i want to vomit

[tskillz187 0]

When you have a lot of runners who are willing to play that style, then the odds are good that SOME of them will accumulate some large stacks early on. The problem is that if you are playing that style the probability is low that you are one of the "SOME".While GR had a day job before his win, he was a very experienced player, and his style is indeed very aggressive and very risky. While his back to back results were very impressive, he still washes out very early in most tournaments he plays in.  Not only did he take races with a small edge in 2004, he made some plays that had him all in or nearly so with dominated hands and sucked out. If you are as strong a big stack player as he is, it might work for you too. For us mere mortals its a recipe for a lot of out of early exits.

GR specifically said that he was all-in as a dog only once during his two runs, did he not?There's no shame in a ton of early exits. I'm surprised that you have this opinion--you strike me as a math type. I'm not saying that it's mathematically incorrect to avoid gambling, but it seems to be the style of choice amongst all the "math guy" tournament players I know. Greg Raymer, Paul Phillips, Jerrod Ankenman, Matt Matros, etc. all seem to follow this philosophy.I'm starting to change my mind on this particular problem, for what it's worth. I think it's a winning play chip-wise. The villain is stealing a healthy percentage here, that much is fact. I think it was a needless gamble because I've got all of the optimal factors lined up already. It's sweet when he folds and I claim my 1100, but when I blow my stack, I've given up what you play 3-4 tournaments in the hopes of attaining: I've got the entire table covered and the blinds are low enough to start exploiting people. What else can I ask for?I'll probably write another response tomorrow when I hear back from my friend.

Copernicus is right on with this argument in my opinion. I cant think of a fold equity high enough that is short of 100%. You have the table covered pretty badly. Your strategy at this point should be to win as many small pots as possible while not risking your chips. The scenario that you are describing would be much better if your stack was in the 4000 range. Even then I think that play is a tad aggressive. Clearly you have expressed that you understand the play of calling, but that you think there are not the implied odds that most others do.This is against conventional wisdom, so it was informative/entertaining listening to your argument, but I disagree. If this player truly is the aggressive player that you must have him pegged as, so that you could reraise steal or "ideally" have him call with AK, then you have to have some solid implied odds. In a perfect world the board will not threaten at all you can check call flop and check raise turn. You probably do have this player pegged correctly as I would have folded the 1010 without a second thought if I were the other player. You are too caught up in winning all of the chips immediately. It would be nice to knock out the other big stack, and having 4x everyone else at the table, but the best way to hurt or cripple him is by calling and looking for a set and folding if you miss. Being the early chip leader isn't worth much in these tourneys.

[shpaget 0]

First, I think MP2 is smoking pot for calling that raise.His mistakes was ten times larger than yours. Does he actually think he's winning by more than a coin flip? Does he think you'd do this with AK or worse? Does he think you have worse than QQ?And yes, your raise is a mistake...slight, not nearly as glaring as some people here believe, but a mistake nonetheless.You do have some fold equity...JJ-88 fold here more often than they don't.But, absolutely nothing that calls you is behind you....OK - there are no absolutes...there are some maniacs who'll call with 66...but they are rarer than you hope.And you will get action if you flop a set...the pf raiser will lead out, and then you can decide to call or raise. Yes...it's better with more than just one opponent, and you hope someone calls behind you pf, but in the long run, in my experience anyway, you earn more by calling with a set and chucking if you miss.

[timwakefield 69]

you need to remember that you don't HAVE to win all of the other players' chips right away, the game goes on for a while, and it's not always about race situations.  in NL, you want to get your chips in when you're a big favourite to win the hand.

I think you need to read this:http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archi...&m_id=65576

That's a very interesting article, but the question there is calling QQ vs AK. Here you are moving 77 vs XX. The problem with your play is that your opponent will probably only call you with a better pair, or (if you're lucky) AK or AQ. Probably he doesn't have a monster and will fold, but if he does call you are likely in trouble. It is a good play vs a short stack. If he has less than 3000 chips he will probably consider himself committed, and will probably call with any sort of mediocre or good hand. A big stack will probably only call with a great hand (or even a hand like TT...), but you can only afford to lose against a small stack.

His advice betrayed a mentality of avoiding close confrontations early on. I realize that I'm not assured a race here. I'm just letting him in on a little secret that has made me quite a bit of money. One does not have to be a big favorite to be correct in jamming it in, even in huge buyin tournaments. The problem lies in knowing when you're racing and when you're dominated.I'd have been ecstatic if he'd called and turned over AK here. I can think of no other dream situation than even-money for a monster stack--that is a MAJOR time-saver.

As you said earlier, you have no reason to expect your opponent to have a huge hand. I agree. But you can't expect that he doesn't have a huge hand either. He is making a pretty good raise. That is what people do when they have a great hand. The only reason you suspect that he does not have a great hand is that it is unlikely that a random raiser holds better than 77. If you could see your opponent's cards (as in the article) and he held AK, then you could make your play if you wanted to.My point is that gambling like this is a good play against a smaller stack. Against a large stack it is too big a risk, because he will either fold a mediocre or good hand (most of the time) or call with a great hand. When he folds you win a fair-size pot, and when he calls he probably wins and you have almost nothing left.

[strategy 4]

Copernicus is right on with this argument in my opinion. I cant think of a fold equity high enough that is short of 100%. You have the table covered pretty badly.

I was clearly wrong in my assessment of the folding equity. I'm not sure of the math behind it, but there's some break-even point where if I only get called by a better pair, but win the 1100 every other time, I make money. That must be significantly less than 100%... but I was in no position to make that judgement about this guy, having played a few minutes with him.

This is against conventional wisdom, so it was informative/entertaining listening to your argument

Hope I didn't make you laugh too hard.

You are too caught up in winning all of the chips immediately. It would be nice to knock out the other big stack, and having 4x everyone else at the table, but the best way to hurt or cripple him is by calling and looking for a set and folding if you miss. Being the early chip leader isn't worth much in these tourneys.

Being the early chip leader has real value to me. I have no doubts about being able to exploit the table. I already had a big enough stack to do that, so I don't really think I should have taken the gamble. It can't be right to expose as many chips as I did. It's a mistake I won't be repeating.

[strategy 4]

I heard back from my friend.

As I read the situation, your SB is 100 and you're playing to 800 from MP2,about whom you have no significant knowledge, with 77. At 100-200, your Mis almost 40, and your opponent's M is 33; both are deep (but not superdeep)stacks. Your 700 call will gain 14x against aggressive opponents who hit orwho have a premium pair. The tree is complex for this case: it's 8:1 or soto hit your set, but you'll only get paid a fraction of the time; my guessis about half. And you won't usually get 14x; but I think you can assumethat you'll usually get at least something (especially against aggressiveopponents who love their probe bets). If he autobets to your check (as manywill do), you'll get paid another 1000; and if he makes TPTK holding AK, youmay well get fully paid out. The advantage of a call is that your handdoesn't need position after the flop; if you flop a 7, you play; if youdon't, you shut down.I probably want the stacks to be deeper (20x your call or so) to justify acall. But I don't think a call is a huge mistake here, and I'll do it tolet MP know I'm going to defend from time to time. Your implieds are alsoimpacted by the BB's action behind; if he's wont to just call, they go up;if he'll put on a squeeze, they'll get ruined.If we assume your stackoff will get called by TT-AA and AK, then you'regoing to get called about 6% of the time (roughly two times 46/1225 -- sixways five times each for TT-AA, then 16 ways for AK; and it's times twobecause the BB will wake up with those hands as well) your stackoff will win1100 somewhere around 94% of the time, and lose 9900 2/3 of the remaining6%. That's pos-EV around 700; this is an overly optimistic analysis,though, because you have the information that MP2 open-raised, which makesit much more likely his hand range is in the calling zone. Even cuttingthis EV by half (suggesting that MP2 will raise on a range four times wider,roughly), you're pos-350 or so.I'm OK with your push on this rough math. I really want to know more aboutthe player. If he's liable to make that move with pairs less than 66 or Axwhere x<7, I'm more likely to stack off; if he's a nut peddler, I'm muchmore likely to just call, then probe out any flop I miss that has neither anA nor a K, and check-fold to any flops with an A or K, and either bet out ortrap with flops that include a 7.If you're new at the table and have no significant blind pressure, I don'tat all mind a fold here; I want to look carefully at the texture of thetable for the first couple of orbits and see what I can pick up. I'm OKwith letting the guy rip off my blind for a couple of orbits when stacks arethis deep: I'm very comfortable that if he continues to do so, he's goingto hear from me with some significant volume fairly soon.This is one of those odd situations where I can see a fair position forfolding, calling OR raising. I myself prefer to avoid huge PFconfrontations against players I don't know; while stacking may well bepos-EV, I'd like to give myself the opportunity to see if there's an easymark at the table. I suspect I either call or muck 90% of the time. Ofcourse, you'll recall that I busted from the WCOOP stacking in a verysimilar spot with 88, but the BB woke up with QQ and the MP raiser mucked.

I'm a believer in calling. Thanks for all the contributions, guys... just thought I'd share what he had to say for posterity.

[troyomac 0]

a different view on this hand:i was just in the shower, thinking about this hand (yes i know, i should have been thinking about baywatch, but poker turns me on more), and here is a different way to approach this.would you have made the same play with AA? i highly doubt you would reraise all in over the top with 11,000 to pick up 1100 with your rockets. you would possibly have reraised to 2400 (3x the first raise) to try and extract maximum value for you premium hand. but since you raised so much, the fellow with 10/10 is thinking either:A: you have a monster and are screaming for a call, orB: you have a weak/medium pair, or AK AQ suited, and just want to take the pot right there.in my experience with online poker, i see players making the same move that you made holding something from "B" way more often than something from "A", and with 10/10, unless I have seen you play before and have some valid information, i'm making this call with the tens.

[strategy 4]

a different view on this hand:i was just in the shower, thinking about this hand (yes i know, i should have been thinking about baywatch, but poker turns me on more), and here is a different way to approach this.would you have made the same play with AA? i highly doubt you would reraise all in over the top with 11,000 to pick up 1100 with your rockets. you would possibly have reraised to 2400 (3x the first raise) to try and extract maximum value for you premium hand. but since you raised so much, the fellow with 10/10 is thinking either:A: you have a monster and are screaming for a call, orB: you have a weak/medium pair, or AK AQ suited, and just want to take the pot right there.in my experience with online poker, i see players making the same move that you made holding something from "B" way more often than something from "A", and with 10/10, unless I have seen you play before and have some valid information, i'm making this call with the tens.

It's a real possibility that he was just a very smart player who understood the situation and knew that I "knew" that he was stealing. Hence, he picks up tens, makes a larger raise to "steal" the blind and bait me into re-raising and ends up a sizeable favorite in a pretty nice pot. I completely agree about the A or B possibilities, but I do my best to make moves like this with hands in the "A" range from time to time. I figure they're dying to call me with less than fantastic hands, why not bet a bundle when I've got the nuts?

[troyomac 0]

i'm not sure why you thought he was on a steal. with 100-200 blinds, a raise to 800 could barely be considered a "large" raise (only one BB more than the standard 3X). but if you really believed (but didn't know for sure) that he was on a steal, you could have reraised to 2400 or so and find out where you're at. if he reraises, you know you're beat and you can fold, or if he was attempting a steal, he'll fold anyway and you take the pot.

[shpaget 0]

It's a real possibility that he was just a very smart player who understood the situation and knew that I "knew" that he was stealing. Hence, he picks up tens, makes a larger raise to "steal" the blind and bait me into re-raising and ends up a sizeable favorite in a pretty nice pot.  

Raising to 4x the BB to enter the pot is hardly a steal, especially from early to middle position.From the button it COULD be a steal, but even then, 4x the BB is a standard raise.Yeah, 3x is more standard, but 4x isn't huge...in fact, many people will go 4x-5x the BB with TT-QQ to ensure they're only facing one person post flop.Read any book or column by a pro, be it Mike Sexton or Phil Gordon or whoever...they say, when first to enter a pot, raise 3-4x the BB.As stated, if you suspect a steal, triple his bet and see what happens...if you get reraised you're probably beat...if you get called you're probably in a race against AK...if he folds, you were probably right (or, he's got AK but doesn't want to race).