[prayformojo]

[ QUOTE ]
Not only does Phil Ivey not call, I don't either. Yes, he's getting great odds, but for what? Let's say the odds are 80/20. Then 20% of the time he busts out, and 80% of the time he doubles up early.

There are two issues. (1) How likely is he to double the initial stack anyway, eventually? (Answer: probably better than 80% -- on average he only needs to outlast half the field. Heck, even I do that more than 80% of the time.) (2) How much of an advantage is it for him to double his stack earlier rather than later? If he is a lesser player, I think that the answer is *a lot*, because now he doesn't have to gamble so much in order to make up for the fact that he is a lesser player -- he can wait for great hands. But Phil *already* doesn't have to gamble to make up for being a lesser player. So it seems to me that the 80% chance of getting a double-sized stack early, while obviously wonderful, does not outweigh the 20% chance of going bust immediately.

Obviously, later in the tournament, when doubling your stack becomes increasingly difficult, and the average skill-level of the other players is higher, it makes more and more sense to take the gamble. But on the first hand? I wouldn't take that gamble, and, as they say, I'm no Phil Ivey.

There is another way to look at it. How much does doubling the stack increase his chances to finish in the money? Let's suppose that the top 10% of the places are paid, and that all the players are equal (just to make things simple), and that Phil's main goal is to finish in the money. Then in order for the call to make sense EV-wise, it must increase his chances of finishing in the money to around 13%. Does it? Well, there are complicated arguments about how initial stack sizes affects the chances of finishing in the money, and you can sort through those arguments if you want. I personally don't think that this initial double-up (*if* you double up -- remember that there is a chance you will split the pot) increases your odds by that much. This is *especially* true (in my opinion) if you are a good player.

There is also this to consider: if the all-in player is a good player, chances are he has AA (even though statistically this is very unlikely), which means you are just getting your money back if you call. If he does *not* have AA, then he is a moron, and probably dead money anyway, so you certainly don't care that he steals the blinds once in a while, and you have no immediate need to bust him. And in the second scenario, at least one of the players is clearly a moron (because you have AA, so at least one of them doesn't), and the other probably has AA, so you aren't even doubling up (if you win).

[/ QUOTE ]

God help us. This is going to be good.