Wow, I checked the polls and it was almost an even split! Well, maybe after the nuggets of information I have to share with you some of you may change your minds. First a story:

Years ago Jack Strauss was in a tournament with 10 players remaining at two tables, with the tournament only paying five spots. Jack was one of the shorter stacks, but the players at his table were playing SOOO tight trying to squeak into the money that after moving all in repeatedly he took a huge chip lead at his table with no confrontations!

Finally the SB went all in and Jack called him with KK and eliminated the player. Jack went on to win the tournament, but in a post game interview had this to say, "I think I played pretty well but I think I made one mistake. I shouldn't have called with those KK because I could have gone to the final table with even more chips than I did had I folded."

Now this is an EXTREME example, but let's think about it for a moment and how it applies to the quizz question.

There is no question really that with the K-7 of spades you are going to likely be more than a 2-1 underdog. In this case the pot would be laying you less than 2-1. Sure you can afford it, but can you afford the potential outcomes?

A) You call and lose the pot unneccessarly doubling up your opponent and making him a threat

Call and win, and you eliminate the player but also eliminate a great opportunity to strengthen your chip lead.

From a stand point of risk versus reward,even if you WERE being laid over 2-1 in this situation it may still have been correct to fold if your opponents are playing tight desperately hoping to make the final table.

When you are in the driver's seat in a tournament, there is little reason for you to take any risks. You simply take what's yours and let the other's have the little raise you put out there. Losing that pot by folding saw my stack go from 6 million to 5.85 million. By folding I also ensured that all of my opponents remained short stacks and had to jockey for position.

Now I'm not so sure I'd go as far as Jack Strauss did and fold KK, but I think you have a better idea now why in a situation like this it's best to prolong the situation, while PROTECTING your massive chip lead.

I hope this taught you all something, as it's a VERY valuable lesson in my opinion.

I think this one applies to much in life; nice one.

That is very, very interesting... and a direction I hadn't even considered much. Besides thinking and reasoning about the logic Daniel has with that, it makes me think that we are all pretty lucky to have Daniel here sharing stuff with us and this great interaction and learning...

And for the life of me, I can't remember which one I voted for! :?

This concept of throwing away good hands as presented by David Sklansky in his tournament poker book whereby as a big stack with stealing rights seemed to be applicable just prior to two tables being consolidated into one table or similar situations. In these situations your stealing rights is worth more than busting someone. However this would primarily apply to smallish stacks.

This situation is slightly different in that you are now at 7 players going to 6 and you have 6 million to each of the other stacks 1 million so they are not that short stacked as they still ahve around 10 playing rounds to go.

However this principal of people playing tight to get to the next elimination is an important one as it allows you to take advantage of opponents fears which in essence is what no limit tournaments is about (even moreso than the cards you are actually holdng yourslef).

However in this situation if you had Kings it would be a waste to throw them away as your stack is going to 7 million from 6 million (most likely)and I fail to see how your stealing of blind rights is worth 1 million in chips however tight the others are playing so I think Daniel is right in saying he would have a hard time throwing those Kings away. Maybe your opponent is holding Aces or an AK and gets lucky when you have the KK or maybe they even have an underpair and hit a set but that extra million is still worth something to you and the bottom line is that to win you need all the chips. I do not personally believe that you can afford to throw away the Kings in this spot with these chip counts.

It is good though to look at all aspects of plays in these situations along with alternate plays as they do not always seem that obvious even if you eventually decide to discard those alternate plays. In other words try and imagine how all the options open to you will fan out if you made them and then pick the one you believe is most equitable for you. It may not always be the most immediate or glaringly obvious play to hit you.

I just read the part in Sklansky's book that HD is referring to, and I was just going to post the same thing as the first paragraph of his post. I just want to say that I'm really enjoying these quizzes. I'm learning a lot, and learning that there's always more to know.

I understand the portion about how you have to let the other players jockey for position and you want to keep your chip lead, and how you don't want to make a player a threat at the table....but I don't understand how you if you win, you're lowering the amount of chips you can have...especially in the Jack Strauss situation. I have no clue as to what he meant...

.....I'm getting all these quiz questions right. Does that mean I'm ready for the WPT? :-)

This is one thing I tend to do in SNG's. If theres 4 people left I try to keep it @ 4 people as long as i possibly can because that's when everybody is tight. Instead of taking the short stack out on my left, I fold my small blind to him. I did this last night, and got my stack up to 7000 with everyone else a little under 1000 because everyone wanted to finish ITM. The blind were 200/400 so once the first perspn did go out, no one else had any chips to make a stand and it was easy pickins.

Oddly enough...3 poker pros I know disagree with DN on this quiz. Maybe DN is after blinds and not stacks...who knows. I do know DN is my fav player...and any moron can see the odds are not worth the call, but I still say that winning or losing this hand is not the point. Playing it like DN wants only makes the overall win harder. But then again DN is prolly the best post flop player on the planet, so he can wait. I don't agree and never will, but that is why people have different styles.

Maybe that's why 90% of the poker pros are often broke. Only getting 1.75 for the money. And it's KNOWN that everyone is playing tight. Need over 2.5 to 1 to even consider calling. I want 3 to 1 before calling. No one is expecting Daniel to fold.

The poll was at 54/54 when Daniel gave the answer to this quiz question. Eight have voted since then. 6/2 in favor of calling.

Those of us following the action at the Bellagio thru the final 10 thread knew the answer. The 7th place finisher was busted the Daniel when Daniel held pocket tens. There was no report on any K 7 hand.

Hmm I think I may have overlooked something.. how does not eliminating the player prevent you from strengthening your chip lead?

Maybe you have shot/hustled pool before, so you might understand my point of view explained another way.

Losing a game only ups the gamble from all the bettors. I've dumped 1K's of games to get the fat at the end of the set. This hand is no different, and I have explained TWICE why you should call...and now a third time because DN is simply wrong.....I do not care about "a" hands results in this context.

Daniel is my poker god along with HL, but DN did NOT think beyond blinds when he could have gone after stacks.

Maybe I should post some poll quizzes and see what happens

But DN is still the man, even if I disagree over a hand;)

I hope you don't take this personally Nitro but it is very dangerous to be so convinced about being completely right on a particualr play.

Approaches like that are not conducive to improving your play.

Very few things are definitive in poker and arguments can be made for many different approaches to a problem.

The important thing is to look at all your options and weigh them up before deciding which route to take but invariably you can never be so completely adamant that a final choice is correct.

Being decisive is important for good play but being single minded about being correct is not.

In this particular problem general opinion is divided down the middle but I for one favour the fold quite strongly and for my own particular reasons given earlier which are related to my interpretation of the information provided and the position at hand.

Would you care to explain your detailed reasoning why you believe you are so convinced of the call?

This pot is giving 1.75 to 1.
Players are playing tight.
You're at least 2.5 to 1 against on any hand the SB is willing to play.
There's no way going against pot odds can be justified.
Especially since it isn't even close.
Only use judgment on marginally close decisions.
Go with the odds when it's overwhelming.

Contrast this quiz with quiz 2.
With 5 tables left, there is no reason to assume the SB is playing tight.
The SB may even be gambling.
Also A9o is a better hand heads-up than K7s.
And the pot was giving 2.08 to 1.

well i got the answer right but i never would have thought for that reason. I mean i kind of was on the right track, saying that people were still going to be intimidated by the chip leader if he didnt make the call, because they all want to get to the final table... but not quite the whole answer.

For those of you that don't understand ( i read some of your posts) how busting someone would not strengthen his chip lead as much as folding, well heres the general concept. The other 6 players are still short stacks and are going to play very tight and conservative if you fold. Knowing that, the big stack can steal more chips from blinds and antes than he could by busting the player. And, if he busts the player all the other players will begin playing much more aggressive, and the big stack wouldnt be able to steal as many blinds. So by folding, the big stack keeps the style of play of the table in his favor. That might not have been a very good description but thats as best as i can do.

[quote="WiseOwl"]
However in this situation if you had Kings it would be a waste to throw them away as your stack is going to 7 million from 6 million (most likely)and I fail to see how your stealing of blind rights is worth 1 million in chips however tight the others are playing so I think Daniel is right in saying he would have a hard time throwing those Kings away. Maybe your opponent is holding Aces or an AK and gets lucky when you have the KK or maybe they even have an underpair and hit a set but that extra million is still worth something to you and the bottom line is that to win you need all the chips. I do not personally believe that you can afford to throw away the Kings in this spot with these chip counts.

quote]

I agree with you Harry but think you miscalculated the situation a little bit by saying it's worth a million to you. If you factor in the fact that you'd be in bad shape against AA, and only a little over a 2-1 one favorite against an Ace-anything, it really isn't worth a million in value to you at all. Not all that important, just thought I'd point that out.

I've only gotten one of these right so far, but at the same time I got it wrong. The two red jacks, I said I would fold (Maybe even pre flop). Guess I'm superstitious like that... I hate jacks. But I knew the right answer would be to call and stated that... walking contradiction.

I'm actually glad! I'm finding all the holes in my game and patching them up! I actually doubled my bankroll today. Thanks for showing me the way Danny boy!

I think it would be great if you could make a quiz about getting a read on somebody due to their body language etc. I really want to strengthen that part of my game. I'm getting better, but still not up to par.

[quote="DanielNegreanu"][quote=WiseOwl]
However in this situation if you had Kings it would be a waste to throw them away as your stack is going to 7 million from 6 million (most likely)and I fail to see how your stealing of blind rights is worth 1 million in chips however tight the others are playing so I think Daniel is right in saying he would have a hard time throwing those Kings away. Maybe your opponent is holding Aces or an AK and gets lucky when you have the KK or maybe they even have an underpair and hit a set but that extra million is still worth something to you and the bottom line is that to win you need all the chips. I do not personally believe that you can afford to throw away the Kings in this spot with these chip counts.

quote]

I agree with you Harry but think you miscalculated the situation a little bit by saying it's worth a million to you. If you factor in the fact that you'd be in bad shape against AA, and only a little over a 2-1 one favorite against an Ace-anything, it really isn't worth a million in value to you at all. Not all that important, just thought I'd point that out.[/quote]

If the ace x aren't suited then it's actually closer to a 3-1 edge at 71.2% to 28.8%. Not all that important, just thought I'd point it out...

Sorry Daniel I just had to...

This was a nice quiz.

Personally, i would call this under the condition that even if i lose i still was 2-1 greater in chips than to my closest competitor.

Other than that, i would say daniel is correct on this one. A great poker player must know when to play and when to sit out and just observe, and i know this is one of the cases where you would just observe as it is a tournament play, and ALL u are risking is that you DONT GET THAT GUY'S $ if you sit out for one hand.

I got this wrong b/c I didn't place as much value on stealing blinds and antes as Daniel did. But as much as I see the logic in Daniel's answer, I think this is very different on-line -- for whatever reason, my experience has been that people are much more prone to call and raise in that situation than in a live game.

I said fold in the quiz and I still say fold after reading all of this analysis. HD, thanks for your insights as well.

Why would you raise first in early with K7s anyway...this isn't a good hand if someone has a real one and needs to increase their chips. They are going to play it strong just like the SB did, no?

If you have the huge stack, why not wait for better position to play the strong raise like late where even if they don't give you credit for as big a hand being in late position as opposed to middle/early, you still have the positional advantage being such a great post-flop player? Or are you more concerned with representing and being the strong table stack by raising early...I've gotten in nothing but trouble playing hands like K7s or K7o early or late...can never be sure you have top pair with top kicker on either side and why would you play this hand when the strength is only in drawing to a five card hand or an incredibly great flop?

I like what TJ says when he says that many people put too much premium on the hand being suited..."If you wouldn't play 'em offsuit, why play 'em suited?"

I actually got this right, I didnt even notice the answer was posted and I just answered in the other section but I was actually pretty accurate in my assessment. Now, I think folding KK is a little extreme. I would have no doubt called with KK. When you have a huge chip lead, it's much better to win hands by not showing down than by showing down and possibly getting outdrawn. Your interested in chipping away at their stacks, not hitting a homerun and eliminating them all. I like to chip away at them and let them knock each other out, so that when it comes to heads up, I'll still have a large stack to play with. Many people gamble to much with a large stack thinking they can afford to, but when you do this a large stack can turn into a short stack real quick.

VirginiaGent:
If you raise in late position, your hand will automatically be assumed to be weaker than if you raised in early position. The worst position to steal blinds with a junk hand is on the button, because most players know this and will play back at you.

Granted that throwing away kings is a bit extreme. But what is the highest pair you are willing to muck? What about AKo or AKs? Are you willing to toss those hands?

TIA

I was right again, where's my share of that wpt prize money eh!

That's OK, you still have the positional advantage and shame on them if they do underestimate the strength of your hand just because you are in a late position.

[quote="jogsxyz
Granted that throwing away kings is a bit extreme. But what is the highest pair you are willing to muck? What about AKo or AKs? Are you willing to toss those hands?

TIA[/quote]

Sorry for the delayed reply but currently I am a little busy in Australia and having typed a very long answer accidentally deletedit prior to posting:-((( it so here we go again.


Basically the answer to this quaestion is that you need to take account of a number of factors in order to determine which play would make you more money on a long term basis.

You should also note that the example/scenario given below is all hypothetical and that I'm trying to keep things as close to the original question as possible.

Firstly in the K7 spades example originally given the blinds are 20K/40K with a 5K ante so it costs 95k per round to play seven hands. Also you have 6 million and your opponent has 1 million. Your opponents are also playing tight. As you are going to be folding Kings we shall also assume that you are going to be only be playing Aces. We shall also assume that you come in for a raise of 150k

When you steal let's assume you will be able to do it three times per round/seven hands (unlikelyto be this high even in this scenario). The first successfull steal breaks you even for the round whilst the next two make you 190k. So in effect you are making 190k per round of play or every seven hands but you also have to deduct an amount if you insist on folding whenever someone plays back at you for all their stack. I would suggest that once in every two rounds you are going to be forced to lay down if this is your strategy and rather than make 380k every two rounds you are only going to make 230k because you have to give up your 150k raise from time to time. (Rememeber if you are laying down Kings you will lay everything down other than Aces in this spot every time someone plays back).

If you play your Kings and someone plays back by going all in you are also going to have to allow for the range of possible hands that your opponent is likely to be holding.

If you always fold the Kings you are going to lose 150K every time.

If you play the Kings then you have to try and determine which hands your opponent is likely to be playing back at you with.

Assuming that they will only go all in with Premium hands like a big pair like Tens upwards or AK/AQ then you are basilcally going to be around a 2/1 favourite or win 2/3 hands.

In other words you win 1 million twice and lsoe 1 million once for a net gain of 333K everyto=ime you are in this kind of situation and play.

Now KK does not come along that often but even with the generous allowances for stealing above I still feel it is inappropriate to lay them down in this situation.

You should also note that if you are only going to play Aces in this spot you can still lose with them as they are not a lock to always win. It is also very likely that if it were correct to lay down Kings it would probably also be correct to lay down Aces as you must have calculated that you have extremely high blind stealing rights or opportunities.

Anyway back to the specific question. What pair or hand would I call an all in reraise with?

BAsically I am looking to play with any hand that is equivalent to the range of hands or slightly superior to those that my opponent would play.

eg if they are going to play only a pair of 8's or better or an AK/AQ/AJ then I would be prepared to play with the same range range of hands as I would perceive myself as being around an evens chance in this situation but that the amount already in the pot (95k + my 150k original raise and the 150k call by the opponent) 395K plus my opponents reraise or around 850k means that I am getting around 1.25 million to my 850k.

However this is my specific answer specific to me as I am prepared to play any range of hands that give me any mathematicall long term advantage over my opponent. ie in the above example I am getting profitable pot odds for my extra 850k long term.

For others who play differently however it may be more suitable for them to play only better hands than those that their opponent would play.

It's a bit like Sklansky's tournament book where he says that sometimes you have to take into account prize money considerations and need to be a 58% fav or whatever.

But for me I simply can't give up what I would conceive to be a significant advantage or pot odds as I like shooting for all or lots of chips when I get the opportunity as these situations rarely present themselves.

Hope this helps

HD, that was "Spocklike" or "Vulcanlike" for all of the Trekkies.

Virginia, wrong movie character. HD would be perfect as John Steed of 'The Avengers'.
The opening scene could show Steed winning the WPT at the Aviation Club de Paris.

With Daniel vs 6 rocks, all wanting to be on TV, the rocks would only play a group 1 hand. They need to be 80/20 favorite before they are willing to risk elimination. This may even restrict them to pocket queens or higher.

Agressive as I am when I play poker I'm not sure how I would be able to play the hand. Too much would really depend on who I was playing. There are but a few people i would not want to face with this hand.[/code][/b]

I don't see how anyone could rationalize a call.

Your image at the table has value, but not nearly enough to justify taking that much of a hit in terms of EV in most situations, which as chip leader, is what you are playing for (EV, as opposed to Survival - i dont mean EV as to exclude psychological benefits). They're not folding to your "blind stealing" raises because they're scared of you. Theyre shortstacked and they need a monster to justify a bet that will, in all probability, result in an all-in hand. When you knowingly call with a less than favorable hand, you aren't going to tighten them up any more than they already are playing. They clearly "fear" the volatility that your loose play will provide, but not to such an extreme degree to avoid bets with an incredibly high EV.

For players to (on rational grounds) avoid volatility at the expense of a significant decrease in EV requires that the payout schedule be particularly choppy, or have arbitrary cutoff points. Unless you know that you're at such a point in the payout scheme, a rational player would not dodge your loose bets with a solid hand out of fear that he'll bust out.
It may be a crapshoot for you to decide whether your opponent is entirely "rational" with respect to maximizing his payout. Tight play is not necessarily a sign of someone fearing the volatility, however. It may just be the case that the blinds are dictating how he has to play.

As for folding kings - not in that situation.
Im all for folding aces in a tournament if the payout scheme requires it too.

If there are 3 players left, 1st gets paid 60%, 2nd gets paid 40% and 3rd gets nothing... both players before you are all in preflop, with only you to call. you have aces (or kings) and you're the short stack at the table. would you call? no chance.

the situation mentioned is not comparable to that though.

folding gives you a (roughly) 15% chance of 60% of the payout (representing a victory to the player who won the all in), 83% chance of taking 40% of the payout (assuming a loss to the player who won the all in) or a 2% shot to have a weighted average of probabilitys identical to the position you were in before the given hand.

calling gives you solid potential (let's say pr = 80% of aces taking it versus two other strong hands) for an ambiguous chip lead, which provides you a given probability to take 60%, a given probability to take 40% and a given probability of taking 0 despite your win.... but also a 20% (approximation) of having your aces cracked and being busted out there with zero payout.

I can promise you that the first will provide a higher expected cash payout to the latter, even if the expected chip return is higher in the latter.

I have'nt checked this site in a while....sorry.

I thought I had explained my reason, but I'll try again.

Making the call does one thing....something you "normally" would not want earlier in a tourney. It loosens the table up and gets you more calls. But it is not about "you" now. Yes, you can grind out the blinds....but this situation gives you a chance to take stacks intead of blinds....and entices the others to battle it out which decreases your risks.....plus you can still steal blinds.

With a fold you might continue to swipe a few blinds with minimal risk. But WHEN you get called you are dominated...period. The table is tight and will ONLY play back with premium hands. And that will not change. They will not battle each other very often because implied odds don't merit the play. Why would a short stack risk it all against another short stack...unless he has an absolute cod lock.

With a call, win or lose, you loosen up the table and don't have to face premium hands EVERYTIME. Plus they will play loose against each other thereby giving you the chance to pick your spots to fight, or wait as they kill each other off. And don't kid yourself by thinking this does not happen. How many times have you seen a tight table turn loose aggressive over one hand....I've seen it more than I can count. If you don't believe it, go to a tight table and raise the first 3 hands you get and see what happens

What the call does is take the target off your forehead if you lose(which is good), or increases your dominance if you win(which is good). With the loss everyone loosens up because you are calling with crap. With the win everyone loosens up because you are calling with crap. Now you can pick your spot and take stacks instead on stealing blinds(but you can STILL steal blinds), or if you can't get a hand they kill each other off.

They'll only loosen up to YOU if you start calling crap. You dont want them to start making high EV calls against you when you're the big stack. Survival play is meaningless to you at that point when you've got everyone covered, you just want to maximize your chip lead and having them refrain from ultra tight play isn't in your best interest. Their tight play affords you a positive EV for each and every hand. They're forfeiting EV in exchange for survival, with that ultra tight play. This is desirable for you. Making a bad call in order to loosen up the table, when their current tightness improves your EV? Terrible idea.

I mean, and additionally - one of the rationales you used to justify a call was that others will "battle it out" and that this removes your risk (assuming YOUR bad call entices them to play loose against each other). . All it means is you'll be playing against fewer, but larger stacks when one player comes out ahead. There's no discernable benefit from that.

You are MASSIVE chiplead, you will be raising with every hand possible, including hands like 85os. The purpose is not to squeeze money out of callers, the purpose is to force them to fold and hand over the 60,000 blinds. If you are raising every single hand, it will be hard for an opponent with a hand like Q9 to call or push all in, fearing the possibility of encountering a legit hand as well as being eliminated from the tournament with minimalinnings. Also because the entire group is shortstacked and playing extremely tight, a small raise will most likely seize the pot preflop.

If you're agressively stealing blinds and you're planning to fold to a reraise, then your cards are essentialy irrelevant.

You don't necessarily fold that to a reraise. It depends on how large the reraise is, obviously.

This is because everyone is trying to make the final table of 6 and will continue to play tight in order to do so. By folding, you are keeping the 7th player in the tournament so that everyone will continue to play very tight. This allows you to steal more blinds. Stealing the blinds from 7 people is much more profitable than busting a small stack.

I recently did the same thing at a tournament here in Ottawa. I was a significant chip leader with 9 people left and top 8 paid. I was able to steal the blinds just about every 3rd hand because everyone was trying to sneak into the money. I folded TT in my BB to the small stack at the table when he went all in because I felt it was more profitable to continue stealing.

Cheers,
Brad

) Call and win, and you eliminate the player but also eliminate a great opportunity to strengthen your chip lead.

I don't understand the above concept. Ive read a post earlier about if the other player gets knocked out the other stacks will play aggressive. Are you saying they will play aggressive because they have made the final six. Maybe thats what you meant. Your saying this hand is taking place on the bubble? If that is the case then I understand.

But here is why I think if you win this hand. It sends out a message that I will raise you with mediocre hands and call you cause I got the chips. I doubt players will play back at you with bluffs. If they play back at you can trust fold. When I'm short stack I can't stand being raised by a chip leader who is loose and will call because most of the time I'm picking up junk and know a bluff won't work.

Question: Daniel, you called in a similiar situation with a weak hand with Anne Duke in the Tournament of Champions. Am I missing something in that hand. I wasn't sure about the pot odds with Duke maybe you were pot commited already.

As you can see from my postcount I am a virgin so treat me gently, but isn't there another factor for consideration here?

If the blind-stealing ability has more equity than the potential upside here, then surely this is ENHANCED (win or lose) by the advertising value of showing down the KK, which would presumably convince your opponents not to play back at you with anything other than a major premium hand... surely this makes it much easier for you to steal?

Obviously this doesn't apply in the K-7 example.

The KK situation was unique in that by busting a player the tournament in question went from 2 tables to 1.

Jack's thoughts were that if he folded the kings and kept the tourney at 2 tables, he could continue to bully his.

That way when a player was finally busted he would move to the final table with even more chips than he did.

You must remember that poker is a partial information game....maybe DN had a thought or perceived info that influenced his play....maybe even subconsious.

We debate hands here....sometimes heatedly....but the fact remains that NO play is always correct. I disagree with DN on the question in this thread, but I never doubt his ability, nor do I think he would say he is absolutely right in the matter everytime.

Like many teachers have said....Do what I say, not what I do.

Great example. Many of us have been guilty of blowing a few final tables while leading in chips because we called raises with hands similar to the K7s of the example, instead of pragmatically maintaining a huge chip lead, folding, and preparing to hammer later.

Question 1: At what point does a chip lead get to the point when you start conserving your stack versus risking it to grow it? 40% of the total chips? 50% of the total chips?

Question 2: You mention in the example that the player was stealing 2.5 times per round the blinds. How do you track, for each player, this statistic in an easy way? Do you actually have a "betting per round" number for everyone at the table, as opposed to "he's loose", "she's very loose", "he is tight passive"? (a number rather than a subjective evaluation).

I would appreciate anyone answering these questions. ty.

flintsword