Folding Kings preflop?
This is a situation that came up in a hand at the holiday freeze out tournament at Cash Casino (in Calgary) on Thursday.
He explained it to me afterwards but I don't know if I agree with him.
The context of the hand: There was about 16 or 17 people left and the dude in question was pretty big on chips and among the chip leaders at our table. To his right was, I forget his name, but the guy who ended up winning the CPT event at Cash Casino that was held on Halloween. We'll call him Champ. So anyways, this one shortstacked player in early position raises it preflop almost all in but not quite. I'm not really sure why he didn't just go all in as he only had a thousand or two left and was pot committed anyways but whatever. It folds around to Champ on the button who moves all in. Our hero in small blind starts freaking out. The initial raiser has about a 1/4 of the chips that he has but the all in raise by Champ would require him to put about 3/4 of his stack into the pot. He sits there for a minute or two and eventually mucks his hand. Original raiser calls all in and reveals Ace-8 (I think it was an 8, it was a mid kicker) and Champ flips over QQ. Flop brings an ace and short stack takes the pot. During the break, he tells me that he folded pocket kings. This just blows my mind. He justifies it by saying it's too much of a risk to put up 3/4 of his stack as if he just folded and played conservatively, he'd cruise into the money. I thought about it and, to me, I thought the risk was worth it. Only if Champ has pocket aces is he seriously in trouble and, to me, the large reraise just looked to me as if he was trying to isolate against the short stacked dude. It doesn't really matter what the initial raiser has as, even if he's beaten by that player, if he beats Champ, he still wins a huge amount of chips and knocks out an extremely difficult opponent.
I was wondering what you all thought of this. I agree with his thinking that he'd be able to cruise into the money by not playing the hand but, had he won the hand, he would've been huge and been able to just sit back and play tight and cruise into the final 4 or 5. What do you guys think about this strategy of folding kings preflop?
On a side note, I busted out pretty soon after the break so I have no idea how far the guy got after I left. No final table for me. No money. :frown:
He explained it to me afterwards but I don't know if I agree with him.
The context of the hand: There was about 16 or 17 people left and the dude in question was pretty big on chips and among the chip leaders at our table. To his right was, I forget his name, but the guy who ended up winning the CPT event at Cash Casino that was held on Halloween. We'll call him Champ. So anyways, this one shortstacked player in early position raises it preflop almost all in but not quite. I'm not really sure why he didn't just go all in as he only had a thousand or two left and was pot committed anyways but whatever. It folds around to Champ on the button who moves all in. Our hero in small blind starts freaking out. The initial raiser has about a 1/4 of the chips that he has but the all in raise by Champ would require him to put about 3/4 of his stack into the pot. He sits there for a minute or two and eventually mucks his hand. Original raiser calls all in and reveals Ace-8 (I think it was an 8, it was a mid kicker) and Champ flips over QQ. Flop brings an ace and short stack takes the pot. During the break, he tells me that he folded pocket kings. This just blows my mind. He justifies it by saying it's too much of a risk to put up 3/4 of his stack as if he just folded and played conservatively, he'd cruise into the money. I thought about it and, to me, I thought the risk was worth it. Only if Champ has pocket aces is he seriously in trouble and, to me, the large reraise just looked to me as if he was trying to isolate against the short stacked dude. It doesn't really matter what the initial raiser has as, even if he's beaten by that player, if he beats Champ, he still wins a huge amount of chips and knocks out an extremely difficult opponent.
I was wondering what you all thought of this. I agree with his thinking that he'd be able to cruise into the money by not playing the hand but, had he won the hand, he would've been huge and been able to just sit back and play tight and cruise into the final 4 or 5. What do you guys think about this strategy of folding kings preflop?
On a side note, I busted out pretty soon after the break so I have no idea how far the guy got after I left. No final table for me. No money. :frown:
Comments
This type of conservative approach would get him into the money, perhaps but not likely into the final 3.
KK is a monster hand. I'd be inclined to go all-in with it. By far the favourite in this situation. If you put the raiser on Ax, it is less likely Champ has AA (even if he does, even less likely to improve). I could see the player thinking Champ was trying to isolate the raiser with a good but not great hand.
I heard one pro say he'd fold AA if 3 of the final 4 guys were already all-in. Not a likely situation but an interesting viewpoint.
Why wouldnt he make the top three??
he was capable of adapting to difficult situations and making big laydowns
Sounds like a good player to me
In reality the KK will win in this spot 57.4% of the time. Offer me a monster stack with 18 players left 57% of the time? Yes please. Especially since I will not be out if I lose.
there is no way you can play to win if you are going to fold KK preflop late in a NL tourney....yes, there may be rare situations sometimes where you sense aces, especially based on the action before you, and you fold....but this is not one of those times
a short stack goes virtually all-in before the blinds....this is pretty common, and there is no way you can give him credit for having aces; he will show a wide variety of hands...plus, he only has 1/4 of your stack, so you cover him easily.....now, its folded to the button, who is a good player with tonnes of chips.........just because he goes all-in does not mean he has aces, it means he knows the short stack could be playing a wide variety of hands, and he wants to isolate him heads-up.....you can put this player on a good hand, at least, but i think he'd make this play with hands as low as tens, jacks, AQ, etc depending on the person......the fact that someone might have one ace cannot scare you; if you were always scared of someone having one ace (even with bad kickers) then you'd rarely see a flop...
as it is, if you had pushed all-in, you would have lost 1/4 of your stack to the short stack, but you would have gained an extra 3/4....and if no ace comes, you are in even better shape
'Why wouldnt he make the top three??
he was capable of adapting to difficult situations and making big laydowns
Sounds like a good player to me'
I'm not surprised he missed the top 3 if he is willing to lay down KK in this situation, to be honest....there are a lot of preflop all-ins and big raises late in a tourney, he's going to be blinded down considerably....and then when he finally plays his pocket rockets, he'll get no action from anyone paying attention
That is an interesting point. I haven't been playing NL tourneys for long at all but it seems to me cautious play can only get you so far. When I started, I played very conservatively and often folded high pocket pairs whenever someone went all in, figuring they had a decent hand and it was at best a coin toss for me to win the hand. I made a number of finishes in the money but could never seem to get over the hump to get into the big money.
Then it occurred to me it was because I wasn't taking enough chances when I had the clear advantage. Inevitably, I was getting forced off my blinds or having my initial bets raised and then I'd fold. My stack dwindled so that when I finally went all-in, even winning the pot didn't give me enough chips to keep me alive until I got the next 'big' hand.
So I got more aggressive. Since then I've won the odd small tourney but, frustratingly, I'm frequently losing just out of the money now. Like finishing 5th when the top 3 get paid or 10th when the top 6 get paid. :banghead: Sometimes I'll get beaten very early with KK against AA or someone getting lucky at the river. I can accept that with a cheap SNG but it would bother me if the entry fee was significant or at a live tourney where it meant the end of my day. Overall, I find this style more enjoyable but I find I am losing money now whereas before I was slightly profitable. I've been in a few large tourneys with 500-1000 people and managed to make it into the top third with this more aggressive style but I'm missing something I need to get me further along. I guess I have to make an adjustment to be less aggressive in the appropriate circumstances. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears. I've still got a lot to learn.
Dave, I loved your comment about spraining your wrist. That was hilarious!