All in in a heads up situation...

I have to share this experience...

Prima Poker (Gaming Club, Royal Vegas Poker, etc.) is offering some seats into the WPT Shooting Star Tourney in San Jose, California in March 2005. They offer a series of SnGs as follows:
Level 1 : $1. + $0.10 - 10 person - winner gets free entry into Level 2
Level 2 : $10 + #1.00 - 6 person - winner gets free entry into Level 3
Level 3 : $60 + $6.00 - 10 person - winner gets free entry into Level 4
Level 4 : $600 + $50 - Multi-table - top 10% get package to WPT Shooting Star

I decided to take a shot going through the ranks. I played one Level 2 (direct buy-in) and got eliminated heads up. Went to a Level one and won. Went to the Level 2 and, again, sadly got eliminated heads up. I tried Level one again.

And then I ran into it..... the 'all-in tactic'.

I did very well in the tourney and by the time it was 'heads up' I had over 11k and second had just over 4k. I decided to play tight but lean on him (as Matt Damon so eliquently put in the movie). I knew the win was mine - I just needed to play smart.

In the first hand dealt the other player goes 'all in'. OK, he/she has a big hand, right? OK, give respect - fold.

Next hand, 'all in'. Two hands in a row worth risking it all? My hand sucks - OK, fold.

Third hand, 4th hand, 5th hand - hmmmm.

This went on for about 10 -15 min literally. I was not getting callable hands and at that point I decided the best thing to do was not to call if it was not worth a coin flip minimum. I had enough stack to ride this out until he/she got bored. The blinds were so small relative to the stacks it was not a big issue.

Then I thought of a great counter tactic. I could not stop this person from all-ining every hand but I could slow it down. In a timed blind situation, they might realize that time is money, especially when they were the short stack. Also, statistics state I should get a good hand eventually worth calling the all-in. So, we were dealt the cards - when it was his/her turn to act, 'all in'. My turn to act - stall. The chat window was FULL of 10 and 5 second warnings. It was all I could do to keep my sanity.

This person eventually got bored and decided to change their tactic a bit. They either folded on SB or checked to the flop. But once the flop came, again 'all-in'. I thought "GREAT, now I can flop a good hand and call this $%^@!".

But I didn't need to. Finally the mother of all hole cards ended up in my virtual little hands - Ace, Ace. I decided to 'all-in the all-iner'. I was thinking that at worst it would be a coin flip and to lose on a coin flip was OK with me at this point - as long as I knew the odds were mostly in my favour. He called - with pocket 3s. That concerned me but when the board came down mixed rags, I took my ticket to Level 2 and left the table.

Although this experience was very frustrating while it was happening, I did learn a lot about myself and heads up play. Thank you (player who shall remain nameless) for the experience!

Comments

  • 88Fingers wrote:
    He called - with pocket 3s. That concerned me but when the board came down mixed rags, I took my ticket to Level 2 and left the table.
    You were actually a stronger favourite over the 3s than you would have been against 5h7h. I love it when someone calls me with an underpair.

    On re-reading your post again, I realize you could have blown your golded opportunity if he had folded. Based on his behaviour, wouldn't it have been better to wait for him to make the first move? You were lucky that he had a pair and probably thought you were just pissed and pushing with anything but still... what if he had folded? You'd still be kicking yourself. I saw a tourney once where the guy got quads and pushed his chips in. It was the dumbest move I ever saw. He claimed he thought the guy would think he was bluffing.

    This is an interesting situation. I've been on both sides of the heads-up battle, either the hugely big stack or the tiny small stack. Generally I would win with the big stack but I have managed to blow it. Likewise, I generally have lost with the small stack but have managed to pull off a miracle from time to time. The all-in strategy every hand your opponent used seems to be very poor. Can anyone suggest particular strategies that work?
  • pkrfce9 wrote:
    On re-reading your post again, I realize you could have blown your golded opportunity if he had folded. Based on his behaviour, wouldn't it have been better to wait for him to make the first move? You were lucky that he had a pair and probably thought you were just pissed and pushing with anything but still... what if he had folded? You'd still be kicking yourself.

    I had a hunch that he'd call an all-in thinking I was 'turning the tables on him' and throwing it back at him and would continue my ways. Luckily, he called. You're right - if he folded it would not have had the same result.
  • LOL - I just played another level 1 tourney as I lost in the Level 2 - and who beats me heads-up - no other than our own STPboy!!!!

    GL STP in Level 2
  • 88Fingers wrote:
    LOL - I just played another level 1 tourney as I lost in the Level 2 - and who beats me heads-up - no other than our own STPboy!!!!

    GL STP in Level 2

    Thanks it was nice to play with you and see a friendly face (name). I caught a couple lucky flops in my blinds and made my way to level 2. I won my level 2 also and am now onto Level 3. I'm going to take a little break now and play level 3 later tonight. I'll let you know how it goes. This was the first time I tried these qualifiers, it's fun! Well, fun when you're winning. Good luck in your future trys.

    stp
  • But I didn't need to. Finally the mother of all hole cards ended up in my virtual little hands - Ace, Ace. I decided to 'all-in the all-iner'. I was thinking that at worst it would be a coin flip and to lose on a coin flip was OK with me at this point

    Since when are pocket rockets a coin flip?

    Oh and 'All-ining the all-iner' is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE play. If I was your opponent I would have folded in a heartbeat.
    lso, statistics state I should get a good hand eventually worth calling the all-in.

    If your opponent is going all-in every hand, then you can put him on a random hand and only need a hand better than a random hand to call. It sounds like you tightened up far too much and would have let your opponent back into the match.
    Although this experience was very frustrating while it was happening, I did learn a lot about myself and heads up play.

    Actually, I think you missed the point of heads up Holdem. You should consider reading TPFAP. You'll learn that the very best player in the world against the very worst will only win a heads up match 70% of the time against a player who moves all-in constantly. It seems like you were trying to find a situation where you were guarenteed to win, which is nice when it happens, but is far more likely that you will continue to bleed blinds to your opponent.
  • BBC Z wrote:
    If I was your opponent I would have folded in a heartbeat.

    But that is just it - I was not playing you, nor anyone else on this Forum (I assume) for that matter. As was previously mentioned and previously agreed to by me, it would have been a completely different result if my opponent had folded. But he didn't. What does that tell me? He is not as good a poker player as anyone on this forum.

    Yes, I went with a 'hunch' and this time it paid off. If I was playing you, it would not have.
    BBC Z wrote:
    If your opponent is going all-in every hand, then you can put him on a random hand and only need a hand better than a random hand to call. It sounds like you tightened up far too much and would have let your opponent back into the match.

    This is true, but as I said blinds were not an issue to that point. I still had him covered by about min 2000 in chips stack when the Aces fell. The issue I was having was that my 'random hands' were not worth calling a raise, never mind an all-in. Yes, I know, during the 'excitement of it all' I may have missed a J9o or Kxs but I did not want to double this character up. Why give him/her a win when they don't, imo, deserve it.

    BBC Z wrote:
    Actually, I think you missed the point of heads up Holdem. You should consider reading TPFAP. You'll learn that the very best player in the world against the very worst will only win a heads up match 70% of the time against a player who moves all-in constantly. It seems like you were trying to find a situation where you were guarenteed to win, which is nice when it happens, but is far more likely that you will continue to bleed blinds to your opponent.

    Maybe I am missing something you're right. No disrespect intended but is it not the point of the game, as in any game to win? In this case, for this tourney, at this time - I won. I in no way meant to say that my tactics are to be published in a book for everyone to read as a great way to handle this situation in the future. Usually playing heads up in a tourney you will not have a 11000 - 4000 chip lead with the blinds still being a minute portion of your stack. Nor will you probably ever come across someone who does this.

    I just thought to post the event as it was kind of humourous to me.

    I will read the book you suggest. It is on my 'to read' list.
  • Yes, I went with a 'hunch' and this time it paid off. If I was playing you, it would not have.

    You had a predictable opponent and you put him into an unpredictable situation. Not smart poker.
    No disrespect intended but is it not the point of the game, as in any game to win?

    Actually, your goal in poker is to make correct decisions. Outcomes, while nice, are irrelevant.
    In this case, for this tourney, at this time - I won.

    A person who knows nothing about poker other than how to push his chips in can win tournaments. You shouldn't care much about the short term. I'm questioning your logic on a long term basis.
  • BBC Z wrote:
    Actually, your goal in poker is to make correct decisions. Outcomes, while nice, are irrelevant.

    While I agree with you that an important goal in poker is to make correct decisions, the outcomes are what keeps us going and are very relevant.

    stp
  • BBZ, why you gotta hate on a playa?

    When people post on this forum, they're looking for constructive feedback -- not insults. Try saving comments such as "not smart poker" and "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE PLAY." They don't really accomplish anything except temporarily boost your own ego. I wish I could say I'm expecting a humble response from you.
    Phil
  • BBZ, why you gotta hate on a playa?

    When people post on this forum, they're looking for constructive feedback -- not insults. Try saving comments such as "not smart poker" and "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE PLAY." They don't really accomplish anything except temporarily boost your own ego. I wish I could say I'm expecting a humble response from you.
    Phil

    sigh.
  • BBC Z wrote:
    If your opponent is going all-in every hand, then you can put him on a random hand and only need a hand better than a random hand to call. It sounds like you tightened up far too much and would have let your opponent back into the match.

    While it's true that calling with any better than average hot-and-cold hand has a positive EV in terms of chips, in this situation it might be worthwhile to wait for a much-better-than-average hand. As long as you are the chip leader, all you need to do is win a single pot to win the tournament. Since your opponent might change strategies if he won an all-in pot and took the chip lead, it seems like you would want to maximize your chances of winning that first all-in pot, while making sure you're still the chip leader when that pot happens. It's the classic system of giving up a small edge now so that you can take advantage of a bigger edge later.

    If you can estimate how many hands you can fold before he catches up to you by stealing blinds, you can use that to determine what you'll play. For example, if you know you can fold 50 hands and still have the chip lead, then you can probably wait for a premium hand (maybe AK, AQ, or a pocket pair 99 or higher), and be a 70-30 favourite or better against a random hand.

    Of course, your opponent's odds of winning the whole thing improve as he gains chips, so you don't want to tighten up too much. It seems like a bit of a balancing act, and I'd be interested to read an analysis of the situation.

    On a side not, since your goal in this plan is to maximize the number of hands you can fold before he catches up, you actually want the blinds to stay low, so you should play as quickly as possible, not slowly.

    Also, once you do hit your monster hand, you definitely don't want to "all-in the all-inner", since that will make it obvious that you caught a hand, and the all-inner might fold, whereas if you just wait to call, you know for sure you'll get him all-in.
  • 1) Thank you everyone for your thoughts. It gives me some more to think about.

    2) I agree wholeheartedly that going all-in would have been useless if this opponent folded.

    3) Thank you especially Phil, I have never been called a 'playa' before!
Sign In or Register to comment.