playing against someone who is all-in blind

[elitegimp]

apologies if this has been discussed ad naseum, but searching for "all-in" and "blind" didn't seem like it would be useful /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyway, I played at a live free-roll that had about 100 entrants, and I was lucky enough to be seated at a table with someone who was going all-in every hand. He won the blinds the first two times, then tripled up when his 94o beat QTs and A3s (T8799 board). From there on out, he was winning often enough that his stack was growing fairly steadily... so what hands would have been good to play against him?

Starting stacks are 5000, blinds start at 25/50 and double every 15 minutes or so.

I was thinking any A and any pair (though maybe it should be any pair >= 88 or 77 or something), possibly big kings (KQ, KJ) because I wanted to get my money in with decent odds -- I could have sat back and waited for others to bust him but then I would've been the tiny stack, and figured I needed to try to double up a few times while the gettin' was good.

[MilwaukeeBull]

I would call him with any big pair (AA, KK, QQ) with other callers. If heads up, I might loosen to 77 or above. And of course A K. Depends on how long you want to stay and put up with his antics.

[kuro]

You see this kind of play often in free play tourneys.

The strategy I use is that I only call his all in if I have Aces. I also insult his play and encourage others to go all in against him.

The blinds are so small that you're not really losing much if you muck your hands for a long time. This guys strategy can't last very long. Either other people will bust him out of the tourney, the table will break up because he eats everyones stack, or he'll decide that his stack is big enough that he now has a big enough edge to change his strategy.

When you go all in against these types you also run a serious risk of other players going all in behind you with a hand that they can't lay down which makes you a serious underdog.

[nate1729]

Waiting for aces is possibly the worst strategy to use. If I'm sure it's heads up and he's moving in blind I'm calling with any pair 44 and up, any ace, any king, and probably a few more hands too. Of course someone will bust him eventually -- you want that person to be you. Why not get all your chips in as a huge favorite? If you're so risk-averse as to avoid this amazingly good opportunity, you shouldn't play the tournament in the first place.

Oh, and if someone's already called... hmm, I suppose I'd overcall with pairs 77 and higher, Ax suited, A8-AK, on average. This all depends on what I can deduce of the first caller's standards, though; a rational player will have a range of hands that I want to play those against, but I might be at a table full of people like you.

[wjmooner]

AK-AT, AA-88, KQ, KJ. Still pretty tight, but not prohibitively tight to get a chance to double up on him. The main thing is you want the best chance to have a 70-30 chance against him (two overcards against two unders) or better.

The problem with any ace is that if you call w/ A4 and he tables 87 you are only a 54-46 favorite. A coinflip. Surely you can find a better spot than that. On average the hands I mentioned should be at least 2 to 1 against his random hand.

C

[kuro]

What you're forgetting is that this is a long tourniment where only a small percentage of the field gets paid. Your goal is not to try to double up every time you have a 2:1 advantage. Your goal is to use your skill to outplay the field and put yourself in a position down the road where you have a real shot at winning.

If you want to make 2:1 advantage bets when you're not facing elimination or your short stacked then sure. But you're not short stacked. You probably have 100 times the BB. You have plenty of time to build up your stack on better bets.

Think of it this way, on average how many times during the tourney can you make a 2:1 bet for all of your chips and not be eliminated?

If you move in against him and someone moves in behind you what do you think your odds of winning with your aggressive play is? Slim.

You also have to remember that even if you do double up on him, his stack may very well be large enough that he can continue with his all-in strategy and you're stuck in the same spot as you were before. I.E. risking your tourney survival on a 2 to 1 advantage when if you were patient you'd be slowly adding to your stack with much higher advantage bets in 20 minutes time.

[bobman0330]

I think maybe you meant to post on RGP... people on 2+2 are usually supposed to have a brain and some understanding of the game of poker.

To prove to you how outrageously foolish your contentions are, I offer the following thought experiment. conceptualize a tournament as 2^n players each starting with 1000 chips. Every turn, player pair off and go all-in against each other. The winner advances to the next "round" and the cycle repeats until there's only one winner. Let's run a 64-player, $1000 buy-in, winner take all tournament. Furthermore, imagine you can only engineer a "paltry" 2-1 edge for each all-in. You have to win 6 all-ins to take first prize, which will happen "only" 8.8% of the time. Tournament EV: +$4632.

Your ordinary playing style doesn't work nearly this well. There's no comparison. Now obviously this is a big abstraction, but it shows just how big a 2:1 edge is compared to your, or anyone's, playing style.

[kuro]

Lets say the maniac goes all in blind from first position.
You're in mid position with AKs and you go all in against him, but low and behold big blind goes all-in against the maniac as well and turns over 88. The maniac sheepishly turns over 72o. You think to yourself "what an idiot he went all in with me doesn't he know I've got the goods." No, he's got no clue because he hasn't seen you play a hand and you've got no clue that he's so clueless as to enter a 3 way all in because you've never seen him play a hand.

The maniac now has a 10% chance of winning the pot, you have a 44.9% chance of winning, and the third guy has a 44.6% chance of winning.

You're screwed.

And please there's no need for personal attacks or insults. We're just looking at a problem from different perspectives.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say the maniac goes all in blind from first position.
You're in mid position with AKs and you go all in against him, but low and behold big blind goes all-in against the maniac as well and turns over 88. The maniac sheepishly turns over 72o. You think to yourself "what an idiot he went all in with me doesn't he know I've got the goods." No, he's got no clue because he hasn't seen you play a hand and you've got no clue that he's so clueless as to enter a 3 way all in because you've never seen him play a hand.

The maniac now has a 10% chance of winning the pot, you have a 44.9% chance of winning, and the third guy has a 44.6% chance of winning.

You're screwed.

And please there's no need for personal attacks or insults. We're just looking at a problem from different perspectives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having a 44.9% chance to triple up is a very long way from screwed.

If you try to respond by saying "but there is a 55.1% chance you're out!" I will send you to remedial poker school.

[bobman0330]

Two things:

First of all, a friend pointed out that my previous thought experiment bears a strong resemblence to something paul phillips posted in his livejournal. Certainly, there was no intentional plaigarism, but it's very possible that Mr. Phillips' searing brilliance and profound insight lodged this example in my subconscious, leading me to trot it out as my own. Check it out, from a better player (and more original writer) than I: extempore.livejournal.com

Second. If someone overcalls with a weak hand like 88, as you say, you now have a 45% chance of tripling up and a 55% chance of busting. EV= +twice your stack * .45 - your stack * .55= +.35 * your stack. This is actually even better than a heads-up 2:1 confrontation, which has an EV of only 1/3 of your stack.

[stephensolo]

[ QUOTE ]


The maniac now has a 10% chance of winning the pot, you have a 44.9% chance of winning, and the third guy has a 44.6% chance of winning.

You're screwed.



[/ QUOTE ]

i wouldnt mind a 44.9% percent chance of tripling up, i definately wouldnt call that being screwed.

no one asked about postition here. where are you in relation to the blind raiser? obviously there are people to act after you on most rounds, but if you are one or two to to his right than you can feel safe calling with a decent hand. take his chips.

[nate1729]

Although you are right and many of the other posters have been very very wrong, it also bears pointing out that in your example, because 100% of the money went to first place, correct strategy inherently reverted (almost) exactly to cash-game strategy. The point isn't that waiting for aces is generally stupid; the point is that waiting for aces is so freaking stupid that it's even wrong in a touranment.