Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- From: "WarMech" <frniet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:01:17 GMT
There are arguments for both playing fast early and then coasting to the
money and there are arguments for just waiting people out. Generally the
two things that I think come to play in that decision is whether or not you
are playing online where you can just jump right in another tourney, and
whether or not the rest of the table is splashing chips around. If there's
a lot of action, just let them pick each other off.
But the fact is, the real money is in first place, in a ST SnG you really
only profit 80% of your buyin for 3rd. I just know from experience that if
you can get a big stack quick, you've got big leverage for coasting.
WM
"TD" <43083684@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145739932$780621@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for the detail. All of this discussion is theory only. No matter
what
we think we should do in advance, it may come out completely different
under the
gun. I may push more than I want to and you may be more conservative than
you
plan to be. Poker is a reactive competition. Few good players are going to
admit to a passive strategy. It seems to be all about aggression and
domination.
I think you and I are basically on the same wavelength, except it appears
that
you have a bias towards finishing 1st where my bias is to finish in the
money.
I would hope to still get my share of 1st's, and I have so far, but if I
don't
then, as you so clearly articulate, I will have to take more risk and
accumulate
more chips early.
On Apr 21 2006 11:42 PM, WarMech wrote:
I should add that this new strategy seems to be working. I'm finding
that
my
smaller big bets are getting called (which I want) rather than folding.
I think that playing after the flop like this really boils down to a
situational decision. Sometimes I bet big to protect my
strong-but-vulnerable hand, and sometimes I just charge a price to my
opponent(s) to make draws unprofitable but that dominated 2nd best hands
will call. It depends on a number of factors:
1. Tournament situation: For example, is it late in the tournament where
surviving and taking down small pots are important? Then I push to
protect.
If it is early in the tournament, I may consider taking a risk and
milking
out some chips.
2. Do I want to play this opponent after the flop? If the guy(s) are weak
and tend to fold then I may take a chance that I can push them out when
I've
extracted enough. If they guy is really aggressive, I may be looking at a
push at anytime and I may not want to risk my stack on a suckout when I
can
take a nice pot right then. If the opponent is a calling station, I may
as
well push and get it over with while I have the best of it or fold it
right
there.
3. Stack size: who has who covered?
4. Existing Pot size: Is winning the existing pot going to improve my
chances of making money in this tournament or, if I'm shortstacked, do I
need to risk going allin down to the river because I need all the chips
just
to survive?
So for me, I applied this to the situation you originally described: It's
the beginning of the tournament, the stacks are relatively big, and you
have
much the best of it. For me, I push IF I think I can get called, or try
to
manipulate it so I get called (I may check-raise out of position if my
opponent has shown aggression already in the tournament). I want a call
here because it is early tournament, which means nothing is really at
stake
yet, and if I'm going to go out on a ridiculous beat I would rather it be
now when I haven't put any time into this game and in studying opponents
rather than later when all the work I've done is for nothing. Just
register
for another one hope I'm not as ridiculously unlucky.
If I lost, I still have 1000 chips and can still operate. The
alternative would be to risk everything and have 4000 chips which is
better but
not absolutely necessary.
We are going to have to agree to completely disagree here. In all the
tournaments I have played (and there have been many), there is such a
huge
advantage to having twice as many - or more - chips as everyone else. The
more chips you have, the less your cards matter, because you can leverage
the fact that you can bust anyone at the table at anytime to your
advantage.
In fact, I would pose this very question to you: The times where your
"smaller big bets" drive people out of the pot, are these situations
where
you have your opponent covered in chips? You see, in most cases, a big
stack doesn't even have to bet big to drive most opponents out because
it's
enough for them to realise that if they play back at you and you call,
they
are going to be in a tough spot. What if a scare card comes off and you
push, leaving them to a tough decision to have to fold the best hand or
risk
going out? People who play in a lot of tournaments anticipate this
problem
and instictively avoid unnecessary confrontations and showdowns with the
bigger stacks. This is a huge psychological advantage and it works if you
apply it, especially as you get nearer to the bubble and people tighten
up.
What often happens when someone is playing a large stack well is that
they
don't even have to show down at all and their stack keeps growing. Even
if
you are forced to call (if you steal a shortstack's blinds and he plays
back
at you, and you have 3:1 pot odds to call, you HAVE to call if only to
let
everyone else know that you won't let them resteal from you) you are
basically freerolling on all the chips you stole the whole time up to
that
point.
I remember seeing something that Mike Caro or someone did on a poker
simulator. He simulated this tournament situation:
Three Players all programmed with equal skill:
Player A: 5000 chips
Player B: 1000 chips
Player C: 1000 chips
and the simulator determined that the big stack would win 80% of the
time.
Why? Because a skillful big stack player can and SHOULD play the other
two
opponents against each other. The big stack will constantly bluff and
steal
blinds and pots because the other two guys will play to outlast each
other
(and move up in the money), instead of playing to win. By the time it
gets
to heads up, it'll usually be Player A with 6000 chips and B or C with
1000.
The point is that in an early tournament situation, it is often correct
to
take a risk and try and double up as much as you can. Learn to play your
big stack and your opponents instead of your cards, and you can often
freeroll right to the final table.
The one thing you do NOT want to do, however, is give your opponents
anywhere near decent prices to draw out, and then put most of your chips
in
as a big underdog. But I read that you understand that.
I think what it comes down to, though, is this question: If a scare card
comes on the turn and you might have gotten drawn out on, could you
release
your "monster" now that you're behind? For most people I see, the honest
answer is "no." If this is true for you, then dump your chips in while
you
have the best of it and give your opponent the best chance to fold.
Because
you are essentially risking your stack by not pushing, if you feel you
would
have to call no matter what.
One more thing I want to bring up is something that more often applies to
deep stack situations (and the tournaments you are playing seem to have
pretty deep stacks comparable to most online tournaments):
The situation is you have a flopped top set, and your opponent has four
to
the nut flush. Now, seeing two suited cards, you bet the pot, hoping to
price out the draws and keep the second best hands in to pay you off. The
problem is that if the price of the call is just a fraction of the stack
sizes (like the pot is 200, it is 100 for the flush draw to call, and you
all started with 2000), then it is very often profitable in an early
tourney
situation for your opponent to call hoping for a drawout because,
although
he is not getting correct pot odds, he is getting implied odds that you
wont' release your hand and maybe he can take most of your stack. This
play
is especially powerful when he has position on you. Fact is, with weaker
players, these implied odds are often absolutely correct. And it is often
favourable, as I have said, to a small percentage of your chips early if
you
can get lucky and double up quick and use your big stack to bully other
players.
This example doesn't exactly apply to your situation, but I think it
demonstrates my point clearly. It is why in an early, deeper stack'd
tournament, I will be more hesitant to slo-play my two-pair or sets
unless I
figure the situation to be absolutely ripe for suckering an aggressive
player in (like a rainbow flop with big gaps between ranks). If I'm
playing
a passive player I bet aggressively but carefully. And if I'm in with a
calling station, well, there's nothing a calling station loves to call
more
than an allin.
I will leave you with this, and I just can't stress this point enough. In
an early tournament, you should NEVER be hesitant to get all your chips
in
when you have 3:2 odds to win. Never. I think you already understand that
the thing that seperates the profitable tournament players from the rest
is
the ability to steal pots, but 3:2 or better going to showdown is just
too
good to pass up most of the time, especially early. The one thing you may
want to pass on is a classic "race" situation between a wired pair and AK
where you have, at best 55% to win and no money invested, but only if you
think you are a better poker player than your average opponent, in which
case taking a coin flip would reduce your inherent skill advantage. But
when you get much the best you should take the best for as many chips as
you
can get, in whatever way is strategically best.
Don't worry about going bust early when you have the best of it, there's
ALWAYS another game to play.
WM
"TD" <43083684@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145647056$780050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I understand what you are saying and totally agree. But I'm wondering
if
the
thread has gone on so long that my original thought is lost. I was
originally
talking about having a monster hand where I am 3 or 4 to 1 favorite. Of
course, I want to get a ton of chips in and I want a call. I just
thought
it
might be wise to stop short of risking all my chips where I could lose
one
out
of three draws and be out. For example, if I had 2000 chips and I
risked
and
won 1000, I would then have 3000 chips and be in great shape, certain
to
make
the finals. If I lost, I still have 1000 chips and can still operate.
The
alternative would be to risk everything and have 4000 chips which is
better but
not absolutely necessary.
I should add that this new strategy seems to be working. I'm finding
that
my
smaller big bets are getting called (which I want) rather than folding.
When I
do get beat, I can quickly recover and regain my position. Anyway,
that's
where
I am now. Next month it may be different.
I appreciate the time you take to respond in detail. You obviously have
far
more experience at this and I would be foolish not to pay close
attention.
On Apr 20 2006 5:16 PM, WarMech wrote:
Hmm, the thing that I would ask you to consider is that a winning
poker
player, in my mind, tailors his play to maximising these two
opportunities:
1. finding favourable investments (or pot-odds overlays)
2. finding statistically successful bluffs (or folding equity).
The thing that I see in your reasoning is that you understand the
former
but
refuse to take advantage of the latter. The best times to make a push
play
are when you have the opportunity to get both of these things.
Essentially,
this is the principle of the semibluff. If you know you have 2:1 to
make
the best hand and win a pot that pays 3:1 with all your chips in, you
HAVE
to call. (This is the situation you are often giving to your opponents
by
not pushing allin with the best hand right there)
But why call when you can push and take down a nice pot when your
opponent
lays down the best-but-not-strong hand?
Every time I get in a situation like this and it is my turn to act, I
try
to
ask myself this question, "If this guy goes allin behind me, will I be
forced to call?" If the answer is, "yes" then I push right there,
because
I
would much rather maximise my folding equity with the biggest one-shot
bet/raise and give him the best opportunity to fold instead of having
to
be
the one to correctly call with the best-but-vulnerable or
worst-but-drawing
hand due to the pot situation.
So what I am trying to make you understand is that by NOT pushing your
best
hands early in the tourney (yet pot-commiting yourself to call a
reraise),
you are probably very often giving your opponents more reasons to call
you
down or worse, giving them the opportunity to make a big, and more
importantly sound, semibluff.
I've also discovered that I don't have to go all-in to make someone
quit.
All
that is necessary is a big bet.
But remember that if this "big bet" is a significant portion of your
stack,
to the point where you are pot committed to a reraise or call, you
should
just push right there.
I will admit, and this is a curiosity, that it seems often you are
often
more likely to be called by some people with an allin bet than just a
large
bet, but I think that with most people an allin really does force them
to
think about folding.
By the way, none of this matters in a ring game. Anytime I can
continually
rebuy, I will always put in as many chips as I feel will accomplish
my
objective. If I don't want a call, or If I feel a call with an
inferior
hand,
I'm willing to push them all-in.
I honestly think you should apply this to tourney games. If your goal
is
to
keep your hand from getting shown down and get sucked out on less,
pushing
with the best of it is the optimal strategy to keep that from
happening.
WM
"TD" <43083684@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145485435$778711@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks for the compliments. I feel like I'm on the right track. You
may
have a
misunderstanding of how I support my strong hands. If I am forced
in, I
will
go. However, if I am forcing the betting, I will back off and not
risk
my
entire stack. By the way, for the most part I have been playing very
aggressively to this point in my career, which appears to be
mainstream. I
recently began to alter my play after analyzing my hand histories.
The
results
have been amazing. Now, for the most part, I have to beat twice to
be
out.
If
I continuously push all my chips, I can only be wrong once. I used
to
fear
losing half my stack, but I don't anymore. I've won very few SNG's
where I
wasn't a big underdog with a short stack at some point. Of course, I
would
rather have a big stack, but I'm not afraid of the short stack.
I've also discovered that I don't have to go all-in to make someone
quit.
All
that is necessary is a big bet.
By the way, none of this matters in a ring game. Anytime I can
continually
rebuy, I will always put in as many chips as I feel will accomplish
my
objective. If I don't want a call, or If I feel a call with an
inferior
hand,
I'm willing to push them all-in.
On Apr 17 2006 10:35 PM, WarMech wrote:
I see what you're saying about winding up with at most half your
stack
in
the pot on 5th street instead of starting with that. I still think,
though,
that you should consider that survival in tournaments is done one
of
two
ways:
1. Hanging in there and winning showdown when you're forced to go
allin.
2. Using your chips and the reads of your opponents skillfully to
build
your stack as you go through the levels, avoiding as many showdowns
as
possible by protecting your good-but-vulnerable hands and pushing
people
out
who have best-but-weak hands.
I consider it my goal in any tournament to do the latter as much as
possible. I find my success at building my bankroll with tournament
play
hinges on my effectiveness at the second. Sometimes you get cards,
often
you don't, but there is ALWAYS the possibility of outplaying weaker
players
if you know how to pick your spots.
You obviously understand big-picture tournament strategy better
than
90%
of
the people I play against. However, there is a time that you choose
tourney
strategy over NLHE tactics, and there is a time you don't. I think
anytime
you have better than 2:1 you need to strongly consider that as an
opportunity you just can't walk away from. I agree that it is a
mistake
most people make in getting involved in too many big pots early on
in
the
tournament, but +4:1 odds make the value of possibly having a big
chip
lead
early too good to pass up.
I'm not trying to offend you, but I just have a hard time thinking
of
how
you would win any pots with this thinking. Hypothetically, let's
say a
hand
early in the tourny the flop gives you top set but there's two
suited
cards
on the board. You bet, putting a total of 1/3 (including PF bets)
of
your
chips in the pot and the guy goes allin. At best he's got two pair
or
overpair and at worst he semibluffing on a flush draw, which means
he
has
~30% chance to win. You obviously call here, right? How would you
avoid
these situations, not betting on the flop with the best hand making
it
easier to fold? Would you just push with top set and hope he didn't
have
odds to call? In this case, you have the best situation you could
hope
for
and you STILL likely have 70% to win (worse than the 80% you have
pushing
with A's)
My point is, I agree with the tactic of avoiding showdown as much
as
you
can
help, but you have to showdown sometime, so you may as well get it
out
of
the way when you are hugely favoured and the tournament is young.
There
just aren't going to be a lot of opportunities you will get better
than
80%.
And, one thing I was just thinking about, if you have a hand like
AA
there
really is no better time to push than before the flop if you are
counting
on
getting someone to fold. After the flop, he can easily stay in the
hand
if
he makes a strong-but-2nd best hand, a better hand, or a strong
enough
draw.
Before the flop a huge overbet may mean one thing to him, and one
thing
only, "I'm way behind."
I know, it sucks when you get called with total junk and lose (I
got
AA
cracked by 24s once). But huge odds to double up and help you
survive
really are what you are playing for. Tournament strategy is best
used
in
conjunction with game tactics, not as a complete substitute.
Anyway, I can tell you are leap years ahead of most people in terms
of
tourney strategy, I have no doubt this strength is why you are
successful.
But if you aren't playing your A's more aggressively before the
flop,
you
could probably improve your game right there by tweaking your
tactics.
WM
"TD" <43083684@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145334753$777665@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I understand your logic and it does make sense. What wasn't clear
in
my
original post is that I would prefer to risk half my stack but
not
with
an
immediate push before the flop. If I had control of the betting,
I
would
prefer
to work the pot up to that amount as the cards fell. Some people
might
say
that
the cards may not fall my way and that's true, but at least I
have a
fold
option. Once all the chips are in, I have no options. Some
players
may
think I
am too conservative but my only objective is making the final
table.
So
far I'm
45% in the money and I know some are better. That's why I'm
posting
here.
On Apr 17 2006 7:47 PM, WarMech wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding your "reserve stack" concept
because
it
doesn't make logical sense to me.
I understand your question to be: If you knew for a fact that
you
had
at
least a 4:1 advantage with your cards, would you be willing to
hold
back
half? Well, the problem is, if I'm calling with half my stack
before
the
flop, it's going to be a hand I'm just going to push with. I
can't
commit
half my stack early in a tournament on a hand I'm not very
willing
to
take a
stand with, and with that much money in the pot I'm very likely
going
to
push after the flop anyway. If I don't push, any competent
player
will
get
his chips in anyway and I'll be forced to call unless it's just
obvious I
am
beaten. If I'm going to call before the flop, I'd rather take
the
folding
equity (from what I've seen some people will fold after a
ridiculous
PF
bet)
and just push while I have the best of it.
In this case, you speak of a 4:1 advantage so a perfect example
would
be
getting dealt AA. There are really only a couple of situations
where
it
is
strategically sound to fold AA PF in a tourney when you believe
you
will
get
a call. 99% of the time you want to push and hopefully get
called.
Why risk the whole tournament? Is that a joke? Most of the time,
you
don't
even get 4:1 after the flop so why not get your chips in when
you're
absolutely certain you have the best of it?
I am as big an advocate as you will find for the concept of not
playing
big
pots early and establishing a table image and getting a read on
your
opponents for when you get shorthanded. But taking ridiculously
high
odds
to double up early in a tournament is an opportunity you can't
refuse
since
you get to bully the table with your stack. Go allin early and
learn
to
play aggressive, smart big-stack poker, and you will not have to
be
allin
again for quite awhile. Especially after everyone at the table
sees
what
happened to the last guy who called one of your PF raises.
Taking a race (typically calling with AK) early in a tournament
when
you
know you are a better than average player in the field: mistake
Taking a race early in a tournament when you know you are a
below
average
player in the field: clever
Taking a 4:1 shot early in a tournament: one of the very few
automatic
plays
in poker
WM
"TD" <43083684@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145318541$777539@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I see many players go out early getting their monster hands
cracked.
A
wiser
strategy may be to reserve up to half a stack in case the 4 or
5-1
advantage
doesn't hold up. Even with great odds, why risk the whole
tournament?
Why
fall
in love with one hand when it takes 30 to 40 winning hands to
prevail.
In
spite
of the favorable odds, the way I see it is, everything to
lose,
little
to
gain.
Anything wrong with this theory?
(Note:) This doesn't mean folding if forced in.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - /
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - /
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - /
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - /
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- From: Shiver
- Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- References:
- Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- From: WarMech
- Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- Prev by Date: Re: Clearly poker has hit its peak in its present state
- Next by Date: Re: Clearly poker has hit its peak in its present state
- Previous by thread: Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- Next by thread: Re: Is it wise to push all-in early in a tournament?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
