It's the very first hand of the WSOP main event and there are 12,000 players. At your table are Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, and six other players you've never seen before.

Everyone folds to the small blind. When he peeks at his cards, you see that he has the Q J . For some bizarre reason, he decides to go all in???

You are in the big blind and have the A K . The question is simple: call or fold?

Simple for me: I'm not gambling my tourney early on as a 3:2 favourite when 20,000 chips isn't going to get me any deeper into the 12,000 player field than 10,000.

While I realize you want to avoid being all in, aren't you going to HAVE to get lucky sometimes, and push your edges? Furthermore, how do you figure 20K wont get you further than 10K? You have to start somewhere.

This is a pretty tough decision though. I suppose it comes down to assessing the value of having the extra 10K at that point in the tourney to your final results.

I think that often this should be a fairly standard call. While 20K chips won't get me that much closer to 120 million or so, it does put me in a better position to deal with the 2 super aggressive players who will likely control the whole table.

The best players talk about avoiding coin flips early on, but you're a 3-2 favorite here and since everyone folded to the blinds, you can reasonably assume that it's more likely that the folded hands would include Qs and Js instead of As and Ks so his outs are more likely to be folded than yours.

If you win this hand, then Hansen and Ivey have to fear going broke when they play a hand with you. They also see that you're willing to make what looks like a loose call (calling your stack in the first level with AK is DEFINITELY loose) so you can use that image to your advantage.

It's a marginal situation but when do you start taking risks? You KNOW you're ahead. I think that you have to call and take chances. If you lose, then it just wasn't your year to win the WSOP...

It's early and you're deep stacked, you are likely to be presented with future opportunities to get your money in as a better favorite. I try to advoid 3:2 or 50:50 situations when I'm deep stacked and early in the tournament.

Having Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen at my table would make me consider a call but I would rather try to get my money in against one of the other 6 in a better spot.

It's not dissimilar to having AA in the BB on the first hand and having all 9 players go all in ahead of you. If you call you are likely done on the first hand but mathemathcially you're getting the odds to call (if you only consider simple pot odds).

Part of playing a tournament is looking at the big picture and I believe it is best to reduce your risk by giving up a small amount of equity on this hand.

If its me I call. If we are talking about DN then I would probably fold.

The real question is what time is the tee time that is making Phil Ivey push this hard with QJ hearts?

I think that it's important to assess your abilities. While I figure to play well, Hansen and Ivey would definitely crush me. Also, the other 6 players, while you might not know them, might all be internet or local professionals, who might also be better than you (less the tool who cold pushed 10K with QJh to win your 50 chips).

I think for anyone but some of the best pros, this is a clear call.

There is no way I would ever call off all of my chips in the very first hand of the wsop ME knowing it is virtually a race. 3 to 2 is not good enough for me. I understand you have to gamble to win in big tournys however there is just no way i would make the call there!

DOS

Maybe DN wouldn't call here, but if I'm at a table with Ivey and hanson, I'm going to need all the chips I can get. Call no brainer

I can't see folding this. That's a pretty significant positive expected value. I suppose you can make an argument that a highly skilled pro can wait for a better opportunity, but I'm not buying it. If I'm a clear favorite, as here, and particularly for average donks like me, I don't see how you pass up an edge like that.

For a donk like me, the opportunity to watch and learn from Hansen and Ivey is what is most important. In order to progress in the tournament, you will need to win dozens of races. And you'll have lots of time to be in them.

While the 3-2 favorite is substantial, there is a 40% chance you will exit the game and not get to test your skills against what are two of the game's toughest players. Learning from them for 3-4 hours would be invaluable to my future development. In poker, after you've got the math it's all about experience. I would fold to ensure I had this experience against Ivey and Hansen.

Best --

Burgerman

This is such an easy and obvious fold. I wouldn't make this call if I knew the first 4 board cards were 2479 with no hearts. It's risk vs. reward. You start the ME with an M over 100, why risk the whole event just to get to 200? You have a maniac on your right who you will be able to exploit for as long as you two are at the same table. Play small ball. Having 2 pros at your table does not change the scenario.

You're not going to get your money in as a 6.3-1 favorite with one card to come?

By that logic, you're folding the nut flush on the turn on an unpaired board becuase you KNOW your opponent has a set. After all, if he could hit one of his 10 outs.

Why even bother playing poker?

if anything i've heard about the ME is true, i don't care about ivey and hansen because the rest of those idiots are dead money. i fold.

seriously, though, this decision hinges more on an assessment of one's abilities relative to the field than anything else. 20k vs 10k at the first level is a pretty small difference, even if it's going to allow you to push around your table (which is unlikely considering the two sharks across from you).

or put better, if you felt good enough about yourself to actually sit at the table in the ME, you should feel good enough about them to fold a 3:2 shot on the first hand of the thing.

You're leading, it's gambling, grab your balls and call it. The other way to look at is, if the guy is that stupid to push queen jack that early, that person is a chicken fried dumbass and you should wait for a better spot. Depends on your mood, really, on any given day.

I haven't decided yet, but I know I'd be more inclined to call if Ivey is the SB. He's scares the **** out of me.

Call, and then go out drinking the rest of the day win or lose.

A good reason for folding is that you'll be at the TV table, so you want some TV time laying down your hands to Gus and Phil's bluffs.

i would call

with gus and ivey at my table im gonna need that 20,000

u know your ahead so go for it

I would fold without queens, kings, or aces. The risk vs the reward just isn't there. Plus I know I'll be able to outplay Ivey and Gus for their chips anyways.

Personally, I would Fold.

I have learned the hard way CALLING an all in with A K.

Moving with this hand is great. Calling with it sucks!

It's too early to gamble the whole tourney here.

But that's me.

Commence the brow beating...

Poker is a situational game... I was giving an example of a specific situation. No, I would not risk my WSOP ME on the very first hand even as a 6.3-1 favorite. And why bother playing poker? To win, and in order to win any money in the WSOP you have to survive many days and avoid risking all your chips during those first few days.

QFT



Uh, at some point chances are that you're going to have to take some risks eventually. If a 6.3-1 edge isn't good enough, you'd really be better off not playing.

Weak tight has just been redefined.

From Daniel Negreanu's Cardplayer article "Go Big or Go Home"

emphasis added:

"I do find it a little strange when people say that you shouldn't play a marginally profitable situation early in a tournament, but it's OK to do so late in a tournament. I think they are missing out on several key points, but I'd like to touch on just one: By doubling up early in an event, it enables you to accumulate even more chips, as a big stack demands respect and is often given free rein to pick up chips at will by aggressively attacking the blinds. I answered a hypothetical question a while back that went something like this: Let's say you are in the WSOP main event, and on the very first hand dealt, you have A-K offsuit in the big blind. Everyone folds to the small blind, who exposes his cards to you and goes all in with Q-J suited. Would you call?

You should - seriously. You would win the pot 60 percent of the time, meaning that six out of 10 times, you'd start the tournament with twice as many chips, while four times, you'd be out early and could enjoy the rest of the afternoon! That is too good an offer to pass up. You could justify folding as a 53 percent or even 55 percent favorite in this situation, but 60 percent is just too much equity for any mortal to give up.

Unless you believe yourself to be some kind of a poker god and think you can routinely fold in positive expected value situations because you can "outplay" everybody else without taking any risks, you should be willing to take some risks regardless of the stage of the tournament."


In light of the fact that two of the best in the world are at the table, I now know that I can't "outplay" EVERYBODY else at the table...call is a no-brainer here.

There may be some tournaments (like a home tournament with 20 people who've never played the game before) where you can easily fold this, but this situation is not one of them.




Umm......if you don't understand the fundamental difference in this example you shouldn't be playing poker.

You are calling with AK because you KNOW what your opponent has, and you KNOW he doesn't have a pair....that is totally different that calling with AK when you don't know what the raiser has.






The reward of have double everyone's stack is immeasurable...it lets you bully...it lets you survive some bad beats...it opens all your options.


By your logic you would, in the exact same scenario, also have to fold two red aces.

You are actually 86% to win in your scenario, and only 81% with AhAd preflop.



To fold in either scenario is the worst idea since New Coke....it's just plain dumb...like room-temperature IQ dumb....please....where do you play poker?

QFT...head trauma, why not sit out until day 3? Why bother wasting some time at the table if ur blinding urself off either way?

And shapget, just wondering, why would u specify that they are red aces?

Simply because they are slightly better against QhJh than black aces....namely, if you have the ace of hearts, your chances against that hand are better than having two non-heart aces (slightly...80% vs 81%).

Regardless, folding AA or KK of any colour here is stupid beyond belief (red kings are 83%)....nobody has such an advantage over the field that they can turn down an 80% advantage (AA vs QJs)...and he's proposing turning down 86%.

I'd call so quick I'd make Hellmuth's patented all-in call look slow.

I'd probably bust just as quick, but at least I'd know it was the right thing to do

Well, I guess thanks to that article, we can all safely assume to know what DN's answer will be. I also doubt that there will be any more votes for "fold" cast.... (19 were at the time of this post)

If I was purely there to win the tournament I'd call in a second, I'd call if I was only a 51% favourite.

On the other hand, if I was there to have a good time, I wouldn't call, since the fun would be all over a big percentage of the time.

I'd love to know where those 19 people play (also - side bet - I bet that increases).

Well, yes, we know what DN will say, but I'd still like to see some intelligent reasoning to why one would fold here....who knows...maybe there are pros that want more than 60% here.


I have been in tourneys where the field was so weak that you could fold a 60% advantage in order to outplay your opponents elsewhere, but this situation is not one of them.

me and basecomb got into an argument over this same question about 2 months ago. obviously this situation is slightly different in that phil ivey and gus hansen are at your table.

i still feel that the way to tournament victory is to show down as few hands as possible. getting into a 60:40 in the first hand does virtually nothing for your chances of winning. the most important concept to tournament poker is the avoidance of going broke while chipping up i.e. avoiding confrontations.

also, having gus hansen and phil ivey at your table could be very adventageous if you know how to play in that you know how they play. if one of them raises and the other calls you can re-raise with a lot of holdings and usually pick it up right there. there are just a lot of squeeze plays that you can do with both of them mixing it up. of course, this is just my uninformed perception.

if you aren't afraid of them it's a fold since the table is going to clam up once the antes come in and you can hop on board the steamroll train with them.

There are plenty of reasons that would justify a fold. One that was already pointed out was that some people are just risk-averse and will obviously be guaranteed to stick around longer if they fold.

Also, many players want to fold because they feel that they will likely get their money in later as a larger favorite, a mentailty held by the top professionals. There are reasons to fold, but if your sole purpose is to win the tourney then you really can't pass up any opportunity with such a high +EV as this one. You're going to eventually get your money in bad on accident, why not put it in when you KNOW for a fact that you're 3-2?

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?

I disagree with this. I must accumulate chips so I don't bust out, but that doesn't mean I have to double up in dramatic fashion, having risked my entire stack to do so. I try to get through as much of a tournament as possible without taking this kind of risk. That is exactly why I push all in, I don't call all in. However, because AA and KK are not drawing hands like AK, I would call with them here.

I agree with what you're saying about playing a big stack. But the same advantage you say I have when I'm the big stack is what I don't have when I call all in with AK on hand #1. With a stack of 10k chips and favorable blind levels like in the ME, it is reasonable to believe I will be able to find spots to get my money in that are much better than 60/40, before having to worry about busting out. This may not always be the case, but I bet it would be more than 60% of the time. I still fold and look for a better spot.

Easy call for me.

But I'm interested in DNs explanation.

I remember DN writing about this hand before and know what the answer will be.

I would not call. If I knew he would do this crazy move this once only, then I would 100% call. However if he's gonna lay 10,000 - 50 on my big blind then i'll fold and wait until he does it when I have a big pair and I have a bigger edge.

Remember in super system one where chip reese commented that the correct mathematical play is not always the correct play. He gambled all his chips with aces against a crazy player with a flush draw in 7-stud and went broke unable to play anymore that night. He writes that the player was so crazy he could have waited until he was a 3 or 4 - 1 favourite.

Man is this the off season for poker quizzes?

DN is just running repeats from previous articles??

I can't wait for the fall season, maybe we'll get a golf question.

btw, I go for the flag, screw the wind

You misunderstand...nowhere do I say you must double up all at once...I simply say that you must double your chipstack...that could very well mean accumulating your chipstack one blind at a time, or it could mean doing it all in one fell swoop....it doesn't matter how, but you MUST double your chipstack (and more) in the tournament.

And the fact is, most people never achieve double their chips (let alone cashing or winning or final tabling) in even half the tournaments they play.

In the WSOP ME, you had to double up 13 times to win...and I'd venture to guess that more than half the field didn't even double up once.

So, if you only double your chips in 50% of the tournaments you play, you should be willing to take a 60% chance to double up in this situation....sitting down and playing a tournament is nice and all, but I'll take the equity over the company every day.

And, in reality, achieving 20000 chips is far greater now than in 5 hours.

And like others, you confuse the issue about calling vs raising all-in with AK...calling all-in with AK is usually bad because you have no fold equity, you have no made hand, and you don't know what you're up against. You could be ahead of AQ, it could be a coin flip, or you could be dominated...the difference here is you KNOW you're ahead.

The fact is, you are 60/40 with AK here...you are 80/20 with AA....you are 70/30 with AQ....you are 62/38 with JJ...84/16 with QQ.

Where is your line in the sand?


Mike Matros wrote an article saying he would call with QQ knowing his opponent had AKs, meaning he's only 53%, again, because he doesn't double up in 50% of his tournaments...I myself like a bit bigger edge, and my line is around 60% (except in weaker tournaments where it would be higher)....you have to have a line somewhere....if I found myself at a table with the top 9 players in the world I'd likely take 48%.

Give me the right tournament situation and you could justify folding AA here, but most times a 60/40 edge is too much to give away.

With two pro's surely soon to attack my equal stack I go ahead and get my money in ahead and try for the double. If a table that might have more of a chance on being tight then I may just fold but most likely not, that's a pretty big % on that hand to give away.

One thing to consider (and we only can now in hindsight) is the large number of donkeys in the main event this year.

If reports like DN's about the calibur of the average player (which I have no reason to question) are correct, you can be relatively well assured of getting a better chance.

I would be looking for a situation where I am 2:1 or better to win in order to call here. 3:2 is very close but I think I draw my line at 2:1, I want to win at least twice as often as I am the first person out.

Given the tough table, I'd call. Even if I felt I was good enough that I could expect to win $12k on average in the tourney when I signed up (which would make calling here an even money proposition at a random table), the tough draw would drop my expectation considerably. A top pro might be correct to fold, if he felt he had a substantial edge on the field, but I doubt even a strong amateur has an edge on the field, given that he has to battle two world class players.

(Not to mention that you save a lot of time if you bust out now instead of later, and time=money; say on average you expect to last 18 hours, and you can make $30/hour playing cash games, then that's another ~$500 to consider).

Why do so many people insist that they hate "calling" all-in with AK. That's not the situation here. In a real tournament where you don't see your opponent's cards, calling with AK usually results in you being against a pair, where you're "behind" to start the coinflip.

That's not the case here. You KNOW what they have. The question could be posed in reverse, saying that you pushed with AKo and you know that your maniac opponent will call with QJh, would you still do it?

Calling with AK here doesn't matter. It's just the hand matchup, and you know the exact odds.

Why on earth would you post that while the poll is still open?

Several answers:

1. Why not? Are you that insecure that it would change your answer? A good dozen people have responded "fold" since I posted this...it is, after all, a poll, and simply because DN says "call" doesn't mean it's correct....that I agree with his article is irrelevent. If you do these quizzes just to see if you give the same answer as DN, then you can continue being a sycophant...I do the quizzes to see what people say, and what intelligent opinions are generated, both in agreement and disagreement with DN's eventual answer.

2. To see if DN has changed his mind since he wrote that.

3. To generate discussion.

4. To cut to the chase.

5. Because.

Exactly, and that point is not the first hand of the first day of the WSOP.



By folding the first hand of the WSOP main event, I am blinding myself? I am wasting time at the table? Excuse me?



All of you are ignoring the point: you have a maniac on your right. You are the only one who saw his cards, hence you are the only one who knows just how much of a maniac he is. You have the best position on him at the table. Exploit this in small pots by raising him when you have him beat, NOT by CALLING him when he pushes and you have him beat.

Why take the risk when you are practically guaranteed to outplay him as long as he has any chips. You will get most, if not all, of his 10k over the course of the day, so just relax on the very first hand and let it go.

Uh, it really doesn't matter how good you are. You aren't good enough to turn down a 6.3-1 chance to double up.

Debating whether or not to lay down the A-K to Q-J is one thing. Saying you wouldn't take a 6.3-1 advantage just means that you have no business playing in a tournament at all.

If he's as much a maniac as you say, what's to say he won't call you when you raise with a 60/40 edge, and how is that any different than this situation? What is the difference? Raising...calling...your edge is the same...what is the difference? If he's that much of a maniac you probably have no fold equity and he's simply willing to gamble early in the tournament in hopes of doubling up or saving his time...so what is the difference?

And, you also make a huge assumption...that you and you alone will get the opportunities to take his chips...and the biggest assumption of all - that he'll be at your table (or you at his) for any length of time.

This is much different in a cash game where you can expect him to be there a while, and you can hope that if he busts out to someone else that he'll rebuy and give you an opportunity to profit off him...in a tourney, if he gives all his chips to Gus Hansen half hour later, that doesn't do you any good at all.

And if he goes all-in for the next five hands I can guarantee you that GH or PI will call him if they find AK....you want to double up on the first hand as much as you want them to NOT double up early.


One other thing to consider...



if you are that skilled where you think you can pass up a 60/40 edge, imagine how awesome you'd be with a double-sized chipstack AND that supreme skill.

And why not?

Why are you willing to go broke at the end of day 2 on a 60% chance, but not on the first hand on an 86% chance?

In both situations the worst case scenario is leaving the tourament with $0.

The difference is in situation B you've taken 24 hours of effort to earn $0...in situation A you've allowed yourself to go golfing, play a cash game, do your groceries, and get laid.