Ace-Face Early Trouble

[toby]

In my last 3 SNGs I was knocked out or crippled in two of them when allin against a weaker ace. The first was at level 2 with 9 remaining. I raised in MP3 with AKS just under 4BB. folds to EP sort of wild limper who pushes all in with A9s, I called just covering him, and he turned a 9 to win. Other hand, level 3 with T600 in BB. 2 circuits ago I pushed from BB with AA and all folded, I showed it. (6 players left) no limpers, button raises, SB calls, I push with AJo, button folds limper calls with A8o and flops another two 8's to take it down.

My question is this: Even though I was a pretty big favorite PF (2.6:1 and 2.9:1) is that too big of a chance to be knocked out? Or should I hope to double up here and accumulate some chips.

[citanul]

You should absolutely adore having these as your all in matchups. You're a huge favorite over the hands that called you. If you could be sure you were goign to be called by 3 outers every time you went all in, you should go all in every hand.

Your post is incredibly results oriented. You got called by basically the best matchup you could hope for. You'd much rather get called by these hands than 23o. (I think.) A strategy where you wouldn't be willing to take this much risk would be a strategy where you could never go all in. If you're going to lay down AK or AKs, you are probably going to lay down QQ as well, and well, you just can't really lay down any of those I don't think, not without knowing your opponent well.

Sorry if I come off a bit angry, but there have been a rash of posts lately of the form "I've been beaten several times in the last few tournaments in by these crazilly bad beatish hands, does this mean that good strategy is bad?"


Just my opinion.

citanul

[toby]

The reason I asked was actually because yesterday I read Phil Helmuths article where he talks about laying down monster hands like QQ vs 77 because the other guy "could have caught a seven and broken him" and counted on his ability to beat him later.

2 outs is even less than 3. Of course, Phil Helmuth is a much better poker player than I am, so I agree with you that I should go with the good odds and keep playing these hands how I have been and shake off the beats.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I asked was actually because yesterday I read Phil Helmuths article where he talks about laying down monster hands like QQ vs 77 because the other guy "could have caught a seven and broken him" and counted on his ability to beat him later.

2 outs is even less than 3. Of course, Phil Helmuth is a much better poker player than I am, so I agree with you that I should go with the good odds and keep playing these hands how I have been and shake off the beats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read that and thought wow Phil is an idiot.

[toby]

Hahah that's definitely the first thing I thought, however he is way up there on the money list and has a drawer full of WSOP bracelets so he must be doing something right.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
Hahah that's definitely the first thing I thought, however he is way up there on the money list and has a drawer full of WSOP bracelets so he must be doing something right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking that laying down QQ vs 77 is a good play isnt one of them.

[patrick dicaprio]

i agree that he is an idiot believe me. from what i have seen he is the worst of the big name players. but that said he is 4-1 fav to win a hand of QQ vs. 77. so if his chances of outlasting his opponent are greater than 4-1 he could be making the right play.

now i am not sure that I recall it correctly but my recollection is that i thought he was making an after the fact justification for his play rather than explaining what actually went through his mind at the time. but i would have to see the whole story again.

Pat

[37offsuit]

It's situational as to when you lay down hands like QQ. If it's the first hand of the WSOP and you're dealt QQ, someone pushes all in in front of you, do you call? I wouldn't. I know the justification here. The only hands that are really dangerous are AA, KK and AK.

But why put your entire tournament at risk with a marginal situation?

Poker is a game of odds and skill. If there are right times to bluff when you don't have the best hand but suspect that you can get someone to lay down a winner, then it is also right to lay down winners when the situation justifies it.

Yes, it's fun to pick on Phil and he makes it so easy. He gets the last laugh here, though, with his WSOP bracelets.

[NotMitch]

[ QUOTE ]
It's situational as to when you lay down hands like QQ. If it's the first hand of the WSOP and you're dealt QQ, someone pushes all in in front of you, do you call? I wouldn't. I know the justification here. The only hands that are really dangerous are AA, KK and AK.

But why put your entire tournament at risk with a marginal situation?

Poker is a game of odds and skill. If there are right times to bluff when you don't have the best hand but suspect that you can get someone to lay down a winner, then it is also right to lay down winners when the situation justifies it.

Yes, it's fun to pick on Phil and he makes it so easy. He gets the last laugh here, though, with his WSOP bracelets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes in that situation laying down QQ is fine. However trying to justify laying down QQ vs 77 because the other guy "could have caught a seven and broken him" is insane.

If on the first hand of the WSOP someone pushed and while doing so exposed 77 and it is folded around to you in the BB with QQ you have to call, and if Phil says otherwise he is wrong bracelets or no bracelets.