"Getting your $$ in w/ best of it"

[beekeeper]

I've been playing almost a year, and I find myself feeling a little ambivalent about the wisdom of the mantra which says there's something implicitly good about "Getting all your money in with the best of it," especially when someone's facing a race situation.

The tv commentators spew it as if it is supposed to be consolation for players when they are drawn out on, or justification for players who have managed their chips in a tournament well, but then put a lot of chips at risk on a good read and a vulnerable hand.

I'm wondering whether players with more experience can refine the logic of this expression for me (as it relates to tournament play). It seems to me that getting all your money in in a race situation, unless you're short-stacked, whichever side of the race you're on, is not good stack management. I'd rather have a better advantage.

As a new player, I trusted this mantra in decisions where I believed myself a slight favorite, now I am more inclined to wait until I have way the best of it before getting all my money in.

Commentary please. Thanks.

This question might be best asked in the Multi-Table Tournament forum.

[Twitch1977]

Getting 'all your money in with the best of it' is generally (and should not) be used to describe a race (coin flip) situtation.

By definition when you 'have the best of it' you're a significant favorite to win not 50/50. So either one of the announcers misspoke and applied this phrase to a coin flip situation or you just heard this phrase so much you assumed it applied to coin flips.

T

[4_2_it]

Getting your money well you are more than a slight favorite. For instance you flop bottom set and villain puts you all in with top two pair. You got your money with the best of it as a favorite. Villain still is drawing live, but you are in good shape.

Something like 77 vs AK is not one of these situations, though you are a slight favorite you are really just gamboooling here.

[AKQJ10]

Theoretically you're correct that there will be times when you pass up a gamble in a tournament, expecting that you'll get an even better gamble later in the same tournament. Sklansky covers this in detail in Tournament Poker for Advanced Players.

But note three key assumptions:

<ul type="square">[*]You're a better player than your opponents. If you're four-handed with Doyle, Jesus, and Harrington, you probably are happy to take a 50.001% shot, or even 49.999%, at doubling up. [*]The tournament must be long enough for your edge to play out with better gambles along the way. That's in part why if you're short-stacked, you're willing to take a gamble. [*]There's an opportunity cost because you couldn't be playing in an equally- or more-profitable side game or another tournament. If you crash out of the WSOP, you can't go play another $10K buyin tournament with the same amount of dead money starting five minutes later. But if you crash out of a $10+1 sit-and-go, you don't really mind because another one will start immediately with players equally bad.[/list]

I've often found that phrase and the concept to apply better in a ring game, where you can, in theory, pull more money out and have another go knowing you made the right decision but lost.

In tournaments, that decision has to be tempered--considering the various risk/reward scenarios that arise.

For example, when one is on the bubble to finishing in the money, it could be prudent to lay down pocket rockets when two aggressive chip leaders have entered a pot to do battle with one another-- even though you may have the best of it.

Or, as another poster suggested, amid a field of top professional competitors, you may have the best chances for success by taking them on in coin-flip suituations rather than trying to chip away at them.

From my tournament experience, I have always fared better by avoiding such confrontations in the early rounds (when there are always seem to be maniacs willing to put all their chips at risk PreFlop for a small pot) even when the temptation to double-up beckons me.

As a note--I enjoyed seeing Phil Helmuth go out early in the last WSOP main event.

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]


As a note--I enjoyed seeing Phil Helmuth go out early in the last WSOP main event.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny you should mention this because, while I had been thinking about this for some time, this episode with Helmuth put it to the forefront of my thoughts.

Your input clarifies a lot of how I've been thinking, as did others'. I was thinking that this quote was really more appropriate to ring games thant to tournaments. I'm grateful for all the input.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking that this quote was really more appropriate to ring games thant to tournaments. I'm grateful for all the input.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. As others have posted, a 52/48 situation isn't what's being referred to here. If you're avoiding 60/40 situations in an online tournament you aren't going to win many tournaments. In certain extreme circumstances you may not want to take these kind of odds, but in general you should. It would need to be a pretty slow tournament where you could afford to pass up this kind of equity and just wait around for something better.

And yes, getting your money in with the best of it IS solace because ultimately that's all you can do. If you consistently get your money in with the best of it then you'll win more than your fair share which is our goal in poker. Winning every time or even winning anywhere close to every time is not even remotely possible. You must simply get used to this. Otherwise you need to play a game with less luck such as chess. The problem is there isn't much dead money in chess, or at least not that will play you more than once or twice. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I've often found that phrase and the concept to apply better in a ring game, where you can, in theory, pull more money out and have another go knowing you made the right decision but lost.

[/ QUOTE ]
Getting your money in with the best of it (or when you have the odds to call) is extremely important in tournament play. Many people overemphasize survival in tournaments, and this is a commonly exploited weakness.

"And if you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player." -- Greg Raymer

[ QUOTE ]

For example, when one is on the bubble to finishing in the money, it could be prudent to lay down pocket rockets when two aggressive chip leaders have entered a pot to do battle with one another-- even though you may have the best of it.


[/ QUOTE ]
That is a very bad example. In the vast majority of situations, even on the bubble, you should gleefully call all-in with AA. If you don't believe this yet, please spend some time with PokerStove and the Independent Chip Model Calculator. That calculator is designed for SNGs, where the bubble is more important than in MTTs, but you will still find that it is usually horrible to fold AA preflop on the bubble.

[ QUOTE ]
From my tournament experience, I have always fared better by avoiding such confrontations in the early rounds (when there are always seem to be maniacs willing to put all their chips at risk PreFlop for a small pot) even when the temptation to double-up beckons me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maniacs don't only offer coin-flips. Maniacs give you the chance to get your money in as a 3:1 favorite or better. Even though you risk busting out by playing some big pots with maniacs early on, it is much easier to get the chips from them directly than to wrest them away from a good player later.

[AKQJ10]

I just want to emphasize something from my post above: getting your money in as a 60-40 favorite (and even a 52-48) is even more imperative when the only extra cost of busting out of one tournament is having to wait three minutes to enter another one. Then it virtually is like a ring game, where you pull more money out of your bankroll and try again.

The value of survival is virtually nil when you can play the same fish at the same stakes no matter how quickly you bust out.