Simple question.
Well, not simple, but blissfully short by my standards.
You are in the mid-stages of a NL tournament. The blinds are 300/600. You have about 6200. You're below the average stack, but not by a huge margin.
You find AJo UTG, and you're playing 11-handed. Do you call, raise, or fold? And if you raise, by how much?
(Assume the table is typical... sometimes limpers get away with limping, sometimes they don't... a couple of really big stacks, but they haven't been mixing it up too much, seemingly content to sit tight with their lead for a while.)
Thanks!
You are in the mid-stages of a NL tournament. The blinds are 300/600. You have about 6200. You're below the average stack, but not by a huge margin.
You find AJo UTG, and you're playing 11-handed. Do you call, raise, or fold? And if you raise, by how much?
(Assume the table is typical... sometimes limpers get away with limping, sometimes they don't... a couple of really big stacks, but they haven't been mixing it up too much, seemingly content to sit tight with their lead for a while.)
Thanks!
Comments
My hand isn't great and in the face of resistance i'll have to ditch it.
Folding though may also be accaptable because the blinds are coming on you and you need to make sur e that you still have some ammo left for when the blinds get through you.
All i know is that in the same spot with K6s apparently raising isn't the right idea
With 9 players left to act I would not risk 1500. I wouldn't even risk 600. Of course, if I was down to 3000, I would push all-in.
I'd value AJo a lot higher than K6s.
Since what I chose to do probably won't effect the resposes any, I'll tell you what I did. I got all confused at being faced with this entirely new, somewhat borderline circumstance I was in, so I made the default play, which also happens to be the worst one. (Default plays usually are.) I just called. So did 3 or 4 other players. The BB raised by 1000. JUST 1000, from a relatively tight player, so I mucked my hand not only because of the BB's raise, but because I had no idea how the rest of the limpers would respond to the raise. Basically, I threw away 600 for nothing.
I would have missed the board completely, not that it means a thing.
I think I limp.* Not much difference of 6200 or 5600 at this point, so if you have to fold it's not a big loss. The key here is that you have the card-sense to know whene someone's takeing a "shot" at you, say a late position big stack, and you can go for it, or fold appropriately. With your stack many will suspect the limp, raise all-in with aces.
Raise is out of the question, as I don't want to risk 1200 -- that takes most leverage away from your stack after the blinds.
Or, the hell with caution and raise all-in. I think that's not a bad play -- but I really hate it 11 handed and some big stacks behind me.
So, I'm limping. BTW, I'd limp with AA-TT and AK-AJ. I need to take risks with a 10BB stack that will double me up.
Cheers
Magi
* This advice of course is coming from the rebuy bozo with cool contact lenses.
I think there is a subtle difference that can get lost when you put that hand in the context of a live game as opposed to an online tourney.. The difference beind: How many hands are you going to get getting in before the blinds are increased again? We know that B&M is far slower than online, so some of these borderline lines can actually change in profitability vs online because there aren't as many future hands left to play..
Now, I don't think this is a textbook case of this idea but just a thought I dont think I've really seen elsewhere..
I don't like the limp with that hand, in that spot. I might not mind it quite as much if it was suited but really, i think i play that hand for a raise because at least with a raise i can represent more legitimatley a full range of hands, and i don't have to hope to hit the flop. An UTG limp almost invites other callers and puts you in a tough spot where even now an ace on the flop provides you little confidence, since you may have let in every ace rag etc... to hit two pair.
I should say though that a limp from a player who always raises can be devastating for a thinking player.
I was faced with that one time in my BB. A guy who has not once all tourney limped into a pot, if he entered a pot he entered for a raise or he simply didn't enter. So from UTG + 1 he limps into the pot for the minimum 800. it gets folded to the SB who completes and i look down at 77. Almost any other situation i come over the top and squeeze out the limper with this hand, myself also being short stacked a bit but the limp from this player had me so confused.
But i'm so absolutely and completed paralyized by the player limping in. I'm so completely and totally confused by his action, i decide to check and go from there. Flop comes down Q9x, Any other time with only one card likely to have hit him with overcards, and the fact that he limped i would bet. Instead the SB and me check and he bets the minimum again. I let it go. He may have had absolutely nothing, but his limp so absolutely had me in knots, that i couldn't figure it out. I more or less convinced myself that he must have limped with aces, hoping to come over the top of someone who rasied.
It actually reminded me of this hand from one of the WSOP episodes. It was a NL event, that Gavin Griffen won. Once three handed, he limped into a pot on the button, with some random hand. The limp just plain paralized the other two players. They had never seen him limp before, one of them even commented that he had spent the last two days at the same table with him, and never once seen him limp from the button etc... in the end gavin took down the pot with the worse hand i think (other guys made pairs) ... cause everyone was spooked by the limp.
Ok, I think I'm definitely going against the grain with my limp recommendation. I'm the only one that likes your original plays (QJo comes to mind). And given that my performance sucked, well I shouldn't second guess the gang.
Just a quick question for you. What did you lose by limping, other than the obvious 600? Any leverage, etc? What could you have gained if there were three/four more limpers that went along with you? Would the risk be worth the reward?
Cheers
Magi
With the limp you opened the pot to a whole range of hands, and lots of uncertainty.
How often have you seen someone limp with a big ace from EP or UTG, thus opening the door for some small pairs to come in and even hands like AQo who may have passed on the pot. Now with 3-5 limpers, every rag card could have made a set, you could be exposed to an Ace with a bigger kicker, or countless other possibiities that you don't want to face. I for one view the hand in the fold or raise criteria (in that order)
For me once i'm short stacked, the concept of limping almost entirely disappears from my arsenal. Raise or fold, unless i'm limping to trap or as a limp steal maybe.
It is borderline. But people's calling standards have probably gone up. Small stacks might re-raise me with any pocket pair and then I take my chances. Big stacks probably only raise me with hands that dominate me.
Roy Cooke said something wise on UPF: "You need to accumulate chips."
Ths situation is borderline, but you can make it more predictable with raise. I think that the hand is too strong to lay down.
I also like the limp "if" the table is very predicatble. If they are, then limp. Small downside -- BIG upside. Little risk for potential big gain.
I don't think you can call here and try to limp unless alot of hands are going to the flop without a raise. There are too many players behind you left to act, and you're not going to call a raise with this hand. Raising would be preferable to calling, but you don't have the chips to risk. Your position is terrible and you're only going to get called or raised by hands that are ahead of you, so without the chips to play a higher variance game at this point, raising is out too!
That leaves folding... probably the best here, given your position (chip and table).
... but what do I know?
I'm still thinking of a "forumla" for your question on how much you should risk to gain an amount that doesn't warrant the risk of losing. I'm starting to think that if you lose and need to double up to get back where you were, but you're expected gain is less than 50% of your stack, then it's not worth the risk.
I think this situation fits that category. You're likely outcome is that you steal the blinds uncontested -- about 15% gain. Best case is that you're a 47% dog to a pocket pair. And, if there's any action behind you, you need to fold and will lose any sort of leverage after the blinds come through -- essentialy needing to double up to get back to where you were.
Agreed that it needs to be a predictable table, but even if it isn't you can still go for the race against an obvious steal by limping and not having to risk the aditional 900.
What do you think?
Cheers
Magi
1) You are most definately knowledgeable about the game, and can play post-flop very well, therefore I believe the risk of losing 1500 is outweighed by the opportunity to win more.
2) You are not short stacked so if you were to lose, you have time to recover.
3) OK here's where I try to explain my main idea on this situation. You say you are below average stack, but not much. This had me think back to a thread started by Dave Scharf called "quantifying the advatnge of being a bigs stack?" (yes, the spelling is like this) His thread had me working on a mathematical theory that could be applied to the specific situation he describes. After 4 days of thinking about it almost every second of my spare time, I phoned Dave and discussed with him what I came up with. I did not post it here before because I was not sure I could explain it. Here goes...
I thought about how the chips would be split amongst the remaining players in a tournament at a given time. I generalized that you could expect that it could be described as a normal distribution(from statistical theory). However, this model is not truly accurate because as players bust out, the population from the data collected is shrinking thereby raising the average stack value(the mean). As well, the curve would be skewed because of the increasing blinds, meaning the median stack would be smaller than the average stack. I checked this data against several days end chip counts from last year's WSOP Main Event. I found that the median stack was roughly 80% of the average stack in all of the situations I checked. This means that you could lose about 20% of your stack and still have more chips than half of the remaining players in the tournament. Winning the hand you described would most likely put you at the average stack size or better, meaning you would be ahead of at least 60% of the field, maybe even more. In my conversation with Dave, he agreed that he has experienced this "phenomenon" in online tournaments quite often. It is much easier to track online of course, as all the stats are right at your fingertips.
I believe my relatively short time spent on this analysis has proven to me that you can assume the median stack is about 80% of the average stack. IMO players use the average stack as there measuring tool. If they fall below it, they begin to gamble it up more to try to reach it. This is a good idea to some extent, but I believe that especiaally in NL, players press the panic button too soon and take too big of a risk in situations that do not warrant it. This can also lead to players folding hands they feel will not be very good hands to double up on. These could be missed opportunities that also keep stacks from growing. I believe a good player should be willing to risk up to an amount that would leave him with a stack that is 60% of an average stack size. Although more than half of the field may be ahead of you at that instant, your skill should help you to work towards building up your stack again, as others begin to go all-in because they pushed the panic button too soon. Hopefully you can exploit one of these players, and get yourself back to average or higher, just by staying cool and smartly mixing it up when you should.
4) IF THAT MADE ANY SENSE, then I would conclude by saying that others might perceive you as holding a very strong hand, as you raised UTG, so they will not be willing to mess with you unless they have a very good hand. If they do have a very good hand, they will re-raise, and you will fold. If they do not, they will fold. If they just call you, they have made a HUGE mistake, and hopefully the flop will land in your favor to make them suffer for it, or your post flop play will lead you to the correct play.
Please forgive me for the long post. I pray it makes sense. I apologize in advance if this deserved its own thread.
p.s. Even though it will be very early here, I will hopefully be up to see you on TV tomorrow, as I have satellite. I wish you the best.
on an aside i'm glad to see others view raising to 1500, and ditching to a large re-raise as being a good option and outwaying limping in this spot...
I think i followed your mathematical point, and am really interested in seeing dave's refinements on it. Realizing the skewed nature of average stacks is an important fact that i for one have never entirely appreciated. reading it and now going though results roughly in my head, i see it and it seems so obvious now.
I know for a fact that when i started in online tournaments i never looked at average stack, but instead i looked at my rank 10th out of 200 etc... and always considered where i was ranked as being something to keep my eyes on. Usually 50% was the rank i was hoping to be above. Leaving half the field more depserate than me. I never really seemed to be uncomfortable with having a short stack, suprisingly cause i knew i was in better shape than half the field even if my chips didn't show it.
With increased reading, i started watching average stacks in the tourney and my table a lot more, and i think it has made me a more jumpy player. Last night i played an online tourney. I lost a big pot and ended up ranked 100 out of 220 players left (started with 1000 or so). It was a devistating pot to lose, but suprisingly i was still in better shape than half the field, but i seeing myself as a short stack 11,000 vs average stack of 24-26000 i suddenly felt panicked, and i really shouldn't have.
Last few days have really had me thinking about this risk / reward issue ... while it may not entirely change my play, i think i take a bit more appreciation when looking at the average stack number now, of what it's significance really is or isn't
I really must thank Dave for being my original sounding board on this. He helped me to see some of the things I had overlooked, and gave me the confidence to believe I have a chance at understanding this game well enough to maybe be across the table from you all someday.
Great stuff boxcard! I re-read your post several times, not because it was difficult to understand, just because there is lots of great stuff to think about there.
I aggree with the phenomenon of pressing the panic button too soon. On several occasions, when I haven't pressed the panic button, I've made great finishes. Oddly enough, it's really experience here that helps. When I watch the Sunday tournaments, the pros navigate through this point amazingly well and usually end up with double the average stack size more often than not. Their problem is that they seem to "blow it" when they get to 50-100% of the average stack size. It's generally when the BB is about 1/10'th of the average stack. At this point 80% of the players are pretty much clustered around the average stack and within 4-8BB of each other. It seems like they make a tough play and don't consider the downside of the tough play -- normally "picking" on a shorter stack. They lose and go down to say the mean stack size and lose all their leverage -- they only have 10BB, even though their in the middle of the pack, they can't go after the big stack and they can't intimidate the shorter stacks. So, they actually need cards at this point.
The problem with AA's diliema is that he has roughly 10.5BB which is the mean stack at that point. If he raises to 1500 and has to fold he's got roughly 8BB left, and after the blinds will be down to 6.5BB. IMO, that's crippling becuase it's approximately 50% of the average stack and now you really need a double up hand.
The raise only narrows down the range of hands that the bigger stacks -- say 2 of 10 hands. If a smaller/mean stack is raising the field, he is raising AA's raise.
The original raise takes away one of the weapons I think AA could use. It's the limp-raise all-in. I prefer this to raising all-in because you are more likely to know if you're up against one player or multiple players. And it shows more strength than a raise all-in from UTG. If you know you're going up against multiple players you can forget about the all-in, but it's an option here. In this situation, I think it could have worked if the 1000 raisor was late, and had a mean/avg. stack left after his raise. He could still bow out and contend.
Back to the forumla. I like your thoughts. But if you could say that you can risk an amount that leaves you 60% of the average stack after subtracting the blinds, it would work better for me.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Cheers
Magi
Thanks Magi. I agree. After thinking about this today, I realized that the blind structure at this time was somewhat oppressive. If you consider the $900 in blinds coming up in the very next two hands, then playing this hand would mean limping in. I must agree with Chugs though, I do not think AJo is a hand you want to limp in with and then re-raise with. If you have the discipline to fold on a raise, then maybe it is ok to limp. Playing the 1500 raise and then folding would put AA in a position of concern , as Magi has suggested. The amendment to my "Rolling Distribution Curve Theory" is well taken.
My thoughts are that the limp-raise-allin isn't the goal, but instead it's an option depending on who raises you. A weakish raise from a weakish late player with an average stack left, will most likely fold. A raise all-in by a small stack, and I'm pushing in to isolate. My preference is to see the flop cheap, but if I can't then I'm looking to double up on a race or even as a strong favourite against A9-2 or KJs, QJs.
Cheers
Magi