My hand against Chris Moneymaker

[Dutch Boyd]

I don't often read 2+2, so sorry that this comes a bit late... I noticed a lot of posts about that particular hand and decided I'd give my thoughts on it.

First off, here's how the hand went down (roughly, as I remember it)... There are I think 15 players left. I have about 850k in front of me and Moneymaker has about 700k... so we're both looking pretty good to make the final table. Sixteenth place pays 65k... it jumps up to 80k when you get to 12th.

So I think there were 7 players at our table. Blinds are about 15k-30k, I think, and there are antes. I was in the cutoff and saw my KQo. I raised a little more than 3x the BB... $100k if I remember right. Moneymaker calls. Everyone else folds.

Flop comes out 942 rainbow. I think about it for a second and decide to check... I know Moneymaker will bet no matter what he has in that spot... a small pair... overcards... an overpair... whatever. I also know that I no longer have the best hand... whatever he called with is sure to beat an unimproved KQ.

So I check and he bets $100k... the same I raised before the flop. I read him for weakness and put him on either a small pair under 99s or an ace. But I figure it's much, much more likely that he has a small pair than an ace... at this stage he wouldn't be calling with an ace hand. If it was ace-rag, he wouldn't play... if it was a big ace, he'd raise preflop. So I think about it for a second and decide the following:

(1) He has a small pair under 99s;

(2) This guy is out of his league, and there is no way he's going to risk busting out of the WSOP in 15th place when he has $500k in chips. No way in hell he'll call a raise. So I decide to raise.

(3) I decide the hand I want to represent is pocket tens, and decide how he would think I'd play that hand in this spot. I decide that raising all-in is probably how he'd think I'd play it, since I'd be worried about overcards but also pretty sure I have the best hand. I knew there was no chance in hell he'd read me for a set.

At this point I want to point out something about the interaction of me staring him down that so many people have commented made me look really week. I agree. I did look weak there, because I didn't care whether or not he thought I was weak or not... that interaction happened in a hand about twenty minutes later where he made a bet on the river for all my chips and I was thinking of calling him down with a pair of fives. I folded... calling would have been right, though, as he showed a busted seven high flush... a stone cold bluff. The actual interaction that took place between us during the KQ v. 33 hand wasn't all that interesting... I checked after about 15 seconds, he raised after about 5, and I reraised all-in after about another 15 seconds... didn't say anything. He thought about the call for about two minutes... got up from his chair and paced a bit... ran his fingers through his hair. Then sat down and said he called, with the same tone of voice he had in his interview about not letting anybody push him around. You all know what happened after that... the board didn't help, I was crippled, and Chris had the lead.

Looking back on the hand, I think it was a mistake to raise all-in. If I had raised 300k, it would have basically been making the same play forcing him to decide whether he's putting all his chips on a pair. But I still think he would have moved all-in on me, and I definitely would have felt a lot dumber calling the last $200k with KQo then making the all-in play myself.

As to whether or not it was a good play, I'll say a couple things. First off, I definitely would not have made the call... and I talked to Amir Vahedi after the hand, and he told me that even if I had turned my cards face up, he wouldn't have called. Second off, I don't think it was a bad call at all. It reminds me a lot of a hypothetical hand that I read on RGP and I've been thinking about for a year... first day, first hand, you're in the BB with AK. Everyone folds to the SB, who raises all-in... while pushing in his stack, he accidently flips over his cards... QJ. Do you call?

Some say yes, some say no... I think the answer depends on what level you're playing at. The correct strategy in bigger no-limit tournaments is not to double up, but rather to get your chips into the pot when you know you're going to be winning it. I was all-in one time before the Moneymaker hand crippled me... it was with AA preflop against KK... and I felt sick about it (and looking back, I made a mistake. I knew he had KK, and should have waited for the flop to make sure my AA held up, since I know if rags come he's putting the chips in anyway). Think about it. You're only 4.5:1 to win. On one hand, that's huge, but string three of those together and you're less than even money to still be in the tournament. It's not a bad beat for aces not to hold up if you have four or five times where you're all-in with them preflop.

So basically, I think when it got down to 15, Chris was one of the better players left... and I think his chances of winning don't increase as much by making the call (even though he's the favorite in the hand) as they go down. I think he still would have been in the top three had he folded that hand... and by calling, 25% of the time he's out of the tourney and people remember him the same way they'll remember Olaf with his call of AK.

Bottom line is tournaments are won by making huge calls for all your chips... they're won by making huge bets when you are confident the other guy isn't calling. I was so confident that he had a tiny pocket pair and there was no way he'd have the balls to call me. So I either underestimated him or overestimated him, and I'm leaning towards underestimating him... regardless it was the biggest mistake I made in that tournament.

Dutch

[sam h]

I dunno Dutch. I think you're putting a little too much weight on this "get your money in only as a huge favorite" thing.

Not to call with all your chips with AK vs QJ (about a 2-1 favorite) on the first hand seems crazy to me. You need a lot of luck to win a poker tournament, especially one that size. To me, any time you're gambling with an edge greater than the edge you hold over the field in skill is a good time to get your chips in. Is anybody good enough to be passing up 2-1 odds, let alone the 4-1 odds of an overpair vs underpair situation? Sure, if you have to win a 2-1 type of confrontation five times in a row, it's something like 7-1 against. But if somebody offered to give you a huge stack going into the third day once in exchange for seven times busting out early, you'd be crazy not to accept, IMHO.

As far as Moneymaker's call, think about it this way. One out of four times he's going home with 65K, three out of four times he's got 1.4M in chips in front of him and is basically assured of final table money and likely better unless disaster strikes. I probably would have folded, figuring that the possibility I was drawing to two outs was too high, but if he did in fact know your cards as Amir said, folding would have been crazy.

But I wasn't there. You seem to be indicating that the other players left were generally very weak and would be easy to roll over even without a big stack. While it seems difficult to hold a signficant enough edge over a large field including many great players to profitably pass up good chances to grow your chips at the beginning of the tournament, if you were up against the right lineup of weak players caught in the headlights at the end of a tournament, I guess you could start passing on a lot of otherwise good opportunities.

[Ross]

Thanks for the post. If I was in Moneymakers position, I pass as would most players. The only reason I would call is the size of your final bet which might suggest you do'nt want a call. Either way its a gutsy call.

Out of interest Moneymaker reraises preflop do you call ?

Ross

[cferejohn]

Thanks for taking the time to post this Dutch. This has indeed been the subject of many a conversation (although most of it has been focused on Moneymaker's call rather than your raise). Actually, there was a thread that centered around this topic recently:

[ QUOTE ]
The correct strategy in bigger no-limit tournaments is not to double up, but rather to get your chips into the pot when you know you're going to be winning it. I was all-in one time before the Moneymaker hand crippled me... it was with AA preflop against KK... and I felt sick about it (and looking back, I made a mistake. I knew he had KK, and should have waited for the flop to make sure my AA held up, since I know if rags come he's putting the chips in anyway). Think about it. You're only 4.5:1 to win. On one hand, that's huge, but string three of those together and you're less than even money to still be in the tournament. It's not a bad beat for aces not to hold up if you have four or five times where you're all-in with them preflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

The flaw in the reasoning here, imho, is that *if* you are fortunate to get AA v. KK three times, and you get all the chips in each time, the odds of you getting busted are very small, unless you get busted on the very first one. Certainly if you've won 2 of those, it is very likely that the third one would not be for all your chips since you would likely be the chip leader or close to it after winning the first 2.

And that's the point really. Sure, there's a risk to putting all your chips in the middle, but the reward of doing it is that it makes it likely that the *next* time you need to put all the chips middle, you're going to be the bigger stack.

I've never played in a multi-day event (the biggest event I've ever played was the final event at this year's WCOOP - you and Moneymaker were at my table for teh brief time I was there), so perhaps the logic is different. Certainly in an online tournament with 15 minute levels if someone went all in on the first hand and I had AA I would call them. In the WSOP, well I think I would too, but it would produce a much larger sinking feeling in my stomach.

Well, that won't win any awards for conciseness and clarity. Thanks again for taking the time to write about what can't be a very fond memory. Congratulations on making the money at the WSOP.

Chris

[M.B.E.]

I just posted a calculation in another thread on the math of Moneymaker's call. My conclusion was that he should call if he thought there was a 35.4% chance (or higher) that Boyd was bluffing with overcards only:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

Here are some other threads commenting on this hand:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;o=&vc=1

[microlimitaddict]

"The flaw in the reasoning here, imho, is that *if* you are fortunate to get AA v. KK three times, and you get all the chips in each time, the odds of you getting busted are very small, unless you get busted on the very first one. Certainly if you've won 2 of those, it is very likely that the third one would not be for all your chips since you would likely be the chip leader or close to it after winning the first 2.

And that's the point really. Sure, there's a risk to putting all your chips in the middle, but the reward of doing it is that it makes it likely that the *next* time you need to put all the chips middle, you're going to be the bigger stack. "




I understand the ideas you are presenting but can't say i agree. however, it should be noted that the following concepts are presented by a total amateur who hangs around the low-level tourneys (hey, i finished 2nd out of 297 in a $1 tourney the other day..so maybe i don't suck so much afterall).

first, i think that throughout the course of a 5-day tourney you can't exactly count on your first one or two AA all-in's not being met by another situation where most or all of your chips are not at risk. with that many players in that long a tourney youre bound to run into other big stacks as the tables are combined.

by going all-in at the beginning (in the AK vs. QJ example) you are putting yourself in a position where you have a decent chance to be the first player eliminated.

dutch's point is well taken and i couldn't agree more. you don't want to be going all-in (pre-flop) throughout the course of a large tourney even when you are at an advantage.
if you are going to survive then all-in's need to be saved for the nuts and situations where you are confident you will not be called. obviously, dutch was under the impression of the latter in his all-in.
i suspect that the players that go all-in when they figure they are at an advantage are the players that either get very lucky OR don't get to the final table.

a couple of other points - first, there was a post on an earlier thread by someone who says he was there and witnessed the exchange between dutch and chris on the hand in question. obviously, this seems to contradict Dutch's assertion that it was edited in from a different hand. i wonder if someone not as lazy as me could find that post or if perhaps the poster in question could defend his claim.

even with the knowledge that the famous "tell" didn't take place on this hand, i still believe it was played poorly by both sides....but not quite so much as i did before.

special thanks to Dutch for coming on here and going into such terrifc detail on his logic on the hand. great to read such in depth analysis from the player himself after all the discussion on the forums. he didn't have to do it...especially after some of the criticims he took (from yours truly included).

it is also interesting to note that as i write this i just got knocked out on an AA all-in in a $3 NL tourn. AA vs. KK vs. AQs. the K came on the flop of course and someone had a nice triple-up at my expense. oh well, maybe next time. i just found it somewhat ironic and wanted to share.

however, i am up 55 BB's in a ring-game on a terrific run of cards (my boats are coming on suited boards...my 24 in the BB is met by flop of A35...etc etc....love it when that happens).

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
dutch's point is well taken and i couldn't agree more. you don't want to be going all-in (pre-flop) throughout the course of a large tourney even when you are at an advantage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, OK, I don't neccessarily *want* to go all-in early on, and I won't be shoving all my chips in if there is not a damn good reason to do it, but lets say you have AA on the first day and someone shoves all-in preflop. Are you calling or are you folding a hand that you know is a *significant* favorite to win preflop agasint anything the other player may have (unless you are tied, of course).

I understand the logic where you may not want to purposely try to get all your chips in even with a fairly big advantage. That is, given the choice between taking down a 2000 chip pot now and having a chance to double up my 10,000 on a 70/30 shot, I can see taking the 2000 chips. But I'm not going to fold AA just because "I don't want to risk all my chips early in the tournament".

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
by going all-in at the beginning (in the AK vs. QJ example) you are putting yourself in a position where you have a decent chance to be the first player eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but there's no particular shame in being the first player eliminated -- especially when you had much the best of it at the time you put in your chips. It depends on your goal. If your primary goal is to maximize the probability of still being around on day 2, then of course fold the AK. But if your primary goal is to maximize your real-dollar EV then this is an easy call. Yes you've got a 1/3 chance of being eliminated, but you've got a 2/3 chance of substantially increasing the probability of finishing in the money. To take a rough estimate, suppose you figured before the tournament that you had about a 10% chance of finishing in the money. If you win the first hand and double through, you're then going to have about a 20% chance of finishing in the money. If your goal is to finish in the money (or to maximize your real-dollar EV, which is not the same thing but close for present purposes), then you've got to take these risks and stick in all your chips when you know you're a 2:1 favourite.

I do acknowledge however that you don't want to take the risk if you're only a small favourite. For example, I would not go all in with pocket 7s against the flashed QJ, even though pocket 7s is a small favourite. Against QJo I'd probably want, at a minimum, K9s which is a 3:2 favourite.

Also, I would assume that those who say to fold AK against the flashed all-in QJ would agree that you should call with AA. So on both sides it's really just a question of where you draw the line.

One interesting variation: suppose the player going all in flashes QJo and you happen to have QJs. If you call you'll probably tie but you have a 7% chance of winning and a 2% chance of losing. I say that's a very easy call.

[ QUOTE ]
if you are going to survive then all-in's need to be saved for the nuts and situations where you are confident you will not be called.

[/ QUOTE ]

That just doesn't come up often enough. To do well in a no-limit tournament, you simply have to call sometimes for all your chips without the nuts. That's what Chris Moneymaker did on the KQ vs. 33 hand. He was getting 2:1 pot odds and he figured there was a high probability that Dutch was bluffing (I posted the mathematical analysis on another forum). Folding would have been terrible. Even if he thought there was just a 50-50 chance that Dutch was bluffing, Moneymaker had an easy call. On the other hand, if Moneymaker thought there was only a 30% chance that Dutch was bluffing, then folding would have been correct.

[ QUOTE ]
i suspect that the players that go all-in when they figure they are at an advantage are the players that either get very lucky OR don't get to the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But the important question is this: how many players at the final table have played the tournament in such a way that they constantly fold before the flop where they figure they are a 2:1 favourite. The answer is very few, if any. All the players at the final table got lucky at key points -- usually several key points. But most of them also were unlucky once or twice during the tournament and managed to survive.

Look at it this way. Over a 5-day tournament with 800 entrants, perhaps 200 are going to be "fairly lucky" over the 5 days. That doesn't mean they win every single hand, but it means they win more than their "fair share". That part is just random, it has nothing to do with their skill. Now the final table is simply going to be a selection of some of the most skilful players from among those 200.

If you take several calculated risks during the tournament -- such as putting in all your chips preflop when you're a 2:1 favourite -- then I agree you might not make the final table. You might be among the 600 players who are not "fairly lucky" over that 5-day period, through no fault of your own. But if you consistently turn down those high-EV situations, then almost certainly you won't make the final table. And that would be your own fault.

[ QUOTE ]
a couple of other points - first, there was a post on an earlier thread by someone who says he was there and witnessed the exchange between dutch and chris on the hand in question. obviously, this seems to contradict Dutch's assertion that it was edited in from a different hand. i wonder if someone not as lazy as me could find that post or if perhaps the poster in question could defend his claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the link:
Jedi Poker's post of May 23, 2003

[prospector]

M.B.E, I have a hard time believing that doubling through on the first hand in a five day tournament will come anywhere close to doubling a player's chance to finish in the money. Of course it does increase the chance, but I would think it might increase a 10% chance to 10.1% or even less. Could you explain how you arrived at the 20% figure?

[M.B.E.]

You're right it's a little less than 20% but way more than 10.1%. It should be something like 18% or 19%.

The reason is the same as why you should generally rebuy in tournaments where that's allowed.

It's well known that if all players are equally skilful, your probability of winning the tournament is precisely the number of tournament chips you have divided by the number of tournament chips in play. Double your chips and you double your probability of winning. Your probability of finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. might not double but it would be close.