This one created a lot of debate, that's good to see. There is more than one play that works here, but one play is clearly the best play in the situation I described. In the following order:

Best play: All in
2nd Best Play: Call
3rd Best Play: Raise $2000
Worst Play: Fold

It's important to note that the first limper in the pot is a habitual limper and will often fold to a raise. There is too much dead money in the pot to NOT take a stab at it.

Worst case scenario, unless you run into aces is that you get called and are a little more than a 2-1 underdog. Best case, and most likely scenario, is that everyone folds and you increase your stack size very nicely.

I'm not a move in specialist by any means, but when you become a short stack you have to look for opportunities like this one to become more aggressive.

Calling is ok too, but I think moving all in is better. The $2000 raise has "some" merit, but again it's better to just stick it all in. Folding, is without a doubt the worst play imaginable.

Yay, I was right. I win.

Yes I got one right.

I just hope I am not in that position at the Main Event.

I'm going to use these words by Daniel to support my contention that this is a spot where you would consider moving in here as a pure steal, especially if your table image were such that you are almost certain that all the limpers would fold if I pushed all-in.

Again, consider the hands that would be played in the manner of the other players which could reasonably call an all-in. I have seen good players move in with hands worse than A8 in spots like this (often, medium suited connectors).

vindication for all those people actually disecting the quality of the hand



VINDICATION!!!

Oops. I missed this one. This illustrates why I don't make the big bucks playing poker and DN does.

Oh well, Wynn Casino here I come. Less than a week until I'm on the strip, baby. Woo Hoo.

I stick by the $2000 raise.

Why would u put in half your stack on a raise knowing you are giving 3 people pot odds to call your raise? I dont understand the logic of that play when you are short stacked.

The problem with the $2000 raise is that it entices some weaker players to see the flop with hands like 4-4, or even K-Q. You don't want ANY callers as the A-8 would do better to pick up the pot right there.

By making the $2000 raise, you then have to hope that your opponent, or event opponents miss the flop entirely.

DN: First off... thanks for the quiz. This one was pretty tough. I originally had thought that the call was best, but after reading the various arguments for the all-in move, I started to understand why that's the better play. I actually used it in a similar situation with A-8 in a live tourney just last night, and I totally thought back to this quiz while in the hand. With my reads of the players I made the all-in move. I had one loose caller with K-10, he paired his 10's and I hit my Ace on the river to double up. I think it was the move that put me in position to really take control of the table, and I ended up taking first place.

Regarding the $2000 bet... I totally agree with DN, but for a couple of additional reasons.

First, generally I'm not gonna throw half my stack out there, unless I'm prepared to throw the other half in there on the flop pretty much no matter what hits. I'd almost bet the rest in the dark if there was a caller, if only to intimidate him off the pot, and to give him the impression that the only reason I didn't go all-in preflop was because I wanted him to call that first bet. Now, granted, that's just my personal style.

More importanly perhaps, it seems to me that since everyone has you covered, you are going to be in a very tough position post-flop, even if you do get a little piece of it and they miss. If you even have only one caller on your 2000 raise, there's now like 5200 (approx) in the pot post-flop. Even if you go all-in for your other 2k after the flop, you're giving him 7-2 odds, with both the turn and river guaranteed because you're already all-in. It seems to me that that leaves him with a lot of playable hands.

I just don't see how that can be a good play. I'd actually put it at about the same level as folding.

Respectfully, I'm usually suspect of early limpers looking to collect off of these situations. Many times those monster hands come from early limpers "feeling out" the play not wanting to chase away action with early raises.

I say complete and see a flop at 11 to 1, after all everyone has you covered and you don't know what the BB is going to do (yet). 2K, or half your stack in this case, is too risky with up to 4 callers and a possible all-in from any one of the four remaining live hands. I dont want to race with A8o with my tournament life on the line in a 9 seat situation. A really risky steal for only one known exploit (the gun weakness).

I have a free orbit coming up with only 10% of my stack at risk on antes, it just feels right to be cautious in this situation.

A8o is a troublemaker in this scenario.

You played this senerio didn't you? What happened in real life?

well baloon guy, it looks like you and I were wrong.

DN did say that a case could be made for simply calling, I do see now that the all in is a good play, but I still would just call. That is my style and I am conservative preflop, as I like to make valuable decisions with as much information as possible.

Oh well I am still sticking to it, I cant settle with being wrong that would lower my 100% score on the first 8

By the way to those who said I, and Baloonguy, were wrong for thinking that it was possible for second limper to have moster (AA,KK)... please check DN post on Coach Carter.

He limped UTG waited for others to limp, and hopefully someone to raise, then reraised them hoping to make more of a profit. Unfortunately the raiser (the button) had aces. Seems though that the suggestion that I made of someone limping early with kk,aa , despite the Gap Theory was very possible.

I got it. I got it. Booyah.
REading all the other replies almost made me change my mind. Curse YOU!

On to # 10

Yes Greg and I were wrong, but we were right about being wrong.

I mean we were right, just not right this time.

I mean ours is the superior play, unless you play it like we did.

I guess we mean we play different, but we played the same later.

Oh shoot, anything as long as I don't have to admit I was incorrect!

not trying to be picky greg, but there is a massive difference between an UTG limper and anybody following limping as well. Gap Theory is only applicable to help define the hands of the players after the UTG.

It can't be applied to the UTG and this is why his hand was the most worrying. It is common for big hands to be limped in early, especially at an aggressive table; the limp-reraise can be extremely effective.

However no good player is going to allow a limper a cheap run at remaining in a pot with what is likely to be a good drawing hand.

Take some time and explore the difference between an open-limp and limping behind. There are some basic fundamentals there that are crucial to tournament play.

Hey Daniel, I thought this was a great quiz. I hope you will do some more quizzes on blind-stealing as this is the part of my tournament game that I'd like to improve the most. I'd love to see some more subtle examples of blinds stealing. BTW I hope you have a good section on blind stealing in your book.

first one i've gotten wrong so far... and honestly, i just don't agree with the all in here , at least not for the reasons given.

as the short-stack, i'll take my 11-1 pot odds and call with my short stack rather than put myself in a very marginal situation (at best) for all my chips on a steal attempt when the very next hand I'm going to be on the button, then the cutoff, etc. it doesn't seem to me that THIS is the hand you MUST lay down the hammer. take the 11-1, THAT'S a a gift - don't screw it up.

nothing i've read from the original post or from Daniel's post has changed my mind - i just don't see how or why an all-in in THIS situation is better than calling.

IMO it is

1. call
2. all-in
3. raise 2k or fold (equally poor imo heh)

It is better than calling because there is a good chance everyone will fold to your push and you will pick up a nice pot. A good case could be made for pushing here with any two cards, even 72o. Better places to steal than this are pretty rare.

I had originally argued for calling -

I'm just not sure that the all-in move is "likely" to fold everyone - even if the big blind and the two early limpers fold, the button will be getting better than 3-2 on his money (3800 more to call for a 6250 pot), and knowing that you're desperate, I would imagine he would call with any cards that he was willing to limp with.

But maybe the all-in is still correct, because you're likely to be a slight favorite (QJ) or a slight underdog (66), and you would obviously do well to live with those odds for all the dead money that would be in the pot if you only get one caller.

i'd still rather see a flop getting 11-1 as a short stack, than run a race for my tournament whether i'm a slight favorite to a big u-dog. this situation is a gift to a short stack - i think all-in screws it up.

I think there are two correct answers here.

Playing live, move in for exactly Daniel's logic which I am not going to presume to question.

However, playing online, I think there is more truth to the argument that you would likely get at least one caller and therefore the complete might be the better play.

that's a very good point

I am a bit torn on what I would do on this one.

If you go all in, you are making a gamble that no one that was limping had a real hand. Given that you only have 10BB and have the table covered, everyone is short stacked. I would argue that short stack play would induce someone looking for a coin flip opportunity. Any one calling is going to get slightly more than double their original chips and gain a decent chip position in the game.

The other option is the call. If you call, what options do you have post flop coming from the BB?

If the flop misses you, there are 4 cards across the two hands that can knock you out which is dangerous, but at leas you can get out cheap. You can also try and bluff for the pot and you are left in a similar situation as the top but have more information and possibly a worse betting position.

If the flop hits the 8, you have a great kicker but an over pair is likely. Once again you are betting a semi-bluff

If the flop hits the A, you have a bad kicker. Given 2 other players its highly likely that one other person has an A with possibly a better kicker so you are once again in a tough situation.

thoughts?
-dave

It also has a sandwich effect, which forces early players to worry about reraising by later players even they may decide to call playing heads-up. On the other hand, the later players will require less hands to limp because improved pot odds. Combine these two factors, the all in is the best answer.