taking your coinflips......1000 nl

[captZEEbo1]

10 handed $5/10 nl (1000 max buyin)

Hero has T/images/graemlins/diamond.gifT/images/graemlins/spade.gif and is in MP3
4 folds, MP2 raises $10 to $40, <font color="red">Hero calls</font>, 3 folds, SB raises from $40 to $520 and is all-in, 1 fold, MP2 folds, <font color="red">Hero....

[AZK]

Without reads or seeing that he is on tilt/donk of some sort, this is a ridiculously easy fold. If this is a difficult fold for you to make I think you should reconsider playing 5/10. This is not a tournament, you shouldn't have to "coinflip" with people to win money. Even if you are dead accurate and he does in fact have overcards, I still wouldn't call. Sure you are ahead, but who cares, why take 50/50 on half a buyin when you could take much better odds on more money.

[Logik]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reads or seeing that he is on tilt/donk of some sort, this is a ridiculously easy fold. If this is a difficult fold for you to make I think you should reconsider playing 5/10. This is not a tournament, you shouldn't have to "coinflip" with people to win money. Even if you are dead accurate and he does in fact have overcards, I still wouldn't call. Sure you are ahead, but who cares, why take 50/50 on half a buyin when you could take much better odds on more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were quite literally 100% sure he had overcards, and it was a capped buy-in table and you are adequately bankrolled it might be better to call. That way you're taking a 0EV move with the potential to have your stack exceed the capped buy-in.

It could be advantageous, but one can never be sure that he has overcards without an overpair, so I would fold.

[AZK]

I agree about the capped buyin idea. I mostly play in games with no cap. But I much prefer to separate fish from their money through other means than "coinflips" preflop.

[flytrap]

This is certainly a very easy fold, but I disagree about it being a fold in a cash game if you are 100% sure he had overcards. Let's say you're sitting next to him and he tipped his cards up where you could see them or something, (obviously this would be un-ethical to look, but this is all in theory anyway) and so you KNOW he has overcards. If you're at a limit you're comfortable with, where losing one hand won't be a big deal, then it's an easy call against his overcards. You're better than 50/50 against something like ak or aq, and with $610 in the pot (the original raisers $40 + your $40 + the $10bb + the all-in $520) it's costing you $480 to call.
There are, however, a few times I would fold in this situation against overcards in a cash game. If you're in a game where there is a max buy-in and you have a lot more chips than the buy-in. It's a big advantage having a lot of chips in this case, as you can bust the other bigger stacks. Why squander it as a slight favorite? The other time I would do it is in a game with no max buy-in, where you bought in for an amount you were comfortable with losing, but you've amassed a huge stack of chips, and the guy moving all-in has a similar huge stack. You may be comfortable with the $500 you bought in for, but due to a great run you now have $7000. Unless the $7000 won't be a hit to your bankroll, I'm folding there also.
Of course these examples are when you are 100% sure he has overcards.

[scdavis0]

It's ridiculous to fold if your were "dead accurate" he had overcards. Run TT against all his overcard holdings. His edge is much larger than the house's edge in craps or blackjack or baccarat or the big freakin wheel.

[AZK]

There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to make even more money in NL by taking 55/45 edges.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you are dead accurate and he does in fact have overcards, I still wouldn't call. Sure you are ahead, but who cares, why take 50/50 on half a buyin when you could take much better odds on more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Let's say you know the hands are:

Td Th 978073 57.12 728909 42.57 5322 0.31 0.573
As Kc 728909 42.57 978073 57.12 5322 0.31 0.427

Figure out the EV of this hand and tell me again why you're folding.

[Ulysses]

As for this hand, with just the info given here, I fold.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to make even more money in NL by taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

[AZK]

What percentage of the time would you have to be right (he does in fact have overcards) to make this play? Greater than 90%?

I'm just saying that if a player is willing to move in for 50 bets preflop with AK, there are probably easier ways to take his money then taking 58/42 with him. No?

Edit:

You are risking 480 to win roughly 600. 58% of the time you win 1080 (626), 42% of the time you lose 480 (201). Interesting.

I recant my previous statement about not pushing if you are 100% positive, but I still fold in this circumstance.

How do you do this calculation for different % levels of you being confident he has overcards, for different expectations, just curious...

[Ray Zee]

listen to the masked man then give me my name back.

[Rotating Rabbit]

AZK you are right, elD is being pinickity and stating the theoretical obvious.

If you're 57% to win against overs, and 20% to win against overpair, then the chance of winning is:

( 57p + 20(1-p) ) / 100

= (37p + 20) / 100

where p is the chance he has overcards only. E.g. If you're 75% sure he has overs, the expression yields .475 ie -EV. (Ignoring blinds etc, which would make this about even).

In an internet cash game I really dont see how anyone can be 75%+ sure villian has overs when he pushes all in in this manner.

[Rotating Rabbit]

On another note, I have my number theory finals paper tomorrow...gone are the days of p and 1-p being probabilities....i wish. Now p is a prime ideal that most likely splits in the euclidean ring concerned causing a huge mess in all the calculations.

[AZK]

Interesting. Slipped my mind about how even if he has an overpair you still win 20% of the time. I agree for the internet it's damn near impossible. I mostly play live, so after playing for a few orbits with people I usually have a pretty good idea if they are the type to push with an overpair or with overcards. I would say the intervals go something like 60%, 75%, 90% for some people. So this is why it's normally an easy fold for me...

[Voltron87]

1. Who said this is a fold if he has two overcards? what what what?

2. It is still a fold under the cirumstances which I can see though.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
listen to the masked man then give me my name back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, these forums ain't big enough for the three of us.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
What percentage of the time would you have to be right (he does in fact have overcards) to make this play? Greater than 90%?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a simple math problem. Don't ask me, figure it out for yourself. Don't forget to take into account the money already in the middle.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
AZK you are right, elD is being pinickity and stating the theoretical obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

AZK is right? If this were so obvious, then please explain his statements. Thanks, chief.

[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the attitude with which to crush cash NL games.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you are dead accurate and he does in fact have overcards, I still wouldn't call. Sure you are ahead, but who cares, why take 50/50 on half a buyin when you could take much better odds on more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Figure out the EV for when he has two overcards. Now tell me exactly why AZK is right to fold when he knows his opponent has overcards.

[pzhon]

The SB didn't just reraise you. The SB pushed with the BB, intial raiser, and you left to act. Would the SB do that with KQ?

A good free tool to use for this type of situation is PokerStove (http://www.pokerstove.com). Against the range AA-JJ, AK, AQs, your equity is 35.5% with TT (or 36.2% if you kill an ace). If you call, you get back an average of $386 for your $480 investment. If you believe this hand range, folding is better by $94.

With only $127 in dead money, you need to win 44.2% to call. You don't win that much against someone loose enough to push with AA-TT, AK-AJ. You need someone to be willing to push with AT or KQ or 99 or weaker in order to call, or someone who would not push with a higher pair.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
What percentage of the time would you have to be right (he does in fact have overcards) to make this play? Greater than 90%?



This is a simple math problem. Don't ask me, figure it out for yourself. Don't forget to take into account the money already in the middle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Having a little difficulty (my post chinese food coma might have a little something to do with it), if anyone wants to help out it would be much appreciated.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you are dead accurate and he does in fact have overcards, I still wouldn't call. Sure you are ahead, but who cares, why take 50/50 on half a buyin when you could take much better odds on more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Figure out the EV for when he has two overcards. Now tell me exactly why AZK is right to fold when he knows his opponent has overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be willing to take +EV gambles to make the maximum in NL hold'em.

If opponent flashes ace-king to you, you should instacall.

The problem isn't calling when he has overcards, it's calling when he DOESN'T have overcards.

You'll note that ElD said he would fold here, because of the possibility of the latter scenario.

[-Skeme-]

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14731&amp;m_id=65562

[ZeeJustin]

Everything El Diablo has said is not only correct, but should be obvious to a player winning at the 1000 NL level.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
What percentage of the time would you have to be right (he does in fact have overcards) to make this play? Greater than 90%?



This is a simple math problem. Don't ask me, figure it out for yourself. Don't forget to take into account the money already in the middle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Having a little difficulty (my post chinese food coma might have a little something to do with it), if anyone wants to help out it would be much appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

caveat: i'm bad at math

so we're facing 480 more to play a final pot size of 1080. we close the action headup so no wories about getting fizzlefucked three ways. We'll ignore the rake for now.

we're paying 480 to win 1080 (520 twice and 40 dead from MP) so we need 44.444% pot equity against his hand range in order to make this an EV neutral call. really this should be a tiny bit higher to to rake, but meh.

making a few assumptions:

1. we've got 55% pot equity against overcards in general (like for example i think we're actually in worse shape against like KQs then AKs etc.)

2. we've got 20% equity against overpairs. little higher or lowr depending on uit domination, but, again, meh.

3. he won't do this without overcards or an overpair. like we'll never see 72o. if this isnt the case we can solve for a 3d curve, but not a percentage (as the profitable % he has overcards depends on both the times he has overpair and times we have one. in our case every time he doesn't have overcards he has an overpair, so they're directly related, so really only one free variable.)

ok, so we need .44444 and we have .2 or .55. x=fraction of times he has just overcards.

.444444 = .2(1-x) + .55(x)
.444444 = .35x + .2
.244444 = .35x
x = 69.854% or more that he has overcards to make this an EV neutral or +EV move

that number seems low to me, but whatever. in my head i guesstimated it would be high 70's.

either way, i doubt he has AK ~twice as often as a bigger pair than TT here. in fact, i'd guess it was the other way around. so do like zee, diablo and all the good players say and fold.

fim

[edge]

Really easy fold. If you reraised and the original raiser pushed over you, it becomes a little easier to call (I still fold, depending on the exact pot odds), but in this situation I toss the cards easily.

[captZEEbo1]

I'm just curious as to all you people who are saying "routine fold"....How often have you seen AA-JJ play a hand this way? If you've never made the call HOW DO YOU KNOW? I've been making this type of call a lot lately, and have NEVER been up against an overpair. Maybe I've just been "running hot" with my calling allins with hands like TT. If a specific opponent was really smart, they'd be able to really exploit specifically me (noticing I assume pushes are AK and not AA and are willing to call allins with hands like TT). To the person that said hand ranges include AQs-AJ, I've never seen that play either (unless villain stack was 20 bbs or less). Everyone just assumes that AK will call an allin, so they would not want to push AQ, which is potentially dominated by AK. So I'd say the range is AK and JJ+...however, I don't think it's fair to use pokerstove. It's VERY rare to see AA play it that way....wouldn't they rather just pot reraise it and give people a chance to make a mistake preflop? After all, everyone loves AA and loves seeing a flop with it. Everyone hates AK because they NEVER hit a flop with it.

Also, nobody seemed to mention stack size of villain. On average, don't you guys notice that when your opponents aren't fully stacked, they're usually not that good at poker. I make generalizations that when an opponent is sitting around with 20 bb's, he's playing a certain style. If he's sitting around with 40-50 bb's he's playing another style. If he has 100 bb's or more he's playing another style.

I've also been shown hands like 44 and J3s too....although for 44 the opponents stack size was around 300, and for J3s the opponent was on tilt I correctly assumed.

[ QUOTE ]
It could be advantageous, but one can never be sure that he has overcards without an overpair, so I would fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
-If someone pushed at your flop bet, and you held middle set, would you fold, because you can never be SURE he didn't have top set? You really have to look at his likely holdings. I think his most likely holding is specifically AK, and it's a lot more likely than you guys think. I just can't imagine that calling here is -EV.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious as to all you people who are saying "routine fold"....How often have you seen AA-JJ play a hand this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot.

[captZEEbo1]

Another comment...everyone that posted about math forgot about the BB which is worth $10. I can't believe almost nobody thinks this is a call. If I saw any data for a range of hands for these push plays, I'd be willing to reconsider my stance.

[fimbulwinter]

look at the math i presented. he needs to have overs a healthy amount to make this a call. in my experience at levels right below this, the hand most often hand TT drawing at two outs, far far too often to think about a call.

fim

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
look at the math i presented. he needs to have overs a healthy amount to make this a call. in my experience at levels right below this, the hand most often hand TT drawing at two outs, far far too often to think about a call.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

You're honestly telling me it's JJ-AA OVER 50% of the time? Maybe I'm not used to lower limits (I'm still a relative n00b to nl cash in general). But I very rarely see this play with JJ-AA at 1000 nl. I think you guys just see allins and go "he pushed with AA" and not look at partciular circumstanes. Yes I know people push with AA and KK preflop often. But in this PARTICULAR circumstance, the pot wasn't that juiced yet. It's not like some guy made it 30, 3 guys cold call, and another guy makes it 120, THEN someone else pushed over all that; YES a push here OFTEN indicates AA or KK, and I would not call THAT push with TT. Why would AA push in the given circumstance, there's been almost no strength shown and the pot is relatively small...I'd estimate that this particular push is AK more than 90% of the time.

[Rotating Rabbit]

90% AK?! Slightly overconfident ?! If you're EVER seen calling one of these, by a player in the game, or even someone railbirding, you might find people copying this play against you for a rainy day.

I think this is a mtt only call.

I think

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
90% AK?! Slightly overconfident ?! If you're EVER seen calling one of these, by a player in the game, or even someone railbirding, you might find people copying this play against you for a rainy day.

I think this is a mtt only call.

I think

[/ QUOTE ]

I've found people in MTTs are MORE willing to make this play with JJ-AA because, everyone in MTT's gets desperate and calls allin with low pp's or even like KJ AQ whatever. (So by their logic, their overbet of JJ-AA is more likely to get called by a dominated hand). Although I agree, I'm probably still calling TT in the MTT too. However in a MTT, people are more willing to make this play with A9 or any two face type hands.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Another comment...everyone that posted about math forgot about the BB which is worth $10.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't forget the BB or the $3 rake. Neither affects the analysis much.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe almost nobody thinks this is a call.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, a lot of people think it's a call, which is why I'll push here with AA-QQ and AK (and a short stack). I don't like to play these out of position.

With JJ, I like to call, then check/fold any flop.

[Prevaricator]

Why is this a call in MTT? Isnt it still a fold? You are risking the tournament to double up?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a mtt only call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can rebuy in cash games, not tournaments. Therefore, you should be less likely to take a scenario that increases your chances of going bust in a MTT. Your logic is backward.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a mtt only call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can rebuy in cash games, not tournaments. Therefore, you should be less likely to take a scenario that increases your chances of going bust in a MTT. Your logic is backward.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was what I initially thought too.

[captZEEbo1]

aren't people's push hands a LOT wider though in a mtt?

[fimbulwinter]

1. you are indeed new to cash NL
2. you really really really need to look at the math i presented. he does not need to have you dominated even 1/3 of the time to make this -EV. look at the (better) math post i put up.
3. the 2/3 dominated figure is, as i stated, just from experience. very often bad players play like this for fear of being outplayed postflop. remember that there's very little for him to win in the pot with an Ak "semibluff" and that the massive EV of getting AA in against TT makes this play possibly the best one if some sucker calls it only once in a while...

fim

[Mike Cuneo]

Throwing my 2 cents in, you're either a small favorite or a huge dog here. I think that's what most people are trying to say.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
aren't people's push hands a LOT wider though in a mtt?

[/ QUOTE ]
The main difference between MTTs and cash games is that the stacks are typically much shorter in tournaments. In the middle of a MTT, it's not uncommon for the average stack to be under 15 BB, and sometimes under 10 BB. That means there is proportionately more dead money when you face an intial raise all-in or a reraise all-in.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
Throwing my 2 cents in, you're either a small favorite or a huge dog here. I think that's what most people are trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, I'll be a small favorite with an extra juiced pot...

[Prevaricator]

We aren't talking about calling an allin of under 15BB though. Just cause an MTT situation might be more likely to have more shallow stacks doesnt mean that this specific situation would be a call were it a MTT. If someone goes allin for 52xbb like in level 2, you dont call with TT

[Rotating Rabbit]

I agree, I came over wrong (for some reason I had in my head a situation where hero was big stacked and villian was short)

If its double up or out its a fold obviously.

[greywolf]

[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ] It is very hard to make lots of money in holdem if you are willing to give up a 55/45 edge.

[augie00]

I like money, so I fold here. This is an overpair most of the time. Obviously. Come on. I think he has QQ...OP: did he have QQ? Did he?

[GFunk911]

[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you only come to the casino with 1 buyin?

[AZK]

huh?

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ] It is very hard to make lots of money in holdem if you are willing to give up a 55/45 edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to imply that you will rarely get a chance to put much money in the pot with better than 55/45 odds. This is ridiculous. The types of players that are willing to push preflop with AK are going to give you plenty of opportunities to get your money in as a huge favorite against them. El Diablo's statement is much more accurate than yours... taking these 55/45 shots will win you more money than not taking them. But that hardly means you won't still make plenty of money without taking them.

The notion that you should never pass up a +EV gamble is great, assuming that you have an infinite bankroll. But in reality, no one has an infinite bankroll, and many players will stretch their bankroll a bit thin at times. If losing a couple of 55/45 all-ins means you must drop down in stakes in order to continue playing comfortably, then you would be correct to pass up some of those opportunities, if you KNOW that there will be better gambles available if you are patient. Research the "Kelly Criterion" for more information.

Here's a fun game for you: Suppose you're given a $10,000 bankroll and you are given the chance to play 2000 hands of heads-up NL poker at whatever stakes you desire. At the end of each hand, you will each reset your stacks to 100 times the big blind. And to make things simple for you, your opponent is going to go all-in preflop on every single hand. You are even given a chart which tells you the equity of your hand versus a random hand. What would be the optimal strategy for this game? Here's a hint: It's not to play with 50/100 blinds and go all-in the first time you have at least a 51% chance of winning.

There was a poll a while back in the Mid-High Limit forum recently in which many people said they would give up as much as 30% of their winrate in order to completely eliminate variance from their results. Knowingly passing up situations with very marginal EV is not going to cut your winrate by 30% (unless of course your winrate is extremely low), but it will certainly cut your variance a lot. If someone chooses to sacrifice part of their winrate in order to reduce variance, I don't see how someone else can tell them that what they are doing is right or wrong -- they are aware of what they are doing, and it's their own choice to make based upon their tolerance for risk and the size of their bankroll. Someone playing 5/10 on a $15,000 bankroll simply cannot take the same risks as someone with a $150,000 bankroll. Maybe it cuts their winrate from 10bb/100 to 8bb/100... but this "suboptimal" strategy would still be better for them than dropping down to 2/5 where they can push more edges and win 10bb/100.

[LuvDemNutz]

Good post soah.

Much of what you say is common sense, yet it eludes many on on this forum.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

The notion that you should never pass up a +EV gamble is great, assuming that you have an infinite bankroll. But in reality, no one has an infinite bankroll, and many players will stretch their bankroll a bit thin at times. If losing a couple of 55/45 all-ins means you must drop down in stakes in order to continue playing comfortably, then you would be correct to pass up some of those opportunities, if you KNOW that there will be better gambles available if you are patient. Research the "Kelly Criterion" for more information.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Kelly Criterion says the optimal amount to wager as a 55:45 favorite is 1/10 of your bankroll. It says to walk away if you have to wager more than 19.9% of your bankroll.

If a half buy-in represents more than 19.9% of your bankroll, you haven't been paying attention to the Kelly Criterion before, so why start now?
<font color="white">Of course, there is dead money in the pot, but it is quite likely that you are not a favorite against the range of hands the SB would push.</font>

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone playing 5/10 on a $15,000 bankroll simply cannot take the same risks as someone with a $150,000 bankroll. Maybe it cuts their winrate from 10bb/100 to 8bb/100... but this "suboptimal" strategy would still be better for them than dropping down to 2/5 where they can push more edges and win 10bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that is why you play a level you are adequately bankrolled for.

[IgorSmiles]

If youre laying down the 55/45 edge here with proper pot odds, then I guess you should never put your money in on a flush draw or open ended st8 draw when given the proper odds either.

[IgorSmiles]

By the way, I dont see it as a lock that you are up against an over pair or overcards. I do conceed that this is a laydown based on the way the hand was played, but against aggressive opponents you may see an underpair here. AA or KK will probably reraise but not all in. I agree with the Queens guess, as Jacks or Queens are likely here, but I dont rule out an underpair.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The notion that you should never pass up a +EV gamble is great, assuming that you have an infinite bankroll. But in reality, no one has an infinite bankroll, and many players will stretch their bankroll a bit thin at times. If losing a couple of 55/45 all-ins means you must drop down in stakes in order to continue playing comfortably, then you would be correct to pass up some of those opportunities, if you KNOW that there will be better gambles available if you are patient. Research the "Kelly Criterion" for more information.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Kelly Criterion says the optimal amount to wager as a 55:45 favorite is 1/10 of your bankroll. It says to walk away if you have to wager more than 19.9% of your bankroll.

If a half buy-in represents more than 19.9% of your bankroll, you haven't been paying attention to the Kelly Criterion before, so why start now?
<font color="white">Of course, there is dead money in the pot, but it is quite likely that you are not a favorite against the range of hands the SB would push.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Using exact Kelly betting gives you a risk of ruin of around 5%. Most people would not consider this to be acceptable. In general, the harder it would be to replace your bankroll, the more you should protect it. If replacing your bankroll means waiting for next week's paycheck, then go ahead and take all the 55/45 gambles that you want to. But if you rely on poker to pay the bills, then why risk it all on thin edges? As I recall, some of the more successful high stakes card counting teams were betting at the 1/8 Kelly level. This means that you would need 80 buy-ins in your bankroll to call all-in with a 10% advantage. (Although it's more common for card counters to be betting in the 1/4 to 1/2 Kelly range.)

Most of you would probably consider 80 buy-ins to be too extreme... but where do you draw the line? You cannot examine EV without also taking variance into consideration. There is no right or wrong answer about the proper level of risk aversion.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Using exact Kelly betting gives you a risk of ruin of around 5%.


[/ QUOTE ]
That may be true if you start with the Kelly Criterion, then ignore it as you start to lose. If you follow the Kelly criterion, then you move down when you lose, and you won't go bankrupt.

[ QUOTE ]

But if you rely on poker to pay the bills, then why risk it all on thin edges?


[/ QUOTE ]
Is being a 5:4 favorite a thin edge, or a significant edge? The point of using the Kelly Criterion, and variations, is to give a consistent answer.

[ QUOTE ]

As I recall, some of the more successful high stakes card counting teams were betting at the 1/8 Kelly level. This means that you would need 80 buy-ins in your bankroll to call all-in with a 10% advantage.


[/ QUOTE ]
1/8 Kelly seems absurd. When people are more conservative than 1/4 Kelly, I assume it is because they are just guessing at their advantage.

The 1/8 Kelly Criterion doesn't say you need 80 buy-ins to take a 55:45 gamble for a half buy-in. It says you need about 20 buy-ins. <font color="white">Of course, it is quite possible that this is no coin-toss.</font>

[ QUOTE ]

There is no right or wrong answer about the proper level of risk aversion.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are inconsistent sets of choices. If you are inconsistent, then you accept extra risk for less of a reward than you could have. I think that happens very frequently. People decide some action like getting into a coin-toss is wrong and they avoid the possibility while ignoring more serious dangers.

If you win 5 PTBB/100, and your standard deviation is 50 PTBB/100, then every 100 hands you play is like taking a 55:45 coin-toss for 1/2 buy-in.

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are easier ways to make a lot of money in NL than taking 55/45 edges.

[/ QUOTE ] It is very hard to make lots of money in holdem if you are willing to give up a 55/45 edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to imply that you will rarely get a chance to put much money in the pot with better than 55/45 odds. This is ridiculous. The types of players that are willing to push preflop with AK are going to give you plenty of opportunities to get your money in as a huge favorite against them. El Diablo's statement is much more accurate than yours... taking these 55/45 shots will win you more money than not taking them. But that hardly means you won't still make plenty of money without taking them.

The notion that you should never pass up a +EV gamble is great, assuming that you have an infinite bankroll. But in reality, no one has an infinite bankroll, and many players will stretch their bankroll a bit thin at times. If losing a couple of 55/45 all-ins means you must drop down in stakes in order to continue playing comfortably, then you would be correct to pass up some of those opportunities, if you KNOW that there will be better gambles available if you are patient. Research the "Kelly Criterion" for more information.

Here's a fun game for you: Suppose you're given a $10,000 bankroll and you are given the chance to play 2000 hands of heads-up NL poker at whatever stakes you desire. At the end of each hand, you will each reset your stacks to 100 times the big blind. And to make things simple for you, your opponent is going to go all-in preflop on every single hand. You are even given a chart which tells you the equity of your hand versus a random hand. What would be the optimal strategy for this game? Here's a hint: It's not to play with 50/100 blinds and go all-in the first time you have at least a 51% chance of winning.

There was a poll a while back in the Mid-High Limit forum recently in which many people said they would give up as much as 30% of their winrate in order to completely eliminate variance from their results. Knowingly passing up situations with very marginal EV is not going to cut your winrate by 30% (unless of course your winrate is extremely low), but it will certainly cut your variance a lot. If someone chooses to sacrifice part of their winrate in order to reduce variance, I don't see how someone else can tell them that what they are doing is right or wrong -- they are aware of what they are doing, and it's their own choice to make based upon their tolerance for risk and the size of their bankroll. Someone playing 5/10 on a $15,000 bankroll simply cannot take the same risks as someone with a $150,000 bankroll. Maybe it cuts their winrate from 10bb/100 to 8bb/100... but this "suboptimal" strategy would still be better for them than dropping down to 2/5 where they can push more edges and win 10bb/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you present interesting points, soah, I guess my implied assumptions were that you are adequately bankrolled. If you aren't adequaltely bankrolled, then imagine this exact scenario at the 400 or even 100 nl game (assuming same skill caliber of players as the 1000 nl game).

[soah]

I was not responding directly to your original post. I was reacting to the general opinion some people seemed to have that knowingly passing up any +EV gamble will seriously inhibit your ability to win any money at poker. Unless your game selection is nothing short of terrible, then this should not be the case.

As for your original question, it is an obvious fold because you don't know that your opponent has AK.