cfinnn, on Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 6:56 PM, said:
How about telling the dealer I saw my opponents cards? Then do we chop? I'd do that. lol. Barring that option...Since y'all seem scared off because Daniel's answer is call, I feel the need to argue the cointerpoint. I'm not afraid for DN to call me dumb. He already gave me an F, so this can't be any worse than that. As with everything, I think we only learn by discussion and being open to new perspectives and ideas. If we all stop talking because DN gives his answer and we feel we have to agree with him, this would be a pretty sad discussion board. Pros disagree all the time too, you know.Having said that, I almost definitely fold in this spot. I think it is a great play for someone like Daniel (long term +EV is always a good thing, right?), but not for other kinds of players, and here's why:60/40 on hand #1 is a great proposition for a "true gambler." I am pretty sure Daniel would be comfortable defininig himself as such. I, however, am not this kind of player. At least, not in a tournament. If this were a cash game, I call in a heartbeat. But since it is a deep stack, big buyin tournament I have to compare the risk/reward here. Behind door #1: 60% of the time I double up and have a chip lead at my table. Yay me. I cannot confirm these numbers and they may be completely off, but I have been told in a tourney as big as the ME that gives me about a 1% greater chance of winning the event. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. However, whatever the exact number, I am not getting a large advantage, percentagewise, to win the event by making this call.Behind door #2: 40% of the time I lose and go home. Here's why this isn't worth it for me. First, my time is not as valuable at Daniel's. I couldn't care less about spening an extra day, week or even two weeks playing in the tournament, even if I still don't cash. I don't have another big buyin tournament waiting for me next week. It's not another day, another 10k buyin tournament, for me, and I won't pretend otherwise. If this were the case and/or my time were more profitably spent at a side game, then I would consider calling here. The way I see it, 40% of the time i go home and 60% of the time I gain a 1% edge. No way is that worth it for me. But I can see how it could be worth it for others, like Daniel.To address Daniel's reasoning: yes, many players advocate not taking big risks early while the blinds are small. I wouldn't say don't take risks, but putting your whole stack on the line here is simply unecessary. True gamblers go for it, but I will gladly wait for a better spot when I have a bigger edge, or when the blinds force me to make more risky plays.To paraphrase, Daniel says routinely folding in positive expected value spots is bad. Fine. But what about folding in some spots with a (relatively) small positive expected value in order to not put yourself in the position of busting out of the tournament? If you call a 60/40 proposition every time it comes up in a large tourney like the ME, you will almost always bust out of the event before ever making the money, won't you? There are just too many spots where you can call off all your money on a 60/40 proposition. If you call every time, without being at all deterred by the fact that you're putting your entire tournament life at risk, how can you win? Nobody can expect to win 5, 8, 10, or however many, 60/40 propositions in a row, can they? If, however, you already have a big stack and are playing to win, calling here is a very good idea. You give yourself a chance to take a dominating lead at your table and really run things.Also, to refute one of DN's other statements a little bit. He is assuming that the prospective winner of this hand knows how to use a big stack to their advantage, such that they will make significant additional profits by leveraging their big stack. This will not always be the case. If a player did not know how to exploit his or her big stack, then calling here becomes considerably less profitable.To sum up, yes a 60/40 advantage is an opportunity you wouldn't want to consistently pass up, but for different kinds of players there are many more considerations that just the expected value of this one hand. There is a bigger picture here, and that picture is different for everyone.Feel free to disagree. DN let me have it!
I would venture to guess the edge is more than 1%, but yes, it's not absolute...doubling up on the first hand does not guarantee you 1st, nor does it even guarantee cashing.Some pros advocate calling if you're 51% here...some even 48%...I don't agree with that...I, however, do agree with DN that 60% is too big an edge to ignore, in this situation.What it really relates to is your chance of doubling up in the tournament...be it all at once on the first hand, or at some point. Let's, say, for example, that you have a 53% chance of doubling your chipstack at some point in the tournament (that is, reaching 20000 chips...be it in 5 minutes, or 5 hours - at any time, you must double your stack before you bust out, and the fact is, most people don't double up before bust out in half their tournaments)....by that number, you should be thrilled to take a 60% chance to double up now, and you should turn down a 52% chance.The thing is, if you do double up, then, at least for a while, later calls for "only" 60% aren't jeopardizing your tournament life, until such time you are not the big stack....what it does let you do is push against players who must consider their tournament life in their calls....it lets you survive the bad end of 60/40 plays, and it lets you survive some bad beats.My question to you CFINN, is, what edge do you want to call off all your chips here?...would you call with AA or KK?