Theoretical situation.. first hand of the WSOP main event

[ QUOTE ]
If you're so afraid to play against Phil Ivey that you open-fold AA pre-flop, you probably shouldn't be playing in the WSOP in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read all the post before you make incorrect comments.
What I said was that if I was in the SB, and Phil Ivey was in the BB, then I would fold everything except AA, in which case I would go all-in. Because I'm so sh!t scared of Phil Ivey.
And if that happens, and Phil Ivey has AA in the BB, then he should instantly fold because he would immediately deduce (as he is the greatest) that
(i) I'm sh!t scared of getting involved with him
(ii) because of (i), he knows that I would fold everything except AA
(iii) so because I actually decided to play at all, he KNOWS that I have AA. The fact that I went all in makes perfect sense to him because he KNOWS that I do not want to be be outplayed, so all-in is my only move.
So, for the above reasons, he knows that the best thing to do is fold, as the chances of doubling up are equal to the chances of getting knocked out. And he's too good a player to rely on 50/50 type situations.

What part of my Raymeresque type explanation do people not understand ?

[ QUOTE ]
Is God so powerfull that he can microwave a burrito so hot that he himself can't eat it?


[/ QUOTE ]

only on the first tuesday of months beginning with the letter J

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize if such a thread has been created before, but here we go...

Imagine you are a pro, say someone as good as Phil Ivey. It is the first hand of the WSOP main event. You are in the BB. Everyone folds to the SB, who moves all in.

You look down and find AA. Regardless of what you believe the SB to have... is this an instant call?

Some people seem to argue that someone as good as Phil Ivey doesn't need to take such a quick risk, even tho he is a very likely favourite to any of the SB's range of hands. Some would argue that he could "out play" many other plays without having to risk all of his chips.

Then again, winning this pot would put Phil in a great position to be very aggressive, and dominate the table, and perhaps the rest of the tournament.

Some argue, if you're not willing to put everything in with AA in this situation, maybe you don't have what it takes to win the tournament, since you obviously need some luck to get there anyways. What better than to move your money in with the best hand possible preflop?

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two things at play here.

1. No player is good enough to even have a 70% chance of doubling up in a tournament. So they cannont pass this up.

2. A great player will have an increased advantage having the table covered.

[henrikrh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're so afraid to play against Phil Ivey that you open-fold AA pre-flop, you probably shouldn't be playing in the WSOP in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read all the post before you make incorrect comments.
What I said was that if I was in the SB, and Phil Ivey was in the BB, then I would fold everything except AA, in which case I would go all-in. Because I'm so sh!t scared of Phil Ivey.
And if that happens, and Phil Ivey has AA in the BB, then he should instantly fold because he would immediately deduce (as he is the greatest) that
(i) I'm sh!t scared of getting involved with him
(ii) because of (i), he knows that I would fold everything except AA
(iii) so because I actually decided to play at all, he KNOWS that I have AA. The fact that I went all in makes perfect sense to him because he KNOWS that I do not want to be be outplayed, so all-in is my only move.
So, for the above reasons, he knows that the best thing to do is fold, as the chances of doubling up are equal to the chances of getting knocked out. And he's too good a player to rely on 50/50 type situations.

What part of my Raymeresque type explanation do people not understand ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the original post. AA vs xx not AA vs AA

If someone went all in and showed his aces as he did it then you might fold, but that's just a stupid hypothetical, no one would waste their aces like that. Even if the range is tiny its still a range, say 80% AA and 19% KK 1% something else and the call would sitll be correct.

No one would fold AA preflop here unless their game is seriosuly flawed, it's wrong in theor and in practice, you cannot win the argument.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
You should read all the post before you make incorrect comments.
What I said was that if I was in the SB, and Phil Ivey was in the BB, then I would fold everything except AA, in which case I would go all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe YOU would ONLY play AA from that spot, and only PUSH AA from that spot, but not every donkey would. Not even close. Not even remotely close. Take it from a donkey who played in the 2005 ME. There's no player's range that is AA, and only AA there - even against Phil Ivey. Well, clearly, there are players whose range is only AA there (you, RacingSilver, for instance) -- but Phil (and neither can any other player) KNOW that -- at least, not with enough certainty to lay down AA there.

I suspect even if you TOLD him you had Aces, he'd still call. I suspect even if you TOLD him before the hand started: "I'm folding everything but AA, and I'm pushing AA" -- and it got folded around to you, and you pushed -- I suspect he'd still call, because the chances of you lying are FAR GREATER than him calling with aces and losing to your aces.

[ QUOTE ]
he KNOWS that I have AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Never. In that spot, there is no way he KNOWS the sb has AA. He may suspect it, he may put the SB on it - he may even think so to a high degree - put a percent on it - maybe he's 75% confident the SB has AA? 80%? Even if he's NINETY PERCENT sure the SB has AA, he's still correct to call. Either way, there's no way (insert any player in the world) is folding AA in that spot short of someone with X-ray vision who can see the sb's aces. I don't think Clark Kent has taken up poker yet, so I think you can be pretty damned sure no one would ever fold AA there, ever.

[ QUOTE ]
What part of my Raymeresque type explanation do people not understand ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yikes. Raymer-esque just doesn't mean what it used to, apparently.

Either way...I think everyone understands, because this topic or something similar comes up about once a week -- but even though everyone understands, you'll be very hard-pressed to find anyone who agrees with you.

[ QUOTE ]
Read the original post. AA vs xx not AA vs AA


[/ QUOTE ]

I politely suggest that YOU read the original post, and then my posts. You will see that if I go all-in as the SB in this situation, then Phil Ivey, with his superhuman powers of deduction, his godlike card-reading skills, his infallible psychological profiling, his proven ESP expertise, his ability to be in the zone, etc. etc. will know I have AA.

So to YOU i.e. Average Joe, it is AA v xx.
But to the imperious Ivey, it is AA v AA.

Now, for the last time, what part of my reasoning do you not understand ?

[henrikrh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read the original post. AA vs xx not AA vs AA


[/ QUOTE ]

I politely suggest that YOU read the original post, and then my posts. You will see that if I go all-in as the SB in this situation, then Phil Ivey, with his superhuman powers of deduction, his godlike card-reading skills, his infallible psychological profiling, his proven ESP expertise, his ability to be in the zone, etc. etc. will know I have AA.

So to YOU i.e. Average Joe, it is AA v xx.
But to the imperious Ivey, it is AA v AA.

Now, for the last time, what part of my reasoning do you not understand ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how Ivey know you have AA. Poker doesn't work like that, maybe if you showed him AA he could %100 know you had it, otherwise it makes no sense.

[Ulysses]

Imagine this scenario. Phil Hellmuth is the SB, Phil Ivey is the BB. Both have AA. Hellmuth takes a glance at Ivey and of course puts him 100% on AA. Ivey, also before any action has taken place, takes a quick look at Hellmuth and puts him 100% on AA. Both fear getting allin against the other player on this hand, risking elimination for very small upside potential. What happens now? Will Phil Hellmuth open-fold AA from the SB? Of course, before acting, Phil Hellmuth will realize that Phil Ivey puts him on AA. And Ivey knows that Hellmuth puts him on AA and also knows that Hellmuth knows that he knows that Hellmuth has AA and puts him on AA. Will this results in some sort of stalemate situation where neither player can do anything?

You are correct, this really is a fascinating question.

I admit that I did not envisage that type of situation where the SB thinks he's God and the BB actually is God. However I think I have an easy solution. As both players know that the other has AA, then Ivey will say
"Oh one who thinks he's God, I am telling you that I will go all-in regardless of your action. And as I am God, you know that I am not lying".
Hellmuth will reply "Ivey, you're lying right now as there can only be one true God, and we both know who that is."
"Shut up you gobshite" says Ivey and pushes all-in out of turn.
Hellmuth folds.
Ivey is King.

[bluef0x]

...you should quit poker right now.