Tournament strategy, staying away from big confrontations.

[LarsVegas]

It is well-known tournament poker strategy to try accumulate the most chips with as few showdowns and big pots as possible. Avoid close encounters, wait for better situations, try to win uncontested.

Some, such as Phil Hellmuth, takes this concept very far. I think he would *usually* fold QQ even at a semi-late stage in big tournaments and against fairly live players, just because he might be trailing or he may get out-drawn, and instead he will opt to continue picking up small pots, which he is usually quite successful at.

So scenario: WSOP big-one. First hand. UTG raises all-in immediatly and it's folded to Phil in the big blind with two aces. Lets for arguments sake say UTG's raise MUST mean a pocket pair from AA-TT. Not AK. Hell, lets even assume UTG accidently shows a pair of Jacks or similar.

Does Phil fold and how close is it?

Lets assume two other cards have accidentially been exposed and they happen to be the two case aces, making the confrontation close to 75-25.

Will Phil Hellmuth take a 75-25 confrontation on the first hand of "the big one" getting almost excactly even money odds?

lars

[MicroBob]

interesting.

first....phil may not realize it's 75-25. he was a bit confused about AKo vs AKs afterall.
but, assuming that he does realize it's 75-25 i think he lays it down here for reasons you detailed. he should be confident enough in his own play where he feels he doesnt need to risk his whole tourney just for a first-hand double-up.

but i also think it's a very close decision for him. kind of hard to lay-down AA PF afterall.

in a 50-100 person field i say he may go for it.
in a 1000-2000 person field the value of the double-up on the first hand is much less.

[SumZero]

I find it really hard to imagine that anyone is a good enough poker player over the field to make passing up 75/25 edges, even for all their chips, correct. I mean if you aren't willing to go for the 75/25 edges, when will you go?

[tylerdurden]

As your skill increases, risking all of your chips (or a significant portion of them) on a single bet makes less and less sense, even if your EV is positive, especially in an elimination tournament without rebuys, as your overall edge over the course of the entire tournament will have far less variance than your edge in a single hand. If, however, you're a poor player, you want to maximize the effect of the few times you get the upper hand, so going all in makes sense.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
As your skill increases, risking all of your chips (or a significant portion of them) on a single bet makes less and less sense, even if your EV is positive, especially in an elimination tournament without rebuys, as your overall edge over the course of the entire tournament will have far less variance than your edge in a single hand. If, however, you're a poor player, you want to maximize the effect of the few times you get the upper hand, so going all in makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you pass up 75-25 shots for all your chips, it's basically impossible for your skill to increase until you do. I mean, everyone realizes that you get to apply your super-duper skill to the second $10,000, too, right?

Jerrod

[EnderW27]

I think he'd take those chances. No, 20,000 chips in a field of 2,000 players isn't much at all. But that's not the main factor here. 20,000 chips is literally twice what anyone else at the table has, making him not only the dominate stack. Add that to the fact that he's most likely the best player at any random table (and the other players know it) and it becomes more likely people will fold to him rather than risk their stacks going up against him.

So 25% of the time he'll leave the tournament. 75% of the time it becomes twice as easy to start gaining chips whenever he enters the pot. And the more chips he starts to get, the easier it becomes to dominate. With that in mind, I think he'd call.
Or, at least, he should call.

I mean, let's take it out of the context of this specific problem. Who the heck folds AA preflop?

[Kidd_King]

Maybe the guy has joker joker as his hole cards.

No but seriously, I think it would be a mistake to lay this hand down. Granted 25 percent of the time hed lose the hand, it is a big enough edge to warrant a call.

Given the case that there is one caller before him, or multiple callers, making the AA less advantageous because of multiway pots, I would be apt to fold, yes even pocket Aces. I'm pretty sure Phil would do the same.

I think it just more or less depends on your gut instinct. I hate getting dealt a powerful hand on the first hand or an early hand of any tournament. Sure I could make some good cash off it, but I like feeling things out first too. AA I may call, anything else, I may muck and feel out my opponents (unless I already know the all-er in-ner).

[playerfl]

I recently played a freeroll. Everybody was going all in left and right, lots of them had KK or AA. Many people who were dealt big pairs were early leaders, but most of them were knocked out before I was, even though I only played 4 hands the whole time and was never dealt anything better than a pair of 10's. Getting AA on the first hand actually presents a temptation to take an unecessary risk, because you can almost always fold until level 3 or 4 and still have a shot at the money.

[bogey]

Sure, you can fold, and maybe squirm into the money later on, but the real score comes when you actually win the thing and to do that you need to double up a few times along the way, and theres not a much a better chance to do that than allin with AA preflop.

[wattsman]

Ok, how realistic do you think those odds are compared to what will actually happen when Phil goes all-in?
A percentage of hands are rags that would never call and how many mixed paints are gonna call in the first round? SO the only thing I see making that call is AKs, KK, KQs(mebbe), JTs (watch out for my favorite hand cause it keeps paying me, even against the odds) and of course another AA. What's the harm when I have reduced it that far? The only callers are beat or crazy.....or am I the crazy one? (one possibility I must always keep a vigilant eye out for)

[Cosimo]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it really hard to imagine that anyone is a good enough poker player over the field to make passing up 75/25 edges, even for all their chips, correct. I mean if you aren't willing to go for the 75/25 edges, when will you go?

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision isn't to take a 75/25 shot or not, but rather if one should take a 75/25 for all your chips or a series of 75/25 shots each for 10% of your stack.

In this case, the same risk (or even less risks) taken later for a smaller bit of your chips is, I think, a better bet later on that is worth waiting for.

[playerfl]

your not crazy, but 0% chance of busting out is better than 25% chance of busting out. Its a matter of money management.

[SossMan]

This might be one of the most unitentionally funny threads I've seen in a while. Do you guys know what you sound like?? Phil doesn't lay down AA vs a single opponent preflop on hand 1 or hand 100 or hand 1000 in a tourney. Nobody does. It's pretty silly.

You guys should cross post this to the tournament forum if you want to get some laughs.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
As your skill increases, risking all of your chips (or a significant portion of them) on a single bet makes less and less sense, even if your EV is positive, especially in an elimination tournament without rebuys, as your overall edge over the course of the entire tournament will have far less variance than your edge in a single hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


very well put.


for those of you who think it's silly NOT to call...then at what percentage do you consider laying it down if not 75-25??

would you make the same play at 70-30?? or 65-35?? or 60-40??

if i'm a phil hellmuth, and i KNOW i'm better than most of the players in the field and i expect to make it to the top 10% (ITM) more often than not, then i have to think i have a better than 75% chance of doubling my stack via various bluffs, and larger advantages (flopping top trips or a straight for example) and just generally pushing my opponents around.


i don't think it really matters a whole lot that it's the glorious almighty AA.

think about the same scenario except you have 77 to his 66. this should be roughly the same odds.
or your 87 vs. his 82 (and another 2 or maybe two 2's have been exposed). i dont know if this makes it 75-25 or not but lets just assume that it's reasonably close to that.


so....don't get distracted by the whole AA thing....just focus on the 75-25 risk-reward of either getting to:

A. double-up on the first hand of a huge MTT (which i don't think means very much, especially so for a good player) or
B. a 25% chance that you are going home on the first hand


that's how i look at it anyway.

[MicroBob]

i was thinking some more about this.

here's another way of looking at it that i find interesting.


lets say that heading into this tournament Phil has a 10% chance of making it to the final-table (based on his superiority over most of the rest of the field) and that for all intents and purposes reaching the final table is his goal.


furthermore, lets say that if he doubles-up his chips on the first hand he goes from 10% to 12% to make the final table.

that leaves him with 2 choices that will yield 3 results.

a. he can have a 75% chance of making it to the final table 12% of the time.
b. or a 25% chance of making it to the final table 0% of the time
c. or by not playing at all he remains a 10% chance to make it to the final-table 100% of the time.


i think that increasing his chances from 10% to 12% on a first-hand double-up is reasonable. but if you think this is incorrect then feel free to assume that he goes from a 10% chance all the way up to a 20% chance.

even in this scenario i am not sure it is worth a call on the first hand....and i certainly don't think he goes up to 20% just by going from 10k chips to 20k chips.


also... note that there is a diminishing-returns thing at work here (i think). if he did this double-up-or-out multiple times he can only raise his percentage as high as 99% to make the final-table. he can't raise it to a 100% chance of making it until he actually makes it.


i do wonder how many think this is worth the risk at 75-25....or 80-20....or 65-35....etc.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Many people who were dealt big pairs were early leaders, but most of them were knocked out before I was, even though I only played 4 hands the whole time and was never dealt anything better than a pair of 10's.

[/ QUOTE ]
Were the players who started on the second day of the WSOP main event better than those who started on day 1, just because many of those who started on the first day had been eliminated already? That aggressive players were knocked out before you does not mean that they made any mistakes. It does not mean your play was correct. I'd bet that there were many other players who played timidly and quietly lost.

No strategy allows you to win the tournament most of the time. Get your chips in when you have the best hand or the odds to call. It is a common misconception that surviving is valuable because you will take advantage of better opportunities later. Wrong! Risking getting knocked out lets you take more advantage of later opportunities, not less, since you will have more chips on average. There are exceptions, such as if there are several absent players at your table, but in general, chip value is very close to linear at the start of a tournament.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Risking getting knocked out lets you take more advantage of later opportunities, not less, since you will have more chips on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true in the long run, but in reality there's only a finite number of WSOP main events you can play in a lifetime.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Risking getting knocked out lets you take more advantage of later opportunities, not less, since you will have more chips on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true in the long run, but in reality there's only a finite number of WSOP main events you can play in a lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are trying to rationalize a hideously bad play.

The number of tournaments you can play has almost no effect on the proper play early in one tournament. Play to win prize money, not to survive until the next hand. Be willing to gamble when you have a huge edge, and on average, you will have more chips to take advantage of later opportunities.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to rationalize a hideously bad play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. At some point, my tolerance for wild variances, especially in one-time or limited-time opportunities, outweighs my desire to make the best play.

Example 1. You get AA in movie-style (i.e. not limited to table-stakes) no-limit game. Do you go *really* all-in and bet your whole bankroll, your house, everything you own? You've got the edge, get all your chips in there!

Example 2. A mysterious billionaire gives you a dollar. He makes you a deal - you can either walk away and keep the dollar (EV 1), or you can flip a coin to go triple-or-nothing (EV 1.5). A no-brainer, right? What if he makes the same deal with $1000? Still a no-brainer. How about $10,000,000? I think I'd just keep the $10,000,000.

[playerfl]

The players on day two are on average better players. If a good player gets knocked out on day 1 its because he took an unecessary risk. You can't take an uneccessary risk, lose, then say its all bad luck. The fact is you made a mistake.

[playerfl]

then why doesn't phil hellmuth or t.j. cloutier play this way ?

[playerfl]

the question was would he go all in on it in the first hand preflop. Sure he would play it for a reasonable amount, but that is a different thing entirely.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
in a 50-100 person field i say he may go for it.
in a 1000-2000 person field the value of the double-up on the first hand is much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the value of double up is much the same in a 2000 and 100 person field. 100 and 10 hmm.. maybe some significant differnce. But of course we are talking about what Phil Hellmuth thinks, must admit I haven’t a clue.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
if i'm a phil hellmuth, and i KNOW i'm better than most of the players in the field and i expect to make it to the top 10% (ITM) more often than not

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is what you are implying, but Phil does NOT make the money more than 50% of the time. He is good, but he's not 5 times better than the field.

[ QUOTE ]
A. double-up on the first hand of a huge MTT (which i don't think means very much, especially so for a good player) or

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where you are wrong. Why should it mean "very little" to a "good player"? Why should having twice the stack size as your opponents to start not make you more dangerous. If anything, I think the "good" players take more advantage of a bullying big stack, since they know how to wield it.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
lets say that heading into this tournament Phil has a 10% chance of making it to the final-table (based on his superiority over most of the rest of the field) and that for all intents and purposes reaching the final table is his goal.


furthermore, lets say that if he doubles-up his chips on the first hand he goes from 10% to 12% to make the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are way off here. You are saying that twice as many chips are only worth 20% more value?? You don't think that he will use those chips to do exactly what you are advocating: survival? Having a big stack is much more of an advantage than people on here are giving credit for. I think that 10% figure moves much closer to, if not exactly, 20% when Phil H. doubles on hand 1.

[SossMan]

Bob,

Don't mean to pick on you, but I think you should do a search on this topic and see what Greg Raymer has to say about chipEV vs. $$EV early in a tourny.

[MLG]

keep fighting the good fight man.

[playerfl]

if he wins the hand, then yeah, he has more chips to survive with, thats not the point.

look up "money management" in terms of the stock market and you will see what the other side of the argument is getting at.

[ohgeetee]

you would take a 1 in 4 chance at losing all of your money for 1:1 pot odds, when the opportunity is there to win the same 10k by getting 5 people in the pot and only risking 2k?

in a tournament, there is not really a long term per se. Just like you play table position, you have to play tournament position too, and out of the tournament is no position you can work your way up from.

[kevyk]

Has no one realized that a player who habitually passes up confrontations when he is a huge favorite would essentially be dead money? Any other player who discovered this tendency could simply push all-in and blow Phil right off his hand whenever they wanted to.

In tournaments, the best player is not the player who is somehow "best" in some nebulous sense; it is the player who is most difficult to play against. It seems obvious that the player who best fits this description is the one who is constantly forcing his opponents to make tough decisions for all their chips. To play this way, you simply must gamble a little. Of course you really want to hassle players who are far more short-stacked than you are, but a confrontation or two is the price you pay for a correct, aggressive strategy.

[kurtcobain]

The more he passes up chances as a 75% favorite, his 10% chance of making the final table decreases.

[The Gift Of Gab]

i think this thread shows perfectly why many successful tournament players get away with aggressive styles that would get them slaughtered in cash games...

people who think you should fold aces preflop here are easy to rob blind.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

Be willing to gamble when you have a huge edge, and on average, you will have more chips to take advantage of later opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people are focusing too much on "taking advantage of later opportunities." As pzhon points out, THIS is the huge edge you've been waiting for. It doesn't get any better than holding AA pre-flop. What else are you waiting for? Get your chips in the middle.

That having been said, there's really only 1 case where I'd fold AA pre-flop and it's spelled out in TPFAP. If I'm on the bubble in a satellite where 1st through X places are all paid the same (namely an entry into a bigger tournament), and multiple players go all-in before me where I'm the shortest stack, I'm folding anything and everything including AA.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
That having been said, there's really only 1 case where I'd fold AA pre-flop and it's spelled out in TPFAP. If I'm on the bubble in a satellite where 1st through X places are all paid the same (namely an entry into a bigger tournament), and multiple players go all-in before me where I'm the shortest stack, I'm folding anything and everything including AA.


[/ QUOTE ]

At this point I wouldn't even know that I was folding AA, since I wouldn't be looking at my cards.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
look up "money management" in terms of the stock market and you will see what the other side of the argument is getting at.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I may get one ga-ba-ma-zillion hits if i google "money management, stock market".
Please elaborate how you think this relates to tournament theory.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
The more he passes up chances as a 75% favorite, his 10% chance of making the final table decreases.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Example 1. You get AA in movie-style (i.e. not limited to table-stakes) no-limit game. Do you go *really* all-in and bet your whole bankroll, your house, everything you own? You've got the edge, get all your chips in there!

Example 2. A mysterious billionaire gives you a dollar. He makes you a deal - you can either walk away and keep the dollar (EV 1), or you can flip a coin to go triple-or-nothing (EV 1.5). A no-brainer, right? What if he makes the same deal with $1000? Still a no-brainer. How about $10,000,000? I think I'd just keep the $10,000,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

These examples have nothing to do with a poker tournament. In example 1, the aggregate value of your "life savings" is much greater than the sum of its parts. This simply is not true for tournament chips.
In example 2, who is the billionaire giving you this opportunity? Is it the "dead money" available in the tournament? Or is it this schmoe who just pushed all his chips in on you when you have AA preflop? I think its the latter moreso than the former.

[playerfl]

"money management" doesn't mean the same thing to stock traders that it does to the general public. Stock traders are always betting when they think the odds are good enough, but they need to know how much money to risk on the trade. The gist of it is, no matter how good you think the odds of the trade are, it is NEVER correct to bet your entire acct. Sure, if you win you are a hero for a while, if you lose you are out of business.

The tricky part is that at some stage you must shift gears and then getting AA is the answer to your prayers, but there is disagreement over when that switch should happen.

[top2pear]

[ QUOTE ]
Add that to the fact that he's most likely the best player at any random table (and the other players know it) and it becomes more likely people will fold to him rather than risk their stacks going up against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure about the average player being more likely to fold UNLESS you're referring to when Phil's first to get it all-in.

In a field of 2,600 players, there are a whole lot of true gamblers, people who want a good story, and terrible players who should've saved their $10k. When Phil's in a hand and a player has more than one of these characteristics, that player's MORE likely to call him 1) to get that adrenaline rush of being all-in with the whole tournament on the line immediately, 2) to be able to say (truthfully or otherwise), "I beat/outplayed Phil Hellmuth in the World Series of Poker," and/or 3) to think their pair of ducks is likely to be a "big favorite" against any other hand that would call them.

And i think the reason the original poster picked Phil is that he's a topnotch pro and he's known to fold big hands (and takes great pride in it--which, as we all know goeth before a fall). I don't think the question was, "What would Phil do?" but more accurately, "What should one do?" or maybe "What should one do if one is to play like Phil Hellmuth, one of the most successful tournament poker players in WSoP history?"

(Can you tell i have a crush on that geeky brat? It's really just envy for his past glory--nothing romantical about it.)

[meep_42]

If you take the tournament as the whole, not the hand, decisions like this are easy. If this situation were to happen on the first hand of the first day of the WSOP main event, would you bet your $10,000 on one hand? Does this suitably increase your expected return on that $10,000?

I just don't think the risk always fits the reward.
I'm also not sure i'm the man that could lay that down, though.

-d

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
(Can you tell i have a crush on that geeky brat? It's really just envy for his past glory--nothing romantical about it.)


[/ QUOTE ]

whoa...i think i just threw up in my mouth

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
The gist of it is, no matter how good you think the odds of the trade are, it is NEVER correct to bet your entire acct. Sure, if you win you are a hero for a while, if you lose you are out of business.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a silly analogy.
If I'm a stock trader, I can always invest in low risk mutual funds, muni bonds, insured CD's, etc to keep up with inflation.
However, in a tournament, with ever increasing blinds, you are forced to risk significant portions, if not all of, your stack on good bets. You are forced to "gambol" on non-100% certainties because of the nature of tournament poker. If you could sit there forever and be gauranteed to steal blinds once a round, you could wait, but passing up a situation where you are gauranteed to be a very big favorite is just silly.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take the tournament as the whole, not the hand, decisions like this are easy. If this situation were to happen on the first hand of the first day of the WSOP main event, would you bet your $10,000 on one hand? Does this suitably increase your expected return on that $10,000?

I just don't think the risk always fits the reward.
I'm also not sure i'm the man that could lay that down, though.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'd take it. This is THE best pre-flop situation I can hope for. I'll take it. Does me no good to wait for better situations if none will come.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
The more he passes up chances as a 75% favorite, his 10% chance of making the final table decreases.

[/ QUOTE ]


if he puts his WHOLE stack on the line as a 75% favorite on 4 seperate occasions then he will likely be out of the tournament since he is likely to only win 3 of those 4 battles.


i don't know why some are saying 'You have Aces!!! and you're thinking about folding.'

it's almost the exact same if you have 88 against his 66.
i know that many here are just looking at 75-25 (which is the correct way to view it) but just arguing 'you have Aces' is silly at this point...because you already know what your chances are.



okay....so some of you like the idea of risking your whole stack if you're a 75-25 favorite.
that's fine...and i understand why.


but i would be curious where you would draw the line (as i indicated in my previous post).

certainly you wouldn't do this if you were a 51-49 favorite or 54-46 (typical for pair vs. overcards).

what about 60-40??
that seems a bit slim to me too.

do you want to roll the dice at 65-35?? i suspect some of you might put the line somewhere around here....not sure though.

for me (speaking only in terms of 1st hand in big MTT...and in a situation where i know i am significantly better than most of the rest of the field...like a Hellmuth):

85-15: i'm almost definitely making this play
80-20: probably
75-25: maybe
70-30: probably not


so if it's SOOOO obvious to make this play as a 75-25 favorite then i challenge you to come up with the highest advantage where you WOULDN'T make this play.

to put my answer more concretely (instead of a bunch of maybe's and probably's) i'll say that my cut-off is 80-20.

this is only to CALL someone else's all-in where you know the EXACT chances of winning vs. losing.

i'm hardly averse to 'pushing' all-in.....much of the value in pushing comes from taking the pot right then and there.

i would say that MOST of the time a top tourney player pushes all-in they are hoping that their opponent does not call.
particularly so in the early and middle stages before you make it to the money or the final table.
even with a decent advantage...you would rather just take a smaller pot then have someone call you and risk getting knocked out.

i consider myself to be a fairly aggressive (perhaps overly so) tournament player....but i also admit to not exactly being god's gift to tourney play.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
The players on day two are on average better players. If a good player gets knocked out on day 1 its because he took an unecessary risk. You can't take an uneccessary risk, lose, then say its all bad luck. The fact is you made a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed my reference. In this year's WSOP main event, half of the field started on day 1a, then took a break of a day. The other half of the field started on day 1b. The surviving players were combined.

Half of the players who started on day 1a were eliminated in the first day. This did not mean that the players on day 1b were better. A player who takes proper risks early and loses did not make a mistake, even though someone can easily survive by posting and folding, choosing to get involved later.

Busting out early does not imply bad play. Don't pride yourself on losing late rather than losing early. Early in a tournament, when the field is weakest, is when you might get the best opportunities to increase your stack. To fold when you are a huge favorite is a big mistake, and you aren't going to be able to make up for that later.

[top2pear]

well that beats somebody ELSE throwing up in your mouth! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[top2pear]

How about when you have a mortal lock and some bumpkin is bluffing all-in ahead of you cuz you've successfully trapped him? What if your visible laydown of aces PREFLOP on the first hand of the tournament nearly guarantees you that when you slowplay your monsters correctly, some doofus is gonna try to bluff you out? Those are slightly better chances to double up that utilize your skills more than a preflop push and watching the cards come down without anything else to do about the outcome.

Why do you think Negreanu, Flack, Ivey, and Hansen like to play a lot of flops (i.e., don't like to push early)? Is it because they're afraid to risk everything? If so, maybe there's a reason. And maybe they're much better tournament players than us.

Granted PHIL HELLMUTH has been playing too tentatively; he hasn't adjusted to the poker boom and how that affects the way he needs to play against the bums who crowd the early rounds of big tournaments (people who still need to ask "why does a flush beat a straight when you have 9 outs to a 4-flush and only 8 to an open-ended straight? doesn't that mean it's harder to get a straight?").

But like i said before about this question: it ain't about how Phil would play, but how ONE should play.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
to put my answer more concretely (instead of a bunch of maybe's and probably's) i'll say that my cut-off is 80-20.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, let me get this straight....everyone folds to the SB on hand 1 of the WSOP. The SB goes all in. A gust of wind blows thru Binion's and his cards flip over and he has 66. You look down and have 99.
You are saying that you would fold?

If the answer to the above question is yes, then I think you need to rethink your assersion that:

"and in a situation where i know i am significantly better than most of the rest of the field"

FWIW...I would probably draw the line somewhere around 65% or so. That is, I am willing to call all in with my overpair on the flop when my opponent pushes and shows me a flush draw (with no overs to my pair).

I think you greatly overestimate the chances of better, and less risky, opportunities coming along later.
Also, many on here seem to be completely ignoring, or at least greatly underestimating the reward part of the Risk/Reward calculation.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
or at least greatly underestimating the reward part of the Risk/Reward calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]


obviously this gets to the crux of the matter.

i do not think that a 35% chance of elimination on the first hand (as you indicated for your line) is worth a double-up in a 2000-person field.
that seems excessively risky to me.



and i'm not sure why you think that it increases his chances of making it to the final table from 10% all the way up to 20%. remember, he starts with 1/2000 of the total chips....and now has 1/1000 of the total chips. he already
had a significant advantage over the field and i don't believe he doubled that advantage just by going from 10k to 20k.

10k chips X 2k players = 20 million total chips
you no have 20k out of of those 20 million total chips instead of 10k.

does he move up to a 40% chance if he gets another double-up opportunity just like this 2 hands later??
does he go up to 80% if he doubles-up two more times?
certainly not.

just my humble thoughts on the matter.

[Piers]

One thing people appear to be overlooking is that; while the argument that if you go all in and bust out, you will miss future opportunities to make future more favourable bets is clearly true, the converse is also true.

If you fail to take the opportunity to double you will also miss the chance to make favourable bets in the future. For instance when you double through some idiot a little while later you will make only half the amount you could have made. Also with half the chips you will typically be knocked out of the tournament earlier which will result in missed opportunities you could have taken if you had doubled on that first hand and hence lasted longer..

But really all this logic chopping is fairly pointless. The key is to know what the mapping between tournament chips and prize money is. Know this and know everything. The computer simulations I have done suggest that doubling ones chips early in a big tournament increase ones equity in the tournament by over 95%. If you doubt me, do your own sims, or quote me someone else who has done some and has a different result.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
The computer simulations I have done suggest that doubling ones chips early in a big tournament increase ones equity in the tournament by over 95%. If you doubt me, do your own sims, or quote me someone else who has done some and has a different result.


[/ QUOTE ]


this is an interesting point that i was not aware of.

of course, i am assuming that these sims give each player and equal chance of winning.

for the hellmuth example we are increasing his chances from 0.5% (10 players out of 2000 at final-table) to 10% just based on his skill (which may be exaggerating his advantage some).

if it's an average-player...or if all the players in the field have the exact same amount of skill...then i can see where increasing your stack from 10k to 20k increases your advantage by almost double....from 0.5% to 0.99% chance of making the final table.


but for someone like Hellmuth i don't know if he increases his advantage by as much just by doubling his stack because we already have him listed as being 20x more likely to make the final-table then your 'average' player. again, maybe this gives him too much credit...not sure.


anyway, your point is well-taken.


btw....i thought of another way to look at it.
lets say you are entering a 10k tourney...and they pick your name out of a hat before the tourney start and you are the only one that gets to roll an 8 sided die (if you choose).

on 6 of the numbers you get to start with 20k in chips instead of 10k...and on 2 of the numbers you get told 'thanks. enjoy your drive home while the rest of us enjoy the tourney.'

obviously some of you believe that rolling the die is clearly the option to take...the 3 out of 4 chance of a double-up is worth it in your opinion.

personally, i think Hellmuth would say 'why do i want to gamble with some silly roll of the dice before the tournament even starts when i KNOW full well that i'm already better than a lot of the players here and i should easily be able to double my stack with less than a 1-in-4 risk just by bullying around these amateurs?'

i might be wrong...maybe Hellmuth would prefer to roll the die for the early double-up. i sure don't think i would. i'd rather say 'just give me my 10k in chips. Lets Play!!'


i know there have been some tourneys where players have started off with different amounts of chips just based on how many raked-hands or hours in the poker-room they had or whatever.
i wonder how much this chip difference affects results and if there have been any significant studies on it.
i would rather see results from real tourneys with differing starting chip-amounts than sims....but that doesn't mean i think the sims aren't accurate. i just don't know.



btw - it also just occured to me that this whole question is entirely moot....because we all know that Hellmuth always shows up 30-45 minutes late anyway.

[bogey]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you think Negreanu, Flack, Ivey, and Hansen like to play a lot of flops (i.e., don't like to push early)? Is it because they're afraid to risk everything? If so, maybe there's a reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

yeh the reason they dont like putting in tons of money preflop is that they don't have aces every time

[bogey]

[ QUOTE ]
How about when you have a mortal lock and some bumpkin is bluffing all-in ahead of you cuz you've successfully trapped him?

[/ QUOTE ]

how often do you get one of these mortal locks? so your only going to the felt when you have the absolute nuts with no possible chance of being outdrawn and someone willing to go to the felt with you? that happens often

[ QUOTE ]
What if your visible laydown of aces PREFLOP on the first hand of the tournament nearly guarantees you that when you slowplay your monsters correctly, some doofus is gonna try to bluff you out? Those are slightly better chances to double up that utilize your skills more than a preflop push and watching the cards come down without anything else to do about the outcome.


[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, isnt that exactly what has already happened here. You hold the nuts and some doofus tried to bluff you out of it.

More likely if the table somehow knows you laid down aces here, your not gonna be able to steal a pot ever, because everyone will and should play back at you with shizat.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
You hold the nuts and some doofus tried to bluff you out of it.


[/ QUOTE ]


perhaps my definition of 'nuts' differs from yours.
but i don't view holding AA PF as 'the nuts'.

yes, it is the bes hand PF...but it does not guarantee that you will win the hand.

it doesn't matter that you have AA.
what matters is that in this situation you have precisely a 75-25 advantage and it's up to you to determine if that is worth the call.

obviously you are saying that it is....but the fact that you are holding AA here is irrelevant....and i certainly don't think it is 'the nuts'.

[Akasha]

[ QUOTE ]
you would take a 1 in 4 chance at losing all of your money for 1:1 pot odds, when the opportunity is there to win the same 10k by getting 5 people in the pot and only risking 2k?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont follow your logic=(

Winning vs 5 other people is much different than winning heads up. Those odds arent even comparable.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
btw - it also just occured to me that this whole question is entirely moot....because we all know that Hellmuth always shows up 30-45 minutes late anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this actually gives us a clue to the answer.

If he thought that getting all-in with Aces early on would significantly improve his chances in the tournament, why wouldn't he turn up and just throw away anything that wasn't aces?

Granted, most of the time he'd either not get them or just pick up the blinds, but sooner or later he would get the chance to get all-in heads-up with Aces. If that really doubles his chances of getting to the final table, would he forgo it? If it made him 20% more likely to, would he forgo it?

I don't know the answer, but I think it's an interesting way to approach the same question.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
people who think you should fold aces preflop here are easy to rob blind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine the ultimate extrapolation of this.

A tournament with 9999 players focussed on survival and who will fold anything including pocket aces preflop rather than go all-in against someone who has them covered.
The 10000th player is a maniac who goes all-in preflop on every hand. Who wins? The maniac.

The only way to stop the maniac is for someone to take a risk.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Be willing to gamble when you have a huge edge, and on average, you will have more chips to take advantage of later opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]
then why doesn't phil hellmuth or t.j. cloutier play this way ?

[/ QUOTE ]

They do, and that is what makes them successful. Did you think it was folding AK to AQ that makes Hellmuth a winner? No, that is an exception, a play people talk about because it was bad.

The strategy of passing up small edges to wait for larger edges only makes sense for players of their caliber. However, they can't afford to give up huge edges of the type we are discussing, and neither can any player trying to win.

You won't win more by emulating Hellmuth's worst folds, particularly if you don't outplay the field by a huge amount.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to rationalize a hideously bad play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. At some point, my tolerance for wild variances, especially in one-time or limited-time opportunities, outweighs my desire to make the best play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you are trying to play beautiful poker, not good poker. Once you have entered the tournament, you can't escape variance. By avoiding risks when you have a huge advantage, you'll be spanked by the variance later when you don't have a huge advantage.

If you can't stand variance, quit poker.

[ QUOTE ]

Example 2. A mysterious billionaire gives you a dollar. He makes you a deal - you can either walk away and keep the dollar (EV 1), or you can flip a coin to go triple-or-nothing (EV 1.5). A no-brainer, right? What if he makes the same deal with $1000? Still a no-brainer. How about $10,000,000? I think I'd just keep the $10,000,000.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've written expositions on these forums about the Kelly Criterion for rational gambling with an advantage. That says to maximize the expected logarithm of your bankroll. This assumes that going bankrupt is infinitely bad. Given an opportunity like this, you bet a fraction of your bankroll, not the whole amount, and you walk away from +E$ gambles that are not +ELog($). By the Kelly Criterion, the chance that your bankroll ever falls to half of its initial level is about 1/2.

This idea does not apply to tournament play. In a tournament, you will not be able to step down in limits. You will probably bust out anyway, and failing to take a chance to double up as a 3:1 favorite increases the chance that you bust out.

How much do you think your skill magnifies the power of your initial chips? Mike Caro says the top players have about a 200% ROI (a factor of 3), which I think is low, but the right order of magnitude. Ok, how much do you think your skill magnifies the power of your chips if you double up?

[ohgeetee]

I'm talking future pots, regardless of # of people per pot.

The best way to look at the situation is how microbob is explaining though, which is establishing the real value of 2x chips in the first hand of the tournament of such a large scale. My example is trying to illustrate how the same amount of money can be won with significantly less risk to your tournament livelihood.

[ohgeetee]

This example is not an accurate analogy of the example provided in the first post.

In this example, realistically, we would all see what the maniac was doing, and would indeed call him out. however, if you applied the same rules and let us see his cards each time, would we do it when he held JJ and the case aces were blown or would we do it when he has 72o or something similar?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]

Then you are trying to play beautiful poker, not good poker. Once you have entered the tournament, you can't escape variance. By avoiding risks when you have a huge advantage, you'll be spanked by the variance later when you don't have a huge advantage.

If you can't stand variance, quit poker.
[ QUOTE ]


I'm not trying to escape it, I'm trying to manage it. If you can't manage it, you're going to need a much deeper bankroll.

Back to my original point, I would probably call with AA *if* this were "just any tournament." Given that it's the WSOP main event, though, I'd rather not go out on hand 1 and have to wait a whole year to get another shot at it.

[playerfl]

you just don't understand the analogy, sorry I thought there were more stock traders on this board. CD's and mutual funds have nothing to do with stock trading.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
you just don't understand the analogy, sorry I thought there were more stock traders on this board. CD's and mutual funds have nothing to do with stock trading.

[/ QUOTE ]
Trading stocks is not analogous. Traders can operate by the Kelly Criterion (and many apply fractional Kelly systems, though they don't always know their edge). So can poker players when deciding whether to play in a tournament. It makes no sense to be so risk-averse within a tournament because you are sure to be exposed to the risk of busting out later. There is nothing wrong with gambling when you have a huge advantage.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with gambling when you have a huge advantage.


[/ QUOTE ]


i agree.

the question is....how much reward are you getting for your risk?

is 3:1 advantage worth doubling-up your stack on the first hand?? this is much different then doubling-up later on in a tournament.

some have stated that you just can't turn down an advantage as huge as 75:25 in this situation.

personally, i don't think that's a HUGE advantage. and i don't think that doubling-up on the first hand is that huge of a help for a Hellmuth.


nobody seems to be interested in discussing what the advantage would have to be here where they would consider folding.
do you guys still make this play at 70:30 or at 65:35??
just curious.


my cut-off for this play ON THE FIRST HAND ONLY would be around 80-20.....so that means i would likely call the JJ with my AA if i hadn't seen the other A's exposed.

as you get further into the tournament and the blinds are increasing i gradually become more willing to take greater risks.

also....if this were just a 300 player MTT with rapidly escalating blinds i don't think i turn-down the 75:25 double-up on the first hand.

but in a 2000 player or 2600 player field with a slower blind structure there's more time for skill to be a determining factor. so i don't accept such a risk (on the first hand or in the first round of blinds) unless we're at 80-20 or 85-15.

[SossMan]

So are you going to fold your aces if he shows you 56suited?

Result
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=15721
pokenum -h ah as - 5c 6c
Holdem Hi: 1712304 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ah 1314307 76.76 391582 22.87 6415 0.37 0.769
6c 5c 391582 22.87 1314307 76.76 6415 0.37 0.231


I understand your point about wanting to avoid variance, but I still think you are greatly overestimating the skill advantage of a top pro over the field in a single tournament. Most top pro's are probably somewhere in the range of 3-4 times better than the field. Nobody is 20x better than the field. Stu Unger may have been the best ever, and he was probably less than 10x better than the field.

Bottom line, Bob.
As much as we dont want to admit it, luck has much more to do with a single tournament than we would like to admit. The long run is a long time. You have to get in there and gambol when you know you have the best of it.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
is 3:1 advantage worth doubling-up your stack on the first hand?? this is much different then doubling-up later on in a tournament.

some have stated that you just can't turn down an advantage as huge as 75:25 in this situation.

personally, i don't think that's a HUGE advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep repeating this, but in the context of hold 'em poker that is a HUGE advantage. However, something you and other seems to be ignoring is that your advantage may even be greater here. What if your opponent went in with a hand like AK, AQ or AJ, suited or otherwise, then you are even a bigger favorite. You would be almost a 7.5 to 1 favorite against AKs. Would that be a big enough advantage?

I will try to find it but Greg Raymer (Fossilman) had a post to the effect that if you weren't willing to put all your chips in on the very first hand with AA then you basically shouldn't be playing tourneys.

[ohgeetee]

[ QUOTE ]
You keep repeating this, but in the context of hold 'em poker that is a HUGE advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in the context of limit holdem poker cash games, this is correct. in a tournament situation, I think it needs to be looked at differently. one thing i noticed in the NL forum is how NL players factor in odds based on what % of their stack they are risking, rather than the pot odds being offered. I think this is on the right track to understanding what MB is trying to get at.

Also, he has very valid points as to where to draw the line. when all of your money is on the line, what is your comfortable limit?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think in the context of limit holdem poker cash games, this is correct. in a tournament situation, I think it needs to be looked at differently. one thing i noticed in the NL forum is how NL players factor in odds based on what % of their stack they are risking, rather than the pot odds being offered. I think this is on the right track to understanding what MB is trying to get at

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding/misapplying their point. In NL, implied odds are much more of a factor than limit. This is why the stack sizes are taken into account. It has nothing to do with losing the stack.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
What if your opponent went in with a hand like AK, AQ or AJ, suited or otherwise, then you are even a bigger favorite. You would be almost a 7.5 to 1 favorite against AKs. Would that be a big enough advantage?


[/ QUOTE ]


yes....as i said before i would like to do it at 4:1....so 7:1 would definitely be big enough on the first hand in this scenario.

also...in the original scenario...we KNOW that the opponent has JJ and that the other A's have been exposed.


i am familiar with what Raymer had to say regarding a similar hypothetical situation. i will go back and read some of the posts.


in fact, i may push-in here with my AA because it would be so against my instincts to fold them PF.


i'm not sure if hellmuth is a 10% favorite to make the final table or not (putting him at 20x favorite over other players). i suspect you are correct that it is too high.

but hellmuth sure does seem to make a whole lot of final-tables....and i don't think it is by sheer volume of tourneys alone.


anyway some re-calculations:
so lets say that the 'average' player makes the final ten 0.5% of the time (out of 2000 player field)...and hellmuth makes it 2% of the time (which puts him at 4x better than 'average' player).
thus increasing his stack to 20k on the first hand increases his chances to near 4% (if we trust the previously referred to sims and make that assumption).


by folding - he makes it to final table 2x out of 100.
by playing - he makes it to final table 4% of 75 = 3x out of 100.


so indeed....accepting this bet would appear to be correct IF the sims are to be trusted and IF they apply to someone who we already have pegged as 4x more likely to make it to the final 10.


lets say his chances of making it are only 1.5% and by doubling his stack he increases his chances to 2.5%


fold - 1.5x out of 100
accept - (2.5% of 75) 1.87 out of 100

btw - 2.0% of 75 = 1.5
thus...if your gain is only from 1.5% to 2% on a first-hand double-up then it is an even money-play to accept a 75:25 advantage here.

if you think he is significantly stronger than the field...in the 5% range...and a double-up increases his stack to 7%....

fold - make final ten = 5 out of 100
accept - make final ten = 5.25 out of 100

if my initial instinct was correct at it really is 10% to 12% increase on the double-up:

fold - 10 out of 100
accept - 9 out of 100


even with a modest gain of 5% to 7% he increases his chances of making it albeit slightly by calling the all-in.
but if the gain is as small as 10% to 12% then declining the bet is best.


considering the evidence of the sims that was pointed out earlier and these little calculations it would appear that if you get even a modest gain from a first hand double-up that your chances justify a call as a 75-25 favorite on the first hand.


but again...i am not familiar with these sims so i am trusting that they exist and have a chance of being correct


....i have to imagine that the advantage of a first-hand double-up is reduced for each additional player in the field and i don't know if the sims accounted for that.

i would think that in a 2600 player field a first-hand double-up is not worth 95% for anyone.

i also think that the effect of the first-hand double-up is reduced for a player who we already consider to be at an advantage over the field like a Hellmuth. his skill is more important than his chip-position.....even when he's down in chips, i would still count on phil to push the table around some and build his stack right back up.


but certainly a first-hand double-up has to yield SOME advantage....and even if it's relatively small, it appears to be enough in many of the calculations.

phil would have to be a significant favorite over the rest of the field with a very small advantage gained by the double-up for it to be worth turning down.

again, i contend that this MAY still be the case. sims or no sims, this is difficult to measure IMO.

but by working the numbers just slightly to account for the fact that Phil might not have THAT big of an advantage over the field AND he gets some decent value out of doubling-up...it would appear that calling may indeed be correct.

[top2pear]

wow!

[SenecaJim]

I know one thing, Gus wouldn't fold aces even if it was the first hand of the tournament.

[MicroBob]

gus would push with 72o.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not sure if hellmuth is a 10% favorite to make the final table or not (putting him at 20x favorite over other players). i suspect you are correct that it is too high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gus Hansen has made well over 10% of the WPT final tables I've seen on TV, so I suspect 10% isn't too wildly optimistic for a top pro. I think 2% is too low judging by the number of players who've made the final table more than once in roughly 15 tournaments screened so far.
Perhaps you're talking about a bigger field here though...

[ QUOTE ]
but certainly a first-hand double-up has to yield SOME advantage....and even if it's relatively small, it appears to be enough in many of the calculations.


[/ QUOTE ]

One advantage it indisputably gives you is the ability to take another 75-25 chance for the next hour or so with no risk whatsoever of busting out, assuming you get the cards again in that time. So it does enable you to exploit a run of good cards in a way that you just can't do if you're not prepared to take a 25% risk of busting out.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
This example is not an accurate analogy of the example provided in the first post.

In this example, realistically, we would all see what the maniac was doing, and would indeed call him out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But my point was that the first one to call him is taking a risk of busting out. As so many have stated in this thread, you can't play poker, especially tournaments, without taking risks.

[SenorBeef]

Recognizing and exploiting a situation in which they have a big edge is what makes top tournament players good players. Everyone seems to be saying that because they're good players, they should avoid such situations, but that doesn't make sense because being able to recognize and exploit those situations is what makes them good.

I mean - recognizing situations in which you're a dominating favorite is good tournament play. If good players avoid these situations to avoid risk and variance, then they aren't good players.

They're not good just because they can sit there and chips gravitate towards them - recognizing and playing these very situations is what makes them good.

I think a lot of the objections in this thread are from tight-weak types who are scared of pushing any sort of non-huge edge.

[SossMan]

Good analysis, Bob.

I think we essentially agree now. If you stipulate that Hellmuth is 20x better than the field, I think you are correct in assuming that a fold my be better than a call. However, I think that is an inflated number.
I think this is why many are saying that Harrington's two final tables in a row is one of the best poker feats ever. The chances of someone doing that has got to be in the <1% range.

[playerfl]

you are correct about being weak/tight, but then you have to totally change gears at some point, that is the tricky part and there is no set rule for that.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Gus Hansen has made well over 10% of the WPT final tables I've seen on TV, so I suspect 10% isn't too wildly optimistic for a top pro. I think 2% is too low judging by the number of players who've made the final table more than once in roughly 15 tournaments screened so far.

[/ QUOTE ]



this is something along the lines of what i was thinking.
you just see the big name guys making so many more final-tables.
is it because there are enough of them all playing THAT many tournaments?
certainly is some of it.


i would like to see some analysis of how often some of the top players reach the money (usually the top 10% finishers right??) and how often they reach the final table.
even then, it would still be difficult to change-gears for this particular example.


if Hellmuth makes the final-table in 15% of the tournaments he plays in that have a 300-500 player field does that translate to his chances of making the final-table in a 2600 player field?? we don't know.
we don't know how much the longer tourney structure and all the additional dead-money-fish counter-balance the extra difficulty of weeding your way through such a large field.


so it's hard to say whether a Hellmuth or Harrinton have a 2-3% chance of making the final-table...or if it could be higher.
is 20x advantage that unrealistic?? possibly.

Harrington made it twice....but many of the other players at this past final-table certainly weren't known as world-beaters (except our own Greg Raymer of course).

if hellmuth were at 10% then you would have to have a lot of other players in the 5-10% range....if you try to squeeze 20 players (ivey, lederer, hansen, negreneau, etc etc) in that range that doesn't leave a whole lot of space for the 2500+ 'other guys' to even have a chance of making it.
and don't forget....a lot of these pokerstars no-names have some pretty decent skills and shouldn't be taken lightly. it's not like all the no-names are showing up and playing like total idiots. a lot of those no-names are ALMOST as good (and maybe just as good as) a lot of the lime-light players.

so my conclusion (for now...LOL) is that my 10% estimate to reach the top-10 was possibly wishful thinking for this little exercise.

[playerfl]

I would be more interested in what percentage of tournements the big name guys finish in the money for more than their buyin. Basically, percentage profitable.

[ohgeetee]

I dont think prize pools payout less than the buyin, so itm is always profit.

[OrangeHeat]

This is silly. Phil (or any sane minded individual) calls here.

There is no debate.

Orange

BTW - This about the 1,000,000,000,000,00th time this has been discussed.

[PrayingMantis]

This is quite an unbelievable discussion. If people are willing to pass, say, 75:25 opportunities early on (yes, for the WHOLE stack), when they get about 50:50 on the pot, and still believe they are BETTER than the field (that's the reason they do it, to outlast the WEAKER opponents), well, they are living in a dream.

All the analogies to stock-trading and such are completely irrelevant. Tournament play is by definition a game with a HUGE variance. Not getting the best of it when you have such a big edge is missing some of the fundamentals of tournament game. This "playing to survive" attitude, in this context, is ridiculous (and it's the reason why certain super loose tournament players are doing so well).

All IMO.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
This is quite an unbelievable discussion. If people are willing to pass, say, 75:25 opportunities early on (yes, for the WHOLE stack), when they get about 50:50 on the pot, and still believe they are BETTER than the field (that's the reason they do it, to outlast the WEAKER opponents), well, they are living in a dream.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stop copying me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

earlier, SossMan wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
So, let me get this straight....everyone folds to the SB on hand 1 of the WSOP. The SB goes all in. A gust of wind blows thru Binion's and his cards flip over and he has 66. You look down and have 99.
You are saying that you would fold?

If the answer to the above question is yes, then I think you need to rethink your assersion that:

"and in a situation where i know i am significantly better than most of the rest of the field"



[/ QUOTE ]

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Stop copying me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I didn't read through each and every post. But I agree with your approach in this thread.

It seems to me that people who are advocating folding AA in the first hand of a MTT, or something similar, don't play MTTs on a regular basis. If they'd play more (and think about it more) they would realize very fast that they need chips BADLY, and they need A LOT of them, in order to win any significant prize. "Surviving" is pretty much useless if you don't make the maximum out of clear +EV situations you get into.

It is also possible that TPFAP has helped in the creation of this super weak-tight player, who's thinking about folding huge favorites in order to "survive", as opposed to "bust", or in DS words: "You're broke - you're done, they're broke - they're done"... (not that the book recommends passing on huge +EV spots, but some readers can understand it that way, especially if they misread the "folding AA" chapter, which deals with an extreme example).

[playerfl]

If you are talking about a live no limit tournement then there are many other factors besides the starting hand value, especially later on when it gets short handed. People who are really good simply want to survive until that point, then outplay the rest. T.J. Cloutier says that flat out in his book.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about a live no limit tournement then there are many other factors besides the starting hand value, especially later on when it gets short handed. People who are really good simply want to survive until that point, then outplay the rest. T.J. Cloutier says that flat out in his book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck getting there if you continually pass up opportunities like this

[playerfl]

i'm not saying I can do it, but T.J. Cloutier and Phil Hellmuth both play this way.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
there are many other factors besides the starting hand value

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there are, and on-line as well. But that has nothing to do with passing up huge +EV spots. Actually, all other factors you are talking about, are also based upon hand value in some way or another, or on how people *treat* hand value. For instance - if you're consistently avoiding any kind of confrontation, even the highest +EV possible PF, in order to survive, good observant players will eat you alive.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I don't know what Phil would do, but it doesn't matter. Turn down this situation of AA all in heads up vs. one opponent is simply stupefyingly dumb.

A poll for players regarding the WSOP was in CP recently. It had a question where if you were in the big one, and the first hand someone went all in, another called, and you had AA, would you play it or fold. A whopping 25% said they would FOLD. I say that just proves 25% of those that took the poll were idiots. Skipping a chance to take much the best of it for a big overlay is simply stupid.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Thank you Soss for realizing and stating the stupidity of it all on the notion to lay down AA preflop on the first hand of the tournament EVER for ANYONE.

In my reference to the poll in CP, I also think the 25% that say they'd lay it down are also 100% full of chit.

al

[playerfl]

I understand what you are saying but it is hard to go just on EV in a NL tourny because the EV stats are more applicable to limit games, not NL games, and cash side games not tournys.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you are saying but it is hard to go just on EV in a NL tourny because the EV stats are more applicable to limit games, not NL games, and cash side games not tournys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to sound harsh or anything, but I think you don't understand what is EV.

[playerfl]

I understand expected value and I understand your point of view. I'm also saying that the best selling tourny books are saying something different.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand expected value and I understand your point of view. I'm also saying that the best selling tourny books are saying something different.


[/ QUOTE ]


If you think that EV calculations are not applicable to NL ring, or tournaments, then you don't understand what EV is. As to the "best selling books", please show us where they say something different than what people are telling you again and again in this thread.

There are many cases where close +EV spots make for very interesting discussions (see the MTT forum). But the discussion here is about passing up HUGE +EV spots, without any sensible reason. This is clearly a very bad way to play poker.

It seems as if you're missing the most important point: you do want to survive in a tourney, because you want to be alive when such a huge +EV arrives. If you are just "surviving", you achieve nothing.

[playerfl]

what I meant was that you don't figure EV in exactly the way as you do in limit because of the greater impact of bluffing, tells, etc.

You can play by the same logic as a limit player if you want. You probably know more math than Doyle Brunson and so do it, and it doesn't matter.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
what I meant was that you don't figure EV in exactly the way as you do in limit because of the greater impact of bluffing, tells, etc.

You can play by the same logic as a limit player if you want. You probably know more math than Doyle Brunson and so do it, and it doesn't matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really understand what you're trying to say in this post. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so good luck to you in passing up huge +EV spots in a tournament, in order to "bluff" later on, and use "tells".

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
what I meant was that you don't figure EV in exactly the way as you do in limit because of the greater impact of bluffing, tells, etc.

You can play by the same logic as a limit player if you want. You probably know more math than Doyle Brunson and so do it, and it doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hands look blistered....do you want a bulldozer to replace the shovel?

My that hole you are digging is getting bigger and bigger!

[MicroBob]

i don't really know what you accomplish by insulting someone that disagrees with you.


some people don't think 75-25 is worth a double-up of 10k to 20k in a 2600 player field.

this kind of double-up would be a lot better if the field was narrowed down some and you were going from 100k to 200k and there were 700 players remaining.


it would be even higher EV if it was taking you from 300k to 600k with 200 players remaining...etc etc etc.


it's not nearly as easy a decision as you might initially think because
1. 75:25 is not necessarily a HUGE advantage
2. a double-up on the first hand of a 2600 player tourney may or may not be significant enough to risk a 25% chance of elimination.



lets say it was a 10k player field....and for the 75:25 shot on the first hand you could either go from 10k chips to 17k chips...or you could lose all 10k and be eliminated.

would this be such an easy call then??


lets say in the initial scenario you are a 70:30 or 65:35 advantage. do you call on these??

if you're cut-off point were 66:33 (for example) is it so hard to understand that someone else's breaking point for such a play might be around 75:25 or 80:20??


i'm not saying that folding the AA is correct here....i'm just saying that it isn't necessarily idiotic to consider it.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not saying that folding the AA is correct here....i'm just saying that it isn't necessarily idiotic to consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

MicroBob,

I understand the points you make, but I must tell you that I truely believe that considering folding AA on the first hand is COMPLETELY idiotic. To adress some of your points:

You have to double up a FEW times in order to win any significant prize in a MTT (for instance, to win the WSOP against 2600, you need to "technically" double up more than 10 (!) times. Of course, if you steal a lot you can escape some showdowns, but you need to have a BIG stack to steal a lot).

Now, as you have more chips, the risk in going for a showdown is smaller. You can get into confrontation with smaller stacks, lose, and still survive. Therefore, the most important try for a double-up is probably the FIRST one. So naturallly, you want to get into it with a greater edge as possible. "Avoiding confrontation" when you hold AA (the NUTS), early on, is, in fact, rejecting the BEST opportunity (risk vs. reward), to make your initial double-up. What other opportunity are you wating for??

Folding AA because someone has pushed infront of you, is a horrible move. I'd very much like to see a serious poker authority (or a consistent winning tournament player) advocating it.

[astroglide]

it's probably 80:20 or so if you're against another pair. if you take that edge and make it, you can afford to take much closer gambles because doubling somebody else at the table up won't break you. i would think that part should be signifigant at any stage.

[MicroBob]

the original scenario is not 80:20.....it is 75:25.

he stated that you already KNOW that the opponent has JJ and that both of the other A's have already been exposed (say a gust of wind blew all 4 of those cards over...or whatever).
i didn't do the caluclations...but someone else stated that it was about 75:25 if you have AA, with both of the other A's removed, against his JJ.


prayingmantis....
the other questions i asked weren't necessarily rhetorical.

i am truly curious how many would go for a double-up on the first play at 70:30 or 65:35. i've asked this a few times in this thread...but only Sossman has answered (to my knowledge) what his cut-off would be.

you are basically saying that 1 out of 4 chance of elimination is such a HUGE advantage that it would be silly to consider turning it down. so what about 1 out of 3?? or 1 out of 2.5??

i also am curious about my other scenario if there are 10k players and you either go from 10k to 17k or are eliminated with a 75:25 shot.


this thread has probably gone on long enough though so it doesn't really concern me THAT much.

[astroglide]

my cutoff would probably be 70:30

[ohgeetee]

I'd love to hear more advanced opinions on this stuff.

1:1 on your money for 3:1 odds in an all or nothing situation just doesn't seem to be best case scenario to me, and hardly a no brainer.

I'm not wholly convinced it is the correct move to fold, but I think bob has brought up many points which have not been adequately addressed.

a couple are the value of chips early in the tournament, which would require some sort of adjustment imo to more accurately reflect what your pot odds are. Another is at what point is it not a dumb move to fold? 51/49? 60/40? excellent 2 points imo that deserve to be addressed.

also, the cardplayer poll does not describe the situation in this thread. in that example you are looking at tripling, not doubling, which makes the deal that much sweeter, and I don;'t think the odds were guaranteed at 75:25.

[MicroBob]

and before i did a little math i suggested that my cut-off might be around 80:20. meaning that i actually would call in a normal AA situation (one where i didn't see the other aces exposed).


if astro's cut-off is 70:30....and lets say mine is 80:20.....and sossman thought that 65:35 might be good for him....then i don't think that 75:25 HAS to be so obviously HUGE enough that you couldn't possibly consider turning it down.

i think many players here would very strongly consider turning it down at 65:35 or even 70:30.
for me, i still think i prefer 80:20...but that's just instinctual more than anything else. i have no REAL evidence one way or another to support that 80:20 is just being WAY too tight....or that 70:30 or 65:35 are WAY too loose for a play like this.

ohgeetee has adequately reflected my opinions on this situation (and in a far more consise fashion) and i appreciate the support.
i too am especially interested in the advantage of doubling one's stack on the first hand....and how much more advantage such a double-up is in a 10-player tournament vs. a 100-player tourney vs. a 2600-player tourney. but i'm not sure there is any way for us to TRULY know the answer.

i have become somewhat convinced though that it is more important than i initially thought it was at the beginning of this thread.

[PrayingMantis]

The bigger the field, the closer the chances you have to take early on (it depends also on your speculated advantage against the field). As the field gets smaller, it is getting more "bubblish" to begin with, and $EV is getting far from CEV.

Many strong players believe $EV=CEV (or VERY close to it) in early stages of a MTT. The automatic result of this assumption, is that you should take ANY +CEV chance early on, be it 52:48, or whatever. If you'd read through Fossilman's posts, you'd realize he belongs to this school, and so are other very strong MTT players (Hansen is known for his willingness to take coin-flips, pretty early, and there are many more: there were some interesting threads regarding this here and on RGP). Rejecting significant +CEV spots (yes, 2:1 is very significant, IMO) is by definition a losing strategy according to this hypothesis, even if your name is Phil Hellmuth.

Of course, it doesn't mean that's the only way to approach this problem, and that it's the correct way. However - I am no expert, but still - I have no doubt that if your cut off is 4:1, like you say, you CANNOT be a winning MTT player. This is playing to survive, and *nothing* more (just as an example, playing with this cut-off is folding to an all-in bet by AhJh, when you hold KhQh on a board of Qd7h9h5c, assuming your opponent shows you his cards, and the pot is still pretty small comparing to your stacks. Are you REALLY going to fold this??).

As to myslef, if it really matters, the more MTTs I play, my cut-off for these decision becomes lower and lower. You need the chips, you need them badly, and it's much better, IMO, to bust early (in a +CEV spot, that is, with a chance to take a certain lead), than to survive a few more hours, just to win some ridiculous prize. I believe in winning, not surviving. And I don't care much about my variance.

Another very important point, that some people on this thread seem to miss: if you are avoiding significant +CEV chances, it means you believe in your ability to outplay your opponents later on, if you survive. Very important part of "outplaying" in a tourney is stealing big enoug pots, using aggression. When you're using aggression, sometimes you need to put your whole stack in risk. How can you calculate the exact CEV cut-off here? You can't, but it's still about CEV. You won't be able to avoid risking your WHOLE stack for some CEV, and if you'll wait only for the GREATEST spots (in terms of folding EV, in the stealing case), you are giving away far too much CEV and $EV.

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]


to put my answer more concretely (instead of a bunch of maybe's and probably's) i'll say that my cut-off is 80-20..

[/ QUOTE ]

AA v. JJ IS 80/20!!! NOT 75/25 And it doesn't matter cause the decision isn't even close.

EDIT: I didn't see the bit about the other aces being exposed, serves me right for reading 1/10 of the posts.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
The automatic result of this assumption, is that you should take ANY +CEV chance early on, be it 52:48, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]


interesting.

believe it or not, i consider myself a fairly aggressive tournament player....and agree that aggressiveness is necessary.

i'm not necessarily convinced that risking it on a 52-48 shot on the first hand is the way to go....but you are correct that your life is going to be much easier if you can get some chips early.
you raise some interesting points.

but don't expect me to be calling an all-in with my 77 after my opponent shows me AK on the first hand of a 2600 player tourney.
do you really make this call?? based on your ideas of taking advanatage of ANY +EV situation it sounds like you would.


as for any other hands or draws as the tourney progresses, i am very prone to betting big or even PUSHING all-in as long as i think i have a decent chance of winning or inducing a fold.
CALLING an all-in is a different matter entirely of course.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
but don't expect me to be calling an all-in with my 77 after my opponent shows me AK on the first hand of a 2600 player tourney.
do you really make this call?? based on your ideas of taking advanatage of ANY +EV situation it sounds like you would.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is easier to talk about such calls, than to actually make them... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

But I'd take a 2:1 any time, at the early stages. That's for sure. I think about it this way: if you consistently avoid situations where you're 2:1 in terms of CEV, you are losing A LOT of chips on the long run, and a lot of chances to take a lead for a reasonable risk of busting (which is always there anyways and you can't escape it). That just can't be a good way to play tournaments, or any kind of poker. This is my basic approach. But you really should go through the many many posts on the MTT forum that deal with these question. There are some priceless discussions there, by much more serious players than myself.

[MicroBob]

yeah....i should check it out.


i prefer to make these calls if it is for slightly less than a double-up (which is like saying that i prefer it outside when the weather is nice as opposed to when it is not nice).

if i have 11k at the early stages and my opponent has 10k then i'm MUCH more willing to make this kind of call as i will at least have a few chips with which to try and battle my way back.

it's almost a double-up....which is almost as good....but on the worst-case scenario side, there's a big difference between having 1k in chips and 0.


once you get later on in a tournament then i'm more and more willing to risk the whole thing.


as far as true double-out or bust philolsophies: if i am willing to make these calls 2 or 3 times in a tourney then there is a good chance i will get knocked out.



i would be extremely interested to learn how often the top tourney players call all-in bets.
NOT how often they are pushing-in themselves...but how often they are calling someone else's all-in when not on a desperately short-stack.