huge laydown on the bubble?

[marbles]

Single table, 4 remain, top 3 are in the money. Small stack is UTG+2, and cannot cover his BB.

Blinds are now 200/400, and, after checking the BB, you have a stack of $520. You have Td5c, heads-up vs. the SB, who limped (he is a solid player, big stack with approx. T2K after limping).

Flop: AdJs4d. Check-check.
Turn: [8d] AdJs4d. Check-check.
River: [Jd] 8dAdJs4d. SB now bets. Pot is now $1600.

All-in or fold?

[davidross]

Do you want to make the money or win the tournament. If making the money is important to you then fold. If not I go all-in. I can’t imagine him limping with a K or Q high hand in this situation unless he was trying to trap you. I think you have the best hand, so I would call/bet the river.

[ohkanada]

With any King or Queen the solid player should have been raising you pre-flop. And he probably should be betting on the turn at a minimum with K or Q high flush draw.

Call.

Ken Poklitar

[RiverOtter]

how many chips did the other player have? I think this might change how i would have played it here. If he also is very low on chips ( ie the utg player) i might fold it here. Certainly the small blind could be trapping. The odds of him having a kd or qd is 12%. Not easy to answer because you haven't really told me enough about the sb player other then he is solid. I tend to agree with the other players that a solid player would have raised preflop or bet the turn at least unless he flopped a made hand.

[marbles]

I called, and the SB showed Qd9d to knock me out. To his defense, there is no way I was folding preflop with half my stack already on the table, so why would he want to risk his chip lead by raising me?

Davidross made an interesting point that was the basis of my decision. If I folded, there was a very high probability that I would finish ITM, but I'd have a crippled stack once I got there. What fun is that? With a call and win, I would suddenly be big stack and have a very real shot at winning.

By the way, I left out a key point: This was just a little $5+$1 tourney (I know, high rake, shouldn't have even been there). Third pays $10, First pays $25. If the stakes were high enough to make me sweat, I may very well have laid down here.

[iblucky4u2]

"Huge" laydown - my foot - your headline made this sound like a good sized tourney. At the stakes you were playing for, you must take the action to win - so all in it is.

[Moose]

"Big" doesn't refer to the stakes, but the size of the hand being layed down. And yes, for all my money, it would take a big laydown to toss a decent sized flush heads up after all the checking going on, especially if there is any chance my opponent would be counting on the board to be scary enough to get me to fold my tiny stack.

M.

[marbles]

""Huge" laydown - my foot - your headline made this sound like a good sized tourney. At the stakes you were playing for, you must take the action to win - so all in it is."

--Sorry if the title misled you. I've just always believed that the size of a laydown is dictated by the size of one's hand... And this holding seemed like a pretty big one, given the situation.

Out of curiosity, does the hand play out differently for you if the single-table buy-in is not $5+$1, but rather $200+$10? Consider the payout structure to be $1,000/$600/$400.

[drewjustdrew]

I'm not as positive about the call as the others. Would you really be a big stack here. You would not win the entire $1600 in the pot as you only have 520. I would guess this is a paradise tourney, so the average stack size is $2500 four handed. Since the low player has less than $400, the average is $3200 for the other three players. If you win the pot, you will have $1840, which may tie you for second, but probably you are still in third. I like the chances of you taking third when the low-chip guy loses better than I like your chances of finishing second or first.

Also, the amount of the buy-in should not matter. If anyone thinks it does, they are playing too high. The only time I would be unusually concerned with making the money is if it is winner take all, or through unfortunate circumstances I am very short stacked and would really need to get lucky to advance beyond the last paid spot. When I am very low on chips near the money, my goal becomes to cash. When I am low-medium or higher on chips, my goal is to win, so I will take more chances. You were very low in this situation.

[iblucky4u2]

Third flush is not that huge a hand - even heads up (maybe it's my O/8 background). And yes, I have different goals when the payouts are larger. If I am playing for two hours in a tournament, I would like to have some $ back for my time. If I can make $200+ is a big difference than can I make $5-25. A win rate of $100+/hour is excellent in most poker players perspectives.

Theoretically, it would be nice to make the 100% perfect play no matter what the stakes, but different payouts mean different definitions for perfect /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[iblucky4u2]

While the buy-in amount "should not matter" the payouts certainly do matter and strongly influence my strategy and I would assume yours. Getting 9th place that pays $1,000 has to be more important than getting 2nd that pays $25 or so. If there was a large amount at stake, then the decision is clearly different in this case - fold! For small payouts, go for the gold. If I lose the $5 or $10 for 3rd or 2nd, who cares.

[drewjustdrew]

All I am saying is there is a time and a place to no longer worry about going for the money. That is determined by how low on chips you become. If you are one away from the money and 2nd lowest on chips and will be eliminated in two rounds, you wait and sneak into the money. If you have 4 times the big blind, you play aggressively. There is a time and place to not go for 1st place.

[iblucky4u2]

IMHO a tourney that is paying $25 for first is always that time and place to go for it /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[drewjustdrew]

Then you are playing limits too small for your comfort zone. You are making, IMHO, decisions that are negative EV because they are for low stakes. Buy-in amount should not matter, unless you won a satellite to enter, and making the cash would be a substantial award for you.

If winning $5 or $10 is inconsequential, so should the $25 first prize. You shouldn't enter this tournament if you feel this way.

[iblucky4u2]

You did not find me playing in this tourney - I would not be wasting my time. I was commenting on the "Huge Laydown" heading - so don't jump on me /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[drewjustdrew]

I understand that you did not make the post. I was speaking in general to all the posters who share your view that for the small prizes, you should only play to win and not worry about the other seemingly small payouts.

By the way, "Give Me a Break" would be considered jumping on me!

[iblucky4u2]

Actually I was jumping on your comment about the size of the buy-in not mattering - clearly it does as it normally reflects the size of the prize pool. Do not take it personnaly.

[Jimbo]

Actualy Drew I believe it is fairly widely accepted that if you are more concerned about making the cutoff than you are in winning the tourney then you are playing too high.

[Bozeman]

True early in the tourney, but not near the bubble, Jimbo. See, for example, Sklansky's play at the WSOP last year.

Craig

[Jimbo]

Who said Sklansky played correctly in that situation Bozeman? I certainly didn't, in fact due to his reputation the risk of not placing in the money was so great he was playing too high for his bankroll. This post ought to generate some heat directed my way! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[drewjustdrew]

I feel like my idea is falling on deaf ears. Can I get some support? There is a time and place in a standard payout tournament, regardless of buy-in amount, where it becomes more profitable in the long run to sneak into the money, than to gamble, trying to build a stack to attempt winning, or placing higher. Somebody agree with me.

[Jimbo]

drewjustdrew I agree with you under certain circumstances, just not in anything similiar to the example tourney hand provided by Marbles in the original post. There if you call and win you become a big stack automatically and have an excellent chance to move up in the money.

When circumstances dictate that winning the pot only moves you into the money but still puts you in imminent danger of being blinded out then perhaps circumstances warrant a fold. A good example of this would be when the average stack at a table of 10 players is T100k, the blinds are 500/1000 and there are two short stacks (one is you) with T1600 and the other is to your left with T1200. In this case winning a T2K pot in which you are the big blind will not help you get much farther up the money line so folding your way into the cash probably makes sense. This is not the case in Marbles' example.