Beavis68
01-11-2005, 03:11 PM
Also posted in the WPT forum.
We all know Phil's statement that he doesn't need to get his money in a "only" a 4:1 favorite.
This got me thinking about just how likely it is you will be able to double up with less risk.
Risk is easily calculated in all-in hands, but are people that avoid all-ins without a complete lock taking on more risk than they realize?
Situation:
1. You are involved in a hand - raised pot. You already have money in, you get raised or reraised for a good portion of your stack and it looks like are probably going to be playing for all of your chips.
2. You have a strong made hand or very strong draw you would expect to play profitably in a ring game.
3. You are getting the proper odds or better to continue with the hand (+EV situation).
There are people that advocate folding in these spots rather than risk elimination. But are they just shifting the risk by giving up the pot? Perhaps taking more risk by folding?
We all know Phil's statement that he doesn't need to get his money in a "only" a 4:1 favorite.
This got me thinking about just how likely it is you will be able to double up with less risk.
Risk is easily calculated in all-in hands, but are people that avoid all-ins without a complete lock taking on more risk than they realize?
Situation:
1. You are involved in a hand - raised pot. You already have money in, you get raised or reraised for a good portion of your stack and it looks like are probably going to be playing for all of your chips.
2. You have a strong made hand or very strong draw you would expect to play profitably in a ring game.
3. You are getting the proper odds or better to continue with the hand (+EV situation).
There are people that advocate folding in these spots rather than risk elimination. But are they just shifting the risk by giving up the pot? Perhaps taking more risk by folding?