Grisgra
07-24-2005, 05:04 PM
Note: I suck at NL tournies, so if my reasoning is wrong here . . . well, I'm sure you'll tell me /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
On p. 234-238 he describes the following situation:
--------
Middle stages of major tourney, 9 people at the table, Blinds are $150/$300, Ante $50 (starting pot is $900) and you have $37,000. You're in the top ten in chips. You pick up AKo, raise to $1200, and it's folded to the cutoff, who has $11,200 and raises to $5000. Folded back to you.
Do you fold, call, or raise?
Parts B and C of the question change the size of the opponent's stack to, respectively, to $16,200 and $8,200.
-----------
Dan's answers to these questions, are, respectively, "Fold", "Call", and "Raise him all-in". These answers are based on reasoning that this is mostly an implied-odds question, given that eliminating one more opponent isn't a big deal. Also, we have no desire to engage in high-stakes even-money bets.
I have no problem with his reasoning for "B" and "C", but here's what he says about the initial question (short stack has $11,200, or $6,200 left).
"Calling is the worst option here. With AK, you'd usually prefer to make an all-or-nothing decision, since that enables you to see all five cards and thus get the most value for your two high cards. That's especially true when you're out of position and your opponent is on a short stack and mostly committed to the pot already. He will usually put you all-in after the flop, and since you know that, you need to make your decision now whether or not to play the hand for his full stack . . . "
He goes on to reason that a fair approximation to the villain's hand here is that you're up against a pair lower than kings. Raising him all-in risks $10,000 to win a total of $13,300, giving you 1.33-to-1 odds. Because you're about a 1.3-to-1 dog against a pocket pair, risking 30% of your stack for an even EV proposition is unwise. So fold.
BUT . . . here's what he says regarding scenario B, in which your opponent isn't as shortstacked, he has $16,200 at the beginning of the hand.
"If you call, you're getting a little less than 2-to-1 odds on your bet (the pot is $7,100 and you need to put in $3,800 to call" and the odds of hitting an ace or king are a little better than 30%, so your chances of hitting are a little less than 2-1. Do your implied odds if you hit your hand compensate? Probably. Your opponent might decide he's done with the hand if an ace or king flops, but then again he might not. I'd call here against anyone but a super-tight player."
Bwah?!?!!!
Let's say we just call in the original situation with AKo, and decide we will fold to the shortstack's all-in if we don't flop an ace or king. We're still getting those 2-1 initial odds, but our implied odds are even better than they were before, because our opponent is even more likely to put in $$ with the worst hand. Even if shortstack-boy folds if an ace flops, and goes all-in 100% of the time if a king flops, then we lose that $3,800 70% of the time, but win $7,100 about 15% of the time and $13,300 15% of the time (roughly). EV looks to be about +$400, and we're risking only 10% of our stack. And if the shortstack is sometimes likely to go all-in even if an ace flops (certainly possible given just how little money he has left), our EV is even better.
What am I missing? It seems to me that the assumption that we want to go all-in preflop with AKo against the short stack is a bad one, because it rules out a call that is +EV. If calling isn't +EV against this guy, why is it +EV against the guy with the $16,200 stack, who is much less likely to push another six grand into the pot with a losing hand?
On p. 234-238 he describes the following situation:
--------
Middle stages of major tourney, 9 people at the table, Blinds are $150/$300, Ante $50 (starting pot is $900) and you have $37,000. You're in the top ten in chips. You pick up AKo, raise to $1200, and it's folded to the cutoff, who has $11,200 and raises to $5000. Folded back to you.
Do you fold, call, or raise?
Parts B and C of the question change the size of the opponent's stack to, respectively, to $16,200 and $8,200.
-----------
Dan's answers to these questions, are, respectively, "Fold", "Call", and "Raise him all-in". These answers are based on reasoning that this is mostly an implied-odds question, given that eliminating one more opponent isn't a big deal. Also, we have no desire to engage in high-stakes even-money bets.
I have no problem with his reasoning for "B" and "C", but here's what he says about the initial question (short stack has $11,200, or $6,200 left).
"Calling is the worst option here. With AK, you'd usually prefer to make an all-or-nothing decision, since that enables you to see all five cards and thus get the most value for your two high cards. That's especially true when you're out of position and your opponent is on a short stack and mostly committed to the pot already. He will usually put you all-in after the flop, and since you know that, you need to make your decision now whether or not to play the hand for his full stack . . . "
He goes on to reason that a fair approximation to the villain's hand here is that you're up against a pair lower than kings. Raising him all-in risks $10,000 to win a total of $13,300, giving you 1.33-to-1 odds. Because you're about a 1.3-to-1 dog against a pocket pair, risking 30% of your stack for an even EV proposition is unwise. So fold.
BUT . . . here's what he says regarding scenario B, in which your opponent isn't as shortstacked, he has $16,200 at the beginning of the hand.
"If you call, you're getting a little less than 2-to-1 odds on your bet (the pot is $7,100 and you need to put in $3,800 to call" and the odds of hitting an ace or king are a little better than 30%, so your chances of hitting are a little less than 2-1. Do your implied odds if you hit your hand compensate? Probably. Your opponent might decide he's done with the hand if an ace or king flops, but then again he might not. I'd call here against anyone but a super-tight player."
Bwah?!?!!!
Let's say we just call in the original situation with AKo, and decide we will fold to the shortstack's all-in if we don't flop an ace or king. We're still getting those 2-1 initial odds, but our implied odds are even better than they were before, because our opponent is even more likely to put in $$ with the worst hand. Even if shortstack-boy folds if an ace flops, and goes all-in 100% of the time if a king flops, then we lose that $3,800 70% of the time, but win $7,100 about 15% of the time and $13,300 15% of the time (roughly). EV looks to be about +$400, and we're risking only 10% of our stack. And if the shortstack is sometimes likely to go all-in even if an ace flops (certainly possible given just how little money he has left), our EV is even better.
What am I missing? It seems to me that the assumption that we want to go all-in preflop with AKo against the short stack is a bad one, because it rules out a call that is +EV. If calling isn't +EV against this guy, why is it +EV against the guy with the $16,200 stack, who is much less likely to push another six grand into the pot with a losing hand?