Quiz Question #21

[shpaget 0]

Easy fold... Ramdom cards given the flop usually favors QJ suited over AK in my opinion.I wouldn't put all my chips on the line for a general coin flip situation

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaI really hope you're kidding...but, I have to assume you're not.What the flop has to do with anything is beyond me...please explain this...this is an all in situation, so no more play is required.Second, as has been stated about 180 times in this thread, AKo over QJs is a 60/40 favourite....over 1000 hands AK will win 600 times...give or take a few...not give or take 100.Random cards will NOT favour QJ, and your "opinion" is no different than saying that 2+2=5 in your opinion....it's about as valuable as a screen door on a submarine...and frankly, almost as dangerous.If I went to a roulette table and bet red 50 times a night for every night for a year, and at the end of the year discovered that black came up 60% of the time, I'd know that it was rigged....and that is because 60% is not a coin flip.

[pragtyro 0]

If I went to a roulette table and bet red 50 times a night for every night for a year, and at the end of the year discovered that black came up 60% of the time, I'd know that it was rigged....and that is because 60% is not a coin flip.

It could just mean you thought the green ones were black

[checkymcfold 0]

This makes no sense whatsoever.You ARE a 60% favourite...it's irrelevent to whether you push or call.If you push as a 60% favourite you WANT him to call, because he's getting a bad price, and it would therefore be a mistake for him to call...would you push postflop, say on the turn, where you're a 60% favourite, but now the pot has priced him into making it correct for him to call?

this is sklansky poker logic. i don't play sklansky poker. there is a huge difference between going all in and calling all in. ask people that win tournaments.

[Canada 0]

this is sklansky poker logic. i don't play sklansky poker. there is a huge difference between going all in and calling all in. ask people that win tournaments.

The difference only exists when your opponent's holding is uncertain.DUCY?People who win tournaments do.

[Head_Trauma 0]

C: Gus and Phil will know what a weak-tight player you are and run your a$$ over before you ever have a chance to take QJ Boy's chips.

Gus and Phil know we have AK? Who showed them our cards? If we fold are we showing the whole table?

[caribstv 0]

This has to be one of the stupidest things that anyone has ever said. It's an all in, it doesn't matter what your opinion is. The board will favor AK over QJ EXACTLY 60% of the time.Coinflips are roughly 50/50. This is a 3-2 advantage. Hence, this is NOT a coinflip. Based on your comments I doubt you play poker well enough to pass up a coinflip, let alone a 3-2 advantage.

ok.. if u say so....Besides that your opponent is playing a Style thats pretty aggressvie and will do it again with 45 suited if its u against him in the same situation....http://www.killphilpoker.com/

[caribstv 0]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaI really hope you're kidding...but, I have to assume you're not.What the flop has to do with anything is beyond me...please explain this...this is an all in situation, so no more play is required.Second, as has been stated about 180 times in this thread, AKo over QJs is a 60/40 favourite....over 1000 hands AK will win 600 times...give or take a few...not give or take 100.

try more like71/23 get your facts straight!!Two unpair High cards against two unpaired lower cards its more like 60/40or more accurately exactly 2-1

[Acid_Knight 2]

try more like71/23 get your facts straight!!Two unpair High cards against two unpaired lower cards its more like 60/40or more accurately exactly 2-1

Wow, all you gotta use is cardplayer.com or ANY OTHER hand simulator and you'll find out it's 60/40. That's not 2-1, that's 3-2. Anything else you have to say about the math of the situation is wrong. Period.

[shpaget 0]

this is sklansky poker logic. i don't play sklansky poker. there is a huge difference between going all in and calling all in. ask people that win tournaments.

OK...I will.Self...you win a lot of tournaments, live and online....what do you think about checky's assertion about going all-in vs calling all-in.Good question, self...well, his logic applies quite wonderfully when you don't know your opponent's holdings and when he doesn't know yours....pushing all-in gives you two ways to win, by making him fold, or by having the better hand. Pushing all-in is nice when you can make a better hand fold...but, honestly, you don't want a worse hand to fold, you want to extract chips from them, and that is a drawback to pushing all-in.Calling all-in only gives you one way to win...you have to have the better hand.And that's where checky's logic falls apart...by checky's logic, he would fold AA if someone went all-in in front of him, simply because he doesn't like calling all-in. The problem here is you KNOW, absolutely KNOW, that you are winning, and that's the bottom line...people who win tournaments call in situations where they KNOW they are ahead. They don't simply fold because an aggressor in front of them is always betting.People who win tournaments don't throw 60/40 edges out the window.You see...checky is content to push all-in with AK when he doesn't know if his opponent has 23, 55, or AA, but he won't call all-in when he knows exactly what his opponent has and knows he's ahead...that is the sign of a player who does not win many tournaments against anyone of average skill.Self...that's a really good answer...checky may not agree or understand, but it doesn't mean you're not right.Savvy?

try more like71/23 get your facts straight!!Two unpair High cards against two unpaired lower cards its more like 60/40or more accurately exactly 2-1

Oh my God...you play poker with that wealth of knowledge?I hope it's more of a hobby for you, because I'm sure your poker exploits are more expensive than stamp collecting.So, what is it...is it 71/23 or 60/40...because you may not have noticed, but AKo against QJs IS two unpaired higher cards against two unpaired lower cards....and how do you figure 71/23 anyway????!!!!????? YOu figure these hands tie 6% of the time?!?!?!?!?!?!?Regardless....I have my FACTS straight...AcKs against QhJh is 60/40...look it up...pokerstove...cardplayer...it's indisputable....that you think that 2+2=5 is completely irrelevent to reality.Besides 60/40...exactly 2:1? What colour is the sky in your world....try 1.5/1.

ok.. if u say so....Besides that your opponent is playing a Style thats pretty aggressvie and will do it again with 45 suited if its u against him in the same situation....http://www.killphilpoker.com/

And you would call against 45s, but not QJs????You are actually 58/42 against 4h5h...so, you would call against a hand where your advantage is smaller?Wow...you've enlightened me on the secrets of playing winning poker.

[Acid_Knight 2]

People who talk to themselves amuse me. They also make better points in general than people who can't do simple mathematical calculations or use common sense.

[ThaKid 0]

I'd move in as long as it wasn't Gus holding the QJ

[WrongWay 0]

I think the "right" answer is to call. 60% chance is good enough to get rid of a maniac on hand 1.If it were really me.... wait... It woulnd't be me since I'm not putting $10K of my own money down to lose ugly.....But for the sake of argument.. pretend it's me. I'd have no illusions (delusions) of winning. Maybe 1 in a 100 shot of cashing. I'd be there for the experience. How FREAKIN!!!!! cool would it be to be on the football field with the pros? To be on the baseball diamond with the pros? On the ice (went to the first preseason Coyotes game last night... awesome Hockey season is back!!!) with the pros.In reality, no freakin' way am I dropping $10K to get a chance to play with the pros, then risking it on the first hand.... even if 60-40 ahead.

[simo_8ball 0]

I think the "right" answer is to call. 60% chance is good enough to get rid of a maniac on hand 1.If it were really me.... wait... It woulnd't be me since I'm not putting $10K of my own money down to lose ugly.....But for the sake of argument.. pretend it's me. I'd have no illusions (delusions) of winning. Maybe 1 in a 100 shot of cashing. I'd be there for the experience. How FREAKIN!!!!! cool would it be to be on the football field with the pros? To be on the baseball diamond with the pros? On the ice (went to the first preseason Coyotes game last night... awesome Hockey season is back!!!) with the pros.In reality, no freakin' way am I dropping $10K to get a chance to play with the pros, then risking it on the first hand.... even if 60-40 ahead.

This is a question in the poker strategy forum. Your post totally denies any form of strategy. You can call Dan Harrington or Dewey Tomko down with J high if you want. You can open fold aces on the button. You can rereraise allin against Ivey with 72o so you can show a huge bluff. Once you take equity and strategy out of this question there is no 'correct' answer.I see where your mindset is coming from though.

[shpaget 0]

I think the "right" answer is to call. 60% chance is good enough to get rid of a maniac on hand 1.If it were really me.... wait... It woulnd't be me since I'm not putting $10K of my own money down to lose ugly.....But for the sake of argument.. pretend it's me. I'd have no illusions (delusions) of winning. Maybe 1 in a 100 shot of cashing. I'd be there for the experience. How FREAKIN!!!!! cool would it be to be on the football field with the pros? To be on the baseball diamond with the pros? On the ice (went to the first preseason Coyotes game last night... awesome Hockey season is back!!!) with the pros.In reality, no freakin' way am I dropping $10K to get a chance to play with the pros, then risking it on the first hand.... even if 60-40 ahead.

I understand...personally, if I didn't think I could win I wouldn't be there.If I truly wanted an experience of playing with the best I wouldn't put 10k on the ME, I'd put 50k on HORSE.

[XXEddie 0]

All of you are ignoring the point: you have a maniac on your right. You are the only one who saw his cards, hence you are the only one who knows just how much of a maniac he is . You have the best position on him at the table. Exploit this in small pots by raising him when you have him beat, NOT by CALLING him when he pushes and you have him beat. Why take the risk when you are practically guaranteed to outplay him as long as he has any chips. You will get most, if not all, of his 10k over the course of the day, so just relax on the very first hand and let it go.

Everyone just saw him go allin on the first hand of the main eventDo you really think no one there is gonna think he is a maniac

[Head_Trauma 0]

Everyone just saw him go allin on the first hand of the main eventDo you really think no one there is gonna think he is a maniac

Well this is why I said you are the only one who knows just how much of a maniac he is. You know he did it with with Q high. If I were at this table and witnessed this guy push but didn't see his cards, I would think he were very very stupid and perhaps slightly maniacal. But I might conclude that he simply didn't know what he was doing and got super excited with AA or KK.

[checkymcfold 0]

OK...I will.Self...you win a lot of tournaments, live and online....what do you think about checky's assertion about going all-in vs calling all-in.Good question, self...well, his logic applies quite wonderfully when you don't know your opponent's holdings and when he doesn't know yours....pushing all-in gives you two ways to win, by making him fold, or by having the better hand. Pushing all-in is nice when you can make a better hand fold...but, honestly, you don't want a worse hand to fold, you want to extract chips from them, and that is a drawback to pushing all-in.Calling all-in only gives you one way to win...you have to have the better hand.And that's where checky's logic falls apart...by checky's logic, he would fold AA if someone went all-in in front of him, simply because he doesn't like calling all-in. The problem here is you KNOW, absolutely KNOW, that you are winning, and that's the bottom line...people who win tournaments call in situations where they KNOW they are ahead. They don't simply fold because an aggressor in front of them is always betting.People who win tournaments don't throw 60/40 edges out the window.You see...checky is content to push all-in with AK when he doesn't know if his opponent has 23, 55, or AA, but he won't call all-in when he knows exactly what his opponent has and knows he's ahead...that is the sign of a player who does not win many tournaments against anyone of average skill.Self...that's a really good answer...checky may not agree or understand, but it doesn't mean you're not right.Savvy?

wow. patronizing, egocentric, and wrong, all at once.first, someone said it earlier. every player has a % edge that they set FOR THEMSELVES for which they're willing to play for all their chips when they're certain the money is going in and (relatively) certain of a read or range of hands for the relevant villain. this number is dependent upon an estimation of one's own skill, the skill of the field, the structure of the tournament, etc. mine ain't 60/40 in the first hand of the wsop ME. it would be 60/40 in the first had of a 5 dollar turbo online. if yours is 60/40 in the present situation, good for you, and good luck. mine's closer to 65/35 or a dominated shot, generally, but it depends profoundly, as i said, upon the situation at hand (chip stacks, stage in the tournament, etc.). if you think i'm overestimating my skill by setting my number that high for the first hand of a 2 hr level, 10k starting chip tournament, whatever. again, good luck.this is a deep stack tournament with lots of players who will be not just a little, but SIGNIFICANTLY below my skill level by my estimation. i can probably avoid ivey and hansen enough to take advantage of that. i think i'm more likely to avoid getting outplayed in big pots by either of them than i am to win a 60/40 shot on my way to 20k in chips.the value of pushing over calling in long, live tournaments has very little to do with calculated EV, knowing cards, whatever. it has to do with image, psychological advantage, and things of that sort. NLHE is not (first and foremost, at least) a mathematical game. and of course i call with AA, don't be retarded.

[shpaget 0]

first, someone said it earlier. every player has a % edge that they set FOR THEMSELVES for which they're willing to play for all their chips when they're certain the money is going in and (relatively) certain of a read or range of hands for the relevant villain.

Yeah...I said it. Everyone has a line...I simply think there's only about 100 people (if that) good enough to throw away a 60/40 edge here, and most of them don't throw it away either...anyone else is delusional to think they're that good.

this number is dependent upon an estimation of one's own skill, the skill of the field, the structure of the tournament, etc. mine ain't 60/40 in the first hand of the wsop ME. it would be 60/40 in the first had of a 5 dollar turbo online.

Your "line" should be higher with lower quality competition...the better your opponents, the lower your line should be...are you suggesting the entrants in a typical $5 online turbo tourney are better than the entrants in a typical WSOP ME? Even in a faster moving blind structure.

if yours is 60/40 in the present situation, good for you, and good luck. mine's closer to 65/35 or a dominated shot, generally, but it depends profoundly, as i said, upon the situation at hand (chip stacks, stage in the tournament, etc.). if you think i'm overestimating my skill by setting my number that high for the first hand of a 2 hr level, 10k starting chip tournament, whatever. again, good luck.

Yes, I think that...and it's you who needs the luck...luck that you get another chance at this guy before someone else takes his chips...luck that it isn't Ivey or Hansen that takes his chips...luck that you get a 65/35 shot AND know that you are 65/35.

this is a deep stack tournament with lots of players who will be not just a little, but SIGNIFICANTLY below my skill level by my estimation. i can probably avoid ivey and hansen enough to take advantage of that. i think i'm more likely to avoid getting outplayed in big pots by either of them than i am to win a 60/40 shot on my way to 20k in chips.

Depends on how good you really think you are...yes...there's lots of talk about bad players and weak players...and luck sucks and so on and so on...Aaron Kanter and Tiffany Williamson are perfect examples....but the vast majority of those entrants CAN play...they didn't ALL get lucky winning their online satellites....a lot of them may be nervous, have possibly never played live before, may not know what to do when they want to call 100 but only have a 500 chip, but the field isn't as weak as legend will have you believe. I think a lot of people make "TV" decisions they otherwise wouldn't normally make - and that has nothing to do with skill, but composure.Weak compared to the pros...yes...but if they're below average skill it ain't far off. After the top four or five hundred players in the world the parabolic curve flattens out pretty quickly so in a field of 8800 people, most of them are pretty close to each other in skill. You may be better than 75% of the field...but only by a b.c.h. in the grand scheme of things. What is more likely is there is one player at your table who is absolutely terrible, and one who is awesome....at best.

the value of pushing over calling in long, live tournaments has very little to do with calculated EV, knowing cards, whatever. it has to do with image, psychological advantage, and things of that sort. NLHE is not (first and foremost, at least) a mathematical game.

Of course it is....yes...psychology and art are huge in NLHE...but not huge enough to throw away 60/40 edges like they were surplus Rubik's cubes.What do you think this maniac's raise has done to you psychologically? Now you think you can outplay him? What if he showed you the QJs on purpose?So, now, an hour later, he's hiding his cards, and you and he see a flop of K82 rainbow, and you have AK, and he goes all-in....you gonna think he's a maniac and call his bluff? Or are you gonna fold because he's a maniac and may just have K8? Or are you gonna wait until you can raise him? Not knowing if this maniac plays "backwards" poker and pushes allin on air, but checks the nuts to you?Psychology is the hugest reason why you need to call here and get rid of him...because like it or not, whether it was his intent or not, he's in your head.In fact, if you do fold, you might be better off telling the table that you saw his cards, and, by rule, you'd have to tell them what he raised with...you can simply say you folded T7.An aside...a ruling question....some card rooms have a rule that if you expose your cards before the action is complete that the hand is dead, even if you have put money in the pot...wonder if you could get his hand ruled dead and take his chips without risking yours.

[Acid_Knight 2]

the value of pushing over calling in long, live tournaments has very little to do with calculated EV, knowing cards, whatever. it has to do with image, psychological advantage, and things of that sort. NLHE is not (first and foremost, at least) a mathematical game.

This point doesn't really matter here. There is no argument of pushing vs calling and why you'd rather do one than the other. In this case, it has nothing to do with ANYTHING OTHER THAN calculated odds and EV. Your image doesn't matter. Neither does his.What does the player's image matter when you know their cards?I agree with shpaget when they say that if you fold, you are at a psychological disadvantage. If you're going to fold the best hand now, when will you call with it later?The example was already made about the maniac pushing with into a board of when you're holding You've got the nuts here. You've also got less of a percentage to win the hand than in the example that was stated at the beginning of the question.Are you going to fold the nuts because you're afraid to go out early in the tourney? Think of the psychological disadvanage that you'd be at after the hand like that. Folding the nuts to Q high?There are 12,000 people in the tourney. If you think you're better than 75% of them, then there will probably be 2-3 better players than you, on average, at your table.I understand that people want to last in a tourney where they drop 10K to enter, but if you're gonna play, then play to win. That's what I'd be doing there. With that in mind, it's impossible for me (where I'd also regard myself as better than 75% of the players at least) to fold with a 3-2 advantage and the chance to get rolling right from the start.PS - Aaron Kanter had a few poker skills. I'm not saying that he should've made the final table, nor will he probably ever do it again, but he at least knew that KJh should have been mucked instantly in that hand of Williamson vs Sheikan. It must have taken an act of God to get Tiffany Williamson past the first round of that tourney. Based on what they showed of Dmitri Nobles this year, he was equally lucky, since he obviously have no f*ing idea how to play poker!

[WrongWay 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?

[Acid_Knight 2]

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?

Actually there is no consensus becuase different people have different agendas, skill level abilities and reasons for playing in the tourney.I stated that I am probably a better player than at least 75% of the field and I STILL call. I will need tons of chips and I will need to get lucky a few times to get them. Here, I have a good edge and I don't need to get lucky, I just need to not get unlucky. DN's article said roughly the same thing - that passing up a 3-2 edge is just not something that people (with the exception of some top pros, also known as like 1% of the field) should do. There are obvious exceptions for different reasons.

[yergan 0]

I think its interesting that the votes for call vs fold are ~ 60:40 - same as the odds for the hand. **Insert spooky music here**

[Canada 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?

NopeFrom the small ball articleConsider one more sports analogy — boxing. The small ball player continually throws jabs while always keeping his guard up. His goal is to wait for the opportunity when his opponent makes a big mistake and opens up his chin.That's when he socks it to him with the big uppercut!We can see our opponent has made his big mistake here and should be willing to call

[mtdesmoines 3]

While I realize you want to avoid being all in, aren't you going to HAVE to get lucky sometimes, and push your edges? Furthermore, how do you figure 20K wont get you further than 10K? You have to start somewhere. This is a pretty tough decision though. I suppose it comes down to assessing the value of having the extra 10K at that point in the tourney to your final results.

If you are going to win a tourney, you have to make good calls.

[shpaget 0]

If you are going to win a tourney, you have to make good calls.

Wow...how insightful.You need to make good folds and raises too.You also need to have money to enter the tournament...you can't win tournaments if you don't enter.Look both ways before you cross the street.And don't eat yellow snow.