Jump to content


answer to quizz question #1


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 24 November 2004 - 12:59 AM

Well I have to say that I was a little surprised that the majority of you got this one wrong. It's not debateable really, it's clear there is a correct choice and an incorrect one. The key thing to remember is that we are talkng about tournament poker here. In tournament poker the most important thing to consider is winning what's in the middle in marginal situations. So what's the best way to do that? Well if we go all in before the flop with the nine high our opponent can't possible fold. So in essense, we'd be letting the small blind off the hook by giving him five free cards and we have... nine high? This is a VERY important concept you need to add to your reportoire: think about saving your bulletsforlater use. Here's why: Let's say the SB has a hand like J-4 of diamonds. If you move all in pre-flop he'll call and you'll have a race. Not a horrible situation but the other option is better. So you check your 9-7 and the flop comes down Q-8-K. If your opponent checks now you make have a chane to bluff him off the best hand. Even if you had him beat with your nine high and all he had was 5-6 for example, you'd still be better off winning what's in the middle rather than losing the whole pot to a 5 or a 6 on the river. Make sense?
Posted Image

#2 Munky

Munky

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • Interests:Poker & Building Poker Tables

Posted 24 November 2004 - 01:50 AM

:oops:I hate being wrong :D Though I figured with that much of the short stack's money all ready in the pot I figured also that he would just move in at the flop regardless of what he had, he almost put another 1/4th of his stack in the pot by calling the BB. It does actually make a bit more sense consitering in those race situations you can still get nailed on the turn or river.When's the next Quizz? This was actually a lot of fun. Glad to learn something new.Pop quizes in PMs to random members would be kinda fun too =D
:spades10: :spadesj: :spadesq: :spadesk: :hearts10:

I can't do anything right...

#3 Newbs

Newbs

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 135 posts
  • Location:St. Paul, MN

Posted 24 November 2004 - 02:20 AM

Well, thanks Daniel, that was a bunch of fun and caused alot of good discussion on the board here. While I am glad that I got it right... your comment of how it really isn't debateable means that I shoulda been more certain in my decision.Well, thanks for the quiz, look forward to more.

#4 Glitch29

Glitch29

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 24 November 2004 - 03:39 AM

I completely agree with your reasoning here. It makes perfect sense based on what we'd agree that the small blind is limping in with. However, against an opponent with ideal play, checking here is incorrect.The reason is this:If your opponent were to have gone all-in immediately, he knows that he'd be guaranteed a call, given your current pot odds. He is therefore giving you an option that he doesn't have to. As enticing as the stop-and-go play may seem, it is not beneficial in this situation. Your opponent must have a hand such that getting to the flop is beneficial. He assuredly has no better than 7 high, and is planing a stop-and-go himself if the flop merits it.To understand why checking must be an error against an opponent who is playing correctly, consider this analogy. One day your friend offers to bet you $5,0oo that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in his basement. You have no reason to believe this, and put odds on your friends statement being true at 10,000,000,000,000:1 against. You still probably shouldn't take this bet because your friend has no incentive to make a $5,000 wager which he knows he will lose. Similiarly, your opponent is offering you the option to check, and invite play on the flop when he could easily have forced you to call his all-in pre-flop. Even if you strongly believe that this option will benefit you, if your opponent is acting rationally then it will not.Once again, many tournament players will not give this much though to the situation before limping in, so checking to the flop may be the better option against the average Joe.Oh, and I forgot to mention, thanks for this little brain-teaser! :D (One of) your biggest fan(s),Aaron
En Garde!!

#5 Razzmatazz

Razzmatazz

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 November 2004 - 03:43 AM

Here's the only rational reasons I could see for the SB calling. 1) he's got a monster or 2) he's looking to steal some EV from me by pushing in on every flop with no exceptions, thereby often denyieng me my five cards. If those are his options I'm kind of loath to push in in the first case, and I think I prefer to do it in the second case since I won't be the one to gain extra equity on the flop (I'll get a flop good enough to call around 40-45% of the time, but I won't win all of those - right?).If there is any reasonable chance that the caller is weak enough to not only call pre-flop but check to me on the flop without a hand he intends to call with I'm very happy to check before the flop. I just didn't think of that as very likely.So what is the best strategy against someone who won't check to you on the flop unless they intend to call?

#6 IvanXDurham

IvanXDurham

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Location:Caguas, PR
  • Interests:music, chess, poker, straight edge, indie movies, sports, reality tv, karate, shows

Posted 24 November 2004 - 01:00 PM

I was wrong wrong wrong. The funny part is I sat there thinking of how smart I am putting him all in. haha I suck.
Charlie Kaufman: "Um, okay, killer's a literature professor
who cuts off little chunks of his victims' bodies until they die. He'd be known in the tabloids as "The Deconstructionist."
Donald: "That's kinda good. I like that""
Charlie: "See, I was kidding, Donald."
Donald: "Oh, okay. Sorry. You got me! Heh-heh. Do you mind if I use it, though?"

#7 Munky

Munky

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • Interests:Poker & Building Poker Tables

Posted 24 November 2004 - 01:10 PM

IvanXDurham said:

I was wrong wrong wrong.  The funny part is I sat there thinking of how smart I am putting him all in.  haha I suck.
I don't think it's a horrible play doing that, but after Daniel pointed out the whole race situation I do see how it would be an error. I too thought pushing the little one in preflop would be the best. Guess not :oops:
:spades10: :spadesj: :spadesq: :spadesk: :hearts10:

I can't do anything right...

#8 theresa113

theresa113

    Hi There!

  • Members
  • 5,540 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Orlando, Florida
  • Interests:Poker!

Posted 24 November 2004 - 04:53 PM

I have been in a Poker Funk lately, with everyone telling me I have made all of the right calls but the cards (or dealing with players calling with a 9 7 off suit and getting lucky on the river! ) just didn't go my way. I have been feeling a bit depressed about it but I just want to say thank you to Daniel because I got this one right. Maybe I am just being too hard on myself like my fellow poker friends have been saying? I just don't know. :?

#9 bannedit

bannedit

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 71 posts
  • Location:Rochester, New York

Posted 24 November 2004 - 05:32 PM

I got it right. My reasonings were a little bit different but similar. I thought that checking and possibly bluffing was a good option. The thing is the more tournament poker you play you see the small stacks getting their shots in here and there. And even though the stack is small now doubling that stack just makes it more of a threat in the long run. I've seen people call short stacks all ins with extremely marginal hands double them up then that stack can really cause some damage cause its not so cheap to call an all-in when you really have a hand. You also have to keep in mind short stacks are dangerous because they will go all-in with almost and two cards but they are somewhat selective. Commonly you'll see Ace high or a small pocket pair so you need to have a hand. Why risk doubling someone up who is likely to blind out anyway. Thats how I looked at it.bannedit
n: David D. Rude II
e: bannedit@rochester.rr.com

#10 DanielNegreanu

DanielNegreanu

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Root Admin
  • 8,283 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 24 November 2004 - 05:46 PM

Glitch29 said:

I completely agree with your reasoning here.  It makes perfect sense based on what we'd agree that the small blind is limping in with.  However, against an opponent with ideal play, checking here is incorrect.  That's not true.  In fact I assumed that the player in the big blind was good enough to understand that checking was the correct play.  I was the guy in the small blind and I limped so that I could have an extra life if the flop missed me horribly.  I would have limped there with ANY hand!  Raising from the SB in a tournament would be foolish, even with AA!    You would get called 100% of the time and have to race.  Since winning the middle is so much more valuable than adding 2000 more to my stack, I'd rather try to force my opponent out on the flop thus giving myself optimal opportunity to win the pot.  The reason is this:If your opponent were to have gone all-in immediately, he knows that he'd be guaranteed a call, given your current pot odds.  He is therefore giving you an option that he doesn't have to.  As enticing as the stop-and-go play may seem, it is not beneficial in this situation.  Your opponent must have a hand such that getting to the flop is beneficial.  He assuredly has no better than 7 high, and is planing a stop-and-go himself if the flop merits it.  Again I disagree.  The optimal play is to limp with ANY hand so assuming the SB has 7 high has little merit.To understand why checking must be an error against an opponent who is playing correctly, consider this analogy.  One day your friend offers to bet you $5,0oo that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in his basement.  You have no reason to believe this, and put odds on your friends statement being true at 10,000,000,000,000:1 against.  You still probably shouldn't take this bet because your friend has no incentive to make a $5,000 wager which he knows he will lose.  Similiarly, your opponent is offering you the option to check, and invite play on the flop when he could easily have forced you to call his all-in pre-flop.  Even if you strongly believe that this option will benefit you, if your opponent is acting rationally then it will not.  Unfortunatley that analogy doesn't apply well to this situation.  With the Bin Laden scenario he is either hiding in the basement or he isn't.  It's cut and dry.  With poker, EVEN if you are right about your opponent's hand being weak it doesn't mean you will win the pot.  7-2 beats A-K all the time!Once again, many tournament players will not give this much though to the situation before limping in, so checking to the flop may be the better option against the average Joe.Oh, and I forgot to mention, thanks for this little brain-teaser!  :D    Thanks for the reply Aaron.  I really admire the amount of thought you put into your post (even though I disagreed).  It truly shows me that you are thinking outside the box and that is the sign of a world class thinker.Aaron

Posted Image

#11 TylerBeal

TylerBeal

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 141 posts

Posted 24 November 2004 - 06:30 PM

Daniel,In all fairness the way you asked your quiz question was a bit mis-leading I think.This is for all those who voted Pre-Flop such as myself.The options are A) All In Pre-flopB) All In Post-flopI dont know about everyone else maybe its just me but I figured you were putting him all in regardless and not so much playing your cards as much as you were your stack. So that is the reason I voted pre-flop and I dont feel so bad for being wrong for that reason!Hope more quizzes come

#12 ForbiddenVoid

ForbiddenVoid

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Interests:Literature, Mountaineering, Music

Posted 24 November 2004 - 07:13 PM

I think the whole thing here boils down to how many cards the SB gets to see. They have a 40% less chance of hitting with ANYTHING if they only get to see three cards... As Daniel said, putting them all in preflop gives them an optimal chance to make something of their hand and take the pot from you. Checking means that they have to consider once the flop is out whether it is really worth continuing with the hand they have, and that gives you an advantage, since you're going to bet all of their chips anyway.
If at first you don't succeed, give up... it isn't getting any better.

#13 tekn0wledg

tekn0wledg

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 940 posts
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Golf, Video Games, Statistics

Posted 24 November 2004 - 08:30 PM

Thank you for the answer to the quiz question and your analysis to one of the posts above.... It's very interesting to see yor logic in a given situation.

#14 2ndhandlow

2ndhandlow

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 25 November 2004 - 07:25 AM

you give the Sb some small chance of catching a card he needs on the flop. rather than putting him back on the defensive preflop.So flop comes out and he checks. You now raise and make a value bet? try and see where you are at now in the hand?or he bets out of position on the flop and you fold?

#15 wrto4556

wrto4556

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,418 posts

Posted 26 November 2004 - 12:54 PM

Your choices are all-in pre-flop and all-in post-flop.However, by going all-in post-flop, you can bluff your opponent out of the pot; you can win the hand 2 different ways! But by going all in pre-flop you have to show the best hand to win.Therefore, going all-in pre-flop cuts your chances of winning the hand in half! That's why you check. It's a good question, because these are the things you must think about in tournament play.
back for kramit

#16 TylerMayes

TylerMayes

    Poker Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • 76 posts
  • Interests:poker duh

Posted 26 November 2004 - 02:50 PM

Quote

To understand why checking must be an error against an opponent who is playing correctly, consider this analogy.  One day your friend offers to bet you $5,0oo that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in his basement.  You have no reason to believe this, and put odds on your friends statement being true at 10,000,000,000,000:1 against.  You still probably shouldn't take this bet because your friend has no incentive to make a $5,000 wager which he knows he will lose.  Similiarly, your opponent is offering you the option to check, and invite play on the flop when he could easily have forced you to call his all-in pre-flop.  Even if you strongly believe that this option will benefit you, if your opponent is acting rationally then it will not.
Actually this is exactly what happened to me, not the crazy Bin Laden joke. It was late in a little $20.00 freeze out we were playing . Four handed several of us were short stacked and a tricky player limped in on the button. I was very short stacked around 3x the bigblind, counting my small blind. I had AK or AQ (it was quite a long time ago and i forget the specific hand.) and quickly raise all in. Exactly what anyone of us were doign with the current blind size. The limper was the chip leader and I pushed thinking how commited he was and how much I was going to rake. As soon as the BB folded he quickly called. I blurted "$*%# you have Aces don't you." He smiled and flipped them over. I called without thinking. With the current playing conditions everyone was betting with any tiny bit of a hand including him no one was limping, and here he comes limping on the button. It should have sent off alarms....and it did, just too late.

#17 Acesgotcracked

Acesgotcracked

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 27 November 2004 - 08:43 PM

My question is what kind of player would limp in in this situation? When everyone folds to you(SB), if you have some sembelence of a hand(10-J suited or better) why wouldn't you just go ahead and push it all in. Best case your opponent folds and you collect blinds and antes and have bought yourself a little time. But if you just limp in with a marginal hand, dont you really open yourself up to a bigblind putting you all in. Personally, I would much rather just put the pressure(2% of the dudes chip stack in this case)on the big blind. This way you give yourself 2 ways to win this hand, the big blind folding, which probably wont happen if the guy has even a bit of gamble in him, or you having the best hand and winning the race. I just dont see the benefit of seeing a flop in this situation, If you dont hit anything on the flop, are you gonna fold and then be out 800 more chips? I think the only play for the SB is to fold or push all-in here, I dont see limping as a reasonable option.

#18 Munky

Munky

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • Interests:Poker & Building Poker Tables

Posted 27 November 2004 - 10:35 PM

Acesgotcracked said:

My question is what kind of player would limp in in this situation? When everyone folds to you(SB), if you have some sembelence of a hand(10-J suited or better) why wouldn't you just go ahead and push it all in. Best case your opponent folds and you collect blinds and antes and have bought yourself a little time. But if you just limp in with a marginal hand, dont you really open yourself up to a bigblind putting you all in. Personally, I would much rather just put the pressure(2% of the dudes chip stack in this case)on the big blind. This way you give yourself 2 ways to win this hand, the big blind folding, which probably wont happen if the guy has even a bit of gamble in him, or you having the best hand and winning the race. I just dont see the benefit of seeing a flop in this situation, If you dont hit anything on the flop, are you gonna fold and then be out 800 more chips? I think the only play for the SB is to fold or push all-in here, I dont see limping as a reasonable option.
Because, folding the big blind there would be a horrible play. The big blind is getting about 3-1 on his money if he calls. If the small blind pushed in, he'd be guaranteed a call no matter what the big blind had. Especially if the big blind has $100,000 - it wouldn't really be denting his stack at all. There's already 7000 in the pot. It's going to cost 2000 to call. That's a no-brainer.An example: You have a 5 dollar blind in the pot of 15 dollars. Everyone folds to the small blind who puts his last 10 in the pot (5 calling the big blind and 5 over the big blind). Would you call with just about damn near anything? You only have to win 1 time out of 3 in similar situations for the call to be profitable. Another example would be if someone was betting $1 into a pot the size of 100. You wouldn't fold and let him take that $100 would you!? If you called you would only have to win one hand out of 100 other hands to make your move a profitable one.
:spades10: :spadesj: :spadesq: :spadesk: :hearts10:

I can't do anything right...

#19 Acesgotcracked

Acesgotcracked

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 189 posts

Posted 27 November 2004 - 11:55 PM

My thinking is that whether the SB nails the flop or not he really is committed to putting the rest of his chips in this pot(whats he really gonna do with 2000 if the BB is 1600, this might be his last opportunity to go heads up with any semblence of a decent hand). After the flop even if the BB doesent hit anything, wouldn't he still call your all in push, theres no reason to think that the SB pushing all in means he hit anything on that flop, hes low on chips, hopeing you didn't hit anything and trying to collect the blinds and antes, it wouldn't be ridicoulis for the BB to think this.Like I said I understand the pot odds means that the BB will call you no matter what two cards are in his hand. But in the position of the SB I would want a call here, you need to double up to survive, since your guranteed a heads up battle your odds are about as good as there gonna get, assuming the SB has atleast suited connectors or something of that sort(holding a K or A)it would seem like the optimum time to push, knowing that it will be heads up, and it may very well be heads up with the BB's garbage.

#20 Munky

Munky

    Poker Forum Regular

  • Members
  • 180 posts
  • Interests:Poker & Building Poker Tables

Posted 28 November 2004 - 01:25 AM

Acesgotcracked said:

My thinking is that whether the SB nails the flop or not he really is committed to putting the rest of his chips in this pot(whats he really gonna do with 2000 if the BB is 1600, this might be his last opportunity to go heads up with any semblence of a decent hand).  After the flop even if the BB doesent hit anything, wouldn't he still call your all in push, theres no reason to think that the SB pushing all in means he hit anything on that flop, hes low on chips, hopeing you didn't hit anything and trying to collect the blinds and antes, it wouldn't be ridicoulis for the BB to think this.Like I said I understand the pot odds means that the BB will call you no matter what two cards are in his hand. But in the position of the SB I would want a call here, you need to double up to survive, since your guranteed a heads up battle your odds are about as good as there gonna get, assuming the SB has atleast suited connectors or something of that sort(holding a K or A)it would seem like the optimum time to push, knowing that it will be heads up, and it may very well be heads up with the BB's garbage.
I'm assuming he didn't have AK or any really decent hand. That would be my assumption since usually shortstacks will push in with a lot of hands in the small blind. I'm assuming he had a par marginal hand that he really just wanted a cheap flop with. That way if he misses, he still has 2000 he can push in. I didn't make up the scenario. Also does it really matter? The quiz was meant for the BB, not the SB :D
:spades10: :spadesj: :spadesq: :spadesk: :hearts10:

I can't do anything right...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users