aces in first hand of wsop

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

I vote for a raise to 6x the BB. It appears overly agressive which one might think typical of an "internet player" and represents a MUCH larger range of possible hands. It is much easier for someone, namely a pro, to put you on a hand like AK or AQs and make a move at you when the flop is a T 7 4 rainbow.

So, are you willing to go broke here with AA if a pro is playing back at you on a T74 board after you've raised 6x BB preflop?

[statedogg 0]

A few weeks ago I experienced just this situation except I was playing online. I was at full tilt in a $200 sat for a WSOP NewOrleans seat. I am UTG with TT I raise 4X BB and a guy pushes all in. Live I lay down without a second thought, but here it was a little different. A few things cross my mind here. 1. I dont know if this guy bought directly in or if he won a smaller sat, so I am thinking that maybe he really doesn't have time to play so he's going to go all in and either double up or he's out and he doesnt really care. 2. I figure maybe he just wants to establish a very aggressive image and will go all in with anything here just to establish that image.3. I also can't put him on aces b/c if he had them surely he would want to play with me.4. This tournament had 50 people and only 1rst got paid so playing for second was pretty usless.I call and he has AA, game over for me. I had a tee time in a few hours anyway.

[Socrates 0]

Just one year, one year. That's all I'm asking. Can someone please explain to me why every single year this question gets asked. Haven't there been thousands of posts on this over the last decade. PLease stop asking this question. You would play it just like you would AA any other time for the most part. While its the first hand of the WSOP, its just another hand in the overall game of poker. Take in the variables that you would in your normal game or other tournament and do the same thing. Getting AA on the first hand of the WSOP is no different than getting it in the first hand of your home game.

[CieloAzor 0]

I don't think moving all-in is a bad play at all. It's safe and the play has to work very rarely for it to show a nice profit. Playing AA the "normal" way is difficult with stacks this deep and your negative implied odds are terrible. If you're raising normally, you better make a standard raise. Don't try to raise a little bit extra because it's not worth it. You CANNOT let these people know you have AA when you've got 9700 chips behind.Personally, I wouldn't move in here but I wouldn't call it a horrible play either.

[Suited_Up 2]

don't disagree, but given that this is the prevailing opinion, surely people might put you on less than AA. since they are doing this, they might call. you might argue that people won't want to take the chance to lose 10000 on one hand, but i'd bet a lot of people would be willing to take a coin flip to double up in the first hand because they can picture themselves using their big stack to dominating tables all the way to 5 mil.just a thought - thanks for the opinions.

i'll take that bet.(i highly disagree.)aseem

I'll take that bet too.Having played in one of these big tournaments, I can tell you that it starts out extremely tight. Nobody wants to get involved in big pots early. You flat out won't get called there. Not even by AK. There is no need to risk it.

[Suited_Up 2]

I vote for a raise to 6x the BB. It appears overly agressive which one might think typical of an "internet player" and represents a MUCH larger range of possible hands. It is much easier for someone, namely a pro, to put you on a hand like AK or AQs and make a move at you when the flop is a T 7 4 rainbow.

So, are you willing to go broke here with AA if a pro is playing back at you on a T74 board after you've raised 6x BB preflop?

Isn't that how the game works? Especially when you start with 10k chips.You play small ball... you don't push it in with every big hand.

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

I vote for a raise to 6x the BB. It appears overly agressive which one might think typical of an "internet player" and represents a MUCH larger range of possible hands. It is much easier for someone, namely a pro, to put you on a hand like AK or AQs and make a move at you when the flop is a T 7 4 rainbow.

So, are you willing to go broke here with AA if a pro is playing back at you on a T74 board after you've raised 6x BB preflop?

Isn't that how the game works? Especially when you start with 10k chips.You play small ball... you don't push it in with every big hand.

"Isn't that how the game works?" ??? Does that mean you are willing to go broke with AA, against a pro, when the stacks are deep and the board is T74? That was my question. If your answer is "of course", then you're much better off jamming preflop.

[Suited_Up 2]

I vote for a raise to 6x the BB. It appears overly agressive which one might think typical of an "internet player" and represents a MUCH larger range of possible hands. It is much easier for someone, namely a pro, to put you on a hand like AK or AQs and make a move at you when the flop is a T 7 4 rainbow.

So, are you willing to go broke here with AA if a pro is playing back at you on a T74 board after you've raised 6x BB preflop?

Isn't that how the game works? Especially when you start with 10k chips.You play small ball... you don't push it in with every big hand.

"Isn't that how the game works?" ??? Does that mean you are willing to go broke with AA, against a pro, when the stacks are deep and the board is T74? That was my question. If your answer is "of course", then you're much better off jamming preflop.

Nobody said I was going broke... But you should be able to play postflop or you shouldn't be there.

[macphec 0]

i HIGHLY disagree that a lot of people will call off their entire stack pre-flop on the FIRST hand just to double up.any "good" player will lay down even kings in this spot.any "bad" player will NOT want to risk their stack in the first hand; most amateurs have the common philosophy of "just wait for others to bust so that you can make the money".look at it this way. if you play this hand normally, your EV (expected value) might be something like 20 big blinds. that is, if you play it normally, you will win ON AVERAGE 20 big blinds that hand.if you push all-in, what is your expected value?if everyone folds, you won 3.5 big blinds (the posted blinds and the two limpers' calls).if one person calls, you won 80% of approximately 202 big blinds, which is 161.5 big blinds.obviously, you want someone to call if you push all-in. your logic is that someone might think you DON'T have aces and will then call, which you want.however, by pushing all-in, you are forefeiting the EV you get when you make a standard raise; that is, you forefeit your normal EV (for example, 20 big blinds) in hopes of getting an EV of 161.5 big blinds.do you get one caller often enough to justify forefeiting that EV in hopes of a higher one?let's look at the basic math.if you make a standard raise, your expected total value is 20 big blinds.if you push all-in, assuming there is P probability that you get one caller (assume for simplicity that all other times, everyone folds--two calls is EXTREMELY unlikely), your expected value is [P x 161.5] + [(1 - P) x 3.5] = 158 x P + 3.5 big blinds.to make pushing more profitable than a standard raise, the EV of pushing has to be greater than 20 big blinds, which means that P has to be greater than 10.5%.can you honestly expect one caller at least 10.5% of the time? i highly doubt it. thus, making a standard raise is more profitable than pushing.there are a few other factors:1. you forefeit your post-flop edge if you're a good player. that is, a "good" player often has a higher EV with aces than a bad player, since he has the ability to lay them down when he knows he's beat, AND he can extract maximum value when he knows he's ahead. thus, if the EV of making a standard raise and playing it out is higher for a "good" player (say, 30 big blinds), which means you need to expect a caller if you push MORE than 10.5% of the time--possibly around 15% - 20% of the time, which makes pushing even more unlikely and even more unprofitable than playing it out.2. you have horrible tournament equity. on day one in a huge field, doubling up will mean nothing, so why bother with it? there is a MONSTROUS 20% chance for you to get knocked out if you get a caller--that's WAY too high for day one.3. you'll possibly lose respect. tournaments differ from cash games in that you can't afford to take marginal edges, and you need to minimize variance in addition to profits. that means that when you push all-in, you might KNOW that you're the favorite, but you'd still prefer a fold. this means that when you push all-in next time, you might want a fold but you might instead get a call since your opponent has lost respect for your pushes (maybe you've developed a LAG image after pushing pre-flop on the first hand). plus, you might lose your power to bluff effectively with similar reasoning.to push here is just ridiculous, IMHO.aseem

Damn aseem! You go to poker college or something?Nice analysisIMO you raise approx 5 x BB and be capable of laying them down to a scary board. No sense in busting out w AA on the 1st hand of the WSOP. What would you tell your buddies? Uhh, hey guys I came in 6708 at the world series! Just a tad out of the $$.

[akishore 0]

any "good" player will lay down even kings in this spot.

There are many (otherwise) pretty good players who would call with kings there.

of course there will be some. that's why we look at the probability that you get called' date=' and how high that probability needs to be to make pushing and hoping for a big EV more profitable than playing it normally and sticking to a smaller EV. i disagree' date=' though, that "many" good players will call with kings here. not on the first day, first hand.almost any good player realizes the risk to reward ratio is just far too high. if you haven't limped yet, you have nothing invested in the pot, and if you've limped, you're losing a whopping one big blind out of your deep stack. if this was a home game or something, yes, quite a few otherwise good players will call, but not in a big buy-in major tournament where $10,000 is a large chunk of change to many people. ask kurt (suited_up) about this; the first day in these tournaments is quite tight... nobody wants to bust then.so yes, there are otherwise good players who will call with kings, but i'm arguing that there aren't enough to make pushing more profitable.

any "bad" player will NOT want to risk their stack in the first hand; most amateurs have the common philosophy of "just wait for others to bust so that you can make the money".

There are many bad players who would call with kings there. I'd venture to say most bad players. Some will beat you into the pot' date=' "knowing" they've got you. The truly terrible will call with worse' date=' but this will be rare of course.[/quote'']same logic as above.

look at it this way. if you play this hand normally' date=' your EV (expected value) might be something like 20 big blinds. that is' date=' if you play it normally, you will win ON AVERAGE 20 big blinds that hand.[/quote'']Cite your source. 20 sounds pretty damn high to me. You will lose a good portion of your stack a significant proportion of the time. The math below is meaningless for comparitive purposes if you just make up the number 20.

poker tracker tells me my average bb/hand with A-A in NL games is around 20 big blinds. i admit that i don't play too much NL HE online, so i only have around 8,000 hands. it's not a big enough sample size, so if anyone who plays NL HE online a lot more can give me a more accurate EV of A-A, that would be appreciated.

if you push all-in' date=' what is your expected value?if everyone folds' date=' you won 3.5 big blinds (the posted blinds and the two limpers' calls).if one person calls, you won 80% of approximately 202 big blinds, which is 161.5 big blinds.[/quote'']And approximately 20% of the time you lose 200 big blinds, which is 40 big blinds on average. Leaving us a rough ballpark EV in the event of a call of 121.5 big blinds.

however' date=' by pushing all-in, you are forefeiting the EV you get when you make a standard raise; that is, you forefeit your normal EV (for example, 20 big blinds) in hopes of getting an EV of 161.5 big blinds.[/b']

121.5 big bet EV is a lot closer.

my mistake.

do you get one caller often enough to justify forefeiting that EV in hopes of a higher one?let's look at the basic math.if you make a standard raise' date=' your expected total value is 20 big blinds.if you push all-in' date=' assuming there is P probability that you get one caller (assume for simplicity that all other times, everyone folds--two calls is EXTREMELY unlikely), your expected value is [P x 161.5''] + [(1 - P) x 3.5] = 158 x P + 3.5 big blinds.to make pushing more profitable than a standard raise, the EV of pushing has to be greater than 20 big blinds, which means that P has to be greater than 10.5%.

When the EV is corrected to 121.5, p=.14. This is assuming of course, that the 20 BB estimate is reasonable.

which makes pushing even more unprofitable.thanks for pointing out my mistakes, but i'm not sure if you're saying i'm correct if you're saying i'm wrong? when the EV of pushing is even lower (121.5), you have to be even more sure that you'll get a call (from 10.5% to 14%), which makes my case stronger.

2. you have horrible tournament equity. on day one in a huge field' date=' doubling up will mean nothing' date=' so why bother with it? there is a MONSTROUS 20% chance for you to get knocked out if you get a caller--that's WAY too high for day one.[/quote'']This is just silly. Doubling up means a lot. If you knew you'd get called if you jammed AA, it's the right play. We don't know that, so it's debateable, and probably not the right play EV wise. But if you're not willing to take an 80% chance of doubling up on day 1, you're off your tree, in a Phill Hellmuth sort of way. The above statement above implies that you think AA should be folded if the pot was jammed before you. Are you part of that strange contingent?

i'm not arguing that i would fold aces if someone pushed. i'm arguing that doubling up--while it does help you a lot--means virtually nothing in the big picture of the whole tournament. i'm not saying that a 20% chance to lose with aces is too much, i'm saying a 20% chance to bust on the first hand while counterfeiting your post-flop edge is a mistake. personal taste? maybe. i really do strongly believe, though, that doubling up on the first hand really means virtually nothing in the big picture of the whole six-day tournament, and thus it's bad tournament equity to push.aseem

[sanemancrazywrld 0]

thanks for pointing out my mistakes, but i'm not sure if you're saying i'm correct if you're saying i'm wrong? when the EV of pushing is even lower (121.5), you have to be even more sure that you'll get a call (from 10.5% to 14%), which makes my case stronger.

I pointed out the mistake because it was a mistake, even though the correction strengthened your argument and weakened mine I understand your points, and I'm not saying that jamming AA preflop after a couple of limpers on the first hand is the best play. I'm just saying that I don't believe it's as horrible as some people make it out to be. It's a whole lot closer to correct if there's been a raiser instead of limpers. Don't forget that it's not going to be that easy to play postflop against unknown opponents if they're giving you action on a ragged board. Nomatter how good you are, you're in a tough spot when it comes up T74 and you bet and get raised. On the first hand of a 10k event, I'm almost surely not getting all my chips in with unimproved aces on the flop, regardless of the board. This will mean that I'll be getting blown off the best hand a (not insignificant) proportion of the time.

[zimmer4141 0]

Do I seem to be the only person tired of hearing posts everyday about what would you do on the first hand of the WSOP? We have come up with just about every scenario that involves you having AA, KK, or AK on the first hand. Chances are that you will see rags on the first hand anyway and fold them like you should. I don't mean to flame, but I simply don't see any point to these posts. At least most scenario threads deal with topics that are possible, as most of these first hand WSOP scenarios aren't.

[ronnieburger 0]

this question always comes up around this time and with how ever many player are in the wsop this year chances are someone will pick up aces the 1st hand yes move in if u pick up the blinds you get 75 chips and an agressive table image and if someone calls and you get out drawn then if it is any consulation you have one hell of a story to tell lol

[jack24bauer24 0]

That's the problem with a lot of Internet players they want to win it alll in one hand.

don't disagree' date=' but given that this is the prevailing opinion' date=' surely people might put you on less than AA. since they are doing this' date=' they might call. you might argue that people won't want to take the chance to lose 10000 on one hand, but i'd bet a lot of people would be willing to take a coin flip to double up in the first hand because they can picture themselves using their big stack to dominating tables all the way to 5 mil.just a thought - thanks for the opinions.[/quote''']No real player on this planet would call all in on the first hand of the WSOP main event with anything less than AA. To suggest that anyone would assume someone going all in on the first hand must be an amateur and put them on AK, meaning that the pro would be more likely to call is ridiculous, cuz they wouldn't call unless they had AA.To say anything to the contrary is stupid.

[mrdannyg 274]

i give i give, you guys are clearly right, no one would call. and if someone pushes in front of you, only call with AA, and even then only if they're suited? heh.i do like the overbet pre-flop though.cheers,daniel