Do You Call With QQ Here?

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

Situation: Four players remaining, and you're the third stack. Short stack (Hall of Famer Chip Reese) pushes all-in UTG. Second stack folds on the button. You're in the SB, and you call the all-in -- about 1/3 of your stack -- with QQ. Big stack (considered by many to be one of the best NL players in the world) moves all-in from the BB. It's to you. Do you call with QQ?

This was the situation faced by the one amateur to make the final table in tonight's WPT broadcast. The amateur (I don't recall his name) got up to walk around and think about whether to call for all his chips, and the WPT went away for a commercial break.

This occasioned a discussion between my oldest son, my partner, and myself on whether he should call. I said he shouldn't call, because I didn't think the big stack would make this play with any hand other than AA, KK, or AK. So at best he's a small favorite, and possibly a huge underdog.

If it were a cash game, or early in a tourney, I'd be more tempted to call because it's more likely (4:3) that he's on AK rather than AA or KK, and with the short stack's all-in (most likely an A or a K), they probably hold some of each other's outs. So, on average, I'm a roughly 35% favorite to win this pot, getting 7:3 pot odds, which is clearly a call in a cash game, and probably also early in a tourney.

But at the final table, where most of the prize money is in the top three places, I can move up a spot just by folding and letting the big stack bust the small stack. I'll still have chips to play with (about 2/3rds of the second stack) and I can pick a better place to die than a small-favorite-big-dog spot like this.

Well, the amateur called. Short stack had K5s. Big stack had AKs. The amateur was a 50% favorite pre-flop, but the flop was A-K-6 and the river brought another Ace, so both 3rd and 4th stacks went out, leaving the big stack heads-up with a monster chip lead.

Second question: should the amateur have moved in with QQ to isolate? I doubt big stack would call in that spot with only AK. As it turned out, Chip Reese would have doubled up with the K on the flop, but I still think the amateur would have been wiser to push hoping to isolate rather than call and be put in a situation of calling himself all-in, in a 3-way pot, with only QQ.

Your thoughts?

Cris

P.S. I thought the amateur had played brilliantly up to this point, and I certainly don't mean to discredit him by referring him as "the amateur." He was a very skilled and talented player, who made some very strong plays.

P.P.S. It was sad to watch Chip Reese get run over in this final table. Every time he tried to get into a pot, someone repopped him, and he never had the right hand to make a stand. You could see the frustration in his face; he just never had a chance.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I said he shouldn't call, because I didn't think the big stack would make this play with any hand other than AA, KK, or AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the flaw in your thinking. Top no-limit tournament players will make this play with many hands in order to isolate the all-in player. James showed weakness by just calling in the small blind. So, the Big Blind can make this play with many hands.

[brassnuts]

I'm not sure what the correct play is... but this is what I would have done:
pushed in with QQ
&
would had to have called the all-in... which wouldn't have been an issue had I gone all in.

[JustPlayingSmart]

I think there are a couple things that might have pushed him over the edge here into making this call. The first was the JJ hand. In that hand, Can Kim Hua raised to $65,000 with 88, and the amateur called. Barry then raised like $300,000 more, and the amateur called, and folded to Barry's all in on the K high flop. He was probably at least thinking about that hand earlier and wondering what Barry made that play with.

Second, is that he knows he is probably the worst player at the table. Knowing this, he may take the gamble that a) he has the best hand right now or b) he outdraws KK or AA. If I was at the table with those three, I would probably make the call under those circumstances. Of course, the way he was playing, he didn't need to make that call. He seemed to have Randy Jensen's number.

To answer your other question, I certainly would have reraised all-in with QQ there. I see absolutely no reason to give Barry a chance to make that play.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I see absolutely no reason to give Barry a chance to make that play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you want him to make that play?

[JustPlayingSmart]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you want him to make that play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if I'm going to agonize over the call, and then almost fold. If I plan on calling an all-in from Barry because I think I have the best hand, then I would want it. So I guess I would like him to make that play, because I would assume he would make the play with AQs and JJ in addition to AK, AA, and KK (and maybe even more hands). What happens though, if Barry just calls. Am I checking on a 2 3 7 rainbow flop?

[Legend27]

He definetly should call the all from the BB and yes he should have moved all in with queens in the 1st place.

You also said: "If it were a cash game, or early in a tourney, I'd be more tempted to call because it's more likely (4:3) that he's on AK rather than AA or KK, and with the short stack's all-in (most likely an A or a K), they probably hold some of each other's outs."

That's definelty wrong. Much easier to fold queens early in a tourney or in a cash game in a situation like that since players only move in with aa or kk in those situations. Players go all in with much worse hands in later stages of tournaments and QQ is much stronger hand then.

[TheArtist]

I agree. I mean if you knew the blinds was making an all-in -desperate move, and that he can have anything from small pair or weak ace to cards like K9-K5s, JQ to JTs. If you had AQ, AJs, JJ-99 and you thought SB was weak, wouln't u be incline to make this move too isolate? Since Barry is someone who is capable making this move with all sort of hands, I think it's an easy call. Morever, this is the best time to bust out the two players that is much better than he is on a gamble that he maybe be a favorite.

TheArtist

[superleeds]

I would have moved in pre-flop. Having said that if I had only of called I would probably would have called the bet after, I think Greenstein may make this move with a few more hands than just AA,KK and AK given the positions and stack sizes.

I agree that 'the amateur' played excellently after he got that early JJ limp out of system.

I hated Greenstein's call with T7 on a flop with 2 overs and no draws when he was heads-up, but apart from that I thought he was excellent. Best show so far IMO.

[ohkanada]

Not a chance in the world I don't raise all-in after the initial all-in and thus would never face that decision.

Ken Poklitar

[Rushmore]

IMO, one integral part of a winning NL perspective is making plays that remove the need to make big decisions, which is to say that you want to do what you can to put the other players to the test.

This involves acting, as opposed to reacting, wherever possible, obviously.

Yes, he should have pushed all-in preflop.

[Schmed]

he should have raised all in to keep him out of the pot. By calling he was giving himself the out to lay down and then he didn't take his out. Once he just called I thought he should have folded to the all in reraise with the way the prize money was being paid.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, is that he knows he is probably the worst player at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see anything on television that even suggested that he was a worse player than Randy Jensen. Clearly, he was helped by having Jensen to his right, but it wasn't the amateur who limped in and then called a preflop raise from the blinds with 93o only to check behind the flop and fold to the turn bet.

Also, while there is no doubt that the amatuer was not as good as Reese or Greenstein, he looked sufficiently good that by the end of a tournament when the blinds are big, the difference in skill level was probably fairly insignificant in terms of affecting his decisions at the table.

Given that Greenstein twice bet big when there was a large pot (once with AKs and once with something like K2o iirc), calling the all-in with the intention of calling an all-in from Greenstein looks to me to be a pretty good play. Getting all-in against Greenstein and Reese with the best of it at this point in the match is pretty good imho.

[freemont]

But at the final table, where most of the prize money is in the top three places, I can move up a spot just by folding and letting the big stack bust the small stack. I'll still have chips to play with (about 2/3rds of the second stack) and I can pick a better place to die than a small-favorite-big-dog spot like this.

One thing you may be overlooking is the clarification he received from the tournament director. IF both players bust out on the same hand, the larger stack takes the higher place. I had the same debate with myself untill I heard this was the rule (I'm assuming this is fairly standard in big tournaments? but since my only experience with it is busting out 5th instead of 6th in SNGs I wasn't sure /images/graemlins/tongue.gif ) IMO this takes any debate out of the question of calling or not. He thought his hand was better than Chip's before Barry got into it, I think the presence of Barry would only solidify (in his mind) that Chip was going to need a lot of luck to win that hand. Thus he is looking at a minimum of busting out third and a best case scenario of having a commanding chip lead in three-way action.

For the record I would have shoved behind chip in a heartbeat.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the flaw in your thinking. Top no-limit tournament players will make this play with many hands in order to isolate the all-in player. James showed weakness by just calling in the small blind. So, the Big Blind can make this play with many hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

You guys can stop reading now....the above explains everything.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that 'the amateur' played excellently after he got that early JJ limp out of system.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think he played this hand expertly. He knew that his flat call of a fairly large all-in raise would induce Barry to call and/or raise w/ many hands that he could beat. Barry reraised him to about 300K. He was getting about 2:1 on his call. He decided to see a flop before committing more of his chips. The flop had a King...he made a nice read, and check/folded when he was drawing to 2 outs.

I thought he played brilliantly throughout. There must have been some very aggressive play earlier in the tourney for those guys to be going for that many steal, resteal, reresteal attempts. It was like it took three bullets before anyone believed you had a gun.

[Stagemusic]

A whole lot of second guessing going on here. Sure in hindsight it was an easy laydown and we can criticize the call of Chips move too. However, he had everything to gain and not one damn thing to lose by moving in after Barry. He had third absolutely locked at that point if he or Barry wins the hand. If Chip wins he has a great chance of significantly increasing his stack against Barry on the sidepot because Chip had a suited K and Barry had AK only a 5 or 3 spades would let Chip win without Barry's hand being improved. If he takes the hand he takes over 2nd and puts himself in good position to win the thing. Also remember that they were 4 handed and QQ is a monster. Obviously AK is too but there is no way that he could really know what Barry was holding. To me it looked like he agonized over his decision for quite awhile. I would be interested in knowing how long it really was. Tough call to make in the situation. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[J.R.]

He knew that his flat call of a fairly large all-in raise would induce Barry to call and/or raise w/ many hands that he could beat.

Jacks are too vulnerable to price overcrads into the pot in that spot. With aces or king his play becomes much better, but I think this was a horrible play in a tournament setting, where the risk of busting increases by inviting Barry into the pot and yet he doesn't substantially increase his equity, as at worst he is close to a coinflip and is out of position against a very good player.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
He knew that his flat call of a fairly large all-in raise would induce Barry to call and/or raise w/ many hands that he could beat.

Jacks are too vulnerable to price overcrads into the pot in that spot. With aces or king his play becomes much better, but I think this was a horrible play in a tournament setting, where the risk of busting increases by inviting Barry into the pot and yet he doesn't substantially increase his equity, as at worst he is close to a coinflip and is out of position against a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is to win chips, not pots. He lost the minimum on this hand. If he paid off w/ his JJ w/ the K on board, then I agree that it's pretty bad. However, he was check folding to pretty much any overcards.
If he raises preflop to say 300K, Barry moves all in w/ his AKs, and he has a tough laydown. He played it for the implied odds of flopping the set/overpair when Barry came over the top.

Remember too, Barry folds 95% of his hands there with the raise and the call. James thinks he's playing w/ Can Kim Hua heads up and has position on him.

[J.R.]

The point is to win chips, not pots.

That's certainly the case in a side game, but not the whole story in a tournament, where risk aversion takes on greater importance because you can't rebuy when you get drawn out on, and the chip to dollar ratio moves further from 1-1 as the tournment progresses. I think winning decent sized pots a great deal of the time is far more important than maximizing your EV (and thus incresing your variance) when you are near the money and especailly so in a spot where the money significantly increases with each position. In general, EV maximization is a less significant consideration the closer you get to first place, since the repurcussions of busting grow greater.

[ohkanada]

For most tourney players, the only way you are just calling for 1/3 of your stack is AA and maybe KK. You are hoping the BB finds a hand and either calls or goes all-in.

So when you are in the BB, you do need a big hand to make that re-raise all-in. Of course if the BB really feels SB is weak then maybe the BB can lower his hands but not by much.

Ken Poklitar

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
For most tourney players, the only way you are just calling for 1/3 of your stack is AA and maybe KK. You are hoping the BB finds a hand and either calls or goes all-in.

So when you are in the BB, you do need a big hand to make that re-raise all-in. Of course if the BB really feels SB is weak then maybe the BB can lower his hands but not by much.

Ken Poklitar



[/ QUOTE ]

Full table, I agree...but it's 4 handed. QQ is a monster.

[J.R.]

And these aren't most tourney players, but barry greenstein comming over the top of a retired car wash owner from ohio playing well above his comfort zone who has demonstarted a tendancy to play meekly preflop in a 4 handed game. I think Barry can have a lot of hands here.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
And these aren't most tourney players, but barry greenstein comming over the top of a retired car wash owner from ohio playing well above his comfort zone who has demonstarted a tendancy to play meekly preflop in a 4 handed game. I think Barry can have a lot of hands here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you're talking about the JJ hand...it was 5 handed, but that doesn't make much difference.

It's hard to say, because we have such incomplete information. These guys have been playing together for 4 days. We get to see a small sample of the hands. For all we know, Mr. Meek Preflop retired car wash owner could have been raising every hand.
I don't know if you saw the episode a couple of weeks ago with Dewey Tomko and Paul Phillips heads up. Paul had Tomko outchipped by about 10:1 or so. The producers showed about 7 or 8 hands in a row where Dewey went all in preflop. They made it seem like he was pushing on every hand.
I read in Paul Phillips' poker journal that it wasn't the case at all. In fact he was pushing with less than half of his hands heads up.
All I'm saying is that there are many other factors that we don't know that would be pertinant to the arguments one way or the other.
I understand your point about reducing variance and the importance of winning pots late in a tourney. I think there definitely is an argument for raising JJ in that spot. I'm just saying that smooth calling can be a good changing gears play.
Given the call, and the subsequent raise by Barry...I like the call to see the flop before committing too many chips on JJ. Like you said...survival.

[SossMan]

Copy from Paul Phillips' livejournal:
"It can sure be frustrating reading the abysmal quality of the poker analysis on rgp. Nearly everyone that has commented on the tunica WPT episode seems to think the car wash guy played badly. No way.

Here's the question for all the late-inning quarterbacks who can see the cards: what if barry hadn't flopped a K on the JJ vs. AK hand, and car wash guy had moved in and shut him out of seeing the final two cards? That happens a lot more often than the K-high flop.

And since Barry moved in with AK in the BB in the big double-bust hand, you don't think there's any chance he'd do the same with JJ or TT or 99? How do you like QQ in that spot? What if Barry had just called with AK and he'd (again) shut him out on a low flop?

A lot of people seem to have gotten the idea that it's automatically right to push all-in and automatically wrong to call, no matter what the hands are. People make this error constantly even when the bet can only be called when losing, or when the call could beat a ton of hands. Look, the point is to WIN THE MONEY, not to get a medal for betting your chips off instead of calling them.

Anyone who thinks his play with the JJ and QQ are automatically bad has a lot of learning to do. I would suggest getting out the pencil and paper and calculating his tournament equity in the face of what hands he might be up against and how the succeeding action might go.

That said, I'd probably have moved in on the QQ hand... but it's close. On the JJ hand he did a great job of avoiding going broke and increasing the JJ vs. AK edge substantially by giving himself a chance to shut barry out on the flop. Everyone is a genius when their AK is hitting the flop.

And folding to the all-in from Barry AFTER calling with the QQ is beyond stupid."

I couldn't agree more.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure in hindsight it was an easy laydown

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?
He wins over half the time vs. two opponents with his QQ. This call is ubber easy.

[sweetjazz]

If the BB is only going to reraise all-in with a big hand, then I'm going to call the short stack with all of my hands that I would otherwise raise all-in to shut out the BB. Now I get to fold many of BB's hands that beat me without risking all my chips.

And since Barry was going to end up all-in with AA or KK no matter what James did initially, I love his play. He got in with the best of it, and gave himself the best chance to win the tournament (which is no doubt what he wanted). His play also maximized EV given how much the first prize was and the fact that Randy Jensen still had a significant stack at that point.

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh?
He wins over half the time vs. two opponents with his QQ. This call is ubber easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood. I meant that since we knew what the cards were and how it played out anyone could say he should have layed it down. Certainly not at the time. I happen to agree with you and I give him credit for playing a really fine tournament as an "amateur".

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh?
He wins over half the time vs. two opponents with his QQ. This call is ubber easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood. I meant that since we knew what the cards were and how it played out anyone could say he should have layed it down. Certainly not at the time. I happen to agree with you and I give him credit for playing a really fine tournament as an "amateur".

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if (especially if) Barry and Chip showed him their cards (AKs and K5s) he has a call.
The only way he can fold is if the dealer shows him the flop preflop.

[Daliman]

Not sure if this has been broached yet, but, as it turned out, even though he went out in 3rd, there is acyually a possibility this was the best possible outcome for him, to wit;

He loses to chip anyways if he goes allin and BG folds, giving CR ~T500K, leaving him around T800K. Now, not that he got much chance to show it, CR rules, as we know, and I for one, would much rather see him gone from the table than with T500K. There is a half-decent chance he goes out in 4th if BG doesn't take down that hand, as he'd be 3rd in chips.

Then again, he could have folded, at which point in time, he's ~ T250K ( i believe) behind Randy Jensen, so he slotted 3rd anyways.

So, a case can be made, albeit not a great one, for that being a pretty good result of play for him, and one i agreed with regardless of seeing the hands or not. He did what he was supposed to do, and his $$$ overall was probably in there better with BG in the pot, especially given the fact that CR had a K.
I personally think Tippin played fantastic poker overall, the finall QQ decision was a bit of a wash i think either way all things considered, and that Randy Jensen is a joke. He made a few good plays, yes, but I consider those blind squirrel plays more than anything else. Some of his limps and raise calls are among the worst poker plays I've EVER seen a so-called "pro" make. His 9-3 offsuit limp/call raise, check flop, fold turn was exceedingly bad,( I mean, if you're calling to bluff DO IT MAN!), and he threw off an EASY 400K in stupid hands. His blind raises and one card raises, were equally bad, although the 1 carder does give the illusion of A or K, so not as bad. BU twhat do i know....

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
His 9-3 offsuit limp/call raise, check flop, fold turn was exceedingly bad,( I mean, if you're calling to bluff DO IT MAN!),

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Dali, that was an odd one. I wasn't all that impressed with the hands that they showed, either. I'm sure he's pretty good, though...he just has a different style. He's a poor man's Gus Hansen.

[Whistler]

Heres my take...if i was at the table, I call his all-in, because of the fact that the all-in is 1/3 of my stack, I would figure that Greenstien would know that I am pot commited and threrefore putting me on a fairly big hand. If he pushes I fold because I know I am up against AK AA/KK. Greenstein wouldnt push with a lesser hand imo, in THAT particular situation.

[curtains]

No chance in hell Im folding QQ in this situation. I would have usually raised allin myself if I were him.