My hand against Chris Moneymaker

[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.

[Ed Miller]

You should read Tournament Poker for Advanced Players.

[Mikey]

Dutch in no way am i saying that your play wasn't good, for the reasons you suggest I think it makes sense to put the chips in the pot as you did. You correctly put him on an underpair and you tried to represent a hand to him which had him dominated.

What I don't understand is this, many people say that how could Moneymaker make such a call with only a pair of 3's at that point, they also say it was a gutsy call, even though he put in all those chips on that hand most people say it was gutsy and he really got lucky there, now I want to take it a step further and would wonder what people would say if you were in the hand with Johnny Chan or Phil Helmuth and made that play and they called and took down the pot with those little 3's, would it make them exceptionally great players and fantastic card readers and prove to the rest of the Poker World why they are fantastic players and probably boost up their credibility in being such fantastic players.

Moneymaker had to make a decision for those chips and he put them in there and made a fantastic call. For those that say that Moneymaker got lucky there just don't understand. By him making that play and making that read it enabled him to acquire a lot of chips and thus win the tournament.

Had the Q or K fell on the turn/river for you, who knows what could have happened, you may have been the next world champion.

[prospector]

Usually whne I rebuy, I'm increasing my chances from zero(to which they've just fallen) to a slightly higher number.

[Legato]

Regarding this thread in general:

I find it quite fascinating that so many posters seem convinced that they are very much better than the average player even in tournaments such as the WSOP. Not taking chances when you know you are a clear favourite should only be reserved for the great players. Players that are merely better than the average won't get better opportunities than this in my opinion. If I raise with AA and get reraised all in early in a tournament I am very happy. I know I'm getting great odds at doubling up. I know I am a fairly good tournament player, winning considerable amounts playing mostly single tables $50-$300, but not taking my chances when I truly get the best of it is something I wouldn't even consider.

[Dutch Boyd]

Yes, it really is me, and no, I wouldn't have any problems talking about Pokerspot. Just put any questions you have in another thread... probably shouldn't be under the tournament forum.

I have pretty much stopped responding to anything that's not a question, since there isn't much that I have to say that I haven't already posted on rgp.

Dutch

[Dutch Boyd]

No disrespect meant towards David, because TPFAP is truly a great book. So is TJ's tournament books. Both of these guys were at my table on the first day.

I don't believe that the same strategy you use for a 5 hour tournament has much to do with the strategy you use for a 5 day one. I definitely know I wouldn't have gotten as far in the tourney if I did everything TPFAP suggests to do. For what it's worth... it's still the best tourney book out there, but I think it has a lot more relevance when playing the smaller events.

[M.B.E.]

Suppose on the first hand you lost T5000, half your chips.

Would that reduce your chance of making the final table from 10% to 9.9%?