even try to be sarcastic on the net without a smiley, or expect some people to not realize you were being sarcastic.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Edith, my gosh he was just joking. Everyone knows I'm gonna win it. (insert smiley face here)
Instead of dissing 12 Volt you could have answered my question. What pros are in? The only one I know of is Jack Fox (oldfelt). The only reason I know this is I met him heads up in Round 2. Care to share your inside info with the rest of us?
Hello!
I am a player who just in the last year has played hold'em in PL and NL tournament form. I am very curious about your opinion on a hand I played.
It was early in a T2000 at start with 1 hour unlimited re-buys tourney with a spectrum of player skills at the table, from weak to solid passive (friends from med school). The players often go in with Axo and two-three gappers like J-8o. In this game ppl seldom open with raises. I may be one of the poor players :) Blinds are 25/50.
I am the BB and is dealt Qc Tc.
A weak passive mid position player (MP) opens with a call and the rest fold up to me.
I check. (Pot 125)
The flop comes: Jd 9c Ac
Now it's getting interesting. I figure I have a second nut flush draw, and a second nut straight draw with a total of 17 outs. I am curious about how you think this hand should be played on the flop. I am quite sure I played suboptimally (play follows below). I figure the only pockets hands that are likely to beat me is AJ with a fill up draw, Kcxc for a higher flush draw, or Kox for a higher straight draw or a pocket pair for a full house draw. Of those I think AJ and the pocket pair missing the flop are the most likely with the betting. As far as my calculations afterwards go ( which I am quite sure may be wrong) is that my principal strategy should be to get as much money in as possible and permissible with my opponent even before I make my hand. Is this correct with a 73% chance of making my AQ-flush or A/Q high straight and 27% chance of failing my draws on both the turn and river?
Which would be the better strategy:
check the flop waiting a completing card on the turn and then bet the pot?
check the flop waiting a completing card on the turn and if it hits, slowplay/small-bet up to and including the river?
try to get as much money in early on the flop with the good odds I have before a scare club or straight card (for him) hits the board?
Here is the rest of the play for completeness:
I check, planning for a check-raise. MP bets 50. (Pot 175) I figure him for an A with possibly a pairing kicker. I raise 100. (Pot 275) MP calls. (Pot 375)
Turn: 5 c
I now have an AQ-high flush, I bet the pot and he folds.
Kind regards,
Axafluff
Result: He later told me he held AJo no clubs.
You have the right idea, but you don't have 17 outs. You have 9 club outs and 6 straight outs (the Kc and the 8c give you a flush not a straight). This changes the calculation numbers from:
17 outs: 1 - [(47-17)/47 * (46-17)/46] = 60%
15 outs: 1 - [(47-15)/47 * (46-15)/46] = 54%
A 4% edge early in a tournament is worth pushing when you have unlimited rebuys. So, although your math was a little off, IMO you made the correct play. Push your edge in the rebuy period.
Just my opinions.
Derrick
.
Very good debate on early tourney AA, final 4 AA, etc. Since even tourneys are gambling, I think I have to gamble with AA to one early all in raiser. In the other scenario, you scoop second place just by folding. No real need to gamble on that hand; and AA goes down in value against 3 opponents.
This happened at end of round 1 WSOP Warmup tourney on line. We need only one player to go broke for the rest to make top 5. I get AA. Smallest stack will go broke on this hand. Largest stack makes a very large raise!! What do I do? I did the worst thing of all and called. Small stack folds to stay alive. Now I am dumping chips to some jerk who raised with KQ and he wins the hand. Could have been in top 5 if we both just let short stack call.
We do eventualy get short stack out and a lively debate ensues with spectators.
I conclude that I should have folded AA. I did not need to gamble here. Many say I should have moved all in. What if jerky called? I go out 6th and miss.
With places 1-5 paying out the same prize, all you want to do is make the top five. I would fold.
Now if it was round 3, where only place 1 and 2 pay the big prize, I would have pushed all in.
For the facts given, there is no doubt in my mind that mick should have folded the instant the big stack entered the pot. Like you say, with 6 players remaining and 1-5 getting the same prize, survival is ALL that matters at this point. Chip count only matters as it compares to the others, and your chances of going broke before one of them do.
Unless you really want that winner's T-shirt, in which case you should go all-in with your AA now.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Mick,
This type of situation is the only exception I can see to folding aces. When the top 5 places win the same prize your strategy should be to survive. Try to win hands uncontested, and put the pressure on the small stack.
Since, PokerPages is %70 rank beginners, you can expect people to play poorly and not realize what they should be doing.
.
Thanks all. I realized right after I hit the call button that I made a big mistake. Why didn't I realize the obvious in the heat of the moment?
After losing those chips, and even more when KQ kept bettin, I went from a very comfortable position, to second short stack. Took several rounds more, blind stealing and the whole bit, just to get to 5th where I could have been quite easily.
The spectators were almost unanimous that my correct play was to push all in, hard to convince them that, actualy, folding was the correct move by far.
How does this relate to the original problem of AA late in wsop calling all in with 3 others versus folding and taking second place? I think now that I would fold AA in that hypothetic example.
This week your buddy brought three new players from New York that were here on a business trip into your weekly high limit poker game. While the guys were pretty cool, and not new to poker in general, numerous times the game had to be stopped, to re-explain the rules of hold'em, and each time they would tell you that they are stud players, and back home, stud is "the game".
Beginner's Luck was in rare form tonight as all three newbies, with thier wild, loose play busted out a few of your games's regulars, including David Sklansky. Dave knew this game was positive EV, but he left his American Express at home, and these guys didn't take Mastercard. No regulars had any cash to lend him, and the new guys weren't comfortable with an IOU, since thier plane left in 4 hours. Dave ran out to find Mason...
The game starts to break up, since only you, Fossilman and the three new guys have any money. Then one of the New Yorkers says "Hey don't they play this game for that chamionship world thing..?" You explain the No Limit Final at Binions and he says:
"I gots about tree hours before the plane leaves, youse guys wanna play some no limit?
Wow, you think, what an opportunity, three no limit holdem virgins wanna play with you for your last 10 grand. It almost seems to be immoral. But you snap out of it quikly when you see the 20-30 large each one has in front of them from Dave's pockets. All five of you put up 10K and agree to play for the three hours. 25/50 blinds, you draw the big blind.
On the very first hand, NY#1 goes all in, Greg folds, NY#2 calls, with $25 invested in the small blind, NY#3 either feels he is commited or he has a big hand because he calls too. Your about to toss your BB blind but look down, and what do you know. Black Aces.
This game is a berry patch, that much we know. You have three hours to get their money if you fold or you can make it quick and painless here if you call and win, however 33% of the time, that money is flying the friendly sky's back to the big apple never to be seen by you again. What are you going to do?
Since Fossilman is out, this is a clear call.
I would assume I was being cheated. Fold and cash out.
You are not being cheated, remeber David Sklansky knew this was a positive EV game, and he is rarely wrong (I think he'd tell you never) when it comes to poker.
Fossilman brought the guys in, and he can vouch for them.
Ya, well Sklansky went home with nothing but lint in his pockets so that should raise some red flags right off. As for fossilman, he hangs out in biker bars so I wouldn't be quite so quick to vouch for his friends.
Very good points.
every time
Gator,
If you can not afford to play in the game, don't play at all. You should not risk your bankroll on a game you should not be playing. This has nothing to do with your hand values. If you can't play aces here you shouldn't have been playing in this game.
I agree with mah. This is totally different than the tournament AA question we have beaten to death. Time to give it a rest.
First of all this is a hypothetical question designed to stimulate thinking, strategy and rationale. I believe all that went over both your heads.
Where do you get off with these observations and comments:
"If you can not afford to play in the game, don't play at all"
The situation clearly states the premise of this being your weekly HIGH LIMIT game. Each player buys in for 10K. No where does this imply or suggest that this, limit is within or out of your bankroll or affordability. The closest statement is that it is your last 10K with you.
"This has nothing to do with your hand values"
I don't know what this comment even means. There are at least 5 things I consider important factors in my decision in this hand, and hand value is definately one of them.
"If you can't play aces here you shouldn't have been playing in this game."
First of all, that is very presumptous of you to suggest that I wouldn't call. I didn't say what I would do. I bet your lack of attention to detail is a leak in your game. Second, it seems like you never "play your Aces", it's more like "they play you", if it is always an automatic call in any situation.
"This is totally different than the tournament AA question we have beaten to death, time to give it a rest"
No shit Sherlock. It is a totally different situation, I'm glad you figured that out, what did you do.. read the question? Put it to rest? by your astute observations, it's a new situation. Real smart guy.
n/t
Playing shorthanded and with limited chips are Tourney concepts. I'm sure you realized this after you posted the message, but it was too late to take it back.
wow, I just questioned 12 Volt's hostility but this is worse!
I think what mah is saying is essentially right. The question is premised on the old variance vs. profit question. If you can afford to play 1 short NL session for 10k, you should be bankrolled enough to make calling a no brainer. That's why you made it $10,000. If you said a $10 NL freezeout the question loses its meaning because just about anyone will call with this much of an advantage if they can afford to lose the buyin.
I think you should treat it as a unique situation independent of variance and total bankroll. Unless you routinely get such easy opponents, then you should try and make the most of this rare opportunity.
That is how I feel about tournaments in general. In ring games, there is a finite amounnt of situations, and you constantly replay them. I believe that tourneys are infinite in dynamics, and should be treated as such.
Even though this hand is a "ring game", I set it up like a tourney (limited bankroll) to work out concepts and strategy.
if you can afford to lose the buy-in then call. If your just looking to grind out some small winnings or something then fold.
Some posters have taken the liberty to decide what I would do, for me (wrong I might add). Here is a explanation of what I would do and briefly why.
I would call. Here you have a situation where the players could have anything really. Of course they could have real big hands too. I know at worst I'm a 2:1 favorite to split
More important, is the amount of money I could win. 30K right here. If I fold, the best I could really 'expect' is 15K over the next 3 hours, since Greg and I would on average split the 30K dead money (generally assuming our play is equal). It's a simple but hold your breath type of call.
Now if I were to take Greg out of the game, and have the threee guys to myself, I would consider folding. I have plenty of time to get all the chips, and there will be better situations. The one problem, is that two guys are likely to be eliminated and the other will have you outnumbered 3:1 in money. However, it would only take one all in hand to level the chips and two to close it. So I would fold and play outnumbered.
the only posts dumber than this string are the Bizarro posts. But they are supposed to be goofy. I'm guessing you thought it was still April 1 and that you were a funny guy.
Stupid is as stupid does. you've posted twice in this thread, and counting.....
12 Volt why are you being so hostile? Your profile over at Pages paints you as such a mellow guy. Nothing "stupid" about the question as it has many carryover situations in everyday tourney play.
Same thing, you CALL, heck, if you should do it in a tourney then for sure you have to go for it in a ring game...
Sure, you can outplay them later, sure, you might lose this hand, but who cares? You have a super +EV situation. I'd make the call against sound opponents who might have KK, QJs, 99 whatever, are you going to tell me you would fold when your opponents are likely to have J6s, 54o and K7 ?
Also, anyone willing to play in this game with a 10K buy-in has a Bankroll of at least half a million behind him. So, even if I lose this hand, I rebuy and outplay them later. This is important, If I don't have the $$ to back me, then I wouldn't play.
The cards can really go cold on you at times, you have to go for it now...
I say, CALL, CALL, CALL,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
The question has merit.
For those who mentioned bankroll and such, don't worry about it. As I read the hypothetical, the issue isn't whether you can afford to lose 10K (assume you've got a million in the bank), the issue is based on your only having 10K with you today. As such, with no other cash or loan at hand, you will win what you win, or lose up to 10K, and no other end result is possible. If you go broke on this hand, you will be out of the game, and the hypothetical assumes that the game is not likely to ever exist again in anything like its current form.
So, what do you do?
I think a really important question is what do you expect these guys to do next hand? If all three of them are jamming all-in on the first hand of NL, are they going to continue jamming it up preflop every hand? If so, then this is the best situation you're going to find, and you MUST take it. If they're going to calm down preflop, but still put in a lot of money postflop on the later hands, then the concept of giving up an edge now to preserve your chances to apply a bigger edge later comes into the picture.
I call. I simply don't think that I'm likely to find enough situations in the next three hours where my edge is that much higher than it is with AA preflop. Also, since bankroll isn't a concern, I'd rather play here for 30K with a 33% edge than play later for amounts that add up to 10K or the like with a 70% edge.
So, if I know things are going to calm down in this game, my later situations won't come up often enough, for large enough amounts, and with large enough edges, to make up for what I'm giving up on this hand. If things aren't going to calm down, and the game is going to remain all-in showdown poker, then what better than AA?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Good point. It is the first hand and I hadn't thought of the possibility that the situation won't change gears, and this is the best you will get. In that case, you simply must call, because it can't get any better.
If game does slow down (betting, not pace), then I do think you have ample time to grab a huge chunk of the money if not all, without ever having to put your stack and 'opportunity' in this case on the line.
This is a question concerning risk/$$$$ management, versus folding AA. In a bad sense of judgement I thought it would be clever to use AA in the example, but I should have used a more nuetral hand, with similar odds.
Greg, I commend you on being able to analyze a situation without predjudice. You made no assumptions and adrressed the example according to it's own merits.
I rarely see posters from this forum at the Paradise tables.
They may be there, just playing under different names. I've read that people are afraid others might know how they play in situations. I think thats bs, I think they are more afraid of others knowing how they play period.
Whats the take on this?
P.S. I play under a different name at Paradise, but have posted here what it is, I have no problem with that. I will be playing some tourneys there tonight if anyone wants to try and get me to fold Aces preflop, your welcome.
I just signed up yesterday on Paradise. I have played 3 $10 tourney's with 2 2nd place finishes.
You will see me signed on as ohKanada.
Good luck as always,
Ken Poklitar
I play off and on under the name AZJohnny. I haven't played for a couple of weeks and may not for a while. About 90% of my Paradise play is the tournaments.
JohnnyD
You're right, I'm there under a different name. And I'm never telling anybody what it is. It's one thing to share how I play as part of improving how I play, and then facing those people in real life. In person, I can take advantage of tells, mannerisms, and other psychology-related aspects of the game that don't apply online. Online, knowing my preferred way to play a hand is too much to give away. Especially since it's that much less likely that I'll know who knows me, whereas in real life people usually can't help but say hi to somebody they "know" online. Poker is a social game. Online, it's a lot less social, and all the lurkers out there would know immediately who FossilMan was, without me knowing anything about them.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I have given thought to the idea that I may be giving too much away by letting on to who I am, but have decided that it wasn't a big deal, at least for me personally.
Online I value the competition and educational aspect of the game more than the financial. I only play up to $20 tourneys and won't ever play higher than 1/2 ring games. I am not all that secure with the medium in general to play for higher stakes. I have parlayed a 1 time buy in of $50 to over a $1100 in about 4.5 months at these limits, so it has been rewarding both finacially and cognitavely.
So, if the opposition is playing stronger against me because they have info on my play, then it forces me to play even better to stay ahead. I don't know how much of that has really happened, I'd hope it has, but I don't think so.
I'm just building up a repotoire of skill and toughness, so I can fold AA in the WSOP one day.
Interesting. I didn't really think much about my user name when I signed up.
Having played 6 of these tournies ( in the money 4 times), they do not look like any real tournies that I have ever played. I have played in some 1 table satelites that also payed 3 players but those were no-limit.
The play that I have seen so far (in 3 $10 and 3 $20) is fairly weak. Players have no concept of chip management.
Well Greg if you see me at your table, please be nice and don't take all my chips :)
Ken Poklitar
That doesn't see like too much of a misdirection to me.
JarJar
x
Gator,
I don't play online except for the PokerPages tournaments and I use my e-mail address name above. I only play it because its a freeroll and allows me to experiment with strategies since I don't have to risk any money.
I prefer real tournaments with live opponents. After you start playing for real you will remember from the past what your opponents do. It's a bigger advantage.
I play at Paradise, up to 30.00 tourneys. I am questioning the value of them, even with the weak fields you encounter. An example:
Play 4 20.00 tournaments. Total cost is 88.00.
1 first 100.00 1 second 60.00 2 no shows 0.00
Total 160.00
Profit 72.00
With that much time spent in a ring game, couldn't you do better than 72.00? And thats if you are lucky enough to place as well as the above example.
Just a question. Many of you may do much better than this.
Mick,
I do not know how long it takes to play a Paradise tourney. Your profit seems good so far, but a larger sample will determine your win rate.
Anyway, you need to figure out your hourly win rate. To compare this to ring game play, take your profits and divide it by the number of hours spent playing these tournaments. Then compare that to your hourly rate from a ring game.
There are three left in a $30 PP tourney, playing 600-1200. I have just under 2k, the small blind just under 4k and the big blind has the rest. I find two red aces on the button. I flat call. The small blind calls and the big blind checks. Flop comes J-10-9. Small blind bets out, the big blind mucks and I move in for 1180. Small blind calls and shows 10s9s. No help from the board and I am out. I am from the UK, and as such inexperienced at limit poker (though I have taken just under 4k from Paradise in three months). I learnt early on in my PP career not to limp with aces in cash play, but in this situation basically I wanted the small blind to play, as I knew he would bet the flop regardless of what hit. How bad was my limp-in?
Regards,
Richard
I don't like it Richard.
Basically because just winning the blinds adds 30% to your stack. You have to raise. It can sometimes be a good play to limp but here, when it almost becomes a crapshoot, just winning those blinds is plenty.
I also like to be constant with my holdings. Weither it's a steal with 63 or a raise with AA, I raise (short-handed of course). I guess you had been stealing previous to that hand, weren't you? So here a limp is not normal and will send a really big WARNING sign to a good player.
Raise and take it. (although the SB probably would have called with T9s)
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Sun Tsu points out that winning a battle without a battle is vastly surperior to winning one after a fight.
I think that applies here. Nearly everytime an opponent shows down a hand they at least think they can win, and since we can't have the mortal nuts every hand, they often do. I prefer to win a smaller pot without the battle, then take a chance on a larger one with a caller. Especially in a case where if they catch up to me, I can be taken out of the tourney on a hand I can't get away from, as in this case.
The only way I see it differently is when I have at least got the 'likely' nuts. Since hands can only be favorites prior to the flop, not the nuts with five cards to come, in a tourney I almost never try to trap pre-flop.
I'm not a fan of doing it but you took a risk that potentially would give you a very nice stack. With only 3 players I think it is fine to limp with big hands.
Next tourney please,
Ken Poklitar
Richard,
In general, I think limping in with the AA in your specific situation was probably not the best play. The blinds are costing you 1800 a round and you need to get chips now. Nicolas makes a good point that just winning the blinds will add significantly to your chip stack. Of course the SB might call you with his 9s10s (if you raised) and you still would have loss, but we can't analyze this situation based on the results of the hand.
However, I do understand why you limped. I've limped in twice in my short tourney career with AA. Once was in the SB (where I ended up doubling up the BB's chips) and once in the BB (where I ended up taking a pretty big pot). Limping from the SB and BB with monster hands can indeed create great trapping opportunities, but they can also get yourself trapped (which is what kinda happened to you). I can't say that you made an awful play, but I'd definitely raise here in your situation.
On a side note, has anyone ever mucked AA late in a tourney postflop (where you didn't go all-in preflop)? I'm assuming that the texture of the flop and your read of the players invovled would be huge factors to consider, but I'm guessing that if you get AA late in a tourney, you and your chips are probably at least 90% committed to the hand. Any comments on this statement?
Good luck and play hard!
Jace
It all depends on how deep the money is. I've folded aces on the flop, sure. Late in the tourney or not it's how big is your stack is compared to the blinds that counts, right? If you are short stack then often you are commited to play the hand out. If you have a big stack, then it's back to basicaly a ring game strategy.
From my memory:
This was late in a tourney. Average stacks had to be about T2000 and the blinds 100-200. I had T2500. If I remember the situation correctly: I raised from a middle position with aces. Only the BB called. Flop came J-Q-K rainbow. The BB thought about it and moved in, which covered me. There were so many hands against which I'm behind here, and most importantly I got the feeling he wanted a call. I mucked. He's a good friend so I asked him later what he had : T-9s.
Ouch!
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Thanks everyone for the answers.
Basically, as I mentioned, I learnt the hard way never to limp with aces in live play, but in this situation I chose to because I wanted to extract the maximum if my opponent(s) made a partial hit on the flop. I agree that my limp should have set off clanging alarm bells, but I felt it was worth the risk. I knew the small blind would bet the flop regardless---being chip leader, and also a very aggressive opponent. As to the point that winning the blinds would add significantly to my stack, that's true, but then again the blinds would come around to me in the next two hands when in all probability I wouldn't hold aces to defend them with. I saw the aces as a golden chance, albeit not without risk, to win most of the chips at the table, rather than just the blinds. Unfortunately the golden chance crumbled to ashes :-(. Oh well, we live and learn. Thanks again for the input---see you at the tables.
Regards,
Richard
Interesting related story. Names are left out but we are talking about two prominent tournament circuit players. This was in the Reno Hilton's Pot of Gold NL tourney. First place around $12 to $14K.
A prominent tourney circuit pro made the final table with so many chips that he could coast two number one without much difficulty. When the following hand occured there were five players left. The No 2 chip holder was also a pro and had about 60 percent the amt of chips as No. 1. This was several years ago and I do not remember the exact hand, but the following is close.
No. 1 picked up AA UTG and made a sizable raise but not enough to hurt his stack/position if he folded pre-flop. All folded to No. 2 chip leader who raised all in. Without hesitation, No. 1 called.
No. 2 had KK and the flop brought a K. AA never improved. He ended up going out in 4th place, a substantially lower payout. No. 2 became chip leader and coasted to first.
Common opinion at the time was that it was foolish, even with AA, for No. 1 to tangle with the only player that could significantly injure his stack. I am of this opinion as well, from the rail, though given the situation I would have difficulty making the laydown as winning the hand practically would guarantee a first place finish.
What do you ladies and gentleman think?
It's the other way around. The guy who had KK doesn't want to be messing with the only guy at the table who can eliminate him from the tourney. This is especially true when you're in second place and your lead over the others (3rd down to nth place) is significant.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have played the KK, but he'd prefer to win without a showdown. Even though he's the favorite against a hand like AQs, his KK still loses about 1/3 of the time. And 5th place probably pays about 20% of what 2nd place does. I suspect he made the big reraise figuring that the chip leader would lay down anything less than AA and wasn't all that likely to have AA. So, he might have played his KK as well as he could have, and just gotten unlucky to run into AA (and lucky to have sucked out).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't think you will find any successful pro who would honestly say they would lay down AA in this situation.
JohnnyD
I think #1 did the only sane thing. He is a big favorite to win the tourney right there. #2 with 60% of #1's stack is still a threat. Eliminate him here and its game over. #1 simply got very unlucky. He still made the right play. Anything else seems lame.
One of my bigger ring game strengths is reading players and putting them on possible hands. I find that in tourneys, with the tables changing regularly and often playing with people I've never seen before, this is more difficult to do. So my question for the experts:
How important or useful is player reading early in the tourney?
How do you cement those impressions in your mind for a player that you think you have a read on early who may be knocked out shortly, or suddenly turn up at the final table?
Early on, until the field thins, is it better just to ignore this aspect and play your holdings?
What do you look for to get a 'read' on an opponent, particularly in a no limit event?
Thanks.
Well, I'm certainly not an expert but here's my 2 cents.
Big bet poker is so much more a people game than limit. I mean the biggest mistake you can make on the river in a limit ring game is calling 1 extra BB when your opponent has a better hand. Now in big bet poker that extra call can cost you a lot!
Same thing for tourneys, limit or especially no-limit. Those extra calls/good laydowns can be the difference between going to the final table or busting just out of the money. In all the stages of the tournament, you must study your opposition. I know sometimes it's frustating to get a solid idea how everyone plays and then having your table break up. But some of these players could return later in the tourney and now you'll have an advantage over them when it counts if they did not pay attention to you. So, you certainly should not ignore that aspect of the game early in a tourney.
I am lucky in the sense that I have a great photographic memory. If I played with you last year, there a very good chance I'll remember it and have a general idea of how you played. (maniac, rock, passive, etc...) So, in a tourney, I usually remember pretty accurately what an opponent did early, when I meet back with him at a later stage. This can mean remembering his betting pattern, a tell, mannerisms, etc...
Although playing tight early is usually the key, knowing what your opponent is doing is essential every minute you are sitting at a poker table.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I don't do it really any different in a tourney than I do in a live game.
In the long run, the trick is to know how to play your cards without having to spend any real mental effort on it, and to preserve your mental effort for reading your opponents and using that information to adapt your "basic strategy".
Maybe it's because I used to be a BJ card counter that I think this way. As a solo counter, you want to memorize how to size your bets and make your play adjustments without needing to really think about it at all. You want the math and memorization to be automatic. You then spend your mental effort on fooling the pit so they don't recognize you're counting and bar you.
Likewise in poker. I pretty much know without thinking the way I would play a hand if my opponents were all new to me. I then spend my mental effort on observing the opponents and adjusting my play with what I observe. Instead of thinking "should I raise with this hand?", I'm thinking "Normally this is a raising hand, but should I raise against this opposition?"
You'll find that once you reach this level, recalling later, especially only a few hours later, what you've learned about an opponent isn't that difficult.
Of course, I also screw things up at least a handful of times each session as well. Like, I read a player's hand perfectly, but don't read that he's going to bulldog-call me despite how weak his hand is.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I love reading this stuff.It gives me a general confirmation of my thinking.I don't have a photo-memory,so I am forced to generally classify-using the big catagories the pros use.Then I look for idyosyncracies.I have a rock-'never out of line' versus I have a rock 'that can't resist fondling his chips before he raises.'I am not quick at learning this stuff,so again I am forced to play solid until I have a good read-then I am more comfortable trying to play under or around a player.In tournament play you can be with the same players for hours.A slow poke like me can do well in this environment.But change the circumstance several times in short order and I am back to the nuts.I need help with techniques to assist in rapid observation and permanent storage.Guys?
In many of the posts below about AA, Gator has brought up the issue about how much value you get from doubling your stack early in a tournament. He has asked on a few occasions for somebody to discuss this issue. Each time, I've concentrated on other aspects of his posts. This time, I decided to address the issue and do it by itself. So, I am not thinking at all about the other issues we've discussed, but simply how much value you get from doubling your stack early on.
Most of us are familiar with the concept that tourney chips are worth more apiece in a short stack than they are in a big stack. We also know that as you get deeper and deeper into the tourney, this discrepancy grows. So, when you're in or very close to the money, this is when the values become the most skewed.
For example, I once reached the final table of a tournament with 55% of the chips. First place paid 40% of the prize pool. Even if I had been a lock to win, my chips were only worth 40/55 of their nominal value. Of course, my average return from this point forward was really much less than 40% of the prize pool. At a quick guess, it is probably 30%. So, my chips were worth about 30/55 of their original value. However, somebody else at the table might have had only 2% of the chips, but they had already earned 2% for 10th place, but had a shot at finishing higher, so their chips might have been worth double their original value in their stack.
But, what about really early? Like, when most of the field is still alive? If I win a stack from somebody else, have I doubled my equity in the tourney? Or, is it slightly less than double? Much less than double?
It is my belief that early in the tourney, when you are still very far from the money, chips are worth their original value no matter how big or small your stack is (unless it's really, really big, like you somehow have 20% of the chips in play even though half the field is still alive). When I say this, I don't mean 100% to all measurable significant digits. But, I do mean pretty much 100% of their original value to at least a few significant digits. Thus, if it isn't 100% of original value in a big stack, it's 99.8% or better.
Thus, I belief that when you double your stack, you double your equity. So, if I double through somebody on the first hand of the WSOP, my equity went from it's original $10,000 up to $20,000. If it's not worth a full $20,000, then it's pretty close, like $19,900 or better. Thus, at this stage of the tourney, you can play pretty much like a ring game, and mostly ignore the fact that you're in a tourney at all. At least in terms of this issue.
One thing I wish to do is to more accurately map how much the big stack differential comes into play as you progress through the tournament. However, to put numbers of this, I need to do some programming and run simulations. But this type of simulation isn't doable on any of the software commercially available. So, if anybody out there is a programmer and wants to collaborate on this research, let me know. It is one of the main things holding me back from writing a book, as I think this data is critical to fully utilizing some of the strategies I prefer. Thus, not only will it inform me better how to play my own big or small stack, but it will allow me to formulate guidelines that anybody can use to improve their game.
I've discussed this with a programmer friend in the past who displayed an interest, but he's been too busy to spend the time on it. If he reads this and still wants to do it, he's in. Otherwise, anybody else who has the skills and desire is very welcome.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"So, if I double through somebody on the first hand of the WSOP, my equity went from it's original $10,000 up to $20,000."
I've had this thought but have concluded that saying I have this much equity really doesn't mean much in practicle terms.
Vince
If I extrapolate your words, then starting the final table with 75% of the chips doesn't have any practical value either (beyond the value of 10th place money).
In my words, it has as much value as any other statistical measurement. It is an estimation of the value of your position. Of course, you can go broke 2 hands later, or you could lose 95% of this doubled stack and still come back and win. Almost anything is still possible.
Maybe a better way of thinking about would be to consider if you could sell your seat in the middle of a tournament. Also, let's ignore bankroll considerations (even though these would be very important).
If you had T20,000 in chips after the first hand of the WSOP, how much would someone have to offer you for you to sell them your seat (and your stack)? I would say that $20,000 is the fair price. If somebody offered me $19,500, I'd say no thanks (or, if I said yes, it's due to reasons beyond the statistical fair value of my stack). In other words, if you could play from this point forward a million times, what would your average win be? I'm saying it would be just about $20,000.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
"if I extrapolate your words.." is always a sure sign of a ruse. But there is a continuum. When there are 500 people left the marginal value of the second buyin's worth of chips is almost linear. Obviously at a final table it is not. There's a curve from that first chip of profit you get to go from 10000 to 10025 to that last chip you get to go from 5119000 to 5120000. Was I the guy who said I was going to program something to map the curve? It's definitely on my to-do list, but not yet done. Like golf, you gotta work on the final-table aspect of the program and go backwards for any reliability. Anyway, to Vince, who said there was practically no difference, that's not so. It's only that humans have a hard time perceiving deltas in numbers at big and little ends a scale. If your winning chances go from 1% to 2% in one hand at the beginning of the tournament, that really is huge progress. It's just that you don't get all excited because you still only have 2% of the chips. But the progress is there nonetheless. Also, there may be a bonus if it's a tournament that moves slowly and people are hitting their discomfort level twice as fast as you. But I'm still trying to find a way to measure this phenomenon and see if it helps.
JG
True, pointing out the value of chips at the final table is dramatically different than at the first table. I think this is a very weak argument for Fossilman to use. At the final table, the chips have actual $$$ value, at the first they only have potential.
I agree doubling your chips early does make a difference. However in the WSOP case you don't go from 1% to 2%, you go from around .001% to .003%. There is a difference in the style you can play and your force in the game, but I don't think the difference is that great, that it's worth losing all your chips for in attempt to achieve it.
Regarding going from .2% to .4% of the chips for an opening double-up, it is true that .4% of the chips is still epsilon in the big picture, but I'm a believer that for tournaments of 500 people or whatever, you have to pretend the other 490 just aren't there and just play your own table. No matter how much variation you can create, no stack is big compared to the field. So it's pointless to worry about field consideratons at all. Therefore, the problem reduces to what's going on at my table. Note, I don't think this is always true. For short tournaments of say 100 players, there are definite benefits to managing the stack for the pace. But with 500, all you can do is maximize your EV for quite a while.
JG
"If I extrapolate your words, "
Whatever makes you happy. Geary said there is a big difference between early in the tournament and the final table. Maybe, maybe not. I believe there is a difference with regards to "equity". Early on in the tournament you have "percieved" equity and no more. There is noone that is going to buy your chips because they can't. At the final table you have bargaining "equity". Certainly if noone will buy your chips you have no more than you did early on but you do have the potential of trading your equity for something tangible (money, trophy a night on the town or whatever). When I referred to looking at doubling your chips as doubling your equity having no practicle application I meant that from an equity point of view you really don't have ...anything. Well you do have something but it depends on your skill level just how much value you ascribe to having double the chips of almost everone else.
Vince
Greg,
There are three major factors that many players do not consider collectively when playing a tournament The structure of the tournament, the blinds and/or antes, and stack sizes in relation to each other.
First lets discuss the structure. There is a big difference between 20 minute rounds at Poker Pages and 2 hour rounds in the WSOP final event. Basically, since each hand takes approximately one minute to complete you will be dealt 20 hands per round in a Poker Pages tournament and 120 hands per round in the WSOP. From this information you can figure out the likelyhood of how often you will be dealt pairs, suited hands, and connectors. Obviously, you will be dealt less quality hands in a Poker Pages tournament.
The other factor is the blinds in relation to the size of your stack. During the first round you will pay $7 in blinds twice for a total of $14 per 20 minute round is 4.375% of your stack. The next round will cost $30, so if you didn't play a hand your blind costs would be an additional 9.8% of your stack. The point I'm trying to make is that you will have seen 40 hands by this time. Due to this small sample of hands luck will determine who was dealt the better hands. Futhermore, you will have to play your good hands and very likely will not be able to fold or make laydowns because it will cripple your stack.
By the time you get into the second round the stack sizes will be all difference sizes. Some players may have tripled or double up and some may be only a fraction of there original size. So, if you were lucky enough to double up you can play hands that would be incorrect for smaller stacks to play. This is the biggest advantage to having a large stack early. At this point you can bully the smaller stacks, because the small stack knows that if he calls your raise he is subject to be knocked out of the tournament. So the concept of small stacks being more valuable is irrelevent until you get closer to the money payout spots. If you are a small stack you have to use strategies that protect your stack in order to build it. So, your strategy is to put yourself in position to win pots uncontested. If you are unfortuately in a hand with a big stack, the latter will force you to commit your chips more often, while the large stack risks little.
Let's look at the sturcture of the WSOP. I believe the first round the blinds are $75 after 120 hands you will have blinded away $900. You will get more quality hands and you can use your poker skills, because the luck factor is reduced.
I just wanted to state the facts of how important it is to consider all these factors and properly ajust to it.
BTW: Greg, I do not think you should be writing a book and giving your material to the general public. Why give away all your strategy and let everyone know. Even Ray Zee does not give away his secrets for Omaha, because he wants to make money. You will make more money playing in tournaments than writing a book about it. No one is giving away this information because tournaments are so popular and profitable. I'm begging you not to write it yet. Please.
>You will make more money playing in tournaments than >writing a book about it. No one is giving away this >information because tournaments are so popular and >profitable. I'm begging you not to write it yet. >Please.
Hey! maybe Greg's got enough money and wants fame now. Certainly I doubt your EV is top of his list of influential factors.
Chip value is certainly and interesting topic, and the sort of study Greg suggests is something I was thinking of doing if I ever get the time.
In a tournement, chip values are changing all the time for lots of reasons.
If a weak player wins a pot from a strong player, everyones chips increases in value.
If a short stack wins a pot from a large stack, everyones chips decrease in vale.
Working out the value of a pot is tricky as it depends on whos is going to win it, which adds an extra level complexity to the concept of pot odds.
Just how big are all these factors and how do they increse as the tournament progresses? Hmmmm....
I think all these questions are inter-related, and knowing the value of doubling ones stack at each point is a key statistic that can be used to estimate the other factors.
Piers,
There are only mediocre tournament books out there, so I would like to keep it that way. Greg would be giving up too much EV by writing one. I don't mind if he writes one, as long as he does not publish it yet.
BTW you do have a lot of valid points. Why don't you start a new thread?
Wow, sounds scary complicated. Way over my head.
I used to play a lot of Monopoly when I was a little kid (for money of course) and I like to think of doubling early as having a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
Greg,
I might be able to help you with any simulations, although my time is not unlimited :-)
E-mail me if you think I can help,
Andy.
You write well enough to author a book, no doubt about that.
"Thus, at this stage of the tourney, you can play pretty much like a ring game, and mostly ignore the fact that you're in a tourney"
This is a fundamental difference in our tournament strategy. I play a tourney like it's an endurance match. At the opening buzzer, my goal is to make the money. While most others are rammin and jammin trying to build big stacks or busting out, I'm plodding along and getting a piece of the pie. I don't think about winning the tournament until I've made the money, until then all I think about is losing the tourney. Once I've made the money, my new goal is to win the tourney, not just move up the payoff ladder.
I don't mind making the final short stacked. I'm used to it. I understand the mathematics that if I'm outnumbered 4:1, all it takes is one hand for me to to even it up. I also understand player psych well enough that when you throw your small stack in there, the large stack will often bite. I'll get my chips in with the best of it and win or lose I'm getting paid. And having the best of it wins more than not.
So back to the original problem. I think I have a new way to say it. Doubling your stack early increases your overall chances at WINNING the tournament, but risking all your chips as a 2:1 favorite outside the money overall decreases the amount of times you will place in the money.
What do you think?
Lets say I entered the WSOP this year. My goal would not be to win it. That's an urealistic goal for many people. Even for TJ, it's a goal that has always produced failure. Wining the tourney requires a lot of skill and some luck. Luck is beyond my control.
I would set my goal as making the money. Placing in the top 40 is more realistic and less reliant on luck.
If I could achieve my goal of making the money every year, I would soon be on a WSOP freeroll for life. At 25, that's a lot of WSOP's, I'd probably get real lucky in one of them.
P.S. Greg, I'm a programming student, but am just starting out in C++ and have only an intermediate grasp of VB. I'm taking Database next semester. It will be some time before I'd have the coding skills worthy of your compendium. But, keep me in mind for the sequel.
Two things....
First on goals. I like to set step goals. I haven't entered the main event at the WSOP, but if I did, I would have the following steps...1) don't be first out 2) survive first day 3) survive second day 4) make the money 5) make the final table 6) win. And you take it one goal at a time.
Second, on this thread. I haven't seen anybody discuss how much better you might play with a big stack vs. small stack. For me and my style, to double up on the first hand would be worth more than double the value.
JohnnyD
"This is a fundamental difference in our tournament strategy. "
For most situations I would guess your strategy is similar to most tournament players.
"At the opening buzzer, my goal is to make the money."
I agree. I want my stack to remain above average the whole tournament. This will give me the best chance to get in the money and more importantly win the tournament.
"While most others are rammin and jammin trying to build big stacks or busting out, I'm plodding along and getting a piece of the pie."
This is correct strategy as long as the plodding along does not mean that you are not being aggressive when given good cards and flops. Playing scared will not win or make money.
Most players would not consider calling an all-in bet as a 2:1 favorite, rammin and jammin. Secondly the situation we have been discussing does not happen very often. When it does I will go for it. You won't.
"Once I've made the money, my new goal is to win the tourney, not just move up the payoff ladder."
Stack management at the final table is important. I am happy to move up the payoff ladder and try to get to the top tier of prizes. For example, I will not risk a guaranteed 3rd place to try for 1st and end up in 10th. I have seen many times where the chip leaders at the final table bust out first. I will attempt to pick my battles with the correct cards.
Ken Poklitar
I opened myself up to this kind of critque, by not providing a complete overview of my strategy, but I want to address your points.
{"This is a fundamental difference in our tournament strategy. "
For most situations I would guess your strategy is similar to most tournament players.}
This is out of context, what it refers to is Fossilmans strategy of playing the early rounds of a tourney exactly like a ring game. I do not. In a ring game my strategy is to value bet as much as possible, to play marginaly profitable situations and bluff occasionally. If I get low on chips, I buy more. In summary, I don't worry much about my rack, I keep it filled.
In a tourney early on, I play to conserve chips. I am constantly weighing each decision on how it will deplete my stack.
"I want my stack to remain above average the whole tournament. This will give me the best chance to get in the money and more importantly win the tournament."
Yeah, well I want my stack to be way above average!! But what at what cost? What we want and what we can get are not the same thing. Of course a big stack will give you the best chance to get into the money, and win, but no stack = no money.
"This is correct strategy as long as the plodding along does not mean that you are not being aggressive when given good cards and flops"
Believe me, you do not want to be in the hand, when I enter the pot. When I am in the pot, I play the hand with brute force. I use a tight image, premium hand selection and aggressive bet/raising when the chips come off my stack. I wouldn't advocate anything else.
"Most players would not consider calling an all-in bet as a 2:1 favorite, rammin and jammin."
I wouldn't either, besideds callers are not rammers or jammers.
If it's a limit tourney or ring game this is a simple call, when the decisions start invoving all my chips, especially early, it's another story.
"For example, I will not risk a guaranteed 3rd place to try for 1st and end up in 10th"
This is a bad generalization. How many times is anyone guaranteed third with 10 players left? But I wouldn't either. I risk third to end up fifth to go for first though.
"I have seen many times where the chip leaders at the final table bust out first"
Chip leaders in the first round also don't always do so hot either, thats why I don't over value a large stack on the first hand.
"I will attempt to pick my battles with the correct cards"
I'll do that too, but I'll also factor in how those battles will affect my chips, so I have a chance to win the war.
Mid stage of NL tourney. T1000 chips to start. I have T3800. Fairly passive table with little preflop raising. Blinds 50/100. I am in mid position seat 5 from button with AJ suited, a loose fishy player who has been playing many hands (107offsuit, Q9offsuit etc in any position) and hitting (he has T4800) raises 100 UTG. He usually limps with most hands - I hadnt seen him raise yet.
All players after me have smaller stacks than mine. And two of them are fish who play as badly as the UTG player.
Call, muck or raise with my AJs???
Thanks,
Wasp
Wasp,
From the situation that you described, I would call. First, I don't mind other players joining because you have the potential to win a big pot with that hand.
If you raise with this hand after someone else has raised you will be committing a lot of chips if the flop does not hit you with a jack or a good draw.
Most players that raise preflop will bet the flop unless the flop scares them. Furthermore, if you reraise him he may become committed to the pot due to its large size from preflop raises.
If you are the only caller you will have good position as an advantage. If the flop scares him for some reason, you can bet to pick up the pot.
Since he hasn't yet raised, I would tend to give him credit for a pretty good hand, certainly better than AJs. However, I would call because you have the potential to double through this guy while investing only a small portion of your stack preflop. If this guy does have AA or KK and you outflop him, what are the chances that he gets away from the hand cheaply? From your description, I would guess not likely.
If you flop nothing or only 1 pair, be prepared to fold. Do not decide he must have AK and try to bluff him simply because all rags hit the flop. He doesn't sound easy to bluff.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Call if you like but don't get carried away with 1 pair. You're really looking for 2 pair, a made flush, a flush draw + pair or a flush draw with overcards.
Of course if you get heads up with someone you can read and have good control over, then you can get to work, but that's more situational than related to your hand strength.
Andy.
As Greg says, I would be most concerned about the fact that he hasn't raised before. I'd be pretty sure he has me beat preflop, and call only for the straight or flush potential to double up. A-J is the most difficult hand to play post-flop that there is. If an Ace hits, youre beat by a bigger ace. If a Jack hits youre beat by an overpair. If an Ace and a Jack hit you still have to worry about a pocket pair. I say call the reasonable bet and hope for a flush or straight to play creatively for a trap. I would NOT go broke on this hand with anything less than a straight.
CH
"Doubling your stack early increases your overall chances at WINNING the tournament, but risking all your chips as a 2:1 favorite outside the money overall decreases the amount of times you will place in the money."
Okay I have tried to calculate if Gator's above statement is correct.
Let's assume that we are playing a 10 player tournament where everyone is equal. We will also assume that during the 1st hand of the tourney the same 2 players will always go all-in against each other. One player always has a 2:1 edge. So someone will always start with 2 stacks. One player will end up in 10th place. The other 8 players will start with 1 stack.
The following are the chances of each player ending up in each position. I have labeled them as follows:
1 - Likelyhood of 1 stack players ending up in each position.
2 - Likelyhood of 2 stack player ending up in each position.
A - Since the 2 stack player will end up in 10th place 1 out of 3 times, I have averaged out his standings over 3 tournaments.
Who 1st. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. 5th. 6th. 7th. 8th. 9th. 10th
1.. 10.0 10.3 10.6 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 11.9 12.2 00.0
A.. 13.3 11.8 10.4 08.9 07.4 05.9 04.4 03.0 01.5 33.3
2.. 20.0 17.8 15.6 13.3 11.1 08.9 06.7 04.4 02.2 00.0
As you see taking the 2:1 risk will cause you to win or place 2nd more often then the player that doesn't make the bet. If I assigned dollar values to each place you would see the expected value.
When I do the same calculation with more players the results look similar but the breakeven point becomes lower. For example with 15 players, the 2:1 player places 1-5 higher.
Not sure if this changes anyones mind but it makes the 2:1 bet even better to me. I can send a copy of my spreadsheet if anyone is interested.
Ken Poklitar
Thanks Ken and Greg for a fascinating look into the doubling up question. Ken, it seems to me that the problem with your table is what Greg alludes to... that the chips change in value dramatically as the tournament progresses. I'm not sure that you can extrapolate your 10-player table... my instincts tell me that the number of variables involved with calculating the affect of doubling your stack early in a big tourney are prohibitive. I do, however, think your table is applicable to a one table satellite. The only thing I have to add is this: it is my opinion that in a large tournament, there will arise several opportunities in which you are a gigantic favorite to win a pot with a relatively small risk. These opportunities come most commonly in blind-stealing situations, and most significantly (though rarely) in those beautiful hands when you flop the nuts. My tournament strategies are based largely on waiting for and creating these opportunities, and depend very little on the strength of my hole cards. I would guess that I fold pocket Aces and play 8-5 more often than any one posting on this forum.
CH
What, did you calculate? Please provide me with the formula you used to average these places. I have a real feeling there is something very wrong with your simulation. Lets not mention the inherent problems with the idea: all equal players, differrnt playing strategy with a large stack/small stack vs blinds etc..
The best way I think you could test this is: 100 player tourney (should maybe be more, but if there are only ten players like your sim, your stack goes from 10% to 20% of total chips, that is very biased to a high finish with only nine players), all players equal.
without any change in your stack, your average place in spots 1-3 would be 3%. Easy to figure, you have a 1% chance of winding up in any spot (we know this is a wrong premise, considering the tighter players will rarely end up in 100th) but anyway.
Now figure a 99 person tourney with one player having a "double size stack" and average his percent in place 1-3. We know it will be higher. (however you did your sim, set it up like this and get your result.) Lets say it comes to 4% of the time (I think that is quite generous, to consider that doubling your stack on the first hand where future bet ratios are quite small, gets you into the money 33% more of the time). Thats not the end of it. Thats the result of future expectation of you winning that initial 2:1 hand 100% of the time. Nope, you forefiet all future opportunity 33% of the time (we know that) , so we must lop 1/3 off of all averages, you won't be around to earn them. 2/3 of 4 = 2.6%.
Now compare. We see the difference. This is based on a guess of the average increase in players that may be too generous.
Lets see your results before we debate this.
Gator,
I don't think you should question someone else's calculation and then perform your own based on a number (4%) you have pulled out of thin air.
What you have effectively said is, "Let's say I'm right. Oh look, I'm right."
I refer you back to my post entitled "Immediate reward, delayed gratification".
Andy.
The more I look at oKanadas table the more erroneous it looks. I will still wait for oK to post his formula or simulation or however he arrived at those numbers before debunking it.
Some things like player 1 and 2 having 0% of tenth place and "Since the 2 stack player will end up in 10th place 1 out of 3 times, I have averaged out his standings over 3 tournaments" just do't measure up.
As far as Andy's comments goes, I don't think he understands the math.
"I don't think you should question someone else's calculation and then perform your own based on a number (4%) you have pulled out of thin air."
I did not pull the number out of thin air. My original post accuarately describes the way I derived the number and also disclaims that results are based on a guesstimate, and I would wait until he produced his numbers before ensuing the debate. I mean, did you miss all that Andy?
I'll explain one more time. If 100 players all equal in talent and skill play a tournament, what's the cahnce of them ending up in any given position. That's easy, a 1% chance in each place. The total chance of being in the top three spots is 3% (for Andy, that is 1+1+1=3)
Now is where we have to guesstimate. How much more often will doubling your stack on the first hand get you into the top three places? 0%? 50%? 100%? I choose 33%, My instincts say this is generous. Of course, all calcualtions after this are not conclusive of anything, until this number is reached more scientifically. But we can get a barometer from the number. If you feel that 33% is too much, or to little, you can gauge the final result.
We know your chances of being in the top 3 is 3%, so a 33% inrease in placement will be 4% (for Andy, that is (1/3 of 3%) + 3% = 4%).
That is the number based on having a double stack in 100% of tournaments. But you will be eliminated 1 out 3 attempts in going for the large stack, so we have to reudce all your future results by 33% and add an extra 33% to 10th.
33% less than 4% is 2.6%.
"What you have effectively said is, "Let's say I'm right. Oh look, I'm right."
No, what I have effectively said was (and I quote from my inital post): "This is based on a guess of the average increase in players that may be too generous" "Lets see your results before we debate this"
I didn't waste any time referring back to your suggested post.
You're wasting my time now. You started off your "mathematical argument" by assuming the very point you are trying to demonstrate. If your instinct says that doubling your chips only gives you 33% more chance of making the top three, then say that's your instinct. Don't come up with a load of bogus "mathematics" to "prove" it.
If you can't see the problem with your post above, then I suggest you try a different career path to computer software. One where irrational but strongly held beliefs count for more than logic. The Church maybe, or Talk Radio DJ.
Patronise me once more and I will not be so polite.
Andy.
Andy, I just decided to ignore his posts after he got rude with me. I felt he did not deserve a response.
I don't really give a $hit whether or not you read what I post.
I do care that I'm accused of getting "rude" with you when I have not. I looked back and could find the instance. If you could direct me to it and in fact I did without warrant do so as accused, I would offer you my humble apology.
Your first line in this post is an example. “No shit, Sherlock” is another. “Real smart guy” is another. These just did not inspire me to respond to you.
I tagged on to a post by Mah that I think you took very personally. I was tired at the time and took the lazy way out, rather than compose my own post. I looked back later and realized I would not have said the same things. No matter what I said, it was about ideas, not about you personally.
There are other ways for you to respond without the swearing or personal remarks. If you felt “put down” by what I said, I did not mean to do so.
Alden (tyro)
You responded to my message, saying "make that two" for what mah said, that is a double flame, and it is personal. At least, as personal as one can take something on an anonymous online forum.
What makes it worse, is that both yours and mahs responses had nothing to do with my original post, how else was I supposed to take it.
But two wrongs don't make a right and you seem classy enough that I didn't need to come back so harsh, so I take it back.
Thanks Gator. I also take back anything I said that you thought was offensive.
"Patronise me once more and I will not be so polite"
What am I supposed to be scared now? Are you threatening me?
You want to whip out our dicks and measure? Dont go this route with me man.
"Don't come up with a load of bogus "mathematics" to "prove" it."
They are not bogus, same basic formula as oKandas, see the post below. IF you feel that it's 50% or 100% or 1000% those numbers work just as well and will "prove" me wrong with my own 'bogus formula'
"If your instinct says that doubling your chips only gives you 33% more chance of making the top three"
That is my instinct. Now, please tell me what you think. Without being a moron, how much (%) greater chance does one have for a top finish if you double on the first hand? I am very curious about your answer.
"If you can't see the problem with your post above, then I suggest you try a different career path to computer software. One where irrational but strongly held beliefs count for more than logic. The Church maybe, or Talk Radio DJ."
I'm giving you an out, I'm not insulting you back, take it or leave it.
.
No text here.
If you want a mathematical derivation, once again, consult my post entitled "Immediate reward, delayed gratification". With as many as 100 runners the extension from first only to the top three is straightforward.
I would repost it but, believe it or not, my time is every bit as important to me as yours is to you.
Andy.
Above should read "Immediate Punishment, Delayed Gratification"
To save you some time I looked it up in the archive. You remember, it's the one to which you replied "I do not doubt the validity of your case one bit". You did question my assumption that all players are equally skilled. That's the assumption you yourself are using above.
Hope this helps,
Andy.
(ANDY:) "I believe that, in the early rounds of the tournament, if, for example, you treble your chips then you are trebling your chances of winning the tournament"
Obviously, I do not, and very much yes, this is a fair assesment of the situation. This is what needs to be solved, how much do your chances acutually increase when you double (or triple) on the first hand?
I still don't doubt the mathematics of your case, but as you state in the first line, it is a paraphrasal of heads up play, not tournament. Why exactly does a heads up argument extrapolate to a tourney? Is it applicable to a tourney? I don't know Davids case or yours that you are refering to, so I will delay comment. Maybe David would lend some input.
"I believe the problem is two-fold ; firstly, the psychological aspect of the immediate punishment appears larger to people than the delayed gratification ; secondly, people simply do not believe that their chances are increased as I have explained above."
I believe there is a problem too, however many fold, but I don't think it's psychological.
Lets examine the this brief case, same as above. There are 10 equal players, with equal stacks. Each has a 10% chance of winning this tournamnet. That is agreed. If one doubles up and one busts on the first hand, now what are the chances? If the double chip guy has now doubled his chances (like you say), he now has a 20% chance of winning, and the other eight still have the same 10% chance. I don't think that is right. I know that if I am guy number 8, my chances of winning are improved, even if only so slightly with that one player out. (Where do we we stand on this?)
I admit, I don't know the formula to put it together. The closest thing I can think of, is: at the 10 player game each has a 10% chance of winning. If it were a 9 player game, each has an 11.1% chance of winning. Basic. The nine person table is what we have after the bust out, except one person has double the chips, obviously his extra chip edge gives him an advantage (takes away from the others), but how much? Somewhere in that 1.1% I think lies the answer. (keep in mind if he is .5% (random) greater then everyone else, that increases his edge by 4.5% over the entire field.) This would be a 45% greater chance of winning the tourney by doubling the first hand. (original being 10%, new being 14.5%)
I still don't and never have liked the players being equal thing. I am using it in the above case because I was using Ok's situation, and frankly, this neutral situation has to be the foundation before you can apply any skill situations.
This is the central bone of contention. Sticking to the 10-player case, I believe that doubling your stack doubles your chances to win. If I have 20% of the chips then for the net flow of chips from me to the other players to be zero (which should be the case given equal ability), I should win all the chips 20% of the time. I see no reason why this shouldn't apply here.
In the real world, of course all things are not equal. One point not yet mentioned is that if you are a better short-stack player than a big-stack player, your chances will be less than doubled in this case. This is not meant as a criticism of anyone ; I believe that I myself am a better short-stack player than big-stack (though of course I can't pass up on winning chips for this reason :-)).
Let me pose another question. If you find yourself heads-up and outchipped 90-10, do you think you have a better chance than when you started ? Now, if you are better at heads-up play than full-ring play, maybe so. But all other things being equal, I do not believe your chances have improved. You may disagree. If you think it is worth discussing then it may be helpful to re-post this in a new thread.
Andy.
Posted by: Andy Ward (andy@pokersoft.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 6:58 a.m.
Posted by: Gator
Posted on: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 8:35 a.m.
Posted by: Andy Ward (andy@pokersoft.co.uk)
Posted on: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 3:01 p.m.
Are you running some type of simulation, or are you assuming that the probability of winning is directly proportional to the size of a stack? Or is there another assumption that I have overlooked?
Assumptions
1) All players are equal. Therefore if everyone is equal, everyone will get about equal cards, make the same number of mistakes, make the same number of good and bad beats.
2) There is one key difference for the players. The difference is one player will always go all-in on the 1st hand when he is a 2:1 underdog. A second player will go all-in on the 1st hand when he is a 2:1 favorite. All other players will play similar.
3)So after hand 1, you have 1 player who has 2 stacks, 1 player who has busted out and all other players with 1 stack. The 1 stack players will never end up in last because they never take the risk. The player who takes the 2:1 risk and is the favorite will end up in last in 33% of the tournaments. The player who takes the 2:1 risk as the underdog will end up in last in 66% of the tournaments.
4) So if the tournament size has 10 players, you will always have 1 player with 2 stacks, 8 players with 1 stack and 1 player out.
5) So given that all players after hand 1 play equally the 2 stack player will win twice as often. Since there are 10 stacks. The 2 stack player has 20% of the chips. Therefore that player will win 20% of the tournaments. The 1 stack players have 10% and will win the same percentage. Now you notice that the average of the 2 stack player is 13.3%. This is calculated at (20% * 2) / 3. Since he wins 20% 2 out of 3 he enters and wins 0% the other 1 out of 3.
N = number of players to start tournament 2S1st = 2 stack player 1st place finishes 2S2nd = 2 stack player 2nd place finishes 1S1st = 1 stack player 1st place finishes
So to calculate 1st place for the 2 stack player, the following is done:
2S1st = 2/N = 2/10 = 20%
To calculate any place for the 1 stack player you always do the following:
1Sany = (100-2Sany)/N-2 = (100-20)/(10-2) = 10%
To verify the calculations the following should always be true:
100% = (2Sany) + (1Sany * (N-2))
Basically since the 2 stack player wins 20% of the time. Each of the remaining 8 1 stack players will win 80%/8 which is 10% each.
For 2nd place for the 2 stack player:
2S2nd = (100-2S1st)*(2/(N-1)) = (100-20)*(2/(10-1)) = (80*22%) = 17.8%
Since the 2 stack player wins 20% of the time, 80% of the time he has a chance for second place. There is now 1 less stack then before since a 1 stack must have won. So 80% of 22.2% is 17.8.
For 3rd place for the 2 stack player:
2S3rd = (100-2S1st-2S2nd)*(2/(N-2)) = (100-20-17.8)*(2/(10-2)) = (62.2*25%) = 15.6%
The calculations of all other places are simple. I subtract out all previous placings. The N-2 increments by 1 each time.
2S4th = (100-2S1st-2S2nd-2S3rd)*(2/(N-3))
2S5th = (100-2S1st-2S2nd-2S3rd-2S4th)*(2/(N-4))
It seems complicated but it was actually quite easy to do in a spreadsheet. I also believe it is accurate. I am a math major but that doesn't mean that I may not have made a mistake with it.
Ken Poklitar
"So given that all players after hand 1 play equally the 2 stack player will win twice as often"
This is wrong.
Consider the way tournaments graduate betting levels. If you don't continue to keep increasing your stack at each level or so (and doubling your stack early in no means implies you will), than at a certain point your stack (large and the favorite early), will become less than average and you will not win 2x amount of times. There will be other players equal in skill, better or worse that will have large stacks from other tables, thats just the way it is.
The key to this whole new debate is this formula:
"This is calculated at (20% * 2) / 3. Since he wins 20% 2 out of 3 he enters and wins 0% the other 1 out of 3."
You have suggested that doubling increases your chances of winning 100%, hence forth you go from winning 10% to 13% of the time. A worthy increase in expectation of taking the 2:1 risk
I suggested that doubling really only increases your chances of wining by 33%. Applying that formula results in a drop from 10% to 9%.
If we went nuetral and said that it you were 50% more likely to win a torunament after doubling your stack on the first hand. Apply the formula, your expectation goes from 10% to 10%. No change.
The key is that 33% of the time you are out of the game. What would have you accompished in that 33% of the time? Is it more than made up for by having a double stack 66% of the time?
Your formula suggests stagnant betting levels and really is antithesis of tourney events. Also the the small 10 person field really skews the numbers to the top. In a 10 person satellite table I would not have folded the AA in the situation that has been discussed. No way.
Your assumption stated another way is this: "Doubling your stack early in a tourney doubles your chance of winning".
I don't think you or many others would agree with that statement.
If you started every T with 2x the amount of chips as every one else, you would win more often, but not twice as often.
I know it increases your chances, I know it doesn't double your chances. Somewhere in between 1% and 99% is the answer.
What percentage do you suggest?
There is not a formula that can be applied to derieve how much your chances of winning actually improve starting out with 2x chips than the field.
The only way I think that this number can safely be reached is if there was a program somewhat like TTH that was tournamnet based, where millions of tourneys could be simulated within these parameters. I've started to think of some of the constructs that program would require, and it would be very difficult. Not impossible, but very difficult to accomplish accurately, considering the vast diversity in strategy as betting levels increase, and players are eliminated, stack sizes, etc...
Given that "all players are equal in ability" ( see assumption #1) I do believe if you start out with 2 stacks instead of 1, you do have a twice as good chance as winning as all other players.
I understand that blinds increase and all that but if players are equal, then I think I am correct.
Of course this is all assuming a no-rebuy tournament.
I discussed this over the internet with a friend of mine. He is also a math major and plays poker. I tried not to lead him to my answer. He came to the same conclusion that I did. Again the key point is the equal ability.
As usual I think we have to agree to disagree on this one.
Ken Poklitar
Actually, I think we need to get to the bottom of this one. It's very important to tournament strategy. Probably the most important concept I've seen discussed on this board. I'm not a math major, I don't see any flaw in your mathematics, I follow and understand what you are doing. Other than the assumption that you are twice as likely to win after a double on the first hand, I can't disagree.
The problem is, that the rest of the calculations are based on the premise "that you are twice as likely to win after a double".
This can't be right. It is hard to explain, I'll try my best.
Even with this big stack early on, you will still have to continue to build it, or it loses it's edge. Later on in the tourney, your early double will be insignificant if your stack has not been increased since. Basically, think about this way. If you are fortunate and skillfull enough to continue building the stack throughout this tourney, how much less would it have been had you not been lucky to double early on? Other situations have to arise later in wich you capitalize on, and most of these will not be double ups. Will you be that much worse off in this event, considering, had you not doubled?
I know doubling will increases your chances and opportunity. How much is the question.
I figured out what has been bugging me about your premise oK. I see where you are coming from when you say 10 = players with 10 = stacks have a 10% chance each of winning at the get go. Now give one guy 2x stack and he has 20% and the 8 rest each have 10% still, skill and luck remaining equal.
The problem, I've discovered, is that you are wieghing the "stacks" chances of winning, not the players. There will always be 10 stacks, no matter how you distribute them, but stacks don' win, players do, and theres one less to vie for it.
Thus, when one player in your situation busts out, everyone elses chances should get better to win, not just the one guy who busted him. Sure, that guys chances are going to increase the most. This is true, no matter how you look at it, everyones chances have to get better with one less player. Both logically and from experience I know this is true. I would expect it to look something more like the 8 players would have a 10.5 % and the double guy has a 16%. Now, those numbers are imaginary, can you figure out how to calcualte the real ones?
Ok.Ok...I know.They are good for the game.The pros feed off of them.And those of us growing in our game are to tolerate them,and never berate them.But I thinks they should be shot with water pistols.A little operant conditioning-you know what I mean.Perhaps we can get those rpg guys to carry a small water gun and every time you gets a bad call pre-flop...squirt.And when they give you a bad call on the flop...squirt squirt.And when it continues,which it will, on to the turn...you got it... three squirts.And on the river when the miracle card arrives, I believe every one at the table that saw this horrendous travesty take place,and that understood the cosmic ramifications should simultaneously stand up and moon the perpetrator,females excluded,unless the perpetrator is gay in which case only females can moon.Three squirts and nine nasty moons.Pavlovian.Your turn.ltw.
Blinds are 300-500, I have 4900 in Chips, about 18 people left, top 10 get paid.
I get AKo UTG and raise. All folded to button(solid player) who reraises. He has about 3000 in Chips. Blinds fold, I call.
Flop comes K Q x rainbow. I bet, he raises.
Now here is where I feel that I could have dumped the hand. The button knows that I am a tight player and that if I raised UTG that I had one of 4 hands at this point in the tournament. If he had an underpair or AQ he would have folded I believe. If I fold, I have 2900 left and am still in good position to make it to the final table. If I call him down I have 1900 left with 800 worth of blinds coming.
The best case scenerio is that he has the same hand. Unfortunately I didn't think the hand through enough and called the whole way and got shown AA. After thinking about it, for him to raise that flop (after I raise UTG and bet out on the flop) he almost has to have AA, KK, QQ, or hopefully AK. He gave me alot of information and I feel like I didn't take advantage of any of it. If he just flat calls the flop I would bet the turn and he would get my money that way...so I feel that he played the hand poorly at that point in the tournament and I should have taken advantage of it.
Comments???
I think the buttons play was good.It tested out your hand for half price.He knew you had a big hand-KK-QQ-AK.Had you a set your instinct would have forced the issue by re-raiseing,at least mine would have,given the chip count.By your not re-raising he now knows he is strong and he can continue with his lead.He puts you on a K,certainly no set.
"All folded to button(solid player) who reraises"
Don't call the reraise preflop from this type of player if you feel you will make the money. If not well then call and check call the flop. His most likely hand is A,K but you are still behind because he has position and if he does have A,K you are playing for half the pot. If he can't beat Kings he will most likely check the turn. Minimize your loss in these situations. Notice that by checking the flop and turn that you are not worried about an over card beating you. Besides this is a tourney and you can't afford a big chip loss at this point. Tough situation if you fold as I reccomend you are left with 3900. If you call all the way to the river and lose you are left with 1400 and if you bet the flop as you did and call you have 900 left. The best scenario from a loss prevention point of view is to fold preflop. Tough call either way.
vince
Your preflop raise is definitely correct, and since this is a limit tournament, you have no choice with regard to the amount. When you get reraised by the button, you must assume it is a value raise... he has very little interest in reraising to isolate you with only the blinds to act and an early position raise from a tight player already in there. So he must have one of the big four, as you describe. Therefore, you cannot be a favorite. Since you are quite sure that you are an underdog in this hand (or maybe tied), the only decision is whether or not you want to gamble at this stage in the tournament. I would not. As hard as I know it seems at the moment... under the conditions you describe I think a preflop fold is the correct play. Assuming you do call preflop, his reraise on the flop can only mean AA,KK, or AK. Again, you cannot be winning... so a fold is the right play. One of the most important concepts to remember in tournament play is that top pair/top kicker loses to an overpair just as surely as 6-2 off loses to quad Aces. Laying down a pretty loser is a critical skill.
Daily No-Limit Hold'em Tournement,
(Beginner type question) Rebuy period is now over. The blinds are $25 & $50, I've got $1700. A guy next to under-the-gun makes it $250 to go. It's passed to me, three before the button, and I've got A-K offsuit. The raiser has me covered, and has been raising it up with pocket pairs like 7's, 8's, 9's. I haven't seen him turn over two big cards after he raises, just pairs. Raising him off a pair is out of the question, he'll eagerly call.
Ok, the remaining players are pretty tight--nothing fancy, so if I call it's most likely going to be head-up between the raiser and myself. What would you do here? Is this an easy call? Would you re-pop it a bit, what?
Thanks for any help, Don
You don't want to go heads up with him all in if he has a pair, you would be the underdog. Raising all in is out of the question knowing he won't fold.
If you are sure he has a pair, which you seem to be, then your next question is: If I hit my A or K will he pay me off? If he isn't going to fold when big cards flop, and will call your bets, you could play here. It really depends on what you think you can gain after the flop? Payoff? Free turn?
Calling may be a little dangerous, because with three more to act, someone might come over the top at the big pot with everything, and you would hate that. You read that the likelyhood of this is poor, so calling is good.
Just calling gives you a better chance of being paid off when you hit an Ace or King (and not donating to a pot you are a slight dog in). If you raise, and big cards flop, he will probably fold if you bet big. You don't want him getting a free turn, so you can't check. I believe that most of the people that play pocket pairs like they are always strong (your opponent) always raises with AK (overvalue the hand) and assume most people do too (with those big cards). So you will have him cornered with a call and, you won't be much vested so you can still get away from the hand if you miss bad, and he fires in.
If you don't think you can get paid off when you flop Aces or Kings at all, fold the hand.
I pretty much agree with Gator, and would probably call. The most important consideration with AK is that it loses its value against multiple opponents more significantly than any other hand. For example, AA is the best hand heads up, but it also ranks #1 against 9 opponents. AK on the other hand, ranks #4 heads up, but falls down to worse than #20 against a full table... and the drop off starts with just one extra caller. So if you play AK, you want to do everything possible to isolate one opponent. For that reason, it is a very common re-raise hand. But in this case a reraise makes less sense because the early position raise has a good chance of limiting the field without your help, and you don't want to get too heavily involved with AK preflop with players behind you if you don't think you'll be heads up. In a tournament, I'm not sure the likelihood of getting paid off if an Ace or King hits is an important consideration. By this I mean that if the raiser is commonly aggressive preflop, but tends to lay down easy if he misses his flop, I would still play this hand because of my positional advantage. Now, if I called the raise and got reraised from around back, I'd be done with this hand.
CH
..
I have been knocked out of many tournaments in the same way. I'm in the blinds with AJ and the button raises big. 8-10 times the blind or more. It's a pot commitment bet(about half your stack). Most likely your opponent doesn't want a call because he most likely has a small pair or a hand slightly worse than yours. My question is: Is it correct to raise your opponent all-in knowing that he will call with his slight favorite(66), slight under dog(KQ), or big dog(A 10)?( Probably slight favorite or slight underdog most of the time)...or muck and find a better spot. I think muck, but I need some reassurance. Thanks, Jason V
I don't think you want to commit to a marginal situation either. If you have enough chips and the blinds are small enough to play with patience, then wait until you can trap him with a big hand.
If the button is constatnly making this raise, he most likely has nothing most of the time, and I might be tempted to come over the top with a hand like AJ.
First, congratulations Jason on your WPO win. That tournament seems to be good to you for some reason. I think that if you have a big stack, AJ is not the kind of hand you want to get into it with for a large amount against another large stack out of position. So I pass if we're both medium-large or bigger. If we're both short stacked I definitely reraise(If I had enough to do so). If I'm short and he has chips, I would also take a stand and reraise (again if I had enough to do that). If I can't get busted on the hand, I might call preflop and try to outplay the button for the rest of his stack if I hit. So, for me it would depend a lot on the chip counts... but AJ is a hand I will not bust out with unless I'm low on ammo.
CH
If you're very sure he doesn't have a premium hand (because he would have raised less), then you can play this hand almost any way and be making a profit long-term. Of course, that doesn't really answer your question.
You say he won't fold to your reraise because you can't make it big enough. So, how about calling and betting pretty much every flop? You will win more often this way, but also win smaller pots, on average. Also, every time he flops total garbage, he gets away, but he does win all your chips every time he flops big. Will he fold every time he misses the flop if you do this? That's a big factor.
Folding is likely the best choice, unless you can call preflop and somehow know when to get away from the hand postflop, and when to bet or call all-in postflop.
However, if the big blind is a significant fraction of your chips, then I'd be inclined to play the hand every time, just choosing between the reraise preflop vs. calling preflop and betting the flop.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I wouldn't call the big raise with AJ. Yeah he could have a small pair or AT but he also could have AQ or even AK.
But I would hope he does the same thing when instead of AJ I have AA or KK.
Ken Poklitar
Hi folks. 24 hours later I'm still beating myself up over my final hand (ack...came 50th). I thought some flames from you all might actually make me feel better. Your input please...
I was chip leader for the first hour, and at the end of the second hour I was still among the top stacks, although it was getting a little crowded for my liking. Then I lost 2 consecutve hands, AQs and AK. They were pretty small losses but all of a sudden I only had 1.3x average stack. 3rd consecutive hand I get 1010 in early/middle. I have 1400 left. Blinds were 25/50 I believe. I do not really like this hand (earlier I threw away 99 early preflop and saved large) but on the other hand I feel if I'm going to beat 50 more players, some of whom will get lucky, I can't be throwing away solid hands either. Folded to me I raise 200 and get 2 late callers. Oh God. I felt a wash of terror. This is bad... The flop comes all rags, rainbow. I hoped and prayed they had 2 high cards each and I went all in with an 1150 bet...lol. I honestly thought JJ or even QQ might fold to this bet. The last player calls with JJ.
As it turned out the turn and river were more rags, so even if I check/call all the way he's gonna get me for a bunch.
Can I get away from this hand? Help...
I don't think TT is a raising hand in early position in NL, especially in a tournamnet.
With 4 overcards, how are you going to know if one of your opponents hits? You are either going to have to commit all the way or lay down to any overcard.
I know that I wouldn't want to commit my chance at 10K with TT.
I might limp with the tens if the table were passive, hoping to flop a set.
Last year I played a tournie for 14 hours... I saw AA once (everyone passed for my raise) and AK once... no other pocket pair above 66.. by your strategy I would never have played a hand and been anted away.
If you arent gonna play TT in this spot.. youll get blinded off and have NO chance of winning.
OK he lost, but if the other player had passed he wouldnt be beating himself up now.
If he hadnt played this hand and saw rags for the next 30 minutes, he would be beating himself up now over not playing the hand.
Cheers,
Keith
"Last year I played a tournie for 14 hours... I saw AA once (everyone passed for my raise) and AK once... no other pocket pair above 66.. by your strategy I would never have played a hand and been anted away."
So, you had a bad run of cards. Are you gonna base everything on this one tourney? You will get better hands more frequently than that on average.
In his book, TJ says he would not play this hand, Tom might limp if the conditions are right.
If you feel playing TT is the best move, go for it. I'm not telling anyone HOW TO play, just providing the response he asked for.
BTW, Let me know what tournaments you play in.
A friend of mine was on TJs table in a big tournie somewhere... (might have been the Rio I cant remember).
TJ raised on his BB, my friend looked down to see AA. He smotth called hoping to trap TJ.
Flop comes A45 rainbow... my friend checks, TJ makes a substantial bet. My friend moves all in grinning from ear to ear..
TJ flips over 23 for the nut straight. My friend is busted out. :-(
Leaving the table he says... " I didnt read about raising with 23 in your book".
TJ answers.."do you think Im gonna tell yall about the good stuff???"
Moral... Dont believe everything you read.
Cheers,
Keith
Bill,
You are not deserving of flames. It is a tough hand to get away from. I would not have gone all in after the flop. I am not saying I am right. It is just how I normally play. I would make a pot size bet. If it is called, and the other player is a good player, I am probably in trouble. A good player would not be chasing at this point, and I am being sandbagged.
If you make a pot sized bet, you only have about 500 chips left, but the blinds are small enough that if you have to dump the hand, you still have a chance to come back. I have done it and come back, and you are a much better player than I am.
If I am called, I don’t want to bet again and if I check, I will most likely be bet into and have to fold. That is tough, because I may still have the best hand. It is a quandary. Don’t beat yourself up over your play. Most of the time, you would have taken the pot. So it is not a play that you should be criticized for.
I still remember playing with you when you placed in the round 1 tournament that led to your round 2 placing that qualified you for round 3. I remember that you had quite a large rooting section that night. That was back in January. You waited 3 months for round 3. I certainly understand your disappointment.
Alden
Thanks Alden. You are of course right; A pot size bet would have been more appropriate. This makes the overcards fold and I'm dreaming if I think I'm gonna get JJ or QQ to fold with an $1100 bet. I just couldn't bear the thought of going from first to worst in 3 hands and then trying to grind out a miracle comeback. I guess my emotions got the best of me. But hey, that's poker and it is a lesson well learned.
With 50 people left and only 1 place paid, you should be playing a normal ring game strategy. The aggressor is going to get the cheese in this type of structure as you have to win ALL of the chips. I would be taking every positive EV bet I could, even if it is marginal, unless you can wildly outplay your opponents.
You had 1150 left. There was about 900 in the pot, which is worth fighting for since it will nearly double your stack. If you make any bet, you are pot stuck and out of position, so you should play for all of your chips if you play at all. You don't want to be guessing when that likely overcard turns.
It thus boils down to this: do you rate as a more than a 1150/900 = 1.28 to 1 favorite to have the best hand on this flop?
Given that you raised from middle position, I think the other players would have reraised with QQ and would almost certainly would have reraised with AA or KK. The hands you most have to be afraid of are JJ or a set of rags. And the first caller (if he is any good) wouldn't have called your substantial raise with a pair of rags. Since there are many more ways your opponents can hold AK and AQs hands, I think your bet has positive EV here, and is thus correct.
Of course, this is true, post flop, if you play the hand. Anyway you play it, you have to commit to the hand if you do. He played it ok, once he was in, but I don't think it was the time or place to get involved for all the beans.
Is TT worth commiting to and possibly busting with, with 5 players still to act (3 behind, and the blinds) before the flop at this point in the game? You may think it is.
I do not.
The answer to your question is no, of course. I wouldn't commit 1500 in chips to win 75 in blinds with TT with 5 people left to act.
That is an entirely different question from the one originally posed and answered.
I'd like to know who on this forum will be playing at the WSOP, just in case we run into each other. I'll be there 4/23-4/27 playing in the daily event any day I don't already have an appointment at the final table from the day before.
CH
I am going from 6 may to the end.. hope to see anyone who is going then...
Cheers,
Keith
I'll be in the first 4 events, with or without satellite victories, so look for the fossils.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I will be there from May 10th through the 19th and trying to win a seat for the big event. If anyone from this forum is interested in getting together for breakfast or lunch, send me an e-mail and I will tell you how to contact me.
Good Luck
mah
Let me preface this by saying i am a relative newbie to tournaments. I have played only a handful of low buy in events in tunica and las vegas. I am trying to read, learn and think about the game alot though. the thread below on the value of doubling up got me to thinking about something i read recently. Tom McEvoy in his tournament book discussing two contrasting styles of play. One is the hyper agressive play of such players as John Bonetti and the late Stu Ungar. According to McEvoy, their goal was to double up early and then use their stacks as weapons as the events progressed. They really were not interested in anything other than the first place money.
McEvoy contrasted his style which was more cautious and geared toward consistently making it into the money. Sure he wants to win, but he appeared to be saying that he wanted to minimize the fluctuations by playing more cautiously.
It would seem to me that the payout structure of the event affects the viability of these styles of play. Specifically, I am thinking about the "TEARS" payout system that has gotten alot of press recently. As I understand it, TEARS flattens payout structures and spread the money more evenly throughout the players.
Again it would seem to me that this structure hurts the Bonetti's and helps the McEvoys as the first place award is lessened in this structure so that when the agressive players do win, they win less. However, when the more cautious player finishes 5th, the reward is greater than in the past. Consequently, the value of taking a lot of risk early to double up is lessened. Am i thinking correctly or totally off?
I studied the expanded payout concept. My article on it is posted at www.tocpoker.com.
Chuck Humphrey
I took a probability course a couple of years ago and looked up the formula for "Gamblers Ruin". This formula can be used to determine the probability of going broke in a tournament.
Q(j) =((q/p)^j - (q/p)^a)/(1 - (q/p)^a)
p = prob of winning a hand q = prob of losing a hand j = chips e.g 1 or 2 or 5 a = total chips e.g. 50 or 100 or 500 Q(j)= probablity of ruin.
You can compare various situations using the above.
You will find that even if you have a significant advantage over the field e.g. 55/45 your chances of avoiding going broke (winning) are always increased by taking any opportunity to double up when the odds in your favour are greater than your perceived advantage over the field. In other words for it to be correct to to fold when you were 2-1 favorite, you would have to be certain that your advantage over the field was greater than 2-1.
Doesn't this apply more to a winner take all situation then one where you get paid for say top 10 places?
[Sorry if this is a bit long but want to give you as much background/scenario info as possible]
Recent NL HE tournament in the Irish Open. T2000 to start, 3 blinds are posted: 25, 25, 50 doubling every 30 mins. Rebuys permitted first 90 mins.
After my pp10s late ran into ppJs in the blinds and after a particularly ugly bad beat (I wont bore you with the details) I am forced to rebuy. So I have a fresh T2000. I get ppJ in late pos after it is passed to me and raise only for very solid player on the button to raise again which would put me allin. I muck my ppJs - he shows me ppA. But at this stage I'm back down to about T1100. Rags follow until I get into the blinds again.
Blinds at this stage now 100-100-200. Nothing in BB and I have to muck to a raise, nothing in first SB again I have to muck, then in my second SB (I am now to the immediate left of the dealer - remember there are 3 blinds posted - 1xBB and 2xSB) I look down to find ppJ again. Its a full table and there are 4 limpers, 3 of them with big stacks of T4000+, and there is another SB and the BB to act after me. I have T700 left after posting my SB. There is T1200 in the pot, including blinds, when it gets to me.
My thinking here is if I go allin preflop its unlikely I'll lose all the big stack limpers for an extra $600 with that nice little pot sitting in the centre. Two of them did not impress me as players and were calling big preflop raises with hands like K10 offsuit, J8 suited, AJ offsuit etc. I want to see the flop first (maybe I have the Teddy Tuil fear of ppJs syndrome?) and if its ragged I'm going allin on a check-raise or check-call an allin bet. I figure I can make more money that way or survive another round if the flop is ugly with overcards or otherwise scary. I just flatcall the extra 100, the 2nd SB mucks and the BB checks. Pot is now T1300.
Flop comes a beautiful 972 rainbow. I decide to check (mistake? see questions below), all check to button who bets 1000 and in I go. All others muck.
He turns over 97o for top 2 pair and I get no Jack or running pair on turn and river and I'm busted again.
Question time:
(1) Should I have gone allin preflop? (In hindsight button would probably have mucked his 97o - but I would still have expected a least 2 callers for the extra $600, such was the type of table it was, and they would almost assuredly have had one or two overcards each to my JJ - please ignore the outcome of the flop and the button's hand when answering this - hindsight is always 20/20 vision - put yourself in my shoes preflop)
(2) Should I have gone allin from the SB on the flop i.e. not trying to check-raise and/or check-call allin?
(3) Was I right to call the buttons 1k flop bet? I have two blockers to his straight if he was semi-bluffing with 10-8. Should I have suspected a set? I found it hard to put him on two pair. I put him on A9 or A7 or a pure steal.
(4) Was the button correct to play 97o given there were 3 limpers before him? Its a hand I wouldnt contemplate playing in his comfortable chip position in a tournament.
I think I know the answers to the above, under the circumstances, but always enjoy hearing the opinions of you 2+2'ers.
Thanks in advance for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Puzzled
Blinds are 500-1000. I have 18500, which is the biggest stack at the table. There are 8 players left; the next biggest stack is 12500. The tournament pays 7 places.
I am dealt QQ in early position. I make it 2500 to go. The second biggest stack, who has been quite aggressive with raises and may be mildly aggressive with reraises but I'm not sure, goes all in, and all fold to me.
My play?
William
What would your opponent make this play with? AA (or does he try to trap?) KK QQ JJ TT AK, AQ? This is a very tough one.
You can't be laying down premium hands like this too often. The blinds are quite large, and due to get bigger.
Your opponent either wants it heads up against you, or he doesn't want to see the flop. There is T14500 in the pot and you need 10000 to cover leaving you with T6000. What are the chances you are ahead? Why would he make this play against the chip leader without a premium hand? I would put him on an over pair or AK. If you fold you are still chip leader, and you can wait until a few others get knocked out of the tournament. I would probably fold in this situation, knowing very little about my opponent.
Derrick
If you are one of the other six players, you love seeing the two biggest stacks go to war. And when one of them goes out, you wonder why they took the chance. Certainly one will go out or the other will be crippled. I am in too good a position to take this chance. I think he has me beat or has AK which does not make me that big a favorite.
What was the result?
Are we getting tired of this yet?
Let’s go back to the WSOP format for my discussion. I have to consider all players equal to make my point without complications. There were 519 entries and 45 made the money. That means your chances to make the money were 8.67%. If you double your stack early, and it doubles your chance, that means your chance is now 17.34%.
If your chance of doubling your stack is 2:1, and you go all in, you will succeed 2/3 of the time. That yields an overall expectation of 2/3x17.34% or 11.56%. So if you go all in, you are risking elimination to average a 2.91% additional advantage which is a 33% increase over refusing to go all in. A 150% increase in your chances by doubling your stack early is the mathematical break-even point (2/3 x1.5x8.67% = 8.67%).
For your day in, day out, week in and week out tournaments, if doubling your stack truly doubles your chances, I think it is a long-term advantage to call the all in bet. In a chance of a lifetime shot at the WSOP, I do not want to stand up and walk out leaving the other 518 players still in the game.
In another post, Greg Raymer (Fossilman) said he thought the doubled stack was worth $20,000. 37th place in the WSOP paid $15,000. 36th place paid $25,000. One would have to finish higher than 37th to collect the $20,000. I realize because the payoffs are top heavy, in the long run the doubled stack may be worth $20,000. But your chances of realizing it are still only 36/519 or 6.93%. That means about once in 14 years. Five of those years, you would not make it past the first hand.
It is like the lottery. If the jackpot is $100 million, and 33 million people buy tickets, my $1ticket is worth $3 (if there were only winner), but the odds of me winning are still 41 million to one against. I am not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion since it is such an extreme example.
Points as follows :
Not even I would say that doubling your stack doubles your chances of finishing in the first 45_ . It's probably close but the argument cannot be extended indefinitely to more and more places.
"I don't want to stand up and walk out leaving the other 518 players in the game". Then realise that you are at a big disadvantage compared to those who are willing to take this risk. I hope you enjoy the experience because you are paying quite a lot for it in lost expectation.
"Your chances of realizing it are still only 36/519". But you've doubled your stack ! This kind of mistake undermines your entire argument.
I don't mean to be too harsh and I take your general point that your reward for making the play is delayed (maybe by many years !) but top players will take you to the cleaners when you're thinking this way.
Andy.
If you work on various scenarios using this formula, you will see that unless your advantage over the field (on average over every hand you play)is greater than the probability of you winning the all in hand, you should go all-in. I can't see any player being so superior as to be able to muck in a situation where they are 2-1 favorite.
One interesting way of approaching this topic involves a discussion I had with a friend a couple of weeks ago. While I think Dave's "formula" gives the mathmatical reason why you should call all-in early in a tournament if you are a 2:1 or more favorite, there are a lot more variables to consider. The discussion was this: let's say you could have pocket Aces on every single hand in a tournament. For the sake of arguement, let's also say that none of your opponents ever remember your previous plays. Would you play your Aces by going all-in preflop on every hand? If the answer is no, then it stands to reason that it is not ALWAYS correct to go all-in when you know you are the favorite. I have said this before, but I believe there are several situations in tournaments where you are a MUCH MUCH larger favortite to win a pot than you are simply because you have Aces. These favorable situations are created by a number of different variables, ie, stack size, flow of the game, tells, etc. They are not calculable, well-defined opportunities, but they exist nonetheless. One extreme example would be that you are on the button at the final table with 6-2off and it's passed to you. You are the chip leader and the big blind has the second biggest stack. The small blind motions to throw his hand away before you act. What are the odds that a raise will win the pot for you? They are much higher than 2:1, and it has nothing to do with your cards. My arguement is that it is silly to risk your whole stack early in a tournament for a modest preflop advantage. You will encounter many opportunities for much larger advantages later... you just have to stop calculating for a few minutes and pay attention to what's going on at the table.
CH
Well put. I agree that there will be better situations later, most frequently occuring in unraised blinds, steals, and those heart racing times you flop the nuts.
Antagonists will reply, that you will be bled away, waiting for these "rare" situations. Sure, sometimes you will (and 33% of the time your eliminated with that AA, that is a lot), but my experience and success shows me that more often than not they present themselves. It's about being there when they happen, and if one hand is going to cost me to be eliminated 33% of the time on the first hand (or round), I don't think the 2x chips are worth it.
You are right, it is silly.
Very thoughful analysis.
On thing it settles for me is that if folding AA is the wrong play, it is not a big loss. Considering the huge variance and timeline, reaching the long run is unlikely in ones lifetime in this situation. And avoiding it altogether will let you play a little longet in those 5/14 WSOP'S you eagerly await for each year.
Those 2:1 shots, in any case, are better for the 3 tourneys a night Paradise adventures.
I am new to tourney play and was wondering about the blind structure.
I want to enter the no-limit tournament at Canterbury. The Blinds double every round and after 10 rounds you are at the buyin.
Is this typical and is this the type of tournament structure you want to participate in? I remember reading a post a long time back saying that a doubling every round is too fast to allow for good play. Is that correct?
thanks
Many low buy-in tournaments have doubling blinds. They are not my favorite but if one wants to play tournaments one has to learn to play all the different structures.
Good luck if you enter it.
Ken Poklitar
I have a question about hand that I played in the limit tourney at Foxwoods on Sat. It's actually only a question about a pre-flop re-raise since I'm fairly certain I played the rest of the hand right. This was at the 300-600 level and I had about 3400. A player in early position raises to 600. This player has been very agressive and raises all sorts of hands that probably should be thrown away in early position. I saw him show down Q10 off utg when he had raised pre-flop. He also would raise K10, KJ, QJ, etc. Of course he would raise the strong hands as well so there was no certainty as to where he was at. I was sitting in middle position with KQ off. Given the likelyhood that I had this player dominated and the likelyhood that a re-raise would get it heads up, is a re-raise correct in this spot?
Any responses would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Peace
Goodie
I WOULDN'T RE-RAISE, BUT DEFINATELY CALL, SINCE YOU HAD SUCH A GOOD READ ON THIS PLAYER. YOU HAVE A DRAWING HAND AND SINCE THERE ARE OTHER PLAYERS TO ACT BEHIND YOU, SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE YOU DOMINATED!
I would tend towards folding or re-raising (unless you are very certain that everybody else is folding whether you call or reraise), as I don't want the big blind coming in cheap. What you should do probably depends most upon how this guy plays postflop. Will he check and fold if he misses the flop? Will he fold on the turn if he's still missed? Or, will he continue to be aggressive and try to push you out of the pot when you miss (yet he might have that darn QT again)?
If he's going to be tough postflop, then fold. If he's going to turn passive or at least be predictable, then reraise.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
it seems like he raises preflop w/ alot of stuff that doesnt deserve it, but lets say he does raise w/ KT, KJ, QJ, QT, JT.... which are dominated by KQ still the other half of the time ull be up against a better hand than KQ, like AK, AQ, AJ, AT, a big pair... if this guy is going to the river w/ u, then i say its a fold b/c there is a good chance that you have the worse hand...
but i also agree w/ what fossilman said about how the guy responds to the reraise.
peter
without using a simulation, that doubling your stack early on doubles your monetary expectation.
I'm going to lay out some premises, and if anyone disagrees with them, let me know.
First, all players are equal in ability. You can argue this, and we all know it isn't really true, but it is the only way to approach the problem initially. After you solve the problem with this factor in place, maybe then you can modify this condition and figure out how each specific individual (better or worse than average) should play.
Second, before the first hand is dealt, or at any other time where everybody has the same number of chips, everybody has exactly the same monetary expectation. To extend this further, let's assume that any time a player has an average number of chips, they have an average expectation.
Third, since all players are equal, and since there is no rake, on average each player's stack neither grows nor shrinks. Of course, this isn't true, but if I measure your stack at timepoint t1, and come back to count your stack again at timepoint t2, on average it won't have changed. Or, put another way, your expectation of winning/losing chips is exactly 0/hour.
OK, here's the thought experiment. Before the first hand is dealt, there are exactly 500 players, competing for a prize pool of $500,000, with T500,000 chips in play. Each player has T1000 in chips, and a monetary expectation of $1,000. On the first hand, Players A and B go all-in, and A wins. A now has a chip count that is double everybody else's, or T2000. What is the expectation of A after doubling?
Well, let's move forward in time, and let's assume that 3 hours later half the field will have been eliminated. Since player A has an expecation of winning 0 chips/hour, when we come back 3 hours later his average chip count (after many trials) will be T2000. However, since half the field is now gone, and there are 250 players remaining, the average player in the entire field has this same chip count of T2000. Thus, player A has a monetary expectation at this time that is exactly average for the field, and which is $2000.
So, since player A, with his average results for 3 hours has an expectation of $2000 at the midway point, his expecation 3 hours ago, just after he doubled up, must also have been $2000.
Gator has stated that having the early chip lead isn't so important, because the player still has to maintain that lead to gain from it. But, that isn't true. Even if he just coasts on his chips, and neither increases or decreases his stack for a long time, his expectation is still doubled.
Here's another thing to consider. If doubling his stack is really only worth an increase in value of 33%, then that means that every chip he wins is only worth 33% of every chip he loses. But, how can that be true? When I win 10 chips, and then lose them back on the next hand, has the value of my stack actually gone down (as compared to if I had just folded both hands)? Of course not. Yet, if your intuition about value were correct, that is what would have to happen. Plus, if the relative values of chips won vs. chips lost were really skewed by a factor of 3:1, then there is no hand that it would ever be correct to play. Obviously that also cannot be true.
Anybody, please tell me where you think my thought experiment is wrong, and why. Hopefully, I can either explain it again, or see why you're right.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
In the long run, your gain is only 33% because if your chances of doubling are 2:1 then on one occasion, you lose your entire stack and on two occasions you double your stack. Over three trials, on average, you end up with 4 stacks. 4/3=1.33 so you gain 1/3 of a stack on average.
Remember, if you do not go all in, you keep 3 stacks over three trials. So your net gain by going all in is (4-3=1) 1 stack. Divide that by three trials and your gain is .33, same as the first paragraph.
That does not mean that once you double your stack, a chip only increases 33% in value. Then a chip will be worth 100% of its value at the time you called the bet.
If one played the same tournament every week, then calling the all in is a + EV move and should call the all-in every time. In the WSOP, it is also a + EV move, but you may only get a few opportunities to try it, each coming one year apart, so it is a very short run situation.
I opt to decline the all-in invitation in the WSOP. I certainly understand your's and others reasoning on going all in, and have no argument against it mathematically.
was to Gator. In another thread, he stated that his intuition told him that doubling his stack early only increased his chances of winning (or was it placing in the money?) by about 33%. I think that figure is grossly wrong.
If he meant 33% counting when you win and when you lose, that's very different, of course.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I did mean the 33% value you think. I'm not commited to that number, it's more guesswork than science.
The percentage is somewhere between 0 %and 100%, your guess is 100%. I don't think we can prove the number with mathematical formulas.
I've got another concept, see above.
Also, this discussion is less about AA than it began as, and I hope people start getting away from that idea, it will open minds a little more.
If we were to figure the actual value of doubling, that would be a breakthrough in tournament strategy.
I'm sure you have realized by now that if your chances of winning a tournamet (or placing in the money) are increased by only 50% by doubling early, then it would be a breakeven play to call OR fold a 2:1 favorite hand.
That is with an even skilled field. Now, if you are better than your opponents, you lose your built in edge 33% of the time, without even playing. Lets say you are even with 50% of the field, and 10% better than the other 50%. Is it worth giving up your 10% edge 33% of the time to have double chips in the rest? Still, that all depends on the actual value of doubling your stack.
Doubling early certainly increases your expectation. I would even wonder if it more than doubles your expecation, under the given scenario (all players of equal ability). Once you are the chip leader, you have a better than even money opportunity to steal and bully. So an early large stack could be more than a 2 to 1 benefit. When I'm the table chip leader, it's worth a lot to me, I know I can't be put out of the tournament, and anyone who tries to steal my blind, or re-raise me, knows it's potentially an all or nothing proposition. You know all this, but I think it's far more than 33% better to double up on the first hand, or early.
One other thought. Your initial assumption was that all player abilities were equal, presumably to go to the next step in the analysis, not because that's ever the case. But to prove your point, I don't think you even need to address this issue. If you're T.J. Cloutier, and you're starting with 10,000 chips at the WSOP, you obviously have a much higher outlook than the $10K you plunked down for your chips. If you quickly double through, you've increased your winning the whole thing odds from perhaps 100-1, to 50-1. If you're me, and you suck, you might be a 1000-1 long shot at the start, but by doubling, you become a 500-1 shot right then and there. Either way, you've doubled your expecation, regardless of where it started, so establishing player ability odds really isn't necessary.
But it is an interesting debate. I've mostly bought into TJ's advice of playing tight, solid poker early in a tournament, tighter even than I play a ring game. I usually get through the first 3-4 blind increases with a good stack, one or two pots under me, and rarely get beat. But I'm never an early chip leader, and I'm usually playing behind and tight, hoping to catch great cards in the middle portion of the tournament. If being an early chip leader is of greater value, maybe I should loosen up some. At least in quicker tournaments.
Interesting post though, thanks.
I do have one disagreement. It has to do with the equal expectation thing.
From a ring game standpoint, a table with all equal players will have a net expectation of 0 in the long run. If these guys played a session every Monday night, there will be wins/losses nights, but we know it's really just "one long session" there are no stop/start points, and in the long run, they will all break even. Thats mathematical fact.
Tourney's are different. There are "sessions", and stop start points. It is not appropriate to state that indiviual tourney results will average out in the long run from multiple tourneys. At the start each player wil have an equal chance, but the end is finite.
What this boils down to, is that in a tourney, we want to make the decisions that, will lead to the money more often, not the ones that increase your chips more often. If you are immediately eliminated 33% of the time, that is 33 times out of 100 you give up a chance at any return. The other 66 times, you will have more chips and a better chance of placing, but I don't believe that chip edge will make up for the other 33 times you have an even shot at the money.
Making any spot that pays in the tourney is the only value a tourney has. It should be the most important consideration in each event. Values will not average out across other tourneys.
Ok, now for why doubling is less important early. When you are the chip leader, or have more chips than most players at your table, they can double through you, but you can't double through them. Your really only have as many chips as your opponent:
Lets say you had AA and doubled on that first hand, I folded the other AA. Some time later, you have maintained your stack at 20K, and mine has been bleeding down to 5K. We get into a 3 handed pot, where the third player also has 5,000. We both have AA again this time.
If I win the pot, I will be equal in chips to you, even though you had me outnumbered 4:1 before the hand. Your chips have less value than mine.
Your big stack has less value when you are playing against smaller stacks. Of course large stacks have thier many advantages. I don't think they need to be spelled out, the main one being you will still be alive in the above situation, where I will be gone if I lose.
This goes along well with the concept that stacks are worth more later, and when there are less oponents.
Heres an example of what I mean. I'm going to use Paradise tourneys becasue I've played a couple hundred of them. Experience is theory in action.
I have won a large multiway pots during the first round that have increased my stack to 1300 and a huge chip lead quite a few times. Many times, I won't make the money with this stack it gets drained, with all 10 players in and many rounds to play. That same stack 4 handed (now less than average size now) gets me into the money almost every time. Building a stack later is more important to me than early.
Before chaos erupts, I wantt to clarify this statement:
"It is not appropriate to state that indiviual tourney results will average out in the long run from multiple tourneys"
In the long run, the CARDS will break even. Everyone will get the same number of good hands, bad hands etc. The cards however do not care when they come up. In a tourney some situations are worth $$$$ profit and some are not as important. All the advantages in the world do not matter if you are missing the situations that amount to a payoff, because everything is reset in the next tournamnet.
And since every tournamnet has its own unique dynamics, you won't be in the same situaions again
Very nice, Gator. I like this thread because it demonstrates the contrast between the statistical approach and the "clinical" approach to tournament poker. Greg's proof is dead on, mathmatically, but it is of limited relevance in tournament strategy, I feel. I totally agree with Gator's arguement that there is no "long run" when discussing tournaments. I tried to explain why in my unpopular "There is no such thing as pot odds in a tournament" post. In spite of the fact that I believe, and have always believed, that doubling your stack early doubles your expectation in a tournament... I will often pass on a decision to go all-in with pocket Aces early in a big event. This is because I feel that more favorable situations will arise over the course of the tournament... there's more to the game than the cards you hold. I disagree with Gator's contention that your big stack is limited by the stack size of your opponents. The footnote he makes about not being able to go broke is much more important than he gives it credit for. What you lose in doubling-through power, you more than make up for with bully power. The fact that your chips are worth less is actually an advantage in many cases because you spend them more agressively without fearing death.
CH
There is one point I'd like to make. While the exact scenario being discussed appears to vary to suit the poster's current argument to an extent, with Aces you are passing up an opportunity _right now_ when you _know_ you have the best hand in favour of a future opportunity or opportunities which _may_ occur when you _probably_ have the best hand. If you're waiting for the nuts in these future opportunities then it's just not going to happen often enough.
Andy.
First, I do think there is a long run in tournaments. If you do agree that your expectation doubles if you double your stack early, then, in the long run, you will make more money. If you agree that doubling will get you 2000$ in expectation (in Greg's example) then clearly you will make 2000$ 66% (that's 4000 minus the 2K buy-in)of the time and lose 1000$ 33% of the time for a net profit of 1000$ for every 3 tourneys (or 333.33$ per tourney). There is your long run.
Second, I think you err when you say "in a tourney, we want to make the decisions that, will lead to the money more often" . No, you want to make the decisions that will lead to WINNING the tourney more often. That's a big difference. One tournament victory equals many, many, in the money finishes. I think this is where you fail to get the point. I believe most tournament pros would rather give themselves a good chance early (by pushing significant but somewhat risky edges) and bust out (and go play in side games) than hold on to tournament chips for the longest time possible and bust out later on. Time is money. The key is winning the tournament, not getting your buy-in back. It does not make any difference if you out last me and bust on the bubble, in fact you are the one losing money because I will be in the ring games earning the bucks (hopefully).
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
with respect to goals.
My goal isn't to make it into the money, nor is it to win the tourney.
My goal is to earn the highest possible expectation with each decision.
In striving for my goal, I am of course trying to get into the money, and to win as well. However, if I am at the WSOP main event, 46 players remain, 45 get paid, I have T1-million out of T5-million, and the only player with more chips than me goes all-in, I will call with AA. That is the most profitable decision, even though it reduces my chances of making the money. Contrarily, if my chip count were very low, and if I knew that I had a very high chance of sneaking into the money by simply folding every hand before the big blind came back around, I would almost certainly fold AA whether anybody had raised or even entered the pot yet. That would be the most profitable play under those circumstances (because my stack is so small that even if I double or triple it, I'm still a favorite to NOT make the next pay increase).
Expectation is what I try to maximize.
Barring truly life-changing amounts of money, I don't see the point of gambling if you're not going to try to make the best possible decision every time. Even if there is no long run (as in WSOP main events), you need to make the decision that is best, not the one that's the most conservative.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
yeah but you are talking about situations late in the tourney. Where just surviving when low on chips gets you in the money. I have no problem with that.
I feel that early on, my goal is to win the whole thing, so, the plays I make are the most profitable ones. If that means going for it with the possibility of busting out a third of the time, so be it. If that means calling with the worst of it when the pot odds are huge, so be it. They are all profitable plays, so, in the long run they earn me money. Early, the light at the end of the tunnel is always the trophy.
You will have to explain to me tho, why folding the aces in your WSOP example with already a fifth of the money in play, and to a certain extant, a lock to the final 4-5 players (and a solid chance at the title)is not the most profitable play here.
NOTE: I don't want to start a whole debate on this, although anything that improves my game is worth discussing, so, why not?
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
You can't compare the value of a stack when 9-handed to the same size stack 4-handed, when exactly 3 people get paid. Even a stack with $.50 has significant value when 4-handed, because there is always somebody in a Paradise tourney who will be so foolish as to risk elimination before you do. Even in the real world this happens, as some guy want to win so much that they take on too much risk when they're on the bubble. Plus, even with only 1 chip left, you can win your blind hands and watch somebody else who has a lot more than you, but less than the blinds, go broke first (and this will happen as much as 10% of the time, even if everybody is playing perfectly).
So, the fact that when 4-handed at Paradise you are smart enough to sit out and watch somebody else foolishly go broke first has NOTHING whatsoever to do with how you should play with a 2:1 edge early in a large field. Really nothing at all.
As I've said many times, there is a huge difference in how to play when comparing early in a tourney to late in a tourney. Our ongoing debate has only involved EARLY.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I don't think Aces aren't a 66% favorite in this situation, I think it's much higher. On TTH simulations, A-A won 75% in a loose game, and 85% in a tight game. I would think a NLHE tourney is even tighter, but even so, if you change your percentages from 66% to 85%, it makes a big difference in your evaluation, I think.
Assuming more than on place pays....
Doubling your stack does not double your expectation, but it almost does. In a 500 player tounament if you double up in the first hand you expectation probably goes up by about 99.8%, (depending on percentage payout scheme) not 100%, so you want to be at least 1000:998 favorite, when going heads up early. (For example if you had AA....)
(Note: If 3 players start on equal stacks and 1st pays 75%, 2nd pays 25%, and two players go all-in heads up, then the one who doubles up increases expectation by 75%, and so would have wanted to be 4:3 favorite. The bystander's expectation went up by 25%.)
There is a subtle flaw in Greg's thought experiment, where player A has 2000 and 498 other players have 1000. At this point A has not quite doubled expectation, and in fact the other 498 have gained slightly. But after 249 other players have also doubled up (with the other 249 eliminated), with player A holding ground, player A has now finally double the expectation that he had at the start of the tournament. What has happened is that A has benefitted from the action that has made the stack distribution more uneven, just as the other 498 players benefitted from the first hand heads up all in action.
Most people have heard that THE BIGGER YOUR STACK, THE LESS EACH INDIVIDUAL CHIP IS WORTH.
A corollary to this is that ANY ACTION (NOT INVOLVING YOU) THAT MAKES THE CHIP DISTRIBUTION MORE UNEVEN IS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE, EVEN THOUGH YOUR STACK HAS NOT CHANGED.
(Moreover, all action tends to make the chip distribution more uneven.)
Just think about it. If you were in the WSOP with 10,000 and you could choose the how the chips were distribued among your opponents, what would you choose. The answer is completely obvious. You would want one other player to have all the other chips. That way you would have 2nd locked up, with a tiny shot at 1st.
Another thought experiment: If every other player was going to go all-in on every hand, what would you do. Again, the answer is completely obvious. Sit back (maybe forfeit a blind or two) and let them go at it. Within minutes you'll be heads-up with a ginormous stack, and again, you would have 2nd locked up, with a tiny shot at 1st.
Finally, there is most definitely a long run in tournaments and +EV in prize money is what matters. After all, a ring game is just a series of tournaments with each tournament lasting one hand.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
P.S. Greg Raymer's comments in this thread are by far the most accurate. (Mine are ok too.)
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
.
I ignored the slight factors you mention. They are huge late in a tournament, but when there are hundreds of players remaining the difference is small enough that we can effectively ignore it.
Also, I didn't consider my post to be "A" proof in the sense of a mathematical "proof". I meant it to serve as proof, in the evidentiary sense, of my position.
I don't do math proofs anymore. It's been much too long, and I'd just make myself look foolish. I don't think I remember any of the calculus or diffyQ I learned way back when.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
`I ignored the slight factors you mention. They are huge late in a tournament, but when there are hundreds of players remaining the difference is small enough that we can effectively ignore it.'
I agree completely. I was being pedantic just for the hell of it. Some of these posts are outrageously inaccurate, and I am convinced that some people just don't know what they're talking about.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk and Greg- while your statistical arguments are certainly accurate (or, accurate "enough", in Greg's case), you are not leaving enough room in your considerations for the intangibles of tournament play. You two may insist that Gator (or perhaps I, too) make "outrageoulsy inaccurate" assessments with regard to some of these discussions, but I would argue that your application of formulaic reasoning to tournament strategy is outrageously incomplete. Greg's discussion of what he would do if he were one out of the money in the WSOP main event with Aces and the only stack who could knock him out raised him is a good example. In fact, I find Greg's explanation of why he would play or fold Aces under certain circumstances late in the event to be contradictory to the tenets he has previously outlined, ie, always making the play with the highest expectation.
I am a physician, so I am a "biological scientist", and there is a biological law which I feel applies to tournament poker: "The laws of physics do not apply perfectly to biological systems". A poker tournament is a biological system, so to speak... if you try too hard to squeeze your "proofs" into your decision making process, you will find that they often times will not fit.
CH
But, the laws of physics do apply perfectly to biological systems. However, it is sometimes difficult for us to predict the results of those applications. I'm a biologist also, you know. ;-)
I will start a new thread explaining the EV of the two AA hypotheticals I provided, since you're not the only person interested.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
[Sorry if this is a bit long but want to give you as much background/scenario info as possible]
Recent NL HE tournament in the Irish Open. T2000 to start, 3 blinds are posted: 25, 25, 50 doubling every 30 mins. Rebuys permitted first 90 mins.
After my pp10s late ran into ppJs in the blinds and after a particularly ugly bad beat (I wont bore you with the details) I am forced to rebuy. So I have a fresh T2000. I get ppJ in late pos after it is passed to me and raise only for very solid player on the button to raise again which would put me allin. I muck my ppJs - he shows me ppA. But at this stage I'm back down to about T1100. Rags follow until I get into the blinds again.
Blinds at this stage now 100-100-200. Nothing in BB and I have to muck to a raise, nothing in first SB again I have to muck, then in my second SB (I am now to the immediate left of the dealer - remember there are 3 blinds posted - 1xBB and 2xSB) I look down to find ppJ again. Its a full table and there are 4 limpers, 3 of them with big stacks of T4000+, and there is another SB and the BB to act after me. I have T700 left after posting my SB. There is T1200 in the pot, including blinds, when it gets to me.
My thinking here is if I go allin preflop its unlikely I'll lose all the big stack limpers for an extra $600 with that nice little pot sitting in the centre. Two of them did not impress me as players and were calling big preflop raises with hands like K10 offsuit, J8 suited, AJ offsuit etc. I want to see the flop first (maybe I have the Teddy Tuil fear of ppJs syndrome?) and if its ragged I'm going allin on a check-raise or check-call an allin bet. I figure I can make more money that way or survive another round if the flop is ugly with overcards or otherwise scary. I just flatcall the extra 100, the 2nd SB mucks and the BB checks. Pot is now T1300.
Flop comes a beautiful 972 rainbow. I decide to check (mistake? see questions below), all check to button who bets 1000 and in I go. All others muck.
He turns over 97o for top 2 pair and I get no Jack or running pair on turn and river and I'm busted again.
Question time:
(1) Should I have gone allin preflop? (In hindsight button would probably have mucked his 97o - but I would still have expected a least 2 callers for the extra $600, such was the type of table it was, and they would almost assuredly have had one or two overcards each to my JJ - please ignore the outcome of the flop and the button's hand when answering this - hindsight is always 20/20 vision - put yourself in my shoes preflop)
(2) Should I have gone allin from the SB on the flop i.e. not trying to check-raise and/or check-call allin?
(3) Was I right to call the buttons 1k flop bet? I have two blockers to his straight if he was semi-bluffing with 10-8. Should I have suspected a set? I found it hard to put him on two pair. I put him on A9 or A7 or a pure steal.
(4) Was the button correct to play 97o given there were 3 limpers before him? Its a hand I wouldnt contemplate playing in his comfortable chip position in a tournament.
I think I know the answers to the above, under the circumstances, but always enjoy hearing the opinions of you 2+2'ers.
Thanks in advance for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Puzzled
1) I had a similar situation a few months back. My stack was a bit bigger than yours but there were 6 or 7 limpers. The pot was like 1300. I raised all-in from the SB with about 1600 and JJ and everyone folded. Now in your case it is unlikely all will fold. If you think by raising you can get it to 2 or fewer callers then I would go all-in.
2) I would go all-in on the flop. I don't want it to be checked around and have an overcard get a free shot.
3) Yeah since several players checked on the flop he could be stealing it or probably betting top pair.
4)I wouldn't have played 97o under any circumstances but that is me.
Ken Poklitar
(1) I'd have done everything could have to win that 1200 pot without a contest holding JJ. Raise all in preflop. If it gets me heads up with one caller with one overcard, I'll take that too. Two callers with possibly dominated hands or two overcards is fine too.
(2-3) Seee #1
(4) 1300 in the pot is already laying him 6:1 immediate odds and he has position through the hand. 97o is easy to get away from when it misses. It is also likely to get paid off on a 99K or such type of flop with three limpers, so he can earn a ton on this hand in implied odds. I think he made a good move.
These were my last four tournment hands any comments will be valued very highly thank you.
Hand #1 Blinds $400/$800 I Have $2800 after my SB 2nd UTG raises to $1600 (solid player=SP)he has $1800 left.Everyone folds to me I have 2 red Queens.BB has $4800 left and plays very well.What is the play?
Hand #2 Blinds $400/$800(next hand they rise to $600/1200) Tight Player UTG raises it to $2000(he has a total of $5000)Everyone folds to me in the BB($1600+my BB=$2400)I have 2 red tens.What is the play?
Hand #3 Blinds $25/$50 Table is a very weak line up one hand had four people all in preflop best hand was AQo.2 limp to me I am in the cutoff with AhKh(i have $400 in chips with one rebuy left.)I raise all in.SB calls all in with $385 everyone else folds.
FLOP IS Tc2dJs TURN 5h RIVER Kd SB rolls over AQo for broadway could I have prevented this and how can I avoid allowing the 3outer to get me?
Hand #4 Blind $300/$600 I have $2800 and I am in the BB everyone folds to the button who just calls(IMO he is not a good player at all)He has $2100 after he limps.Sb folds and i love this.I have A8o I check and the FLOP is 825 rainbow. I move all in and he calls all in.Turn 2 River 6 he rolls over 97d for the straight. Question #1 Do I want the guy to go all in against my hand here? Question #2 Did I play to aggressive on the flop? Question #3 Did I make a mistake I am not seeing? Any and all comments please. I will Post results on the firs two hands later.
Hand #1 I reraise all in for $3200 BB folds TT and SP calls with AKo Flop 936 Turn x River K. Just Bad Luck or my mistake?
Hand #2 I reraise all in for $2400 he calls the $400 Flop Jd6d2d Turn 3c River 8d he rolls over AQ of diamonds for the nut flush.Once again just bad luck or should i have laid the tens down?
thanks again there is a $60000 added tournament next Thursday and 1st prize should be any where between $25000 and $35000 I don't want to run into these problems in that event.
I haven't yet looked at the results but -
1) Raise all-in. A good player knows that he will have to make a move soon in UTG's position and he could easily have a bare Ace or even less. Don't give the BB a chance to come in cheap with a call.
2) I think you have to call. This is maybe marginal but if you fold you only have 1600 left with blinds about to go 600-1200, you have no chance of winning without a showdown and this is probably as good a spot as you'll get. Tough break if he has an overpair.
3, 4) You got all the money in with the best hand twice and got two bad beats. Don't worry about it.
Andy.
1) If solid player only raises with AA or KK UTG I would fold. More than likely his range of raising hands is TT+, AK and maybe even AQ. The other question is why did he only raise to 1600. I would go all-in.
2)If you had much more then 1600, I would fold. I think it is a shakey call since you are about to lose 600 in the SB and that leaves you with only 1000 if you fold the SB.
3)You can't avoid it. You had the best hand until the river.
4)I probably push it all-in as well. There is 2100 in the pot. He only has 2100. He was willing to go all-in on a 4 outer and he hit it. That is poker.
Ken Poklitar
I think you played them all correctly.
The TT hand is a bit dicey, because you say the raiser is tight. However, you've already invested 1/3 of your money in the blind. Thus, even going all-in now, you're getting over 2:1 return, and you can't be that big of a dog to his entire range of hands. However, just in case, I would just call, and save that last T400 to bet the flop with. While it's unlikely he will fold, if there is any chance he might, it's worth doing. And, I have seen people fold in these spots, so don't dismiss the idea as completely unlikely.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
These are all very common tournament scenarios, I would have played some of them differently. IMO:
1. Raise all-in, I agree. 2. I fold. It's the classic "you're either a big dog or a small favorite". Wait for a better opportunity (not necessarily a better hand) 3. Nothing you can do about that, I agree with the field. 4. I'm surprised I'm the only one who disagrees with you on this one. I definitely raise here. The only way he has a better hand than you here preflop is if he's playing "second hand low" and hoping you will raise. That seems almost impossible under the circumstances you describe. There's $1500 in the pot and he has $2100... I would raise only $600 in this case because I think a small raise would make him suspicious enough to dump any of several hands he could be trying to limp in with (KJ,KT,QT,QJ,tiny pair,etc.), plus, if he was trying a play with a big hand he would reraise you and you could get away relatively cheap. Now, since you didn't raise, I'm not sure I would have been so aggressive after the flop. In most cases the only way you get called is if you're beat by trips. (why this guy called with a gut shot draw is beyond me, though not uncommon). I don't like this hand after the flop as much as everyone else does, because a limper on the button could have any number of hands that might fit this flop... plus position. I would tread very carefully here. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel a preflop raise is overwhelmingly correct.
CH
thanks to everyone
I'll answer the 1st one and see what everyone else thinks. First of all, a lot would depend on whether your in the money and whether or not you need the money or not and your chip status. I would smooth call the 2 Queens and hope the BB calls. If no Ace or King falls I go all in and hope to get called by an AK or 2 tens or jacks.
Russ
If TJ Cloutier played tournaments in the way he describes in his book 'Championship Holdem' he would have won significantly less than he has to this point in his life.
Discuss.
Cheers,
Keith
Keith,
I'm sure that's true. When discussing this a while back, I said that a player who can read his opponents as well as TJ can maybe afford to play [almost] as tightly as he describes in his book because he is an expert in knowing when to bet or raise without a hand at all. He doesn't need to play so many "value" hands because he can pick up a lot of chips through situational plays.
See you in Luton tonight ?
Andy.
Work means I can only play on Thursday.. whose idea was it to play finals the next day???
Are you going to Walsall next week? I wonder how many runners they will get for the £1000 comp.. Ill play if they get 50 or more.. but I must admit I am doubtful they will. I have never seen a grand comp outside London before.
Good luck tonight Andy,
Cheers,
Keith
I like the final being on the next day, I'm lucky that I can be pretty flexible with days off. See you on Thursday. I would have liked to go up to Walsall as I've heard good things about the club but I will be in Rome (non-poker related :-)) that weekend.
Cheers,
Andy.
There is life outside the poker room????????????
Shurely sum mishtake.
Keith
What does it take to be considered a professional poker player? What I mean is how many tourmantnts do you have to win and how often do you have to win in order to be considered a pro? I really beg to differ that a person can win more 7 or 8 tournaments in a month. If you all in and the river slams down on you because some guy didn't see he was beat. Don't matter if your Mr. Brunson you going home. So this question is for those who consider themselves tournament pros. I am just curious about how often your winning and what are the sizes of these tournaments? If you normally play in a 50,000 to 100,000 prize pool do you evre go back down to say a 5,000 prize pool because even those have at least 15 tables to go through so how often are you guys winning?
As off-handedly described in one of my reply posts in the "OK, here's an attempt at proof ..." thread below.
As the setting, it is the WSOP main event, with the same numbers as last year. 512 entries, T5.12M in play, same prizes as last year (ranging from $15,000 for 37th-45th up to $1.5M for 1st). Now, we diverge from reality.
There are 46 players left, at 6 tables. Bubble time.
Scenario 1: You have T1,000,000 in chips. One opponent has more, and he's at your table. Average chip count is T111,304. However, due to the huge chip counts you both have, the average for everybody else is only about T68,000.
Chip leader acts before you do, and he raises all-in. All fold, and you look down to see AA. If you fold, you lose (and win) nothing. If you call, you double up to T2M, or go broke and get nothing. With T1M, you will win the tourney slightly less than 20% of the time. Your chances of finishing in other positions is impossible for me to accurately calculate. However, I would estimate that in addition to your $293,000 equity in first place money, you have another $300,000 in equity from other positions where you might finish. Or, an equity of about $600,000. If you fold, this is your position. If you call and win, your equity in first place money doubles to about $586,000. Your equity in the other finishing positions is probably about $240,000, for a total equity of about $825,000. Thus, you only gain about $225,000 for winning, but lose 600,000 for losing.
However, against any other hand, AA is at least a 3:1 favorite. In particular, against a hand like 76s, AA is only slightly more than a 3:1 favorite. Of course, you do not expect the opponent to have small suited connectors. You expect him to have a big pair or a big A. Against these hands you are at least a 4:1 favorite, and usually much more. Since your cash ratio is 600:225, or about 2.7:1, it is clear that you're getting MONEY pot odds no matter what your opponent is holding.
Scenario 2: You have T10,000 in chips. Blinds are T3,000 and T6,000 with a T500 ante (I made these up, I don't know what the blinds/antes were when they were at 46 players last year). There are 8 players at your table, and you have 4 free hands before posting a big blind. You look around at the other tables, and there are 3 or more people with comparably short stacks who will face the blinds before you do. It is pretty likely that at least one of them will go broke before you take your big blind. We'll give each of them a 50:50 chance, however, meaning it's 7 in 8 that one of them goes broke.
Somebody makes a raise before you act. You have AA. You know that if you call, it's pretty unlikely that anyone comes in behind you. If they have KK or whatever they probably would, but we're going to assume that never happens, to simplify things. If you win, you will end up with between T26,000 and T32,000. If you lose, you get zero. If you fold, you play on and hope somebody else goes broke first.
The EV of your T10,000 stack is hard to estimate. You have something like a 10% chance of getting no money (if you fold until somebody else goes broke). You have about a 65% chance of winning $15,000, 17% chance of $25,000, and 8% chance of something else. Most of those something else's will be smaller than final table pay. Your equity in the first prize is only $3,000. All added up, your equity is about $22,000.
The EV of your stack if you win is equally hard. Assuming a figure of T27,000, I give you numbers of 4% to go broke first, 60% of $15,000, 23% of $25,000, and 13% of something else. This adds up to about $34,000.
Well, I guess my intuition was wrong. You should call with AA here also. The value of your stack, even though it went up by a factor of more than 2.5, is only going to increase by about 50%, but since you'll win 80% of the time or more, it is a good gamble. 80% of $34,000 is more than $27,000, which is more than $22,000, which means you should call. To fold is to give away about $5,000 in EV in order to greatly increase your chances of getting paid at all. Depending upon your bankroll, this might make folding the better play. However, if you buy into the WSOP and spending that $10,000 was within your bankroll to begin with, then folding is clearly wrong (now that I've done the math).
Heck, off the top of my head, for the WSOP main event, that was about the best scenario I could come up with. In order to fold the AA correctly, I suspect your stack would have to be exceedingly small. So small, in fact, that the antes will eat most of it away before you reach the big blind. This means you can survive to the big blind, but even if you play now and win the blinds will still eat you up when you reach them. An example would be if you had T3,000. The T500 antes will reduce you to T1,000 in your 4 "free" hands, but you will be able to let somebody else go broke. If you play the AA and win, you'll still only have T13-16,000, meaning the T9,000 in blinds (plus antes) will still almost put you all-in again before you pay them. If I weren't wasting so much time already, I'd do the estimations for that scenario.
Andy Ward, maybe you can apply these chip counts, for all 3 scenarios, to your "fair deal" program, and give us the amounts you come up with.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Scenario 1: Fold. I am in too good a chip position to risk it all here. There will be opportunities to use your stack to pick up chips. The big stacks should not do battle here. Beat up on the small stacks. He got there first. Fold.
Scenario 2: Go all in. If you don't, you have no chance to progress beyond the $15,000 payoff. We came to win didn't we.
I'm not sure exactly how you (FossilMan) would calculate prize pool equity, but your figures seem reasonable, and so I would agree that you do the +EV play and go all in in both scenarios. (+EV in terms of expected prize payout, that is.)
There are two separate questions going on here. (1) Which plays are +EV(prize payout) plays. (2) Should you make +EV(prize payout) plays.
To know the answer to (1) you need to know all stack sizes and positions, ante and blind sizes, position of button(s), and characteristics of players, (in addition to the situation with cards in whatever scenario you are looking at). I don't know how to make the appropriate calculation in general, but it is not an intractable problem, and the idea of +EV(prize payout) can be made concrete --- at least concrete enough to be able to confidently state that some people are right and others are wrong.
The answer to (2) is a matter of opinion. Some people would fold in these situations, even though that's a +EV(prize payout) play, to minimize their standard deviation (swings). That's a reasonable thing to do, but you should acknowledge that that's what you are doing.
FossilMan almost mentioned a `scenario 3' (AA with a stack so tiny you would go all in on the blind even if you won). Maybe then a fold is correct.
Another case. Scenario 4) Final table. Everyone has equal stacks. You are in big blind with AA. Everyone else has gone all in and you are last to act.
It may be correct to fold depending on number of players and percentage payout scheme.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Your last hypo was:
"Final table. Everyone has equal stacks. You are in big blind with AA. Everyone else has gone all in and you are last to act."
If you don't call, you have at least 2nd place locked up, barring a split pot. OTOH, if you call this IS is the last hand, barring a split pot, and you have the best chance to win.
At the 2000 WSOP, there were 6 players at the final table.
Locking up 2nd place by folding means you get at least $896,500 in prize money. A 5-way tie for 2nd would get you $447,000.
So the question is whether your chances of taking AA against 5 other hands (25%-30% chance you will win?) is worth risking $550,000 in guaranteed money, for a shot at winning $604,000 more. Roughly an even money bet on a 30% proposition.
Keeping mind that if you fold you still get to play against the pot winner, albeit at a 5-1 chip deficit, I would say folding is the correct decision.
Just to spell it out, if you fold you get slightly less than 900K guaranteed, plus a 1/6 chance of winning about 600K more, or an equity of just slightly less than $1M.
If you call, and you're going to win Y% of the time, your equity is: Y x (1.5M) + (1-Y) x (447,000).
For the call to be +EV, this summation must exceed $1M.
Solving for Y, you must win greater than 52% of the time for a call to be better than a fold in terms of dollar equity. Interestingly enough, I believe that AA doesn't do all that much worse than this against 5 opponents. IIRC, it is somewhere close to 40-45%. Still, that means the fold is clearly best, both in terms of EV and in terms of reducing variance. Seldom in poker that you get to improve both of those variables with the same decision.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
yeah, but Alden if we came to win, shouldn't we go all-in in both situations, since we clearly have the best hand in situation 1 too. Aren't you contradicting yourself here?
I understand what you are saying tho, I would have a real tough time calling with the aces here...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Greg, you know me and you know I'm not that big on the math part of poker (although I do have a gut feeling for what is right and wrong from an odds standpoint). But here are my comments:
Scenario 1: It's not very realistic that two players would have that much of the chips with 46 players remaining and be on the same table and have one go all-in just to win the blinds/antes. But it is the scenario you presented. This is a hard choice. You have to feel it's the other guy that's making the mistake since you have the Aces. But on the other hand, you don't want to be walking away from the table muttering "but I had the best hand". I think the correct play is to fold although the math may say otherwise. You have an excellent chance to finish at least second with a good shot at first. Why take the chance. If you call and win, you're probably going to win the tournament, but you get nothing if you lose. I also don't think many of us would make the laydown and I can't say what I would do.
Scenario 2: I make the call. If you fold, you have little hope of going past the minimum payout amount. If you call and win, with a double through you can be competitive.
JohnnyD
First thing, great post Greg.
but all of this ignores the psychological aspects of the situation. I understand what you are saying and frankly, I think you make a solid point about calling.
But, since the WSOP happens only once a year, and since it is THE event of the year, with all the glamour and hype, I am wondering if all the other aspects of poker, that is other than the mathematics, would make a fold correct. By folding you have a (probable) lock for 4-5 place, even more if you would fold every hand till the final table (I'm not suggesting it here). The chip leader at the final table of the WSOP usually has a bit less than a million. If you are not him, you certainly will be second.
So what about, the "certain" great payoff, the great feeling about making it to the final table, the respect you'll get at the final table, the potential bullying the opponents, and relatively non-related but still, the great confidence in yourself in the future (making you a better player), the respect in future tournaments, the free publicity etc...
Comments?
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
`but all of this ignores the psychological aspects of the situation. '
No. Psychology is not the point here, although these are high stress decisions to be made. The choice is between
(A) higher EV and higher standard deviation (High EV & SD) and
(B) lower EV and lower standard deviation (Low EV & SD).
In the scenarios presented calling is a choice of type (A) and folding is a choice of type (B). There are perfectly reasonable arguments a person could make for either one, but there should be no doubt that choice (B) has negative expextation relative to (A).
Here is another scenario. Suppose you have just won almost $50,000,000 (after taxes) in a lottery and you net worth is now $50,000,000 exactly. Suppose Bill Gates (or whoever) offers you a coin toss: You put up absolutely everything you own to win $1,000,000,000 if if it is heads, otherwise you lose absolutely everything. Would you take this bet?
....................
(B) If you don't take the bet, you have 100% chance of having $50,000,000.
EV=$0
SD=$0
....................
(A) If you do take the bet you have 50% chance of $1,000,000,000 and 50% chance of being utterly penniless.
EV=+$450,000,000
SD=$500,000,000
....................
Again, the choice is between (A) higher EV and higher standard deviation and (B) lower EV and lower standard deviation.
Personally I would take choice (B), but I would also be completely aware that I had forfeited a gamble with EV=+$450,000,000.
Those of you who would fold AA in some of the scenarios discussed should be honest and admit that you are choosing (B) Low EV & SD instead of (A) High EV & SD. I'm not missing `intangibles' here. It's simple math and a classic gamblers dilemma.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I think you are missing intangibles here. Let me borrow your analogy. Let's say you are the financial equivalent of a good tournament poker player: you're a young, brilliant investment broker and you know that you can average, by the most modest projections, 15% compounded interest anually on your $50,000,000. At this rate you will double your money approx. every 5 to 6 years with no chance of losing any of it. Now how good does the +EV of your coin toss look?
I'm saying that a skilled tournament player with a giant stack already has a giant +EV, and doesn't need to risk it all on one hand just because it can be shown mathmatically to have a positive expectation. Doesn't anyone else see this? or do I just need some better crack?
`I'm saying that a skilled tournament player with a giant stack already has a giant +EV, and doesn't need to risk it all on one hand just because it can be shown mathmatically to have a positive expectation. Doesn't anyone else see this? or do I just need some better crack? '
If that were true, that would just be part of the equation.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
the question was would I play these hands under the circumstances Greg described?
I think there is more to it than EV. Like I said in my response to Greg, I think he makes a valid argument from a mathematical point.
But, I do believe the other aspects, the psychological ones are in play here, because I don't always base my decisions stricly on EV.
All of the aspects I've discussed have a future monetary value, so in a sense a positive EV. So I don't believe I'm missing the point, I think there is more to it than what's in Greg's post. I know that Greg was making a point about the mathematics, but I would definitely consider other variables in the problem and I think the psycological aspects are valid ones.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Ok, here is why these calculations break down in a "biological system"...
Even though I'm not convinced your values for equity in other paying positions are accurate estimates, for the purposes of my argument let's assume that everything you say is correct. The problem with #1 is that your 1,000,000 in chips is worth so much more than any starting hand value you can invent, especially on the bubble. Until someone is eliminated, nobody at the table will be likely to call any large raise of yours. This gives you a tremendous advantage, and the situation will keep presenting itself because for the rest of the tournament there will essentially always be some kind of bubble that the short stacks are trying to hold on to make. Skillful manipulation of a huge stack involves many different tactics... and none of them include calling the only other big stack all-in. I cannot prove my side of the discussion with math, but I can point to several "biological" examples. All you have to do is watch Men Nguyen, Chris Tsipralidis, John Bonetti, or any other top tournament player known to play well with a big stack. What you will see is very aggressive use of position against the smaller stacks. You will NEVER see one of these players call all-in with scenario #1. A 3 or 4 to 1 advantage for one hand is nothing compared to the advantage they already hold over all the shorter stacks. As for scenario #2- I'm pretty sure everyone calls all-in. With a small stack, all you have left is the value of your hands.
CH
I could not agree with you more Craig. You are right on.
Alden
P.S. This may not mean much. I have never played a money no-limit game or tournament in my life, and only a few low stakes limit tournaments.
Sorry Greg, the program only goes up to 9 players and simulating for as many as 45 would require a different approach (for various dull technical reasons).
Your numbers sound reasonable to me and the questions are interesting. I definitely play the second scenario, and in practice the first as well although there is no question that I would fold anything but Aces.
Craig, I take your points they are definitely valid. It's simply a question of whether your bullying advantage is worth giving up the EV. Bonetti and Nguyen might not get all-in very often but I can't see them passing Aces. One of the advantages of being extremely aggressive is when someone thinks you're stealing again when you have the goods. I'm sure all the players you mention would be delighted to get it all in with Aces, and other hands depending on the situation.
Andy.
Scenario 1 as described is different to the normal kind of decision they would face, yes.
Andy.
I think everybody should carefully read the posts by Dirk. Especially the one where he says that the intangibles are just something else to add to the equation. IMO, that is EXACTLY what you should be trying to do. He also makes excellent points about giving up EV to reduce variance, which can also be a perfectly valid reason to make a gambling decision.
Prince mentioned the value of making the final table, the enhanced reputation, the glory, the ego boost that you can take with you for years, etc. The trick is determining an estimated value of those things, and adding this value to the fold side of the equation. Of course, if you win a 2M pot, and are now a big favorite to win it all, don't forget to add that intangible to the call side either.
People also mentioned the value of your stack for bullying other players, and winning lots of small pots, and slowly building your stack from 1M, rather than risking it all to double through quickly. I agree, there is a value there. Again, you should be trying to estimate the value of that when you're estimating the total value of your stack should you choose to fold. These people make a valid point, and it should be considered. The question is whether this increases the value of your stack to the point where a fold is the highest EV decision (or causes you to more favor the lower EV fold decision with reduced variance).
As an aside, this discussion of the the value of a big stack as a weapon plays into the other issue we've all discussed, the value of doubling up early. That play also gives you a big stack relative to everyone else at the time, and a weapon you can use. Thus, rather than the doubled stack being worth less than $20,000, for some players the double-sized stack is worth MORE than $20,000, because of what they can do with it.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
You said,"People also mentioned the value of your stack for bullying other players, and winning lots of small pots, and slowly building your stack from 1M, rather than risking it all to double through quickly. I agree, there is a value there. Again, you should be trying to estimate the value of that when you're estimating the total value of your stack should you choose to fold. These people make a valid point, and it should be considered. The question is whether this increases the value of your stack to the point where a fold is the highest EV decision (or causes you to more favor the lower EV fold decision with reduced variance)."
I think being the bully is important. Especially, if you do not appear to make it obvious. This is the part of tournament play I enjoy the most. This subject could probably generate another thread.
Since, the WSOP big event will be played in a few weeks, I am seeking advice from players that have played in the super-satellites.
To enter the super-satellite it costs $220 plus rebuys for the first hour. How many of you would suggest doing the rebuys? or should you just quit and wait to play in the next one?
What is the sturcture for the super-satellite?
How many places usually get a seat?
I think these supers can be a bargain, tha like cheap shoes, turns into a rip-off. This is compounded if you take a couple rebuys since you know you can beat those suckers calling all-in reraises with pocket 3s.
I would play a couple and commit to taking no rebuys. If I only had a grand to spend to try and win a seat, I would play a single table, $1000 buy-in NL event. You get a nice starting stack compared to the blinds and it plays much more like the late stages of a real tournament. By the time it is down to crap-shoot time, it is generally 3-handed or heads-up and you can offer a deal if you wish.
Good luck. I am only going to play the $3000 pot limit he event as it best fits my work schedule.
I would say go on the feel of the particular event you are in. If you have a tough table or one where people with deep pockets keep rebuying and trying to get a big stack early on... good luck. Another type of table may be more folks with different bankrolls and attitudes towards rebuys. I do not suggest re-buying out of frustration. Keep a cool head and pay attention. Do not fold pocket Aces except if you're down to the last 7 players with a big stack and they're giving out six seats. (I played my Aces 3 years ago in that situation, lost the hand, busted out 7th a few hands later, got $5,500 and no seat and roasted by Mike Paulle for playing AA in that situation. Which actually didn't matter because I couldn't have made it back to town for that event —and the money was great and I felt foolish for .... playing Aces? What did I know? Anyway, in the earlier supers they will usually give out 3-4 seats as people are more conservative and cautious. Later on, closer to the bigger events, deeper money comes out and folks seem more pressured to get a seat, rebuy more and 5-7 seats may be available. Good luck and see y'all there!
I won one in 1998 and have gotten close a few times since then (7th in one last year).
You get 200 in chips. Blinds increase every 20 minutes -- you don't have much time. But since you are playing NL, there is no reason to panic.
Correct strategy is to play tight during the rebuy period and at the final table. In between, pick your spots to be aggressive. If you get popped out, then come back tomorrow (or later in the day if you play the early one) and play another one. The evening SS runs past midnight if you make the final table, so rest up.
If you make the final table, sit on your hands -- Mike Paulle recommends not even looking at your cards. If you don't believe this, read the SS account at http://www.conjelco.com/wsop98/event15.html.
The number of seats depends on the number of players, but it usually is somewhere around 4-6. I've seen them give away as many as 12 seats in the last SS before the main event.
How long does it usually take to play one of these?
JohnnyD
If you win, 3 or 4 hours. If you don't, often not very long. Mean time: about 90min.
JG
Up to 6 hours.
I haven't played in a WSOP super, so this is based upon hearsay.
At many of these supers, there is a LOT of gambling going on during the rebuy period. You should sit back and wait for really good hands that you can get it all in preflop with. Of course, if your table is letting you limp in with no raise, play it that way with good drawing hands, but usually the games are very aggressive. If I went broke during the rebuy period, and people were putting all their money in with weak/marginal hands, I'd rebuy and hope to win the next time I got a premium hand. Your chances haven't really gone down as compared to saving the $200 rebuy for the next super, and you will save the $20 fee by rebuying now as opposed to buying in new later.
Of course, if you drew a tough starting table full of tricky players (even if they are overly aggressive), then it might be best to come back next time. You could also consider quitting the table, and getting back in line as an alternate. It costs you $20, but you'll likely draw another table. So, if they're playing really poorly at the other tables, you might try that. BTW, make sure that this is allowed, or you might be disallowed from winning anything.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Fossilman's excellent "thought experiment" post may actually suggest that an early doubling up slightly more than doubles one's chances of winning.
To summarize his conclusion, he says that if you double early and continue playing until half the field has been eliminated, then the EV of your chip count will be twice what you started with (he assumes all players are of equal ability).
It seems that it actually would be slightly greater than what you initially doubled to because the early doubling gives you two advantages over the rest of the field (who, again, are all of equal ability to you):
1) You are immune from going broke for at least one hand. In a real-life scenario, your chances of going broke will remain far less than average for quite a while, which translates into an advantage over the rest of your equal-ability opponents.
2) Your larger stack gives you added flexibility. For example, few (if any) top players would call 10,000 all-in with JJ if they knew their opponent had AK in the first round even though the odds are slightly in their favor. With a 20,000 stack, one could prudently consider exploiting such small advantages on a larger scale than your opponents.
I can think of no disadvantages to having a double-size stack that would offset these two clear advantages. Thus having these advantages over the rest of the otherwise-equal-ability field suggests that you would have an EV of slightly more than 20,000 by the time half of them have been eliminated.
If everyone is playing perfect game-theoretic poker, then doubling your stack less than doubles your expectation.
But if other players play well when all stacks are roughly equal, but start playing poorly (e.g. too loose or too tight) in the presence of a large stack (not in front of them), then doubling your stack could more than double your expectation.
But if all players play all stack sizes well then doubling your stack less than doubles your expectation.
Forget the math. Double up or get out is the way to go. The times that I have done well in no limit tourneys is when I have doubled up early. Nobody wants to challenge you. If they do they have you beat, then pass.
The fear factor is huge in a no limit tourney. My motto is, DOUBLE UP OR GET OUT.
Guys,
I've been reading all these posts today and the subject is becoming more interesting concerning doubling up early and player equity.
Let's say that in a $500 buy-in event with 200 entries we have a total prize pool of $100,000. On the first hand the blinds go all-in preflop, and one of the blinds wins. The winner will have $1000 and now there is only 199 players left. If we divide the prize pool, $100,000, by the number of players left, 199, the equity per player is $502.51. So, even though the players with $500 have not used any chips their equity has increased.
My question is what is the real value of the stack that doubled up in relation to the other players?
These are only estimates, to show the kind of thing that could be true.
Note that the total equity must be $100,000 (including prizes won by eliminated players at very late stages) at all times.
Also, note that after this one hand, no-one has an exactly average stack, so no-one has equity exactly equalling $502.51.
Instead, I believe the player with the $1000 stach has equity of about $999.01 (99c less than face value).
The remaining 198 players, with $500 stacks, would have equity of about $500.005 (0.5c more than face value).
The difference from face value is tiny here, but this effect is more pronounced when there are fewer players.
For example, suppose three players remain with equal stacks. Suppose these 1st three places pay
1st: 40% or $40,000
2nd: 20% or $20,000
3rd: 15% or $15,000
So $25,000 is already gone from the prize pool. Also each player is already guaranteed $15,000, sp that effectively takes another $45,000 out of the prize pool (and into their pockets).
So effectively the prizes are
1st: $25,000 or 83.33%
2nd: $5,000 or 16.67%
3rd: $0 or 0%
With equal stacks, each player has $10,000 equity in this pool (in addition to the $15,000 effectively in their pockets).
Suppose players A and B go heads-up all-in and A wins while C watches.
A has 2/3 of chips and equity= $18,333.33 (that's 2/3 of $25,000 plus 1/3 of $5,000)
B has 0 chips and equity=0
C has 1/3 of chips and equity=$11,666.67 (that's 1/3 of $25,000 plus 2/3 of $5,000)
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
(Although the result is the same)- you removed 3rd prize from your first "equity" calculation - you should also remove 2nd prize from your second calculation as both players have 20000 in the bank. When heads up chips have equal value as both players are now playing for an extra 20000.
You have illustrated perfect chip management by the player who doubles up with 3 to go. An average stack doubling up (or, unlikely, winning a 3 way show down)with 3 left would maximise value throughout the tournament.
Your method of calculation also shows that the statement "small stacks are worth more" is only correct when money already won is taken into account. When you calculate a small stack's value per chip in relation to the remaining prize fund, it is worth less than an average stack's value per chip.
`(Although the result is the same)- you removed 3rd prize from your first "equity" calculation - you should also remove 2nd prize from your second calculation as both players have 20000 in the bank. When heads up chips have equal value as both players are now playing for an extra 20000. '
I basically agree with this. When B is knocked out, A and C eack effectively pocket $5,000 and compete for the remaining $20,000 and now all chips have equal value. (This is only true with two players remaining). I left the $5,000 to give a convenient before and after comparison of the effect of the hand on stack values.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"My question is what is the real value of the stack that doubled up in relation to the other players?"
Fossilman and some others will tell you 100% better. The other 199 players will still have 500 in equity and the double stacked player will have 1000.
I don't think it is 502.51 each, because that one player has more chips, so he does have a better advantage. I've posted this same situation before.
I believe everyones chances at winning go up with a bust out, not only the player who gets his chips. He will gain the most, but it mathematically ca nnot be double if the other 199 increase as well.
Can you get any good at no-limit hold'em tournaments playing them only two times a week? There is only one casino in my town where you can play no-limit tournaments twice a week, all the rest of the casinos only have limit hold'em. I read that T.J Cloutier played no-limit nightly for years.
He did. While you might not be able to match TJ just yet, there's no reason at all why playing just twice a week should be a problem. In some ways, if you have time in between tournaments to think properly about your game, it might help compared to people who play so much they just don't want to think about the game in between.
Andy.
Johnny Chan only played like 4 times a week, and to me, he is to god of poker.
play against your friends. get your home game to play tournament style no limit some time. its great practice. true, you may be up against much tougher opponents in a eral tournament, but it is still good practice playing tournament style, and making decisions based on lasting to the money. and heads up play is important when you play tournaments. how big is the casino you play at? are they the kind of casino that will open up a no-limit table if it is requested? some do, and if you ask, they might be able to accomodate you. especially if they are the same kind of casino that runs the tournaments.
First, I would like to say there have been many interesting responses, arguments and ideas over the last day or so. Many of then I want respond to, but it takes a lot of time, I hope to address many of those here. I think a lot people already subscribe to the "theory" I'm going to present, but I have not ever seen anyone else state it the way I am going to. I also want to disclaim up front that this particular idea, although it does apply to AA in certain situations, is in no way an attempt to prove the "fold AA early" discussion that has been going on. I believe this theory is a considerable factor in all these situations. I hope further discussion of this idea is based on that merit.
prac·ti·cal (prkt-kl)adj 1: concerned with actual use or practice; 2. Capable of being turned to use or account; useful, in distinction from ideal or theoretical.
Recently, I stated that Tournaments will not average out over the long run because of the payout structure and new game, starting with a clean slate. Statistically, this was wrong. If you think of a tourney as one hand in a ring game, eventually things will break even. Agree or not, the point here is that the long run is even longer for tournaments. Much longer, considering the large fileds and small payouts. If it takes a couple hundred hours of ring play to be within 1 std dev from the "long run", it's hundreds and hundreds of tournaments that must be played for the cards to break even (based on equal skill).
If you take into consideration that each tourney varies in skill, entrants, payout etc.. the long run gets even further away. This is the core of my theory.
Now if it takes a couple of hundred hours of ring play at 20 hands an hour for the cards to "break even", its going to take a couple thousand tournaments for all the possible hands and situation combiantions to reach "the long run".
It would take 50 years at 2 tournaments a week to play 5,000 tournaments. The point of this is that most players, myself included at only 25 years old, will never be reach the "long run" in tournament expectancy. In a ring game I will (at least statisically be close enough).
So why am I going to use the same +EV model I use in ring games for a tournamnet, knowing that I won't reach the long run? I don't think you always should. I hear the groans already! Explanation and example:
Suppose on your birthday every year, you get to play a game of chance. It is a free game, but there is a money prize. You have two options to choose from.
Option A: There are 5,000 envelopes in a box. In 4,999 of them there is a check for $0. In one of them, there is a check for $1.5 million dollars (Dr. Evil?). You get to pick one evnelope.
Option B: There are 2 envelopes in a box, one has nothing, one has $200.
Which one do you choose?
Some basic math, and we realize that in option A our EV is $300 a shot, and case B it is $100 a shot. It is obvious that the correct mathematical play is to choose Option B.
Now for the practical. I figure I have about 60 years left in me. Lets say Fossilman does too. I always choose option B, and Greg being the smarter mathematician always chooses option A.
After 60 years, there is only a 1.2% chance that Greg is a 1.5 millionaire. That means 98.2% chance he has nothing. I probably have $6000.
If there is a 98.8% chance that I will be ahead of Fossilman in this game at the end of our lives who is getting the best of it, not theoretically, but practically? I am.
Option A is a 2:1 better payout than option B. In the long run, Greg would be much more wealthy man then I. It's too bad though, there won't be a long run. There is definately a limiit to trials in this game, and option A becomes the more profitable choice.
Neither of us will be around for the "long run" in the WSOP either.
Just to repeat, there is a 98.8% chance that I will be ahead in this game, despite taking the worse odds, because there are limited trials.
My theory is that: Sometimes it is more profitable in real life to pass up on the highest EV play in a tournament. (because there is no practical long run in tournaments, human life is not long enough to allow the situaitons to break even.)
It is hard to step out from behind all the mathematical formulas that 100% correct in theory. Theory is great acedemia, but it's how you apply it to real life that makes the difference. Poker is real life and composed of real situatons:
prac·ti·cal (prkt-kl)adj 1: concerned with actual use or practice; 2. Capable of being turned to use or account; useful, in distinction from ideal or theoretical.
This is not a weenie concept, that suggests lowering variance. There is no variance to lower if you can't possibly reach the long run. This is strictly a decsison on what is going to pay me the most, most often in reality, not just in the infinite space time continum. That's the "smarter play" in my opinion.
Lets look at one of Fossilmans examples. It involves being the second chip leader at having 1 million chips on the bubble of the WSOP, the Chip leader goes all in, you have AA. I would fold, because it is going to pay the most, more often in reality. How many times will you get this opportunity in life? Getting into the long run in this situation is impossible, so the most sensible play is not to take a 33% or 25% chance of leaving broke. In the short run and big picture, it is more likely, that folding will yield more $$$.
Very interesting envelope game. And very worthy of consideration.
However, as you point out, after 60 years, there is still only a very small chance that I picked the winning envelope.
In the AA on the bubble scenario, there is something like an 80% chance that I win and double up. A +EV play that wins 80% of the time is a lot different than a +EV play that wins 0.02% of the time. That should be so even if we are looking at the situation in a totally practical manner. It takes a lot less than 60 years to get into the long run when you have a 60% edge on the bet. Of course, what are the chances that you get this opportunity even 1 or 2 more times in your life? I agree it is unlikely.
I also agree that there are times to apply your practicality criterion. Dirk posed a question where you had just cleared $50M from a lottery, and some super rich guy offered you $1B vs. your $50M on a coin toss. A highly +EV bet. But, if you forego the bet, you're set for life. If you lose the bet, you're back to square one. I would forego this bet, because $50M is much more than I need to take care of myself and my family for the rest of my life and do so very happily. Thus, if I win the bet, it really doesn't improve my situation all that much, while losing the bet will be highly deleterious to my life and lifestyle.
Now, with the envelopes, I go for the longshot in a heartbeat. Heck, if the EV of the longshot were slightly lower than $100 I would choose it. Winning $200 or $0 is almost meaningless to me in the long run. Adding an extra $100/year to my income won't have any significant impact on my life at all. Winning $1.5M (or $0.5M, since we've cut the EV down) would have a huge impact on my life, and is worth going for since there is no significant downside. That is why I buy 1 or 2 powerball tickets when the jackpot get high. I know it's a bad gamble, but I won't miss $50/year or so in tickets, but my life will be totally changed if I win the jackpot.
Practical considerations are worth considering in all endeavors of life. However, you should first know exactly what the expectation of each decision is, and then be completely conscious of why you're not picking the higher expectation choice. Don't talk yourself into thinking it somehow has a higher EV just because it has a lower variance.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
It is a little more interesting when you consider the event to be "life changing" or not.
It's very life changing when you are 35, but how much will it change your life when you are 82?
Every year that goes by and the life changing value goes down too, in practical terms.
Gator, I think that your example is excellent. In response to Greg's answer that he would still go for the long shot, I agree... I would too, but it doesn't take much imagination to manipulate the numbers in Gator's envelope game in such a way that you would be compelled (inclined?) to chose the option with the lower EV. I have been trying to make the same point Gator has just made for a while, and have been unsuccessful. Still, I don't see the Fossil Men changing their minds any time soon. Very interesting discussion.
I will add, in the interest of practicality, a few random and completely statistically insignificant points. I have been fortunate to play in several large tournaments, and have had the opportunity to play with, observe, and talk to successful tournament players like Randy Holland, Dewey Weum, TJ, Eskimo Clark, Men the Master, and several others. There's no question that they all have developed the ability to determine, roughly, whether or not a particular play has a positive statistical expectation based on the value of the hand. But quite frankly, they don't know diddly squat about the accurate calculation of this expectation, and are often times quite wrong with their instinctual figures (perhaps with the exception of Holland, no offense intended). But they will all argue that it is of very limited value IN TOURNAMENTS. In fact, Men Nguyen will openly admit that he knows that several of the plays he makes in tournament play have a dramatically negative EV when you only consider the value of the hands involved. These factors are dwarfed by the extraneous factors involved with decision making in a tournament, which have already been alluded to in my other posts. So, I don't think you can "factor these considerations in", it should be more like the other way around.
Interestingly, to prove a point to myself I once played in a tournament (small buy-in) where I purposefully did not look at my hole cards unless someone raised me and I was considering folding. I essentially played blind... relying only on position, hand reading, player knowledge, and what I call "flow of the game" to make my decisions. You should all try it. You will learn more from that tournament than you ever will on this forum.
CH
Interesting. But couldn't the other players see that you were playing blind ? Might be worth a try if they never found out.
Andy.
No, you have to pretend you are looking at your cards. I would just cup my hands and look down without flipping the corner of my cards up.
how well did you do?
Interesting experiment in hand-reading and such. I like the idea.
But, what do you do when they call you down, and you have to show first? And you turn over cards you haven't even seen before? If you've lucked into the nuts or some other good hand, fine. But when it's a complete blank hand, I would think that this might tend to ruin your chances of playing future hands aggressively (even though you've read your opponent(s) as weak).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Whenever a showdown or decision to fold is necessary... I would look at my cards. If they ended up being dogs I would just pitch them and say the standard "good call, I missed" or whatever. What you will find is that it rarely happens because you are forced to play super aggressive based on your reads... so you end up folding and getting folded to a lot.
A potential problem here (in the UK) is that when all the betting is done (everybody except 1 player is all in) you have to turn them over at that point (at any stage of the tournament). It might be better in this case to selectively play blind for spells and revert to normal play if you feel you have had to show one hand too many.
Andy.
I hope I get to sit on Gators table at the WSOP next month..... cos i sure will be pressuring his blinds :)
Cheers,
Keith
You mostly are joking about this, I assume. But lets pretend you are very serious. Let's see how it works...
You choose you seat that is on the button, evertime I am on the BB. Now you plan to raise it up everytime its passed to you on the button, because you know I won't make the high variance play early. How much are you going to bet into the $75 pot to steal it? Even when the blind go up. How much to win $150? If you make less than a pot size bet, I'll likely call with anything not considered a "trash hand". What happens when either the SB or I have a big hand? Are the first few rounds blinds profitable to steal in the long run?
Then when I notice after a couple times, how you are playing your button (I will), I will wait for the opportunity to play back at you and resteal what you have stolen from me. You will be very hard pressed to call me, considering my ultra tight play up to that point.
But, all he has to do is go all-in. Since you've said you wouldn't call with AA, what else would you call with? Who cares how much he has to risk to win the blinds if he knows with 100% certainty you're not calling? And, how can you resteal if he's all-in.
If you'd really fold everything early-on, then the only reason this play won't work in the real world is the player in the small blind.
If he makes a more proportional raise (in view of the small blind issue), and you reraise (after the small blind folds), then he goes all-in for way too much. Again, you've said you won't call in these spots. Either you really would call with some hands, or his play is totally safe.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would easily call with AA if it was heads up. I stated that in the thread that started the entire AA thing.
I'm not giving up an 80% favorite.
Also if I notice he goes all in on my BB every time, I would call with KK or QQ too.
The only way this can be done accurately is with a multi million run simulation. There is no software that I am aware of at the present that can do this as realistically as life. it may be a very long time if ever, before there is.
Statistics, Algebra, Probability, Calculus do not have the formula to answer this question. This is the wrong road.
The only way I could think of getting a close answer is by getting the next best thing to the first paragraph. Real tournamnets.
If someone had the stones to look up all the major and semi major Tournaments from databases like Pokerpages, wich keeps good records, and compare how early chip leaders fare later, and how chip leaders at the final table fare, I think we can get a picture.
Sure they will not be the best guage considering there won't be "statistically" many and there certaintly won't be even matched (skill and chip) tables, but they can give a better sense.
I can't think of a better way.
Is QQ a favorite vs AK in a No Limit tournament? How do you compute this? Are there any books or software out there that can help with this kind of calculation?
I figure AK has 6 outs, plus straight and flush possibilities.
QQ has 2 outs, plus less straight and flush possibilities PLUS it wins if AK doesn't improve.
Thanks
QQ is about an 11 to 10 favorite if all the money goes in preflop. It also depends on wheteher the ak and qq suits are matched. To figure this out exactly, you need to calculate all of the possible 5 card flops and determine how many wins each starting hand has.
There are tables publised for most common preflop and on the flop match-ups that are close enough for practical use. You can also get Mike Caro's Poker Probe to quickly simulate thousnds of outcomes for certain match-ups. This is a pretty neat tool.
A rough shortcut is the following formula: Take the numer of "outs" the trailing hand has and multiply it by 2 and then by the number of cards to come. For the example you gave, that would give the AK 6 outs times 2 x 5 cards to come. 6x5x2 = 60. Then subtract the 2 redraws the QQ has using the same math, 2x5x2= 20. 60-20= 40, so the AK will win about 40% of the time. This compares to the true result of about 48%.
The shortcut works a lot better on the flop or on the turn when there are minimal redraws. For example, a flush draw on the flop has 9 outs to beat an overpair, which has almost no redraws. 9x2x2 cards to come = 36% wins, or a 1.8 to 1 dog, which is very close to the exact mathematical odds.
Good luck.
You could do worse than just pick up a pack of cards and deal it out a few times (probably at least 20 for any given match-up). The more times you deal, the more accurate it will be. It's not rocket science !
Andy.
`You could do worse than just pick up a pack of cards and deal it out a few times (probably at least 20 for any given match-up). '
Wow! Your poker room is very lenient! They're not worried about the decks getting mixed up?
A quick simulation (10000 hands) shows QQ to be a roughly 53% favourite.
I have written some MATLAB tools to help compute this sort of thing (along with 10 handed simulations and so on). If anyone is interested I'm happy to share them.
Pax
QQ is an about an 11 to 10 favorite against AK. But so would be any pair ! It dosn't matter if you have QQ or 22, AK still needs help to beat you.
To be nit-picky, that is not true. Hands like 55 that make more straights than 22 are in better shape against AK. Addtionally, 22 loses a sometimes when the board comes down something like 88994.
Not all underpairs are created equal and not all over cards are created equal. If my opponent is all-in and I know he holds a tiny pair, I would rather have JsTs than AK.
QQ, JJ and TT are in better shape against AK because they cut down the str8 possibilities of AK...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Nevertheless, 22 is still (marginally) favourite against AKo.
Here is an interesting piece of trivia:
2c2d is favourite against AhKs (about 53%) AhKs is favourite against JdTd (about 58%) JdTd is favourite against 2c2d (about 52%)
Pax
Is the more potential profit to be made as a professional tournament player or is there more potential profit to be made in live play?
This is not meant to be a "smartass" answer, but it all depends on what you're best at.
If I were going to go professional, I would focus on tournaments. Both because I enjoy them more and because my results are better in tournaments.
If you're a good "grind it out" type of live player, then maybe that's best for you.
I think the ideal, would be to do the tournament circuit, become good at satalittes and exercise good game selection for live action at the tournaments. There's always some good side action at these big tournaments.
JohnnyD
It depends upon whether you're very good, great, or a world-class great player.
If you're world-class, you can play almost every day in games with limits like 100-200 and up. If you're so good you can average 1 big bet an hour in these games, and you can get in 1000 hours/year, that's over $200,000/year. I don't think any tournament pros can average such a result over a long term. If there were WSOP-level buyin events year round, then they could. But since most of the tournaments on the circuit are in the $100-500 range, you just can't average $1000 a day in these events.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Potential profit? You are limited in the amount of money you can win as a tournament pro because of prize structure and time. As a ring game player you are limited by the stakes you are playing but since you have a lifetime of play you may be able to reduce the stakes factor to a very small influence. If you are like me you can justify playing higher and trying to "win it all" by going on tilt. Therefore profit potential obviously falls on the side of the live ring game.
Vince
Vince,
You said,"If you are like me you can justify playing higher and trying to "win it all" by going on tilt."
Sometimes this strategy works in tournaments too.
"Sometimes this strategy works in tournaments too"
Touche'
Vince
I just got back from a NL Tourney at Lucky Chances. I was at the final table and went on a great run. It was 6-7 handed and within about 10 hands, I was dealt AJo, KK, 66, and QQ. I went all-in each time and was called and won every time! I either busted out a player or severely crippled their stack. I went from a below average stack to second chip leader. Anyways, after I busted someone with my QQ, it was down to three players. Here are the details that you need to know.
For simplicity, let's just say that there are 100 chips in play.
Player A is one of the best players in the club. He has won tournaments and has a very excellent reputation. He sits to my left. He has about 40 chips.
Player B seems like a pretty solid player and I'd say that he and I have about the same skill level. He sits to my right. He and I have about the same stack sizes (30 chips).
Player B suggests some kind of spit, but Player A definitely wants to play (since he believes he can out play both of us). I wouldn't have minded a spit, but I also wanted to test my skills in this situation. I must admit I don't have too much experience playing at the final table so short-handed. In previous tourneys that I've won, there was either a split or I had so many chips that only a major blunder could have cost me the win.
Anyways, we play a couple of hands and the game definitely felt more like a somewhat conservative ring game. No more all-ins or big raises. Player A is slowly building up his stack, and Player B and I are basically moving back and forth between 2nd and 3rd place.
Three hands came up that I'd like some comments on. FYI, blinds are not a real big factor here as no one is in danger of getting blinded out.
Hand 1: I'm dealt 89o on the button and call (like I said not much preflop raising now). Everyone calls. I completely miss the flop, one of the players bets (about 2x the BB) and I fold. Question: Is this too loose of a call preflop?
Hand 2: I'm in the SB with Q7s. Player A (in the BB) raises 2x the BB and I call. Player B already folded preflop. I miss the flop completely and check. Player A bets about a third of his chips and I fold. Question: Once again, is Q7s ok to call with in this sitation? Was it right to call the raise and hope to hit a flop?
Hand 3: I'm in the SB with Kh9s and just call. Player A checks his BB and Player B has already folded preflop. The flop comes Qc 9h 4c. I bet 6 of my 30 chips. Player A raises me another 6. I call. Turn is a blank. I check and Player A bets all-in. I think that he may be on a flush or straight draw (25%), has a Queen (50%), or has a weaker 9 (25%). He's hard to read and can definitely be on a semi-bluff. If I fold, I'll be getting pretty short stacked. If I'm behind, I'm pretty sure that I've got outs. So I decide to call. Player A turns over Q2 and I get no help on the river. Question: What's a better way to have played this hand? Raise preflop? Fold to the raise on the flop? Fold to the all-in bet on the turn?
I'm happy with 3rd, but it seemed to me that late in the tourney and short-handed, luck seems to play a much bigger part in the results. I'm very confident with my play during the early and middle rounds as I consistently make it to the final 2 tables and about half of those times, I get in the money (final table). Is it right to be seeing more flops late in the tourney and short-handed? Does luck become a bigger factor here? Are 89o, Q7s, and K9o reasonable hands to see the flop with when there is little prelop raising? I'm assuming that I can't just sit back and wait until I get a super premium hand.
Sorry this post is so long. Any comments/advice would be greatly appreciated.
Jace
I think you need to adopt a raise or fold stance preflop, especially when you are the first to voluntarily enter the pot.
I'm in a hurry at work but shorthanded like this you need to raise with hands like K9s or K9o and not call with 89(Preflop raising or not).
Russ
Also, I don't know if you were just pushing your stack in before the flop with those 4 hands or after the flop when you felt it was safe that you had the best of it but don't (Go-off) to hands like AJ and 66 pre-flop.
Why are you telling us about these hands? They have no meaning. You are down to three players. No deal. Play to win. Forget about what hands you get. Evaluate each situation you find yourself in with a goal in mind. If you find youself in a situation where the other two stacks are going head to head, the best situation for you, then let them go at it. Steal what ever you can. You must get into an aggressive frame of mind. If you decide to enter a pot try to take the lead with a raise. Be wary of calling any raise without a good hand. Mind games are the order of the day with 3 players left.
vince
I also need to improve my short-handed play. When it gets 3 handed if I am on the button then I will either raise or fold. Even in the SB & BB I am going to raise given a reasonable A or K or Q or pair.
Now in your case you want to attack the other small stack. I would be raising quite often on the button or when you are the BB and big stack has folded and SB ony calls.
1) I would not just call with 98o on the button. I would fold or raise.
2) Q7s is a slightly above 50% hand. The problem of course is you are battling the big stack. I think it makes sense to call the SB. When he raises he is simply putting pressure on you. You have shown weakness so he is now going to try to push you around.
3) With K9o I would raise preflop. He might call and the result might be the same. I am not sure if I call his re-raise on the flop.
Congrats on 3rd place.
Ken Poklitar
You can call occasionally when 3-handed, especially if you're the SB and button has called. However, everyone else is right that when it's short-handed you generally want to be aggressive and raise-or-fold is the best way to play a majority of your hands.
When and with what hands to reraise is the tricky part.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Can anyone give me information on satellites about this event,Times they start before the event,cost,etc. Thank you. Mike
Satellites for all events run all the time, not on a schedule. Just show up at the Shoe, ask where the satellites are at, and once there sign up with whoever is running them. As soon as they get 10 people who want to play the same thing, they start the satellite.
Usually, the day before an event, there are a lot of satellites for that event in particular. So, if you show up the day before the 1500 Omaha event, you'll find plenty of 1500 omaha satellites. However, once you win the lammers, you can use them for anything.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Rebuy period over, blinds are $50 & $100, I'm short stacked with $750. I'm two before the button with A-Q offsuit, it's passed to me and I make it $400. It's passed to the button who is pretty loose, especially if he has suited cards, he calls. [I raised it $100 extra than I would have normally because the big blind is guy who plays mexican poker and he needs a little extra help in chucking a hand.] The big blind has about $4000 and seems torn between just calling and putting me all in with a raise big enough to get us heads up. He finally just calls.
The flop: 9-J-2 different suits.
It's checked to me, I check, the button checked. I wasn't sure if this was the right move, but the big blind would check top or second pair then call my bet with no kicker at all without blinking an eye, and the button would have called with a variety of hands that include a jack but won't check this flop if he has even second pair.
The turn is another Jack, big blind checks, I decide to bet my remaining $350 thinking i might have the best hand and don't want them to catch a pair on the end. The button pauses like he might call, then drops. The big blind eagerly calls and flips over Jack-4 suited, I'm history.
Any tips on how you might have played the hand would be appreciated, Don
If the raise you would otherwise make uses more than half your stack, then raise all-in instead. If the big blind calls you still lose this time, but generally you'll get better results this way.
If you don't want to go all-in here, then do make it 300, so you have 450 left to bet after the flop. By saving only 300, you can't make a significant bet compared to the size of the pot.
Also, I would have bet that flop. If you're ahead, you want them to fold no matter what they're holding, as even somebody with only 3 outs is getting reasonable odds to call. Also, there is some small chance that somebody has a 2 and will fold (like, they called with A2s and figure that a pair of 2s is no good).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
.,.,.,
Hello All,
First off - I'm not really a tournament player. I prefer cash games (and I'm not really much of a cash game player). The only tournaments I ever play are small weekly pot-limit ones - average buy-in $30-$50, average field about 50+ players - winner probably ends up with $1000-$2000. I've only bothered to play eight of these events this year and I've made two final tables and approx $1200 profit - if this sort of result is similar over 1000 tournaments (fat chance) I'd be reasonable happy.
Bottom line - apart from the obvious guage of having won more than you've invested - can you offer any idea of a success rate for a strong tournament player in events such as these. Then at least I might have something to aspire to if I'm going to continue playing these damn things.
Thanks
mike cunningham
Hi Mike,
Hope I run into you soon again. You are right that keeping up this result in the long run would be very good. If you're picking up more than 100% return on investment I think you're doing very well, and there aren't many players who can maintain this consistently.
The problem is that the long run is very long as we know. I find it useful to track how many chips I have at the end of the buy-ins and at the start of the final (if I'm there). By comparing the averages of these I can see how I'm doing in each stage of the tournament. This doesn't take too long to average out and in fact my results have been fairly consistent lately. For example I am increasing my chips by 50-60% during the buy-in stage.
This might help to get a better idea of how you're doing in the shorter term.
Andy.
I count my stack at the end of each level (when the increase the betting limits). I then record how many big blinds (or small bet for stud) I've won or lost that level. I then put all this in a spreadsheet, along with the time spent at each level. The spreadsheet calculates how many big blinds/hour I've won or lost at each level, and for tourneys as a whole.
If you're winning bets, then you're doing something right, and at least have the potential of being a winning player. If you're winning lots of bets but are still not getting much or any money after more than a few events, then maybe you're making too many mistakes of the "tournament strategy" sort near the end of the events.
Anyway, it is a reasonable gauge other than just money, and might provide you with some further information.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I will make a suggestion which is much different. There are two components to my system of self evaluation: short and long term. What I do is analyze all the "decisive" hands in any given tournament, ie, any hand that had a significant effect on my stack size whether positive or negative. I don't write them down, because I can usually remember them, but it wouldn't be a bad idea. And I'm not talking about a statistical analysis. I ask myself, "considering all the variables at work during the play of that hand, did I make the correct decision?" After evaluating all of the hands, I write down whether or not I feel like I played well, and what weaknesses and strengths I identified- then I record it. ex:
4/15/01: $50 buy in NLHE. Finished 3rd. Played solid, but made a key mistake late. Learned again that getting involved with the only other big stack at the final table may not be a good strategy. Had success with aggressive play early in the tournament
(I never put down how much $$ I win. I list the buy-in because small buy-in events require different strategies than larger ones)
The long term evaluation is where $$ comes in to picture. In March of every year I do my taxes. My taxable tournament earnings are recorded in "other income" and my buy-in deductions are recorded in "other deductions". If I owe the IRS money, in spite of my creative deductions, I figure I did pretty well over the course of the year.
Here's my grading scale:
GOOD PLAYER: Most of my tournament notes say "played well" and I owe the IRS money. (2000 results)
BAD PLAYER: Most of my notes say "made too many mistakes" and I have more decuctions than earnings. (1999, 1998)
LUCKY PLAYER: Most of my notes say "made too many mistakes" and I owe the IRS money (has not happened yet)
DELUSIONAL PLAYER: Most of my notes say "played well" and I didn't win a dime. (1997)
Craig H.
A little off the subject, but I was playing in one of the PokerPages tournaments and decided to write down all of my starting hands (where I put voluntary money in the pot) and make a note of the result. My intention was to analyze my play after the tournament was over. However, the real benefit, was that I was more careful about my starting hands because I didn't want to have to write down a stupid play. It kind of ties to this subject in that anything you do to think about your play and your results is probably going to help in the long run.
JohnnyD
Thanks for the advice everybody - perhaps it's time I stopped recording my results on the back of tear-sodden train tickets and started to record my results a little more conscientiously:)
Andy - if you ever play in London let me know (£250 No-limit hold'em once a month at the Regency - I heard you won't get out of bed for less!). Otherwise - any good B&Bs' near the Luton club? - I'd like to get you a pint sometime.
JohnnyD - since having read the Andy Bloch Project I often try to assume that there's someone there judging my play when I'm in a tournament which I think affects my play for the better. And if not I find that casually nodding to an invisible acquaintance on my left shoulder whilst saying 'that was a +EV play wasn't it?' is worth it in entertainment value alone.
Cheers
mike cunningham
Mike,
Here are a couple of things I try to do - have more chips at each break than I started the session with, get in to a cashing position make the top 3 then win out right.
Having played tournaments in Europe and America (mostly Cal, Arizona and Neevada) and keeping records of my success or lack there of) I think for the type of tournaments you described making the cash about 1/3rd of the time and making the top 3 about 8-12% of the time is a pretty good performance. I also think you need about 30 to 40 tournaments undr your belt before you can draw many conclusions from your performance.
Hope this helped.
In case anyone is interested in the results of the "playing the tournament blind experiment", here's what happened.
It was a 5 table $50 buy-in NLHE event with one $30 re-buy, and myself and two friends agreed to try the experiment. We agreed to only pretend to look, but never actually look, at our hole cards until either: 1.We were raised, and our "blind" decision would be to fold(so as to not accidentally throw away the nuts) or 2. We were called down on the river.
At the end of the re-buy period I had increased my stack to 2.5 times the buy-in, so I didn't rebuy. Neither of my two friends busted out, but both rebought at the end of the last rebuy level with short stacks. (due to large lay-downs, they explained). None of the three of us had shown our cards yet. We all made it down to 3 tables, but unfortunately, I ended up at the same table with one of my friends. This complicated things, but we decided to continue with the plan... but look at our cards if we got heads up.
I busted out in 18th place (of 50), when I raised in late position and the SB called. I put him on A-x after he bet the size of the pot on an Ace flop with a big straight on the board. I reraised all-in with a medium-big stack and he called. He hit two pair on the turn with A-6off. I ended up having rags in my hand, unfortunately. He said he put me on a semi-bluff straight draw and decided to take his chances.
Both other friends made it to the final two tables, and one made it to the final table. With 8 players left he got nervous and abandoned the plan... ended up in 4th place.
We all agreed that we learned more about tournament no limit play in that one tournament than we had in years of reading and playing.
Craig H
PS: I took second in the same tournament the following week (playing "normal"), and have made the final table each of the two times I've played since. I realize these results do not represent a statistically significant trend, but I sure feel like a better player as a result of what we now call the "Blind Drill".
"I sure feel like a better player as a result of what we now call the "Blind Drill".
Craig I missed this one. Please explain this blind drill again so I can understand it.
vince
I explained it in an earlier post, but I don't mind repeating it.
The idea is this... buy into a small buy-in no-limit tournament with the intention of not looking at your hole cards unless you are raised and are considering folding. Of course, you don't want your opponents to know you are doing this, so you have to pretend to look at your cards preflop. Instead of basing your decisions on your cards, you are forced to rely entirely on your read of the other players, your position, tells, and the "flow of the game". It will give you a whole new perspective on NLHE, and it's fun.
Here's an example hand: you are one off the button and it's passed around to you. From what you know about the players behind you, you make a decision to either raise or fold. You do NOT look at your cards. If the button reraises and the blinds fold, you then decide if a reraise will force the button to fold. If you decide that you can't bet the button off his/her hand, then you can look at your cards before acting (this is to make sure that you don't accidentally throw away Aces in a raised pot). BUT, if you decide to fold preflop in a given hand without raises in front of you, you do not get to look at your cards... just fold. This forces you to make almost all of your key decisions based on factors other than the cards you have. Let's say you raise in the example above and the button and SB fold, and the BB calls. The flop comes and the BB checks. You then make a decision to raise or not without looking at your cards. If you get reraised, you can look at your cards (again, to make sure you aren't accidentally folding the nuts).
What you will find is that you can play NLHE reasonably well without any regard whatsoever with what cards you have. This is the basis for my continued arguments against all the "proofs" and statistical explanations for making decisions in tournaments. They are all ignoring the fact that your hand may be the least important consideration of all.
Craig H.
Great idea! Thanks Craig.
vince
That's very interesting. I will give this a try at some point. Of course there are some tournaments where this would be futile (small buy-in multi-rebuy events) but I will pick a spot, go for it and let you know.
Thanks for suggesting this, I would not have thought of it !
Andy.
I think you will be impressed (unless you make a bad decision and get knocked out very early). The best part is you will never have a bad beat put on you.
let me know.
CH
yep, Craig, this is on the top of my list in future tourneys...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Here are two hands my buddy played last night and as he played them, I thought he made mistakes, one that I'm positive about and a second one which is probably close so I'd like some feedback. (I'm not implying which one , you figure it out...)
HAND 1
They were down to 3 players (paid top 3), blinds were 100-200. There was T6300 in play, hero had about T1900 after posting his BB. UTG folds, loose very aggressive but fairly good player -LVA (with T1300) calls in the SB. Hero in the BB raises 500 more with A9o. LVA moves in, after debating for a while. What is Hero's play ? We have seen LVA once before limp in with aces. He could be pulling this off with any hand like 77 and up, KQ, KJ, AT maybe KTs, QJs and others...With AK, AQ and AJ he would have raised.
HAND 2
Same situation as above but just before. Hero had T1300 after posting the BB in the SB position (after a player just busted out), so there were 2 BB for this hand. Button LVA (T3000) calls . Hero checks with K6o. BB (calling station with T2000) raises 200 more, LVA calls, up to hero... What is his play?
Thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Hand #1 stinks like a trap, big time. LVA "debating for a while" was likely an act to convince hero that he might have something like KQ,KJ,AT, etc. He has a pair, probably big. I'd fold.
Hand #2: I know it seems cheap, and there's pot odds, and all that other crap... but this hand is too lousy. I'd fold this hand too. (or go all-in if I thought I could steal).
CH
I'll start with hand #2. Fold. Let them fight it out and maybe one of them busts out. K6o just isn't worth it and a fold isn't costing him anything.
As for hand #1, it's very hard to say without being there. LVA most likely has either a monster or he's bluffing. Has your friend been stealing a lot in this situation? If so, then I would be more likely to call. Has he been folding his small blind? If so then I would be more likely to fold.
You haven't said what the prize money breakdown is, which may be important.
Hand 1: I find it difficult to put him on a hand but would call on the basis of pot odds of 5/2. Even if the opponent has a better Ace, it's not such a big mistake. Ideally he's put your friend on a small pair and has gone all-in with KT or similar. He could have a small pair, but limping with this would have been a bad play as he would find that very difficult to play post flop against the big blind with unknown cards.
Prize money is important in hand 2 but with the prospect of a confrontation between the 2 other stacks and weakish cards, I would fold.
Hand 1. I think he could be raising with a wide variety of hands. I would call.
Hand 2. Pot odds certainly give him the correct odds to call. There is 1000 in the pot. You need to add 200 and will have 1100 left if you fold postflop. He is certainly behind 2 other players with k6o so folding would not be the worst thing in the world.
Ken Poklitar
I was thinking around the same lines as Ken,
Hand 1:
I think this is clear cut,IMO, he should have called. They were shorthanded, late stage of the tourney, the other player could easily have an inferior hand, even if the other player has pocket nines to kings, he should call. There is just too much money in the pot. The other player admitted after the hand that an ace high hand would have won it. (this was not a lie, so, my friend had the best hand)
Hand 2:
I think this one was closer. Clearly he need to hit the flop big, 2 pair or more. I still think he should have called although as Ken said, folding was certainly not a huge mistake. Against an overly arressive opponent (who assures you implied odds) and a predictable opponent, calling is more often correct, IMO.
Thanks everyone for your input,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
In a recent thread we discussed the merits of calling all-in when a 2 to 1 favorite to double your stack with A,A early in a 10,000 buy in tournament.
I recommended folding because I felt that you were not giving your self a chance to allow your skill to work for you. Fossilman argued for calling the bet.
I though about this on my plane ride to Vegas last night. I asked myself how could Fossilman justify gambling in this situation that reduced the game to a crap shoot. Where was the skill factor here. Well, I convinced myself that I was wrong. There is indeed skill involved in this decision. Hand selection aalone is a skill factor here. Knowing that you are a 2-1 favorite requires knowledge of the probabiliyty of winning in this situation. so you are basing your decision on sound judgement. So I concede that this decision reqiures some skillful consideration of the situation.
I then asked myself if Fossilman was right about his proposal that by winning this hand he would double his equity. If so i then would agree that calling is best. I considered a field of 100. Everyone beginnig with 10k would theoretically make Fossilman a 99 to 1 shot of winning the tournmament. But if he were a true 99-1 shot why would he enter the tournament in the first place? Why not just shoot craps? The results would be the same. No Fossilman has an edge when he enters a tournament. So just what is that edge? I've seen some tournament pros state in writing that the believe that 30% of all players entering a tournament have no chance at all of winning. So I used that figure to determine Fossilman's edge. Rather than make this too complicated I made all the remaining 70 players equal in skill. Thus Fossilman is a 69-1 shot to win the tournament. If we look at this as equity we can say that each of the 70 have an equal share of the other 30 players money. Thus if we played this tournament Fossilmam's equity would be about $4300 (plus his original 10k) at the beginning of the tournament. 4300 woud be his sahre of the 30 losing players money pool (300k).
So if Fossilman made his play and called and won he would gain approximately 1 more share of the losers money (not taking into account his chip count advantage over the other 70 good player). So if he did this 3 time he woud win twice and lose once. Winning twice adds up to $8600. Losing once costs him 10,000 (plus his 4,300 percieved equity). So if I am correct his call is a losing proposition unless the chip count he achieves gives him a great enough edge over the remaining 69 good players to over come his theoretical loss. I'm not sure it will at this stage. I therefore conclude that calling is a mistake.
Comments?
Vince
I think you need to give me more edge over the other good players. If you and I are equal (don't go there, just accept it for now), then certainly I'm going to win more often than you if I have double the chips.
Plus, when I double up, I don't just win the 4300 equity from that player, I win ALL of his equity. Well, not quite all, but close. Clearly he loses all his equity. So, how much goes to me, and how much to the rest of the field? Early in the tourney, it mostly goes to me, I think.
We can chat about this in Vegas. Tonight, maybe?
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Based on this thread Greg, I may decline to come play FW this fall at the request of Mongoose as lately I have been the in the '30%' j/k GL in Vegas! Unfortunately, family matters kept me home.
Vince,
Bring this issue up with Sklansky when you see him. Both him and Ray Zee have not said much this past week in the tournament forum. I would like to know what he thinks. I didn't include Mason in the non-participant list because he did say something recently.
Good Luck
mah
Vince:
In a tournament with 100 equally skilled players, entry fee + time, aggravation, etc. = 1/100 X purse = one stack of chips. Let's say the entry fee is $100 and before the start of the tournament an extra stack of chips is auctioned off. The right price for any player would have to be close to $100. Turning down a 2-1 chance at an extra stack that risks your entry fee puts the value of an extra stack at less than $33.33, which can't be reconciled with the value of the initial entry fee.
But let's take your modification of the above and assume that Greg enteres the tournament with an overlay equal to 1/3 of his competitors being out of the money at the start. Now his $100 entry fee = $150 in tournament equity ($10K purse/67). An extra stack of chips, however, is also worth $150, at least to Greg. With a 2-1 shot at doubling his stack or losing it all, he's trading 1/3 of his one-unit of tournament equity for 2/3's of two units, a bet he can't turn down (ev = 300(2/3) minus 150(1/3) = +$151.50).
Maybe another way of looking at it is to consider "tournament equity" a temporal thing, so that it starts off small and grows as the tournament progresses, and the chance of future time spent in a tournament is worth more than your initial stack. I think this is the same as what you described as a chance to use one's skill. Even looking at it this way, the double stack at the start increases his chance of lasting longer, and therefore has to have significant value, depending on how much time it's good for.
We can take this further and wonder what he should do if the dealer keeps sending him pocket aces. How many times should he fold before the assumption that he has an overlay becomes dubious?
Chris, Yours is an excellant response and well worth exploring. I want take some time to think about it before commenting. But I think we should keep this issue alive.
vince
Just following this and the other posts, and working some preliminary math here myself, i think another note needs to be added when considering the numbers. In this scenario the equity will be different if the all-in bet is coming from the 30% NOT expected to be in the running or the remaining 70% that IS expected to have a legitimate shot at winning.
Anxious to see what the great minds come up with...
I'm going to use a term in this post called 'Stack to Blinds Ratio' (STBR) so let me clarify that first. If you have T2000 and the blinds are 10/20 and you limp with a small pocket pair UTG then your stack to blinds ratio (STBR) is 100:1 i.e. one hundredth of your stack to call/limp. If you have T2000 and the blinds are 100/200 then your STBR is 10:1 to call/limp. Ok, now that that's clear some questions. All questions refer to being UTG or early/early mid position and you are first to act in a NL HE tournament.
(i) At what point in a NL HE tournament does your STBR make a call/limp with a small pocket pair incorrect, when folding (or going allin) is a better option. e.g. you have pp7s UTG, you have T800 left and the blinds are 100/200 making your STBR 4:1
(ii) What is the correct STBR that going allin with a small to medium pocket pair is better than limping?
(iii) To what extent does the size of your pocket pair effect your STBR call, fold or allin move?
I hope I've made myself clear and look forward to your replies.
Thanks,
Wasp
(1)the 2 blinds will take 300 of your 800, thus seems fold is best option---seems your STBR would allways be to high under the gun in this situation. in late position, if no other action, that might be the time for allin. (2) same answer (3) depends upon (a) how close you are to UTG. (b) how long you can wait for big hand. good luck, jim
These eternal posts about whether to call all-in with Aces in a tournament keep using the number 2:1. I'm sure something got confused a long time ago, but now we're all disussing the math behind a decision when you are a 2:1 favorite and stand to double your stack. Everyone knows that you are a much larger favorite than 2:1 with pocket Aces heads up, so I'm not sure what we're actually trying to figure out. It seems that it has been well demonstrated that it is a "correct" play to call all-in when you are a 2:1 favorite... but you can never know for sure if you are a 2:1 favorite because it would involve a particular matchup of hand against hand. With Aces, you know for sure that you are no worse than 3:1, and possibly more than a 4:1 favorite. Am I missing something?
Well it first started with a AA hand involving three other opponents, all going all-in, which makes you a 2:1 favorite instead of more.
I don't think Gator would fold aces heads-up.
It was also said would you call if you flopped the nut flush and your opponent showed you a set, again making you a 2:1 favorite.
This is where the 2:1 thing comes from.
Hope this helps,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
BTW: would anyone care to respond to my post about 2 preflop hands just below, I'd really like some input. Thanks in advance.
Actually, Gator did say he would fold aces headsup.
I never said it, and I never would fold Aces heads up early.
Rather than muddy the waters with continual discussion of different hands where, as you say, you don't know what your opponent has, I posted a hypothetical question as to would you go all in when you "know" you have a 2:1 edge with whatever hand. This may be the source of the confusion.
Andy.
The original hand situation involved AA against 3 other all in players. If one of them has the other AA, then your AA only becomes a 2:1 favorite to double up.
The starting hand should not matter one iota once you know how big of a favorite or dog you are.
I tried to get away from the AA stigma, and refer to only a 2:1, but somehow someone always comes back with AA is the best hand. Arrgh
My local room holds a freeroll where 100 players play down to 20. The last 20 go on to the main event with others, no chips carry over. The entry is worth maybe $500 in expectation and cash combined.
We reach 25 players left and I have the biggest stack. I get out my book and read instead of playing. There is only one player at the table with short chips, I'll raise his blind maybe when it comes by. Players at the other tables are busting out fairly fast, 24, 23, 22 and then the magic 21 remain.
Short stack is in the big blind (1K). I'm under the gun and raise before the cards are dealt, 2k in the the dark. The cut off seat calls?! (I didn't count him down, I was too surprised) The big blind mucks.
Flop comes K 5 2 and I figured this guy had plenty of chips so I check without looking, no need to get involved. He bets out and he's all in for 1K! Now I peek at one card, a K. I call and peek at a 5 as well. Obviously, he has AA and busts out 21st for what may be one of the worst strategy moves I can recall. Not playing was an almost certain winner for him, AA was never for sure.
All correct. Just one thing, if some players aren't aware of the correct strategy at this point, bringing out your paperback may wise them up :-)
Andy.
I have 9,9 in mid position, suits unimportant. 4 callers, Flop comes 7-4-7, first player checks, I bet, all call. Turn is a 7. Again a check, I bet, player to my left raises, one calls, one folds. River is a 4. Player to my right bets, I call, next player raises. The other player calls.
After a little while of thinking. I decide to fold, On the show down, the player to my right had 8-8, the raiser to my left had 9-9.
I think I played this one horribly. All help/comments would be greatly appreciated.
I really would have thought someone had the case seven when you were raised and there was a cold call behind you on the turn, so I would have folded.
I really depends on the opponents. What you know of them etc..
Hard hand to play with such action and 3 players...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Nicolas,
What is missing in the original post is how many chips each player has. I am not sure this was a tourney but stack sizes might make a difference.
Are you saying you would fold on the turn or the river after you put one bet in?
I was playing 4-8 on saturday and I saw one player twice overplay hands when there was 3 of one card on the board. Both times he had the lowest possible pair on the board for a tiny boat. One time he lost to quads and the other time he lost to a bigger boat. He whined about losing with full houses for an hour after that. Of course he played both of them terribly. The point being the raise on the turn/river does not necessarily mean much to me in this situation.
With 15 big bets in the pot, you need to be close to 100% sure to fold on the river when there is no chance of getting raised again.
Ken Poklitar
Yep, the stacks can make a big difference.
Also, the players. I really wasn't clear in my first post. Let me explain. As you have said, many players overplay full houses in this situation. So, with pocket nines here, I'd think my chances are good to have the best hand because most players tend to raise preflop with pocket tens and up.
So, if the players were loose/bad/too aggressive, whatever, calling on the turn and river is surely correct. Against sound players, I would consider folding, because I really wouldn't like that cold caller.
Again, stack sizes are also quite important. Also image, how far are we out of the money ?, can I move up the ladder ?, usual tournament stuff.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Except for the river, I think you did fine. On the flop with an overpair your bet is fine. With everyone calling, I would most likely check the turn. But when the turn shows another 7, I would probably bet again. It is now less likely someone has the other 7. I probably bet out again on the river unless a T+ falls. Checking is not the worst thing in the world though. Calling 1 bet and then folding to 1 raise with no possibility of a reraise is wrong. The pot is too big to fold to a single bet.
Ken Poklitar
I missed in the original post that you were raised on the turn. That makes your check on the river a better play then betting out again. I still believe calling the one bet on the river is correct although I wouldn't feel great about it.
Ken Poklitar
I managed to drop about $1000 in 3 minutes today and would like to run the situation past the panel. Please excuse me if these are really just bad beat stories.
$500 NL Hold-em with Re-buys, 5000 chips to start, about 40 mins in I have 5500 and am doing OK. Blinds 25-50. I limp with Ad9d in middle position and we see the flop 4-handed. Flop is Td 9h 4d. First player (reasonable, not too tricky, can get married to a hand) bets 500 into pot of 200. I raise 1500. He goes all-in, I call (he has me covered). He has AT which holds up. Chips please !
_Next hand_ I have Kh9h and limp again, 4-handed again. Flop 9c 8h 3h. One of the blinds, this time a top player whose play I respect as much as anyone, bets 200 (the pot). I raise 500, he calls. Turn is an offsuit 6. He checks. I bet 1500. He raises all-in. At this point I admit I have lost it and I call with my brain in a fog. He shows T7, no heart on the river and I'm out.
Psychological problems I have are as follows (these have been particularly evident over the last week) : 1) A tendency to be on tilt for a short time (maybe even only 1 hand) after a big loss 2) An inability to think rationally when I am unexpectedly re-raised. These I will have to address. Folding marginal hands until I am sure I am back in control would be a start ; making myself count to 10 when re-raised too.
Any other comments are very welcome as always.
Andy.
For whatever it's worth, I would have played the hands quite differently. Limping in with A9d is certainly reasonable, but I would not have raised on the flop. The bettor has at least a 10, and trip 4s is a strong possibility too. In any case, you are definitely beat at that point. Also your raise will knock everyone else out (I don't know whether the other players were in front or behind you). Ideally, what you would want would be to call the relatively small 200 and have a few callers giving you a nice price on your flush draw. But going all-in on a draw is not a good habit, I think. Then, you could check for a free card on the turn if he checked to you (not as likely if you just called on the flop), and if he bet the turn and we were heads up, I would fold.
On the second hand, I don't think I would even limp in with K9s unless I was on the button and there were at least 2 callers besides the blinds. This time I would have raised on the flop, like you did, since the original bettor most likely has two overcards with some sort of straight draw and you had top pair, an overcard, and the flush draw. I don't see anything wrong with your bet on the turn either, since you really couldn't put him on a 10-7, but when he raised all-in I would have folded. His action looks like he might have flopped a set and was trying to get you off your flush draw... either way, again, you have to figure that you're beat and you don't want to risk all your chips on a draw.
CH
Thanks Craig,
Both of those make more sense than the way I played the hands :-). On the first one, it is actually 500 to call (he has overbet the pot) and I doubt if anyone else is going to call, leaving us heads-up. What I'm thinking is that even if he has KT, QT or whatever then I'm favourite right now, and I might well not get paid when the flush card comes. There is also a good possibility I can make him fold on the flop. So I think this method also has its plus points. Certainly when I am re-raised I have to call I think with two cards left.
On the second hand I agree that I should have folded to the check-raise on the turn. I do think the original limp is OK though (in normal circumstances), there isn't much pre-flop raising and it's only 50 out of my 5000 stack. However it would be better _for me_ to fold these marginal hands just after a loss if I need time to regain my composure.
I was guilty of playing both these hands in "small tournament" mode. In the smaller comps, against weak players, I will get called by much lesser hands (smaller pairs or smaller draws) which are miles behind, and also we have fewer chips (say 1000 rather than 5000) and re-buying is much cheaper.
Oh well, live and learn :-)
Andy.
Hand 1 Limping in mid position with A9s is iffy. With the passive table and low cost of the initial call, it is ok, but if an Ace flops, and you play this hand strongly as top pair, you know you are in trouble. You have to know what flop you want for this hand.
I would not have re-raised 1500 on the flop. It commits you to the hands if he re-raises or calls, and in either case he is sure to have you beat. Many players are not smart enough to be pushed off of two overcards with a raise (without getting proper odds to call) if they have you covered. I would have only called with my huge draw (A 9 or d). If I raise anything, and he comes over the top (which he won't do unless he has top pair or a set) then I'm commited to the hand with a draw, at this point the odds are too good to pass up. Still, you will win with this hand about 50% of the time. you got unlucky, and lost more than you should have.
Hand #2
Im not sure what the "normal circumstances" you are refering to limping mid/early with K9s in no limit. You may get away with this more in limit, but in no limit, unless you can get away from a hand that is completely dominated most of the time when there is action on the hand, you will be a very broke no limit player. You already realize the mistakes with this hand.
Unfortuantely, you got about one the best possible flops for this hand you could have hoped for, and got unlucky once again, this time however, you should not even have been in the hand to get unlucky,
Basically with either of these hands, and several more, I am looking for more than one pair before I commit a lot of chips. Just being in the pot gives me a chance to bluff as well. "Normal circumstances" is when I'm not on tilt :-)
I haven't flopped this kind of hand for so long that flopping it twice in a row freaked me out a bit. Hopefully next time I know what to do. I should have realized that on the flop in hand 1 and on the turn in hand 2 I am essentially on a draw only.
Thanks,
Andy.
Andy,
First hand: Fold. When someone bets $500 into the pot he is shutting out all draws in this situation. The only exception is if you think he has a weak hand like JT, QT, or KT. The blinds are not high enough at this point to risk chips. Your opponent is not bluffing into three other players at this point. For you to commit all your chips on the flop with only a flush draw you need 1.86-to-1 odds. If you thought that he might have JT then you would need 1.08-to-1. In an unraised pot, I would fold this hand.
Next hand: Check the turn. Fold to a bet on the river unless you make the flush. He obviously had something when he called your raise on the flop. Straights are the most deceptive draws.
I suffer from the steamers syndrome sometimes myself. Hopefully, I will have some self control when I go to Vegas in a few weeks. Anyway, I find that playing the Poker Pages tournaments helps me get more practice. I think the more you practice the better off you will be.
Good Luck
mah
Hand 1:
Limping is fine, assuming you did not expect a raise. I would have played it the same way as you did, since this is a rebuy tournament.
Hand 2:
I agree that taking the free card on the turn would have been the better play. Once a solid player calls you on the flop, you are usually beaten. By betting the turn, you allowed him to shut you out. Well, you called, but you know you shouldn't have.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
On the 1st hand I think limping with A9s is fine. When the player overbets the pot and you have nut flush draw and middle pair, I have no problem with raising. If you sense weakness then I would raise the pot. I would raise another 700 or so. I am not sure what raising 1500 vs 700 does other then add more chips to the pot. When he re-raises all-in, I think I would fold. There are a lot of hands that include a 10 that he could have. You do have a nut draw plus 2 9's as outs and maybe 3 aces as well. And you do have a rebuy left.
On the 2nd hand I normally muck K9s but with the low blinds compared to chips it is probably a reasonable limp. I think you did everything well except for maybe calling the checkraise all-in bet. I would expect that he has a minimum of two pair since as BB he could have anything. I think its a gamble to call the all-in.
Ken Poklitar
I just fluked qualifying for round 2 of the TOC warmup at PokerPages.com. Where can I learn Omaha Hi/Lo strategy QUICK? (The tournament starts in 2 hours).
I'm probably posting this too late, but get Ray Zee's High-Low Split Poker book from this site.
Try to fluke winning the 2nd round as well!
I am also learning omaha hi/low. Read the Other Poker Games forum for some helpful information.
Hope you did well,
Ken Poklitar
How would you recommend playing each round of this hand?
Background: first couple of hands in a no limit tourney, blinds are $2 & $5, everyone starts with $320 so everyone is about equal.
I am in the small blind with Ad/5d. Utg raises 25, middle player & button call, its to me...what should I do?
Assuming I call...
the flop comes Ac, 5d, 8d
what should I do?
The turn is the 8s, what should I do
I'll post the results later
thanks
Check your post. I've never played a game besides Blackjack where you can have two 5 of diamonds in the deck.
The flop must have been Ac x of diamonds and 8 of diamonds (definately two diamonds with the ace, so I had a pair of aces and the nut flush draw). Obviously not two 5 of diamonds or I have a bigger problem.
thanks for pointing that out.
Out of the SB, I'm not sure I'd make the preflop call, because you will be in the worse position on the flop and after, in late position it would be fine.
Ok, so you call, I would lead on the flop, say bet 75 (I'm assuming the BB folded, so there was 105 in the pot)
If you get raised, then you consider is your opponent capable of raising without an ace, if so, you move all-in. If not well it depends how much he raised.
On the turn, the second eight should not be a problem, either I doubt the raiser has an eight in his hand, unless he has 88 in which case you were beaten on the flop. You did not mention how many players stayed after the flop, this is important. Assuming no flop raise, against 1 player, preferably a loose one, I would bet again. Against a solid player, I would check and fold to a bet figuring I was beaten on the flop.
A lot of details are missing, these can make a difference. But generally, this would be correct.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I am probably too tight but I doubt I call the raise with A5s in SB. As I try to decide how I would play the hand I hate it more and more.
So now that you have called the raise you are faced with top pair no kicker, nut draw and terrible position. So there is 105 in the pot (125 if BB called).
The question is how to stay in the hand and minimize the loss of chips if the draw doesn't come. If you know the UTG player then that certainly helps. If he will automatically bet the pot (100+) after this type of raise then I would check/fold. If you think he will only bet 25 or 50 then I would check/call. If you think that by betting 25 or 50, he will only call then I might do that. If he is going to raise you a significant amount then I would not bet out. If he is not a strong NL player then I might try to get him to play this hand as a limit hand and bet out 25. Even if he raises 25, you can see the turn for only 50.
On the turn I would not be willing to spend many more chips but not knowing the pot totals and how the betting went on the flop it is tough to say what to do.
Ken Poklitar
First of all, I'll let you in on why I played the hand in the first place. I have been playing several online tournaments at pokerspot and pokerpages and have had moderate success but certainly not what I feel is necessary to begin to have success in real live, higher buy-in tournements.
The problem I keep running into is that it does not seem like tight play alone will get you enough chips to have a chance to win. It seems to me that you have to choose spots to gamble and hope you get lucky enough to win and build up some chips to have a presence when the blinds increase and the number of players decreases.
What type of hands and situations would you recommend making unique plays in an attempt to build your chip total?
Now, this hand certainly may not have been the place to implement this stratedgy, but it seemed like a good place to me, so here is what I did and what happened:
I called on the flop, since there where going to be at least four players and possibly five, if the big blind called (which he did).
I bet $75 into the flop thinking I was partially betting my draw as a semisteal and possibly betting for value. All folded to the button who called. I figured I was beat but decided to press on with my stratedgy of gambling a bit.
When the second eight hit, I was'nt too concerned about a boat, but figured I would have to hit my flush to win. I was committed to playing the hand and wanted to force my opponant to have to make a tough decision versus me making a weak call, so I moved all in, he called.
The river was the 10 of diamonds and I won the pot and began the tournament with a nice stack.
The results dont necessarily mean my play was correct, but I am curious if any would agree that this was an opportunity to have a smart (?) gamble and force my opponent to make a tough decision, thus why I moved all in on the turn.
What does everyone think?
I have played extremely tight and in most occasions, I am able to hang aroung a long time but never really build much of a stack. Eventually, I have to go all in on a sub-par hand, which most often does not hold up and out I go. Sure I hang around a long time, but why bother? Given the few amount of times the deck has hit me which has allowed me to finish in the top 5, I am starting to think its better to find a smart place to gamble and either build a stack or get knocked out early and go do something else.
The real question is what is a smart gamble?
What plays are good to make to set myself up to get lucky?
DO I call with lots of drawing hands?
DO I raise with drawing hands?
Do I limp with drawing hands and then push all in with good draws to try and get my opponent off a better hand and if called hope to get lucky?
Do I raise/check raise with drawing hands with the same stratedgy in mind?
I don't think I have ever made a big raise with no cards just because I thought my opponant missed. How often does this opportunity arise? How do you know when its there?
Thanks for the input, forgive me if I got too long winded for one post.
Jeff
interesting post. good idea to wait and give the results after you get a few responses. i agree with you. sometimes you have to take a gamble inno limit tournaments. but tight playing is what will help you last longer. draws are only good if you are getting in cheaply, and there are a couple people in the pot. which means last to act usually so you can see who is in. if you are low on chips, i advise against draws. wait until you absolutely must get into a pot before you commit chips to a draw.
Late in the tournament, 8 players at my table, 4 at another table. Blinds are 100/200 and I have 730 after posting my 200 blind (i.e. I am in the BB, this hand).
I am in about 8th or 9th place. I dont know how many places pay, because its a pokerspot tourney and it depends on the number of entries. There were 60 entrants, so I think it paid the top 20, although most of the payouts cant be that much. So, unless I can finish in the top 3 or 4, then it probably does not make that much of a difference when I exit. I prefer to go for the win anyway.
All fold to the button who calls the 200, he has about 2700 in chips after calling.
I have JJ, what should I do?
Results later,
thanks
I think you are going to be committed to this hand no matter what happens. First, I would raise $300. Since, your opponent is trying to limp in, you should assume that he has a weak hand. The majority of the time they do.
If he calls your raise and checks to you once the flop comes, bet the rest of your chips. At this point you wouldn't mind him folding. If he bets first, I would probably push the rest of my chips in because I feel pot committed at this point. Let's face it you don't have many chips at this point.
I would go all-in. As MAH says, you will be committed to this hand, but you should make it as difficult as possible for the button to call before the flop.
Andy.
I would go all-in preflop. I want him to pay the maximum if he has one overcard and one undercard. If he has two facecards or a pair he probably calls your raise.
Ken Poklitar
nt
I would move in preflop. You don't have enough chips to play with after the flop, and him folding almost doubles you up.
Derrick
Well, we all agree on this one. I moved all in, (what else can I do? How the hell can I get away from this hand without needing to get sized for a new skirt?).
The button called and the flop came A,x,x. turn a q and river a blank.
I got thoroughly smoked, he had limped with aces...lol!
The only option I could have had was to check because of the tendancy for players to call all in players preflop, whereas they sometimes will fold to a bet postflop.
This would open up two plays for me. One would save my last $530 and the other would have knocked me out of the tournament as well. These plays are:
1. Check and then move all in regardless of what hits the flop, which would give my opponent an opportunity to fold, where he might not have if I reraised all-in preflop. Result: knocked out of the tournament.
2. Check when any A,K or Q hit with the intention of folding to any bet he makes. Result: save $530 and last ??? longer. Too wimpy?
Agree, disagree, comments?
thanks,
Jeff
Jeff,
I like option number one the best. A lot of players are more willing to move in pre-flop, but in this situation you have the advantage to act first. Sometimes, you can get a real scary flop and use it to your advantage. For example, lets say that the flop came all hearts. It will look real scary to your opponent. When he realizes you're all in, he may back down. This is just one example, I'm sure you can think of others. This is why I play this way because it gives you an extra chance for your opponent to fold a better hand. Let's face it, you were going to stick the stack in before the flop, so why not wait for the flop to help you.
As for option number two, I suggest to do the same as I have already stated. Most people will raise before the flop with AQ, KQ, KK, AA, and AK for example. So, if you raise before the flop, you are suggesting that you have a big hand. So, if an A, K, or Q comes you should still bet. Since, your opponent just called he could of had Ace little. So, even if an Ace flopped, he may put you on a Ace with a bigger kicker and fold. If you check, like you suggest, a good player will try and steal that pot away from you with nothing.
It was nice to see FossilMan yesterday as he was playing the $2,000 Limit Hold'em event. When I walked by and we spoke, he we ahead and I didn't see him later, so not sure how long he lasted.
JohnnyD
I heard he was chip 2nd leader on the bubble and busted out with AA.
J.K. Good luck FossilMan.
I saw on Pokerpages that Greg finished in 12th place in yesterdays Omaha hi/low event in the WSOP.
Congrats Greg.
Ken Poklitar
Thanks.
It was great, but very bittersweet. When we were on the bubble, I was a short stack, and had to play survival poker. I did take a chance of busting on one hand with KK23 when I defended my blind at a point where I had enough chips to fold and let others go broke first. I intended to flop to it or fold on the flop, and knew the button player (the preflop raiser and only other player left in the hand) was not the type of player to ever bluff in this spot, since he only had me outchipped by a slim margin. Anyway, the flop didn't help, but he checked behind me. The turn also didn't help, but I was sure I was ahead, so I called his turn bet. If he bets the river, I would be calling all-in. He didn't bet, and I won. Later, when at about 15 players, I was a co-chipleader with 2 other guys, and had a stack of T60,000 (playing 2/4,000 limit). Unfortunately, I took 3 bad beats in short order, and became the short stack again. In one of them, my opponent hit a 2-outer on the river to make a set of Qs against my AA55 plus low draw. The next one the same guy and Men the Master both hit the same 2-outer on the river to split my money.
Very unfortunate, or I would have made the final table in only my second WSOP event. Nothing noteworthy in the other 3 events I played. Maybe next year.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Greg,
I was glad to see that you made some money on this event, and hope it starts to change your opinion of Omaha 8B tournaments after you had bashed them previously on this forum.
I believe the more you play these tournaments, the more you will like them. But, just like any other tournament you still need to have your good hands hold up and a little luck. Especially, since you don't really know how good a hand you will have until you see the flop.
This happened last week at Pokerpages. I have $340 as we play the first NL hand of the tournament. I am in the BB with Kc9c
Mid position idiot (who had been playing Q7o, 73o etc in the Fixed Limit stages) raises $10 from mid pos, 2 callers and I call in the BB - the SB mucked. Flop comes:
9s 7c 4d
I check (???)
Idiot bets $20 (I smelled weakness like a big ace or overcards that flop missed), one caller, I flat call. Turn is:
5c (giving me 2nd nut flush draw)
I decide I'm going to make a BB special play at this ragged board representing 2 pair and bet out $50, the original raiser raises allin - I have him covered but it would leave me only about $40 in chips if I lose, other guy mucks and I call (after much deliberation - 19 seconds worth lol).
River is 4c and I take the pot with my flush and knock him out.
Questions:
(1) Should I have tried take the pot on the flop with top pair, King kicker? In a real $ game I would checkraise hard on the flop but as any of you who play at pokerpages know, the place is so full of idiots that they are not going to fold with 2 overcards - so I decided to wait to see a non-threatening turn card (or one that helped my hand more) before deciding my next move.
(2) Was I correct to bet out on the turn?
(3) Was I correct to call his allin bet?
Thanks again.
Wasp
mmmhh..
I would have bet on the flop. There is about T80 in the pot, so a bet of T75 here sounds good.
If he raises then you can determine your best course. (fold if you think he has a big pair, move-in (probably) if you don't)
If you do decide to check raise you won't know what he really has, since he could have a big pair, morons are dealt these hands too. So you could be committing a lot of chips in a guessing situation. So bet it and see.
The point that there are players who would call with overcards is irrelevent, I mean, you should welcome it. They are trailing and you make money with their calls. Also, they could have a K in their hand and hitting it, could bring you a lot of chips. Dummies add a lot of variance in any form of poker, especially in tournaments because they will draw out on you (and bust you). I does not mean it should stop you from making the best expectation play against them.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Just remember, idiots also get real hands!
Preflop I would call like you did. T85 in the pot.
On the flop, I would bet close to the pot. Make it T70 or so. If he re-raises you all-in then you need to decide if he has a higher pocket.
On the turn, your bet of 50 into a pot of 145 is not very much. You need to bet closer to 100. Again when you are re-raised al-in it is decision time. You are 4:1 against hitting your flush plus it is not the nut flush. You do have top pair, so you need to put him on a hand. If you think he has AK then call since only an ace wins it for him. If you think he has a higher pocket I would fold.
Ken Poklitar
I'm certainly no expert, but here's my 2 cents:
I know what you mean about the idiots at pokerspot. I played a hand in which there were two limpers. I had pocket aces and raised 70. The first limper called and then the second limper raised all in, which I was very happy to see. The first limper called the approx. 300 reraise. Who one? the limper of course with, you guessed it I'm sure, 6/4 offsuit that made a straight on the river. LOL!
I would be surprised to see that kind of play in vegas and/or higher buy-in touneys. Pokerspot is like a smooth, calm pond and Vegas is like a raging river!
I am not real wild about this hand in the first place. Especially since it opens up the door to get trapped when you hit the nine or the king. This basically leaves your only outs being a back door second nut flush or possibly hitting your king or one of the remaining two nines.
Anyway, once you decided to play the hand, I would prefer to bet out on the flop as I have become much more comfortable being the agressor versus the caller.
Since you called and then bet the turn, I have to ask you what you intended to do if if he raised your turn bet all-in? If you had planned on going all-in anyway, then I think you should have gone all-in first. This gives you another way to win when you were going to commit to the hand regardless.
Just my humble opinion.
J
anyone know the URL???
thanks,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Here you go
Nicolashttp://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/texastears/texastears.htm
Thanks Sasquatch,
I had read that article but if my memory serves me correct, there is a site where Tex Morgan gives you the exact increases with differrent tables.
I just can't find it anywhere...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
It's...
www.geocities.com/texstears
JohnnyD
Thanks JohnnyD,
Has he changed the site or I am crazy and there never was a couple of tables giving different scenarios???
You're right. There used to be more there. It appears some of the links are no longer active.
JohnnyD
I'm still turning this one over in my mind, as to whether this was a bad decision or not (regardless of what endedup being the bad results):
SITUATION- Several hours into a 7stud8 tourney, about 45% of starters are out. My stack, while not miniscule, is not huge either (3-4 stacks at my table were bigger than mine, didn't survey other tables).
Hand that, in effect, knocked me out: Two seats to my right has low card and opens. 8 showing UTG calls. I have rolled Q's. Two Jacks, one King, a 10 and an Ace are showing behind me. I decided to slowplay, in order to build my stack.
4th street, deuce catches brick, 8 catches 9, A catches brick and checks. I open now with Q 3. 5th street, I start raising, putting bring in and UTG all in (Ace was also raising with 4-low, i think...never completed it).
By the end, UTG had caught (as all-in) the 10-high straight to scoop most of the side pots- no low ever got completed. I was bounced soon afterwards.
My question- was it a mistake to decide to slowplay the trips?
If this is a ring game, I would have had less doubt about slowplaying (my ladies crippled the draws of all of the high hands).. but since the effects were so catastrophic to my tournament participation, I was wondering if I should rethink that as a general strategy.....
Comments?
Poker Pages says that Dave Crunkleton is a sports book writer. What did he do with all that money he won by making the final table twice at the WSOP?
I've been explaining my tournament strategy to my roommate in an effort to get him into those Paradise Poker mini-tournaments as a starter. Basically, my gist was this: When you have many bets in your stack (IE in the beginning, you have 800/15 = 52ish bets) you simply play your best game, leaning towards low-variance hands that are really unlikely to catch you in a hidden second best (pocket pairs, connectors).
When the chips are low, you start to get more desperate, looking for AXo or small pairs, basically, your "last and best chance".
When he asked me for a critical # of bets in one's stack to change gears, I was a bit stumped. I figured 5-6x the big blind was a good point - anything less looks vulnerable, anything more could conceivably cause some damage to higher stacks.
Is this sensical? Does my strategy have flagrant holes in it?
Thanks in advance.
M.
.
So I have been in Rhode Island for the past week for work and to play in the Foxwood’s daily tournaments. So far the results have been less then impressive. I have played 3 Hold’em tournaments (one No Limit) and they have all ended in a bad beat for me. This post is not about the beats. There is a moral to this story.
Bad Beat #1 – Tuesday No Limit
I have T425. Blinds are 50-100. I am in the BB with 64o. There are 2 callers. SB folds. T350 in the pot. Flop is 875 (rainbow). I have flopped a straight. I go all-in with my remaining T325. One player folds. After thinking for a minute or two, player with monster stack calls. Turn is a T. River is a J. Player shows Q9o for the nut straight.
Bad Beat #2 – Saturday Limit
I have T1025. Blinds are 150-300. I am UTG with 77. With the blinds coming up I decide to raise to 600. One cold-caller (CC) and another player (RR) re-raises to 900. I re-raise all-in. Both players call. T3525 in the pot. Flop is A73 (rainbow). I have flopped middle set. CC checks. RR bets. CC calls. Turn is a K. Both players check. River is a 9. CC checks. RR bets and CC calls. CC shows AQs. RR shows 99 for the rivered set. RR won this hand because of his re-raise preflop. CC did not play his Ace very hard because he was afraid of AK or AA.
Bad Beat #3 – Monday Limit
I have T625. Blinds are 150-300. I am in SB with JJ. There are 4 callers. I raise to T600. All call. T3000 in the pot. Flop is KQJ (rainbow). I flop bottom set. I bet my final 25. Fold, call, fold, bet 300 and all fold to the bet. I flip over my set and ask if he can beat my set. He says, "no". Turn is an 8. River is a K. Player says, “Now I can” as he shows KQ for the bigger boat.
Bad Beat or Not?
In all 3 cases I took terrible beats. I win 85% after the flop (84% after the turn) in the first beat. I win 90% after the flop (95% after the turn) in the second beat. I win 81% after the flop (91% after the turn) in the third beat. In the two limit tournaments if I win the last hand I quite possibly have enough chips to move into the money.
But although I was a big favorite in each case, the reason I lost the hands were because of my low chip totals. In all 3 cases I was a fairly low stack. If I have 2000 more chips in each hand, I win all but the last one.
In bad beat 1, when I flop the straight and make the same bet, it is quite likely the big stack does not call since I have chips left and he only has 2 overcards plus a gutshot. If he does call, I probably go all-in on the turn. Who knows if he would call my significant all-in bet on the turn.
In bad beat 2, I may not have to raise with 77 UTG. Assuming I still raise, the flop and turn will be played differently. I would go for the checkraise on the flop and then bet out on the turn. Does 99 call the turn bet? It is unlikely.
In bad beat 3, I wouldn’t have raised with JJ in the SB with 4 callers. I would have lost a lot of chips because the player who has KQ is not going to lay that down.
Moral
So the moral of the story is I lost 2 of these tournaments because I did not accumulate enough chips.
During the NL tournament I made a few medium-big ace preflop laydowns facing a raise. I should have been more aggressive during the rebuy period. During the Saturday tournament I raised with QQ and lost too much when a King flopped and I didn’t want to believe the BB could have one until he called both the flop/turn bets. Offhand I can’t think of any hands I should have played differently tonight.
Well I hope this helps you in the future, and before you say “Bad Beat”, look at your own play. Hey there is another No Limit tournament at Foxwoods on Tuesday night and I will be there.
Ken Poklitar
They happen--we just must live with them. Process over Result. Don't be result orientated--keep making strong plays. And you'll be just fine. We all know that though.
ny
well, here's the thing. you did get beat by hands that shouldn't have been in and had long shots on winning. but sometimes you have to gamble. sometimes you have to make moves even if you are a big underdog, or for whatever reason. but sometimes players have to take a shot. put your chips in before you know if you win or not. thats half the game of poker. the other half is this: all except for the turn-river straight drawing out on you the others had legitimate hands. legitimate in that it is possible that they believed they had the best hand. it is possible. and it is definitely hard for someone to throw away poket pairs. or top 2 pair. think about that, and then realize that you did what you could, you got all the chips in the pot that you could, when you had the best of it. but both of those hands had outs against you and they hit them, simple as that. i know it sucks, but it happens.
Ken,
Good Luck next time. I hate those hold'em limit tourney's. There's always someone there to call you down. At least in No-limit you have a better chance to win.
Great post. Glad to see how much you're improving yourself from these hands, instead of just whining about the beats.
A couple of repliers to your post may have missed your point.
Of course you play these hands. Of course it's unfortunate you lost. If you had lost to KQ while holding JJ simply because the board came rags plus a K or Q it wouldn't even stand out much.
The point is if you had somehow built up a bigger stack, and had enough chips to play these hands out further, you would have been much more likely to win them. Thus, not only would you not be eliminated, you'd have also won chips instead of losing them (well, the guy with KQ and top 2 in a limit tourney probably sees the river and wins anyway).
This doesn't mean that you missed opportunities earlier, and therefore lost these hands. There may not have been any opportunities worth pursuing that would have let you build up a bigger stack. You may have played every hand as perfectly as possible up until these beats.
But, the fact that you're thinking about this issue is strong.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Tournament players: I am interested in your comments on my Big stack bully power! post(s) in the `General theory' forum. Thanks.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I asked a similar question a (long) while ago and I think the consensus was that it was exact. I can't remember the reasoning. If it is only approximate then the difference is small.
Of course, the power of a large stack when there are still several players left in a tournament is a different (psychological) question, but I don't think this is what you are asking.
Andy.
It would be an advantage if it caused other players to not play optimally (for example if they played too tight and let you steal their blinds). However, I am assuming everyone plays optimally.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
`I asked a similar question a (long) while ago ... '
Do you know when? What forum? What subject heading? I tried searching the 2+2 archives, but that was like looking for a needle in a haystack, so I quickly quit. If you can't recall, then no big deal, but I am interested in what people said. Thanks.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Sorry Dirk, it could easily have been two years ago ! Greg might have been in the discussion but I'm sure he has bigger fish to fry right now :-)
Andy.
I recently read Hellmuth's Hand of the Week.
I know "It's Hellmuth", but raising preflop without looking at your cards in a $5000 No Limit Hold Em tournament does not seem to me to be a good way to play.
What do you folks think?
Here is an excerpt from the article: ---- With Richard pounding the blinds every hand, I decided that I’d seen enough; it was time to make some moves! It was time to be a player!
With the blinds at $50-$100, and me ready to gamble, the following hand came up between Richard and me. Richard opened the pot for $350 on the button, and I decided to reraise him $900 more in the dark (without looking at my hand, although I did pretend to look at it), making it $1,250 total. Richard called the $900 and the flop came 6´ 5™ 3®. Without even seeing my hand yet, I bet out $1,400, and Richard reached back and moved all of his chips (about $10,000) into the pot. So, I slowly peeked at my cards; first I saw a deuce, and then I saw a 6. I had flopped top pair and a gutshot-straight draw. OK, if Richard was bluffing or semibluffing with a straight draw, my hand wasn’t too bad. My focus turned to Richard. “What the heck does he have here, anyway?” I asked myself while I studied his face and movements, and replayed the preflop action in my mind. As I further contemplated putting in my last $6,000 with this very weak hand, I sensed that Richard was even weaker than I. The more I thought about it, the more I put him on a pair of fives with an ace kicker, or an ace with a 4 kicker for a straight draw, or pocket fours, which would give him a pair and a straight draw. After a minute, I decided that I had the best hand, so I pushed all of my remaining chips into the pot. It turned out that Richard had the 5u 4u, giving him an open-end straight draw and a pair of fives. I was right, I did have the best hand! But, could I hold him? He could win with a 5, for three fives, or a deuce or a 7 would give him a straight. The next cards were blanks (Q, 8), and I won the pot. The rest of the table just looked at Richard and me as if we were a couple of space aliens! I mean, here we were early in a $5,000 buy-in no-limit hold’em tournament putting in thousands of dollars with 5 high and 6 high! Of course, everyone there was expecting to see us holding big pairs as our holecards! Richard and I shook hands, smiled, and said to each other, “Boy, was that a fun pot to play, or what!” ----
It's a shame that Richard did not have pocket aces - that way Phil would of looked like a complete jackass - oh my bad, he already does
How come Doyle Brunson can say, "Give me the button on every hand and I can beat a man without looking at my cards" and nobody complains? Phil wasn't playing his cards. He was playing his opponent. It's no-limit. What cards you hold is insignificant to your ability to read the other players and what cards they hold.
If Richard had had a real raising hand, say Kings, he would have re-popped it pre-flop. Phil's got to put him on a position raise. Sure, hindsight is 20/20 vision, but I'll bet when Phil looked at his cards he knew pretty quickly that he had the best hand. Richard's all-in raise screams, "I've got outs, but I'd rather you fold right now."
And before someone gets their undies in a bind, I am not saying that playing a $5,000 tournament without looking at your cards is a good idea. Reread the article. You might learn something because I suspect Phil Hellmuth isn't advocating that either.
Phil's play is fine, IMO.
It's just a question of timing, who is he against and how can it be accomplished. How big is the event makes no difference. Good players(and of course great ones, like PH), pick their spots when they feel the opponent is weak.
When a player goes into super-aggressive mode, unless he is getting a really huge rush of good cards, you have to figure he does not have the goods all of the time. So, if he has been stealing a lot lately he has been doing so without the goods most of the time. A good player sees that and can hope to capitalize. When Richard raised on the button, this was a perfect opportunity for Phil to play back, because he really could have anything. So reraising preflop and betting regardless of the flop is fine. I mean, most of the times, noone will have improved on the flop. If Phil thinks that Richard is capable of raising with a hand like overcards, an open-ended, second or bottom pair, then I believe his play is great.
The point is, he read his opponent as weak. He believed his hand was likely the best and he played it accordingly. That's all there is to it.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
BTW, try it, it's fun... :-)
I agree with you as to what happened after the flop, but how he got there seems pretty goofy.
I am new to tournaments and trying to improve, I just wanted to see some discussion on the raise in the dark.
Raising in the dark was foolish.
It's one thing to decide to play the hand regardless of the cards you are holding based on a read, but you can look at your cards and play them better if you do have a "real" hand. You can still play them if you only have 62.
There are some cases you will play a hand dark. For instance, blinds are large, everyone folds to you in the small blind with a large stack, and bb is all in. You are going to play this hand no matter what you have.
If the button could be raising in the dark, then reraising in the dark is just taking it one step further and I have no problem doing it. And I'm no Phil H...
That said, there is more here than cards and chips. Sometimes in tournaments you need to put your feet down to protect future hands and to disguise future hands. If Richard folds preflop or on the flop, then Phil has stolen back a lot of previously stolen chips.
Sure, it's always nice to see AK when an opponent raises on the button and you think he's full of it, but that does not happen very often. The point is no matter what you have, sometimes it is correct to make an apparently -EV play. In the future hands, the button will know you are capable of repopping him, this might slow him down and if at some point you really do have a hand, well, BINGO!...
On the flop, it's only a question of reading and knowing your opponent.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I definately advocate the strategy you outline, but why not look at your cards in this spot? Play the hand regardless, unless you have something like AA or KK, then you might not want to raise but slow play the guy. It's not often you will, but you won't know unless you look, it doesn't cost anything, so why not, especially if you are going to the effort of "pretending" to look at your cards.
GEEEEEEEEZ! I gotta lot to learn. I'm obviously too much of a sally to pull these stunts. I have absolutely no way of getting a feel for whether someone is weak or not(in these type of shorthanded situations) This is especially true when I play on line, as I have no physical reads to base my opinion on.
How the hell did Helmuth put richard on a pair of fives? When I play shorthanded, I love it, but I benefit more on peoples passivity and tightness that they have grown accustomed to in their limit ring games. These types are pretty easy because they tend to only play back if they have a high pair or have hit one of their face cards. Wilder, reckless play leaves me pretty much bewildered and putting someone on a hand is much more difficult if not impossible for me.
Any tips on how to get a read on these shorthanded situations?
Well online it's sure more difficult.
No tells are available, no body language...
You just have to rely on what you know about your opponent.
On the other hand, it's easier to try at first online since there aren't any players looking at you, wondering what the heck was he thinking? when it backfires...
Just give it a shot...and you'll see...just remember to choose your spot and opponent carefully.
Good luck,
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
I think here reraising is more natural, since Richard probably knows Phil is capable of doing it in the dark, the best trap he can lay is by reraising.
Just imagine if Phil reraises preflop and bets in the dark only to find pocket tens in the hole when he gets popped back on the flop...
Also, if you are going to make the play anyway, looking at your cards can only make you give a tell. I know Phil H. is almost tell free but for you and me, maybe the fraction of a second from where you see the tens to what you decide can tip the strenght of your hand to a good player.
Obviously, this play should not be done too often but at the right times it's just another tool in your arsenal.
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
And you don't give away any "tells" pretending to look at your cards? If your claiming that seeing tens might give off a read, wouldn't not looking at all give one too?
It's always smarter to look at your cards before acting on them, when the situation does not demand they be played. Shame on you for telling otherwise.
Here's my guess as to Phil's motivation.
Contrary to Nicolas' post, I think Phil is somewhat concerned about tells. He is presently confident in his read of Richard, and is not doubting that read. Thus, by playing blind, he remains confident that he can win by bluffing out Richard, and this confidence may show through (and cause Richard to fold). If Phil were to look at his cards and see garbage, he will be disappointed. It is possible this will somehow show in his body language, and that Richard will sense it and not back down.
Thus, Phil chooses to play blind. Once Richard gives him action, Phil knows Richard has made some kind of hand, so Phil must now look at his cards and decide what to do.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
That hellmuth ALWAYS wins his hands of the week???
And anyone that calls themselves "great"... must be an egotistical ass. I have long since stop reading his articles as I often feel physically sick afterwards.
Cheers,
keith
I feel as a general theory that the statement "There will always be someone better" applies in all aspects of life. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but someday. As a kid, no one would ever be better than Magic Johnson or Larry Bird, then came Michael Jordon.
In short, to each his own. (I agree with your opinion however, I am pretty sure that Phil doesn't care lol)
what do you mean contrary to Nicolas's post?
I never said Phil was not looking for tells or wasn't carefull about giving one away himself...I just said Phil has a reputation for not giving many of them... (at least that's what I heard...)
No?
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
BTW Greg, nice to see you back, hope you killed them in the ring games and congratulations for your 12th place finish...we'd love to hear about it.
I STRONGLY ADVOCATE PLAYING BLIND. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ALL MY APPONENTS DO IT!
ok here is the situation: my first tournament ever. im a beginning player with a little over a year playing experience total. a lot of that is dumb home games and low limit play at casinos, but ive studied a lot, and i went to the bicycle to play in one of their daily tournaments. this was a $15 buy-in no-limit with rebuys for the first hour. well, i didn't rebuy, i did one double add-on (i was over the limit for a single add-on). i played rather tight. never played a draw, never even entered a pot without a decent ace or a large pair and if i did, i was raising. i'd say i got lucky twice in the whole tournament. first time i got lucky, i had pocket aces which i wouldn't say is lucky by itself, but the thing is, i was the big blind, and before it came back around to me, pocket jacks and pocket queens had both gone all in already. i gladly went in against them, and i took the pot. second lucky time was later. (you start with 200 dollars in chips, just for reference) i had just taken a heavy blow, was down to about 2000-3000 and the blinds were 200/400. UTG raises 500 dollars. i have A-6 offsuit. i figure i am going to have to buy a pot before too long, and i decide this ace, though bad, is probably going to be my best bet to do so. i raise all in, and player 2 seats to my left contemplates for a minute or so, and goes all in too. i am a bit scared right now. everyone else folds, including the original raiser. we turn over our hands, and to my dismay he has pocket kings. i can barely watch the dealer deal the rest of the hand. i stand up, i dont even see the flop at first, and everyone at the table erupts! flop is 667! another 7 and then a blank, and i am scooping the pot. the kings is quite pissed, and i almost feel i have to apologize to him for laying such a bad beat on him. i do say something, like 'man, you had the best hand. it was a good play.' well, anyway, those were the lucky times. i made it to the final table, playing pretty tightly. i made a mistake, and called the blind after one other call with pocket tens, no raise, flop comes AK5 rainbow, check to me, i go all in, and nobody calls. ok so i am at the final table. 9 players, and i am kind of short stacked. i have 18,000 and i have 2 other players beat by no more than 1000. blinds are 1,000/2,000 and during the break, i tell myself i am just going to sit tight and not make too many moves, and just let the other guys knock each other out. well, first hand, one guy goes out, leaving 8. i get dealt AhQh in the big blind. UTG calls (how do you call in that position? you gotta raise. gotta. otherwise you just shouldn't be playing hands in that position at all.) and next guy who i have outstacked by 200 bucks, goes all-in. the other guy i have beat by about a thousand or so calls all in as well. everybody else passes to me, and i figure i may have the best hand here, considering how the first all-in was kind of a loose player. UTG now folds. we 3 are all-in, so we lay down our hands. i figured the second all-in to have 8's 9's or 10's and sure enough he had 9's. first guy i figured for TJsuited or QJsuited. he had TJ suited. now i know i am beat here by the 9's but i have 2 overcards on both hands, and straight and flush draws. well, needless to say, a J came on the river and JTsuited took down the pot. i had 200 dollars left, the 9's busted out in 8th, and my 200 dollars was not even enough to cover the full antes on the next hand. let alone my small blind. well, my cards the next hand were worthless, and i busted out in 7th place. i want to know if i made the wrong move to go all in there. i mean, i think i probably did, just because i had told myself that i was going to sit tight, and 3 hands later i CALL and all-in with 2 other players already committed. i wasn't even raising all-in, i was calling!! let me know what you think. i really felt like i had the best hand perhaps, and some pretty good outs.
I don't think you say you got lucky with A's. It happens.
Your A-6 hand was a move. If you thought you could get the original raiser to lay down, this was a legit play, unfortunately you made it at the wrong time. Fortunately, you got very lucky. You have to make it expensive for the original raiser to call, and you did, but the K's took the beat here.
Your second to last hand was a mistake in my mind. Your hand is a raising hand, not a calling hand. You should have folded to 2 all-ins. I always try to double through against a single opponent unless I have a big pair. You actually got your money in in a very good spot for your hand, but you didn't get lucky.
Just My Thoughts.
Derrick
Sounds like you went against your own best advice and got burned. You said "i tell myself i am just going to sit tight and not make too many moves, and just let the other guys knock each other out". Well, you had 2 people all-in, with one left to decide and you played anyway, and without even a pair. I don't understand your thinking that because one all-in player was loose that the caller would be too, giving you best with AQs. This hand can be best at times, but this table is still relatively full and two people are saying they are willing to bust out with their hands. You were right that the first guy was on a steal (not a bad move after a limper), but the caller tips the balance strongly toward fold. You are going to lose one player minimum on this hand. Let 'em go and wait for a better spot.
Nice finish regardless.
KJS
thanks for the advice. i agree that i should have folded, but i felt like AQsuited was a hand with outs. i even put the 9's on that hand, and i hadn't seen him play a hand yet. so yes i knew that i made the wrong move, but its always good to hear how other people say it.
and i didn't think i got lucky to have aces, i got lucky to have 2 other people at the table go all-in before me with JJ and QQ.
Here is my first and last hand of today's PokerPages Tournament. Could I , or should I have done anything different. This is all true, not a joke.
First hand, my screen shows Black Aces in the hole, Im in the cutoff seat. There have been two limpers.
A month of debating this hand, and it's all about to go down. But alas, the first five minutes or so of Pokerpages NL Tounaments start off as limit (someone please explain the rationale of that function).
The bet is 5 to me, I raise the full amount (5), and the sb folds, bb calls, the two limpers call.
Flop A8T all diamonds. Ouch. Sb brings it in. Limpers both fold. I'm not really sure I know what I want to do here.
I decide that I probably am up against a pair and a diamond and that I will just call, then raise him on the turn if a diamond doesn't fall, in which case I will just call him down and raise if the board pairs the river.
Turn J diamonds. Oh man. Now there are a couple of straights out there too. Sb bets, I call. The reason I don't raise any, is because I can't be sure my hand is the best, and I'm sure he won't fold any draw.
River blank, sb bets, I call and he shows me Q7 of diamonds for a flopped flush. Just Beautiful. Well at least it wasn't NL yet, because this hand would have broke me on the flop.
Last hand. Blinds 10-20. I'm utg with JJ (3rd in chips at table with around 550) and raise 20. The table has become hyper-psycho-aggressive at this point. Someone is going all in on almost every flop with top or middle pair or any draw, and most of those times getting action.
Everyone folds around to the small blind, he calls, bb calls. Pot T120.
Flop 2 4 6 rainbow. Great! SB checks. BB (the chip leader, loose player) bets 400. What the *%$#!
If he made a set or the straight, I'm sure he or anyone would check to the preflop raiser and set a trap vs driving out everyone with an oversize bet. If he had AA KK or QQ, I'm sure I would have been re-reraised preflop.
So what does he have? Two overcards? A straight draw? A3 or A5 or A6 with a backdoor flush draw? a med pair 77-TT? A flat out bluff? I beat all these hands. A call would be proper. But if he has a set or 35 I'm likely to pack it in. I still have over 500 in chips, (3rd at table),the field is down to 120.
Still very worried about the small set, I decide I'm going to raise all in, since i'm commited to the hand, and don't want to give him the free card if he is bluffing with an A or K or Q, I'd rather give him the chance to fold, small as it may be that he will.
If I win, I probably have close to 1200, and a real good shot at making round 2. If I lose, I'm out. If I folded, I would still be in it, with average chips.
Well, he called my all in bet. The cards came out faster than I could keep up with, and when the smoke cleared, a little message box was staring back at me from a shaded screen with the caption "You finished 120 out of 200, Better luck next time". I friggin hate the Pokerpages game.
What happened? The turn was as an 8 filling that man's 57 for a straight.
Did I play the first hand correctly? Should I have busted with JJ there?
Hand 1- I would have raised the flop. You will gain information on the cheap street and can use your position to decide how to proceed on the turn and river.
Hand 2- You won't get far on PP folding overpairs on a hand like that. Players are constantly offering you stack-doubling gifts by moving all into unraised pots with ragged flps on a draw, foolish bluff, or a top pair of rags-no kicker. They are much more likely to be doing this than betting a flopped two-pair, set or straight. And the wise guys that like to limp with Aces generally go for an all-in check raise on the flop so I wouldn't worry about that here.
The best thing about the PP tourneys are that they are free. In the early stages I would play tight preflop but play top-pair and overpair hands for all of your chips after the flop. The weaker players treat it like the free event that it is and won't fold any top pair shit kicker, 6 out draw, or even underpairs if there is no Ace or King.
You will build a stack that allows you to outplay people later on or bust out on the rare occasions you run into a better hand or they draw out on you.
I think I totally am starting to agree with your strategy on how to win these tournaments. However, it leaves me with a dilemna.
I think that chances of actually winning a round three prize are phenomenally low, even for the best NL players in the world. So, I really don't entertain the idea of getting anything out of these games aside from experience. Hell, they even took away the T-shirt incentive. I play these tourneys as practice and training for real events.
If I can't apply the same strategies I would in a real game, then aren't these tourney's a waste of time? Kind of like playing carribean stud to improve your poker game?
Ok, Why would you raise the flop on Hand 1?
Are you going to fold your set of Aces if he re-raises you? I wouldn't. He is not going to fold to your bet. I'm going to have to see the river on this hand. And most likely call him down. I would rather save the five in chips then earn an extra five, so I can pop him on the river for a double bet.
1. You will get more valuable "real world" experience in the latter stages, and it will only matter if you have some chips. Otherwise, you will be forced to move in before the flop and deal'em out. This is consistent with the strategy for winning. It is also how I would play a large ield, low buy-in live event. There is simply not much equity in just surviving. Youshouldn't play bad hands like a loose maniac, but you should avoid the big laydowns early.
2. Onto the limit hand. If he reraises you or calls your raise on the flop, what do you think he will do on the turn when the 4th diamond comes? What about if a blank comes? What will you do? If he leads again on the turn, are you really going to call on the river if you don't improve?
If I do raise, whne he bets the river I'll be getting 10:1 to call.
I don't know if I could lay down the set AA on PokerPages getting 10:1, and not knowing what type of player this is, being the very first hand. Even with the four diamonds.
In another game, your are are absolutely correct, this type of raising and lay down seperates the winners from the real big winners.
What about raising the turn when the fourth diamond hits?
If he has an ace it will cost you an extra $10, but you will maximize your winnings if he happens to fold his queen high flush or if you hit your boat on the river and then who know how many raises you might get in.
If he calls your turn raise and then checks the river, you can check along with him if you miss your boat, cuz you know he won't fold anyway. Raising his turn bet costs you the same (unless he re-raises) as it would have if you call the turn and then call the river. However, your raise on the turn opens many more opportunities to win.
Just my humble opinion
These are good value bets, but it is a tourney, and holding on to chips I already have is a little more important (to me at least) than pushing marginal edges.
BTW, I don't think there is anybody that would have folded thier Q high flush in a PokerPages Tourney. Whne the fourth diamond hits. I see more bluffing in that tournament than the grand canyon.
Gator,
Michael7 is right with his advice on the play of the limit hand. On the flop you should raise. Since, you saw the flop with three other opponents it is very likely that someone flopped the flush or a draw to it. By raising on cheap street you should be able to slow him down and maybe get a free card on the turn. You don't have to be worried about getting reraised, because he does not want to lose a customer if he has the flush. Most likely he will fold the hand if he was bluffing after you raise him. Usually, the average player with the nut-flush will not bet the flop, but if he flopped a flush he will call you. In this situation, if your oppenent checks the turn, you should check, because his call on the previous round indicated that he has the flush. Now, you have 10 outs to make a better hand.
On the JJ hand you really don't want no more than two opponents. Forget the bull about raising three and a half times the big blind, this is PokerPages. From the times that I've played these tournaments you need to raise big to drive out players. Raise an amount that you think only one player may call. I would bet about 90 or 100 pre-flop with the 10-20 blind structure.
Good Luck
Ok I've tought about that first hand a little more and agree, raising the flop was the best play ring or tournament.
He probably would not have raised me back, but waited until the turn to do it. If he does, then I call, then call the turn and fold the river if I miss. Same amount as the way I played, but I win 10 more when than when I hit.
So most likely case: I raise and he doesn't raise back (hoping for the check raise on the turn) and the fourth diamond comes he most likely would've checked, and I would've bet, then I could've checked down the river and seen his flush, saving the bb for a total of five saved on the hand. If I hit the river or turn, I could have made an extra five with a bet on the trun and river.
Sometimes he will bet out the turn and river when the Kd falls and he has the nuts, I still have to call Sometimes I make my boat on the turn, then he makes the Kd on the river, and I get a few extra bets.
If I raise the flop, then bet the turn when a blank falls and am check raised, I know I am beat, but I have to call and fold the river if I miss. This costs me an extra five, than the way I played it. Of course I make an extra 15 when I hit the river, so there is the big difference in value.
My brain is fried from that.
The biggest problem here is that the extra five or ten is meaningless, when the players are willing to call a T300 bet every hand with a lot less than that Q7 flush.
I thoroughly agree that the pokerpages tourneys are full of wild people, but I think the stratedgy suggested only exposes you to one more bet(at most, but more likely no extra bet at all) than you would have lost by calling the turn and river.
I'm assuming you have an automatic fold on the river if he bets into you because with his reraise on the turn, you know you are beat and the fold is safe. So, for the one extra bet(at most)that you would risk:
a. you may win the whole pot right there (agreed unlikely on pokerpages)
b. you may win one to two extra bets if you hit your boat.
c. Its HIGHLY likely to lose the EXACT number of bets you did by calling the turn & river
This is an upside with little to no risk. I think this play would be advantageous inside or outside of a tournament. Its really not an issue of pushing an edge, as you dont have one at that point.
If the bets were that valuable to you, maybe you should have folded on the turn.
River blank, sb bets, I call and he shows me Q7 of diamonds for a flopped flush. Just Beautiful. Well at least it wasn't NL yet, because this hand would have broke me on the flop.
It seems to me that you've been going on for a month or so about how you wouldn't go all-in as a 2:1 favorite early in a tournament. Maybe I'm taking this out of context or something, but it looks like you're saying that you'd go all-in as an apparent 2:1 dog. Am I missing something?
"Am I missing something?"
I think so. Replay the action on the hand. The sb with his made flush would have made a decent size bet, or even checked onto me. I could not and would not have the knowldedge to put him on the flush in the first hand of this event, big bet or check, so I would have raised all in to shut him out, figuring he had a hand with outs to the flush draw, maybe K or Q. Maybe he has two pair or a set, In wich case I am a huge favorite. Maybe he has AK and is trying to shut me out. Maybe he has nothing and is bluffing like a lot of these practice no limit players. I think that least likely, he does have the flush, but I have lots of outs if he does.
So basically in this hand, I feel that with my AA, I am a much bigger than 2:1 favorite most of the time, and when I am wrong, (beaten by a made flush) I am aout even money to win it.
Also keep in mind that I would be making all the moves on this hand, giving him the opportunity to fold (maybe he does with a weak flush) instead of being the last in.
Thier are lots of possible situations that could have occured on this hand if it were No Limit, but I don't think I could have known for sure he made the flush on any of them.
I think you should have folded the JJ (though maybe not on pokerpages).
While he might not have a straight, the times he has any hand that currently beats JJ, you never have many outs, and will lose pretty often. When he's on a draw, he has 5 outs (1 pair), 8 outs (straight draw), or even up to 13 outs (1 pair plus straight draw). With 8 outs he gets there almost 1/3 of the time, with 13 outs about half the time. The only time you're really getting the best of it is when he has a pocket pair between 77 and TT. All added up, this is probably a slightly -EV play.
And it's for all your chips, right? I certainly don't put your chances at better than 2:1 here. Much closer to 50/50, and maybe less.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I think you are right in real life. I only made it 40 to go from utg, so I could get away from the hand if I had to on a bad flop.
The flop I got made it real tough, my hand looks pretty good, but gives that guy lots of opportunity. I didn't have much of a read on the player, just a loose generaliztion. I think I got paranoid that he had nothing and put me on two overcards, and tried to push me off the hand becuase I had been playing tight. I think I outplayed myself. The best move would have been to fold the JJ and be patient (you outlined the reasons well).
Thanks
.
More than 400
According to pokerpages, 441.
Is Binions running multitable satelites for all of the tournements?
If so...
1. How much are the buyins? (2% of main entry cost like the big event?)
2. How many places pay?
3. How many chips do you start with?
4. How often do they run them?
I'm looking specifically for multitable satelites for the lower buyin limit and no limt tournements.
Thanks
Jeff
Jeff,
Binions only has multitable satellites for the $10,000 event. All the others are listed at there web site at www.binions.com. If I remember correctly, the smaller events are one table satellites for 10% of the entry fee plus $20. So, if you are planning on playing a $1500 event it will cost you $170.
When are these one table satellites for the smaller events? Thanks.
The run throughout the day before the event and usually they run several tables right before an event starts. Just go to the satellite area and get your name on the list. As soon as ten players are signed up they start. They usually run several at the same time. So, for a $1500 event you pay $170 ($150+20). Go to www.binions.com for details.
Recently there has been some discussion on how much your equity rises by doubling your stack at the beginning of a no-limit tournamnet. In tonight's no limit event at the Bike (T1000 to start 10-15 blinds) I doubled up on the first hand and would liek to add my thoughts about it. In my case I got all-in before the flop with the worst hand and drew out; this gave me a good table image. The other players stayed clear of me because I now could set them in while only risking half my stack (3 hands later I busted another player). Beside the mathmatical edge of having double chips there are gains from having played a hand all-in. Also having a "big stack" right away is an advantage becasue I believe large stacks tend to get larger. ALso I discovered a serious leak in my game.
I was doing really well in the tournamnet and was the chip leader unitl well after the first break. Then my table broke and here comes the leak. At my original table I had a really good feel for the players and could pick up most of the pots where nobody really liked there hands. At the new table my table image was gone, so now when I decided I was going to lean on the pot I was called in two places. I need to work on this part of my game; when your table breaks you undergo a dratics change of scenery compared to when players come to your table one at a time the table slowly evolves. If anyone has any thoughts on how they handle this situation I would love to hear them
Randy Refeld
As Bruce Lee once said (I'm paraphrasing), "When water enters a cup, it becomes the cup. When it enters a vase, it becomes the vase. Water shapes itself according to it's container. Water is flexible. Be like water my friend."
Wow, that is an impressive quote!
Ken Poklitar
good question. this illustrates very well that you need to be acutely aware of your game at all times, and how your opponents view you. every time you sit at a new table your image is starting over in everybody's mind. and you need to watch and get to know how other people are playing. if you knew those guys wre calilng people down, it would have effected your play. i played my firs tournament at the bike a couple weeks ago, just their regular $15 no-limit tournament, and i took 7th. i played super tight, and my opponents picked up on this, and i was able to steal when i needed to every once in a while. i took 7th place, which is not bad for a first time i thought. i played the next one and my first table was totally different. there were 2 guys saying they were all in on the first hand before the cards were dealt. they were calling everything at least to see the flop, and i couldn't steal to save my life. and stupid me made a dumb move and attacked the blinds from middle position with rags. of course i got called down. too bad. that's how i learn i guess. who out there is from southern california? where do you play? how often? are there any professionals who would be willing to teach an aspiring young player? give me a few pointers, have a beer and give me the lowdown on the local players im up against, and where the best games are etc. im sort of looking for someone who i can keep in contact with who actually knows what they are doing, not just my regular poker buddies because they frankly aren't the best players, and i don't learn anything from them anymore. i still love them, but i need someone who is better than me to learn from. any takers?
So I played the Foxwoods NL tourney last night. I played well throughout the tourney and had T4025 chips when we got to the final table.
Blinds are 200-400. Antes are 25. 1st hand of final table. Tourney pays 10 spots, although most of money is in top 3. My stack is just average size (maybe 4th or 5th).
Seat 4 (UTG+1) goes all-in with 1450. I look down and see TT. Seat 4 sat to my left for the first 4 hours. He is quite aggressive. I figure there is a 40% chance he has a pair (any), 40% he has two overcards and 20% he has one over and one under. I am in seat 7. There are 3 players acting after me plus the 2 blinds. One of the players after me has the smallest stack. Two of the stacks after me can bust me out. Two of the stack would critically hurt me.
Based on my read of the player, I decide to push it all-in. SB who can bust me calls my all-in.
Of course the board does not give me a set. UTG+1 has 99. SB has AA.
My read of the initial player was correct. The question of course is with 4 players acting after me that could hurt or bust me, do I fold, call or go all-in? If I calculate it correctly there is only about a 10% chance that one of those 4 players have JJ+ or AKs. And I am not sure that JJ or QQ or AK would call my all-in raise.
If I only call then someone after me with a big ace might call based on the size of the pot.
So what would you do?
Ken Poklitar
Fold. I think you can make the first raise with tens in that position but with 5 people behind you and no chance of winning without a showdown already, there is too much chance that someone else will find a hand I think. Raising may be better than calling but I'd rather pass. Don't take it on yourself to knock people out, it will happen soon enough.
Of course if you were in the BB this would be much more of a call (though not automatic), but you aren't !
Andy.
Andy,
What hand would you want in my position to re-raise all-in?
If you had a perfect read of the initial raiser would you still fold? For example, you knew he had 99.
I am not saying I had a perfect read, I am saying that based on his play, his comments throughout the 4 hours I sat beside him and his current chip count that I felt comfortable (2:1 favorite?) that I could beat him and gain 2300 chips. If it was any other player on the table I muck the hand.
With only 4 players to act after me it is unlikely (10% or so) I come against a big hand that would call my big raise. And of course it happened, cie la vie.
I can't imagine folding TT in the BB, SB or the button in this situation.
If the initial player does not raise all-in, then I would raise to 1200. If the SB goes all-in I probably fold since it is the first hand I had played with the guy but of course that didn't happen.
Ken Poklitar
What hand would I want to re-raise ? Depends entirely on my read of the raiser. And that's never going to be perfect :-).
It also depends on whether the players behind you will fold AK and AQ. I was basically thinking that they wouldn't. If they would then a raise is more of an option.
Andy.
I would push allin too... by reraising you will shut out hands like AK, AQ behind you.. most players would only call behind you will only call with AA or KK... I would risk putting my chips in as long as i was CERTAIN of my read of the play acting before me. It is a great chance to add 50% to your stack.
I think folding is a negative playwhich is designed to inching up the leaderboard... I want to win, not come 5th.
Obviously, calling is NOT an option.
Cheers,
Keith
I would also have pushed all in. You can't be concerned whether one of only 4 players behind you has AA or KK. I think even QQ would have a tough time calling your all in here. Nevertheless, all of these hands are very unlikly with only 4 players. Your concern is with the player that went all in. If you feel confident of your read, which you did, then all- in is the only option. Your not gonna win the tourney without winning at least one of these types of pivotal hands at the final table.
Peace
Goodie
Ken,
I think this is a very tough decision, with some very good points made on both sides of the debate. Assuming your read of the player is correct (which it looks like was right on target), you would win head's up about 60% of the time. But even here, you stand to lose the other 40%. Good, but not great odds.
But, when you figure there is even a 10% chance that someone holds a JJ+, where you are a huge statistical dog, or even an AK, where it is almost even money, I think prudence dictates mucking the hand. The problem is your downside is everything you have, while your upside is limited to a 50% increase in chips if your plan works as hoped.
Personally, I would not go all in at that point with less that QQ. I know this may be overly cautious, however, and I certainly do not hitnk it is a "no-brainer" between going all on or folding. Congrats on making it to the final table!
Mark
I have just switched tables.I could not catch a hand at the other table.I sit down and raise twice and steal the blinds witch are 200/400.At this point the blinds double up to 400/800 I have 1800 left.The table has been very tight except when some one was close to the felt and then they would take their shot.I pick up AK in the cutoff and raise 1600.The small blind(this is a player that i beat all the time in cash games and is not a very good player)he calls with KJo The flop comes down 2J2 and he bets and i put in my last 200 and he takes it down. My question is in this position should i raise all in or call and then call if i get raised and if i just call fold if the flop doesn't hit me and wait the four hands until my big blind and see if i get lucky?Pleas help i really enjoy the tournaments but it seems alot of the time i get people drawing to 5 or less outs and i just can't get there.Oh the people that take me out don't ever book a winner in cash games.thanks
You were too short stacked to just call. With the amount of chips you had left you should just move in pre-flop. With this hand you want to see all five cards. When you move in with AK pre-flop you will hit either an Ace or King 48.7% of the time.
Another benefit of having AK is that it is very unlikely that someone has a pair of aces or kings, due to less combinations available. This time you were unlucky. You had a better hand and lost. Even the best players lose to suck outs. For example, the last hand at last years WSOP between TJ Cloutier and Chris Ferguson. TJ had AQ and Chris had A9. Chris caught a nine on the river.
Usually the players that draw to gut-shots and long-shots will lose all their chips. I've seen plenty of players that play recklessly and break a lot of good players, then eventually lose their whole stack before the end of the tournament.
Early in the pokerpages tournament, I have about 500 chips and get JJ in mid position. I raise 25 and button (who has only shown down one hand so far, Q-10s for a rivered flush, but lost some other pots including a very passively played AA) reraises all in for his last 250.
Call?
What is the best hand he could have that you would be willing to call against?
I would call. In a PP-type or small buy-in event, he would have to show me an overpair before I would fold. Early on I'lll take those 50/50 coin flips when the pot is laying slightly better.
I believe you better get busy living or get busy dying.
I'm a tournament novice with limited experience in multi-table limit tourneys (most of my experience is in the Paradise single table tourneys or on the IRC no-limit tourneys.) I entered a multi-table tournament on Planet today: $27+3, 190 entries, everyone starts with T100, blinds of 1-3 and limits of 3-6. Blinds rise every 15 minutes, which on Planet is about every 12 hands or so. I was eliminated in the 2nd level, and only got to play 2 hands to the river and 1 which I folded on the flop. Are these normal blind/stack sizes for small buy-in tournaments with a decent sized field? They seem to be a lot smaller than I would have anticipated, and I was pretty surprised to only be able to play 2 hands. If they are small, what strategy adjustments should be made?
Additionally, the tournaments on Planet use a payout scale where there's little difference between finishing at any individual place between 4th and 18th, the payout doesn't go up by more than 1% of the entry pool between each. Then there's a big gap between 4th and 3rd and even bigger gaps between 3rd and 2nd and 2nd and 1st. I suspect this means you should play pretty aggressively once you make the money and not be too concerned with inching your way up the pay ladder, right?
-Sean
It appears that since the blinds rise every 15 minutes that these tournament are luck orientated. The small buy-in tournaments at the Orleans in Vegas are a much better deal. At the Orleans the buy-in is $20 with unlimited rebuys for $10 and you can do a $10 add-on at the break. If I remember correctly, I believe the blinds rise every 30 minutes.
I would not be interested in the type of tournament this web site offers. The structure that they set up is only playable for a one-table satellite. My reasoning is as players are elimated from a one-table satellite you will be able to start playing more hands.
I was playing in the $2000 no limit holdem event on april 24, 2001. We had been playing about 4 hours, the blinds were $50-$100, but on the next hand we were going up to $100-$200. I only had about $1800 in chips and was low to the table. Everyone folded to me in the small blind and I held 88. The big blind had alot of chips, and had gambled early to get them, but had now slowed down. How would you play?
I raised it to $400....he came over the top...I put him on nothing but maybe overcards....If I was right was it time to take a 50/50 shot at doubling up or should I have waited?
Thanks for any input......
it aint 50-50. you are getting 25 to 14 to win the pot. and being so low you have got to play unless you are sure he wouldnt raise without a big pair. by only coming in for 400 you set yourself up for maybe a steal and now you have to gamble.
Thank you for the comment. Would you have made a bigger raise to avoid giving the steel opportunity, or maybe limped and bet the flop no matter what hit?
It turned out that he had J9 and hit the 9 on the turn to beat me...oh well...
The two positions where people generally steal from are the button and the small blind. The BB probably figured you for a steal. You have to call. You might want to raise half your stack so that he knows you are committed to this hand. But, I think you played it right.
Hi!
I just returned from the WSOP, played the 2000 Limit Holdem and the 2000 No Limit Holdem Events, finished about 75th in both events, so played a lot of hours but no money.
Anyway, I just want to post a few hands I think it may be interesting to discuss.
NLH 2000
After dinner, blinds 150-300 with 25 ante
Im the low stack at a very tough table, with the 2 chip leaders of the tournament(at the moment) to my left and Kenny Flaton, Louis Asmo, Berry Johnston to my right.
Im in the little blind (150), I have about 3600 left, Syracuse Chris (middle position) raises to 800 (He has about 6000), Louis Asmo reraises to 3000 (He has about 8000) near the botton. I have pocket queens, what should I do?
a) Reraise all in b) call c) fold
If I think that Chris is going to call, then I let the queens go. They're probably a loser with a raiser and a re-raiser in the pot. There's about 1,500 in the pot when Louis re-raises to 3,000 I would tend to respect that raise. Even against AK you are only a slight favorite. If I suspect that Chris will fold, then I might go all-in here depending on my read of Louis.
You've got enough chips for three more rounds and you are about to have better position. Even shortstacked position helps. I know queens are the third best hand, but you will probably get a better chance to double up soon. Let them duke it out. So, what did happen?
Fold, but it's close.
Clear fold in my view.
In a limit game, this call while usually correct isn't always. But it is close. However, in no limit your penalty for being wrong is greater. Thus it should usually be a fold unless you have good reason to believe the raiser is out of line.
a fold is in order, IMO...
Why take a chance here, you have plenty of chips to gamble later...
Nicolas Fradet (ThePrince)
Fold, because of who the raiser is, Louis Asmo. He is known to be a very tight player. The chance that he has a worse hand than QQ is very slight. AK is about the best you can reasonably hope for, though JJ is also a slight possibility. If it were somebody else, and if Chris had been playing aggressively, then maybe you can go all-in because they may have been re-stealing from Chris more than raising for value.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Yeah, as I thought, you are right guys, I made a mistake and call, Louis has KK, I should think a little more, this guy was Louis Asmo and He's very tight, and there is another fact, He only reraises to 3000 instead of reraising all in, if he'd had AK or JJ I think he'd raised all in (or at least a bigger raise to the 800 Chris raise) instead of only reraise to 3000. And I agree, still with 3600, I could've wait a little more. Well, that's all you need, one mistake and you're out, as Mason said the penalty is bigger in no limit.
David
Sklansky on final table of Limit Omaha today
My buddy Dangerous Dan and I left down town Las Vegas at 3p.m. yesterday heading for the Mirage 5.p.m. stud tournament. Before we left I stopped into see what was going on in the WSOP 2000 Limit Omaha Event. I walked around for a bit and spotted Sklansky sitting at one of the tables and I thought he looked a little dejected. I was wrong of course. David always looks the same when he is playing poker. The fact that he had the shortest, almost no-existent, stack I believe affected me more than it did him. I felt bad for him because I din't give him much of a chance of surviving to the next blind structure. I believe they were playing 50-100 at the time. A word of warning. I may not have all the facts entirely correct here but they are close.
After I finished 11th, they paid 5, in the stud tourney and was totally demoralized because of the way I knocked myself out I headed back to Binions to see if Dangerous was playing Pot Limit Holdem. He loves that game. He left the Mirage to pick up his wife at the airport and then went back down town. BTW Fossilman is a big fan of pot limit also but he oves PL Omaha. He left here at noon yesterday. I drove him to the Airport. Ain't I a nice guy. I miss Fossilman already. He's the best. When I was at the Mirage, BillM walked up and said hello and we chatted for a bit. I love talking to 2 + 2 posters. But I still walked into the WSOP event room kicking myself in the butt for my poor play in the tournament.
Just as I entered the room they were crowning Phil Helmuth as the winner of the $2000 NLH event. He beat T.J. Layne Flack was third.
I toured the WSOP room and counted four limit Omaha tables left. I looked at the payoff and noticed they were paying 18 places. I walked over to the Pot Limit section and didn't see Dangerous and was about to leave when I spotted David sitting at the fourth table. I was amazed, he was still among the tournament living. I quickly walked over to a spot where I could see his chip count. To my total disbelief it had not changed! He was the short stack at his table and I believe, in the whole field. I looked to see who elase was still in there at the first table was none other than Tom McEvoy. Yeah, you guys are thinking what I was thinking. Wouldn't it be great? I looked at his stack. He had a comfortable stack with a good chance, IMO, of making the money.
Since this was just after the dinner break and I didn't think I would get a chance to say hello to David I was going to leave but decided to stay and watch for a just a little while. After about 30 minutes another table broke and David moved to the third table. Still he had no chips. Now there were 27 players left. I thought to myself that David had really done great to make it this far without ever having even a medium stack. I was about to leave when David caught my eye and smiled in acknowledgement. I decided to stay a little longer. Soon there was a break. During the break I worked myself around to where I could be behind David and watch him play. When he got back from break he came up to me and we talked a little. He then began playing and I moved right behind him and began "sweating". I'm sure my "sweating" is the reason for things going as they did.
David played like the poker genius he is from there on. About one hour after they began playing with 27 there were 21 players left and there were three short stacks. David was one of them. Well by some stroke of good fortune the other two short stacks got knocked out quickly, leaving David on the buble with the shortest stack. I believe the blinds were 200 - 400 and David had about T3500 when he lost a hand holding K,K,Q,Q chopping his stack down to under T2000. Acouple of hands later he went all in and won! And then it happened. A player on the other table went broke and David was in the money! David had just commented to me that the difference between finishing 19th and 18th was much greater than the difference of finishing almost anywhere else in the payout except when you get near the big money. When he got close, he played to make the money. He did. Now he said he could play freely because the next big step was 9th place.
An interseting thing occurrd when they got down to 15 players. Two lurkers standing next to me began to critisize David. Not to David, just among themselves but loud enough that I could hear them. One of them went on about how David knew nothing about playing poker. That his books were all mathematical and meaningless. The other luker chiming in about needing people skills too besides math. The first then saying yeah and Sklansky's math is wrong too! He said that his buddy told him that Sklansky's math was way off! I was about to pounce all over these two but instead just looked one of them right in the eye and sarcastically smiled. Somehow I think they got the point becasue their converstaion immediately stopped. I had to think to myself that here they are criticising David and he was playing and they were watching. What was I missing?
I know you would like to know what hands were played and how they played out but quite frankly I can really only remember David flopping 3 queens and winning. My job was to sweat and that's what I did! All the way down to when there were 11 players left. This last hand is one I remember. David was in the big blind. he had ~ T7500 maybe T8500. The blinds were T500-1000. One player at his table had T1000 left and called all in. The chip leader with maybe T70K was on the button and just called! That was amazed me because he had been raising everything and stealing left and right. Then lightning struck! The small blind raised. David disgustingly threw his hand away. The flop came 9,9,x with two clubs. The hand played out with the chip leader making a flush and knocking out player 11. David walked right over to me and said I had pocket nines. He would have made quad nines and won a decent pot if the small blind had played correctly and tried to eliminate the small stack. At the same time on the other table abother player went all in. He lost, putting David at the final table today at 4 p.m. BTW McEvoy is at there also. The chip leader has a huge stack Maybe 45% of the chips. He has a huge advantage. But you know what. My money is on David! vince
Vince,
Nice report. Let's see how he does with the shortest stack today. Maybe, he'll start posting in the tournament section of this forum.
mah
I don't know how I could forget this, wow. David and I laughed about it (yes, David occaisionally laughs). When it happened I quipped"It took a royal flush for David Sklansky to get in the money."
There were 19 players remaining. The 19th to exit was at David's table not the other one. Sitting next to David was a young man that I was told is Alan Cunningham. I've seen that name in tournaments before. I don't know for sure if this is the same young fellow but I can tell you that he is one cool hombre.
If I remember correctly he was the button. It was folded to him and he raised. The BB called. On the flop the BB check raised and this cool cat reraised him all in. The flop was the Ah,Kh,x. The big blind turned over his hand and showed Kings up. Cool cat then turned up his hand. It was queen high with no pair. However he did have the Qh and Jh and the Th came on the turn. That's when I made my comment to David about him needing a royal flush to get in the money. About as close to an Act of god or Oz that I can think of.
Vince
I love the way you write. Keep 'em coming!
Sincerely, sucker
Hellmuth had 500k, TJ had 300k. No-limit holdem. 2k-4k blind, 1k ante. Before the flop, 9 out of 10 times that these two world class players was in the small blind/button, they just called. Why? Were they trying to outplay each other post-flop? Is that where they think their strengths are? Were they just not getting raisable hands pre-flop? Was their stacks too big relative to the blinds?
Phil has said previously that he likes to establish a pattern of no pre-flop raise poker when he is playing heads-up, particularly against a strong opponent. I guess TJ likes this, too. I would consider it as a sign of mutual respect and desire to settle it after the flop rather than getting into a pre-flop raising war and letting the cards fly.
Help. I am unable to post on rgp right now. Please post my above on David on at the final table and the correctio. Thanks.
vince
I think I did it, er, uh,..at least I tried. My newsgroup viewer never shows my posts until someone responds, so I'm not 100% sure. I'm pretty sure its there though.
Great post, thanks for taking the time to write it. Keep em coming and keep a pen handy, so we can read about some details of interesting hands.
Good Luck
Jeff
It's there. The formatting is a little ugly, but the post is up.
- target
Thanks Jeff. Now please post the David fith post up on rgp. Thanks in advance.
vince
Go all-in. The pot is offering you more than good enough odds, but you are not the favorite to win the hand. I figure that you have to make the flush to win. I figure Barry raised for one of two reasons. He either has top pair, so your ace is no good, or he has a set and is giving himself good enough odds to make a full house by raising $400 if you move in on him. With that many people in the pot he knows someone has to have the flush draw or he'll pick up the pot with the raise.
Do I sound disapointed. I'm not. Well maybe a little. Disapointed that David finished fifth. I don't think so. Finished fifth. yeah, after starting as low man on the totem pole with just T$6000 to the chip leaders T79,000+. Disappointed about his finish, no way! If I'm disappointed it's because it's over. Done, fini! Sklansky was "marvelous darling". He was. At one point he had to make a decision to move all his chips in or save one in case of a really horrible flop. He saved that chip. He made the right decision. He flopped horibly and released his hand. It was still early. I believe there were 8 players left. He took that chip and finished fifth. Disappointed? O.K...
Let's see how things developed. Sklansky was low man coming in, T6000. They drew for the button. Blinds were T500-1000. David drew the big blind! He lost both his blinds making survival seem highly improbable. I watched two rounds go by and his stack fall to T3000.
I was starving so I ran to the Chinese restauraunt at Binions, the Buffet is horrible, and had soup and steamed vegetables. After I ate the soup I ran back to see if David was still in. He had T6000 and was on the button. Must have won a hand I thought and ran back to the restaurant to eat my vegetables. When I got back he still had T6000 and was watching Tom McEvoy go all in from his big blind. McEvoy lost and was out first. David had made it to eight and I was "sweating" profusely. The german girl sitting next to me, wife of one of the finalists, moved quite a distance away to avoid being drenched from my perspiration. Well David was 8th and still never had any chips. Not bad I thought. He was the short stack at this point. Sound familiar?
Somehow he survived a couple of rounds which seemed forever. These were some tough opponents. Well all of them except one. Yeah, you guessed it. The chip leader had been blowing chips away left and right and had cut his stack in half. Unfortuantely David didn't get any of them. Do you know how frustrating that can be? You see this guy literally throwing away his chips and you don't get any. That sucks.
Then a miracle or lets just call it an Omaha hand developed. Three players were involved including Alan Cunningham, maybe David's toughest competition, althogh the German fellow was right up there too. Well as fortune would have it two players went all-in and lost. So Cunningham was with this other guy and David was now 6th. Unbelieveable! Then David won a hand and like a "Rocky" movie was back in contention. He had chips T22,000 to be exact. Now I liked his chances of winning the whole thing. But the same old problem persisted. Yeah he had T22,000 but was still short stacked compared to everyone except one player. Then he lost a hand and was under T20,000. Break time.
When they got back from break i walked up to David and I swear I said this. David the guy that was the original chip leader is going to make the first big mistake after the break. He'll go first. David answered "Oh yeah for sure". And that's exactly what happened. This guy that had over 40% of the chips called to the river with a drawing hand and lost leaving himself with T3000. He was eliminated on the next hand. David was fifth!
Disapointed? No way. David made some great plays throught the time I watched jis play. From 27 players through 5th, mayvbe 12 hours of play I was engrossed in watching him move up throguh the field. Picking when and who to fight correctly. The hands just died! I believe the crncher was when he was in the small bild with about T14000. The button raised and David reraised and then bet the flop. He was forced to check the turn and had to fold to the buttons bet. He never recovered. He was again the short stack and was forced to play his last hand on the next round. Even the hand he lost he had a sot. If his straight card came he would still be ther. Instead he made a flush but as fate would have it his opponent had a bigger flush. Although I didn't see the board real well and his opponent may have had a full house also. It doesn't matter. David was magnificent. He stayed focus and never gave up! Disaapopinted? Yeah right!
Vince
.
Didn't he win a bracelet in the mid 80s? I seem to recall seeing it somewhere on here during last years WSOP.
Regards,
Richard
If my memory is correct, he won two events in '82 and one event in '83. Or something to that effect.
Anyway you cut it, he's won a few WSOP titles.
Good Luck
Howard
I'm fairly young (early 20's) and just know him more as an author than a player I guess...
http://www.poker.casino.com/article.pl/aid=i_must_break_you
Here is a good link to what happened at the final table including actaul hands played.
From One Online Site:
20-1: Erick Seidel, TJ Cloutier, Phil Hellmuth Jr, David Devilfish Ulliot
30-1: O'Neil Longson, Huck Seed, Howard Lederer, David The Dragon Pham, Doyle Texas Dolly Brunson, Johnny Oriental Express Chan, Tony Ma, Daniel Negreau, Men The Master Nguyen, Asher Derei
35-1: Lyle Berma, Hemish Shah, Phillipe Ivey, Surinder Sunar, Ben Roberts, Richard Tatlovich, Donn O'Dea, Annie Duke, Layne Flack, Chris Jesus Ferguson
45-1: Scotty Nguyen, David Chui, Miami John Cernuto, Ian Dobson, Randy Holland, David Chip Reese, Syracuse Chris Tsipralillis, Alan Betson, Kevin Song, Mel Judah, Ted Forrest, Chris Bjorning, Kathy Liebert, Bobby Baldwin
Any Other Poker Player 1-1
Opinions?? Any value??
It is my personal opinion that Devilfish is about the worst bet to win the WSOP (especially at those odds). He is, of course, a proven excellent tournament poker player, but his style of play, aggressive, frequently bluffing etc. does not seem to me to suit the extended five-day format of the WSOP $10k event. Sooner or later he will make a big move with nothing and run into a hand. Just MHO. Surinder would be a much better bet from my point of view, however---35-1 in a field that is estimated to be >600? I think I'll keep my money for playing poker rather than betting on it.
Regards,
Richard
No player is 12 to 20 times better than the field. None of those players would bet themselves at that price.
JG
In his CardPlayer article, Nolan Dalla ran a set of odds like this. In addition to his own opinions, he solicited the help of a half-dozen or so (unnamed) top players. His co-favorites were all at 90-1. Anything much less than that on anybody is a bad bet, IMO.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Value there?
Actually, thanks for asking. I think there is huge value there, if they really mean any player other than the 38 you've listed in your post. There are going to be something like 400-600 other players, and there are many great ones not listed. Just go to Nolan Dalla's article, and you'll find quite a few others that he rated.
That does seem like a good bet, and off the top of my head I would guess that you win that bet at least 60% of the time, if not 75% or better.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I'm not so sure about the value there. Yes, there are plenty of good players not listed there, but I'd much rather take my chances with that list than the rest of the field.
Think of it this way. Do you think anyone would offer you even money if you got to pick 38 players to win the whole thing? I'd bet of the last 10 winners, 7 or 8 of them would have been rated in the top 40 at the start of the tournament. The year Noel Furlong won sticks out, and maybe when Scotty won it, he wasn't one of the top 40, but he was definitely close. But Huck Seed, Jesus, Harrington, Russ Hamilton, Stu Ungar, etc. were all top pros at the time. Players come out of left field to make the final table a lot, but very seldom do they take home the bracelet.
The are some players not listed that I'd love shot with for 100-1 individually, but all of them wouldn't add up to an even-money bet against that group of sharks. I definitely could be wrong, though.
Chris is a great player, but I don't know how many people knew this before last year. I don't think most people would've ranked him in the top 40 to win it. OTOH, I had the field the year Scotty won it and I lost, so he was ranked. And although Dan Harrington had been a top cash-game pro for a long time, not everyone would've installed him as one of the faves for the 10k event. There's a lot of guys like that from all over the world now. Anyway, I'm happy to take in $100 increments the field vs 40 of anyone's choice.
JG
Just kidding.
Seriously, are there any dark horses in particular that you like to win it all?
Apparently, I've played with him, but I wouldn't recognize him. I had the field when there were many more fielders left, believe me.
I don't want to embarrass any of my friends, but the best player there that most people might not have heard of is Ben Tang. You saw it here first.
JG
Kenny Chanthamala (sp?). He's a high limit regular at Foxwoods, and recently made 4 consecutive final tables at the USPC at the Taj. He's a great all-around poker player, and the real question about him is his relative lack of NL and tourney experience. But, he can read the players very well, and he has little or no fear.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
You can make that no fear, Greg. I plated against Kenny in 2 of those events. and he is someone to respect.
Danny
"Any Other Poker Player 1-1"
Does this mean that if any player not listed above wins, you win? I'm assuming so, in which case I think this is your best bet.
I'd stay away from those odds. Doyle and C. Reese probably aren't playing anyway, and Tatlovich's status is a bit uncertain, tough I've heard he's been reinstated.
The tiers are roughly correct, I'd say, but I'd have to be getting at least double those odds to make any significant play.
Throw 10 bucks on someone you like just to give yourself more of a routing interest, but I don't think there's any value to be had with those odds.
Which internet site?
http://www.jagbet.com
Go all-in. When you say Barry, do you mean Barry Shulman, or Berry Johnston? I've never played Barry, but I have played Berry. Berry will fold anything less than KT to your raise, and he very well might fold that. Your bet and reraise just screams a set absent other tells, so he will give up AK and the like.
And, if he has a set or doesn't give up some other hand that is ahead of yours, you still win 1/3 of the time or more.
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
I would probably move all-in here because you gotta gamble sometime against this field and now seems as good a time as any. You also have to show that you will play back after investing a chunk of your stack (over 15% here). So I agree with Greg's advice, but disagree with his rationale. There are just too many draws out there for a tough player like Berry to give up AK, especially if he has a big stack.
His check-raise makes it 400 more to target, who can only raise all-in for another 1250. Do you really think that a tough player with a large stack is going to fold for 1250 more when the pot will be laying over 2 to 1? With a flush draw and and broadway straight draw board?
Now that I think about it, there is some merit to simply calling the raise of 400 and seeing what comes on the turn. You will have position and there are a lot of scare cards that will concern Berry and might let you by another card. And a flat call of his raise might also make him fear a set or two-pair if he doesn't have one himself. He might also be making a move with a draw of his own or 2nd pair now that the blinds and AD have folded.
On balance, I have now talked myself into the seemingly weak move of calling. But it would depend on your image and prospects of getting a free card, which I can't determine from the original post.
Michael 7,
I don't like the idea of calling the raise. Although, I do admit that the possibility of straight showing could look dangerous, but I think calling that $400 and missing on the turn would be a disaster to "target's" stack this early in the tournament.
Actually, I would have liked it better if "target" didn't bet the initial $200. But, since he did I think he should move-in. Berry, might even fold due to the possiblity of both a straight and flush.
looks like the 400 raise isto try to pick up yhe pot--should you let him? - after his 400 goes in there is 900 in the pot, odds are about 4 to 1 of hitting the flush on the turn, paying only 900 to 400---And if you miss, then probably will cost your stack to draw on river-- still 4 to 1. bottom line should you risk elimination when pot odds unfavorable? prir post said he thinks you must make the flush to win - me too =don't try. Jim
Smells like a trap to me, I think the best play is to fold. He is a head of you at this point and you have to improve to win.
Hey folks some more good news. Our very own frequent poster BillM(urphy) made the final table of the $1500 Stud 8 or better Event. the event concludes today beginning at 4 p.m.. BillM like Sklansky is low man on the totem pole. His stack is T11,000+ and the next shortest stack is over T32,000. I talked to him this afternoon and mentioned that David Sklansky was low man at his table but edged his way up to sixth. Of course Sklansky's chip leaders weren't Dan Heimiller and Vince Burgio. There is a young player at the table, Larry, that I know from my Atlantic City days. He's no pushover. Billm Has his work cut out for him that's for sure.
One bright spot is that Phil Helmuth busted out ninth putting BillM in the final 8. The ante is T400 and the bring in T1000 so BillM really needs some help quickly. We can't help at the table but we can all sweat him from afar. Let's all give him a big congrads for making it this far and wish him the best (out loud) at the final table.
Vince
If you are wondering why I din't sweat him like I did Sklansky it's because he didn't finish up until 3 a.m. Too late for this old bird. I'm not there at four becaus I'm playing a small tournament myself this evenning. So there..
While I was wasting away my time at the O'leans playing in the Friday night NLH tournament, BillM was giving it his all at the WSOP. I don't know the particulars but he did manage to hold on and move up a place before succuming to the huge wall of chips against him. Congradulations are in order. Good show Bill.
vince
Maybe, I might win the WSOP final this year. What do you think?
I've been playing low and mid limit hold'em for quite some time now. So, I'd like to give No-Limit a try.
What are some good books to learn No Limit hold'em for toureys? For live games?
I've heard that Super System from Doyle Brunson is still considered one of the best books today.
Thank you
Lawrence Ng
Lawrence,
I have Doyle's Super/System book and believe that is a good starting point. The strategy is geared for a medium ante game. But, most tournaments I would consider between medium and high ante games. So, you will have to adjust your strategy to the ante.
In Sklansky's Theory of Poker you will find very few No-Limit examples, but I recommend reading the chapter on ante structure. This is the most important concept to understand when playing in a tournament. Futhermore, I recommend reading the rest of the book.
The tournament books that are on the market are lacking any real useful strategy. Some people may argue with me because they think T.J. Cloutier's No-Limit Pot-Limit book is good. But, I think you will not find that much useful information in the book. Cloutier's strategy may be fine for beginners, but I would bet any real money using it. His strategy is too tight. If you follow it, you will probably find yourself blinded away in most tournaments.
Though it looks like poor odds are available, anything is better than nothing. Stimulating the market is what we want. It may take years but we have to start somewhere.
I've stated on my site that we placed a bet on Furlong at 100-1. This looks value to us for he has played four times, coming 6th in 1989 behind Chan and Helmuth and winning in 1999. There is also a long history of previous winners doing well.
Odds at Blue Square
Regards (the Editor of The Good Gambling Guide)
I assume I played the following hand poorly last night. Perhaps I can get some opinions as to how poorly -- or to reinforce a diminishing belief that it was the right play.
4 players remaining in the PokerSpot Limit Hold 'Em tourney last night (there's still money in the account -- why not play?). Chip leader has $8K+, second player has $6K+, I have $2,800 and fourth place has around $1,300.
Until now, it's been a pretty good tourney for me. With 20 or so players left, I'm down to $77 after getting J-J busted by the big blind's 9-2 after he flops a 9-5-2; I go on to get three A-K's in a short period of time and they all hold up; my Q-10 in the big blind hits two pair on an A-Q-10 flop and suddenly I'm back in the running.
Blinds are $150 and $300. I'm in the big blind and get J-J. Chip leader calls, I check.
Flop comes down A-5-6, all spades. Neither of my jacks is a spade. CL bets $300, I call. I was considering folding at this point, but I thought that CL would have raised me pre-flop if he'd had an Ace-decent kicker.
Turn card is possibly the best and worst card that could have hit: Jack of spades. I now have a set, but there are four spades on the board. I check, CL bets $600. I whine a little bit in front of my computer and call.
River is a rag (A-5-6-J-7, four spades). CL bets, I think about it while the 20-second clock is ticking down and release the hand.
Should I have called? Raised, and hope CL doesn't have a spade? Releasing the hand, I still have about the same amount of chips as the fourth place player; if I call and CL has a space I'm woefully short-stacked. There was certainly enough money in the pot to merit a crying call, but I thought that with around $1K remaining and fourth-place guy's blinds due, I still might be able to advance to third.
As it turns out, the very next hand I get A-K; get most of my remaining money in pre-flop but lose to Q-Q when the board doesn't help me.
Comments appreciated.
Mike
I think you had to raise pre-flop. With only one limper, and out of position, there's not much sense in trying to trap. JJ is a tough hand to trap with anyway. If the flop comes rags, and you check-raise, you're probably not going to get any action, since the limper could put you on BB-type 2 pair hand. And if overcards hit, it's tough to play out of position.
So I think the play is to raise pre-flop, then lead the flop, no matter what hits. If the CL calls that flop, depending on how well you know the player, when the J hits on the turn, I would check-raise. If he doesn't have at least the Q of spades, he's gonna dump it. If he checks behind, you get a free river card to catch a board pair. Then, I'd probably close my eyes and check-call the blank on the river. Who knows? He might try to bet an ace, no spade.
If he reraises the turn, you ran into bad luck because he's got the king of spades, and it got expensive, but you still have pot odds to hit one of your ten outs and scoop a huge pot.
The turn play is a favorite of mine, and may be unorthodox and potentially expensive, but more than likely it's going to buy you a free card, which means you'd get a showdown for only one small bet more than you paid to not get a showdown.
Plus, with you raising pre-flop and betting out, there's a good chance you'll take the pot right there. Be aggressive. Just my thoughts.
believe Bob H. was right--- I will just add that wiyhout preflop raise, looks like best to release after that flop. Jim
I gave you how I would play the hand from the start, but the whole play was based on a pre-flop raise. Without it, you don't know where the CL is at. He could just figure, since you checked from the BB, you have nothing and he's just going to run over you.
But you just don't know, so I'd dump it right there. Or bet the flop, or check-raise, but check-calling is just way too passive. You don't have a drawing hand on the flop. On the turn, when it becomes a drawing hand, you've already played so passively, you've basically said to your opponent you don't have a good hand. So when a blank hits on the river, of course he's gonna bet. He knows you don't have a good spade. But you have no idea what he has.
But the whole dilemma is avoided by taking charge from the start. Once again, be aggressive.
Congratulations on the finish. I played last night too and bust out in 22nd. I didn't check what the payouts were so assumed I was way off the money.
I busted out on a TT. blinds 50-100 Mid position player who had been stealing a lot recently (although was tight before that)did a small raise of 100. I decided it was time to make a stand from the button and reraised back 400 (half my stack of 1200 in total) hoping to take it down. He reraised all in (with 2 more chips than me) with KJs and hit a jack on the turn.
I think I played this very badly. One, I was nearing the money so could easily limp in to get some return. Two, I got involved with a stack that could bust me. Three I should have raised all in to make it harder for him to call with such a weak holding. Shoot me down for my play!
Daniel
Played my first no limit tourney. $250 buy-in winner takes all 26 players ($4000 in chips). I enter the tourney knowing full well I am dead to begin with but I figure the experience is well worth the cost.
My question is how do you play pre-flop in a tourney like this? I think I made a few poor pre-flop plays that cost me dearly.
Early round - I limp utg with 2,2. MP raises to $500 one caller, I fold.
Middle round - I am BB with AKs. MP player makes it $700, one caller, and I call. Thinking I should go all-in here. Rags hit. MP bets and fold, fold.
Middle round - UTG makes it $500. All fold to me with K,K in BB. I go all-in and player folds. I think better would be to call and check-raise all-in if an A doesn't hit the flop.
With a winner takes all structure I am guessing that you need to play very aggressively. As for the results, I was basically blinded away.
Hard to say without knowing the blind structure. If the blinds were 10,20 or the like and these players are making it 500 to go preflop, you can just sit back and wait for a monster hand until the blinds get higher. If the blinds were 50,100 or higher, you can't wait quite as long to find some hands to play (though you should still be pretty tight, since they'd still be overraising the pot).
Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
A lot depends on your opponent. I would fold though. A check raise with a pair on the board could mean trouble. This guy is either a fish or trying to bluff. You are basically hoping for a A or Q to hit. But overcards become much less profitable with a pair on the board. I would fold. Yes you had the best hand. But I wouldn't count on that always happening..
The real point here is that I acted on my instincts and read of the situation. Most of the times I would agree with you and fold. In fact most of the time, I would wimp out and fold even if my instincts old me to do otherwise.
I believe the better players play more aggressive in this manner when they think they have the best of it. I definately had the best of it. He was bluff raising and I busted him and made him pay $186 to win about a $378 dollar pot. So I guess his call was about 2/1 and the pot was laying him 2-1. The question is whether I had enough of an advantage to risk so many chips with. Maybe I should have raised more on the flop to compound his error.
If you think about it, I had an opportunity to win the hand right there and was a slight favorite to win the hand as well WITHOUT even pairing any of my cards. He hit one of his 12 outs. I believe the rest of the deck was mine.
How smart was his call? Who really made the error here?
Either he was semi bluffing with a check raise (which is not a bad move) Or he is just completely clueless. I am going to bet he is just a fish. You did read the situation well. And you had him. Just didn't get the best of it. I would still lean towards folding (in almost all case). Especially if the opponent is half decent.
Local place, cheapy tourney. $13 buy-in UNLIMITED $10 rebuys.
We've passed the break, no more rebuys.
Blinds are at 50/100
I've got T1100.
I'm 2nd to act, after a muck. I've got 2 ladies in the pocket. I make it 300 to play. Next guy calls, everyone else mucks. Caller has about an equal amount of chips.
Flop is 4-8-10 rainbow.
I bet 300. Get called.
Turn is a J. I'm not liking that much, but figure I'm in more than 50% already, and now have a gutshot out.. ALL-IN, 500. Call.
I turn my queens over, caller turns his cowboys over. River does me no good, and I'm looking at the live game.
Looking for comments on the play.
Oh yeah, and my mind was further boggled when this fella lost ALL those chips about 5 or 10 minutes later. Damn. Probably called someone down again, but this time they had the goods.
I just can't decide if his play was smooth, or pathetic. I've never played with this guy before, and had only been at the table with him prior to the hand about 5 minutes. He had limped a couple times already, which I saw as a sign of weakness given he didn't exactly have a huge stack and was only in mid-position.
..next time.
CHiP
I think you have to put in a substantial raise. If you just call, what do you do if a heart,K,Q,J lands on the turn?
I would raise the pot, if called I would still be able to call the turn if a flush came as I would have 10 outs on the river and pot odds.
On a side note - I am quite inexperienced at no limit, but your opponents play seemed rather bizarre. You've raised to build a reasonable pot and they put in some ridiculous bets. Is this play commonplace?
"On a side note - I am quite inexperienced at no limit, but your opponents play seemed rather bizarre. You've raised to build a reasonable pot and they put in some ridiculous bets. Is this play commonplace?"
It was a pokerspot tourny. And this does happen quite frequently. Big raise preflop--followed by regular size betting. I don't ask..
this another place where that expression "it depends" comes in. your post said you had 500, but we don't know if that is a short stack, big, average? the relative size of your stack would effect how much you want to gamble here...you may want to try to stop them from drawing to a flush Huge bet...or you may want to try to trap small raise, or call...it depends! good luck, Jim
Some discussion amongst my weekly tourney players has led me to ask a TTHE owner to run a sim for me.
The question posed was: Which wins more vs. KK, AK or Ax? (We all know that KK is a huge favorite, there is debate over whether one would prefer to have AK or Ax if they ran up against KK).
Would someone mind running KK v. AKo and maybe KK v. A8o and KK v. AQo.
Thanks,
KJS
Here's some hot and cold simulation results. An Ace with a wheel card appears to be about the best you can do, but it is about the same as AK, since they both make about the same number of straights.
I think in actual play, you would ironically rather have the AK, since it is less likely that you will flop top pair with an ace kicker and end up going broke.
KhKd AsKc % chance of outright win 69.613398 29.597548 % chance of win or split 70.402394 30.386544 expected return, % of pot 70.007896 29.992046 fair pot odds: 1 0.428410 2.334217 pots won: 1198748.00 513555.00
KhKd AsQc % chance of outright win 71.438424 28.219580 % chance of win or split 71.780361 28.561517 expected return, % of pot 71.609393 28.390549 fair pot odds: 1 0.396465 2.522299 pots won: 1226170.50 486132.50
KhKd As8c % chance of outright win 71.339785 28.369203 % chance of win or split 71.630738 28.660156 expected return, % of pot 71.485262 28.514680 fair pot odds:1 0.398890 2.506966 pots won: 1224045.00 488258.00
KhKd As5c % chance of outright win 69.823641 29.832962 % chance of win or split 70.166980 30.176300 expected return, % of pot 69.995310 30.004631 fair pot odds:1 0.428667 2.332819 pots won: 1198532.50 513770.50
It may be counterintuitive to some, but you would rather take AK against KK than AQ. 1) You can't make as many straights in the AQ v. KK scenario since two straight cards are dead; and more importantly 2) When you snag an Ace, you have cut the KK's redraws in half.
The only "outs" the AQ or Ax (non-wheel) has that the AK doesn't is th QQx board, which comes infrequently enough to be dominated by the redraw effect.
I played in the 2K NLHE WSOP event and saw a hand that I think is definitely worth talking about. We were only about 10 minutes into the second level (25-50 blinds) and "Syracuse" Chris Tsiprailidis had just made a big move at a pot and subsequently had to lay it down to a reraise after putting in half his stack. A few hands later he was in the big blind and it was passed around to late position when the table chip leader raised to $150. The chip leader was an unknown player who had been playing very aggressively, bordering on wild, and running over the table. It was only a matter of time before someone was going to have to take a stand against him. The button and the SB passed and Chris called.
The flop came 10-7-2 rainbow and Chris checked. Aggressive guy bet $150. Chris made sort of a chuckle/laugh sound and called.
The turn was a 3. Chris checked, Agg. guy checked.
The river was a 4, making the board 10-7-2-3-4 with no flush out. Chris bet $300 into the pot (leaving him with about $500 left) and Agg. guy reraised all-in by pushing his huge stack in. I thought to myself "oh no, Chris is in trouble, the guy has A-5"
Chris took several minutes to decide what to do, and finally called all-in.
Aggressive guy turned over 9-6 off, and Chris showed 4-5 off to win the pot with a pair of fours.
I had already thought that Tsiprailidis was one of the most underrated players on the circuit. After playing with him for a few hours and seeing hands like this, I'm now convinced he's one the very best tournament players alive.
CH
I think you made the right move after the flop. You had the nut hand at that point. With a bet and a raise before you, most likely one of your opponents is on a heart flush draw (possibly Ace-x), trying to get a free card on the turn. You have to make it too expensive for someone on a draw to stay in the hand. If you make it too expensive for them (as you did), they fold and you win the hand. If you don't make it too expensive, one or both may stay and believe me, the way the poker gods work, you'll see a heart on the turn. Then the hand becomes much more complicated, and your only outs are to pair the board and make a full house or an Ace give you 4 aces, if you believe one of the other players made their flush. An all-in raise by one of them is very scary, based on how they bet after the flop. With a rainbow flop you would, of course, want to play this hand differently. The situation being as it was, I think you made the best play.
I'd stick to the $10 tourneys. The play is more realistic, and you getter a better deal for your vig.
I agree. Why would you pay 20% for your entry fee when you bould pay 10%? I've never played a $5 tourney, but if you've studied hold'em at all, you could hold your own in a $10 one.
Tournament Poker
April 2001 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo