You are correct in that i don't play low buyin tourneys (or any tourneys outside of sunday for that matter).
Yes, I was paying you a compliment. (Though I have no idea what "outside of Sunday" means). I could recognize your arguments as being written by many WSOP players. But here's the thing. What applies among expert players does not apply to everyone. It's truly a case of "play the player, not the cards" and if you can do this with success I don't see why you ever want to risk your tournament life without a made hand.
You are overestimating how easy it will be to pick up chips and find a better spot later in the tourney. I am a cash game player and would definitely have a significant post flop edge against players in these tourneys but im still getting it in preflop in this spot every single time. As i said before... the people who argue for passing up small edges (in this hand i think it is more than a small edge) so they can use their skill advantage later are generally not very good at poker.
And what study or concensus is that built from? I'd like to see a hand breakdown of the last WSOP winner and I would like to see how many times he went all -in preflop without a premium hand throughout the coarse of a tournament. I'd be willing to bet, if you pardon the pun, the championship winner made some amazing bluffs, amazing folds and amazing calls based upon calculating odds and reading their opponents. I doubt Hellmuth puts his tournament life on the line at the start of any tournament by pushing with A-Q pre-flop just because he "probably has the best of it".
If you are a cash game player, then I think this may cloud your judgement in the issue. If you can re-load at any time, it makes sense to take advantage of the small edges since if you lose, you can simply re-load. In a large MTT, with the buy-in only a small portion of the prize, it makes less sense.
If you are a cash game player, then I think this may cloud your judgement in the issue. If you can re-load at any time, it makes sense to take advantage of the small edges since if you lose, you can simply re-load. In a large MTT, with the buy-in only a small portion of the prize, it makes less sense.
This is a tricky concept.
I can understand why you would feel that way , and you do an excellent job of eloquently explaining your point of view, but you're wrong. I too, used to feel the same way so I'm sure you have lots of company.
I think if you read , "Gambling Theory and other Problems" by Malmuth it would really help you.
In that book Mason Maluth explains how and when tournament chips change values and when cash game strategies apply.
In this particular case, with the prizes a long way off, you can treat it like a cash game pretty much. But I think if you read the book it will help you a great deal. It's a non-trivial topic that everyone should have a firm grasp of.
check out this article by matt matros that shows why you cant pass up these edges... players simply arent skilled enough to pass up these edges no matter what you may think
check out this article by matt matros that shows why you cant pass up these edges... players simply arent skilled enough to pass up these edges no matter what you may think
Thanks OBV.
After the return trip from Vegas, I am thinking that you need to take 3-2 flips to have any chance in these med stack tournaments. That article gives the math to support it.
Man I have been such a pussy for the last little while;
So the nagging question is; do you want to get a fold ever here? As jacksup says, you can take neg ev flips. Even a push from 99 should be called when you consider an ICM and future value.
So if you want to get all of your chips in preflop then reraise is the best action as a push might instead get the other hand to fold.
---
What makes me feel better, psychology wise is a push. If called and show down with AQ you will get more value out of future pushes against this player and future action.
You should be able to open up your resteal range if you get a fold here.
If you get called your showing a top hand which should gain you some respect at the table.
This may not mean very much on the math side and online, BUT it definitely
makes a difference to someones future action.
What do you think about the player showing KT? What would you do against them in the future based on this hand, not just range values but how would you try and play 44 in LP against them?
In a vacuum reriase, but I like the push more in real life for all the reasons outside of math.
If you were deeper then a reraise would come into play as you will want some room to manouver with reraises as steals.
Does anyone else think like this is or is poker just math now?
If you are a cash game player, then I think this may cloud your judgement in the issue. If you can re-load at any time, it makes sense to take advantage of the small edges since if you lose, you can simply re-load. In a large MTT, with the buy-in only a small portion of the prize, it makes less sense.
The issue here is not about being cash or tourny players. It is about stack sizes and what you can do with them. The # of effective BB in your stack makes all the difference in the way you play any hand. Watch any game with effecive stacks of 200 or more BB and pay attention to how it changes the game. If you can't see the difference then stick to crazy 8's.
Kristy's stack is about the right size for a re-stealing AI here maybe a bit large, the only problem is she has a real hand and the villian here is "transparently aggressive" (LOL WTF does that mean?).
She is way ahead of his range and willing to risk taking a flop with this guy even though her stack is kind of an akward size for optimal post flop play. Her read is such that she thinks he may jam overtop of her re-raise and she can get it in with the guy while she is ahead.
Hats off to her here. The read was right and she got her money in good. What more can you do?
As for the rest of the noise in this thread:
EV is EV. End of story.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Pick a better spot is a bullshit way to play poker. The play either has value or it doesn't.
check out this article by matt matros that shows why you cant pass up these edges... players simply arent skilled enough to pass up these edges no matter what you may think
Yes I noticed this article posted elsewhere a long time ago. I agreed with it back then. But as I played more Sit N Go's and more MTT's, I disagreed and called it poor tournament strategy.
The problem with the article (and the problem with the other analysis) are the following.
1.) His opening scenario of QQ vs AcE-King, defines an edge but only in the presence of perfect information. In the opening rounds of a tournament, before I have had any chance to evaluate any othe players, I may be facing down against AA or KK. True, it may be some ridiculously loose-Agg player pushing with pocket 7's. But we are going into the tournament thinking that the players are reasonably skilled. What range of hands will players push all-in?
Though I admit, this isn't the situation in OUR example. However, our example differs in a crucial way. In the article, the choice is to either coin flip or not to coin flip. There is no other option. In our example, we don't NEED to push. We can simply elect to see a flop.
If this had been the case in the article, would the writer be so certain it would be better to push with Aces rather than elect to call a raise and see if the flop contained an Ace or King?
2) His mathematical example that an average player has exactly 1 in (insert N# of players in tournament) is absurd. Instead the true scenario is a non-linear curve. Bad players will lose their money much faster than good players will acquire it, early in a tournament. Which makes sense. Good players will look for tells and betting patterns to get edges later in a tournament much greater than 53.8% when the risk their money. The key is though that there are by definition more bad players than good at the start of the tournament.
I would also like to defy anyone to find a tournament history of Phil Hellmuth or Ivey or any top tournament player pushing all in at the start of a Major WTP event against a stranger with a good but not made hand like A-Q suited pre-flop.
the villian here is "transparently aggressive" (LOL WTF does that mean?
.....
EV is EV. End of story.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Pick a better spot is a bullshit way to play poker. The play either has value or it doesn't.
Google: define:transparently
Definitions of transparently on the Web:
[SIZE=-1]
[*]so as to be easily understood or seen through; "his transparently lucid prose"; "his transparently deceitful behavior"
[*]so as to allow the passage of light; "the red brilliance of the claret shines transparently in our glasses" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
I'm not advocating a fold, I'm looking for a debate on the re-raise v. the shove, both of which, I believe, have a positive value and merits of their own.
I would also like to defy anyone to find a tournament history of Phil Hellmuth or Ivey or any top tournament player pushing all in at the start of a Major WTP event against a stranger with a good but not made hand like A-Q suited pre-flop.
The pros say DON"T do it and neither should you.
Try this thought experiment.
If you offered Phil Ivey the chance to flip for stacks at 53.8% at the start of the WSOP main event, What do you think he'd say? What would you say?
I would also like to defy anyone to find a tournament history of Phil Hellmuth or Ivey or any top tournament player pushing all in at the start of a Major WTP event against a stranger with a good but not made hand like A-Q suited pre-flop.
The pros say DON"T do it and neither should you.
Shoving with AQ at the start of a WPT event is not even close to shoving with AQ in the hand in question. At the start of a WPT event with super deep stacks if you shove with AQ you will only get called if you are beat and the amount of chips you pick up from everyone folding will be small relative to the stack sizes.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a top mtt player who wouldn't shove/reraise in this spot with 27bbs against a guy with a wide opening range.
I'm not advocating a fold, I'm looking for a debate on the re-raise v. the shove, both of which, I believe, have a positive value and merits of their own.
Both shoving and reraising are fine plays and i wouldnt argue against either one. The reason i like reraising is that you can get your opponent to do something crazy with KT like what happened in this hand. Also you will be surprised at how often your opponent will just call the reraise and then fold to a flop shove... i think if called you should be shoving any flop if i remember stack sizes correctly. With that said I think the difference between shoving and reraising is so small that either one is perfectly fine.
If you offered Phil Ivey the chance to flip for stacks at 53.8% at the start of the WSOP main event, What do you think he'd say? What would you say?
He'd say, "Hell yes"
I'd say, "Hell yes"
Can you guess why?
Phil Ivey would flip for stacks at the start of the WSOP? I would hope that with all the poker information available online, there would not be a concrete listing of plays made by a pro poker over the course of winning a tournament.
Not to say you are wrong about what Phil Ivey would do. But what I have read from Hellmuth, he would NOT do it.
Comments
Cosign^^^^^^
Ooooh shocker! props Johnnie!
Here is a handy aid:
Yes, I was paying you a compliment. (Though I have no idea what "outside of Sunday" means). I could recognize your arguments as being written by many WSOP players. But here's the thing. What applies among expert players does not apply to everyone. It's truly a case of "play the player, not the cards" and if you can do this with success I don't see why you ever want to risk your tournament life without a made hand.
And what study or concensus is that built from? I'd like to see a hand breakdown of the last WSOP winner and I would like to see how many times he went all -in preflop without a premium hand throughout the coarse of a tournament. I'd be willing to bet, if you pardon the pun, the championship winner made some amazing bluffs, amazing folds and amazing calls based upon calculating odds and reading their opponents. I doubt Hellmuth puts his tournament life on the line at the start of any tournament by pushing with A-Q pre-flop just because he "probably has the best of it".
If you are a cash game player, then I think this may cloud your judgement in the issue. If you can re-load at any time, it makes sense to take advantage of the small edges since if you lose, you can simply re-load. In a large MTT, with the buy-in only a small portion of the prize, it makes less sense.
This is a tricky concept.
I can understand why you would feel that way , and you do an excellent job of eloquently explaining your point of view, but you're wrong. I too, used to feel the same way so I'm sure you have lots of company.
I think if you read , "Gambling Theory and other Problems" by Malmuth it would really help you.
In that book Mason Maluth explains how and when tournament chips change values and when cash game strategies apply.
In this particular case, with the prizes a long way off, you can treat it like a cash game pretty much. But I think if you read the book it will help you a great deal. It's a non-trivial topic that everyone should have a firm grasp of.
check out this article by matt matros that shows why you cant pass up these edges... players simply arent skilled enough to pass up these edges no matter what you may think
Thanks OBV.
After the return trip from Vegas, I am thinking that you need to take 3-2 flips to have any chance in these med stack tournaments. That article gives the math to support it.
Man I have been such a pussy for the last little while;
So the nagging question is; do you want to get a fold ever here? As jacksup says, you can take neg ev flips. Even a push from 99 should be called when you consider an ICM and future value.
So if you want to get all of your chips in preflop then reraise is the best action as a push might instead get the other hand to fold.
---
What makes me feel better, psychology wise is a push. If called and show down with AQ you will get more value out of future pushes against this player and future action.
You should be able to open up your resteal range if you get a fold here.
If you get called your showing a top hand which should gain you some respect at the table.
This may not mean very much on the math side and online, BUT it definitely
makes a difference to someones future action.
What do you think about the player showing KT? What would you do against them in the future based on this hand, not just range values but how would you try and play 44 in LP against them?
In a vacuum reriase, but I like the push more in real life for all the reasons outside of math.
If you were deeper then a reraise would come into play as you will want some room to manouver with reraises as steals.
Does anyone else think like this is or is poker just math now?
The issue here is not about being cash or tourny players. It is about stack sizes and what you can do with them. The # of effective BB in your stack makes all the difference in the way you play any hand. Watch any game with effecive stacks of 200 or more BB and pay attention to how it changes the game. If you can't see the difference then stick to crazy 8's.
Kristy's stack is about the right size for a re-stealing AI here maybe a bit large, the only problem is she has a real hand and the villian here is "transparently aggressive" (LOL WTF does that mean?).
She is way ahead of his range and willing to risk taking a flop with this guy even though her stack is kind of an akward size for optimal post flop play. Her read is such that she thinks he may jam overtop of her re-raise and she can get it in with the guy while she is ahead.
Hats off to her here. The read was right and she got her money in good. What more can you do?
As for the rest of the noise in this thread:
EV is EV. End of story.
I have said this before and I will say it again. Pick a better spot is a bullshit way to play poker. The play either has value or it doesn't.
Yes I noticed this article posted elsewhere a long time ago. I agreed with it back then. But as I played more Sit N Go's and more MTT's, I disagreed and called it poor tournament strategy.
The problem with the article (and the problem with the other analysis) are the following.
1.) His opening scenario of QQ vs AcE-King, defines an edge but only in the presence of perfect information. In the opening rounds of a tournament, before I have had any chance to evaluate any othe players, I may be facing down against AA or KK. True, it may be some ridiculously loose-Agg player pushing with pocket 7's. But we are going into the tournament thinking that the players are reasonably skilled. What range of hands will players push all-in?
Though I admit, this isn't the situation in OUR example. However, our example differs in a crucial way. In the article, the choice is to either coin flip or not to coin flip. There is no other option. In our example, we don't NEED to push. We can simply elect to see a flop.
If this had been the case in the article, would the writer be so certain it would be better to push with Aces rather than elect to call a raise and see if the flop contained an Ace or King?
2) His mathematical example that an average player has exactly 1 in (insert N# of players in tournament) is absurd. Instead the true scenario is a non-linear curve. Bad players will lose their money much faster than good players will acquire it, early in a tournament. Which makes sense. Good players will look for tells and betting patterns to get edges later in a tournament much greater than 53.8% when the risk their money. The key is though that there are by definition more bad players than good at the start of the tournament.
I would also like to defy anyone to find a tournament history of Phil Hellmuth or Ivey or any top tournament player pushing all in at the start of a Major WTP event against a stranger with a good but not made hand like A-Q suited pre-flop.
The pros say DON"T do it and neither should you.
Google: define:transparently
Definitions of transparently on the Web:
[SIZE=-1]
[*]so as to be easily understood or seen through; "his transparently lucid prose"; "his transparently deceitful behavior"
[*]so as to allow the passage of light; "the red brilliance of the claret shines transparently in our glasses"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
I'm not advocating a fold, I'm looking for a debate on the re-raise v. the shove, both of which, I believe, have a positive value and merits of their own.
Try this thought experiment.
If you offered Phil Ivey the chance to flip for stacks at 53.8% at the start of the WSOP main event, What do you think he'd say? What would you say?
He'd say, "Hell yes"
I'd say, "Hell yes"
Can you guess why?
Shoving with AQ at the start of a WPT event is not even close to shoving with AQ in the hand in question. At the start of a WPT event with super deep stacks if you shove with AQ you will only get called if you are beat and the amount of chips you pick up from everyone folding will be small relative to the stack sizes.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a top mtt player who wouldn't shove/reraise in this spot with 27bbs against a guy with a wide opening range.
Both shoving and reraising are fine plays and i wouldnt argue against either one. The reason i like reraising is that you can get your opponent to do something crazy with KT like what happened in this hand. Also you will be surprised at how often your opponent will just call the reraise and then fold to a flop shove... i think if called you should be shoving any flop if i remember stack sizes correctly. With that said I think the difference between shoving and reraising is so small that either one is perfectly fine.
Phil Ivey would flip for stacks at the start of the WSOP? I would hope that with all the poker information available online, there would not be a concrete listing of plays made by a pro poker over the course of winning a tournament.
Not to say you are wrong about what Phil Ivey would do. But what I have read from Hellmuth, he would NOT do it.
$ $
.O