Tournament Poker: 101 Winning Moves

[PokerMiz 0]

Last week I had surgery and was in bed reading "Tournament Poker: 101 Winning Moves" by Mitchell Cogert during my recovery. In his Pre-flop Moves Chapter (Should You Slowplay Premium Pocket Pairs?), Cogert says "Early in the event, limp with pocket aces". *???* He continues to give an example: you are UTG with As-Ah, early in the tourney, blinds $25/$50 and you have $2000. He suggests to limp, hoping someone else will raise the pot to limit the competition, and the opportunity for you to reraise. However, in this instance there are no raises and 7 players call the BB. The pot is $375. The flop is Ks, 10h, 2s. Cogert now says "While you have pocket Aces, you have almost no chance of winning this hand....You need to learn to fold pocket Aces in these situations." Ok...I read Sklansky and his cardinal rule was "never limp with Aces", and I also read Harrington who suggested the same. I also know that every player has their own style but I really don't understand why 1. You would limp in the first place with that hand in any position unless you're trapping (in which I would think early in a tournament is not the time because you haven't had the time to learn the players), 2. Why he would say that you've got almost no chance of winning that pot? Since you are early in position if you lead out with a pot sized bet, drawing hands should fold because they are not getting the right odds to call...esp. inside straight draws, and if I'm beat I'm looking for the reraise from a K 10 limper or a cold call, which I've read is the "warning bell" that someone might have hit their set/2pair. Am I wrong?

[Hector Cerif 0]

Who's Mitchell Cogert again?

[PokerMiz 0]

Who's Mitchell Cogert again?

LOL...Poker expert...www.apokerexpert.com. Also wrote "Play Razz Poker to Win" which was selected by PokerStars IntelliPoker to be translated and used on international websites.

[jmbreslin 0]

That's brilliant advice. Let me see if I can understand this...1) Limp AA in the hopes that someone raises2) If nobody raises and you end up in a multi-way pot, you'll have to fold your AAHmm. Here's a novel idea: raise your AA in the first place!Here's something worth noting about the author (from PokerPages.com):Name: Mitchell CogertLocation: Tiburon, CA, United StatesCashes: 9Total Winnings: $69,102First Place Finishes: 1ProRank 2 Position: 12985 $69k in winnings...since 2002.

[pokerinc 0]

awesome. I love the site name too, A poker expert, ha, doesn't inspire much confidence IMO.

[copernicus 0]

There is no "never" in poker. If you never limp a big hand then it makes it much easier for your opponents to play your limps after the flop and to fold to your raises preflop. So, in that sense Cogert (who Ive never read) is right.However, to suggest you have almost no chance of winning the hand, before you and the opponent even act, is just silly. Youre ahead the vast majority of the time, and youre not facing a heart draw more than 5% of the time or so. Even if you get action the chances of it being a big K still justify playing at least a small pot to resistance.Most of the time you want to lead the flop, sometimes check raise and sometimes check call. Despite the thread on "randomization" and Harrington on Cash, there are no precise percentages, but I would say 65%, 10%, 25% feels about right.Reality check: In Harrington on cash the closest example seems to be KK vs a T72 two tone board. He just leads 75% and checks 25% (after a pre-flop raise). I think the K hitting more hands than the T and the preflop limp make deception in the form of a check raise justifiable though maybe the check raises should come out of the check category, so 75%, 10%, 15% is better. Probably doesnt make much difference ITLR.

[Aces Rule 0]

I'm not limping Aces or Kings early or even mid tourney - the odds are too great it becomes a multi-way pot with a hand that has only 2 outs to improve 99% of the time. Late after the blinds get high and the players get trappier then I might limp a big hand but then again only if the table has been allowing some limping from the early positions. Anyone paying attention to my style would know that a limp when I'm first is is very suspicious - just like I'm suspicious of a 1st in limper from EP - but later in a tourney you should have a pretty good idea of who the aggressors are and if you can count on them putting in a pf raise vs a limper or two. HU - as in blind vs blind and the final 2, limping a big hand 50% of the time is just good tactics.

[MovingIn 0]

The only time I limp AA or KK is if I am nearly certain some aggressive player behind will raise the limpers PF. That said, if you generally raise a reasonably wide range of hands or find players routinely will play against you for a raise, then raising is the best play 10 times out of 10, simply because precedent alone will disguise your hand in a heads up or 3 way pot... and disguising your hand is the only reason you'd want to limp AA or KK.

[Poker_Addict 0]

I wouldn't unless you're stopping and going. I prefer to telegraph my big hands and play my other hands fairly weak early.

[BeaverStyle 1]

Limping AA UTG Got me a Hoodee :-D

[PokerMiz 0]

I went online to Andy Bloch's site and posed the question to him and he responded late last night saying:Andy Bloch to me show details 11:05 PM (9 hours ago) ReplyHe's wrong. With $2000, you have a very good starting stack to make a standard raise. If you get reraised, to probably around 450, youshould then probably just call (if it's heads-up) and then check-raise the flop. I'd only limp if I'm playing a table with at least one maniac who might make a huge overraise after I limp. If I did limp and 7 players saw the flop, I wouldn't be too afraid of a KT2 flop. You're only behind KT, K2, T2, or a set. Assuming that somehow all those hands would limp, there are just 45 different ways you can be behind, out of 1081 possible hands (47*46/2). Even with 6 or 7 opponents with random hands, you are still a favorite. Even against 10 random hands you are a favorite! And, you can rule out a lot of hands which would have probably been played differently.Andy While there are some really great tips in Cogert's book, I believe I'll stick with Harrington and Sklansky's advice!

[Poker Addict 0]

I wouldn't unless you're stopping and going. I prefer to telegraph my big hands and play my other hands fairly weak early.

EDIT: What I put here was mean and I know Tehtoe is sensitive even if looking at things through a joke account. But at least it has you spending more time in strat.

[Sheiky 0]

98% of poker books are terrible

[copernicus 0]

98% of poker books are terrible

If you stick to 2+2 books your chances of getting some value out of them goes way up, but you cant treat them as complete "recipes". They give you the ingredients but you have to figure out for yourself how to combine them into a gourmet meal.

[Poker Addict 0]

90% of poker is 50% mental

[Mercury69 3]

It might be aq good strategy if the following is true:Aggro tableMuch later in the tourneyWide variety of stack sizesIn the first few rounds, it seems a shame to waste AA by raising and having everyone fold, but it sure beats losing, say, a third of your stack to someone who had, say, 56 sooted and made a str8 or flush on your sorry ass.

[copernicus 0]

It might be aq good strategy if the following is true:Aggro tableMuch later in the tourneyWide variety of stack sizesIn the first few rounds, it seems a shame to waste AA by raising and having everyone fold, but it sure beats losing, say, a third of your stack to someone who had, say, 56 sooted and made a str8 or flush on your sorry ass.

Exactly. This is deep stack poker right now, and, though Sheiky denies it, the adage that AA wins small pots and loses big ones is true, and its most true in deep stack poker. By limping you increase the risk of going for a big number substantially, for a reward of a bb or two. Late in a tourney where people are making moves to protect their stack against the blinds you have a much better chance of getting your chips all in with a big edge.

[Sheiky 0]

Exactly. This is deep stack poker right now, and, though Sheiky denies it, the adage that AA wins small pots and loses big ones is true, and its most true in deep stack poker. By limping you increase the risk of going for a big number substantially, for a reward of a bb or two. Late in a tourney where people are making moves to protect their stack against the blinds you have a much better chance of getting your chips all in with a big edge.

Well, it certainly does lose big pots and win small ones.It also wins big pots aswell. That adage is just so ridiculously untrue it's not funny.

[copernicus 0]

Well, it certainly does lose big pots and win small ones.It also wins big pots aswell. That adage is just so ridiculously untrue it's not funny.

No, it rarely wins big pots in deep stack NL poker, and the adage is very true. It is a natural function of the escalating size of bets in NLHE."The dark truth about big pairs is simply this: They tend to win lots of small pots, but when they get involved in a big pot, unimproved, they are usually the second best hand. Why should this be? The reason is actually pretty simple. The big pairs are usually the best hand preflop (always in the case of Aces), and they're usually the best hand on the flop. So if the hand ends preflop or on the flop, the big pair is generally winning it. But since the hand ended early, its a small pot.As the hand goes to the turn and the river, the pot gets bigger. But the other players in the hand are sticking around with something. Most players won't go deep into a hand unless they can either beat top pair or unless they're drawing to a hand that can easily beat top pair. With your unimproved big pair, the only hands you can beat late in a pot are pairs, and if the hand gets to the river with a big pot, its a pretty good guess that you're opponents won't be showing you just a pair. (If they do, cheer up. Your'e at a very weak table." DHNote that this is even MORE true in tournament poker, where far fewer hands get to the turn and river than cash games. The hands where AA wins big in tourney poker are the rare AA>KK, AA>QQ coolers.

[Sheiky 0]

There's so much crap in that post it'd take me a year to get through. The reason people say stuff like that is because they're incredibly biased and the times when they lose a big pot with aces stick long in their memory, as do the times they raise with aces and everybody folds. They don't tend to remember the countless times they re-raised PF flop and stacked AQ on a 68Q flop, or the times they faded KQcc on a 843cc flop(That was a pretty big pot don't you think?), or the countless other times they won a big pot with the PF nuts. It's seriously such a load of crap i'm tempted to right an essay on why it's a load of crap and why people mistakenly think it's true. And it's is incredibly less true in tournament poker (if it were true at all which it's not), in a tournamet the stack sizes are rarely over a size that reduces AAs incredible value. AA will win your more big pots in a tournament than any other hand ever will, because the stack sizes are never deep enough for 1 pair to lose it's value. If pocket aces only win small pots and lost big ones, maybe you can care to explain why rockets are the most profitable hand in 99% of people PT databases?

[copernicus 0]

There's so much crap in that post it'd take me a year to get through. The reason people say stuff like that is because they're incredibly biased and the times when they lose a big pot with aces stick long in their memory, as do the times they raise with aces and everybody folds. They don't tend to remember the countless times they re-raised PF flop and stacked AQ on a 68Q flop this rarel;y happens in >micro NL unless one of the stacks is short, or the times they faded KQcc on a 843cc flop(That was a pretty big pot don't you think?), or the countless other times they won a big pot with the PF nuts. It's seriously such a load of crap i'm tempted to right an essay on why it's a load of crap and why people mistakenly think it's true. Go ahead. Im sure Dan Harrington would love to hear your thoughts as much as I would. I doubt his memory is "selective". Until you take your year to get through the crap I'll take DH, DS and virtually every other poker writers opinion plus my own experience.And it's is incredibly less true in tournament poker (if it were true at all which it's not), in a tournamet the stack sizes are rarely over a size that reduces AAs incredible value. AA will win your more big pots in a tournament than any other hand ever will, because the stack sizes are never deep enough for 1 pair to lose it's value. Moving the goal posts. I said in tourneys WHEN THEY ARE STILL DEEP STACKED.If pocket aces only win small pots and lost big ones, maybe you can care to explain why rockets are the most profitable hand in 99% of people PT databases? Thats true in limit. I doubt that its true in >micro no limit.

From your example above I think your opinion is based on very low stakes. Good players dont stack off with TPTK.

[jmbreslin 0]

I was going to say the same thing in respose.I seem to recall reading an article on this exact topic in a recent issue of Bluff. It was talking about the importance of factoring in not only implied odds but reverse implied odds. The problem with big pairs early in deep stack tourneys is that the reverse implied odds are huge because people (i.e., half-decent opponents) are only going to commit lots of chips early in a deep stack tourney with a hand that cracks big pairs. If I recall correctly the article was warning against overplaying big pairs early in deep stack tournies.

[copernicus 0]

I was going to say the same thing in respose.I seem to recall reading an article on this exact topic in a recent issue of Bluff. It was talking about the importance of factoring in not only implied odds but reverse implied odds. The problem with big pairs early in deep stack tourneys is that the reverse implied odds are huge because people (i.e., half-decent opponents) are only going to commit lots of chips early in a deep stack tourney with a hand that cracks big pairs. If I recall correctly the article was warning against overplaying big pairs early in deep stack tournies.

With some work I could probably find at least a dozen quotes that reach the same conclusion. Eg. Eric Lindgren... ~in fact I want to be up against AA because I have a better chance of getting paid off~ etc. However, it isnt rocket science and dozens of quotes arent needed. Harrington's logic is too solid.

[AimHigher 0]

Since we're on the topic, what do you guys think of limping in EP with big aces at full tables late in a tourney? If the table has something like between 5 and 20 BBs.I've been caught by it a few times and I think people will shove on a limper much wider than they will shove on an open raise from early position.

[jmbreslin 0]

Since we're on the topic, what do you guys think of limping in EP with big aces at full tables late in a tourney? If the table has something like between 5 and 20 BBs.I've been caught by it a few times and I think people will shove on a limper much wider than they will shove on an open raise from early position.

It can be a worthwhile move if you feel confident that the shorties at the table have sufficient knowledge of low blind play that there is a decent enough chance of enticing a shove. But depending on the blinds and your image, limping UTG can look very suspcious.