another poker thread(WSOP theoretical problem)

[dixieflatline]

First hand of the WSOP. Everyone has 10,000 in chips and you are starting in the BB. Each of the other nine players at the table go All-In in the dark(not looking at their cards). What hands do you call with?

[rkmsuf]

none

[Lathum]

none

[SirFozzie]

none

[Lathum]

the reason why is this, even if you win that hand you only have 100,000 in chips. With the being an estimated 6000 entrants in this years main event that is 60 million in chips. With your 100,000 in chips you now have 1/600 of the chips in play needed to win. Not a very good risk vs. reward.

[rkmsuf]

"He's really put him to the test with his raise of 25 million pre flop."

[dixieflatline]

Come on guys. I wasn't looking for the right answer right away. Nice work.

[Lathum]

Come on guys. I wasn't looking for the right answer right away. Nice work.
So what's the right answer?

[dixieflatline]

You had it right it's none. The risk reward just isn't high enough to call with anything.

[GreenMonster]

Lets get to a real situwation you raise from early position with AA and get raised, reraised and reraised all-in(10,000)... Do you call all-in with AA with one all in and 2 still to call on the 1st hand, knowing against 4 hands the biggest fav. you will be is 60%. GreenMonster

[GoSeahawks]

j9 suited

[dixieflatline]

Lets get to a real situwation you raise from early position with AA and get raised, reraised and reraised all-in(10,000)... Do you call all-in with AA with one all in and 2 still to call on the 1st hand, knowing against 4 hands the biggest fav. you will be is 60%. GreenMonster

How much did we raise in the first place? How much did the other two raise? If it went min-raise, min-raise, min-raise, all-in I would be more likely to play because it's much more likely the other two raisers would drop. Not saying that I wouldn't play other situations but the situation above is an easier call.

[GreenMonster]

How much did we raise in the first place? How much did the other two raise? If it went min-raise, min-raise, min-raise, all-in I would be more likely to play because it's much more likely the other two raisers would drop. Not saying that I wouldn't play other situations but the situation above is an easier call.

Agreed, I was just trying to throw out a better puzzle that could occur... say you raise to 350, next to 1200, next to 3500, and then finally allin... This although is unlikely could actually happen..

[cartman]

Lets get to a real situwation you raise from early position with AA and get raised, reraised and reraised all-in(10,000)... Do you call all-in with AA with one all in and 2 still to call on the 1st hand, knowing against 4 hands the biggest fav. you will be is 60%. GreenMonster

Yes, in this case you have great pot odds. The being the favorite gives you 3:5 odds, if you are assuming a 60% chance to win. The pot odds when you call would be a little over 2:1, since you are calling 10K to make the pot a little over 20K, and if the other two call the all in, the implied odds would be 4:1. Over the course of all your playing, you will come out ahead if you make the call every time. But it's those times you lose that stick with you... :)

[primelord]

Agreed, I was just trying to throw out a better puzzle that could occur... say you raise to 350, next to 1200, next to 3500, and then finally allin... This although is unlikely could actually happen..
Easy call.

[larrymcg421]

I completely disagree. AA will win against 9 random hands 30% of the time. Thats a 30% chance to multiply your stack by 10.

Now you have $100,000 against everyone's $10,000. Certainly this doesn't guarantee you of making the final table, but I think it gives you a much better chance than if you fold. If you don't think you can push around people that have 1/10th of your stack, then you shouldn't be playing in the WSOP to begin with.

[primelord]

I completely disagree. AA will win against 9 random hands 30% of the time. Thats a 30% chance to multiply your stack by 10.

Now you have $100,000 against everyone's $10,000. Certainly this doesn't guarantee you of making the final table, but I think it gives you a much better chance than if you fold. If you don't think you can push around people that have 1/10th of your stack, then you shouldn't be playing in the WSOP to begin with.
The onyl way it makes it at all correct to call here is if you feel you are one of the worst players in the tournament. If that is the case then I agree you should call and hope you build your stack early. However you are going to lose this hand 7 out of tem times. So 70% of the time you are out of the tournament on the first hand. Your primary goal in any tournament should be to first make the money and then work on getting a higher placing.

[primelord]

If you don't think you can push around people that have 1/10th of your stack, then you shouldn't be playing in the WSOP to begin with.
Actually I would say if you are putting all of your money into the pot on a hand you are going to lose 70% of the time that should be your indication that you shouldn;t be playing in the WSOP in the first place.

[judicial clerk]

Actually I would say if you are putting all of your money into the pot on a hand you are going to lose 70% of the time that should be your indication that you shouldn;t be playing in the WSOP in the first place.


I think i disagree with this and I am starting to agree with larrymcg421. Under Primelord's rational, you should never enter the world series anyway beacuse the odds are approximately 6000 to 1 that you will lose. I bet the odds of getting to 100,000 chips through normal play is way less than 3 in 10. This might make a good play if you are there to win and not just there to play poker for a day or two. To put it another way, going all in when you have a 30% chance to win sounds stupid, but not when compared to 6000 to 1 odds.

[albionmoonlight]

I think i disagree with this and I am starting to agree with larrymcg421. Under Primelord's rational, you should never enter the world series anyway beacuse the odds are approximately 6000 to 1 that you will lose. I bet the odds of getting to 100,000 chips through normal play is way less than 3 in 10. This might make a good play if you are there to win and not just there to play poker for a day or two. To put it another way, going all in when you have a 30% chance to win sounds stupid, but not when compared to 6000 to 1 odds.
But the odds are not 6,000 to 1 for everyone. If I entered the WSOP, my odds of winning would probably be about 20,000 to 1, simply because I am not that good.

Johnnie Chan may have 100 to 1 odds because he is one of the top 20 players in the whole tournament.

If "I" were in the WSOP, I might go ahead and go all in with A-A in the problem above--because I need all of the luck/help I can get to finish in the money.

However, looking at this problem from the perspective of someone who thinks/knows that they can play well, you need to fold when you have a 70% chance of busting out on the first hand v. a 30% chance of a marginal improvement viz a viz the field.

[GreenMonster]

You have a much better than 30% chance that AA will hold up against 4 hands... Its about 60% that your hand will hold up especially if someone holds AK.. The real question is do you risk your whole tourney here, or just try to play on and find better situations.. And having alot of chips at the start of the tourney is not as powerful as some might think.. The key is having all the chips at the end.. My biggest payday (6k) came when I had 470 after the 1st hour, when you start with a 1000..Having said all of this I would have a hard time laying down AA here although you will find others that say its the right move for their game... GreenMonster

[larrymcg421]

Who cares whether it is the 1st hand or the 100th hand? I'd honestly rather bust out on the 1st hand than be the last one out before the money. Also better to bust out with AA than with KJ suited because the blinds are about to eat you.

Making it into the money is an extremely difficult proposition. Even some of the best players might not do it 3 out of 10 times. Howard Lederer finished 5th in 1987. He did not make the money again until 2003. And this is with fields alot smaller than the ones you see today. I think passing up a 1 in 3 shot to multiply your stack by 10 is just an awful decision.

If one of the great players get this opportunity, I think they would take it. Can you imagine sitting next to Gus Hansen with his $100,000 stack compared to your $10,000?

My advise to anyone confronted with a decision about calling with AA? CALL. All the time (except for rare bubble situations, particularly in a qualifier). If you lose, go grab a cold beer, calm down, and enter a side game.

[Maple Leafs]

I read an analaysis just recently on essentially this topic, with the conclusion that there is no situation where it makes sense to fold AA and that doing so to avoid the risk of busting out early is a weak, overly cautious play.

I wish I could find the article again, since I have no idea if the source was especially credible or not.

[larrymcg421]

There are two situations where it is proper to fold with AA.

Example One - A tourney qualifier guarantees 15 spots. There are 16 people left. You have the #2 stack and the #1 stack moves all in. You fold AA here. At this moment your odds of qualifying are higher than your odds of winning with AA.

Example Two - With 3 players left, you have, say $15,000 left compared to $1 million each for the other two players. They both go all in ahead of you. You fold AA here and enjoy your 2nd place finish.

[MJ4H]

the conclusion that there is no situation where it makes sense to fold AA

This is demonstrably wrong. In class now but I will post an example with supporting math if necessary later.

[primelord]

You have a much better than 30% chance that AA will hold up against 4 hands... Its about 60% that your hand will hold up especially if someone holds AK.. The real question is do you risk your whole tourney here, or just try to play on and find better situations.. And having alot of chips at the start of the tourney is not as powerful as some might think.. The key is having all the chips at the end.. My biggest payday (6k) came when I had 470 after the 1st hour, when you start with a 1000..Having said all of this I would have a hard time laying down AA here although you will find others that say its the right move for their game... GreenMonster
We were not talking about the situation you described. We were talking about the situation where all 9 other hands called. In the situation you described it is a very easy call.

[dixieflatline]

Who cares whether it is the 1st hand or the 100th hand? I'd honestly rather bust out on the 1st hand than be the last one out before the money. Also better to bust out with AA than with KJ suited because the blinds are about to eat you.

While I completely agree with your first point I completely disagree with your second. Busting out is busting out.

For those of you that would call with AA why not call with KK? Sure you won't be 30% but you would still most likely be favorite to win. If you would call with KK then why not QQ? I'm just curious.

I also agree that in practice you probably won't ever run across a situation where folding aces is a good thing but it was friday and I thought this might make for a somewhat interesting discussion.

[Maple Leafs]

This is demonstrably wrong. In class now but I will post an example with supporting math if necessary later.I'd like to see it. I find this sort of thing interesting.

(By the way, to clarify my initial post, I'm obviously referring to folding pre-flop, not folding AA in general. And I'm not sure the article I read took the money cutoff into account, agreed that could be an important factor.)

[Radii]

I would think that for any of us, where a $10,000 buyin is a huge thing and a WSOP entry may be once in a lifetime, we would all probably fold AA in that situation.

But what if it was a $10+$1 MTT on Partypoker and you had AA and the same thing happened? Don't all of us call now? I sure as heck do. If I win I have a big edge over my new table(since I just eliminated my entire table). If not I go play some 5/10 or some 3/6 or enter another tournament.

Now, consider being a professional poker player. If you lose in the WSOP, you get a week of some of the best action with the most fish live you'll ever see. You get online qualifiers that have never played live and have obvious tells, you get the best action you've ever gotten before because of the HUGE crowd in Vegas for the WSOP. Or, your AA hold up and you've got an edge early in the tournament, and the chacne to really push people around early to build your stack signifigantly throughout the first day.

I think it's a matter of perspective here. If the WSOP is a once in a lifetime event, you may well fold. If you buy into $10,000 poker tournaments on a weekly basis, you're worried about the long run, just like the rest of us are at our 1/2 or 3/6 games. In that case I think you understand that you're making a high variance play but that you by far are getting the best of it and that if you face this situation 1000 times and you call 1000 times, you end up a huge winner.

[Maple Leafs]

Here's a thread on the 2+2 forum about this topic. Again, I have no idea who these people are or if they have any credibility at all. Forgive me in advance if 2+2 is a terrible place to look for poker wisdom.

hxxp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2148744&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

One poster's quote:
Here's a general rule for ALL tournaments though, which is only probably slightly wrong. Never fold aces preflop far from the money. It is ONLY prize structure implications which ever make it worthwhile. There is no number of players all in on the first hand of a major tournament that should make you fold preflop.

[Maple Leafs]

I'm going to bump this, because I've been giving it some more thought and I'm still not sold on the "fold AA" answer that everyone seemed to initially agree on. I don't doubt that I'm wrong here, but I think it would help me to know why.

So as a beginner, I'm getting an understanding of the concept of pot odds. From that perspective, this seems like a no brainer. You need be winning this hand better than 10% of the time to justify the call, and with AA against nine random hands you're getting far better odds than that.

Now this is a tournament, and as QS was kind enough to explain to me recently, that changes things. A chip lost does not carry equal value to a chip gained. I understand this part, so I understand the hesitance to call here.

Where I get lost is: where is the line drawn? What if instead of going all-in, everyone pushes in half their stack. Do you call then? What if it's three-quarters? Where does it start to make sense to call?

If the implication that you never go all-in early in a tournament? If so, how much do you bet early on? It can't be that you just sit back and don't really play until the blinds are high... but if you won't go all-in in this situation, when would you?

Help me learn here.

[MJ4H]

I'd like to see it. I find this sort of thing interesting.

(By the way, to clarify my initial post, I'm obviously referring to folding pre-flop, not folding AA in general. And I'm not sure the article I read took the money cutoff into account, agreed that could be an important factor.)

An easy to understand scenario where it would be right to fold is if you are the short-stack with 3 left, last to act with AA, and the other two players go all-in in front of you, given nearly ANY significant jump in payout from 3rd to 2nd it is correct to fold here. I can get specific, but again I'm checking this thread at class. There are concrete examples given in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, I'm sure, as well as all over 2+2.

Edit: I see that you've found something alluding to this on 2+2 (the "it's only prize structure considerations that make it worthwhile" comment you quoted). This is what I was referring to.

[Maple Leafs]

Edit: I see that you've found something alluding to this on 2+2 (the "it's only prize structure considerations that make it worthwhile" comment you quoted). This is what I was referring to.
OK. That I can understand, as well as the example of multiple payers going all in during a satellite where x players win an entry and there's x + 1 left in the game.

I still can't get my head around the "first hand" example, though, once you dig away the psychology of "I came all this way and don't want to lose on the first hand".

[judicial clerk]

I rpobably agree most with Radii's analysis. one thing I also thought is that if I am holding AA and the nine guys before me all go all in, I would assume that the people are holding the other two aces. Assuming that, how does that change my odds of winning the hand? Maybe I should fold after all if I include my assumption into the mix.

[cartman]

I still can't get my head around the "first hand" example, though, once you dig away the psychology of "I came all this way and don't want to lose on the first hand".

As Radii put it, it is all pyschological. If you strip all that away, you use pot odds to determine whether or not to make the call. To the poker most of us play, it would be the same as freerolls to the guys who regularly play the $5K and up buy-in tournies. Once you strip away the gut feelings, it all boils down to math to determine the statistcally correct play.

[Maple Leafs]

I rpobably agree most with Radii's analysis. one thing I also thought is that if I am holding AA and the nine guys before me all go all in, I would assume that the people are holding the other two aces. Assuming that, how does that change my odds of winning the hand? Maybe I should fold after all if I include my assumption into the mix.
Keep in mind the original problem, as presented, had everyone else going all-in without looking at their cards.

[primelord]

Where I get lost is: where is the line drawn? What if instead of going all-in, everyone pushes in half their stack. Do you call then? What if it's three-quarters? Where does it start to make sense to call?

If the implication that you never go all-in early in a tournament? If so, how much do you bet early on? It can't be that you just sit back and don't really play until the blinds are high... but if you won't go all-in in this situation, when would you?
First of all I think it is important to point out that I am not certain I would go as far as saying calling with AA on the first hand when 9 other people are all in is "wrong". From a pot equity stand point you are in great shaoe here. You are contributing 10% of the pot and your hand will hold up roughly 30% of the time. If this was a cash game this is a no brainer.

However you are going to lose this hand 70% of the time. So while in the very long run if you made this call every time in a cash game you would show a profit from it, in a tournament you only have one chance to bust out (assuming no rebuys of course). Using the WSOP as an example increasing your stack by 10x is certainly no garauntee you are going to finish in the money. It certainly helps to have more chips, but you are risking all of your chips on a hand you will lose well over the majority of the time to get a chip stack that is not even remotely close to a garauntee that you will finish in the money. If you are going to put all of your chips on the line, especially early in a tournament where the blinds are very small compared to my stack I want to have a hand that is going toh old up far more often than 30% of the time.

So you asked where do you draw the line. Honestly I am not certain I have a great answer for that. I am certainly not saying you shouldn't ever go all-in on the first hand of a tournament. However the particualr problem at hand was do you call an all-in with 9 people already in. If you are certain to be heads up with someone then you absolutely should call an all-in. Just playing around with some numbers a bit it looks like at about 5 opponents is when your average win % drops just below 50%. Around there is when you might start considering some of the things we have talked about earlier in the thread. again I think a big piece of it is how strong you feel your game is compared to the rest of the field. If you think you are outmatched by most of the field then a call is correct in any of the situations. If you think your skill is at a similar level to most of the field it is likely correct to at least consider folding.

With all that being said if you ever called in the 9 handed situation I don't think anyone would ever fault you.

[Blackadar]

Damn, I didn't understand a thing in this thead.

[Maple Leafs]

So you asked where do you draw the line. Honestly I am not certain I have a great answer for that. I am certainly not saying you shouldn't ever go all-in on the first hand of a tournament. However the particualr problem at hand was do you call an all-in with 9 people already in. If you are certain to be heads up with someone then you absolutely should call an all-in. Just playing around with some numbers a bit it looks like at about 5 opponents is when your average win % drops just below 50%. Around there is when you might start considering some of the things we have talked about earlier in the thread.I think I understand where you're coming from. But it seems like once you apply this line of thinking, you can wind up at the conclusion that it never makes sense to go all in early on, and I know that can't be right ( can it?).

Let's say it's early in a tournament and I'm heads up and holding AA against an opponent who raiess me all in pre-flop. Let's say he's a tight player so I figure he's not on a bluff -- he has something. For sake of argument, let's assume I have him on a high pair, KK or QQ. If I remember right, I'm something like an 80% favorite. So based on pot odds it's another no-brainer. But I'm looking at doubling up 80% of the time (which only minimally improves my chances of winning the whole tournament), but busting out 20% of the time (and going home). Based on the arguments presented in the first half of this thread, you think about folding here. And I suppose it makes sense in a way, but even my primative and under-form beginner's brain is screaming "call" at me here.

[primelord]

I think I understand where you're coming from. But it seems like once you apply this line of thinking, you can wind up at the conclusion that it never makes sense to go all in early on, and I know that can't be right ( can it?).

Let's say it's early in a tournament and I'm heads up and holding AA against an opponent who raiess me all in pre-flop. Let's say he's a tight player so I figure he's not on a bluff -- he has something. For sake of argument, let's assume I have him on a high pair, KK or QQ. If I remember right, I'm something like an 80% favorite. So based on pot odds it's another no-brainer. But I'm looking at doubling up 80% of the time (which only minimally improves my chances of winning the whole tournament), but busting out 20% of the time (and going home). Based on the arguments presented in the first half of this thread, you think about folding here. And I suppose it makes sense in a way, but even my primative and under-form beginner's brain is screaming "call" at me here.
Well I am not suggesting it is a bad thing to accumulate chips early. I am saying it just isn't a garauntee that you will finish in the money. I would NEVER think about folding to an all-in bet heads up with AA. There is a huge difference between that and the original example. Like you said you are going to win your hand with AA heads up the vast majority of the time. Where as against 9 opponents you are going to lose the vast majority of the time. What I am trying to say is you should really only be getting your money all-in early in a tournament like this when you have a strong chance of your hand holding up. Hedas up with AA you have a VERY strong chance of your hand holding up. Against 9 opponents you have a VERY strong chance of it NOT holding up.

That is why I said you draw the line somewhere around 5 opponents I think. Against 5 opponents who have hands that they would likely go all-in with you are going to win about 49% of the time. Around there and above is when I would start considering folding because you are no longer going to win your hand the majority of the time.

Let me ask you this. Let's say it is the first hand of the tournament and you are holding Ah Kh. One player pushes all-in and in a moment of drunken stupidity flips his cards over and he has 9d 9c. Everyone else folds. Do you call here?

[dixieflatline]

Now this is a tournament, and as QS was kind enough to explain to me recently, that changes things. A chip lost does not carry equal value to a chip gained. I understand this part, so I understand the hesitance to call here.

Your absolutely correct the value of each addition chip goes down. So let's just look at this as a risk reward thing. For a call to be correct your reward(Increased chance of winning with 100,000 chips) has to be greater than the risk(70% chance of busting out). Since you have a 70% chance of busting out here the reward better increase your chance of winning by more than that. This is why a play like this would be good for the worst player in the field. Increasing his chance to win is much easier than increasing the best player's chances. You could(should?) be running through this process your head every all-in you make. In most cases with aces it's an obvious yes since heads up you are likely a 80% chance to win or better but in this case I think 70% is just too much to make up.


Where I get lost is: where is the line drawn? What if instead of going all-in, everyone pushes in half their stack. Do you call then? What if it's three-quarters? Where does it start to make sense to call?

In these cases it's even harder to answer since you have to start factoring in postflop play and you have the option to raise now. As an example, if everyone limps to me in the first hand and I have aces I am putting up a big raise for sure.

[Maple Leafs]

Let me ask you this. Let's say it is the first hand of the tournament and you are holding Ah Kh. One player pushes all-in and in a moment of drunken stupidity flips his cards over and he has 9d 9c. Everyone else folds. Do you call here?
I'm probably going to embarass myself here, but I thought that a pair was about a 55% favorite vs. two over-cards. I'm not factoring in that the AK is suited, but my guess is I'm still a slight underdog here so I fold.

I'm still not convinced that 50% is the right cutoff here. If I'm faced with winning a little bit 60% of the time, and losing everything 40% of the time, I may still lean to folding. I guess the problem comes down to figuring out how to put a value on those extra chips you could win and comparing that to your lost value for busting out.

Let's take the same hypothetical situation but reduce it to smaller stakes to eliminate some of the psychology. Say I'm in a small twenty-person tournament with a $5 buy-in, and a $50/30/20 payout for top three finishers. I'm a slightly better than average player in this group; let's say my expected return is $8, meaning I'd expect to win $80 if I played the tournament ten times.

Now I'm faced with the AA, everyone all-in scenario at my table on the first hand. There's a 70% chance that I bust out, meaning my expected payout drops to $0. But if I win, my expected payout for the rest of the tourney goes way up since I have half the chips. But how much? If I think my chances are only double with the big stack, that's $16, so in ten tournaments I'd make $48 (because I bust out in 7/10). But if I think I'm good enough to win the whole tournament 2/3 of the time with such a big headstart, then that an expected payout of $100 over ten tries, so it's a good call.

Obviously I pulled those numbers out of the air, but my guess is that's the sort of calculation you'd need to do to get the right answer here.

Now I can hear the people from the first half of this thread screaming that in a big tourney like WSOP I'm not increasing my odds anywhere near as significantly by increasing my stack ten-fold. Which is true. But am I really reducing my expected payout that much by busting out early? Chances are I'm going to bust out before the money anyway, so my expected payout isn't as much to start with. I'm just busting out earlier than I normally would.

[primelord]

I'm probably going to embarass myself here, but I thought that a pair was about a 55% favorite vs. two over-cards. I'm not factoring in that the AK is suited, but my guess is I'm still a slight underdog here so I fold.
This was a bad example. I was only thinking about the percentages here and forgot the fact that in this example you are only doubling your chip stack as opposed to increasing it 10x.


Now I'm faced with the AA, everyone all-in scenario at my table on the first hand. There's a 70% chance that I bust out, meaning my expected payout drops to $0. But if I win, my expected payout for the rest of the tourney goes way up since I have half the chips. But how much? If I think my chances are only double with the big stack, that's $16, so in ten tournaments I'd make $48 (because I bust out in 7/10). But if I think I'm good enough to win the whole tournament 2/3 of the time with such a big headstart, then that an expected payout of $100 over ten tries, so it's a good call. If you think your chances of winning the tournament are really 2/3 then you should probably consider folding even in the smaller field. The big stack will have the ability to push you around a bit now, but it is not nearly as big of an advantage when the blinds are small.

Now I can hear the people from the first half of this thread screaming that in a big tourney like WSOP I'm not increasing my odds anywhere near as significantly by increasing my stack ten-fold. Which is true. But am I really reducing my expected payout that much by busting out early? Chances are I'm going to bust out before the money anyway, so my expected payout isn't as much to start with. I'm just busting out earlier than I normally would. I think the argument could probably be made that the size of the fields in the WSOP now are so large that even the experts don't have a high enough expectation of finishing in the money to fold that AA on the first hand. Many times the only way a discussion this involved breaks out over how to play a specific hand in a specific situation is if the decision is very close. I suspect that may be the case here.

Let's look at the extremes. Joe Schmo is sitting in the WSOP and gets AA on his first hand. He is very new to hold 'em and if you could acurately rank him he would be somewhere in the bottom 100 of the 2000+ field. He should absolutely call with his AA if everyone pushes all-in. He has virtually no shot of making the money and would be in much better shape if he took his chance to increase his stack by 10 times. On the other end we have Daniel Negranu sitting in your 20 man tournament with you and your buddies. He is without question the best player in the field. He only has to out last 19 people to win the whole tournament and he plays exceptionally well with a short stack. There is no way he should call that first AA hand. Almost half the field may be eliminated on one hand which improves his chances to win by a huge margin and despite the fact one player now has a much larger stack they still likely have no edge over him.

Those are quite obviously extreme examples, but examples none the less that should demonstrate that there is a correct time to both call and fold this hand. The question is where do we fit in. And again I am not certain I know the answer. I think if I were sitting in the WSOP and I got AA and 9 people pushed I would be best off folding that hand. I can't swear I would do it, but I consider myself a strong enough player that I am better off waiting for a chance where I am much more likely to win the hand with all my money in the middle. Honestly though if it is wrong I don't think it is wrong by much to call there and I know that no one would likely fault me for calling in that situation.

The other funny thing is many times these indepth conversations are also not only centered around decisions that are really very close either way, but they are also often around situations that you won't face very often.

[Glengoyne]

A few weeks back, I played in a $10 tourney with additional buy-ins. The first hand comes up KK. I was fifth or sixth to act, and the guy in front of me pushes all in. Now I typically don't rebuy in a tournament, and would almost never call this bet. But I decide that I'm going for it. So I call all in. I expected to have the guy heads up, but three others called as well. I wasn't all that happy when I saw their cards either. AK, 88, AQ, and a guy who essentially had two offs. There was an Ace on the flop, but I back doored a king high flush on the river. All of them rebought, and I had a nice head start.

Not that that scenario applies to the wsop question above, but the guy who called four others all in with something J7o was certainly making a relatively low risk/high reward "value" bet.

[primelord]

Not that that scenario applies to the wsop question above, but the guy who called four others all in with something J7o was certainly making a relatively low risk/high reward "value" bet.
Are you saying you think the guy who called 4 other all-ins with J7o made a good call?

[kingnebwsu]

This is an interesting thread guys. I had a funny situation just happen to me in online poker. I play 6-player NL sit&go's for $1.10. First hand had me in late position with AQs, so I raised to 3xBB. The guy on the button re-raised to 12xBB. I re-raised him to half my stack (like 35xBB) then he pushed all-in and I called. He showed AK. I should have figured that out, but it was the first hand of a sit&go and I've seen absolutely insane people play weak cards throughout. I guess I should have just called his first re-raise to see a flop. I didn't know what kind of player he was (since it was the first hand), so I guess I should have just called?

Any tips on how I should have played this would be appreciated. In hindsight, I guess I should have called his reraise?

I'm now down to $18.88 from my original start of $25. I haven't been up in a while, but just last week I was only down $2+. Four straight losses have killed me. The worst was when my pocket A's got rivered by pocket Q's on an all-in (bad beat complaint ;)).

Thanks guys :)

[larrymcg421]

What are the odds of the average person at the WSOP to make it to $100,000? Do you think you have more than a 30% chance? I think I'm a pretty decent poker player, but I doubt that is the case.

Still, that wouldn't necessarily be the same because having $100,000 after the first hand is obviously alot stronger than having it much later on.

[kcchief19]

I think radii has an excellent breakdown of this, but I think there is no way in heck I fold AA with a table of all-ins preflop any time or any place.

If there are that many players who go all-in, you have to figure they all have decent hands; and if they do go in 92o, even better. If all these players have decent hands, you have to figure that everyone as AK,KQ or pocket face cards. By that measure, all of the face cards are out of play. You have almost no risk of pocket kings catching three of a kind. Most straight draws are going to be out of play too, unless someone calls with JJ and catches 7, 8, 9, 10. But no one ever wins with JJ, so that's just silly. :)

The only thing you would really have to worry about would be something like 88. But that's just silly; I think only one in a billion players would go all-in on the first hand of the WSOP with 88. And you'd still be the favorite.

I think the only examples that make AA a bad play in this situation are as a ludicrous as the example in the first place. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

[Maple Leafs]

I think the only examples that make AA a bad play in this situation are as a ludicrous as the example in the first place. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
But again, the actual situation originally posed has everyone else going all-in without looking at their cards. How does that change your analysis?

[kcchief19]

Ah. I see it now. Actually, it makes me more convinced.

Let's assume I'm not Dan Harrington. I think the only argument you could make is the argument that you don't want to go out on the first hand. If you know you have AA, you are a prohibitive favorite. No hand will be a favorite against you and the odds that any two random cards followed by five more random cards beating you seem so long that the pot odds make it logical.

If I'm an experienced pro and think I can win, I could see not taking the risk and letting the morons battle it out. But if I'm me and I just won an Internet qualifier and have nothing to lose, I take the chance with a great hand. If I miss, I didn't really lose anything and if I hit, I astronomically increase my chances of making the money and advancing in the tournament.

The odds against nine random hands matching up well against AA are long -- can someone point me to documentation on only winning 30 percent of the time? It seems to me that AA versus nine sets of two random cards will win more frequently than 30 percent of the time. Based on some of the sources I've seen, I think it's the opposite -- AA is going to be a 60 percent or more favorite.

[Ragone]

my question simply is..


Is this the wsop freeroll?

[primelord]

The odds against nine random hands matching up well against AA are long -- can someone point me to documentation on only winning 30 percent of the time? It seems to me that AA versus nine sets of two random cards will win more frequently than 30 percent of the time. Based on some of the sources I've seen, I think it's the opposite -- AA is going to be a 60 percent or more favorite. You are wrong. I just picked 9 other hands at random. Here are the results.




cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 51341 25.50 149909 74.44 126 0.06 0.255
Js Kh 20350 10.11 178920 88.85 2106 1.05 0.106
5c 2h 11885 5.90 188579 93.65 912 0.45 0.061
8s 8c 12046 5.98 185935 92.33 3395 1.69 0.068
Qs 3d 10625 5.28 190107 94.40 644 0.32 0.054
9s 2c 10356 5.14 190108 94.40 912 0.45 0.053
Td Th 31020 15.40 170230 84.53 126 0.06 0.154
Ks 3s 10873 5.40 187879 93.30 2624 1.30 0.060
7c 4d 12160 6.04 186948 92.84 2268 1.13 0.066
8d 7d 21899 10.87 173940 86.38 5537 2.75 0.122

[Maple Leafs]

You are wrong. I just picked 9 other hands at random. Here are the results.
Where do you get stats like that?

[primelord]

Where do you get stats like that?
Are you suggesting I didn't compile those numbers on my own? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

www.twodimes.net/poker

[MJ4H]

www.twodimes.net

[cartman]

This thread has jinxed me. Unbelievably, in 3 of the past 5 sit and goes I've been in, I've gotten AA in either the first or second hand. Each time it ended up an all-in. I won two, lost one. Twice I was up against KK, the other JTs. Lost to one of the KKs when he picked up a 3rd K on the turn.

[Maple Leafs]

Are you suggesting I didn't compile those numbers on my own? No no... just wondering if you did them on the spot in your head, or whether you actually got a deck of cards and played out the 990 hands and kept track.

[Maple Leafs]

Bumping this one... I'd like some opinions on a hand, but didn't feel like it was worth its own thread.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on what the right play would be here. This is a situation I found myself in last night, and I'm not sure I made the right decision.

You are in a three-table, 27-player sit-n-go tournament. This is a low-stakes cash game, so the quality of play is not especially good, but you are inexperienced and probably still one of the weaker players.

There are six players left, none of whom seem to be especially reckless. There are two big stacks (10,000+), and two medium stacks (6,000+). You sit in fifth place with about 3,000 chips. There is a small stack with 1,500. Blinds are around the 300/600 mark, so the small stack is in trouble. The top five finishers get paid.

The last turn around the table hasn't seen a single flop. Each hand has been the same: a mid-to-late position raises three or four bets and everyone folds. Each of the four bigger stacks has done this at least once (it's not the same person buying every blind).

You are on the button. Once of the medium stacks raises to 2,400. You have made notes that this player is aggressive and has called some big bets with shaky hands, but he is not a maniac. It is folded around to you. You are holding JJ.

What's the right play?

[Suicane75]

Bumping this one... I'd like some opinions on a hand, but didn't feel like it was worth its own thread.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on what the right play would be here. This is a situation I found myself in last night, and I'm not sure I made the right decision.

You are in a three-table, 27-player sit-n-go tournament. This is a low-stakes cash game, so the quality of play is not especially good, but you are inexperienced and probably still one of the weaker players.

There are six players left, none of whom seem to be especially reckless. There are two big stacks (10,000+), and two medium stacks (6,000+). You sit in fifth place with about 3,000 chips. There is a small stack with 1,500. Blinds are around the 300/600 mark, so the small stack is in trouble. The top five finishers get paid.

The last turn around the table hasn't seen a single flop. Each hand has been the same: a mid-to-late position raises three or four bets and everyone folds. Each of the four bigger stacks has done this at least once (it's not the same person buying every blind).

You are on the button. Once of the medium stacks raises to 2,400. You have made notes that this player is aggressive and has called some big bets with shaky hands, but he is not a maniac. It is folded around to you. You are holding JJ.

What's the right play?

I don't know what the right play is but i'd probably go all in. Actually I do know that that's probably the wrong play. I would guess that folding would be correct but i'm no expert.

[rkmsuf]

All in. Only 3 hands put you behind and are quite unlikely. I'd put him on AK, AQ probably suited.

If he holds QQ, KK, AA, that's the way it goes but you can't pass on JJ.

[QuikSand]

I'm all in there.

[Suicane75]

And thats why i suck.

[rkmsuf]

And thats why i suck.


Big-Boys.com. The other thread says this is what your are looking for.

[Suicane75]

Big-Boys.com. The other thread says this is what your are looking for.
I like em tiny. Like Iceskater tiny.

[Radii]

You are on the button. Once of the medium stacks raises to 2,400. You have made notes that this player is aggressive and has called some big bets with shaky hands, but he is not a maniac. It is folded around to you. You are holding JJ.

What's the right play?


Even if your short stack is UTG(and thus in the blinds in the next two hands), I think you have to go all in here. A few reasons:

- The short stack has long enough that you folding everything waiting is going to cripple you, so if you do make the money by waiting him out you have very little chance of 4th.

- the short stack has just enough chips that if he doubles up you're now the short stack, and you're not likely to see JJ again.

- The mentality of even the medium stacks should be to steal the blinds and get in position to move up in the money at this point. A 2400 raise with just 6000ish chips seems a bit odd to me, he possibly has a better hand than the big stacks might need to try to steal, but I would say there's still a fairly good chance that he's on Ax, where x is jack or lower. Too good a chance that you're way ahead here, and maybe you get really lucky and he's on 99 or something.

Even if I knew it was a coinflip and he had AK, I'd probably still push here, unless you just desparately want to make the money. This is your chance to get in a position to win, not just to survive to 5th or maybe 4th, take it.

[kcchief19]

You are wrong. I just picked 9 other hands at random. Here are the results. Well done! Now that I review the issue, I think that what I understood from another board on a similar problem was that AA would be a prohibitive favorite against each hand individually, but not neccessarily all nine hands collectively. My bad.

[kcchief19]

Now I know why primelord beat me with his A8 versus my A7. :)

I think this also explains how I lost KK to AJ during last week's FOFC tourney.

[dixieflatline]

All-in. Unless the 5th place money is huge then you should be doing everything in your power to try to win. You have already seen how play tightens up on the bubble. In general this is a great oppertunity to increase your stack by blind stealing. If you lose that sucks that you ended on the bubble but All-in here makes you money in the long run. I guess the next question is how low of a pocket pair would you make this move with? 99 still seems good but it gets murky after that I think.