How much of an edge woud the best players fold early?

[jwvdcw]

Thinking about Hellmuth's 4-1 comment, I ask this question:

First hand of the tourney. If you take some of the best players in the world like Lederer, Bruson, Ivey, Hellmuth, etc. told them what everyone at the table had for this hand. If a person went all in and the superstar pro was a 2-1 favorite, would he call? What about a 70% favorite? How much of a favorite do you think the top pros would have to be in order to call all in on the very first hand of the tourney.

Or heres another somewhat similar question(perhaps Annie or Barry can chime in here): You hold QQ on the very first hand of the WSOP. Some unknown internet guy goes all in from EP. Do you fold? What about if you hold KK in the same situation?

[TimTimSalabim]

Even if you knew you were a 4-1 favorite, you would still have to fold if you knew that you had a 90% chance to reach 2x your initial stack before you go bust, by not taking such gambles early on. But if statistically you know that you're only about 70% to reach 2x playing conservatively (and I assume a top pro would have a decent estimate of what this figure is), then you should take the 80% gamble right off the bat.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you knew you were a 4-1 favorite, you would still have to fold if you knew that you had a 90% chance to reach 2x your initial stack before you go bust, by not taking such gambles early on. But if statistically you know that you're only about 70% to reach 2x playing conservatively (and I assume a top pro would have a decent estimate of what this figure is), then you should take the 80% gamble right off the bat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there really people out there that are 90% favorites? That seems so high to me. That would mean folding aces preflop if somone bets all in. That would mean folding top flopped set if there is a flush draw out there that you put your opponent on and he moves all in. I can't imagine even the very best pros being that good...can they?

[leykis]

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 1388072 81.06 317694 18.55 6538 0.38 0.813
Ks Kc 317694 18.55 1388072 81.06 6538 0.38 0.187

At worst I am an 81% favorite if I hold aces. So even on the first hand of the tourney, if I held aces and it will be a heads up call of an EP all in, I'm calling. With any other hand I am folding.

[fnurt]

This is mathematically the right way to look at it, but there is no way any player in the universe is close to a 90% favorite to double up.

I think Hellmuth's comment was just talk. I don't think there is any way he, or anyone else, passes up a 4-1 edge.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 1388072 81.06 317694 18.55 6538 0.38 0.813
Ks Kc 317694 18.55 1388072 81.06 6538 0.38 0.187

At worst I am an 81% favorite if I hold aces. So even on the first hand of the tourney, if I held aces and it will be a heads up call of an EP all in, I'm calling. With any other hand I am folding.

[/ QUOTE ]



cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ah 1315168 76.81 391637 22.87 5499 0.32 0.770
7d 6d 391637 22.87 1315168 76.81 5499 0.32 0.230

[Ryner]

[ QUOTE ]
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 1388072 81.06 317694 18.55 6538 0.38 0.813
Ks Kc 317694 18.55 1388072 81.06 6538 0.38 0.187

At worst I am an 81% favorite if I hold aces. So even on the first hand of the tourney, if I held aces and it will be a heads up call of an EP all in, I'm calling. With any other hand I am folding.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you wanted the worst case scenario with aces, it'd actually be middle suited connectors, something like 67 suited in a suit you dont have. Then aces are only (only?)around 77ish %.

Edit: Guess I was a little slow.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad Ah 1388072 81.06 317694 18.55 6538 0.38 0.813
Ks Kc 317694 18.55 1388072 81.06 6538 0.38 0.187

At worst I am an 81% favorite if I hold aces. So even on the first hand of the tourney, if I held aces and it will be a heads up call of an EP all in, I'm calling. With any other hand I am folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you fold Kings here? I'm by no means a world class player, but I am a long time winner at the $215 STTs online and at the big buy in multis, and folding Ks preflop boggles my mind. I've only folded Qs preflop three times and both of those were because it was near the bubble.

[leykis]

The list of hands other than Aces that I could put someone on who goes all-in in EP on the first hand of a big tourney does not include 67s. That is why I picked KK as the worst case. I know there are some maniacs out there but an all in preflop in this spot really limits the range of thier possible holdings.

[Smasharoo]

The list of hands other than Aces that I could put someone on who goes all-in in EP on the first hand of a big tourney does not include 67s.


Someone you've never seen play pushing from EP could have 23o.

[gergery]

HLederer and Men the Master have both said in the past they could easily fold KK preflop to big all-in raise. Obviously whether he would or not is another question depending on read,etc.

Raymer and Paul Phillips have both posted in the past that they would avoid slight favorite situations, but not be afraid to get money in if they were sure to be somewhat favorites (fossilman said 60-40 was good enough). Both have cited “I could be doing other valuable things like making money elsewhere” as the rationale.

It’s about $/hour, not $/tourney, and you still have to get lots of chips to make big $ yet.

--Greg

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]

HLederer and Men the Master have both said in the past they could easily fold KK preflop to big all-in raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most decent players would quickly fold KK to an all-in early in a 10K tournament unless the opponent had already been playing maniacally. However, this really doesn't come up.

[ QUOTE ]

Raymer and Paul Phillips have both posted in the past that they would avoid slight favorite situations, but not be afraid to get money in if they were sure to be somewhat favorites (fossilman said 60-40 was good enough).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I've said. I've said I'll take ANY edge (or even ANY COIN FLIP) early, and that NOBODY is good enough to intentionally refuse a 60/40 edge early. Repeatedly applying a 60/40 edge would make you one of the top players in tournament poker.

Incidentally, someone else was talking about 90% favorites being uncommon, and they're certainly right about that, but look what happened to me at the bike this year (http://www.livejournal.com/users/extempore/52372.html).

[luckycharms]

A cashgame player myself, this boggles my mind. I mean, I can understand avoiding plays that were +EV, but still dangerous in a tournament situation, but those are only plays with a slight +EV. The cards won't always hit in a tournament, and you only have 200BB to start the WSOP, (and less in other tourneys) and eventually, if you don't get cards, it's down to 30BB, when you're at that point, you're going to be making a LOT of plays with probable -EV.

I may be wrong in saying this, but i BELIEVE that if I were a seasoned tourney pro and everyone at my table pushed all-in to me and I saw AA, I'd call, knowing I only have a 30% chance of winning (obviously assuming it's a multitable)

Would I be wrong?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong in saying this, but i BELIEVE that if I were a seasoned tourney pro and everyone at my table pushed all-in to me and I saw AA, I'd call, knowing I only have a 30% chance of winning (obviously assuming it's a multitable)

Would I be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see the same threads that come up twice a month on rgp are here too!

Here's one (http://tinyurl.com/6mkfl) among literally hundreds of other discussions on the same topic.

[fnurt]

What is amazing is not that these threads continually recur, but that no matter how many world-class players give the right answer, people still persist in these crazy beliefs that you should never risk your survival no matter how great the odds.

There is this myth that if you are a great player, you can breeze through an MTT by picking up small pots, getting involved in big pots only when you have the nuts, and so forth. "Myth" is probably the nicest word I could use for it. It's a shame this view is so prevalent, it really hurts the quality of discussions here sometimes.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

HLederer and Men the Master have both said in the past they could easily fold KK preflop to big all-in raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most decent players would quickly fold KK to an all-in early in a 10K tournament unless the opponent had already been playing maniacally. However, this really doesn't come up.

[ QUOTE ]

Raymer and Paul Phillips have both posted in the past that they would avoid slight favorite situations, but not be afraid to get money in if they were sure to be somewhat favorites (fossilman said 60-40 was good enough).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I've said. I've said I'll take ANY edge (or even ANY COIN FLIP) early, and that NOBODY is good enough to intentionally refuse a 60/40 edge early. Repeatedly applying a 60/40 edge would make you one of the top players in tournament poker.

Incidentally, someone else was talking about 90% favorites being uncommon, and they're certainly right about that, but look what happened to me at the bike this year (http://www.livejournal.com/users/extempore/52372.html).

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll take a 60% advantage, yet you'll fold KK to an early all in.

So pretty much if anyone goes all in early on in a tourney and you have no reads on him, then you think that he has aces 60+% of the time? This seems to not accurately reflect some of the aggression I've seen from the WSOP.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
A cashgame player myself, this boggles my mind. I mean, I can understand avoiding plays that were +EV, but still dangerous in a tournament situation, but those are only plays with a slight +EV. The cards won't always hit in a tournament, and you only have 200BB to start the WSOP, (and less in other tourneys) and eventually, if you don't get cards, it's down to 30BB, when you're at that point, you're going to be making a LOT of plays with probable -EV.

I may be wrong in saying this, but i BELIEVE that if I were a seasoned tourney pro and everyone at my table pushed all-in to me and I saw AA, I'd call, knowing I only have a 30% chance of winning (obviously assuming it's a multitable)

Would I be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not clear on what you're saying here...are you saying that if your opponent had AA? If so, why on earth would you call?

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

That's not what I've said. I've said I'll take ANY edge (or even ANY COIN FLIP) early, and that NOBODY is good enough to intentionally refuse a 60/40 edge early. Repeatedly applying a 60/40 edge would make you one of the top players in tournament poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

I’ve discovered the secret of getting Paul to post more often here – simply misquote him!

Seriously, thanks for correcting the record. Actually, I remembered both you and Fossilman saying good side of coinflip (~53%)was good enough to take early on, but felt that would be putting even stronger words in your mouth than hedging to 60-40. Oops!

--Greg

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
This is mathematically the right way to look at it, but there is no way any player in the universe is close to a 90% favorite to double up.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the increasing number of bad players in big tournaments, you could theoretically get to the point where a top player has a 90% chance of doubling his initial stack just by playing his normal game and not taking big gambles. I tend to agree, though, that no one is probably at that level currently. But I don't have any stats to prove it one way or the other, so that is why I gave my answer mathematically.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Yes, I do not understand this concept either. In fact, I think the only time I would ever fold KK preflop would be when someone in EP calls, then moves all-in after a raise.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll take a 60% advantage, yet you'll fold KK to an early all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I assume we're talking about something like blinds are 25-50, I make it 150 out of my 10000, guy moves all-in. I've never seen him before and it's very early. This is an easy fold.

[ QUOTE ]
So pretty much if anyone goes all in early on in a tourney and you have no reads on him, then you think that he has aces 60+% of the time? This seems to not accurately reflect some of the aggression I've seen from the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you do not have enough data to perform good bayesian analysis. Obviously if he shows me something other than aces I would call, but the very first time you see someone make a ridiculous all-in overbet, my experience is that you'll do MUCH better over time assuming they have the nuts and folding everything less than the nuts. If they are making a habit of this, you'll know it soon.

Every stage of a tournament is different and as it gets later such dramatic overbets become impossible because the average-stack-to-blind-size ratio shrinks so much. But if I have 200 big blinds, there's no way I'm putting them all in the middle preflop without aces unless I have meaningful evidence my opponent will do it with at least one hand other than aces and kings.

So I suppose in a sense I'm advocating "waiting for a better spot", but not because I am intentionally passing on an edge; rather because I have too little information to assess the edge, and I believe I'll have much better information in the very near future.

I did fold KK preflop in the first hour of the WSOP this year: the one and only time I've done that in a tournament.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll take a 60% advantage, yet you'll fold KK to an early all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I assume we're talking about something like blinds are 25-50, I make it 150 out of my 10000, guy moves all-in. I've never seen him before and it's very early. This is an easy fold.

[ QUOTE ]
So pretty much if anyone goes all in early on in a tourney and you have no reads on him, then you think that he has aces 60+% of the time? This seems to not accurately reflect some of the aggression I've seen from the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you do not have enough data to perform good bayesian analysis. Obviously if he shows me something other than aces I would call, but the very first time you see someone make a ridiculous all-in overbet, my experience is that you'll do MUCH better over time assuming they have the nuts and folding everything less than the nuts. If they are making a habit of this, you'll know it soon.

Every stage of a tournament is different and as it gets later such dramatic overbets become impossible because the average-stack-to-blind-size ratio shrinks so much. But if I have 200 big blinds, there's no way I'm putting them all in the middle preflop without aces unless I have meaningful evidence my opponent will do it with at least one hand other than aces and kings.

So I suppose in a sense I'm advocating "waiting for a better spot", but not because I am intentionally passing on an edge; rather because I have too little information to assess the edge, and I believe I'll have much better information in the very near future.

I did fold KK preflop in the first hour of the WSOP this year: the one and only time I've done that in a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good post and I agree with you.

Ok, how about this then(sorry if my continued hypothetical questions are annoying): What if a guy goes all in 3 times in the first hour preflop. The second time you hold pocket Ks...what do you do? If you fold that one, the third time you also have pocket Ks...what do you do?

Other than that your only reads on him are that he is an internet player. Not terrible, but definitely not on the level of the pros.

[Paul Phillips]

Second time I probably call with kings. Maybe. Unless I think he's smart enough to have done it the first time to set me up for this. No, even then I call. If the poker gods are so cruel as to give me KK vs. AA against a guy who recently made a ludicrous overbet and is now making another, then I wasn't destined to win this tournament. I accept their punishment.

Anyway, I can always suck out.

[Kevmath]

[ QUOTE ]
I did fold KK preflop in the first hour of the WSOP this year: the one and only time I've done that in a tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

That only puts you 3 behind Hellmuth in that category.

Kevin...

[flair1239]

I think this is what makes Sklansky's all-in strategy so interesting.

[whiskeytown]

first hand, gotta be AA or I drop it

what a great story that would be - losing an all in preflop with AA - sure, yer first out, but no one could honestly blame you for it...

RB

[Jake (The Snake)]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. I assume we're talking about something like blinds are 25-50, I make it 150 out of my 10000, guy moves all-in. I've never seen him before and it's very early. This is an easy fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first when I read your post your points seemed to make perfect sense to me. Also I must point out that you have played immensely more hands than me and so you would be better suited to correctly play this situation than I.

However, what range of hands can you put your opponent on in this situation? I highly doubt somebody with AA would move all-in in this situation. It seems that even an incompetent player would probably either call or make a smaller raise in this situation. I'm not saying that moving in here with AA is necessarily wrong, (though I think it might be... is it?) but I think any pair between 66-QQ are nearly as likely as AA. Am I way off?

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. I assume we're talking about something like blinds are 25-50, I make it 150 out of my 10000, guy moves all-in. I've never seen him before and it's very early. This is an easy fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first when I read your post your points seemed to make perfect sense to me. Also I must point out that you have played immensely more hands than me and so you would be better suited to correctly play this situation than I.

However, what range of hands can you put your opponent on in this situation? I highly doubt somebody with AA would move all-in in this situation. It seems that even an incompetent player would probably either call or make a smaller raise in this situation. I'm not saying that moving in here with AA is necessarily wrong, (though I think it might be... is it?) but I think any pair between 66-QQ are nearly as likely as AA. Am I way off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree somewhat with this. You have to ask yourself: What is my opponent trying to accomplish with this bet? To me, it looks like he doesn't want any callers. Aces wants a caller.

[jaroot]

I read your post Paul(http://tinyurl.com/6mkfl).. so I take it you make that call w/ AA facing 9 all ins? You never specifically said in your post.. Just curious.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I read your post Paul(http://tinyurl.com/6mkfl).. so I take it you make that call w/ AA facing 9 all ins? You never specifically said in your post.. Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how anyone could read that entire post and not understand whether Paul would make the call. He only said about 10 times, in vehement and emphatic terms, that any good player has to make that call.

I share the amazement of others who fail to understand how there is still a debate over folding AA preflop. Oh noooooo... if you lose you're out... oh nooooo... you mean a good player doesn't win every single tournament he plays in?

[ohkanada]

I just reread that entire thread. It is hilarious. We have had many similar threads on 2+2.

Keb

[jaroot]

[ QUOTE ]
He only said about 10 times, in vehement and emphatic terms, that any good player has to make that call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh.. he does indeed insinuate that one would have to be foolish to not make the call, but he does not ever say whether he would actually do it or not. I don't believe that he actually would, given the context of the situation.

Lets say for the sake of argument, that you are at the WSOP
1st hand dealt, you're in the BB w/ AA.... ALL IN's all the way around to you. - Do you actually call?

In a vacuum... yes - because of the reasons Paul mentioned in his RGP article. But alas, poker is not played in a vacuum and you have to allow for some kind of + or - EV on future actions based on the information given. In the context of the situation, one would have to be FOOLISH to make this call w/ AA. Why you ask? Because after the 3rd or so all-in.. one would have to assume that the remaining 6 people who are about to go all in, are complete and utter morons, with little or no poker skill whatsoever. After all.. what could they possibly be pushing with after the 3rd all in? Probably much less than AA(since we have AA already).. so you know that it is likely that they will eventually be putting their chips in when they are at a huge disadvantage to our hand. Given that... that makes this an easy folding situation.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Ahh.. he does indeed insinuate that one would have to be foolish to not make the call, but he does not ever say whether he would actually do it or not. I don't believe that he actually would, given the context of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Paul isn't foolish. Of course he'd call.

[ QUOTE ]
.. so you know that it is likely that they will eventually be putting their chips in when they are at a huge disadvantage to our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
We have AA. They will never be at a bigger disadvantage to our hand than they are right now.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He only said about 10 times, in vehement and emphatic terms, that any good player has to make that call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh.. he does indeed insinuate that one would have to be foolish to not make the call, but he does not ever say whether he would actually do it or not. I don't believe that he actually would, given the context of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do I have to do, say it in swahili? What kind of topsy-turvy world do we live in where a guy can say something ten different ways and still leave some people saying "ok he may have said it ten different ways, but not this eleventh way, so I don't think he meant it."

Of course I would call. I would call. Call. Yoda style: "Calling with this hand you are doing?" Yes. That.

[ QUOTE ]
In a vacuum... yes - because of the reasons Paul mentioned in his RGP article. But alas, poker is not played in a vacuum and you have to allow for some kind of + or - EV on future actions based on the information given. In the context of the situation, one would have to be FOOLISH to make this call w/ AA. Why you ask? Because after the 3rd or so all-in.. one would have to assume that the remaining 6 people who are about to go all in, are complete and utter morons, with little or no poker skill whatsoever. After all.. what could they possibly be pushing with after the 3rd all in? Probably much less than AA(since we have AA already).. so you know that it is likely that they will eventually be putting their chips in when they are at a huge disadvantage to our hand. Given that... that makes this an easy folding situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, barring the board making rainbow broadway or something equally improbable, eight out of nine of them are going broke this hand. I covered that aspect in one of the umpteen posts I wrote on rgp.

But even if they all could and would rebuy once for 10K after losing the nine-way all-in that you skipped, you'd still have been completely wrong to fold the aces.

[pshreck]

What about this situation.... 9 in front of you have gone all in, but based on some previous information you are 95-99% sure ONE of them also has aces (say there is another pro three seats in who calls for all his chips after two all ins).

I know the great theoretical situation of the family all in would never happen.... but how much would things changed if you just knew another player had aces....

[Richard Tanner]

I'd like to point out that the situation most people are describing is one that will just never happen. Sorry but I've never seen a sitation like this, it's just too perfect.
However (I give, I'll answer as if it were real), just call with the damn aces. Yeah it's mathematically wrong but so is everything about that situation. Paul is right (I guess we can agree on something), put the money in and roll the dice. At very least you'll get to have fun with everyone else whose fate hangs in the balance.

Cody

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
However (I give, I'll answer as if it were real), just call with the damn aces. Yeah it's mathematically wrong but so is everything about that situation.

[/ QUOTE ]


this just keeps getting better and better.

[Richard Tanner]

I guess I'm a little slow, care to explain the sarcasam.

Cody

[MLG]

It isnt mathematically wrong to call. It is completely, utterly correct.

[Richard Tanner]

I suppose I just don't like going in with a 30% (I'm not sure what the real percentage is, but it can't be much better if it's at all better) chance of winning, even if it means nonupiling up. Cash game, certainly. Tournement, which was what I thought we were talking about, no way. That's just the difference between the two, go broke and your done. Odds alone don't justify the call.
That said, if this bizarre situation happens, go for it, math be damnned, that's just to odd to pass up.

Cody

[MLG]

I give up, there have been like nine-gazillion posts explaining why this broke go home thing your talking about is completely wrong. Just go back and reread them.

[Richard Tanner]

Wait, so you're saying that you shouldn't listen to the "Get broke, go Home" Theory. I admit that I may not know everything about poker, so thank God for people, like David Sklansky, who've forgotten more then most of us know.
He mentions it as a chapter in his book. I'm sorry but I just have to believe him on this. That factor is important in tournement play.

Cody

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I just don't like going in with a 30% (I'm not sure what the real percentage is, but it can't be much better if it's at all better) chance of winning, even if it means nonupiling up. Cash game, certainly. Tournement, which was what I thought we were talking about, no way. That's just the difference between the two, go broke and your done. Odds alone don't justify the call.
That said, if this bizarre situation happens, go for it, math be damnned, that's just to odd to pass up.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me explain it to you this way. Obviously, doubling or tripling your stack doesn't win the tournament by itself. You are going to have to increase it many, many times over to win the tournament. Since you rarely hold the uncrackable nuts, every time you try to increase your stack you have to take some kind of risk.

Most of us would be happy to get our money in as a 70-30 favorite; you don't get many situations more favorable than that. But if you get into two of these situations, you will bust half the time. If you get into three of them, you will bust 65% of the time. That's not to say you shouldn't take the risks, it's just the nature of tournaments. Over the long haul, if you always got your money in as a 70-30 favorite, you would win a ton of money.

Trying to find a strategy that can win every single tournament is just self-defeating in the long run. There is no such strategy (imagine if two people both played it!). In the perfect world, you would never have to take a risk for all your chips; you could steal small pots without a showdown, never get into a confrontation with someone who has you covered, and the like. But even in that perfect world, there's still plenty of risk, it's just that you aren't risking the whole stack at once. If you get unlucky and lose one or two such "low-risk" hands, suddenly you are a short stack and you no longer have the luxury of avoiding gambles.

In any event, the bottom line is that the 70% chance you face when you go all-in with AA is nothing unusual, compared to the ordinary risks you take during the course of the tournament. It's just that you are taking a big chunk of that risk at one time, with the potential reward of multiplying your stack by 10. Taking the risk in small chunks, with a smaller reward each time, actually makes the overall risk of busting greater.

Maybe thinking of it this way will help. Going all-in with AA gives you a 30% chance of increasing your stack by a factor of 10. Now, is there any normal strategy you can pursue that gives you a 30% chance of increasing your stack by this amount? This might not seem intuitively obvious to you, but the answer is almost certainly no. No one has that big an edge over the field. So given that you're going to have to increase your stack by this amount at some point on the road to winning the tournament, going all-in right now gives you the best chance of getting there.

[jaybee_70]

Paul,
Just to be clear:
Push here you will?
Sorry couldn't resist. Thank you for taking the time to post here.

Joe

[Richard Tanner]

Wow, what an articulate and non-ass like response. Thanks for the different perspective, and with that in mind, I think I can agree on the majority of it.

Cody

[alittle]

Paul, I don't know if you're playing in Aruba next week, but the future seems clear to me now. You are seated to my right UTG and raise the first hand of the tournament. I have no choice but to go all-in to bring this thread to life.

Ugly scenario #2 - the rest of the table are all 2+2'rs and every one else goes all in as well to make the impossible possible.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what an articulate and non-ass like response. Thanks for the different perspective, and with that in mind, I think I can agree on the majority of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have an aversion to reading material that wasn't just posted (http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2431326962d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=birfab%246me%241%40spoon.improving .org)? I'm sure that thread was already linked to. There are dozens like it. It's only a "different perspective" if you've never read any archived thread about this subject.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
so you know that it is likely that they will eventually be putting their chips in when they are at a huge disadvantage to our hand. Given that... that makes this an easy folding situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to point out another problem with your logic - after the hand, 8 of the players will have busted out, and your table will now be broken. Good luck ever seeing that one really bad player again this tournament.

[Richard Tanner]

Christ Paul, ya caught me. I hate to read, and in fact I love only to make posts and express opinions that I don't even believe only to get a response out of you. Thanks for repling, you fell right into my snare.
No I read the post, and no I can't explain why his post rubbed me the right way. Maybe it's only a semantic difference, but at any rate I could relate to the way he wrote it. I'm not sure if I agree totally, but I can see his point. I respect his point, in part because he phrased it like a discussion, not an argument with a prize for the winner.
I realize you and I disagree on a few points. I, for one, enjoy this. I respect your knowledge as a winning player, and look forward to your response, even if I know I might think differently. The difference is that you seem to always be on the attack, as if it's your goal to go after the poster not the post. Refer to the best lesson my mother ever gave me "If you can't say anything nice..."

Cody

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if I agree totally, but I can see his point.

[/ QUOTE ]

On this particular subject I am perhaps more strident than usual because people say things like you have in the above. I mean, what does it take for total agreement? My desire to have faith in the basic intelligence of pokerkind is severely tested when some people are so resistant to a straightforward and laboriously elaborated mathematical illustration.

Obviously I'm generally fairly confident in opinions expressed: this isn't news. Is that a bug or a feature? How well are you served if you disagree out of spite?

[ QUOTE ]
I respect his point, in part because he phrased it like a discussion, not an argument with a prize for the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the sort of basis on which you make decisions then you are likely to continue to struggle. This subject only seems like a discussion with an uncertain outcome to you because you don't understand it. I could pretend that it's a give and take of ideas where we're each on a path of intellectual discovery, but pretending is not my strong suit. In reality it's just me and others beating our heads against the wall for no apparent reason.

[ QUOTE ]
Refer to the best lesson my mother ever gave me "If you can't say anything nice..."

[/ QUOTE ]

If my writings on this subject fall under your "not nice" category then I doubt whether most people would prefer me to follow your advice.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, so you're saying that you shouldn't listen to the "Get broke, go Home" Theory. I admit that I may not know everything about poker, so thank God for people, like David Sklansky, who've forgotten more then most of us know.
He mentions it as a chapter in his book. I'm sorry but I just have to believe him on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you will be well served re-reading sklanskys tourney book in order to fully understand his advice.

Sklansky advises most players to call for all their chips on close gambles early on. He advises the better players to avoid these close gambles early on.

However, regardless of whether you are one of the better players or not, getting approx 9-1 pot odds on an allin call as a 2-1 dog to win is not a close gamble. So according to sklankys own tourney book, neither type of player should fold.

[Kopefire]

I would bet that in a large tourney most top players are more than 90% likely to double up before going bust.

I also doubt that most of them do it by going all in. They double up playing conservative poker, blind stealing, etc. I bet they hope to avoid pushing all in until they've doubled up a few times ...

Yes, they will. But how often does that really happen in a large MTT?

[Kopefire]

I don't believe you can breeze through an MTT without taking chances. But I do believe that a good player can be expected to double up in a large MTT prior to going bust by playing ultra-conservative the first few rounds.

There's a reason very few of the big names bust out in the first day of the WSOP. If they were all going all-in with 60/40 edges you'd see a lot fewer top pros on day 2 than you do.

[fnurt]

Maybe someone who was at the WSOP this year can list a few of the "name" players who busted out on the first day.

I agree that the early stages of a MTT feature fishier play, but I don't think it's as easy as you believe. And it's a shame if you are passing up good chances to double up, because these are exactly the players who will give you that good chance to double up. As for a 60/40 edge at Level I... ehh, use your own judgment. That's not really what I was talking about.

[David Sklansky]

"I would bet that in a large tourney most top players are more than 90% likely to double up before going bust."

That is inconceivable. And its truth would imply that such a player should fold not only kings but also ACES if forced all in (getting slightly better than even money) at the beginning of the tournament.

I'm sure that even the most egostistical of the top tournament players would put themselves below 70%.

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
"I would bet that in a large tourney most top players are more than 90% likely to double up before going bust."

That is inconceivable. And its truth would imply that such a player should fold not only kings but also ACES if forced all in (getting slightly better than even money) at the beginning of the tournament.

I'm sure that even the most egostistical of the top tournament players would put themselves below 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]
You clearly underestimate Phil Hellmuth. :P

However, I think the more interesting question here, is about folding Kings instead of a numerical edge because it is more relevant to an actual situation.

At the main event WSOP, your table is made of complete fish, except for this one player who sits to your left. This is one of the first few hours of the tournament, and you don't have a great read on anybody, but you have ideas on how they play.

Kings in the CO, and you raise 3x BB. Your opponent has 2x your stack, and raises back at you. Your opponent has been quite aggressive today, and while you can't put him on a specific range of hands, you have Kings. You reraise. Now, your opponent puts in a 4th raise, and essentially forces you to a decision for your entire stack right here.

All of these are relatively standard No-Limit raises, you have 12,000 in chips right now. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly what the WSOP structure is, so that's the best I can do.

Do you go all in, or do you fold?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

TONS of big name players busted out on day 1 of the WSOP this year (well, day 1 and 2, because of the split field, but you know what I mean). And if you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Greg (FossilMan)]

If you're ever going to fold KK preflop, now is the time to do it. The fourth raise is going to be less than AA very seldom.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Daliman]

David, are you FAMILIAR with the player named Phil Hellmuth?

[illguitar]

INteresting post...not sure how anyone can disagree. IT was clearly illustrated. My question...IF you were very short-stacked and very near the cutoff line for money, would you fold As? Have you ever? I can only assume that a player of professional caliber does not, while an amateur like myself probably should. What do you think?

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]
IF you were very short-stacked and very near the cutoff line for money, would you fold As? Have you ever? I can only assume that a player of professional caliber does not, while an amateur like myself probably should. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

ew no. even a horrible player can win a big hand with AA by pushing all in preflop.

nice job whipping this forum into shape paul. too bad for you that the forum you are most interested in is also the most inexperienced poker wise.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
TONS of big name players busted out on day 1 of the WSOP this year (well, day 1 and 2, because of the split field, but you know what I mean). And if you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that the thing you also must remember...the bigger the tourney, the better the players playing in it, the less you should pass up small favorable edges. Now obviously the level of play has been diluted a bit at the WSOP, but its still a tourney with tons of great players in it.

[illguitar]

I'm not sure if I have the discipline to throw away aces preflop if I needed to. But do you disagree that there are times that make it profitable to do so? I will tell you one thing for sure...if I made it to the WSOP through satellite and happened to be lucky enough to last long enough to be near the money. I would throw away aces in a heartbeat to make the moneyline. I'm not saying that this is a wainning play. It isn't, but for a player who is in over his head, it could be for the short term. Whereas it would be foolish for this to be done at any other time. Do you see my reasoning?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I would throw away aces in a heartbeat to make the moneyline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
but for a player who is in over his head, it could be for the short term.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a player who is in over his head, wouldn't you relish the opportunity to make the exact same play that phil ivey or doyle brunson or whoever you think is best would make? Why would you want to intentionally make the wrong play? Doesn't being in over your head present enough of a challenge?

[ QUOTE ]
Whereas it would be foolish for this to be done at any other time. Do you see my reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not it is your reasoning, the effect is to make it far easier for everyone else to win a lot of money. It's rare to see this kind of altruism in the tournament poker world and I think you should be applauded for it.

[kmvenne]

[ QUOTE ]
As a player who is in over his head, wouldn't you relish the opportunity to make the exact same play that phil ivey or doyle brunson or whoever you think is best would make? Why would you want to intentionally make the wrong play? Doesn't being in over your head present enough of a challenge?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if his favorite player is one that is already over his head, i.e. Phil Hellmuth?

[illguitar]

Paul...I love it. I understand that it is the wrong play for someone that plays many tournaments, or that has a n advantage over the field. Seriously though, I must be wrong here as everyone disagrees with me. However, I feel that the EV of my tournament goes up exponentially by being altruistic in this case. I have never played in a B & M tournament. I would be pretty intimidated for awhile I think. I would also feel great about creeping into the money if I was very shortstacked. I still feel that this would be the correct move for me, someone that is not constantly playing tournaments. Is it possible that this is ALWAYS the worng play? Let me know. Thanks.

[B Mando]

First hand of WSOP main event...You get dealt AA on the button, guy UTG goes all in...everyone folds to you.

If you are a top poker player, or even if you feel you are better then everyone at your table why would you call this? You are risking your entire tournment life on one hand where the UTG wahoo could hit his set or whatever...If you feel you could out play everyone and double up by the end of the day anyway why risk it all on one hand? It makes no sense to me if you are going to double up throughout the day anyway when you have the nuts and other players are drawing almost dead or near dead....

If you are a marginal player, or if you are just as good or worse as everyone at the table then it is a instant call...

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
First hand of WSOP main event...You get dealt AA on the button, guy UTG goes all in...everyone folds to you.

If you are a top poker player, or even if you feel you are better then everyone at your table why would you call this? You are risking your entire tournment life on one hand where the UTG wahoo could hit his set or whatever...If you feel you could out play everyone and double up by the end of the day anyway why risk it all on one hand? It makes no sense to me if you are going to double up throughout the day anyway when you have the nuts and other players are drawing almost dead or near dead....

If you are a marginal player, or if you are just as good or worse as everyone at the table then it is a instant call...

[/ QUOTE ]


If you are the best poker player in the world you call. Where has this idea that doubling up is enough for the first day? Why not triple up?

And chances are he's got a high pocket pair, or AK, which means you've got a huge over here.

I'll take AA against 67s for all my money first hand WSOP. It's the right move, regardless of who you are.

[InfernoLL]

While taking a 35% (or whatever) chance to make your stack ten times bigger is unquestionably correct at any stage of a tournament (correct me if im wrong), if you look at the range of likely hands people would need to do this, aces don't look so good and may be only a slight equity favourite over the average. Assuming people wouldn't push with random hands (not a bad assumption), there would definitely have to be high aces and high pairs out there. Assuming no one goes in with 76s (which would make you worse off), I think the following is a reasonable estimate of what people would have in such a situation.

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ac 32244 16.01 164590 81.73 4542 2.26 0.167
Ks Kc 0 0.00 200590 99.61 786 0.39 0.000
Qs Qc 0 0.00 200590 99.61 786 0.39 0.000
Ad Kd 9981 4.96 186853 92.79 4542 2.26 0.056
Ah Qh 9981 4.96 186853 92.79 4542 2.26 0.056
Qd Kh 2076 1.03 198514 98.58 786 0.39 0.011
Jd Jh 47936 23.80 152654 75.81 786 0.39 0.238
Ts Tc 36242 18.00 164348 81.61 786 0.39 0.180
9d 9h 30982 15.39 169608 84.22 786 0.39 0.154
8s 8c 27392 13.60 173198 86.01 786 0.39 0.136

While the other high cards hold eachother's outs, the lower pairs start becoming favourites and AA is only 6% above average. Assuming something perfect (and then some) like this would have to happen to create this situation, would a pro fold a 16% chance to increase his stack to ten times its size?

[madmisha]

Thanks for the collection of posts, I have been reading them with great interest.

There is one aspect of the pushing small edges versus survival debate is the limited time in a tourney.

Survivalist say that the best player has a great chance of doubling there stack through good play and avoiding small edges for all you chips because they eventually with double up with less risk.
However, time is limited and the time spent trying to double up after passing up a small edge would be used by aggressive players(who either double up or go home) to build an even larger stack.