Is there any reason I shouldn't call all-in with A2 heads-up?

[Lucid1]

In a 20+2 yesterday, heads-up:

I 13-tabled, so I have a limited amount of reads on my opponent, but I noticed that he told a third player that I was a solid player, and in my mind that usually means that HE's a solid player too - since it usually takes some skill to recognize skill /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I also know that I might have come across as a little tight on my calling standards in this tourny.

Anyway, a few hands into the heads-up play - the other player has gone all-in about 2 out of 4 times so far - the blinds are 250/500, and we have about equal stacks.

He raises me all-in and I call with A2.

My thinking is that when the blinds are this high and I'm heads-up with a player who _probably_ knows what he's doing, there's no point in folding "marginal" hands and waiting for better spots.

I think I very likely have the best hand here..

The reason I'm even asking is that I saw some hand histories for some of you 200+15 sharks, and I saw some - to me - strange folds preflop that has made me consider that maybe calls like this isn't necessarily correct.

I mean - I saw one great player fold KQs heads-up against an all-in raise (with stacks a slightly uneven in size and high blinds) - which to me also looks like an almost automatic call against most good players. (I assume most 200+15 players are good)

Personally I don't feel like there's much room for "outplaying" my opponent heads-up when the blinds are high, other than in making calls with the best hands, and being agressive.

When I play higher-buyin tournies on other sites where I have more chips related to the blinds I tend to try more fancy plays, but for me - on PartyPoker 800-chips-tournies it's mostly abc push or fold for me.

Any comments?

[microbet]

Calling with A2 HU and 500 BB with an anywhere near normally aggressive opponent is completely standard.

A 13-tabling stranger, eh? Interesting.

[schwza]

i'd call. there's even some change he has 2x.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]


A 13-tabling stranger, eh? Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
my thoughts exactly.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


A 13-tabling stranger, eh? Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]
my thoughts exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this so odd? 13 tables is enough that I can't concurrently be posting to 2+2, maybe OP is spending his time playing instead of posting. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I usually play at least 8. I play 13 or 14 with fair frequency. You get your odd numbers from 5 tables at stars, 1 table at Paradise, and how ever many Rounders are currently available at Aztec.

If it weren't for OOT, I'd probably be a stranger too.

I don't really feel like I have much to contribute to the discussions in 1-table, thus I usually just read them.

[microbet]

Interesting is different than odd. I would just think a 13-tabler would or eventually will want to participate.

Now spending much time in OOT, that's odd.

[Skipbidder]

Fair enough. Not odd.

OOT is where most of my posts go, even if it isn't where I spend most of my time.

As to not participating here...
I'm beating the game comfortably. I've settled at stakes where a bad run doesn't cause me to want to throw the computer out the window. However, I don't think that I have any special insight to respond to posts, and it isn't in my personality to start them. This is not a room where a simple "me-too" seems to be appropriate. I can tell you what I think I would do in a situation, but who cares? There are already enough posters without great input. Why should I increase that number?

[microbet]

Hmm, maybe sometimes I fail to take into account the fact that other people might have a life.

[Lucid1]

I have about the same reasons that Skipbidder has for not posting here much.

I've been lurking on and off here for a pretty long time (18 months or so), but never felt I had many interesting things to add.

Tons of gurus here who usually answer the people who needs help pretty quickly, and for me personally - I'm not at a point right now where I focus on improving my game...

I just focus on putting in TONS of hours 13-tabling like a madman and making "easy money" abc-style while the poker gold age lasts /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I mostly multitable 33s on Party.

When I want breaks from my monotonous abc-style I play 5-player SNG 109s on other sites (with deeper stacks). (I do okay in those too, but I'm not able to multitable them much since they're much less "robotic")

I used to be an 8-tabler until about two weeks ago, when I decided to try to add more tables.

I now 12-table the Party network and add 1 extra table elsewhere (sometimes Pacific, other times Prima, etc)

Lately I've daily been playing 10-hour sessions while 13-tabling (130 tournies a day, since I play them in sets)...

I have a goal this month to play 4000 tournies in 30 days...

A little mentally draining, but it pays well, and my plan is to continue to do this for about a year, save all the money (I have other income sources to support myself with) and invest it into a business - and from then on in mostly play poker on a "hobby basis" and try to improve my game and things like that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hmm.

Unless I end up in a mental institution for robots instead /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Meanwhile, I'll be here lurking on a semi-regular basis.. Maybe I'll speak up every now and then...

[The Yugoslavian]

Wow, you basically sound like Raptor if he had any idea how to manage money...are you sure you're not just his alter ego who plays it straight and conservative? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yugoslav
Who now is *very* curious as to what your nick(s) on party are...feel free to pm, if you don't mind tellin' /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[adanthar]

Have you considered 4 tabling the 109's? I think you'd find them as profitable with less work as playing 13 33's.

That's a nice success story, though. Good luck!

[Moonsugar]

Extremely good advice. 13 tables 10 hours a day, wow...

[Skipbidder]

In my own case, I was scared money at the 109s.
I know it doesn't necessarily make sense, but it is true.

Intuitively, I think that I can have less variance at the 20s and 30s, and with enough tables open, can have the same hourly rate (at least in comparison to 4 tabling the 109s). What am I missing?

[adanthar]

13 tabling is gonna knock your ROI way lower than you are capable of, so while you *may* make more than the 109's counting rakeback, your variance is actually gonna be higher, not lower (as variance is generally a function of ROI.)

Also, you're not getting any better as a poker player 13 tabling anything. If you're scared of the 109's, eight table the 50's - that's a big adjustment, too, but not as big.