AA on the BB

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
so if you are in a tournament you better be able to go broke right away or you are throwing away money

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true, even though it sounds good. Many experienced players advocate giving up a smaller edge on a hand in a tourney to wait for a bigger edge later on. The usual benchmark as I learned it was 70% to go all in. Not 30% on the first day. It does correlate with cost and availability of the tourney. If it was a $5 tourney, no problem. Same if the tourney had rebuys. Another one will be along as soon as you bust. A 10K? They don't happen often enough. It's an adjustment you make. Having 90k in chips out of 60 million chips available really isn't putting you that far ahead of anyone in the tourney. This isn't a ringgame where you try and take every edge possible. Some edges you give way to until a better edge comes along.

b

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]


This isn't true, even though it sounds good. Many experienced players advocate giving up a smaller edge on a hand in a tourney to wait for a bigger edge later on. The usual benchmark as I learned it was 70% to go all in. Not 30% on the first day. It does correlate with cost and availability of the tourney. If it was a $5 tourney, no problem. Same if the tourney had rebuys. Another one will be along as soon as you bust. A 10K? They don't happen often enough. It's an adjustment you make. Having 90k in chips out of 60 million chips available really isn't putting you that far ahead of anyone in the tourney. This isn't a ringgame where you try and take every edge possible. Some edges you give way to until a better edge comes along.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

actually this isn't true... we aren't talking about a small edge here.

you say 30% like its small. Every single pro (even the latest fanboy craze players) should call AA allin if the first 9 move(or 8) allin at the WSOP on the first day.

NO professional has a 30% chance of building his stack to 10x its starting size before going bust.

(if you don't believe the above statement Sklansky discusses a similar topic in TPFAP which might help you understand. if you still don't believe I will gladly take a prop bet on this)

the bigger the tournament the more inclined you should be to build a stack in this manner. The reason is that no matter what happens you are going to need to build a large stack to cash and this is by far the lowest risk method to building your stack to 10xthe buyin if you do in fact have a 30% chance of success.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]

The basic premise of pot odds is that you will see the same situation multiple times and by playing the odds you will come out ahead. This situation, AA in the BB, everybody all in with even chip stacks in the WSOP is highly unlikely to occur once let alone multiple times. This makes calculation of pot odds invalid for decision making in this situation. All you have are the odds of AA winning against 9 other hands. What you do with those odds depends on how much gamble you have in you.

starbits

[/ QUOTE ]

in no way does that invalidate a pots odds calculation at all. It doesn't matter if you only have one oppurtunity at a particular wager or not, to maximize profits you need to maximize your expected value.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]



This isn't true, even though it sounds good. Many experienced players advocate giving up a smaller edge on a hand in a tourney to wait for a bigger edge later on. The usual benchmark as I learned it was 70% to go all in. Not 30% on the first day. It does correlate with cost and availability of the tourney. If it was a $5 tourney, no problem. Same if the tourney had rebuys. Another one will be along as soon as you bust. A 10K? They don't happen often enough. It's an adjustment you make. Having 90k in chips out of 60 million chips available really isn't putting you that far ahead of anyone in the tourney. This isn't a ringgame where you try and take every edge possible. Some edges you give way to until a better edge comes along.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

ok maybe this will help explain it. you start with 1000 in chips and everything goes smoothly somehow and you never have to pay blinds and you always get your money in as a 70% fav all in.

all in once, chance of success: 70%
#of chips after allin: 2000

all in twice, chance of success: 49%
#of chips after allin: 4000

all in three times, chance of success: 34.3%
#of chips after allin: 8000

all in three times + one time you set a short stack allin as seventy percent favorite: 24.01%
#of chips after 4 hands: 10000

now this is very unrealistic because not only would you have to win my four hypothetical parlays but you would also have to be winning your fair share of blinds(of course you could perhaps be winning more than your fair share as well), and you would actually have to be able to find 4 hands where someone is willing to go all in with you when you are a huge favorite. I am just trying to illustrate how trying to parlay allin over and over as a seventy percent favorite has a high ROR.

Furthermore, noone is folding 77 in the pokerstove hand below. so its very likely you aren't going to be able to be 70% favorite everytime. I mean everyone (including the great pros) go all in on occasion thinking they are a 70% favorite when they are in reality drawing dead or very near it. If you added to my little scenerio that you only had a 90% chance of being a 70% favorite and a 10% chance of being a 50% favorite (a rather kind assumption) then the ROR would be even higher.

990 games 0.005 secs 198,000 games/sec

Board: 7h 6h 2d
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 42.1212 % [ 00.42 00.00 ] { 9h8h }
Hand 2: 57.8788 % [ 00.58 00.00 ] { 7s7c }

[Sakuraba]

[ QUOTE ]

The basic premise of pot odds is that you will see the same situation multiple times and by playing the odds you will come out ahead. This situation, AA in the BB, everybody all in with even chip stacks in the WSOP is highly unlikely to occur once let alone multiple times. This makes calculation of pot odds invalid for decision making in this situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

The thought that pot odds do not matter unless you see the exact same situation multiple times is silly.

In general, you want to mazimize the EV of all gambling decisions. It does not matter that it is the exact same situation each time, just that you maximize EV over multiple situations.

There are other factors to consider in tournaments, but that doesn't seem to be your point. I have never seen this in a cash game at my friend Joe's house either, so does this mean pot odds would be invalid if it happened there?

What if (for some reason) you believe that 2 players have AK and AQ, and that everyone else has a pocket pair?

you forgot to say if you won your way in or ponied up the 10K for the WSOP. let's not forget that there are still people who enjoy playing the game, and i'd be damned to throw away 10K in the first hour at the WSOP.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]

you forgot to say if you won your way in or ponied up the 10K for the WSOP. let's not forget that there are still people who enjoy playing the game, and i'd be damned to throw away 10K in the first hour at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]
if you enjoy playing the game then you shouldn't let that stop you from busting. there are thousands of other games you can hop right in after losing.

[ QUOTE ]
For those (many) who say if you fold on the final table it makes you automatically 2th (or 3th with split pot).
No, this hand will remove an almost random number of players from the pot depending on their stack sizes. (a bit complicated with the side pots, but on average more than half the players will be removed yes)
Your own stack size can also help you decide here. If you have the biggest stack, you could call because you won't get bust if you lose, and still many people will be out.


[/ QUOTE ]

note that the original post said everyone had the same amount of chips.

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
the only way this many players is going to call all in as well is if they have high pocket pairs or just very bad players with this many people AA is going to get beat too often to make it profitable and its just too big of a risk at a tournement

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL