What if you knew everyone's hole cards?

[gobboboy]

Beaten.

[SCfuji]

you would be able to value bet every single player to death. that would be awesome. how much for a pair of these magical sungalsses?

[MicroBob]

the value-betting would be the most obvious advantage.

You would never want to be all-in pre-flop (unless it's after you have built a big stack already and are looking to knock out a stack MUCH smaller than you who had already gone all-in).

Otherwise, those who say that you would normally want to fold AA preflop against anyone else's all-in is correct.
There's way too much at risk considering the number of chips you can win in all the other hands just by playing it out.


If you fail to get chips post-flop when you bet your winning hands then you are not playing correctly.
You can bet small and hope they raise you with nothing.
But if they just call you then that's okay too.


I think I could win the WSOP main-event perhaps as much as 40-50% of the time if I had this advantage.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I could win the WSOP main-event perhaps as much as 40-50% of the time if I had this advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you lost the WSOP main event more than 5% of the time w/ magic glasses, then you are certainly not playing optimally.

I keep coming back to this, but think how easy it would be to build a stack early with virtually zero risk. You can put someone all in anytime they couldn't call. You could charge draws the max and pick off their bluffs w/ T high on the river. At some point, nobody would even want to play with you because it would be "like you knew exactly what they had every time".

You could resteal every blind steal attempt. You could trap perfectly. You could never make a bad river decision. You could never put money in a -EV spot. You would never have to risk all your chips at any point in the tournament. The most effective strategy against you would be all in preflop when it gets short handed, but by that time you would have accumulated a huuuuge % of the chips in play and would be able to simply gamble when you had a 4:1.

It would be almost impossible to lose unless you are a complete donkey (like taking 55-45 advantages early for all your chips).

[SossMan]

A better expiriment would be if you could see one card from every opponent. I bet you still win 60-70% of the tournaments you play. Maybe more.

You guys aren't thinking about the implications enough.

[J.Brown]

unless i am missing something, wouldn't people who made really bad plays knock you out more often than we would like to admit????

can you imagine if you had this power and 10 tournaments in a row you got all your money in with the best of it (and i mean really knowing just how good you were getting it in)and getting sucked out on in every possible fashion?? What about when people bluff of there money to you and you HAVE to call and then it goes runner runner and your out??

now that would be even worse than most of the beats that you can take online, lol. just my thoughts. cheers J.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
What about when people bluff of there money to you and you HAVE to call and then it goes runner runner and your out??


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are calling all in bets on the flop for all your chips with anything less than 99% early in the tournament, then you are not playing optimally.

The key to this excersize is that you win so many chips uncontested that it would take some wacky string of super duper bad beats late in the tourney for you to not win. Remember, they don't know that you know.

[ggbman]

I am guess it should improve your chances by a factor of MUCH more than 3-5x. Take into account now that you can play every pot correctly, exercise better pot control, induce bluffs when your opponents miss their draws, never get bluffed, just shove preflop with AA because some has KK... it goes on and on. Any guess to the actual number on my part would be purely speculative.

[Hotel Detect]

Like many others have stated, and especially in tournaments with slowly escalating blinds, your advantage would be simply astounding...

After the first few levels of sniping pots you would without a doubt be a significant chipleader going into the later rounds. From there on out you would be able to "gamble" with way the best of it. Additionally your chip lead would allow you to steamroll the smaller stacks and avoid the big stacks. Why do people think that suckouts will hurt you significantly? They wont if you only play all ins against people you can take a hit from. Why tangle with big stacks at any point until the end. By the time you get down to the final three you would probably have a big enough chip lead to survive at least 3 all in situations against 2nd in chips. You could of course get incredibly unlucky at the final table, or heads up, but I can imagine winning 8/10 tournaments... 1st place... finishing in the top four in the other two. That's just a wild guess but i believe most people are way underestimating the power this would give you.

[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).