[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

unless i am missing something..............

if you had this power and 10 tournaments in a row you got all your money in with the best of it

[/ QUOTE ]


As sossman pointed out.
You are indeed missing something.

There is NO WAY you would want to get your money in merely with 'the best of it'.
If any same-size stack as you (or anything close to your stack really) goes all-in with 72o you should fold AA.

That's how big your advantage is post-flop.

On the turn and the river you just bet small when you have good hands....or bet when you think the opponent has such crappy cards that they have to fold like you have 44 and your opponent has 55 on a board of AKQ (although even betting in this spot is a little risky and probably unnecessary).


I simply don't understand the logic behind so many who are talking about pre-flop all-in's and 55/45 advantage and getting it in with the 'best of it' because you SO OBVIOUSLY would NEVER want to do this.


Just value-bet the crap out of every hand that is winning.
And size those bets in such a manner that you can get a call.


To Sossman - I'm still not sure about 90% or more at the WSOP ME.
Lets just round up and call it a 6,000 player field that happens to include all the world's best players.

I have a feeling that Greenstein or Sklansky or Reese or Ivey might eventually be able to figure out that something was up.

They might not know specifically that you are ALWAYS seeing their cards...but they will eventually observe that you are somehow taking every pot where you stay in (although you could counter this by actually intentionally showing-down a losing hand every once in awhile I suppose).

If a Chan or Greenstein or Sklansky is at your table then they are going to come up with some sort of appropriate 'all-in or nothing' strategy to try to counter your advantage.


Even without someone coming up with a maniac strategy to counter your x-ray vision....it's 6,000 freaking players.
And we're talking about winning the whole freaking thing.
I'm saying 50%-ish and you're saying 90%-ish (which may be closer to correct, not sure).