opinions / criticism on this play

[Loismustdie 0]

Multiway with two all ins in front of me MAYBE- heads up in the hand its an automatic call. Actually when I read that he had raised all in thats a move I would make 3 handed with A-J, A-Q, A-Q, or absolutely nothing just playing aggressive. YOU HAVE GOT TO CALL THAT. :shock:

[Pupsta 0]

Multiway with two all ins in front of me MAYBE- heads up in the hand its an automatic call. Actually when I read that he had raised all in thats a move I would make 3 handed with A-J, A-Q, A-Q, or absolutely nothing just playing aggressive. YOU HAVE GOT TO CALL THAT. :shock:

unless he flopped the nut straight, then he folds, right?

[Loismustdie 0]

Multiway with two all ins in front of me MAYBE- heads up in the hand its an automatic call. Actually when I read that he had raised all in thats a move I would make 3 handed with A-J, A-Q, A-Q, or absolutely nothing just playing aggressive. YOU HAVE GOT TO CALL THAT. :shock:

unless he flopped the nut straight, then he folds, right?

Thus the multipot reference. Ahh, the good old days.

[HelioCentric 0]

That's how you loose a tournement... obviously, the board in this scenario was better than in the other situation, but a hand like that could really break you if the other person draws out. He felt a fold was the right thing to do and wound up with a win. He could have called 2400 with 89 suited to crack kings, a straight, or maybe a draw, or a straight and flush draw. It's a dangerous board, and he folded his Kings. I still say it was a nice lay down.

Assuming you meant how you lose a tournament;3 handed, you simply can not fold here. I mean, if your going to fold Kings on a 9-high, partially coordinated board simply because a smaller stack pushes all in while 3 handed... it's time to find a new game. I suggest Hungry Hungry Hippo's. Good times.

[Snooka 0]

Yes, I meant "lose." I don't know why I always throw that extra o in there. It's just one of those words I can never spell correctly. Guess it's gonna make life a little difficult on a poker forum. lol.Once again, I WOULD HAVE called in that situation. That being said, I'm simply saying that having the will power to lay down kings is impressive. His opponent could have just as easily had the winning hand. Lets not forget that statisticly the average winning hand in Texas Hold'em is two pair. Oh, and since he called a big bet preflop, who's to say he didn't make a set or have aces. So many things with that board could beat kings, or even have a 2-1 draw against kings. I don't see how everyone that's posted on this topic thinks risking a tournement lead and 2/3 of your stacks with a hand that is fallable is a STONE COLD BAD PLAY. Also, when I'm playing 3 handed, I tend to call a lot looser (not loser than at a full table. He obviously felt for some reason that he could be beat... when you think that, you fold, right?These pretzels are making me thirsty!!![/u][/i]

[dead money 1]

That being said, I'm simply saying that having the will power to lay down kings is impressive. His opponent could have just as easily had the winning hand. Lets not forget that statisticly the average winning hand in Texas Hold'em is two pair. Oh, and since he called a big bet preflop, who's to say he didn't make a set or have aces. So many things with that board could beat kings, or even have a 2-1 draw against kings. I don't see how everyone that's posted on this topic thinks risking a tournement lead and 2/3 of your stacks with a hand that is fallable is a STONE COLD BAD PLAY. Also, when I'm playing 3 handed, I tend to call a lot looser (not loser Smile than at a full table. He obviously felt for some reason that he could be beat... when you think that, you fold, right?

There are so many things wrong here that I dont know where to start. There are more hands that dont have him beat then do have him beat. It is true that the average winning hand is 2 pair, but that is at a full ring game and not 3 handed play. He did not call a big preflop bet. He called a standard preflop raise. Also, the hands that beat kings dont push, they wait and trap him. And a 2-1 draw is only 33% to win the hand. Would you not want to get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite? What else could you be asking for. When it is shorthanded you push the small edges you have. Being a 2-1 favorite is great. There really isnt an argument for folding. It was a bad play.

[offmandh 0]

bad fold. mighta worked for you but its a bad fold. but hey next time you wont make the same mistake. btw with a sick read its not a bad laydown but without one it is. take care!

[navybuttons 15]

3 - handed at the end of a small 15 man tourney,I hold ~45-50% of the remaining chips and pick up KK on the button.With blinds at 400-800 and holding ~25,000 - 30,000 chips, I make it 2400 to go. SB folds, BB calls.Flop comes 8s9s3c, BB goes all in for ~ 18,000-20,000.I couldn't get a decent read out of him, and actually layed the hand down.  My reasoning being, even if he doesnt have me dominated (a set or two pair), he may be drawing to a better hand (straight, flush, straight flush?).  I would have been crippled if I called. I had been consistently building my stack and was confident I could continue to do so if I retained power at the table.--removed opponents cards---I'll tell you the outcome of the tourney later.

I actually like your play and i may be the only one on here who does. if he checks to you then you can move all in on him because you get fold equity. as he's less likely to call for his tournament life when there's a really small stack at the table (unless he has 9-8 or 9-8 which is unlikely) i know im advocating a -ev decision but the long term effects of this dicision may be +evwait for a better spot. if you make this call and loose you are no longer the chip leader and you loose a lot of equity by being able to put pressure on the small stack (which must be really small if i read the hand correctly). also this works to let the BB know you can lay down a hand so that when you are heads up with him he's more likely to put you on the goods and you can push him around. what i'm looking to do at this point is be the one who takes out the small stack by raising no matter the cards when the small stack (if he's really small) is on the big blind. if the small stack is just to your left and the other big stack keeps raising on the button you have to wait for a huge hand to go back over the top with.i know im going to get flammed but i don't care. i think being able to make a laydown like this is what can sometimes win tournaments. of course if you know villian is capable of making this play with anything then sure you can call him but i'm not saying this is an automatic call.think about it: your opponent is putting his tournament life on the line when he is almost assured second. i think he doesn't want the flush to get there but that's a quick read on a player i don't know.

[Snooka 0]

That being said, I'm simply saying that having the will power to lay down kings is impressive. His opponent could have just as easily had the winning hand. Lets not forget that statisticly the average winning hand in Texas Hold'em is two pair. Oh, and since he called a big bet preflop, who's to say he didn't make a set or have aces. So many things with that board could beat kings, or even have a 2-1 draw against kings. I don't see how everyone that's posted on this topic thinks risking a tournement lead and 2/3 of your stacks with a hand that is fallable is a STONE COLD BAD PLAY. Also, when I'm playing 3 handed, I tend to call a lot looser (not loser Smile than at a full table. He obviously felt for some reason that he could be beat... when you think that, you fold, right?

There are so many things wrong here that I dont know where to start. There are more hands that dont have him beat then do have him beat. It is true that the average winning hand is 2 pair, but that is at a full ring game and not 3 handed play. He did not call a big preflop bet. He called a standard preflop raise. Also, the hands that beat kings dont push, they wait and trap him. And a 2-1 draw is only 33% to win the hand. Would you not want to get all your money in as a 2-1 favorite? What else could you be asking for. When it is shorthanded you push the small edges you have. Being a 2-1 favorite is great. There really isnt an argument for folding. It was a bad play.

Okay, what do you mean by there are more hands that don't have him beat than do have him beat? The object is to try and figure out what someone is betting with to make a 20k call, right? Well, what could the guy be betting with. If I'm working it out in my mind logically he's either got A9, 89, AA, 99, 88, or 33. Either that or he's speeding a draw... lets only use the most LOGICAL drawing hands, 6s7s, 10s Js, or maybe AsXs, KsXs. So, that's 5 hands that flat out beat you, 1 hand with 5 outs, 2 hands with 15 outs, and say 24 hands with 9 outs. Now I can go on with all the normal moron calls that are possible, I.E. 7 10 offsuit, 26 spades, 93, 83, etc. That's a lot of hands that COULD beat kings or have already beat kings. Second, averages don't change. They are constant. Heads up, 3 handed, and full table, the average is the average. The probability of floping a set stays exactly the same in a game with 30 people as it does with 10 people, or 3 people. The mathematics of this game NEVER change.Third, the guy called a sizeable raise to be in the hand. By your definition, a standard preflop raise which I take to mean 3 or 4 times the size of the BB. By your definition, you're basically saying the caller could have had ANYTHING, making it even more possible to have called with some garbage hand that hit hard.Fourth, "hands that beat kings don't push, they trap." Now you're telling us that everybody plays EXACTLY the same. Your most inteligent arguement in the post, IMO. That's sarcasm if you didn't get it.Fifth, 2-1 shot is only 33% chance to win the hand. By definition, 2-1 means 50%. Actually, the actual odds on this are 54.1% after the flop, and 32.6 percent after the turn. So, you need to either take another look at the pot odds chart you've been looking at or invest in a new calculator.I'm done with this guy. At first I started posting on this thread because I wanted to play devil's advocate... but really... avoiding hands like this (especially early in a tournement) can be the difference between winning and losing.

[Davin 0]

Im gonna defend OP on his reasoning.If he felt that he was dominating his table, then there's no reason to risk the majority of his chips in a situation where he feels there a good chance that he's racing or already behind. Poker is also about picking and choosing your spots. If OP really had as good of control over his table as he said, then he will find a better opportunity than this to get his chips in the middle.25x bb is plenty to work w/ and he's still near the chip lead. flame on if you want, but just think of this other scenerio. If op had said that he had ak pf, raised to 2400, and villain came over the top for 20k, now how many of us would advocate calling?

[copernicus 0]

I love the fold here, and whatever the results, its the kind of laydown I need to make more. Folding here doesnt affect your tournament chances at all, a loss is a disaster, and a win makes you a very solid favorite. From his seat he's gambling his whole tourney on this hand. I just dont see it being a semi-bluff.A structured hand analyis says you are ahead 18:15 here, since there are 24 overpairs which could be this way, 18 of which win for you, and there are only 9 sets.That kind of lead is tempting, and impulsively a very easy call...a no brainer in a cash game. In a tourney, the kind of laydown that will get oohs and ahhs on the WPT broadcast.

[copernicus 0]

" Fifth, 2-1 shot is only 33% chance to win the hand. By definition, 2-1 means 50%. Actually, the actual odds on this are 54.1% after the flop, and 32.6 percent after the turn. So, you need to either take another look at the pot odds chart you've been looking at or invest in a new calculator. "Not sure what youre saying here...you start out correctly, that 2/1 shot is 33% to win, but then get to 2-1 means 50%?

[Snooka 0]

" Fifth, 2-1 shot is only 33% chance to win the hand. By definition, 2-1 means 50%. Actually, the actual odds on this are 54.1% after the flop, and 32.6 percent after the turn. So, you need to either take another look at the pot odds chart you've been looking at or invest in a new calculator. "Not sure what youre saying here...you start out correctly, that 2/1 shot is 33% to win, but then get to 2-1 means 50%?

Would someone like to explain to me how 2-1 is 33%? 2 - 1 means you will make your hand 1 out of 2 times. That's 50%!!!! 3-1 would be 33%. If I am wrong, someone please explain how.

[copernicus 0]

" Fifth, 2-1 shot is only 33% chance to win the hand. By definition, 2-1 means 50%. Actually, the actual odds on this are 54.1% after the flop, and 32.6 percent after the turn. So, you need to either take another look at the pot odds chart you've been looking at or invest in a new calculator. "Not sure what youre saying here...you start out correctly, that 2/1 shot is 33% to win, but then get to 2-1 means 50%?

Would someone like to explain to me how 2-1 is 33%? 2 - 1 means you will make your hand 1 out of 2 times. That's 50%!!!! 3-1 would be 33%. If I am wrong, someone please explain how.

No, 2-1 underdog means you will make your hand once and he will make his hand twice, thus the 1/3. 1-1 is one out of two and 3-1 is one out of 4.

[dead money 1]

Okay, what do you mean by there are more hands that don't have him beat than do have him beat? The object is to try and figure out what someone is betting with to make a 20k call, right? Well, what could the guy be betting with. If I'm working it out in my mind logically he's either got A9, 89, AA, 99, 88, or 33. Either that or he's speeding a draw... lets only use the most LOGICAL drawing hands, 6s7s, 10s Js, or maybe AsXs, KsXs. So, that's 5 hands that flat out beat you, 1 hand with 5 outs, 2 hands with 15 outs, and say 24 hands with 9 outs. Now I can go on with all the normal moron calls that are possible, I.E. 7 10 offsuit, 26 spades, 93, 83, etc. That's a lot of hands that COULD beat kings or have already beat kings.Second, averages don't change. They are constant. Heads up, 3 handed, and full table, the average is the average. The probability of floping a set stays exactly the same in a game with 30 people as it does with 10 people, or 3 people. The mathematics of this game NEVER change.Third, the guy called a sizeable raise to be in the hand. By your definition, a standard preflop raise which I take to mean 3 or 4 times the size of the BB. By your definition, you're basically saying the caller could have had ANYTHING, making it even more possible to have called with some garbage hand that hit hard.Fourth, "hands that beat kings don't push, they trap." Now you're telling us that everybody plays EXACTLY the same. Your most inteligent arguement in the post, IMO. That's sarcasm if you didn't get it.Fifth, 2-1 shot is only 33% chance to win the hand. By definition, 2-1 means 50%. Actually, the actual odds on this are 54.1% after the flop, and 32.6 percent after the turn. So, you need to either take another look at the pot odds chart you've been looking at or invest in a new calculator.I'm done with this guy.At first I started posting on this thread because I wanted to play devil's advocate... but really... avoiding hands like this (especially early in a tournement) can be the difference between winning and losing.

I cant tell if you are serious or not. Ok, First. Think about how you would play the hand if you flopped a monster on this guy. Would you push all in? No. Its not smart. Now think about what you might push with. A complete bluff, a draw, or a semi strong hand with some outs. This makes sense. Pushing with top set does not make sense.Second. Of course the average changes. The reason because the average winning hand in a full table is 2 pair is because their more possible hands that win. Why do you think proper short handed strategy is to play the higher cards rather than draws? Because you are more likely to win with just Ace or King high 3 handed rather than 10 handed.Third. I dont even know what your argument is here so Ill just leave it alone.Fourth. I was making a generalization. I would estimate that about 90% of players check in that situation. That means that you are going to fold here on a 10% chance that he is playing this differently. I might agree with you if he was up against a tough veteran, but he is playing a new player and they dont think like this. Fifth. Ummm. If I am getting 2 to 1 on my money, I only have to win 33% of the time, because I will win once and lose twice. Therefore if Im a 2 to 1 favorite, then I win twice and lose only once. Thats not 50%. Apparently you just dont get it. In that situation, being offered 1.3 to 1, there is no draw that I dont want to get my money in against. And the hands that have me dominated are not going to play the hand like that. It was a bad fold. Im done with this guy.

[Davin 0]

I love the fold here

wow... first time we've agreed on something=)

It was a bad fold. [/quote}speak for yourself. the man had very little invested in the pot and felt he could dominate the rest of the way. it was a good fold

[copernicus 0]

I love the fold here

wow... first time we've agreed on something=)

About time you came over to the dark side

[jjgoldy5 0]

You guys have successfully written out every single thought that went through my head before I folded. I make this call 90% of the time, but something was screaming fold, and I didnt feel it necessary to put my tourney life on the line, when I was fairly certain I could continue to dominate. I guess it turned out to be the right move either way. Thanks for the opinions and criticsm

[dead money 1]

It was a bad fold. [/quote}speak for yourself.the man had very little invested in the pot and felt he could dominate the rest of the way.it was a good fold

You are wrong. It wasnt a good fold. I have showed you how it was not a good fold. I think you might be a little dense. Your reasoning does nothing to tell me how his fold was good. I showed evidence to say that his fold was wrong. And Snooka needs to learn how to do math before he questions me. Dont make comments about me needing a new calculator when you clearly dont know what you are taling about.I really dont see what the problem is here. If you never fold in this situation, ever, you would come out ahead. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[copernicus 0]

It was a bad fold. [/quote}speak for yourself.the man had very little invested in the pot and felt he could dominate the rest of the way.it was a good fold

You are wrong. It wasnt a good fold. I have showed you how it was not a good fold. I think you might be a little dense. Your reasoning does nothing to tell me how his fold was good. I showed evidence to say that his fold was wrong. And Snooka needs to learn how to do math before he questions me. Dont make comments about me needing a new calculator when you clearly dont know what you are taling about.I really dont see what the problem is here. If you never fold in this situation, ever, you would come out ahead. Why is this so difficult to understand?

What you dont understand is that your math is incomplete, and the range of hands you put him on is very optimistic.Your math is incomplete because it doesnt take into account prize equity after a fold vs after a call, and since we dont know the prize distribution we can only guess.With your range of hands (throwing out some garbage that he wouldnt have called a preflop raise with and adding AA, QQ, JJ, TT) you are about 60% to win. If you eliminate Ax bluffs and straight only draws you are about 40% to win.So what is the impact of that kind of range on prize equity with a fold vs a call? Not a helluva lot. Assuming the typical .5/.3/.2 SnG distribution, with a fold your prize equity is about 37% of the total pool. At a 40/60 win ratio if you call, you are also at about 37% of the total pool. Move your winning chances up to 60/40 and your equity only moves up to about 40% of the prize pool. If the prize distribution is more skewed toward first it would favor calling somewhat more.This assumes equal ability and rough chip counts from the OP. Given that the OP thinks he can outplay the other stacks the decision shifts more toward folding.

[Davin 0]

You are wrong.  It wasnt a good fold.  I have showed you how it was not a good fold.  I think you might be a little dense.  Your reasoning does nothing to tell me how his fold was good.  I showed evidence to say that his fold was wrong.  And Snooka needs to learn how to do math before he questions me.  Dont make comments about me needing a new calculator when you clearly dont know what you are taling about.I really dont see what the problem is here.  If you never fold in this situation, ever, you would come out ahead.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

you're approaching this hand like a cash game... it's not.

[dead money 1]

you're approaching this hand like a cash game... it's not.

Actually in a cash game, I would give more thought to folding. I would still call, but I would think about folding. In a cash game, with no escalating blinds, I have a bigger advantage against inferior players. So I can fold if I think I am only a small favorite because I can wait my opponents out. In a tourney situation, folding isnt an option. I cant outwait my opponent in a tourney, so I will push small advantages. But here, I dont have a small advantage. There is very good possibility that I have a big advantage. And I am not going to fold on the small chance that I might be beat. It just doesnt add up. All the information that I am given in this hand is that I am a big favorite in this hand. Even the OP admits that he would call 90% of the time. If you are going to call 90% of the time, then you should just call 100% of the time. Nobody in this thread is good enough to figure out the 10% of the time that they are beat. It doesnt matter if its a cash game or a tourney, if you play enough, this situation will be profitable if you always call.I am boggled at how some of you think this is a good fold. Im not saying you cant fold here, Im just saying that if you do, it is a bad fold. The OP still won and I am not debating that he plays bad. Im just saying that on this particular hand, he made a bad fold. There are plenty of times where I have made a bad play and still won a tourney. But that doesnt mean that I cant go back and sit down and look over my play and say that I should have played some hands differently.

[Davin 0]

if you play enough, this situation will be profitable if you always call.

how many times do you need to have this situation arise in which the variance would level out and have the call be profitable? 50, 100 times? how many times will our op face a situation similar, probably no more than a handful. your assersion is based on the false premise that our op will be in a similar situation many times in the future... he wont.in THIS situation, op didnt want to risk all his chips when he was unsure of the strength of his hand compared to the strength of his opponent's. however he did feel that we has the unquestioned table captain, making it more porfitable to continue dominating by picking and choosing his spots instead of playing a hand that he's completely perplexed by. he still has 25 bb, which doesnt put him in blind danger... he doesnt need to push the issure right here and now. granted that he's most likely ahead on this hand, but by avoiding big pots where he's unsure of his hand strength, he's making the results of the tourney based more on skill and less in the cards.you used math to argue your position, i'll do the same.let's give op a nice cushion and say he's a 2:1 favorite.if op believes that he can win the tourney more than 2/3 times even after laying this down, then his fold is correct. the way he makes it sound, i feel he could accomplish this.

[copernicus 0]

if you play enough, this situation will be profitable if you always call.

how many times do you need to have this situation arise in which the variance would level out and have the call be profitable? 50, 100 times? how many times will our op face a situation similar, probably no more than a handful. your assersion is based on the false premise that our op will be in a similar situation many times in the future... he wont.in THIS situation, op didnt want to risk all his chips when he was unsure of the strength of his hand compared to the strength of his opponent's. however he did feel that we has the unquestioned table captain, making it more porfitable to continue dominating by picking and choosing his spots instead of playing a hand that he's completely perplexed by. he still has 25 bb, which doesnt put him in blind danger... he doesnt need to push the issure right here and now. granted that he's most likely ahead on this hand, but by avoiding big pots where he's unsure of his hand strength, he's making the results of the tourney based more on skill and less in the cards.you used math to argue your position, i'll do the same.let's give op a nice cushion and say he's a 2:1 favorite.if op believes that he can win the tourney more than 2/3 times even after laying this down, then his fold is correct. the way he makes it sound, i feel he could accomplish this.

dammit..we agree again, weve got to stop this.I will modify your last point a little though. If he is a 2:1 favorite this hand (somewhat optimistic, I dont think he can count on being more than 3:2), then he still doesnt have to think he can win the tourney 2/3 of the time with a fold. Even if he takes this hand down, hes got the small stack with about 10k chips to face, and has about a 15% chance of losing based on chip ratios. That means he only needs to think he can win 56% of the time if he lays it down. Based on chip count ratios he is only about 44% to win after a fold, which means he needs about a 25% skill edge, which is pretty steep. However, that doesnt take into account equity in 2d place, which he is much more secure in if he folds here, but is in great jeopardy if he calls and loses.

[navybuttons 15]

wow, looks like this thread turned and i think correctly.what no one seems to be discussing is the idea of staying sharp to the way that your oppenents play.this is the sort of situation where by hopefully three handed you have a good read on the way he plays. if you were owning the table it is not likely that the BB in this hand is very good (your better). the idea of a player putting his tournament life on the line on a complete bluff based on the position (as it relates to money and the short stack) is a really advanced play that very few (who arent idoits) are able to make.the way to think about it is thus: what do you think he has based on the way he plays and played this hand? stick with it in your decision.odds in general and the like do very little in NL holdem. you need to be able to make a read, stick with it, and not regret it.i couldnt believe when i re-read the thread that there were a few who agreed with me. p.s. im not saying always fold an overpair to a big bet but there is a heck of a lot more involved then the way players typically play a hand a the odds that he has a hand that beats us. if you dont consider everything you will get crushed (there is no way around that)