Answer to Quizz Question #4

[HarryDemetriou 0]

Sorry for the delayed reply but currently I am a little busy in Australia and having typed a very long answer accidentally deletedit prior to posting:-((( it so here we go again.Basically the answer to this quaestion is that you need to take account of a number of factors in order to determine which play would make you more money on a long term basis.You should also note that the example/scenario given below is all hypothetical and that I'm trying to keep things as close to the original question as possible.Firstly in the K7 spades example originally given the blinds are 20K/40K with a 5K ante so it costs 95k per round to play seven hands. Also you have 6 million and your opponent has 1 million. Your opponents are also playing tight. As you are going to be folding Kings we shall also assume that you are going to be only be playing Aces. We shall also assume that you come in for a raise of 150kWhen you steal let's assume you will be able to do it three times per round/seven hands (unlikelyto be this high even in this scenario). The first successfull steal breaks you even for the round whilst the next two make you 190k. So in effect you are making 190k per round of play or every seven hands but you also have to deduct an amount if you insist on folding whenever someone plays back at you for all their stack. I would suggest that once in every two rounds you are going to be forced to lay down if this is your strategy and rather than make 380k every two rounds you are only going to make 230k because you have to give up your 150k raise from time to time. (Rememeber if you are laying down Kings you will lay everything down other than Aces in this spot every time someone plays back).If you play your Kings and someone plays back by going all in you are also going to have to allow for the range of possible hands that your opponent is likely to be holding. If you always fold the Kings you are going to lose 150K every time.If you play the Kings then you have to try and determine which hands your opponent is likely to be playing back at you with.Assuming that they will only go all in with Premium hands like a big pair like Tens upwards or AK/AQ then you are basilcally going to be around a 2/1 favourite or win 2/3 hands.In other words you win 1 million twice and lsoe 1 million once for a net gain of 333K everyto=ime you are in this kind of situation and play.Now KK does not come along that often but even with the generous allowances for stealing above I still feel it is inappropriate to lay them down in this situation.You should also note that if you are only going to play Aces in this spot you can still lose with them as they are not a lock to always win. It is also very likely that if it were correct to lay down Kings it would probably also be correct to lay down Aces as you must have calculated that you have extremely high blind stealing rights or opportunities.Anyway back to the specific question. What pair or hand would I call an all in reraise with? BAsically I am looking to play with any hand that is equivalent to the range of hands or slightly superior to those that my opponent would play.eg if they are going to play only a pair of 8's or better or an AK/AQ/AJ then I would be prepared to play with the same range range of hands as I would perceive myself as being around an evens chance in this situation but that the amount already in the pot (95k + my 150k original raise and the 150k call by the opponent) 395K plus my opponents reraise or around 850k means that I am getting around 1.25 million to my 850k.However this is my specific answer specific to me as I am prepared to play any range of hands that give me any mathematicall long term advantage over my opponent. ie in the above example I am getting profitable pot odds for my extra 850k long term.For others who play differently however it may be more suitable for them to play only better hands than those that their opponent would play.It's a bit like Sklansky's tournament book where he says that sometimes you have to take into account prize money considerations and need to be a 58% fav or whatever.But for me I simply can't give up what I would conceive to be a significant advantage or pot odds as I like shooting for all or lots of chips when I get the opportunity as these situations rarely present themselves.Hope this helps

[VirginiaGent 0]

HD, that was "Spocklike" or "Vulcanlike" for all of the Trekkies.

[jogsxyz 0]

HD, that was "Spocklike" or "Vulcanlike" for all of the Trekkies.

Virginia, wrong movie character. HD would be perfect as John Steed of 'The Avengers'.The opening scene could show Steed winning the WPT at the Aviation Club de Paris.With Daniel vs 6 rocks, all wanting to be on TV, the rocks would only play a group 1 hand. They need to be 80/20 favorite before they are willing to risk elimination. This may even restrict them to pocket queens or higher.

[bearshadoe 0]

Agressive as I am when I play poker I'm not sure how I would be able to play the hand. Too much would really depend on who I was playing. There are but a few people i would not want to face with this hand.[/code][/b]

[Abbaddabba 0]

I don't see how anyone could rationalize a call.Your image at the table has value, but not nearly enough to justify taking that much of a hit in terms of EV in most situations, which as chip leader, is what you are playing for (EV, as opposed to Survival - i dont mean EV as to exclude psychological benefits). They're not folding to your "blind stealing" raises because they're scared of you. Theyre shortstacked and they need a monster to justify a bet that will, in all probability, result in an all-in hand. When you knowingly call with a less than favorable hand, you aren't going to tighten them up any more than they already are playing. They clearly "fear" the volatility that your loose play will provide, but not to such an extreme degree to avoid bets with an incredibly high EV. For players to (on rational grounds) avoid volatility at the expense of a significant decrease in EV requires that the payout schedule be particularly choppy, or have arbitrary cutoff points. Unless you know that you're at such a point in the payout scheme, a rational player would not dodge your loose bets with a solid hand out of fear that he'll bust out. It may be a crapshoot for you to decide whether your opponent is entirely "rational" with respect to maximizing his payout. Tight play is not necessarily a sign of someone fearing the volatility, however. It may just be the case that the blinds are dictating how he has to play.As for folding kings - not in that situation.Im all for folding aces in a tournament if the payout scheme requires it too.If there are 3 players left, 1st gets paid 60%, 2nd gets paid 40% and 3rd gets nothing... both players before you are all in preflop, with only you to call. you have aces (or kings) and you're the short stack at the table. would you call? no chance. the situation mentioned is not comparable to that though.folding gives you a (roughly) 15% chance of 60% of the payout (representing a victory to the player who won the all in), 83% chance of taking 40% of the payout (assuming a loss to the player who won the all in) or a 2% shot to have a weighted average of probabilitys identical to the position you were in before the given hand. calling gives you solid potential (let's say pr = 80% of aces taking it versus two other strong hands) for an ambiguous chip lead, which provides you a given probability to take 60%, a given probability to take 40% and a given probability of taking 0 despite your win.... but also a 20% (approximation) of having your aces cracked and being busted out there with zero payout. I can promise you that the first will provide a higher expected cash payout to the latter, even if the expected chip return is higher in the latter.

[nitrolife 0]

Would you care to explain your detailed reasoning why you believe you are so convinced of the call?

I have'nt checked this site in a while....sorry.I thought I had explained my reason, but I'll try again.Making the call does one thing....something you "normally" would not want earlier in a tourney. It loosens the table up and gets you more calls. But it is not about "you" now. Yes, you can grind out the blinds....but this situation gives you a chance to take stacks intead of blinds....and entices the others to battle it out which decreases your risks.....plus you can still steal blinds.With a fold you might continue to swipe a few blinds with minimal risk. But WHEN you get called you are dominated...period. The table is tight and will ONLY play back with premium hands. And that will not change. They will not battle each other very often because implied odds don't merit the play. Why would a short stack risk it all against another short stack...unless he has an absolute cod lock.With a call, win or lose, you loosen up the table and don't have to face premium hands EVERYTIME. Plus they will play loose against each other thereby giving you the chance to pick your spots to fight, or wait as they kill each other off. And don't kid yourself by thinking this does not happen. How many times have you seen a tight table turn loose aggressive over one hand....I've seen it more than I can count. If you don't believe it, go to a tight table and raise the first 3 hands you get and see what happens ;)What the call does is take the target off your forehead if you lose(which is good), or increases your dominance if you win(which is good). With the loss everyone loosens up because you are calling with crap. With the win everyone loosens up because you are calling with crap. Now you can pick your spot and take stacks instead on stealing blinds(but you can STILL steal blinds), or if you can't get a hand they kill each other off.

[Abbaddabba 0]

They'll only loosen up to YOU if you start calling crap. You dont want them to start making high EV calls against you when you're the big stack. Survival play is meaningless to you at that point when you've got everyone covered, you just want to maximize your chip lead and having them refrain from ultra tight play isn't in your best interest. Their tight play affords you a positive EV for each and every hand. They're forfeiting EV in exchange for survival, with that ultra tight play. This is desirable for you. Making a bad call in order to loosen up the table, when their current tightness improves your EV? Terrible idea.I mean, and additionally - one of the rationales you used to justify a call was that others will "battle it out" and that this removes your risk (assuming YOUR bad call entices them to play loose against each other). . All it means is you'll be playing against fewer, but larger stacks when one player comes out ahead. There's no discernable benefit from that.

[Fira 0]

Why would you raise first in early with K7s anyway...this isn't a good hand if someone has a real one and needs to increase their chips.  They are going to play it strong just like the SB did, no?

You are MASSIVE chiplead, you will be raising with every hand possible, including hands like 85os. The purpose is not to squeeze money out of callers, the purpose is to force them to fold and hand over the 60,000 blinds. If you are raising every single hand, it will be hard for an opponent with a hand like Q9 to call or push all in, fearing the possibility of encountering a legit hand as well as being eliminated from the tournament with minimalinnings. Also because the entire group is shortstacked and playing extremely tight, a small raise will most likely seize the pot preflop.

[Alcatraz 0]

I said fold in the quiz and I still say fold after reading all of this analysis. HD, thanks for your insights as well.Why would you raise first in early with K7s anyway...this isn't a good hand if someone has a real one and needs to increase their chips. They are going to play it strong just like the SB did, no?

If you're agressively stealing blinds and you're planning to fold to a reraise, then your cards are essentialy irrelevant.

[Abbaddabba 0]

You don't necessarily fold that to a reraise. It depends on how large the reraise is, obviously.

[nasber 0]

I understand the portion about how you have to let the other players jockey for position and you want to keep your chip lead, and how you don't want to make a player a threat at the table....but I don't understand how you if you win, you're lowering the amount of chips you can have...especially in the Jack Strauss situation.  I have no clue as to what he meant...

This is because everyone is trying to make the final table of 6 and will continue to play tight in order to do so. By folding, you are keeping the 7th player in the tournament so that everyone will continue to play very tight. This allows you to steal more blinds. Stealing the blinds from 7 people is much more profitable than busting a small stack.I recently did the same thing at a tournament here in Ottawa. I was a significant chip leader with 9 people left and top 8 paid. I was able to steal the blinds just about every 3rd hand because everyone was trying to sneak into the money. I folded TT in my BB to the small stack at the table when he went all in because I felt it was more profitable to continue stealing.Cheers,Brad

[koa 0]

) Call and win, and you eliminate the player but also eliminate a great opportunity to strengthen your chip lead. I don't understand the above concept. Ive read a post earlier about if the other player gets knocked out the other stacks will play aggressive. Are you saying they will play aggressive because they have made the final six. Maybe thats what you meant. Your saying this hand is taking place on the bubble? If that is the case then I understand.But here is why I think if you win this hand. It sends out a message that I will raise you with mediocre hands and call you cause I got the chips. I doubt players will play back at you with bluffs. If they play back at you can trust fold. When I'm short stack I can't stand being raised by a chip leader who is loose and will call because most of the time I'm picking up junk and know a bluff won't work.Question: Daniel, you called in a similiar situation with a weak hand with Anne Duke in the Tournament of Champions. Am I missing something in that hand. I wasn't sure about the pot odds with Duke maybe you were pot commited already.

[shezzavague 0]

As you can see from my postcount I am a virgin so treat me gently, but isn't there another factor for consideration here?If the blind-stealing ability has more equity than the potential upside here, then surely this is ENHANCED (win or lose) by the advertising value of showing down the KK, which would presumably convince your opponents not to play back at you with anything other than a major premium hand... surely this makes it much easier for you to steal?Obviously this doesn't apply in the K-7 example.

[KramitDaToad 0]

As you can see from my postcount I am a virgin so treat me gently, but isn't there another factor for consideration here?If the blind-stealing ability has more equity than the potential upside here, then surely this is ENHANCED (win or lose) by the advertising value of showing down the KK, which would presumably convince your opponents not to play back at you with anything other than a major premium hand... surely this makes it much easier for you to steal?Obviously this doesn't apply in the K-7 example.

The KK situation was unique in that by busting a player the tournament in question went from 2 tables to 1.Jack's thoughts were that if he folded the kings and kept the tourney at 2 tables, he could continue to bully his.That way when a player was finally busted he would move to the final table with even more chips than he did.

[nitrolife 0]

Question: Daniel, you called in a similiar situation with a weak hand with Anne Duke in the Tournament of Champions. Am I missing something in that hand. I wasn't sure about the pot odds with Duke maybe you were pot commited already.

You must remember that poker is a partial information game....maybe DN had a thought or perceived info that influenced his play....maybe even subconsious.We debate hands here....sometimes heatedly....but the fact remains that NO play is always correct. I disagree with DN on the question in this thread, but I never doubt his ability, nor do I think he would say he is absolutely right in the matter everytime.Like many teachers have said....Do what I say, not what I do.

[flintsword 4]

Great example. Many of us have been guilty of blowing a few final tables while leading in chips because we called raises with hands similar to the K7s of the example, instead of pragmatically maintaining a huge chip lead, folding, and preparing to hammer later.Question 1: At what point does a chip lead get to the point when you start conserving your stack versus risking it to grow it? 40% of the total chips? 50% of the total chips?Question 2: You mention in the example that the player was stealing 2.5 times per round the blinds. How do you track, for each player, this statistic in an easy way? Do you actually have a "betting per round" number for everyone at the table, as opposed to "he's loose", "she's very loose", "he is tight passive"? (a number rather than a subjective evaluation).I would appreciate anyone answering these questions. ty.flintsword