Quiz Question #21

[semaj550 0]

Well I have to say, this thread has definately changed my mind on the matter. I immediately thought that folding was unassailably the correct asnwer, now I believe that, except for maybe the top 1% of players, this is an automatic call. Great discussion in this thread!

[Acid_Knight 2]

Well I have to say, this thread has definately changed my mind on the matter. I immediately thought that folding was unassailably the correct asnwer, now I believe that, except for maybe the top 1% of players, this is an automatic call. Great discussion in this thread!

Can we start a thread on how important it is for national securty that semaj550 sends me $1000 within the next 4 days?

[semaj550 0]

Can we start a thread on how important it is for national securty that semaj550 sends me $1000 within the next 4 days?

Sorry, nothing you could say would convince me to give money for the killing of innocent people.

[shpaget 0]

Sorry, nothing you could say would convince me to give money for the killing of innocent people.

Great, you've turned a humorous quip into a humorless debate.

[semaj550 0]

Great, you've turned a humorous quip into a humorless debate.

True, "national security" is a big joke.

[Acid_Knight 2]

True, "national security" is a big joke.

First, national security is a big joke. Second, you do realize that this isn't worth arguing about, right?

[Canada 0]

Getting the thread back on track, I found an interesting post by Greg Raymer on 2 + 2.Whilst he may or may not be too popular around here, he arguably knows what he is talking about.And if you knowingly pass up a 60:40 opportunity, you're not a top player.Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[critikal 0]

So, it seems the consensus is...If you think you are a better poker player than most of the other players in the field (what 80%?) then you fold.If you think you are "just average" or "somewhat above average but still not god-like", then you call.Seems to follow a recent Daniel article about long ball vs. short ball play. If you are truely a great player, then you should try to play short-ball. See lots of cheap flops and then try to out-play post-flop. If you are anything less than dominant skill level at the table, then try to get all your chips into the pot whenever you have a mathematical advantage.Sound about right?

If you are truley better than 80% of players in the field, then you would know that this is an insta-call. It doesn't matter if Ivey and Juanda are at your table or not, no one is good enough to pass up on this kind of edge. You reference Daniel saying to play "small ball" and get your chips into the pot when you have a mathematical advantage. Here you have a huge mathematical advtange. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to push people around with a "small ball" style if you have them covered. By not calling here, you are giving away 2,000 chips in EV. No one is good enough to give up this big of an advantage in the early stage of a tournament.

[Sluggo 0]

I would like to point out that average poster on FCP is an idiot.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

If you are truley better than 80% of players in the field, then you would know that this is an insta-call. It doesn't matter if Ivey and Juanda are at your table or not, no one is good enough to pass up on this kind of edge. You reference Daniel saying to play "small ball" and get your chips into the pot when you have a mathematical advantage. Here you have a huge mathematical advtange. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to push people around with a "small ball" style if you have them covered. By not calling here, you are giving away 2,000 chips in EV. No one is good enough to give up this big of an advantage in the early stage of a tournament.

The advantage here is not huge .

[JMoney2681 0]

This is such an easy and obvious fold. I wouldn't make this call if I knew the first 4 board cards were 2479 with no hearts. It's risk vs. reward.

That took your opinion to the level of, "You don't need to gamble to win." When, in reality, you do need to gamble to win in a tournament this big.

[Jake M 0]

Most people are not superstars but sometime in the tournament you are going to have to go all in with ak one time or another. A table like that is going to eat you alive, period unless you are a chosen few. Why not take that gamble now, get a double up early or go home early. With all those chips u can play as tight as you want and those seasoned pros are not going to be able to take all those chips and you dont have to worry about busting early. I would take that call in a heart beat and take that double up and soon as i could get i. And who cares if you bust, you can just go enjoy vegas or play in any of the thousands of tournys or cash games. All pros would rather get a big stack early or leave early, thats a winners philosophy. thanX

[nomadicpro 0]

Here's the big key that I think everyone is overlooking. You have the guy on your right exposing his cards to you! Me, I would never want him to leave, stay forever. I'll maybe take him down when I have KK to his K8o and the case king flops. Otherwise I want to see his cards everytime. That is the +EV big time, use that info to take down Gus and Phil.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Here's the big key that I think everyone is overlooking. You have the guy on your right exposing his cards to you! Me, I would never want him to leave, stay forever. I'll maybe take him down when I have KK to his K8o and the case king flops. Otherwise I want to see his cards everytime. That is the +EV big time, use that info to take down Gus and Phil.

First you make the wild assumption that he's gonna do this every time. Then you make another wild assumption that you'll have a heads up hand with him where he puts all of his chips in on a hand where you have him completely dominated or almost drawing dead, oh, and he showed his cards here too. You want him gone ASAP and you want all of his chips coming to you before someone else gets them.You know what else is +EV?Calling when you are a 3-2 favorite.

[Tigerlite 0]

When is Daniel going to post the answer to this quiz?

[simo_8ball 0]

When is Daniel going to post the answer to this quiz?

The answer is call. Do you actually need KidPoker himself to say it?

[shpaget 0]

The answer is call. Do you actually need KidPoker himself to say it?

No, but it might stop all those people who I hope to see as opponents in future events from posting their half-assed submoronic justifications for folding here.Only the top 25 players in the world can fold to this edge, and the top 25 players in the world won't fold to this edge.

[Tigerlite 0]

The answer is call. Do you actually need KidPoker himself to say it?

I know the answer, but want to go on to the next quiz which would require DN to post an answer. In fact, if you look through this thread, you'll see my answer and the justification for same.

[shpaget 0]

The advantage here is not huge .

Yes it is...your chances are 50% greater than your opponent's.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Yes it is...your chances are 50% greater than your opponent's.

and only about 20% better than the odds given in a coinflip! I would want better odds than that. How about if we defer to Doyle and Phil for what they would do early in the WSOP main event, from SS 2:

Be disciplined and be ready to lay down marginal hands. I once saw Phil Hellmuth, who has had great success in no-limit hold’em tournaments, lay down a Kh Jh to a Qh 10h 2c flop. He had raised the pot, bet at it on the flop, and got raised all his chips. It was early in the tournament and Phil passed, even though he had a draw at an open-ended straight flush. This is something that would never happen in a cash game. I’m not sure I would have passed, but it was probably correct to do so, given that Phil expected to have even bigger advantages later. Needless to say, my opinion of Phil’s no-limit tournament play went up several points after that hand.

[simo_8ball 0]

and only about 20% better than the odds given in a coinflip! I would want better odds than that. How about if we defer to Doyle and Phil for what they would do early in the WSOP main event, from SS 2:

Be disciplined and be ready to lay down marginal hands. I once saw Phil Hellmuth, who has had great success in no-limit hold’em tournaments, lay down a Kh Jh to a Qh 10h 2c flop. He had raised the pot, bet at it on the flop, and got raised all his chips. It was early in the tournament and Phil passed, even though he had a draw at an open-ended straight flush. This is something that would never happen in a cash game. I’m not sure I would have passed, but it was probably correct to do so, given that Phil expected to have even bigger advantages later. Needless to say, my opinion of Phil’s no-limit tournament play went up several points after that hand.

Board: Qh Th 2c Dead:  			equity (%)	  win (%)	tie (%) Hand  1:	42.1212 %	  42.12% 	00.00%	  { KhJh }Hand  2:	57.8788 %	  57.88% 	00.00%	  { TT }

Board: Qh Th 2c Dead:  			equity (%)	  win (%)	tie (%) Hand  1:	41.7172 %	  41.72% 	00.00%	  { KhJh }Hand  2:	58.2828 %	  58.28% 	00.00%	  { Ah8h }

Also, Hellmuth is a law unto himself.Also, we are at a table with Ivey and Hansen. If this was a table of qualifiers you could justify passing the AK vs QJ opportunity up.

[shpaget 0]

and only about 20% better than the odds given in a coinflip! I would want better odds than that. How about if we defer to Doyle and Phil for what they would do early in the WSOP main event, from SS 2:

Be disciplined and be ready to lay down marginal hands. I once saw Phil Hellmuth, who has had great success in no-limit hold’em tournaments, lay down a Kh Jh to a Qh 10h 2c flop. He had raised the pot, bet at it on the flop, and got raised all his chips. It was early in the tournament and Phil passed, even though he had a draw at an open-ended straight flush. This is something that would never happen in a cash game. I’m not sure I would have passed, but it was probably correct to do so, given that Phil expected to have even bigger advantages later. Needless to say, my opinion of Phil’s no-limit tournament play went up several points after that hand.

If you don't know the fundamental difference between this situation and being a 60/40 favourite I suggest you leave poker now and go back to driving a truck...or try knitting as a hobby instead.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

If you don't know the fundamental difference between this situation and being a 60/40 favourite I suggest you leave poker now and go back to driving a truck...or try knitting as a hobby instead.

Please enlighten me. What's the difference (besides several percentage points)?Here we are about two hours later. If you're going to imply that there's a difference, but you fail to provide one, maybe you should keep your job cleaning the Slurpee machine.Early in a tournament, the situations are similar in their risks and results. Edited October 11, 2006 by _Great_Dane_

[Verdimme 0]

I didn't wade through all the pages so it might already be posted:

To Flip or Not to Flip Analysis of an all-in 'coin-flip' situation early in a tournament It's the first day of a five-figure buy-in no-limit hold'em tournament. You've gotten a good night's sleep. You feel alert. You wade through all the railbirds and all the media and finally locate your seat. Just as you do, the tournament director announces, "Shuffle up and deal!" It's your big blind, and you toss two of your green chips onto the felt. You've now got $9,950 in chips in your stack. Everyone folds around to the small blind, who shoves all in for $10,000. You haven't even taken your chip protector out of your pocket yet, but you figure you probably won't need it on this hand. You're going to fold, unless you look down at aces. But there's a problem. The small blind doesn't have a protector on his cards, either, and when he looks down at them one more time, he accidentally exposes his hand. He has the A K. You look down at your hand, and find two black queens. You've done your research. You know you have a 53.8 percent chance of winning if you call. But should you? This is a classic hypothetical question, and it creates raging arguments almost every time it's discussed. I believe there is a right answer to this question, one that doesn't depend on how skillful the player is, or what the player is hoping to get from the tournament. I hope by the end of this column that I will have convinced you. First, let's look at the common arguments I hear for folding: (1) If you're a good player, you want to use your skill to find a better spot to get your chips in. (2) You don't want to risk your entire tournament on one hand, especially in a coin-flip situation. (3) I don't play these big buy-in tournaments very often, so I want to get some experience playing them. In case you haven't guessed, I strongly believe all of these arguments are specious. Here's a quick thought experiment: Let's say you're playing in a tournament with 1,024 people. How do you win this tournament? By getting all the chips, of course! This means that if you calculate your chances of doubling up 10 times, you will calculate your chances of winning the event. Now let's say that you have a 53.8 percent chance of doubling up whenever you get all in for your stack. This means that your chance of winning the tournament is .538 to the 10th power, or about 0.203 percent. The average player's chance of winning the tournament is 1÷1,024, or about 0.098 percent. So, if you consistently get your chips in with a 53.8 percent chance of winning, you will be more than twice as likely as an average player to win the event. It gets better. Let's say you choose to fold the queens, thinking you have a better than 53.8 percent chance to double up in this event. If you decline the "coin flip," you're stuck with your initial starting stack, as you're expecting to have a better than 53.8 percent chance of doubling up at some point later in the tournament. If you accept, and win, the coin toss, you double up immediately. You need to estimate, then, the expected value (EV) of your brand-new $20,000 stack size at a later point in the tournament - the hypothetical point at which you'd eventually double up after declining the "coin flip." Let's reasonably (conservatively, actually) say that when you double up right away, your stack will be worth $22,000 at that hypothetical future point at which you would've found your better spot. It's time to do the math. If taking the "coin flip" gives you a 53.8 percent chance to have a stack of $22,000 later in the tournament, how likely do you have to be to double up later in order to fold your pocket queens? Well, you can answer that by solving this equation: x(20,000) = (.538)(22,000). Do the algebra and you get x = .5918, or 59.18 percent. So, do you think you're good enough to have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up later on? If you said yes, you're wrong. Go back to our thought experiment. If you could consistently have a 59.18 percent chance of doubling up, you'd win a 1,024-player tournament more than five times as often as an average player. Trust me, you're not that good. I don't think it's possible to be that good. I'm certainly not that good. Here's one more way to look at it: Let's say you're a very good player. You win a no-limit hold'em tournament twice as often as an average player - which is a spectacular rate. You win the 1,024-player tournament one time in 512. Now we can work backward and figure out our chance of doubling up. We do this by solving the equation 1÷512 = (chance of doubling up) to the 10th power. And we get the chance of doubling up, .536, or 53.6 percent (note that this is smaller than the chance of your two queens beating the A-K suited). Using the same equation as above, it turns out that we would take any edge greater than 48.63 percent. Yes, that's right. I just made the argument that very good players should actually take slightly negative EV situations early in a tournament, because if they win the hand, they get to use their skill with their new stack. And that's more important than waiting around for a slightly better situation - much more important. Have you seen a lot of successful players using the "get chips or go broke" strategy early? This is part of the reason why. Some say calling with the queens would amount to a good player letting his skill go to waste. Here's the thing about poker - the skill is about finding edges. And edges are precious. Think about it; on most hands, we fold before the flop. It's very hard to find a way to get our chips in profitably. And here, we have a known edge. We know that in the long run, we'll earn $810 by calling with the Q-Q. That's not a small edge. Folding here would be akin to flushing an hour's work down the toilet. Calling here doesn't negate our skill over the field. Calling here is our skill over the field. You don't want to risk your whole tournament on one hand? Then you shouldn't be in the tournament. The only question you should be asking yourself is, "Will I make more money in the long run by calling here?" And even if it's "the experience" you're after, wouldn't the experience of a final-table run be much more valuable than the experience of playing for a day or so and then busting out near the bubble? If you don't believe all of this math mumbo jumbo, I suggest a little record-keeping experiment. For every tournament you play, write down whether you double your stack or bust out before doing so. I did this for a little while, and I doubled up 67 times in 127 tournaments. That's about 52.8 percent of the time. I think that's pretty good! If, after a thousand tournaments, you find that you're doubling up more than 59 percent of the time or so, congratulations - you might be good enough to fold queens in the above situation. In the meantime, stick to getting your chips in with an edge. That's how poker tournaments are won in real life. Matt Matros is the author of The Making of a Poker Player, which is available at www.CardPlayer.com. He is grateful to Dr. Bill Chen for first presenting the above argument as The Theory of Doubling Up.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Yes it is...your chances are 50% greater than your opponent's.

I would agree that the advantage is not HUGE. We are a sizeable favorite, but we really don't have a huge advantage and this is still considered a marginal situatioin. If we indeed had a huge advantage then there would be ZERO reasons to fold, when in fact here there are a few compelling reasons to throw our hand away.I'm not saying that we don't have a good sized advantage and I'm not saying that you're supposed to fold here. But 60-40 is still a marginal situation and that's why this question was posted in the first place. If we had a "HUGE" advantage, then this quiz question would be pointless and everyone would say call.