Going all-in early in a big tourney

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems like backwards, results-oriented thinking. If anything, you need to push a hand like this MORE in a large tournament, because you have so far to go to reach the big money, and you only get so many big hands to do so with. Unless your goal is to hang out as long as possible because being in a large buy-in event is really neat, you've got to get it all in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's result-oriented. I want to win money! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Joking aside, I'll try to elaborate on my thinking: First, I'll point out that I am mainly a ring-game player and only entered this tourney because I won an entry in a satellite.


My thinking is that in a ring-game, accumulating more chips is directly accumulating more money. In a tourney, accumulating chips only indirectly accumulates more money.

Take the posted hand for example. Let's say I folded instead of calling. I'd still have about 1400 chips with the blinds at 10/20. That's still a lot of chips in comparison to the blinds. Any info my opponents get on me from my fold will be lost as soon as I get moved to another table.

I think the example hand I posted is misleading: I don't think I would ever fold trips. My general question is the value of going all-in early in a tourney. Let's say you had AJ on the AJ6 flop. Would you call all-in with two pair? Let's say you had AK. Would you call all-in with one pair? Those two questions seem to be much closer questions than calling with trips on the flop, which you'd probably do over 98% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't remember who said it first but I remember top MTTers on here talking about situations like this a lot and several of their ideas these apply here. One of their ideas is that you must be willing to go broke early if you have a +EV situation. If you're better than the average opponent in the tournament, getting these chips early allow you to use those chips in other +EV situations against these dim bulbs, which give them some potential chip-getting value that offsets the traditional "bigger the stack, lower each one is worth" idea. Especially since you are far from the money (really really far) you can take more risks here.
Since your roll is artificially limited in a tourney you have to amass chips.
For me, getting these chips allow me to weather either a bad beat or, more likely, a really poorly played hand.
And if I'm going to go bust I'd rather it be early in a big pot with a set than later on the bubble with a PF coinflip.
Can someone link him to a better explanation of what I'm trying to say here. Or just say it better than I have.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone link him to a better explanation of what I'm trying to say here. Or just say it better than I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about "a big hand and big edge is worth pushing in a tournament even in the first level"?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
My general question is the value of going all-in early in a tourney. Let's say you had AJ on the AJ6 flop. Would you call all-in with two pair? Let's say you had AK. Would you call all-in with one pair? Those two questions seem to be much closer questions than calling with trips on the flop, which you'd probably do over 98% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the tourney - but in the 2nd hand of a $1000 tourney I wouldn't call an all-in with 2 pair, and certainly not just top pair. But with no flush/straight on board I'm looking to get all-in with a set every time.

[fnurt]

In a big tournament, doubling your stack will almost exactly double your chances of winning, until you get to the point where you start to have a significant percentage of the chips in play.

You need to accumulate chips to win a tournament, and there is no way to accumulate chips without risk. Some people have this fantasy that you can build your stack just by picking up small pots and avoiding showdowns. While that sometimes works out, it's an illusion to think it is a risk-free strategy. If there were a risk-free way to accumulate chips, you wouldn't see so many pros bust out on the first day of the WSOP.

If you are an average player in the field, your chance of doubling up before busting is 50%. If you are better than average, your chance is still unlikely to be much better than that, unless the field is comprised of morons.

So you start with 2500 chips. At some point on the road to victory, you will need to have 5000 chips. Do you stand a better chance to get 5000 chips by calling this bet, or by folding and trying to build your stack from 1500 to 5000? The answer is the former, and it's not close.

Arguments like "don't put your tournament life on the line" are for people who don't understand poker. I'm not saying you need to take every 51-49 edge for all your chips, but when you are a significant favorite, you must be willing to risk a loss if you expect to be a winning tournament player. You simply don't get the nuts enough to wait for them.

[PuertoKid]

This is an easy call in my book. You don't get a lot of chances to double up. I'll take the risk of busting here as I think I will double up more often than not.