20 replies to this topic

[GaelicGrindFRC]

Second hand of tournament on bb your dealt KK , three others are all in . Whats your move ? I called , against A8s ,66, KQs ...A spiked river . In a cash game I would make this play every time , not sure about a STT with one winner though ... thoughts or advice please . Thanks for al your time and effort ! Play well

[ChuckSty]

if allowed in this tourney i would say out loud i have kings, then i would try to see if anyone looked like they were not trying to get me to fold. possibly by either making themselves disappear (figuratively). then if i thought noone had the aces. i'd go all in. i know it be a risky move against that many opponents, in fact even though you had the best hand going i think you'd be an underdog against that many hands regardless of there content. in that light maybe you should fold. i don't know, i'd push. maybe i shouldn't of posted this.

[Devilkin]

Quote

Second hand of tournament on bb your dealt KK , three others are all in . Whats your move ? I called , against A8s ,66, KQs ...A spiked river .

KK is a very strong hand head to head - against multiple hands, it starts to lose its luster.If you had three 'all ins' before you, I'd think twice about going all in this early. Only one all in before you, thats a no brainer. If two more go all in after you, them's the breaks.Dev

[Devilkin]

Just for interest sake, in your example:KK - 43.5%KQs - 13%A8s - 25%66 - 18.5%Two ways to look at this - yes you are the favorite, but against three opponents, you have less than a 50/50 chance of winning. Don't push - odds arent there.Dev

[Leedspokerguru]

Thats a tough hand to fold. Nothing wrong with the call when no one had AA. Personally though as it was so early on I would have folded to 3 all in's. Let a good portion of the field get eliminated then count on your skill to win through. Patience. You can't win the tourney right there with that call. Would have set you up nicely but as the man said multiway any PP loses some strength. If you feel its a tough table then call. If you are confident then fold. Just my view. Unlucky on the hand though.

[Vade]

Fold.It's painful as hell, but you really have no choice. I think only AA is an acceptable call on the 2nd hand of the tournament. Don't trip over the people flying to get out of the first level on their way out

[holman3rd]

Devilkin said:

Just for interest sake, in your example:KK - 43.5%KQs - 13%A8s - 25%66 - 18.5%Two ways to look at this - yes you are the favorite, but against three opponents, you have less than a 50/50 chance of winning. Don't push - odds arent there.Dev

These odds aren't relevent b/c he didn't know the hands when the decision was on him. If the table is weak, I call. If even one skilled player called an all-in ahead of me, I fold. Based solely on the info you gave me, I fold. If I infer from the hands shown above that these players are weak, I would have called. As always, "it depends", but in this case and this type of tournament, it depends on the players. Here's why. Skilled players are aware of the "gap concept". The guy who went all-in could have anything, but probably a really good hand (I assume he wasn't short stacked). I'd put him on something like AK.The first guy who called would know this and probably not call with anything less than QQ. The second guy who called would know this too, and would probably not call with anything less than AA (KK maybe).Weak players have not even heard of the "gap concept" so if their hand looks good to them, they flat call no matter what. Make sense?

[Devilkin]

Quote

These odds aren't relevent b/c he didn't know the hands when the decision was on him. If the table is weak, I call. If even one skilled player called an all-in ahead of me, I fold.

I disagree with this statement. The relative strength of the player is moot in an all-in situation.Here is another analogy, assuming the WORST players against you using just stupid hands all-in.KK - 59.5%24s - 14.5%27o - 7.6%86s - 18.4%Again, yes you are the favorite to win, but 4 times out of 10 you are out of the tournament! Again, against an expanded field, you are just a bit better than a cointoss, even with KK, to win.Dev

[holman3rd]

Devilkin said:

I disagree with this statement. The relative strength of the player is moot in an all-in situation.

Read about the gap concept...player strength couldn't be more relevent.

Devilkin said:

Here is another analogy, assuming the WORST players against you using just stupid hands all-in.KK - 59.5%24s - 14.5%27o - 7.6%86s - 18.4%Again, yes you are the favorite to win, but 4 times out of 10 you are out of the tournament!

Not calling with that edge is very weak poker, imo. Players that play like that find themselves very short-stacked when they reach the money...IF they reach the money.

Devilkin said:

Again, against an expanded field, you are just a bit better than a cointoss, even with KK, to win.Dev

60% is hardly a "bit" better than a coin flip. Yes, your odds go down as the number of opponents expands, but so do your pot odds--that has to be factored in here. You have the potential to quadruple your stack here. Following your logic, you'd lay down AA here too.Again, laying down KK in this spot against weak players is weak. Just my opinion, but I'm not afraid to be knocked out in this spot. The upside (pot odds) is just too great.Just to clarify, though, I'm referring to a table of weak players. Against strong opponents, I fold.

[Devilkin]

I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.A coin flip is 50%, or 5/10ths. In my example, your odds of winning are only roughly 60%, or 6/10ths. Yes there is an edge, but not NEAR enough of an edge to risk my entire tournament life on. In the real example given by the orignal poster, he was 43.5% favorite to win.So by playing this way, roughly 5.5 times out of 10, you are out of the tourney. The other 4.5 times, you have quadrupled (roughly) your pot, but you are still playing against 6 other players - a strong sitting yes, but still not a guarantee to finish in the top three to make any kind of money.Too much risk for not enough reward, in my opinion. Ill take the cowboys head to head anyday, but stay clear of the multiple pot all-ins unless you have the rockets - even then, against the cards the poster described, you are still only a 54.6% to .45.6% favorite to win.Four player all-ins . .bad.That said, once Im in the 'money' in a tourney, my game opens right up, and Ill go in a three way all in with the cowboys.Its all about risk vs reward - the reward (chip lead but by no means a guarantee of being in the money) isn't enough.Dev

[holman3rd]

Devilkin said:

I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.

Fair enough...very few black & whites in poker.

Devilkin said:

A coin flip is 50%, or 5/10ths. In my example, your odds of winning are only roughly 60%, or 6/10ths. Yes there is an edge, but not NEAR enough of an edge to risk my entire tournament life on. In the real example given by the orignal poster, he was 43.5% favorite to win.So by playing this way, roughly 5.5 times out of 10, you are out of the tourney. The other 4.5 times, you have quadrupled (roughly) your pot, but you are still playing against 6 other players - a strong sitting yes, but still not a guarantee to finish in the top three to make any kind of money.Too much risk for not enough reward, in my opinion. Ill take the cowboys head to head anyday, but stay clear of the multiple pot all-ins unless you have the rockets - even then, against the cards the poster described, you are still only a 54.6% to .45.6% favorite to win.Four player all-ins . .bad.That said, once Im in the 'money' in a tourney, my game opens right up, and Ill go in a three way all in with the cowboys.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your strategy is to just make the money. This is called "survival poker" and is not the way I choose to play. Again, the problem is that while you may make the money more (although that is not proven), you will often do it short-stacked. Tournament payouts are very top-heavy, so just making they money isn't too enticing, at least not to me.

Devilkin said:

Its all about risk vs reward

on this we agree.

Devilkin said:

- the reward (chip lead but by no means a guarantee of being in the money) isn't enough.Dev

On this we do not. i measure risk/reward based on pot odds. The pot is laying me 3 to 1 and I'm likely a 3 to 2 favorite over weak players here. I add to that the benefit of building a huge stack early. True, that doesn't necessarily correlate with winning a tournament, but it sure doesn't hurt.

[Metro]

While bad players don't understand the "gap" concept... I think 9/10 of them at least know not to push all in with 7-2o.Consider what hands you have seen poor players push all in with, and given this is the 2nd hand of the tournament, you can't really justify calling more than maybe 2 players at this table "bad" unless you've played with them.Even then, take hands that marginal players that don't understand the gap concept would push in with... Let's say... AJo, 10-10, and just to spice it up a bit, 7-6sYou're still sitting at only winning this pot 43% of the time.Try another selection of hands -Hmm... Ok, first guy pushes in on a bluff, not understanding the concept of position. Completely poor player, oh, but he's got Mighty Big Sik!9-3o, second guy is decent - AKs. Third guy, also not that good, J-J "Dude... it's a pocker pair! I'm gonna win!"47% favoriteNot too mention, the second you see the Sik out there... you crap your pants, either in fear or cuz you can't stop laughing.Now, not only are you only 50% chance to stay in the tournament, If you lose, you lost your buy-in, AND you need to buy new underwear.I understand you saying you're being given 3 to 1 odds, but I can't see where you're coming up with 3 to 2 favorite to win against hands that people would actually consider pushing all in with. In almost any combination of hands that I can find where even novices would push in, you're at best 50/50.

[holman3rd]

Metro said:

While bad players don't understand the "gap" concept... I think 9/10 of them at least know not to push all in with 7-2o.Consider what hands you have seen poor players push all in with, and given this is the 2nd hand of the tournament, you can't really justify calling more than maybe 2 players at this table "bad" unless you've played with them.Even then, take hands that marginal players that don't understand the gap concept would push in with...  Let's say... AJo, 10-10, and just to spice it up a bit, 7-6sYou're still sitting at only winning this pot 43% of the time.Try another selection of hands -Hmm... Ok, first guy pushes in on a bluff, not understanding the concept of position. Completely poor player, oh, but he's got Mighty Big Sik!9-3o, second guy is decent - AKs. Third guy, also not that good, J-J "Dude... it's a pocker pair! I'm gonna win!"47% favoriteNot too mention, the second you see the Sik out there... you crap your pants, either in fear or cuz you can't stop laughing.Now, not only are you only 50% chance to stay in the tournament, If you lose, you lost your buy-in, AND you need to buy new underwear.I understand you saying you're being given 3 to 1 odds, but I can't see where you're coming up with 3 to 2 favorite to win against hands that people would actually consider pushing all in with. In almost any combination of hands that I can find where even novices would push in, you're at best 50/50.

What is Big "Sik"...sorry, i wouldn't ask, but you wrote it twice.a little humor there...3 to 2 comes from the previous post that suggested a 60% of winning as an example. if those % were wrong, i guess it's my bad for assuming they were right.i'm not worried about getting busted out. the upside justifies it, imo.online, i buy into another tourney. b&m, i go win back my buy-in (and then some) in a cash game.

[holman3rd]

Metro said:

Consider what hands you have seen poor players push all in with, and given this is the 2nd hand of the tournament, you can't really justify calling more than maybe 2 players at this table "bad" unless you've played with them.

This is an excellent point. The vast majority of the time, whether I play online or b&m, i don't know any of my opponents. One hand in the tourney won't change that.That said, it's highly likely that I'd fold in this spot b/c I always give players the benefit of the doubt that they have some skill, until I observe otherwise. In other words, I would initially assume that my opponents are skilled. Since I believe skilled players are aware of the gap concept and are much more likely to be holding more powerful hands (AA likely), I fold. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Metro]

holman3rd said:

3 to 2 comes from the previous post that suggested a 60% of winning as an example.  if those % were wrong, i guess it's my bad for assuming they were right.

The 60% winning comes from hands that would never be pushed all in by ANYONE this early in a tournament, even the worst of the worst. Unless you're playing at a table of monkeys. There wasn't a single Ace in any of the hands in the example where you were 60% favorite. The hands were:7-2o2-4sand 8-6sIn each of these hands, they need to either 1. hit their flush, 2. hit their straight, or 3. hit 2 pair/make tripsI tried to give a more believable array of hands that fish would push in with.

[holman3rd]

Metro said:

holman3rd said:

3 to 2 comes from the previous post that suggested a 60% of winning as an example.  if those % were wrong, i guess it's my bad for assuming they were right.

The 60% winning comes from hands that would never be pushed all in by ANYONE this early in a tournament, even the worst of the worst. Unless you're playing at a table of monkeys. There wasn't a single Ace in any of the hands in the example where you were 60% favorite. The hands were:7-2o2-4sand 8-6sIn each of these hands, they need to either 1. hit their flush, 2. hit their straight, or 3. hit 2 pair/make tripsI tried to give a more believable array of hands that fish would push in with.

point conceded and taken.i still support my argument that this is a call against fish and a fold against good players. but, since (as you've pointed out), I probably don't have a read on any of my opponents at this stage, I'd assume they were good and fold.

[holman3rd]

Metro said:

holman3rd said:

3 to 2 comes from the previous post that suggested a 60% of winning as an example.  if those % were wrong, i guess it's my bad for assuming they were right.

The 60% winning comes from hands that would never be pushed all in by ANYONE this early in a tournament, even the worst of the worst. Unless you're playing at a table of monkeys. There wasn't a single Ace in any of the hands in the example where you were 60% favorite. The hands were:7-2o2-4sand 8-6sIn each of these hands, they need to either 1. hit their flush, 2. hit their straight, or 3. hit 2 pair/make tripsI tried to give a more believable array of hands that fish would push in with.

I believe Devil was just showing a worst case scenario...probably wasn't saying that it was likely. Again, my bad for taking it literally.

[Leedspokerguru]

holman3rd said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your strategy is to just make the money. This is called "survival poker" and is not the way I choose to play. Again, the problem is that while you may make the money more (although that is not proven), you will often do it short-stacked. Tournament payouts are very top-heavy, so just making they money isn't too enticing, at least not to me. .

Survival poker is what a successful poker player plays in the early stages of the tourney. Doyle Brunson and co(only exception was Stu the Kid). The chip leader at the end of the first day has NEVER won the WSOP but he has taken many risks to become chip leader, risked his tournament life. Granted this is a STT but in the early stages your really winning nothing with this risk. Your buying yourself more time and extra chips to play with but your winning nothing. Each to his own I guess.

[holman3rd]

Leedspokerguru said:

holman3rd said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, your strategy is to just make the money. This is called "survival poker" and is not the way I choose to play. Again, the problem is that while you may make the money more (although that is not proven), you will often do it short-stacked. Tournament payouts are very top-heavy, so just making they money isn't too enticing, at least not to me. .

Survival poker is what a successful poker player plays in the early stages of the tourney. Doyle Brunson and co(only exception was Stu the Kid). The chip leader at the end of the first day has NEVER won the WSOP but he has taken many risks to become chip leader, risked his tournament life. Granted this is a STT but in the early stages your really winning nothing with this risk. Your buying yourself more time and extra chips to play with but your winning nothing. Each to his own I guess.

I've already conceded that folding is the best option BECAUSE I probably don't have a read on any of the players yet.However, I strongly disagree with your statement about successful poker players playing survival poker during early stages. Sticking to a single style is very rigid, and not the hallmark of a skilled players. Skilled players adjust to the players at the table. If I know that most of my opponents are in survival mode, I loosen up and steal from them. Yes, in general, a tight aggressive approach is recommended in the early stages of a tourney. If I'm at a table of very weak players, this is the approach I take. But, if i'm at a table of TAG's, I loosen up. And note, that the entire table doesn't have to fit one mold or the other. You just pay attention to who's in the pot at any particular time, and then adjust accordingly.I do support that certain styles should be followed at different stages of a tourney (tight early, loose around the bubble, etc., for example). All I'm saying is that successful players don't stick to a rigid plan, they are flexible.

[Leedspokerguru]

I agree with some of your points about styles and chaging. But I think your going off track. Early on in a tourney I don't think any pro would call a 4 way all in with KK. Too early on, their risking tourney life, they would need/wait for a much bigger edge and pick their spots. They would avoid the risk, opting to survive and use there skill to outplay people. You can't outplay someone whos all in.