Paul Phillips WSOP Hand

[SossMan]

Link to PP Blog (http://www.livejournal.com/users/extempore/102173.html)


I think that this hand is pretty ho-hum, but the response on his blog was pretty unsurprising and points to a lot of the misconception that seems to permiate intermediate players' thinking:

Try to formulate an opinion on the hand before reading the responses.

here's the hand....

They are in the first orbit after the dinner break. Blinds 200-400 a50.

Seven handed due to busting 3 players in the first orbit.


Folded to PP in the CO who makes it 1200 to go w/ T /images/graemlins/heart.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif. PP starts the hand with t13k.
Button raises to 2400. Button is unknown as he was recently moved to the table a few hands ago. Button starts the hand with approx t16k.
Blinds fold, PP calls.

Flop is 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

PP checks with the intention of checkraising all in.

Button takes that as an obvious sign of weakness and pushes.

PP thinks for a bit and calls.

Pretty standard, right?

[MLG]

I think planning to c-raise doesnt leave you enough FE, but yes the call is pretty standard.

[SossMan]

don't you think the SOP for a preflop minraiser is to underbet the pot? if he bets half pot, then PP's checkraise is 3x his raise and cripples him. Even a 5k bet can have FE in a big live tourney (if the guy has overcards)

[MLG]

I actually disagree with that read somewhat. I think that scared players make those minraises, and those are the same players who maker overbet all-ins on the flop because they are afraid of making decisions later in the hand. However, im obviously more than willing to accept pps read in that situation.

[11t]

Well if villain has a big ace that missed PP isn't too far behind and if he has a smaller pair than PP is also fine.

He isn't getting awful pot odds either (around 1.5:1 if I read it right) and PP shouldn't be less than 50% to win this hand a large percentage of the time.

[Double Eagle]

How can he put his tourney life on the line with just a draw here? Shouldn't he fold and look for better spots later?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
How can he put his tourney life on the line with just a draw here? Shouldn't he fold and look for better spots later?

[/ QUOTE ]

if I never hear the term "tourney life" again, I would be a happy man

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
I think planning to c-raise doesnt leave you enough FE

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the Villan pots it he will still have 7kish behind I think that is good enough to keep behind for someone who is min-raisng p-flop.

The call is a no brainer. I surprised he even thought about it.

[Double Eagle]

You can't come back from zero.

[sam h]

PP is likely to have 12-15 outs, getting roughly 1.6:1, so a call looks good. Only something like AKh really has him in trouble here.

Against an aggressive player with a lot of gamble in him, it might be better to just open push. But it sounds like the button wasn't that kind of guy.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't come back from zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are on the wrong forum (http://www.dbpoker.com)

[Double Eagle]

Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I want to see if Soss can find some more absurd links. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[DonT77]

tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life tourney life /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[adanthar]

Time to play devil's advocate: I would need to think for a while before calling, and that alone is a good reason to open push in the first place.

With 4800 in the pot PP has to expect a button push a pretty decent portion of the time and a pot committing bet most of the rest. He wants AK to fold, as well...I think this is a push if he's going to play this hand for all his chips.

edit: Looked at the results and realized I forgot the blinds/antes so there's actually 6K there. Yeah, I think he has to push.

[A_PLUS]

The responses on his blog gave me mixed emotions.

I feel like a backup QB who finally gets a chance to start, but only b/c the starting QB broke his neck. Yes, it is better for my long term financial health that players think like that, but it is just so depressing to read.

[fnord_too]

Unless he is up against an overpair or a 9 or a bigger flush draw he's a favorite here. (ok, 50/50 against something like AJ, no heart). I would much rather have gotten the FE from the c/r, but otherwise it is close. Against AA-77, AKs-AJs, AKo-AQo, KQs this is just minus EV from a TEC standpoint I think. The fact that villain open pushed the flop probably means he does not want a call, which means pp is probably ahead here.

I don't think either option is that bad really. Far from the money I favor calling, otherwise I think I need more situational info (players remaining, payout schedule, etc) to decide.

After reading the blog, I may have done my EV calculation incorrectly (I had a baby on my lap.) If his number of 38% win to break even is right this is an easy call.

[woodguy]

PP's comments here should be a sticky post in this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time. For me to fold I have to believe that my tournament equity with 26K in chips is less than double my equity with 10K in chips.

I dunno about anyone else's chip->equity functions but mine more than doubles from 10K to 26K.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regards,
Woodguy

[ClaytonN]

Villain could have an overpair or high cards, but he could also easily have a wired pair below a 9, reading PP for high cards.

We can formulate a range of hands with some kind of program and determine our equity, but with an estimation I would put Paul's chance of winning this hand somewhere around 35 to 40 percent, given villain's (probable) hand range.

The fact that Paul has already 2.4k of hs 13k stack should be reason enough for the call, when you determine $EV and real EV, if that makes sense.

This is the kind of decision you wabt to make if your objective is winning the tournament versus moving up in pay structures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but PP's strategy is the former, I believe.

[Masquerade]

It's an uber-donkey call. At best you're around 50%-50%, at worst 20%-30%. According to PP the pot odds meant that he needed 38% so let's be generous over the range of hands the opponent might have had and accept that it was break-even. However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV. THERE WAS NO +EV OVER THAT RANGE OF HANDS. And using the post-event known equity of 49.6% to justify the play is crazy as we don't have that useful piece of information when making decisions.

However there's a far more fundamental error in all this analysis - this was a tournament. In a cash game you can evaluate each and every hand on its merits and accept that this call was borderline OK. However in a tournament the additional chips gained, together with an increased expectation of prize money, do not balance the very real, in fact likely, outcome of being busted. Having more chips at that early stage is good, but not that good. And if you're a superior player than the field then that superiority should translate to creating better situations than 50-50 (at best) to get all your money in.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Villain could have an overpair or high cards, but he could also easily have a wired pair below a 9, reading PP for high cards.

We can formulate a range of hands with some kind of program and determine our equity, but with an estimation I would put Paul's chance of winning this hand somewhere around 35 to 40 percent, given villain's (probable) hand range.

The fact that Paul has already 2.4k of hs 13k stack should be reason enough for the call, when you determine $EV and real EV, if that makes sense.

This is the kind of decision you wabt to make if your objective is winning the tournament versus moving up in pay structures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but PP's strategy is the former, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just his flush draw gives him 35%. If his pair outs are good even a small % of the time he is closing in on 50% equity. With the entire hand range, I would bet that he's close to 50%. The call is stupidly easy, the only real debate on this hand should be in regards to the bet out the flop vs. checkraise all in on the flop line. (and possibly folding preflop)

[Bataglin]

I'd push on the flop.

[yoadrians]

[ QUOTE ]
How can he put his tourney life on the line with just a draw here? Shouldn't he fold and look for better spots later?

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't know Norman Chad had joined the forum.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an uber-donkey call. At best you're around 50%-50%, at worst 20%-30%. According to PP the pot odds meant that he needed 38% so let's be generous over the range of hands the opponent might have had and accept that it was break-even. However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV. THERE WAS NO +EV OVER THAT RANGE OF HANDS. And using the post-event known equity of 49.6% to justify the play is crazy as we don't have that useful piece of information when making decisions.

However there's a far more fundamental error in all this analysis - this was a tournament. In a cash game you can evaluate each and every hand on its merits and accept that this call was borderline OK. However in a tournament the additional chips gained, together with an increased expectation of prize money, do not balance the very real, in fact likely, outcome of being busted. Having more chips at that early stage is good, but not that good. And if you're a superior player than the field then that superiority should translate to creating better situations than 50-50 (at best) to get all your money in.

[/ QUOTE ]


"but the response on his blog was pretty unsurprising and points to a lot of the misconception that seems to permiate intermediate players' thinking:"


Don't say I didn't warn you.

[ClaytonN]

As you said, it becomes a clear call when villain pushes.

I'm not going to dispute the preflop call of the button raise. What kind of message does it send that you will fold for 1200 more in that spot? Do we want villains thinking we are that weak-tight?

Going for a checkraise, to me anyways, seems like FPS. I couldn't tell you why, it just looks that way. Expose the folding equity you have against villain's range of hands and push right there.

[Masquerade]

Woodguy, he only knew he was 50-50 after he called. He couldve been a lot worse. So it's intellectually bankrupt to use that as the justification. Suppose the guy had 99 and PP was drawing dead. Then it's a bad decision right?

The only analysis that makes any sense is over the RANGE of hands the the villain might have. Using that measure you might come up with a 35%-40% chance.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]

Just his flush draw gives him 35%. If his pair outs are good even a small % of the time he is closing in on 50% equity. With the entire hand range, I would bet that he's close to 50%. The call is stupidly easy, the only real debate on this hand should be in regards to the bet out the flop vs. checkraise all in on the flop line. (and possibly folding preflop)

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. The check-raise(push) attempt was a bit unfortunate. No one here would assume he would come guns-a-blazing after the minraise raise preflop when that flop hits right???? You can't expect him to have caught any of it.. so a check-raise seems appropriate after the last minraise. The +EV here is somewhere around 3000 chips making this a pretty standard call.

Double Eagle...
[ QUOTE ]
You can't come back from zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
PP is not trying to eak ITM here.. he wants to win! And to win you have to acummulate.. accumulate.. accumulate.. Nuff Said!

[sekrah]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an uber-donkey call. At best you're around 50%-50%, at worst 20%-30%. According to PP the pot odds meant that he needed 38% so let's be generous over the range of hands the opponent might have had and accept that it was break-even. However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV. THERE WAS NO +EV OVER THAT RANGE OF HANDS. And using the post-event known equity of 49.6% to justify the play is crazy as we don't have that useful piece of information when making decisions.

However there's a far more fundamental error in all this analysis - this was a tournament. In a cash game you can evaluate each and every hand on its merits and accept that this call was borderline OK. However in a tournament the additional chips gained, together with an increased expectation of prize money, do not balance the very real, in fact likely, outcome of being busted. Having more chips at that early stage is good, but not that good. And if you're a superior player than the field then that superiority should translate to creating better situations than 50-50 (at best) to get all your money in.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed.. This call is absolutely hideous.. People condoning it because "Hey It's Paul Phillips, I must be the right play" are complete morons.

I don't know what Paul was thinking but his head wasn't in the right place on this hand.. A player of his ability risking his entire tournament on a 50-50 coin toss.. When he's capable of outplaying half the field.. Big Time Donk Call!! BIG TIME!!

Horrible, Horrible Call!

[ClaytonN]

The important thing to consider is what your average villain here is capable of doing with likely overcards on that kind of flop.

Methinks there is no continuation bet with high cards here, as it makes a more difficult decision for hero who would just rather take the pot down or get to showdown with all the chips in the pot. Either a check behind or a push.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed.. This call is absolutely hideous.. People condoning it because "Hey It's Paul Phillips, I must be the right play" are complete morons.

I don't know what Paul was thinking but his head wasn't in the right place on this hand..

Horrible, Horrible Call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? Or are you just a bandwagon poster?

And I don't just say this because you disagree with Paul, it's that you make these kind of comments without saying much more than "Oh, what he said".

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Problem is, the 50% is not accurate. If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV. But this is the WSOP, and the players are not "average". I have made this play myself many times, that is overbeting a flop like 992 when I have a big pair like AA-QQ, especially against the pros that can read into your soul, they put you in AK and since they "are playing to win" (whatever that means), they call your big bet with their medium pair, or flush draw with "overcards". I think this is one of the adventages we (the not well known players) have against the "well-known pros".

[sekrah]

I thought I was insane reading some of the posts saaying, "Oh.. It's a good call!"

Paul Phillips easily has more talent than 80% of that field, and he risks his tournament on a coin-flip (at best)?

HE HAS 30 BIG BLINDS YET IN HIS STACK AND HE'S RISKING IT ON A 50% SHOT (AND POSSIBLY LOWER!)

Absolutely Horrible.. Something you would see early on in Poker Stars Freerolls.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can fold and have 10K or call and have 26K 50% of the time and 0 50% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


Problem is, the 50% is not accurate. If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV. But this is the WSOP, and the players are not "average". I have made this play myself many times, that is overbeting a flop like 992 when I have a big pair like AA-QQ, especially against the pros that can read into your soul, they put you in AK and since they "are playing to win" (whatever that means), they call your big bet with their medium pair, or flush draw with "overcards". I think this is one of the adventages we (the not well known players) have against the "well-known pros".

[/ QUOTE ]

just because you 'would' make the play with KK doesn't mean that you are more likely to have it than say 55-88, AK, AQ.

You have to believe that he has more than the 38% that he needs, right?

[sekrah]

This isn't a cash game Sossman! It only takes one loss of a coinflip and you're out of the tournament!

Phillips has piles of chips yet and instead of trying to outplay his opponents, he gambles on a ridiculous coin flip?

It sounds like he had a hot date or something and wanted to get the hell out of there.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an uber-donkey call. At best you're around 50%-50%, at worst 20%-30%. According to PP the pot odds meant that he needed 38% so let's be generous over the range of hands the opponent might have had and accept that it was break-even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very rigorous. Why don't you name this "generous" range and actually calculate the EV? No, you're right, handwaving is much better.

[ QUOTE ]
However when criticised PP flies into a rage about giving away fistfuls of +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flies into a crazy, blood-soaked rage! At least we can see there's no risk that your "analysis" was in any way influenced by the identity of the caller.

[ QUOTE ]
And using the post-event known equity of 49.6% to justify the play is crazy as we don't have that useful piece of information when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you're a superior player than the field then that superiority should translate to creating better situations than 50-50 (at best) to get all your money in.

[/ QUOTE ]

For your own sake I hope you're just hating on me as opposed to believing your own words.

[sekrah]

Great Call BTW.. LOL.. What a freaking joke.

[SossMan]

If you don't agree with the call you need to justify it with a handrange that puts PP at less than 38% equity....here I'll get you started... (www.pokerstove.com)

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
You have to believe that he has more than the 38% that he needs, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think so, I just wanted to point out that this is not as a clear call as some of you think.

[sekrah]

Even in a cash game, the call is borderline.

In a tournament, with as many chips as Paul had (2 1/2 dozen BB's), the call is absolutely terrible. Big time DONK!

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Problem is, the 50% is not accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, I think it was higher. I was unlucky that he had the ace of hearts in his hand.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

The call is +EV if AK is in the hand range no matter what other hands you surmise.

I admit I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people use such a wide range of superlatives to characterize the incredible horribleness of the call. This is really just a math problem and not one that requires an advanced degree.

[kuro]

I love how people rant about it being a coin flip and then completely ignore the 5750 already in the pot. I also love how poorly villain in the hand played his hand. I just wish Paul would have won the hand.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
In a tournament, with as many chips as Paul had (2 1/2 dozen BB's), the call is absolutely terrible. Big time DONK!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if you repeat yourself a sixth time without any supporting argument, THAT'll be the one that tips the scales.

[sekrah]

[ QUOTE ]


Indeed, I think it was higher. I was unlucky that he had the ace of hearts in his hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL,.. You gotta be kidding me.. Is this a joke? You're a put on right?? How'd you get into Paul Phillips account?!

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]

Agreed.. This call is absolutely hideous.. People condoning it because "Hey It's Paul Phillips, I must be the right play" are complete morons.

I don't know what Paul was thinking but his head wasn't in the right place on this hand.. A player of his ability risking his entire tournament on a 50-50 coin toss.. When he's capable of outplaying half the field.. Big Time Donk Call!! BIG TIME!!

Horrible, Horrible Call!

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone puts you all in while your holding AK and your assuming pocket pair here... so you'd basically not call here just because it is a coin flip and ignore that the pot has also already grown to 50% of your current stack? I wonder how many people run you over in tourneys with that weak tight play?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to believe that he has more than the 38% that he needs, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think so, I just wanted to point out that this is not as a clear call as some of you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure it is...what's the hand range?

I'll start:

AK/AQ
AJs
AA-77
KQ (weighted by .5)
Harrington's 10% bluffing rule (we'll use 5% since some of the bluffing hands are actually beating PP)

Given that range, he's almost exactly 50%.

How narrow would the range have to be to justify a fold?

Your turn.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
I love how people rant about it being a coin flip and then completely ignore the 5750 already in the pot. I also love how poorly villain in the hand played his hand. I just wish Paul would have won the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.. then all these people would be applauding PP for making the correct call in such a difficult situation!

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love how people rant about it being a coin flip and then completely ignore the 5750 already in the pot. I also love how poorly villain in the hand played his hand. I just wish Paul would have won the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.. then all these people would be applauding PP for making the correct call in such a difficult situation!

[/ QUOTE ]

no, they would still be trolling because that's what they do.

[sekrah]

Yea.. Keep playing pots that'll knock you out of the tournament 50% of the time and give you no piece of the prize money.. That'll get you a LONG way!!

LOL.

[sekrah]

He must not have had too much confidence in his ability that day if he couldn't get himself anything better than a 50% shot to double up.

"but.. but.. but... HE HAD POT ODDS!!!"

LMFAO!!

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
The call is +EV if AK is in the hand range no matter what other hands you surmise

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, my point is the following, there are 16 combinations of AK, and 18 combinations of AA,KK,QQ (Lets take just 16). I don't think that in a WSOP event versus a player you don't know is equally likely for him to bet his last 10k with AK or AA-QQ in this spot.

[betgo]

Yes, I think it is an easy call. If villain has a pair less then 99, you are ahead with JTs. It is unlikely villain would push with a 9. JTs is 32% versus KK, which is a possible holding given the minireraise and push. You have more than 38% on average.

In an SNG with multiple places paying or a supersatellite, you can play tight for survival. In a tournmaent, you have to pretty much play pot odds. We have discussed this issue in this forum many times, and I am not going to argue it in detail.

As the original poster expected, all the donks have come out to criticize Paul Phillips on this play.

[Masquerade]

[ QUOTE ]
Very rigorous. Why don't you name this "generous" range and actually calculate the EV? No, you're right, handwaving is much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to more than guesstimate. But this looks like an overpair with no hearts (when you're 35%), two big overcards with A h or Kh (you're 50%) or a 9 (you're 30%). You've already listed some other cases on your blog. We can argue about the relative probabilities all day but your equity is not a million miles from 40%.

[ QUOTE ]
Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was your own analysis, lovingly posted by Woodguy, where you plugged in 50%! Maybe it still holds for you at 40% or 38% but using 50% wasn't playing fair.

[ QUOTE ]
For your own sake I hope you're just hating on me as opposed to believing your own words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I believe superior players can engineer better situations than 50-50. If you believe your superiority is based on your willingness to make 50-50 calls that others wouldnt then great. One day you will win 8 coin-flips in a row and win the tournament. Is that really good poker?

In any case I like you - although your mindless camp-followers get me down.

[baronzeus]

I understand that you are favored here against most hands that push. But don't you agree that there is around a 50% chance you go home with nothing? Unless you think this call definitely doubles your money expectation, I can't justify calling this.

I ran into a similar situation yesterday.

Middle of a 18K guaranteed MTT. I have 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif in CO. I open raise to 400 with blinds at 50/100 and my stack at 4K, about 3x average. Folds to BB, who calls. His stack = my stack -200.

Flop comes:
6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif 3/images/graemlins/club.gif

I intended to push this flop if it was bet or checked to me. But he pushed. I called but I think the right move is to fold here, even though against his range I am ahead or even, with a big enough stack I can continue on in the tournament.

[fnord_too]

I interupt this thread for a non tourney question...

I understand you think TD is your strongest game. In the "Other Poker" forum we discuss TD a lot with a fair bit of math. We would love to have your insight in the discussions. (Ok, that wasn't really a question...)

[Double Eagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you are favored here against most hands that push. But don't you agree that there is around a 50% chance you go home with nothing? Unless you think this call definitely doubles your money expectation, I can't justify calling this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see if he folds he has 10k, if he calls and wins he has 26k. I'd say his expectation more than doubles. The math on this isn't that hard, nor is the decision close. It's amazing to me that this is even debatable.

Kudos to SossMan for finding an innovative way to initiate this month's version of the "Survivalist vs Accumulators" debate. Actually I use the term debate loosely, as this is a bit like debating the question Creationism vs Evolution. The Survivalists are unshakable in their belief that there is some inherent value in survival in the face of mountains of mathematical evidence which proves that this faith is misguided. Perhaps next month we should choose a subject which is a little less open and shut to argue about, here are a few possibilities:

o Is the earth flat?
o Did Iraq have WMD?
o Did Barry Bonds use Steroids?
o If SossMan raises your BB from the Button, what kind of hand do you need to reraise?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]

Yea.. Keep playing pots that'll knock you out of the tournament 50% of the time and give you no piece of the prize money.. That'll get you a LONG way!!

LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're an idiot. If you don't understand why every decent player that posted in this thread is on one side and you are on the other, lurk more.

That said, like I stated earlier, I think the minute you see a flush draw and decide the other guy does not necessarily have AA, you have to push here. He pot commits himself so often* that not pushing here is pretty bad.

*of course, if he's like sekrah here and doesn't realize what pot odds are, feel free to CR all day.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
It's amazing to me that this is even debatable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing personal, but that is most probably because you are not a deep thinker.

[tshak]

While I've questioned the play openly on Paul's blog as the +EV was a bit confusing to me (until he spelled it out), that is besides the point that your posts are completely useless to the discussion of this hand. You keep spewing about his hand equity (which I think Paul settled on a number around 45.7% on his blog) and are ignoring some trivial aspects such as the pot.

It's impossible to more than guesstimate.

Yes, and a world class player is going to have a far superior hand range estimate on his opponent than you are even in hindsight. His hand range and quick calculation of +EV took me about 15 minutes to figure out in hindsight and with PokerStove in front of me. The fact that he was able to validate with more accuracy his +EV decision post mortem is irrelevant. If he plays this hand the same way in every tourney he will gain ~T1900 on average, or an increase of almost 20% of his stack on average. This is an insta-call in a ring game. The tourney life has some merit but I can't help to wonder if this is just way too much EV to throw away for such a concept.

[IMTheWalrus8]

No argument on the call, given the initial flop check.

But I'm not getting the planned flop check-raise, absent a read.

If the button checks the flop, and you don't hit your flush on the turn, haven't you lost your pot odds on the hand?
Of course you could bet about 1/2 the pot on the turn and still have good odds.

It just seems like you're slowplaying a draw and I don't quite get that.

Why isn't a bet of 1/2 the pot the way to go on the flop? Button may have still come over the top and the result would have been the same.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't a bet of 1/2 the pot the way to go on the flop? Button may have still come over the top and the result would have been the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a flush draw and shallow money, you are looking to push. If you make a 1/2 pot bet and get called, you may have a difficult decision on the turn. The alternative to playing for a checkraise is to just push or make a large bet.

[Isura]

Call is clear. A lot of responses supporting open-pushing the flop, but I like check/raising here. There's 5750 in the pot, and villain has about 13000. On this board and preflop action, I think it's fair to estimate that villain's pushing range when PP checks is pretty small. I'd say, AK, QQ-TT, and about 10% of the time a smaller pair or a worst hand. He might push KK here if he's really not confident in his postflop play, but I think he has to be pretty terrible to do that. He's got to atleast know that PP isn't calling a push without atleast about 12 outs, or AA-TT. When he bets 2500-4000, PP check/raises and villain has a really tough decision. The flop bet commits 1/3 of his stack, but it's going to be very difficult for an average player to call here without AA-QQ. If villains stack was around 10k, then pretty much any normal flop bet commits him anyways, so pushing is much better. I think the folding equity of a check/raise, combined with how often villain doesn't push, and the pot odds being offered when he does push, make check/raising a better play. But it does seem pretty close.

[KdoubleK]

[ QUOTE ]
The call is stupidly easy, the only real debate on this hand should be in regards to the bet out the flop vs. checkraise all in on the flop line. (and possibly folding preflop)

[/ QUOTE ]

Push the flop. Push the flop. Push the flop. If villain lays down even a small % of the time that makes it better than risking the checkraise.

[Double Eagle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's amazing to me that this is even debatable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing personal, but that is most probably because you are not a deep thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

How deep does one have to think to find a fold here? PP (who coincidentally happened to be there at the time) put him on a pretty accurate range, a range vs which he was a coinflip getting $1.60.

I fail to see how you can narrow villain's range enough to make this even a marginally close decision (especially since he proved not only capable of making this move with AK but with AQ as well.)

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
sure it is...what's the hand range?

I'll start:

AK/AQ
AJs
AA-77
KQ (weighted by .5)


[/ QUOTE ]

Things we know about this hand:

1- It was a $2K WSOP Event
2- It was after the dinner break, about 7th level
3- Villian has just been moved to the table
4- Villian has position on PP, and miniraises before the flop.
5- Villian goes all in in the flop after PP checks.

Given this information, it is very hard for me to include AQ,AJ,KQ,88,77 in his range; even JJ,TT,99 would be kind of weird given the miniraise. So for me the range is AA-QQ and AK and then the JTh is 40.35% which satisfies my definition of close.
Even if you consider AA-TT,AK-AQ, it's still 43.5% which I consider close.
I think the 10% Harrington's bluff is included in the AK,AQ; maybe you think he could play something like 76o and make a stupid all in bet with almost no outs outside the bluff, I think that possibility is minimal, almost the same as thinking he has something like 9x

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
How deep does one have to think to find a fold here?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not the point, you say you find amazing to debate this. Debating about the call is not the same as thinking he should fold.

[ QUOTE ]
(especially since he proved not only capable of making this move with AK but with AQ as well.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's irrelevant, we can not analyze the hand "after" you know he had AQ.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Given this information, it is very hard for me to include AQ,AJ,KQ,88,77 in his range; even JJ,TT,99 would be kind of weird given the miniraise. So for me the range is AA-QQ and AK and then the JTh is 40.35% which satisfies my definition of close.
Even if you consider AA-TT,AK-AQ, it's still 43.5% which I consider close.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a big pair is a likely hand with a minireraise. However, it is not that great a play and may be made by a bad player who is unpredictable. It also could be an attempt to represent a big pair and take the pot on the flop. Furthermore, this is late position action, so the button does not need a huge hand to reraise preflop. Therefore, villain could have a wide range of hands.

[CardSharpCook]

I think the min-raise has to be given serious consideration here. I do believe that you will find AA/KK here around 40% of the time. True, often players will do it representing AA/KK, but they often actually have it. I agree that this is a "thinker" and not an "easy call". I think that the odds of it being AA/KK go down with the push on this favorable flop, but, yes, you see this move by an overpair often.

On the other hand, we have to open up the button's range of hands given his position AND PP's position. When I am staring at AJs on the button, and the CO raises, I am often re-raising. Are you folding 88/77 here (PF)?

After thinking, I put my equity around 45% which is definately good enough for a call, but I hate doing it, and I am half-expecting to see AA/KK.

Also, I think the chk/rz is pretty standard. I think that pushing the flop actually allows AK to call, whereas the chk/rz folds AK, and may even fold a low PP.

Well-played, tough beat. Paul, you can be a trout. (though I see that you've been a trout for 2 years longer than I have, you don't seem to post much).

CSC

[TheJackal]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think the chk/rz is pretty standard. I think that pushing the flop actually allows AK to call, whereas the chk/rz folds AK, and may even fold a low PP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree a push looks like a bluff, but you want to be called by AK or a lower pp because we have the best hand. I'd probably lead at the pot for 5k and call an all-in. I don't think Paul was expecting the guy to move, that's my question, what would you do if you knew the guy was going to push? Would that affect how you play the hand?

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see if he folds he has 10k, if he calls and wins he has 26k. I'd say his expectation more than doubles. The math on this isn't that hard, nor is the decision close. It's amazing to me that this is even debatable.

Kudos to SossMan for finding an innovative way to initiate this month's version of the "Survivalist vs Accumulators" debate. Actually I use the term debate loosely, as this is a bit like debating the question Creationism vs Evolution. The Survivalists are unshakable in their belief that there is some inherent value in survival in the face of mountains of mathematical evidence which proves that this faith is misguided. Perhaps next month we should choose a subject which is a little less open and shut to argue about, here are a few possibilities:

o Is the earth flat?
o Did Iraq have WMD?
o Did Barry Bonds use Steroids?
o If SossMan raises your BB from the Button, what kind of hand do you need to reraise?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. Can Paul Phillips pick better than 50/50 shots to beat his opponents?

I'm going to quote David Sklansky in TPFAP here.

"[It is] wonderful...to sit back and let others go broke, and...bad...to risk large sums on breakeven situations late in a tournament. In fact, even if you have a decent edge, it could be wrong to gamble."

--in TPFAP (36)

[Double Eagle]

Paul Phillips is good because he doesn't pass up 50/50 shots getting $1.60. This is not a close gamble.

[fnurt]

It is amazing to me that all these good players advocate a call while I, a mediocre player, can see in a fraction of a second that folding is correct. Why, it's almost as if the good players are all mediocre players, and I am actually the greatest player ever, or else... well, to tell you the truth, that's got to be it.

Returning to seriousness for a moment, I have to say I'm pretty much indifferent between check-raising the flop and simply betting out. I guess, against a miniraiser, I wouldn't really expect a push, so I'd lean towards playing it as Paul did.

I have to confess, a miniraise is such a PartyPoker move in my book, I would have no clue what to expect if I saw it in the WSOP. While I might tend towards paranoia and weight the possibility of a big hand a little higher, I doubt it matters because as Soss says, the decision simply isn't close.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. Can Paul Phillips pick better than 50/50 shots to beat his opponents?

I'm going to quote David Sklansky in TPFAP here.

"[It is] wonderful...to sit back and let others go broke, and...bad...to risk large sums on breakeven situations late in a tournament. In fact, even if you have a decent edge, it could be wrong to gamble."

--in TPFAP (36)

[/ QUOTE ]

The way to think about it is this. If Paul has 10k, what are his chances of building that stack to 26k before he busts? If they are less than 50/50, then he should definitely take a 50% chance to increase that stack to 26k right here.

Now, the natural tendency is to assume that a good player like Paul, if he just picks his spots and wins small pots through skillful play, can easily increase his stack from 10k to 26k far more than 50% of the time. I don't really have an ironclad proof otherwise, but I'll say this. If you are sure Paul will do this more than 50% of the time, and he disagrees, what makes you so confident that he is underrating himself?

Eventually you come to realize that much of the "skill" in tournament poker is simply coming to understand how much luck there is in this game.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Given this information, it is very hard for me to include AQ,AJ,KQ,88,77 in his range; even JJ,TT,99 would be kind of weird given the miniraise. So for me the range is AA-QQ and AK and then the JTh is 40.35% which satisfies my definition of close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Setting the hand range is an article of faith, we know this, so the call can be anywhere from borderline (at worst) to mandatory depending on what you end up with. At the time considering the action and staring at the guy, here's the hand range I put him on: AK. I threw in underpairs just to add a little hand range variety but in my mind it was AK so the call got easier and easier as the clock ticked.

So that's why I say I got "unlucky" to be 49.6%. I was 51.3% against what I "saw in his soul", but he had a heart and whittled a few points off my chances. I think those were the points I needed.

[ClaytonN]

Explain why you think a checkraise is best on this flop when you have opponent on AK.

I just cannot see this guy making a continuation bet on the flop if he's the kind who will minraise on the button with AK. It seems like eithee he will check behind or push.

A push seems to beg a call from ace high. The play lacks folding equity, or moreso than the normal stop-n-go.

What is your opinion on betting out half your stack here?

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
At the time considering the action and staring at the guy, here's the hand range I put him on: AK. I threw in underpairs just to add a little hand range variety but in my mind it was AK so the call got easier and easier as the clock ticked.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I'm no "2+2 deep thinker" but putting someone on ONE specific hand seems a lot like "hoping" rather than "reading" to me ...

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Where can I learn how to put people on a single specific hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch "Tilt".

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where can I learn how to put people on a single specific hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch "Tilt".

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Woodguy, he only knew he was 50-50 after he called.

[/ QUOTE ]

His read had him at 50/50 or better.

If we do not trust our reads, then they are useless.

Regards,
Woodguy

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree a push looks like a bluff, but you want to be called by AK or a lower pp because we have the best hand. I'd probably lead at the pot for 5k and call an all-in. I don't think Paul was expecting the guy to move, that's my question, what would you do if you knew the guy was going to push? Would that affect how you play the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Naw, man - you are ignoring the money in the pot. Look at it the other way around. Your opponent has odds to call with AK (if he knew what we had). If it is a good call for him, we have to convince him not to make it.

Said another way.... opponent bets out 4K on avg making a 10K pot. If we can convince him to fold his AK, we win 10K without a fight. If he calls, we have a chance to win 18K, but we only do so 50% of the time AND we are risking 18K to do so (the 10K in the pot plus the additional 8K in our stack).

CSC

[Punker]

The call of the all in bet isn't as interesting to me as the decision to check (intending to checkraise all in) as opposed to open jamming. I'd think on this hand that the goal would be to maximize the fold equity, so maybe open pushing the flop is a better way to go?

Based on the stack sizes, if he checks the flop and gets bet 3K into, he's going to be able to checkraise about 4500 more, leaving his opponent to call 4500 into a pot of 16K, which means he should/will (an important distinction!) call with almost any reasonable hand that fits the range he's representing.

However, an open push of 7500 into a pot of 6000 seems much more likely to get him to fold a bunch of the hands you'd want him to fold (overcards, larger heart draw, medium pairs).

I see he mentions that in hindsight he wished he'd fired first, but that he thought his checkraise would have real force expecting a normal sized bet. I think this was the moment that needed more thought, as even an undersized bet doesn't give him that much force given the pot size.

The actual call is kind of read dependent, IMO. Decisions and read seem logical enough to me, and the call (while I would be sick if I was doing it) seem correct.

[woodguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is one of the adventages we (the not well known players) have against the "well-known pros".

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

When I have played against people who are supposed to be pros, I find they call off awful large portions of their stack too.

Overbet = Valuebet

Nice to see your continued success David at the WSOP.

Regards,
Woodguy

[PokrLikeItsProse]

If I understand the math correctly, part of the problem was that the pre-flop min-raise caused Paul Phillips to have to commit almost a quarter of his stack preflop. He couldn't really re-raise all-in if his read was correct, so he had to just call and see the flop. He wasn't wrong to open and he wasn't wrong to call the raise; it just happened to put him in an interesting spot.

Then he flopped good with a flush draw and two over cards to a paired flop. (And, by the way, people would not be complaining if he had AK and some sort of draw on a non-paired flop facing a range of hands that somehow resulted in nearly similar equity calculations even though the situations would be practically identical.)

The only clear mistake that Paul Phillips made was figuring out what his opponent would do on that flop.

I have a couple of questions.

First, this looks like the sort of flop that some people like to make check-raise moves on. One defense is to overbet the pot and go all-in yourself. Another thing that some people might try to do is risk a free card and check. If the other player had just checked, what do you think Paul Phillips would or should do if he didn't improve on the turn?

Second, if the button flat-called and the same flop occurred, what range of hands would you put the button on and what should Paul Phillips do in this case?

[Stickleback]

I think it's more to do with his ability to accurately identify +EV spots in the first place.

Steve

[Stickleback]

[ QUOTE ]

The way to think about it is this. If Paul has 10k, what are his chances of building that stack to 26k before he busts? If they are less than 50/50, then he should definitely take a 50% chance to increase that stack to 26k right here.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this stage of the tournament should it be:

if he has 25BB, what are his chances of building his stack to 65BB?

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
He must not have had too much confidence in his ability that day if he couldn't get himself anything better than a 50% shot to double up.

"but.. but.. but... HE HAD POT ODDS!!!"

LMFAO!!



[/ QUOTE ]
Nice to see you can be a moron across multiple forums. I can't believe I had to see your horrible responses in another thread on a completely different forum.

You guys would be best to just ignore any other posts from this d-bag. We learned our lesson a couple days ago in Small Stakes.

[sekrah]

Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong there as well..

This place if filled with fools like you with crap running out of their mouths who think they know what they are talking about.

You are real consistant at being on the end of foolish plays.

[Sam T.]

Not that this will change anyone's mind, but here is a quote from PP's blog that it might help to consider: [ QUOTE ]
My table included two big stacks in the hands of fairly exploitable players and I was dying to put together enough chips to put a big hurt on one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

PP is, as the saying goes, in it to win it, and taking down one of these big stacks is his best chance. If PP doesn't take these guys' chips, someone else will, and then he's going to be playing catch up against strong players, not weak. In short, he needs to gamble for chips now so that he can bust these weak players later.

Let's put it another way: To win you need to double up, and you have your choice of trying to double up through Sam Farha when he's got you out-chipped, or Joe Schmedlap, who has no idea what he's doing, but donked his way into a big stack. You decide.

Sam

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Even in a cash game, the call is borderline.

In a tournament, with as many chips as Paul had (2 1/2 dozen BB's), the call is absolutely terrible. Big time DONK!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that you Zaxx?

[sekrah]

I can only laugh hysterically at the people trying to poke for reasons to make this ridiculous call.

Okay.. So here's the deal.. Instead of trying to double-up against a big chipped donks as a 60-80% favorite.. We want to double up with a coinflip vs a Sam Farha?

AHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Here you guys,..

http://sewing.about.com/library/graphics/tissue/collection.jpg

Wipe all of Paul's $hit off your faces, it's getting pretty messy.

[TxDozerMan]

Lots of times the easiest way to see the flaws in a theorey are to create an extreme example.

Assume you are in a limit tourney and have 1 chip left after preflop betting with HUGE blinds. The flop comes 992 2 hearts, and you hold JhTh. Your opponent doesn't see your last remaining chip and flips up his black AK, under your theorey (since this is a 50/50 and we should ignore pot odds) you fold? Obviously this is obsurd, but if this is a correct call (if you don't see this, quit poker) then PP's decision is also correct, just not quite as easy.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong there as well..

[/ QUOTE ]

Do us all a favor and do the math yourself. For our benifit. Since we are clearly wrong here. Give a range of hands you would but Villan on. Give the percentage against those hands then do an EV calculation. Then show how much more often you win with 26k and with 10k.

[ QUOTE ]
This place if filled with fools like you with crap running out of their mouths who think they know what they are talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then post all of your results and we'll have Soss, MLG and Paul Phillips post theirs. Then we'll use deductive reasoning and see who's thinking makes more sense.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The call of the all in bet isn't as interesting to me as the decision to check (intending to checkraise all in) as opposed to open jamming. I'd think on this hand that the goal would be to maximize the fold equity, so maybe open pushing the flop is a better way to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is kind of normal to check to the raiser. Villain was representing a big pair, so it seems natural he would bet this flop. The smallest stack was twice the pot, so to just push would be an overbet. Checkraising allin is pretty standard with a draw, particularly a really strong draw (which this one isn't).

[OrangeKing]

But he's not just trying to double up, silly. He's much more than doubling his stack if he wins. Thus, while it's a coinflip, it's not at all close to breakeven.

[sekrah]

I was referring to another thread in a limit game where somebody else made a weak call.


I'm not saying he doesn't have pot odds!

In a cash game, Yes, it's +EV!

In a tournament, Yes it's +Tchip EV!

Is he going to win the tournament if he wins this hand? NOT NECESSARILY!
Is he going to lose the tournament if he loses this hand? YES!

Does he still have enough chips in his stack (25-30BB) to win the tournament? YES!

Is risking your tournament life for a coin flip a good bet when there's a bunch of Donks at your table who you can outplay and get a 70% edge or greater to double up??

Nope.. Absolutely Terrible!

[sekrah]

This is a tournament, and PP has 25+ BB still in his stack against a Donk Table, NOT a NL cash game at the Bellagio where you seize on these types of hands.

[TomCollins]

Sekrah, will you be available at the WSOP Main Event for coaching? I need to learn all I can from your greatness before I start the event.

Best Regards,
TC

[sekrah]

You don't need my advice.. Just wait for A-K and keep pushing all in!.. As someone else posted earlier, maybe if you win those 10 coin flips in a row, you'll be WSOP Champion!!!!!!!

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he going to win the tournament if he wins this hand? NOT NECESSARILY!

[/ QUOTE ]
By your reasoning you should never take a coinflip until you are heads-up.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is he going to win the tournament if he wins this hand? NOT NECESSARILY!

[/ QUOTE ]
By your reasoning you should never take a coinflip until you are heads-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which means never taking a coin flip /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sekrah]

Nope not at all..I'll play Coinflips when

A) I still have chips left incase I lose it.
B) The risk/reward is so outrageous, there's no other choice but to call it.

For Paul's situation, I think the risk/reward is marginally in his favor! He's giving up alot of chips, nearly 30 BB on a flip, when he's probably the best player at his table!!

That doesn't make any sense.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of times the easiest way to see the flaws in a theorey are to create an extreme example.

Assume you are in a limit tourney and have 1 chip left after preflop betting with HUGE blinds. The flop comes 992 2 hearts, and you hold JhTh. Your opponent doesn't see your last remaining chip and flips up his black AK, under your theorey (since this is a 50/50 and we should ignore pot odds) you fold? Obviously this is obsurd, but if this is a correct call (if you don't see this, quit poker) then PP's decision is also correct, just not quite as easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, no one is such a strict survivalist that they would claim "I never make a call unless I think I'm a favorite to win the hand". On the other side, I it seems like some people are strict accumulaters - making any call that is +EV from a chip perspective, except possibly around the button.

I don't play a whole lot of MTTs, but I'm really curious as to whether taking every possible +EV situation is actually optimal from a maximizing $EV POV.

[locutus2002]

I am surprised by the zealousness of many of the posts. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that pros are also willing to gamble. Was Aron Katz gambling when he made a move on Gavin with 44 in the WSOP PL tourney?

If PP decides he is ~50% in the hand, sitting at the table, playing with his own money; he is probably more accurate than we are trying to work a range of hands from much more limited information. As it turned out he was correct and it was a very favorable situation for him given the pot odds. If the pot was 1:1 and the hand was 3:2 in PP favor we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Perhaps it comes from a disbelief that PP was able to work the hand to ~50%. I believe it, and I think it shows some of the limitations of online poker versus live play.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
If the pot was 1:1 and the hand was 3:2 in PP favor we wouldn't be having this discussion.


[/ QUOTE ]

unfortunately, we still would.

[WakeHeel]

I'd probably make this call...however I honestly believe I would've been the one to push first. I like picking up that pot without a showdown and if you're called, you've got a great shot to win. You have to accumulate to win the tourny and Paul is obviously trying to win here. I'd put the guy on an underpair, AK, AQ, and I'm hoping no, AJ/10...knowing that he may have one and possibly two of my hearts doesn't make me happy but it's a chance you have to take if you're willing to make the call.

[togilvie]

[ QUOTE ]
I admit I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people use such a wide range of superlatives to characterize the incredible horribleness of the call. This is really just a math problem and not one that requires an advanced degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is such an easy math problem, provided we get to the real crux of the issue. You're asserting that EV is (roughly) linear at this point in the tournament, so making a call that is +Chip_EV is always +Tournament_EV.

Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV. This isn't because It's not a +Chip_EV call - it unquestionably is. It is because they think that folding and playing on with your reduced stack will provide lots of future opportunities that are +Chip_EV. This means that your Tournament_EV isn't as impacted by the fold as your analysis indicates, and the call may not be +Tournament_EV.

Of course, they articulate this through "you're a donk, paul".

Jerrod Ankenmann & Bill Chen had an article in the latest Intelligent Gambler that addressed this issue, but I haven't seen anyone doing some form of Monte Carlo analysis that I think is the only way to rigorously answer the question.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.

[ QUOTE ]
Jerrod Ankenmann & Bill Chen had an article in the latest Intelligent Gambler that addressed this issue, but I haven't seen anyone doing some form of Monte Carlo analysis that I think is the only way to rigorously answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know the question can only be answered rigorously subject to numerous assumptions, which would then turn the discussion to those. But that would at least be a lot more interesting to read than "you're a donk, paul."

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I admit I get a lot of pleasure out of seeing people use such a wide range of superlatives to characterize the incredible horribleness of the call. This is really just a math problem and not one that requires an advanced degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is such an easy math problem, provided we get to the real crux of the issue. You're asserting that EV is (roughly) linear at this point in the tournament, so making a call that is +Chip_EV is always +Tournament_EV.

Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV. This isn't because It's not a +Chip_EV call - it unquestionably is. It is because they think that folding and playing on with your reduced stack will provide lots of future opportunities that are +Chip_EV. This means that your Tournament_EV isn't as impacted by the fold as your analysis indicates, and the call may not be +Tournament_EV.

Of course, they articulate this through "you're a donk, paul".

Jerrod Ankenmann & Bill Chen had an article in the latest Intelligent Gambler that addressed this issue, but I haven't seen anyone doing some form of Monte Carlo analysis that I think is the only way to rigorously answer the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

[sekrah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.


[/ QUOTE ]


Even more reason to fold!

[togilvie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also copying in SossMan's comments:

[ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in a field where all players are equal, but not at all the case when you have disparate skill levels. There is a minimum EV edge required for a good player, because busting out now means that you forego future opportunities.

This minimum edge requirement means that when you are far from the money, it's +Tournament_EV for you to pass on +Chip_EV opportunities that have a high likelihood of a bustout. Ankenmann and Chen put some numbers against this in their recent article.

Note also that I'm not arguing that Paul made a bad call. That depends on his perception of his relative skill, blinds, etc. But i'm not at all convinced that the only factor involved in making these decisions is whether it is +Chip_EV.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Others are asserting that Tournament_EV isn't as linearly tied to Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

20% of the field is still in! I think it's crazy to invoke that argument at such an early stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also copying in SossMan's comments:

[ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in a field where all players are equal, but not at all the case when you have disparate skill levels. There is a minimum EV edge required for a good player, because busting out now means that you forego future opportunities.

This minimum edge requirement means that when you are far from the money, it's +Tournament_EV for you to pass on +Chip_EV opportunities that have a high likelihood of a bustout. Ankenmann and Chen put some numbers against this in their recent article.

Note also that I'm not arguing that Paul made a bad call. That depends on his perception of his relative skill, blinds, etc. But i'm not at all convinced that the only factor involved in making these decisions is whether it is +Chip_EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

if your idea of a "marginal +EV" situation is over a 12% overlay and your idea of "high probability" of busting out is 50%, then you would virtually never play a hand.

[SossMan]

you know, it really can't be stressed enough:

PP has an edge over the field because he recognizes and takes 50% equity when the pot dictates that he only needs 38%. All these assumptions that he's a good player, so he can pass up these edges are fallicious by definition. If one could magically engineer 80%+ bets for their entire stack once an hour, then it would be different, but these things don't just happen.

[Double Eagle]

Can we talk about something interesting now?

If I get Aces in the BB on the first hand of the Main Event and the whole table goes all in in front of me, should I call?

[Moonsugar]

I bet you win lots of tournements.

[WakeHeel]

I don't mind the call. I just think a push is more appropriate. Isn't the pot big enough to justify picking it up right now?

[betgo]

Paul Phillips is a donk. The proper way to play is to wait for aces or get blinded out.

[togilvie]

[ QUOTE ]
if your idea of a "marginal +EV" situation is over a 12% overlay and your idea of "high probability" of busting out is 50%, then you would virtually never play a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The point is that what you're terming a 12% overlay is not always a 12% overlay. In this instance, there are three outcomes for Paul:

Fold: He has T10K remaining, which is par.
Call & Win with p=.5: He will have 26K, significantly more than twice par.
Call & Lose with p=.5: Chip_EV =0; Tournament_EV=0;

To properly answer the question of how big the overlay is, you need to estimate Tournament_EV for both 10K and 26K, and then calculate an expectation. What's important to note is that Paul's tournament EV with 26K is not necessarily equivalent to 2.6 times his EV with 10K. Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less.

I know that Paul feels that equity is linear at this stage in the tournament - I've seen him write this elsewhere several times. As mentioned in an earlier post, this is a topic that has been debated ad nauseum, and intelligent adherents to either side are not easy to sway. I don't agree, but don't have the info at my disposal to convince him otherwise.

2) Not once have I made reference to Paul's play. Simply his comment that this is a simple math problem. On the balance, I think the call is clearly correct.

[SossMan]

thanks for the logical and coherent argument.

Even if it's not linear, it's certainly close enough to say that his tournament EV is > 2x w/ 26k than with 10k.

[sekrah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if your idea of a "marginal +EV" situation is over a 12% overlay and your idea of "high probability" of busting out is 50%, then you would virtually never play a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's important to note is that Paul's tournament EV with 26K is not necessarily equivalent to 2.6 times his EV with 10K. Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point that needs to be argued! Forget whether it was a correct call or not.. It was! I've said repeatedly it's mathematically the correct call in a cash game, and making calls like this will give Paul another 10 million dollars over the course of his career.

Clearly Paul feel's his Tourmanent EV goes up considerably more with his chip stack at 26k vs it being at 10k and he thinks it's worth a 50-50 shot to get him to this point.

I'm just suprised by this! I would think a professional player of his calibre would have a great enough skill edge to reach that level without trying this risky play. If Blinds are higher, this is understandable.

With 10K being abt 25 BB however.. That's still plenty of chips to work with!

With 0K chips, you are out.

With 26k chips, you have more chips, but by no means are you a lock to win any tournament money!

If Paul gets 10-J suited on the next hand and the same situation arises vs 40k Stack, does he do the same thing again?! or is 62 BB enough to work with?

[togilvie]

100% agree

[fnurt]

I cannot believe these threads still occur. It's as though Darwin has decreed that we are not allowed to evolve any further.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less.

[/ QUOTE ]

As was demonstrated by several strong players before (gigabet on this board, for instance), your last statement is highly debatable. Players who can handle big stack well, can definitely gain more than what the simple cEV calculation suggest, and might sometimes find that even -cEV spots are actually long term +$EV for them from the perspective of future table control and chips accumulation.

This is of course very different from the ideas presented in TPFAP, but this book is very far from suggesting an optimal MTT play, especially for LAGish, strong players.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]

Nope not at all..I'll play Coinflips when

A) I still have chips left incase I lose it.
B) The risk/reward is so outrageous, there's no other choice but to call it.

For Paul's situation, I think the risk/reward is marginally in his favor! He's giving up alot of chips, nearly 30 BB on a flip, when he's probably the best player at his table!!

That doesn't make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
What sort of pot odds would you need in order to take a coinflip at this stage of the tournament with 30BB, and why?

[togilvie]

Can you point me to these "demonstrations"? I'm sceptical that it's been proven, but interested if that's truly the case.

That said, a big stack can definitely be a weapon in the hands of a good player. My sense is that it is principally due to the fact that without the risk of going bust, moves that are +Chip_EV are always +Tournament_EV. This allows the big stack to exploit the (proper) risk aversion that I'm indicating a good player should be exhibiting. Under the right circumstances, it might even make -Chip_EV moves +Tournament_EV. Would definitely be interested in reviewing what's been done.

[pokergripes]

Yeah, once you're at the "should I call?" question, seems like a pretty clear call here (at least for everyone who is not constrained by the "won't I look foolish if I bust?" worry...)

But I'm having a hard time seeing why a check-raise approach on this flop is even close to as good as a push on the flop, given the board, the read, and the chances that he is either going to push or check after you check, rather than specifically under-bet...seems to me that the fe in an initial push has got to outweigh the risk-adjusted fe after he underbets and you raise, given the risk he pushes or checks, and the reduced leverage you have once he puts in $3k on his own bet...

[sekrah]

If it put my into the Top 10 of the tournament among chip leaders, I would considering going for it.

PP would have still been #3 stack at his table! (I think, based on what he's written), even if he won the pot!.


I guess it all depends on whether PP feels he is 2.6 times more likely to finish high in the money with 26k than he does with 10k.. and obviously from his decision, he felt that 10k wasn't going to get him there.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess it all depends on whether PP feels he is 2.6 times more likely to finish high in the money with 26k than he does with 10k.. and obviously from his decision, he felt that 10k wasn't going to get him there.

[/ QUOTE ]

slight distinction, but he only has to be 2x more likely to finish high in the money with 26k vs. 10k. (not 2.6)

[pokergripes]

Sekrah, that is incorrect--it is all the more reason to call, assuming the call is a correct money play (based upon your chances of winning the hand, and the "money" in the pot you're trying to win.)

The "tourney chips EV does not equal prize money EV" point is that, as you approach a smaller and smaller remaining field (relative to the number of spots that pay), your EV on the tourney chips (whether in your stack or in a particular pot) is no longer 1:1 with your expectation for the real dollars you might win and use to purchase, e.g., big macs that you can eat.

That is obviously a correct point in theory (and is also at the extremes why you'd sometimes fold even AA under the right hypothetical conditions, for example, if enough other people were all-in and you were moving up automatically to higher money positions by folding).

However, the question is "when does this matter?", and the answer is "much later in the event than most of you think". In other words, if by "extending my tourney life" a person means that he gets to keep playing for purposes of showing off to his friends, not having to make that cell phone "I'm out, let's go eat" call, etc., then a fold based on "tourney life" might make a lot of sense with 20% of the field remaining in a major event. Or, if you had a huge last longer bet with someone, that could impact the analysis. But it doesn't take much high-level "monte carlo" thinking to know that you need to keep accumulating chips in the middle of a major event when you have +EV chip opportunities, assuming that you're trying to win the event or hit the real money at the top.

However, since people look for rational-sounding arguments to justify their irrational decisions all the time, "tourney life" has become a mantra for playing like a wussy for those mid-limit folks who just want to survive long enough to look cool /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Sekrah, that is incorrect--it is all the more reason to call, assuming the call is a correct money play (based upon your chances of winning the hand, and the "money" in the pot you're trying to win.)

The "tourney chips EV does not equal prize money EV" point is that, as you approach a smaller and smaller remaining field (relative to the number of spots that pay), your EV on the tourney chips (whether in your stack or in a particular pot) is no longer 1:1 with your expectation for the real dollars you might win and use to purchase, e.g., big macs that you can eat.

That is obviously a correct point in theory (and is also at the extremes why you'd sometimes fold even AA under the right hypothetical conditions, for example, if enough other people were all-in and you were moving up automatically to higher money positions by folding).

However, the question is "when does this matter?", and the answer is "much later in the event than most of you think". In other words, if by "extending my tourney life" a person means that he gets to keep playing for purposes of showing off to his friends, not having to make that cell phone "I'm out, let's go eat" call, etc., then a fold based on "tourney life" might make a lot of sense with 20% of the field remaining in a major event. Or, if you had a huge last longer bet with someone, that could impact the analysis. But it doesn't take much high-level "monte carlo" thinking to know that you need to keep accumulating chips in the middle of a major event when you have +EV chip opportunities, assuming that you're trying to win the event or hit the real money at the top.

However, since people look for rational-sounding arguments to justify their irrational decisions all the time, "tourney life" has become a mantra for playing like a wussy for those mid-limit folks who just want to survive long enough to look cool /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

great post.

[TheJackal]

[ QUOTE ]

Said another way.... opponent bets out 4K on avg making a 10K pot. If we can convince him to fold his AK, we win 10K without a fight. If he calls, we have a chance to win 18K, but we only do so 50% of the time AND we are risking 18K to do so (the 10K in the pot plus the additional 8K in our stack).

CSC

[/ QUOTE ]

All true and good points, but ignoring the money in the pot, jamming in this spot looks like a bluff (or a semi-bluff). I'm saying if we are going to get called by AK or a small pp it's not devastating because our hand will win over 50% of the time.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, once you're at the "should I call?" question, seems like a pretty clear call here (at least for everyone who is not constrained by the "won't I look foolish if I bust?" worry...)

But I'm having a hard time seeing why a check-raise approach on this flop is even close to as good as a push on the flop, given the board, the read, and the chances that he is either going to push or check after you check, rather than specifically under-bet...seems to me that the fe in an initial push has got to outweigh the risk-adjusted fe after he underbets and you raise, given the risk he pushes or checks, and the reduced leverage you have once he puts in $3k on his own bet...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the real question here. Would it have been better to push instead of c-raise. Turns out a push would have been better.

However, with the min-raise Villain looks a little weak-passive. Maybe scared of Paul. So the check raise might extract that few extra chips and this guy seems likely to fold with anywhere from 7k-10k in chips left behind.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less.

[/ QUOTE ]

As was demonstrated by several strong players before (gigabet on this board, for instance), your last statement is highly debatable. Players who can handle big stack well, can definitely gain more than what the simple cEV calculation suggest, and might sometimes find that even -cEV spots are actually long term +$EV for them from the perspective of future table control and chips accumulation.

This is of course very different from the ideas presented in TPFAP, but this book is very far from suggesting an optimal MTT play, especially for LAGish, strong players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't DS show this to be mathematically impossible some time ago?

Let's take a hypothetical strong player, and assign him cash equity of $X with his starting stack. If he doubles the starting stack, his cash equity becomes $Y. You are postulating a player who is so good at playing a big stack that Y > 2X. So far so good.

One other variable we need to discuss is the player's chance to double up before he busts. Rather than making any assumptions about this, we'll just call it Z.

There are two ways to represent the player's equity at the start of the tournament. One of them is simply X, as we defined it above. The other way is more complicated; he has Z chance of doubling his stack and achieving equity Y, and (1-Z) chance of busting first. So his overall equity is (Z * Y) + ((1-Z) * 0). In other words, X = Z * Y.

Above, we said that Y > 2X. Since X = ZY, then Y > 2ZY. Dividing both sides by Y, 1 > 2Z. Z is therefore less than 0.5.

What did we just prove? In plain English, we proved that the only player whose equity can more than double when he doubles his stack is one whose chance of doubling is LESS than 50%. Surely, no good player has less than a 50% chance of doubling. Thus, no good player increases his equity more than 2x by doubling his stack.

Where is the flaw in this proof?

[shant]

If sekrah is any older than 15 years old I'm very sorry for your parents and the person they have to live with. Jesus, what a douchebag.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I interupt this thread for a non tourney question...

I understand you think TD is your strongest game. In the "Other Poker" forum we discuss TD a lot with a fair bit of math. We would love to have your insight in the discussions. (Ok, that wasn't really a question...)

[/ QUOTE ]
If Paul decides to discuss poker in a strategy forum, he should use an alias. Otherwise all the trolls will follow him there.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given this information, it is very hard for me to include AQ,AJ,KQ,88,77 in his range; even JJ,TT,99 would be kind of weird given the miniraise. So for me the range is AA-QQ and AK and then the JTh is 40.35% which satisfies my definition of close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Setting the hand range is an article of faith, we know this, so the call can be anywhere from borderline (at worst) to mandatory depending on what you end up with. At the time considering the action and staring at the guy, here's the hand range I put him on: AK. I threw in underpairs just to add a little hand range variety but in my mind it was AK so the call got easier and easier as the clock ticked.

So that's why I say I got "unlucky" to be 49.6%. I was 51.3% against what I "saw in his soul", but he had a heart and whittled a few points off my chances. I think those were the points I needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

A far more interesting question here is since
1. it was fairly clear that you were going to call if he pushed, and
2. since there was no way your opponent could have a hand that you would want him to call with,

“what made you think the additional chips you’d gain from him putting in a bet would offset the fold equity you’d lose, when you’d allow him excellent odds to call your flop check-raise?”

I think your error on the hand was not pushing on the flop, since you expected him to bet

-g

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
However, with the min-raise Villain looks a little weak-passive. Maybe scared of Paul. So the check raise might extract that few extra chips and this guy seems likely to fold with anywhere from 7-10k in chips left behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my exact point in my post re this situation. The check-raise was a bit unfortunate when the villian pushes, but all the second guessing here is in hind-sight. I personally feel the check-raise was the right move.. just with a bad outcome.

Hmmm you never see that in poker right? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase Paul from a while back:

There are still a lot of theories in tournament poker still up for debate, but chipEV and tournamentEV being nearly equal when still far from the money isn't really one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly agree with that, but personally I’ve found in the lower-limit on-line tourneys that when you have a big stack it causes your opponents to play sub-optimally against you. They fold more than they should essentially.

And the greater fold equity I have as a big stack increases the value of my chips at more than a linear rate, mainly at the expense of the middle-sized stacks.

--Greg

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Phillips is a donk. The proper way to play is to wait for aces or get blinded out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't Paul Phillips once go from big stack to out in two hands in a tournament when he caught pocket aces two hands in a row and lost both of them?

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
you know, it really can't be stressed enough:

PP has an edge over the field because he recognizes and takes 50% equity when the pot dictates that he only needs 38%. All these assumptions that he's a good player, so he can pass up these edges are fallicious by definition. If one could magically engineer 80%+ bets for their entire stack once an hour, then it would be different, but these things don't just happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's say one of his opponents starts going all-in on every hand. It's clear the rest of the table is filled with weak-tight folders. After 5 all-ins in a row, Paul is dealt a hand where he thinks his equity is 51% here, maybe a 98s type hand.

Should he call with his small equity, or should he wait a few hands for something stronger?

If he is playing against opponents signficantly weaker than himself, at what point does he NOT want to forgo the opportunity to stay with them?

--Greg

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul has an edge on the field and marginal chips are increasingly worth less.

[/ QUOTE ] As was demonstrated by several strong players before (gigabet on this board, for instance), your last statement is highly debatable. Players who can handle big stack well, can definitely gain more than what the simple cEV calculation suggest, and might sometimes find that even -cEV spots are actually long term +$EV for them from the perspective of future table control and chips accumulation.

This is of course very different from the ideas presented in TPFAP, but this book is very far from suggesting an optimal MTT play, especially for LAGish, strong players.

[/ QUOTE ] Didn't DS show this to be mathematically impossible some time ago?

Let's take a hypothetical strong player, and assign him cash equity of $X with his starting stack. If he doubles the starting stack, his cash equity becomes $Y. You are postulating a player who is so good at playing a big stack that Y > 2X. So far so good.

One other variable we need to discuss is the player's chance to double up before he busts. Rather than making any assumptions about this, we'll just call it Z.

There are two ways to represent the player's equity at the start of the tournament. One of them is simply X, as we defined it above. The other way is more complicated; he has Z chance of doubling his stack and achieving equity Y, and (1-Z) chance of busting first. So his overall equity is (Z * Y) + ((1-Z) * 0). In other words, X = Z * Y.

Above, we said that Y > 2X. Since X = ZY, then Y > 2ZY. Dividing both sides by Y, 1 > 2Z. Z is therefore less than 0.5.

What did we just prove? In plain English, we proved that the only player whose equity can more than double when he doubles his stack is one whose chance of doubling is LESS than 50%. Surely, no good player has less than a 50% chance of doubling. Thus, no good player increases his equity more than 2x by doubling his stack.

Where is the flaw in this proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

fnurt, where were you when you were needed on all those Giga's controversial threads? /images/graemlins/grin.gif (with the KJ and more recently Q3 hand and long "blocks" post") . I would link to them but I'm a bit too busy at the moment to make the search and stuff ... If nobody else will do it I'll do it in a while. If you haven't read them all, I'd really recommend doing it, no matter if you agree with the ideas or not.

Anyway, I don't remember this proof by DS you are mentioning, was it in context to a debate about something Negreano said somewhere? Regardless, it looks interesting enough. Again, I don't have the time now to sit and see if I find any theoretical-logical flaws in it (not that I'm any kind of authority on such matters...), and from a brief look it looks pretty strong and elegant to me, but I think that some kind of "flaw" will be something along the lines of thinking about a whole MTT as a one "unit", instead of looking at different particular situations, as some players do (Giga and Negreano, for insance, I believe).

I mean, that they recognize _certain_ situations and conditions, in which having X stack is worth more (in terms of accumulating MORE chips from that point and on) than "twice" of having X/2 stack, as a result of specific tendencies of players at the table (I can think of several general examples: around bubble time, and/or when players are generally playing way too timidly against an aggressive big stack, or when some tilting big stack is about to throw ALL his stack away, and you want to be able to take it fast enough before another stack does it, since it might worth a lot to you, etc). Often those situations present themselves only for a short or very short period of time, and therefore it might make sense to take a marginal -cEV gamble in order to build to a certain stack size at a particular point in time. I hope this makes sense.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the flaw in this proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well for starters, if If he busts before doubling up, his equity doesn’t have to be zero. He could survive and take second place in the tourney if the chip leader busts everyone else in the meantime. Or just languish and finish just inside the bubble.

And secondly, a good player could very well have a less than 50% chance of doubling up before going to zero. Paul posted this hand where his chances of going to zero were greater than 50-50, and said it’s a good play. So he is a good player, and his chances of going to zero are greater than his chances of doubling up.

I don’t think the model takes into account the extra value you get from more than doubling up.

--Greg

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is risking your tournament life for a coin flip a good bet when there's a bunch of Donks at your table who you can outplay and get a 70% edge or greater to double up??

Nope.. Absolutely Terrible!

[/ QUOTE ]

I like these concepts of survival and tournament life. I will have to add them to my guide.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2586849&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
PP has an edge over the field because he recognizes and takes 50% equity when the pot dictates that he only needs 38%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to be serious in this discussion you should not insist in the 50% figure. Just because PP was right in his read this time, didn't make the number 50%. I have been playing poker for some years now, with many great players. And I still to know a player such that every time he reads a person as having a unique, specific hand like AK after an all in bet in the flop, he's right 100% of the time.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely, no good player has less than a 50% chance of doubling. Thus, no good player increases his equity more than 2x by doubling his stack.

Where is the flaw in this proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about what Z means in X = Z * Y. Say your $X=5 and $Y=$9. Then Z=55.5%. Should you take a 60%/40% gamble for all of your chips? How about a 51%/49% gamble?

So Z here is the minimum edge you should be taken given your equity now and your equity after double up. Obviously then its easy to see why Y > 2X works. Essentially it's $EV pot odds.

I don't think you've defined Z as a seperate variable. I think it's entirely a product of a given $X and $Y from some equity model. What does Z say about your equity without an X or a Y?

[Voltron87]

WTF is this thread 140 replies long for? This is a bad play, and Paul reasoning is poor. When he says he's going to CR that's a joke, I actually laughed.

If Paul was making this play against a limper it would be different. Think about button's hand range. Paul P can post stats about how he's +EV against 77 and other hands the opponent is not going to have, but that's misleading. Button has a pretty specific range, and we are forced to put him on one without reads here.

And it's pretty elementary that if you are going to call all in you should be pushing.

note- I haven't read any of the replies.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is this thread 140 replies long for? This is a bad play, and Paul reasoning is poor. When he says he's going to CR that's a joke, I actually laughed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

note- I haven't read any of the replies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, read some.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is this thread 140 replies long for? This is a bad play, and Paul reasoning is poor. When he says he's going to CR that's a joke, I actually laughed.

[/ QUOTE ]

why? Why wouldn't a typical tourney player make a continuation bet of 3k or so rather than a push a great deal of the time?

[Voltron87]

yeah, i have been now. its a mess.


i think a lot of people are giving the button way too large a hand range. button is not minraising (its actually not a minraise, technically) with AA-77, paul even included AJ and KQ at .5. And if youre calling, you should be pushing.

[Voltron87]

pot odds. thats all. anything button is reraising with will call after betting. anything.

[pokergripes]

Well, for that to work, the opp has to be capable of both the terrible under-bet, and then also a pretty big laydown (in light of the pot size, remaining stacks, etc.)...totally agree that it's always easy to second guess with the benefit of hindsight, but that being said, I think this hand illustrates a point that lots of people (myself included) don't necessarily think of, which is that the product of "chance my read is correct", multiplied by "chance he does what I expect on that read", multiplied by "chance my CR play then works", is a whole lot smaller than it might feel at the time of initiation in the heat of battle...might be an illustration of "too clever a move for the situation", all things considered here, making the straight forward play (i.e., I put him on a big ace, and therefore am taking down the pot with an initial push) the significantly better play on a risk-adjusted basis.

[pokergripes]

LOL! Not having read any of the replies, you're still sure enough that a post that PP bothered to put on his blog, and that somebody bothered to post here for discussion, which has at least two relatively interesting questions in it (the initial check, and what to do once the opp pushes), wasn't worthy of this much discussion, and at such a level of certainty that it merits a "WTF?"? That's kind of cute, actually /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I mean, this thread obviously can't hold a candle to a thread that follows a scorching troll-post about somebody's table manners, or a three hundred post thread about whether a particular player is more or less secure than another particular player that nobody on the chain has actually ever met or spoken to, or a two-week discussion of whether vince lepore and smoothcall are the same person, but that being said, the discussion in this chain might actually be of some benefit to the people involved...

Not you, obviously, since you are far too strong a player to make what might (or might not, since it depends on the read to a large extent) have been a "bad" play by a player of merely PP's level...however, guys like me might wind up re-thinking the point about risk-adjusted chances of a play working, given that PP made the play.

In other words, the fact that it WAS a PP play is why it merits this much discussion, because if it's a "bad play", that is obviously saying something, and worth thinking through why.

[Voltron87]

I'm not saying this is a simple or easy hand. But 75% of the replies are just crap.

[pokergripes]

Oh, in that case I agree with you, although I'm not sure that really distinguishes this thread in particular... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
button is not minraising (its actually not a minraise, technically) with AA-77

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is, technically. In real-life poker we have long used the term "mini-raise" to mean "very small raise". It doesn't mean "minimum raise", and if that's a common usage it's from online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
paul even included AJ and KQ at .5.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't, that was someone else.

[ QUOTE ]
And if youre calling, you should be pushing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not self-apparent. Well, I guess it is in the same way that everything is self-apparent to everyone when it comes to poker, but it isn't self-apparent to me.

If the button has a hand range that includes hands that dominate me and hands I'm 50-55% against, then it may be better to check-call and get the good ones in there than to push and narrow it down to the bad ones. And regardless of how those numbers pan out, if the check-raise has any chance of getting a fold then it has to be considered because it's much more profitable when it works.

Let's say he's AA-TT/AK/AQ. If I push he calls only with the pairs and if I check he pushes with all of them.

Me vs. AA-TT/AK/AQ: 43.5%.
Me vs. AA-TT: 33.4%.

Turns out there are 24 ways to make AA-TT and 24 ways to make AQ so it's 50/50 which he has. [Edit: duh, I mean AK/AQ, and duh, it's 32 ways. So these numbers are wrong but the point is still the point. I'd fix it properly but I have to leave.]

Push: 50% of the time he folds and we have 16000, and 50% of the time we have 33.4% * 26000 = 8700. Net = 12350.

Check-call: 43.5% of 26000 = 11300.

So far we're losing by 1000 by checking (with increased risk of busting to boot.) But what if sometimes he bets 3K with AK/AQ and folds to a check-raise? With a 19K result each time it works the check-raise doesn't have to work that often to have higher EV.

Maybe the check-raise will succeed, maybe it won't, maybe this hand range is way off, maybe it's dead-on; all I know is that all this acting like everything is so obvious and self-apparent and unworthy of discussion is ultra-lame.

[bugstud]

that was the point that I was trying to get across, albeit unsuccessfully

[Johnny Chan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying this is a simple or easy hand. But 75% of the replies are just crap.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, what you did say was that this was a bad play and Paul's reasoning was a joke. I'm with Paul, as to not be ultra-lame.

[JasonP530]

Paul-

Wouldnt you think the button was unlikely to play a marginal hand TT/JJ/AQ in that manner. Wouldnt he try to blow you out of the pot instead of giving you odds preflop? Obviously, you know the player better than we do. Was it worth hanging on to your stack and trying to double through one of the bad players as opposed to taking a 50/50 shot basically at that point?

Jason

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is, technically. In real-life poker we have long used the term "mini-raise" to mean "very small raise". It doesn't mean "minimum raise", and if that's a common usage it's from online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a min raise. A min raise would be to 2000. blinds 400, you raise 800 more to 1200, 800 more is 2000. but that doesnt really matter.


[ QUOTE ]
No I didn't, that was someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was reading your journal and you posted up the percentages and EV for your hand against a range, and AJ and KQ were in it. I might have been wrong and you didn't post it, but my point is that virtually everyone here gave the villain a larger hand range then they should. I could have been wrong that it was you who posted it, but my point still stands about the general debate.



As for call/pushing/cr'ing, what is he going to fold to a check raise? What hand that he minraises pf is he folding to a CR after betting 3-4K? For his sake, I hope very little. I dont think this an "obvious" hand but I do think not checkraising here is very obvious.


btw what did he end up having?

[TomCollins]

Man you are dumb.

Paul says "mini-raised to 2400".

mini means - Something that is distinctively smaller than other members of its type or class.

The raise is pretty damn small, therefore is a miniraise. Paul clearly explains this, then you tell him he is wrong.

[Voltron87]

read my posts, i was never talking to paul about it, it was to everyone in general. i was just pointing it out as a detail. and then i said it doesnt really matter. a bunch of people were referring to it as a minraise, i pointed that out, no big deal.

[2005]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For your own sake I hope you're just hating on me as opposed to believing your own words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I believe superior players can engineer better situations than 50-50. If you believe your superiority is based on your willingness to make 50-50 calls that others wouldnt then great. One day you will win 8 coin-flips in a row and win the tournament. Is that really good poker?

In any case I like you - although your mindless camp-followers get me down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, superior players can engineer spots that they're getting better than a 50/50 shot at winning the pot, this is true. The rub is this. There is 16k in the pot and Paul has to call 10k(numbers estimated) Taking a coin flip when getting 8-5 on your money is an edge that nobody in the world should pass up in this event when the stacks aren't super deep. If Paul had 150 BB and so did the other guy and he was getting the same odds, this becomes a fold. Since they both have around 30BB when the hand started, and Paul will only have 25BB if he folds, this is a ridiculously easy call.

[Voltron87]

i shouldnt be replying to a gimmick account but... pauls idea of cr'ing is a joke and it was a bad play.

[Beavis68]

I would like to thank Paul for posting this hand.

When I first read it, I thought "WTF?" Now, I I feel like I am gaining yet another level of understanding of the game from Paul.

I cannot describe how much Paul's writing has meant to me.

Thanks Paul.

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing versus an average player, then this is a call since the range of hands he could probably have makes the play +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
The call is +EV if AK is in the hand range no matter what other hands you surmise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your reasoning and agree with your blog conclusion. But here you must mean it is +EV if AK is in the hand range no matter what other reasonable hands you surmise. As if his hands are picked from 99,22,92,AK then you only have 32% equity. You do slightly worse if you add AA, KK, QQ to that range.

But yes, under any reasonable range, that is a clear call. I don't think I'd have realized it at the table though.

[etizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
or a 9 (you're 30%).

[/ QUOTE ]

no

[DCIAce]

I like the play. I think Button makes a bet of 3-4k, then folds to a Checkraise with AK or AQ, often enough for attempting to CR being better than just pushing.

Also, when he overbets the pot, I think AK or AQ is much more likely than an overpair.

Also, to answer Sekrah the uber-troll's last question.. if you have 40BB, exact same hand comes up against someone with 60BB (larger raises preflop, to make the pot odds equal to this one), you call every single time.

You say "PaulP is probably the best player at the table" .. calling getting 1.6-1 on a coinflip is precisely why he is the best player at the table.

[valente]

I guess Pauls understanding of poker is that he is looking for +EV situations, and taking advantage of them at any opprotunity. This is a very unique way to look at the game.

However, hisoppenant happened to benefit by Paul's narrow scope of the game in this particular situation..

I think that this type of mentality could guide him through a big tournament with a monster field, however it can lead him to the rail early as well.

I guess if a boxer knew he could win the fight by jabbing and playing a conservative game and win a certain decision at the end... should he do it?? .. or go for a knock out punch because he happens to be getting some favorable odds of taking his oppenant out there while risking the outcome of the fight to do so. Its an interesting take to the game..

If I were a player who thought he couldn't out manouver an oppenant, I would be happy to risk all my chips on a coin flip when the odds dictated that I was getting the better of the EV. However if I knew I could beat him, I would wait and beat him in a better spot.

[Bataglin]

With 6k in the middle, and 10k/13k in the stacks, this is a push-situation. For both players. Hero discovered this a little bit too late.