AA first hand, call all in?

Wow! lol. You take 5 mins to write some B.S. and look at the response in just a few hours. I'm new here, but if my B.S. can generate that much response, I'm really looking forward to the repsonse to a serious post.

Sorry. Didn't really mean to be trolling here. Just testing the waters.

[fnurt]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

My God. Any pro makes this call all day long. Let's be very clear about that.

My friend, you seem to be thinking about this in a logically sound way, but your thinking has hit a few speed bumps along the way.

The most obvious flaw is the idea that any player is better than 80% to double their initial stack. That's off by miles. Here is what I suggest: in all your tournaments, keep track of whether you manage to double your initial stack prior to busting, or whether you don't. You will find the number is not much more than 50%.

The flaw in your logic is that you assume outlasting half the field is equally as difficult as doubling your stack. But it's not close. You can easily get through the first hour of an online event simply by playing tight and not risking your chips without a big hand. At the end of that hour, half the players will be gone, and you may be up a few hundred chips or down a few hundred chips. But the mistake is to think that you've increased your winning chances merely by surviving this far.

If I have 1500 chips at the start of a 500-player tournament, my chances of winning are roughly 1/500. (Maybe I'm better than the field, and my chances are 1/400, but it doesn't matter for these purposes.) After an hour, if there are 250 players left, and I still have 1500 chips, are my chances now 1/250? No, they are 1/500, because I still have the exact same percentage of the chips in play. And if I continue to "survive" without increasing my stack, my chance of winning actually goes DOWN, because I have no ability to bully the much larger stacks around me and I have less time to wait for a big hand when the blinds increase.

You can certainly win a tournament with "a chip and a chair" - I've done it too - but the simplest and clearest road to victory starts with increasing your stack early. Because when you build a big stack early, not only do you have the ability to push around other players, but when you do get that big hand and double up you get the maximum benefit from your double-up.

The idea that any pro lays down AA preflop on the first hand is crazy.

[Toddy]

If you don't call this you shouldn't be playing.

[ QUOTE ]
Phil Ivey or another top pro has AA in BB the first hand in a major tournament, like WPT or WSOP. Folded to unknown SB who moves all in.

Will he call?

What if button moves all in and SB calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the hypothetical situation you have created any pro would beat you senseless for thinking of laying down AA. I would advocate the same for posting this thread.

This really has been beat to death on this forum already. Rather than repost this useless nonsense how about you go read one of the hundreds of useless threads on this same topic? Or better yet, read something useful and learn something. There are very few cases where laying down AA preflop is the right move, and this is not one of them.

I thought that my 10/17/05 11:34 AM post made this clear, but apparently not.

I WAS JOKING.

I'm sorry to have created the mayhem. I was just trying to gauge reaction. I promise I won't do it again. If you want to blast me for making the post at all, that's fine. I deserve it. But can we drop the actual discussion of this stupid question?

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that my 10/17/05 11:34 AM post made this clear, but apparently not.

I WAS JOKING.

I'm sorry to have created the mayhem. I was just trying to gauge reaction. I promise I won't do it again. If you want to blast me for making the post at all, that's fine. I deserve it. But can we drop the actual discussion of this stupid question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Congratulations on your little joke. How about if you go screw yourself now.

[illegit]

Most elaborate and unfunny joke ever. Instead of being awful at poker you're awful at comedy. Congratulations.

I mean, maybe if you had a reputation for being a joker the post by be seen differently but when it's your first post ever it most likely is exactly what it looks like, that is pure ignorance. And I'm quite sure that IS what it was, and this is now you backpeddaling.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that my 10/17/05 11:34 AM post made this clear, but apparently not.

I WAS JOKING.

I'm sorry to have created the mayhem. I was just trying to gauge reaction. I promise I won't do it again. If you want to blast me for making the post at all, that's fine. I deserve it. But can we drop the actual discussion of this stupid question?

[/ QUOTE ]

My reply was not directed at you. Your post is of a different nature - bad advice. It's generally recommended that, until you know what you're talking about, you refrain from giving advice in posts.

It's easy to say now that it was a joke, but you took the time to write out something that appeared well written and thought out which doesn't read as a joke at all. Someone who doesn't know better might read your post and take it as fact, especially if they have the misfortune of having read your post before the regular posters here tore it apart.

I can smell a bluff and this one reeks.

Thanks for the apology anyway... meh.

[jwiles]

please delete this thread!