++ Stars $500k garunteed ++

[Proofrock]

i know this goes without saying, but ...

anytime you're all-in and win you've gotten lucky -- even if your opponent is drawing dead, you've gotten lucky that he was in the hand at all. I don't care if it's KQ vs. 33 or AA vs. 27o.

In fact, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say there are 3423 people in the tournament. You have to double up 11.74 times to win. Now, let's say 11.74 times you are dealt AA in this tournament, and each time you get all-in against 72o. You are 88.2% to win each hand. You are less than 23% to win this 11.74 times.

It goes without saying that anybody who wins any tournament has gotten lucky. This is poker. But that doesn't detract from a tournament full of great reads, great thinking, great decisions, and all around great play.

Great job, ZeeJustin.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
i know this goes without saying, but ...

anytime you're all-in and win you've gotten lucky -- even if your opponent is drawing dead, you've gotten lucky that he was in the hand at all. I don't care if it's KQ vs. 33 or AA vs. 27o.

In fact, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say there are 3423 people in the tournament. You have to double up 11.74 times to win. Now, let's say 11.74 times you are dealt AA in this tournament, and each time you get all-in against 72o. You are 88.2% to win each hand. You are less than 23% to win this 11.74 times.

It goes without saying that anybody who wins any tournament has gotten lucky. This is poker. But that doesn't detract from a tournament full of great reads, great thinking, great decisions, and all around great play.

Great job, ZeeJustin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in all fairness, one could argue that a great tournament player wouldn't be all-in for all of his chips that often, and instead, would generally be putting others all-in, so that it is not actually he who needs to get lucky by having his hand hold up multiple times, but others.

Also, great job ZJ!

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i know this goes without saying, but ...

anytime you're all-in and win you've gotten lucky -- even if your opponent is drawing dead, you've gotten lucky that he was in the hand at all. I don't care if it's KQ vs. 33 or AA vs. 27o.

In fact, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say there are 3423 people in the tournament. You have to double up 11.74 times to win. Now, let's say 11.74 times you are dealt AA in this tournament, and each time you get all-in against 72o. You are 88.2% to win each hand. You are less than 23% to win this 11.74 times.

It goes without saying that anybody who wins any tournament has gotten lucky. This is poker. But that doesn't detract from a tournament full of great reads, great thinking, great decisions, and all around great play.

Great job, ZeeJustin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in all fairness, one could argue that a great tournament player wouldn't be all-in for all of his chips that often, and instead, would generally be putting others all-in, so that it is not actually he who needs to get lucky by having his hand hold up multiple times, but others.

Also, great job ZJ!

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. Oh well. Everyone on here wants to argue with me so be it..

Im always wrong.. Im a losing fish.. Whatever.

[Proofrock]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, in all fairness, one could argue that a great tournament player wouldn't be all-in for all of his chips that often, and instead, would generally be putting others all-in, so that it is not actually he who needs to get lucky by having his hand hold up multiple times, but others.

Also, great job ZJ!

[/ QUOTE ]

My example was oversimplified, sure, but I don't think the statement you made makes much logical difference.

(1) You had to acquire those chips somewhere if you have your opponents covered. At some point, you put your chips at jeopardy to get those extra chips.

(2) Let's say you more often put somebody else all-in for all their chips than you go all-in yourself. You can lose more of these and stay alive, but you also have to win more of these to continue accumulating. Lose one or two in a row, and suddenly it is you who is being put all-in.

I think it is generally agreed that the skill in poker involves pushing your edges. If you have an edge against somebody with half of your stack, or somebody who has you covered, a great tournament player pushes that edge, even for all of his chips.

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, in all fairness, one could argue that a great tournament player wouldn't be all-in for all of his chips that often, and instead, would generally be putting others all-in, so that it is not actually he who needs to get lucky by having his hand hold up multiple times, but others.

Also, great job ZJ!

[/ QUOTE ]

My example was oversimplified, sure, but I don't think the statement you made makes much logical difference.

(1) You had to acquire those chips somewhere if you have your opponents covered. At some point, you put your chips at jeopardy to get those extra chips.

(2) Let's say you more often put somebody else all-in for all their chips than you go all-in yourself. You can lose more of these and stay alive, but you also have to win more of these to continue accumulating. Lose one or two in a row, and suddenly it is you who is being put all-in.

I think it is generally agreed that the skill in poker involves pushing your edges. If you have an edge against somebody with half of your stack, or somebody who has you covered, a great tournament player pushes that edge, even for all of his chips.

[/ QUOTE ]



Edit: Actually he went all in with KQ preflop...

Still awful IMO to reraise and go all in with garbage like that.


What decent player does such a thing? Seriously.

you are missing some of the key points where tournament and cash game strats vary.