Pot odds all in

[KdoubleK]

I recently had an idea about NL tournament theory and was curious about what you all think about it. Here goes. In NL tourneys, when faced with a decision for all or nearly all your chips, pot odds should no longer play an important role in your decision making. Rather, your immediate odds of winning compared with how winning, losing, or giving up the pot effect your chances for survival should be the factors shaping your decision. Here is an example taken directly from cardplayer mag:

In Bellagio’s Five-Diamond Poker Classic World Poker Tour $10,000 buy-in championship event, the following amazing hand came up late during day No. 2. The first raise was $3,500 to go by Player X, and Amir Vahedi made it $10,000 to go with pocket tens. The man right behind Amir, Player Y, then moved all in, and then Juha Helppi studied for three minutes before going all in from the big blind for $35,500 total. The first raiser, Player X, then moved all in, and the action was back to Amir. Three people had just moved all in, and now it would cost $25,500 more for him to call — and he had $30,000 left. Amir studied and studied, and finally pushed in the money to call! Juha flipped up A-A, Player X had Q-Q, and Player Y had A-K offsuit. The flop came down J-10-2, then a 9, followed by a 7, and Amir won the monstrous pot with three tens.

Despite winning the pot here though, I think Amir made a tremendous mistake. Yes, he was getting almost even money pot odds on a pair over pair situation (which he surely knew it was) but the pot odds mean nothing when A) chips do not directly represent real money in long term expectation, and b) winning the pot does not so significantly increase his tournament expectation as to warrant taking 4.5:1 chance at getting knocked out. In fact, one could argue that to truly be getting "even money" on the gamble Amir would have to reach a level on the pay ladder that paid close to 5 times the buy in for every 1 time he wins this all in confrontation. Making close gambles for all your chips because the pot odds are laying you the right price only really matters when the real money expectation is immediate, such as at the final table. Flame away!

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently had an idea about NL tournament theory and was curious about what you all think about it. Here goes. In NL tourneys, when faced with a decision for all or nearly all your chips, pot odds should no longer play an important role in your decision making. Rather, your immediate odds of winning compared with how winning, losing, or giving up the pot effect your chances for survival should be the factors shaping your decision. Here is an example taken directly from cardplayer mag:

In Bellagio’s Five-Diamond Poker Classic World Poker Tour $10,000 buy-in championship event, the following amazing hand came up late during day No. 2. The first raise was $3,500 to go by Player X, and Amir Vahedi made it $10,000 to go with pocket tens. The man right behind Amir, Player Y, then moved all in, and then Juha Helppi studied for three minutes before going all in from the big blind for $35,500 total. The first raiser, Player X, then moved all in, and the action was back to Amir. Three people had just moved all in, and now it would cost $25,500 more for him to call — and he had $30,000 left. Amir studied and studied, and finally pushed in the money to call! Juha flipped up A-A, Player X had Q-Q, and Player Y had A-K offsuit. The flop came down J-10-2, then a 9, followed by a 7, and Amir won the monstrous pot with three tens.

Despite winning the pot here though, I think Amir made a tremendous mistake. Yes, he was getting almost even money pot odds on a pair over pair situation (which he surely knew it was) but the pot odds mean nothing when A) chips do not directly represent real money in long term expectation, and b) winning the pot does not so significantly increase his tournament expectation as to warrant taking 4.5:1 chance at getting knocked out. In fact, one could argue that to truly be getting "even money" on the gamble Amir would have to reach a level on the pay ladder that paid close to 5 times the buy in for every 1 time he wins this all in confrontation. Making close gambles for all your chips because the pot odds are laying you the right price only really matters when the real money expectation is immediate, such as at the final table. Flame away!

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is a Philip Hellmuth Jr. article ("Amir's Big Call") and I don't agree with Hellmuth tournament strategy. I'm not the '89 world champion, nor do I have any WSOP bracelets, but if you have pod odds to make a call, (if the cards were flipped over, for example, and you had a poker calculator to help you determine EV) then you should make the call.
Paul Phillips overdoes the point about passing up marginal EV spots in tournaments, (and how it's overdone) and Greg Raymer has posted numerous times reflecting the the sentiment that +Ev spots are +Ev spots, (you arent going to get that many, you shouldnt pass your spots) so if you're getting priced in to make a call, you should make it.

That said, it still was a tremendous call on Amir's part, but it worked out for him.

[KdoubleK]

I don't totally agree with Hellmuth tournament strategy either, but the point I'm trying to make is that slight gains in +EV pot odds or slight -EV pot odds don't matter as much when we're talking about tourament chips since tournament chips don't directly correspond to your tournament EV. A good example comes from Sklansky's tournament book (pg 128) where he explains a situation in which it would be right to lay down AA preflop at the WSOP final table:

With 5 players remaining and blinds at 10K-20K you are the shortstack with 30K in chips. The chip leader has 2 million and the other 3 have exactly 1 million each. On the next hand all 3 1 million stacks pick up hands and go all in against each other. You look down and wake up with AA. 1st place pays 1.5 million in real money followed by 1 million for 2nd, 700K for 3rd, 500K for 4th, and 300K for 5th. By calling this all in with the bullets you are getting fantastic pot odds for your gamble and a high +EV opportunity regardless of the hands you are up against. But do you call and take it? NO! because by passing on this +EV opportunity you almost automatically make another 400K barring an unlikely 3 way tie. Calling and winning will quadruple you up and leave with a 120K stack against a 2 mill stack and a 2,910,000 stack 60% of the time which minimally increases your chances of a win. 40% of the time you lose and throw away 400K. Thus a +EV chip opportunity does not necessarily correspond to a +EV tournament payout opportunity.

What I believe really matters in NL tournament decisions is the comparison between how winning, losing, or giving up a key pot will effect your chances of survival. Sometimes this corresponds to pot odds, sometimes not. Thoughts?

[Che]

KdoubleK-

I would fold AA in the Sklansky scenario, but the reality is that I will probably never fold AA preflop if I play holdem the rest of my life (and live to a ripe old age). The scenario is an extreme, extreme example dreamed up to prove a point, but it's relevance to Amir's hand is rather remote.

With a stack equal to 3xStartingChips early in a tournament, you make the +EV plays you have opportunity to make, and the fact that you might not make those plays with 3xStartingChips at the final table doesn't matter. ChipEV and $EV have yet to significantly diverge early so getting your expected chipEV edge is all that you need to be concerned with.

Later,
Che