Ok maybe I am not understanding the question...I have visibly seen his cards before making the call? OK then, I would call 100% of the time, if this is the case.

I agree I mis-read the question... are you yelling at me....relax dude, chill out, it was a simple mistake. You can tell by my answer I am answering a question that I mis-read. The sarcism in these forums is incredible.

It's sarcasm!!11 OMG you must be sooooo stupid!!!Eleventy-One

sw

I wouldn't call this ever on the first hand with a deep stack regardless of who is at the table. If you call this, you may get the exta 10,000, but you give away to the rest of the table that you're afraid to play.

I would personally turn over my hand as I fold to make a statement, and watch the reaction of the SB, because his expression after seeing you fold the A-K will more than likely spark a reaction that will alert you as to how strong his hand was.

Clear fold.

P.S. Alot of people are making the assumption that the 6 unkowns are weaker players. Just because you've never seen them before doesnt make them a bad player.

I really wish people would actually read the question before answering it.

Read the question again, slowly, and then explain to us why you would need to see his reaction to determine the strength of his hand.


As to your PS - the stronger your opposition, the more correct it is to call.

for me, it's simple: if i want to win, i need to bust 11,999 people, many but not all of whom will be complete donks like our friend with QJs. the ME is a neverending odyssey of bad plays and people pushing coinflips over and over and over. if you're a good player, to win the ME you have to get lucky a few times and not get unlucky many more times.

this situation is a bit better than a coin flip. hopefully i won't get unlucky.

again: i need to bust 11,999 people to win. i have a 3:2 edge to bust my first one right now. i'im taking it. i call.

Hard to believe the voting is so close on this. Easy call.

You are at a table of small ball pros who's bread and butter is seeing cheap flops.

With a doubled stack you can bet aggressively with your strong hands, eliminate them from the hand, or withstand some losses as a favorite.

It would be great if the original poster who gave the question would post what he would do. Unless someone could do some real convincing, I'm sticking with my previous answer.

So, op, what would you do?

With Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen at my table I'd be playing scared, but not if I had a doublestack. Easy call.



On the other hand, it's possible that this guy's gonna keep showing me his cards, and I can find a better spot. I don't think that's supposed to be considered though...

I am sure Daniel Negreanu, the original poster, will provide his answer shortly, as he always does with these quizzes.

Until then, all we have to go by is an article he wrote a couple years ago.

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."

So, does that change your answer?

Everyone has a line in the sand...I think 60% is too compelling and would call in most tournaments...I probably fold in a home game where I know I can outplay the field by a wider margin.

But the vast majority of people do not achieve double their stack in 60% of the tournaments the enter...at any point....they bust out before doubling their starting total more than that....so, already, with a 60/40 edge, they're given an opportunity to achieve something they don't do normally in other tourneys by playing their game and "outlplaying" the opposition.

And that's the question...you call here you will go to 20000 chips 60% of the time.

If you entered 10 WSOP ME's, and folded this hand...could you play smallball and increase your stack to 20000 chips, before busting out, in 6 of them? To put it in perspective, I'd guess that more than half the field in this year's main event busted out before reaching 20000 chips....I'd bet that upwards of 10% of the field never got over their starting stack. It's harder than you think, and 60% is an awfully large edge to throw out the window.

I'm just wondering if DN will change his mind given the poor quality of players at this year's WSOP.


Perhaps he feels the ME is now as bad as a home game.

I got to about $23,000 by the second level, and not by calling all ins as a 60% favorite.

It's a legitimate point, and I'm curious to see if he's changed his mind.


That being said...with the poor quality, you can rarely know what two cards someone has, and even on an attracive board, to you, you may rarely be better than 60% in a lot of situations...because buddy limped with Q3s, UTG, and then called your late position raise.

Depends if you're bad opponents are bad because they're weak, or bad because of the cards they play, or bad because they don't understand how to bet.

The 10,000 you would gain in this situation is nearly meaningless in the overall scope of the tournament. Yes, you want to accumulate chips, but to do so while giving yourself nearly a 40% chance to get knocked out of the tournament on the very first hand is too big a risk.

Plus, if he/she is pushing on the first hand with QJ you will probably be able to see some flops with this person at a later time and take all their chips when you have them drawing much thinner.

To me, this early in the tournament, and after seeing their QJ hand, I would need QQ, KK or AA to call. I wouldn't even call with JJ, cuz I'm not that much bigger a favorite than the AK situation.

Now, if this was the second hand of the tourney, and I had already doubled up to $20,000, I would make an instant call, because once again, the extra $10,000 I already have doesn't really mean much to me except to help accumulate more chips, and I'll gladly risk it to pad my stack to $30,000 as a 60% favorite.

As far as Phil Ivey and Gus Hansen being at the table, it doesn't really affect my decision. Besides, the added bonus have having more time to observe their play would probably be worth the $10,000 buy in alone rather risking it being knocked out as a medium favorite on the first hand.

Going from 10k to 20k is worthless, but going from 20k to 30k isn't?

EDIT:

HP_Joe

Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: January 12th, 2005

4 posts since Jan 2005. I'm impressed. I'm even more impressed that they have all been spread over a long period. No, really.

Trying to get from 10K to 20K adds the strong possibility I go broke, while trying to go from 20K to 30K just means I may go back down to 10K, like the rest of the table, save one. Once I have those extra chips, you can almost consider it a cash game situation, because I can't go broke, and I wouldn't be at any disadvantage to the rest of the table, I'll take the gamble with the odds in my favor to try to get another 10K.

Oh, and as far as the number of posts...I was not as good a player back then so my opinions probably wouldn't have helped anybody, hopefully this one will.

Trust me, there are plenty of HORRENDOUS players around here. That shouldn't have stopped you posting.

You make a good point, but do you really think you have a >60% chance of grinding your way to $20k in the first place?

Now here's the key point this question. Your a 3-2 favorite to win the hand. Your a scary table with two insanely good players who are loose and insanely good. I don't care how good you think you are, Ivey will out play you after the flop, end of story. In order for you to have a fighing chance, you have to have GUs and Phil out chipped. They'll be less inclined to stal from you being that you can set them all in.

Thanks.

Do you believe that 60% of the time you play this tournament you will get to 20000 in chips before you bust out?


Ivey and Hansen being at your table should play a factor in your decision, because they will be a large factor in my first question.

The weaker your opposition, the more correct it is to fold...the stronger your opposition, the more correct it is to call.

This is a clear, unquestionable call, against a set of players where you factor to be average of the group.

I HATE this assumption. While yes, you will be able to play pots with this person, in position, what good does that do you? If they're pushing QJh on the first hand of the ME to win 50 chips, they're most likely a maniac. How are you going to react later in the tourney with AA against them when they push into you and the board is 379 rainbow? You won't know their cards. Yeah, they're a maniac but aren't they allowed to outflop you? You could be an 80% favorite or an 80% dog.

I guess my point is that you don't have to guess. You can "read" their hand by literally reading the "Q" and "J" on the 2 cards that they're showing you. All of the talk about playing smaller pots with them later might not even matter because

A: Someone else will get their chips because they won't fold a 60% edge
B: They might not play small pots, only making huge bets and raises
C: Gus and Phil will know what a weak-tight player you are and run your a$$ over before you ever have a chance to take QJ Boy's chips.

I dont know it would be a tough decision for me, however being that early in the tournament I wouldnt want to blow it completely on that hand. AK is good, but its not unbeatable. Id fold.

I'd call, cuz that's just the donk that I am.

Easy fold...

Ramdom cards given the flop usually favors QJ suited over AK in my opinion.

I wouldn't put all my chips on the line for a general coin flip situation

This has to be one of the stupidest things that anyone has ever said. It's an all in, it doesn't matter what your opinion is. The board will favor AK over QJ EXACTLY 60% of the time.

Coinflips are roughly 50/50. This is a 3-2 advantage. Hence, this is NOT a coinflip. Based on your comments I doubt you play poker well enough to pass up a coinflip, let alone a 3-2 advantage.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I really hope you're kidding...but, I have to assume you're not.

What the flop has to do with anything is beyond me...please explain this...this is an all in situation, so no more play is required.

Second, as has been stated about 180 times in this thread, AKo over QJs is a 60/40 favourite....over 1000 hands AK will win 600 times...give or take a few...not give or take 100.

Random cards will NOT favour QJ, and your "opinion" is no different than saying that 2+2=5 in your opinion....it's about as valuable as a screen door on a submarine...and frankly, almost as dangerous.

If I went to a roulette table and bet red 50 times a night for every night for a year, and at the end of the year discovered that black came up 60% of the time, I'd know that it was rigged....and that is because 60% is not a coin flip.

It could just mean you thought the green ones were black

this is sklansky poker logic. i don't play sklansky poker. there is a huge difference between going all in and calling all in. ask people that win tournaments.

The difference only exists when your opponent's holding is uncertain.

DUCY?

People who win tournaments do.

Gus and Phil know we have AK? Who showed them our cards? If we fold are we showing the whole table?

ok.. if u say so....

Besides that your opponent is playing a Style thats pretty aggressvie and will do it again with 45 suited if its u against him in the same situation....

http://www.killphilpoker.com/

try more like
71/23 get your facts straight!!

Two unpair High cards against two unpaired lower cards its more like 60/40
or more accurately

exactly 2-1

Wow, all you gotta use is cardplayer.com or ANY OTHER hand simulator and you'll find out it's 60/40. That's not 2-1, that's 3-2. Anything else you have to say about the math of the situation is wrong. Period.

OK...I will.

Self...you win a lot of tournaments, live and online....what do you think about checky's assertion about going all-in vs calling all-in.


Good question, self...well, his logic applies quite wonderfully when you don't know your opponent's holdings and when he doesn't know yours....pushing all-in gives you two ways to win, by making him fold, or by having the better hand. Pushing all-in is nice when you can make a better hand fold...but, honestly, you don't want a worse hand to fold, you want to extract chips from them, and that is a drawback to pushing all-in.

Calling all-in only gives you one way to win...you have to have the better hand.


And that's where checky's logic falls apart...by checky's logic, he would fold AA if someone went all-in in front of him, simply because he doesn't like calling all-in. The problem here is you KNOW, absolutely KNOW, that you are winning, and that's the bottom line...people who win tournaments call in situations where they KNOW they are ahead. They don't simply fold because an aggressor in front of them is always betting.

People who win tournaments don't throw 60/40 edges out the window.


You see...checky is content to push all-in with AK when he doesn't know if his opponent has 23, 55, or AA, but he won't call all-in when he knows exactly what his opponent has and knows he's ahead...that is the sign of a player who does not win many tournaments against anyone of average skill.


Self...that's a really good answer...checky may not agree or understand, but it doesn't mean you're not right.


Savvy?




Oh my God...you play poker with that wealth of knowledge?

I hope it's more of a hobby for you, because I'm sure your poker exploits are more expensive than stamp collecting.

So, what is it...is it 71/23 or 60/40...because you may not have noticed, but AKo against QJs IS two unpaired higher cards against two unpaired lower cards....and how do you figure 71/23 anyway????!!!!????? YOu figure these hands tie 6% of the time?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Regardless....I have my FACTS straight...AcKs against QhJh is 60/40...look it up...pokerstove...cardplayer...it's indisputable....that you think that 2+2=5 is completely irrelevent to reality.

Besides 60/40...exactly 2:1? What colour is the sky in your world....try 1.5/1.






And you would call against 45s, but not QJs????


You are actually 58/42 against 4h5h...so, you would call against a hand where your advantage is smaller?

Wow...you've enlightened me on the secrets of playing winning poker.

People who talk to themselves amuse me. They also make better points in general than people who can't do simple mathematical calculations or use common sense.

I'd move in as long as it wasn't Gus holding the QJ

I think the "right" answer is to call. 60% chance is good enough to get rid of a maniac on hand 1.


If it were really me.... wait... It woulnd't be me since I'm not putting $10K of my own money down to lose ugly.....

But for the sake of argument.. pretend it's me. I'd have no illusions (delusions) of winning. Maybe 1 in a 100 shot of cashing. I'd be there for the experience. How FREAKIN!!!!! cool would it be to be on the football field with the pros? To be on the baseball diamond with the pros? On the ice (went to the first preseason Coyotes game last night... awesome Hockey season is back!!!) with the pros.

In reality, no freakin' way am I dropping $10K to get a chance to play with the pros, then risking it on the first hand.... even if 60-40 ahead.

This is a question in the poker strategy forum. Your post totally denies any form of strategy. You can call Dan Harrington or Dewey Tomko down with J high if you want. You can open fold aces on the button. You can rereraise allin against Ivey with 72o so you can show a huge bluff. Once you take equity and strategy out of this question there is no 'correct' answer.

I see where your mindset is coming from though.

I understand...personally, if I didn't think I could win I wouldn't be there.

If I truly wanted an experience of playing with the best I wouldn't put 10k on the ME, I'd put 50k on HORSE.

Everyone just saw him go allin on the first hand of the main event

Do you really think no one there is gonna think he is a maniac

Well this is why I said you are the only one who knows just how much of a maniac he is. You know he did it with with Q high.

If I were at this table and witnessed this guy push but didn't see his cards, I would think he were very very stupid and perhaps slightly maniacal. But I might conclude that he simply didn't know what he was doing and got super excited with AA or KK.

wow. patronizing, egocentric, and wrong, all at once.

first, someone said it earlier. every player has a % edge that they set FOR THEMSELVES for which they're willing to play for all their chips when they're certain the money is going in and (relatively) certain of a read or range of hands for the relevant villain. this number is dependent upon an estimation of one's own skill, the skill of the field, the structure of the tournament, etc. mine ain't 60/40 in the first hand of the wsop ME. it would be 60/40 in the first had of a 5 dollar turbo online. if yours is 60/40 in the present situation, good for you, and good luck. mine's closer to 65/35 or a dominated shot, generally, but it depends profoundly, as i said, upon the situation at hand (chip stacks, stage in the tournament, etc.). if you think i'm overestimating my skill by setting my number that high for the first hand of a 2 hr level, 10k starting chip tournament, whatever. again, good luck.

this is a deep stack tournament with lots of players who will be not just a little, but SIGNIFICANTLY below my skill level by my estimation. i can probably avoid ivey and hansen enough to take advantage of that. i think i'm more likely to avoid getting outplayed in big pots by either of them than i am to win a 60/40 shot on my way to 20k in chips.

the value of pushing over calling in long, live tournaments has very little to do with calculated EV, knowing cards, whatever. it has to do with image, psychological advantage, and things of that sort. NLHE is not (first and foremost, at least) a mathematical game.

and of course i call with AA, don't be retarded.

Yeah...I said it. Everyone has a line...I simply think there's only about 100 people (if that) good enough to throw away a 60/40 edge here, and most of them don't throw it away either...anyone else is delusional to think they're that good.



Your "line" should be higher with lower quality competition...the better your opponents, the lower your line should be...are you suggesting the entrants in a typical $5 online turbo tourney are better than the entrants in a typical WSOP ME? Even in a faster moving blind structure.



Yes, I think that...and it's you who needs the luck...luck that you get another chance at this guy before someone else takes his chips...luck that it isn't Ivey or Hansen that takes his chips...luck that you get a 65/35 shot AND know that you are 65/35.



Depends on how good you really think you are...yes...there's lots of talk about bad players and weak players...and luck sucks and so on and so on...Aaron Kanter and Tiffany Williamson are perfect examples....but the vast majority of those entrants CAN play...they didn't ALL get lucky winning their online satellites....a lot of them may be nervous, have possibly never played live before, may not know what to do when they want to call 100 but only have a 500 chip, but the field isn't as weak as legend will have you believe. I think a lot of people make "TV" decisions they otherwise wouldn't normally make - and that has nothing to do with skill, but composure.

Weak compared to the pros...yes...but if they're below average skill it ain't far off. After the top four or five hundred players in the world the parabolic curve flattens out pretty quickly so in a field of 8800 people, most of them are pretty close to each other in skill. You may be better than 75% of the field...but only by a b.c.h. in the grand scheme of things. What is more likely is there is one player at your table who is absolutely terrible, and one who is awesome....at best.



Of course it is....yes...psychology and art are huge in NLHE...but not huge enough to throw away 60/40 edges like they were surplus Rubik's cubes.

What do you think this maniac's raise has done to you psychologically? Now you think you can outplay him? What if he showed you the QJs on purpose?

So, now, an hour later, he's hiding his cards, and you and he see a flop of K82 rainbow, and you have AK, and he goes all-in....you gonna think he's a maniac and call his bluff? Or are you gonna fold because he's a maniac and may just have K8? Or are you gonna wait until you can raise him? Not knowing if this maniac plays "backwards" poker and pushes allin on air, but checks the nuts to you?

Psychology is the hugest reason why you need to call here and get rid of him...because like it or not, whether it was his intent or not, he's in your head.

In fact, if you do fold, you might be better off telling the table that you saw his cards, and, by rule, you'd have to tell them what he raised with...you can simply say you folded T7.

An aside...a ruling question....some card rooms have a rule that if you expose your cards before the action is complete that the hand is dead, even if you have put money in the pot...wonder if you could get his hand ruled dead and take his chips without risking yours.

This point doesn't really matter here. There is no argument of pushing vs calling and why you'd rather do one than the other. In this case, it has nothing to do with ANYTHING OTHER THAN calculated odds and EV. Your image doesn't matter. Neither does his.

What does the player's image matter when you know their cards?

I agree with shpaget when they say that if you fold, you are at a psychological disadvantage. If you're going to fold the best hand now, when will you call with it later?

The example was already made about the maniac pushing with into a board of when you're holding

You've got the nuts here. You've also got less of a percentage to win the hand than in the example that was stated at the beginning of the question.

Are you going to fold the nuts because you're afraid to go out early in the tourney? Think of the psychological disadvanage that you'd be at after the hand like that. Folding the nuts to Q high?

There are 12,000 people in the tourney. If you think you're better than 75% of them, then there will probably be 2-3 better players than you, on average, at your table.

I understand that people want to last in a tourney where they drop 10K to enter, but if you're gonna play, then play to win. That's what I'd be doing there. With that in mind, it's impossible for me (where I'd also regard myself as better than 75% of the players at least) to fold with a 3-2 advantage and the chance to get rolling right from the start.

PS - Aaron Kanter had a few poker skills. I'm not saying that he should've made the final table, nor will he probably ever do it again, but he at least knew that KJh should have been mucked instantly in that hand of Williamson vs Sheikan. It must have taken an act of God to get Tiffany Williamson past the first round of that tourney. Based on what they showed of Dmitri Nobles this year, he was equally lucky, since he obviously have no f*ing idea how to play poker!

So, it seems the consensus is...


If you think you are a better poker player than most of the other players in the field (what 80%?) then you fold.

If you think you are "just average" or "somewhat above average but still not god-like", then you call.

Seems to follow a recent Daniel article about long ball vs. short ball play. If you are truely a great player, then you should try to play short-ball. See lots of cheap flops and then try to out-play post-flop. If you are anything less than dominant skill level at the table, then try to get all your chips into the pot whenever you have a mathematical advantage.


Sound about right?

Actually there is no consensus becuase different people have different agendas, skill level abilities and reasons for playing in the tourney.

I stated that I am probably a better player than at least 75% of the field and I STILL call. I will need tons of chips and I will need to get lucky a few times to get them. Here, I have a good edge and I don't need to get lucky, I just need to not get unlucky. DN's article said roughly the same thing - that passing up a 3-2 edge is just not something that people (with the exception of some top pros, also known as like 1% of the field) should do. There are obvious exceptions for different reasons.

I think its interesting that the votes for call vs fold are ~ 60:40 - same as the odds for the hand.

**Insert spooky music here**

Nope

From the small ball article

Consider one more sports analogy — boxing. The small ball player continually throws jabs while always keeping his guard up. His goal is to wait for the opportunity when his opponent makes a big mistake and opens up his chin.

That's when he socks it to him with the big uppercut!


We can see our opponent has made his big mistake here and should be willing to call

If you are going to win a tourney, you have to make good calls.

Wow...how insightful.

You need to make good folds and raises too.

You also need to have money to enter the tournament...you can't win tournaments if you don't enter.

Look both ways before you cross the street.

And don't eat yellow snow.