Laying Down AA preflop

[Chris Donaldson]

I know there is a time and a place for laying down the rockets preflop. I
also know that it is a VERY rare happening.

I did it in a tourney last week and I really believe the sitation was
right.

1. I was UTG and had a relatively short stack
2. I had 2 other short stacks covered at my table, there were only 7
tables left from 58 that started.
3. The payouts started at 60th place and there were 62 players left.
4. My stack was not large enough to really have a serious chance of
contending for 1st. I was a few thousand below average with the blinds
300/600.
5. I knew for sure that if I folded them, I would indeed finish in the
money and double my entry fee.

Was the situation correct? I ended up almost with about 4 times my entry
fee and considered it a success.

I knew that the short stacks were desperate and if I went all in and
someone else had a relatively good hand, I could easily be busted out in
61st pos and not finish in the money, which was my goal. I had already
outlasted 500 people and 3 1/2 hours of solid play and did not see
throwing it all away so close to cashing.

I know that all the smart ass 'pro's' will let me know how much of a moron
I am, but I made money and was in position to get to the final table
afterwords. The Aces would have held up in the hand in question, but I
just don't think the call was automatic.

With the WSOP paying out so many spots, I would be interesed to know if
anyone comes to this type of decision after 4 days of play and 3 or 4 from
the money. Those AA instantly become worth $10K. I know that of all the
hands to risk $10K on, those would be first, but what if you were
guaranteed the money if you dropped them?

It just so happens that I made it to the money and had 2 consecutive
double ups only to bust out with KK vs AA in 27th spot.

Thanks for the help,

Chris

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[ChipDizzle]

Good lay down bro,
If it got you to your destined position in the tournament, it was the best
move.

And Im a smart ass pro! :-)

[clevelandrounder]

well its interesting play i give you that. I done that only twice in my
poker career , both times it was down to 3 players left then the payouts
started. Two players went all in and a third called , so i layed down AA,
similar scenario the second time i did it.

i think with a short stake i might of just went all in hoping to get one
call or maybe just steal the blinds. But if my stack was low enough two
big stacks would both call to try to get me out and check it through i
might muck them if i was utg and i was right on the vegre of the money(and
could take a hit from the from blinds). I think you made the right play at
that point your main conern is making the money). But what if you go all
in there and double up you might of made the final table or even won the
fucking thing.

On May 24 2004 3:25PM, Chris Donaldson wrote:

[JoeyT]

Im not a wiseass pro, but if you wanted to double your money for playing X
amount of hours then you made a good move. Late in a tourney usually there
are antes along with the blinds so usually it might only take 2 hands and
you are an average stack, so in that respect if you don't go all in with
AA I'd like to know why you entered the tournament in the first place. If
your goal was to get 2 spots out of the money and give up and try to sneak
into the money then fine, I can accept that.

[GambleAB]

First off, you shouldn't ask for advice and then say that people that give
you advice that contradicts what you thought was right are loud mouthed
dopes.
That being said, I personally would have pushed allin here. In a 'normal'
tournament, with escalating payouts, your primary goal should be to put
yourself in the best situation possible, so that you can do as well as you
possibly can, and not to limp into the money. By raising allin with aces
under the gun, as a short stack, you are representing a strong hand (to
anyone who cares to pay attention), and thusly will only be called (if you
are called at all) by another strong hand, which in this situation would
be what you want, since you dominate any other strong hand. The short
stacks will never call you, as they are hoping you are making a play and
get busted, so you will almost never run into a bunch of callers (which
would hurt your odds).
By making excuses ("My stack was not large enough to really have a serious
chance of
> contending for 1st"), you are only limiting yourself. By doubling up a
couple of times, you can be in prime position to make the final table.
While you aren't a "moron" by playing in this way, you must admit that it
is a non-optimal way to play. You are playing to back into a small amount
of money, rather than playing a good agressive style to make final tables,
and that is your own choice.
If it matters, I consider the only good time to lay down AA preflop is in
a super satalite type of situation, where it is one or two spots away from
the flat prize fund, and you have a medium stack. In those situations, it
doesn't matter how many chips you have at the end, as all spots pay out
equally.

On May 24 2004 3:25PM, Chris Donaldson wrote:

[Chris Donaldson]

Thank you guys for the opinions. I figured there were 2 schools of though
here and trying to backdoor the money was probably the weaker of the two.
I entered to tourney to see what I could do and at that moment laying them
down was the correct play. I had made it very close to the money and made
it a goal to get there. However, I do see both sides and will have a much
better idea of how to handle the situation, shall it arise again. I hope
it does not.

I was addressing the 'wannabe's', not the true players with the smart ass
quote, because there are quite a few people on this site that make quick
assumptions and ridicule anyone who they deem fit. I think this message
board is a power trip for them and not a forum to share and help. As
anyone who reads here regularly knows. I apologize to all the nice and
true 'pro' players out there who really make this board great. I was
trying to covey that I hoped to get honest opinions not 'You are a moron!'
answers. I will do a better job next time.

Again, thanks for the help.

Chris

[Mitch]

I disagree with laying down AA in this circumstance. You're position in
the tournament is sort of ambigious--you tell us you were a few thousand
below average. Were there limpers or raises before you? What position
were you in? I think moving all-in would be the correct play if there
was not much action in front of you. If you can move all in in early
position, at most you'd get one caller and be an 80-20 favorite. If you
doubled up there, you might have a chance to make the final table--you
even admit that you had a chance after you made money.

Different strokes for different folks.

Mitch

* New Poker Magazine:
http://www.liveactionpoker.com/magazine/magazine.html

** Free Daily WSOP Updates at http://www.liveactionpoker.com

[bzod]

What exactly are you looking for here? Situational analysis? Comfort
from the masses? Confirmation? Confrontation? There may be truly RARE
instances where folding AA might make sense, but I don't believe this
qualifies.
My two cents:
1.) UTG and short-stacked is a good/great time to raise with AA. You
either get credit for a big hand, and win the blinds with all folds, or
someone thinks you're desperate and plays as an underdog (most likely a
large UD). Either one is higher EV than folding...
2.) Irrelevant. 1 or 2 double-ups by them, and now you're the ss.
3.) If you're only playing to "make the money" and get back 2x the entry
fee, SNGs are probably more efficient and renumerative vehicles for that,
both time and money-wise.
4.) Bad, or misguided, attitude. Plus your stack, a "few thousand" from
average, gets better in a hurry if you take the T900 in blinds
uncontested, and allows you to play the next round for free.
5.) Impossible to "know" this. The small stacks could survive, and if you
aren't going to play AA, I guess you're hoping to be blinded into the
money. Sub-optimal.

Other: you mention the "call" not being automatic. This isn't a call. It
is an all-in raise. Subtle but integral point to the analysis.

On May 24 2004 3:25PM, Chris Donaldson wrote:

[FastYellow]

There are times to laydown AA but this was not one of them.

A few months back a friend of mine was in a Satellite for a 10,000 entry
fee tourney and it was down to 6 players. 5 were to receive a seat and 6th
got 1200 bucks or so. He was dealt AA in late pos and then the following
action started. The UTG player rasied all in with 5000 or so in chips and
was called by another player with 4500. These two were both called by a
large stack that was at no risk of elimination. I advised my friend to lay
his hand down. At that point he was almosted assured a win. As it turned
out the short stack was eliminated and he got his seat.

In your case I think your laydown was a bad one. When you are short
stacked on the bubble you look for hands like that. Your strategy or
objective for this tourney made a bad play look good. You see, you should
never play a tourney just to make the money. You should always play to win
(or at the very least final table) which would make your play a horrible
one. If your objective in a tourney is just to make the money you are
playing tournies with too big of a buy in. You can never make money
playing for the bubble. That is the very time you need to chip up and
prepare for the final table. Should you go out 61st so be it. The times
you don't go out you will be a huge stack by playing the bubble
aggressively and be almosted assured a final table appearence.

Multi table tournies are a difficult concept for most to grasp. Just
making the money and getting your entry back is more of a consulation
prize. The top three spots are the ones that pay well and should be the
goal of every player. Fortunately for the better players there are those
folks that just want to make it and they play tight and poorly on the
bubble and allow the better players to benefit.

Let's look at a quick example. Suppose your local casino or online casino
offered a tourney every week that was a $50 buy in and they got in the
neighborhood of 200 players. Well first place should be between $3000 and
$4000 depending on the payout structure and should pay back 18 to 20
spots. Here you are with your "make the money" strategy and let's say you
do real well and make the money 6 out of ten times. That would net you a
profit of about $300 to $500 bucks minus the 4 loses of $200. That means
you basically break even if that. You can be assured that you would not do
very well with a real tight make the money style because you would almost
always come into the bubble with a short to med stack...unless of course
the deck just wacked you right in the face but even then the other players
notice your tight style and avoid tangling with you. Now you play another
10 tournies and this time play for first, paying no attention to the
bubble. I know this isn't a perfect world so let's just say that your best
finish is a third and all the other finishes were out of the money. Well
third will bring you about $1000-$1500. Minus the the $450 for the 9 out
of the money finishes and you made a descent profit.

You just have to remember that after your 6th bust in a tourney that you
will be paid in the future. Then once you start to learn the style and
play it better you will be well on your way to consistant final table
appearences.

[Lou Krieger]

This one doesn't have a right or wrong answer; it's simply a choice you made
given your goals for that tournament. You had an objective in mind and your
lay down served it well. So it was right for you, even if it might not have
been right for others.
_____
Lou Krieger
Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Internet Poker: How to Play and
Beat Online Poker Games" at Royal Vegas Poker.
http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou

>> "Chris Donaldson" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9%rsc.16056600$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...

[Chris Donaldson]

My goals had definately changed based on my situation. I was no longer
playing for 1st which I see was my first mistake.

I was not looking for confrontation, probably more like comfortation (is
that a word?). I see all of my options now and will have a much better
idea of how to handle this situation in the future. I know that laying
down AA is a very very rare happening.

Thank you again for your time and opinions,

Chris

www.pokerdon.com

_________________________________________________________________

[Linda K Sherman]

Chris Donaldson wrote:

> I know there is a time and a place for laying down the rockets preflop. I
> also know that it is a VERY rare happening.
>
> I did it in a tourney last week and I really believe the sitation was
> right.
>
> 1. I was UTG and had a relatively short stack
> 2. I had 2 other short stacks covered at my table, there were only 7
> tables left from 58 that started.
> 3. The payouts started at 60th place and there were 62 players left.
> 4. My stack was not large enough to really have a serious chance of
> contending for 1st. I was a few thousand below average with the blinds
> 300/600.
> 5. I knew for sure that if I folded them, I would indeed finish in the
> money and double my entry fee.
>
> Was the situation correct? I ended up almost with about 4 times my entry
> fee and considered it a success.
>
> I knew that the short stacks were desperate and if I went all in and
> someone else had a relatively good hand, I could easily be busted out in
> 61st pos and not finish in the money, which was my goal. I had already
> outlasted 500 people and 3 1/2 hours of solid play and did not see
> throwing it all away so close to cashing.
>
> I know that all the smart ass 'pro's' will let me know how much of a moron
> I am, but I made money and was in position to get to the final table
> afterwords.

You made money, but getting to the final table requires winning chips,
and you passed up a great opportunity to do that. So claiming that this
fold put you in a position to get to the final table is really looking
at the situation entirely the wrong way.

The Aces would have held up in the hand in question, but I
> just don't think the call was automatic.
>
> With the WSOP paying out so many spots, I would be interesed to know if
> anyone comes to this type of decision after 4 days of play and 3 or 4 from
> the money. Those AA instantly become worth $10K. I know that of all the
> hands to risk $10K on, those would be first, but what if you were
> guaranteed the money if you dropped them?
>
> It just so happens that I made it to the money and had 2 consecutive
> double ups only to bust out with KK vs AA in 27th spot.

If your goal is to get into the money, even if it's only the bottom
money, then I suppose it was a good play. But maybe you need to examine
your goals.

You're not going to show a long-term profit from tournaments by settling
for bottom money.

Lin
--
Linda K. Sherman
linsherman [atsign] tampabay [stop] rr [stop] com
John Kerry for President.

[Mitch]

The word is confirmation.

[Johnny Pizazz]

BTW, would they have held up? If so, would you have had enough chips to
either avoid having to go all-in with KK later, or perhaps to still be
alive if you had gone in with KK?

[James L. Hankins]

"Chris Donaldson" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9%rsc.16056600$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...

> Was the situation correct?

Depends on what you wanted to do. If you wanted to win the tournament, you
should have played the aces. If you wanted to maximize your chances of
making money, then you probably did the correct thing.

[David Maybury]

I think you made the wrong move. I think a better move would have been a
mild raise of the big blind to get a feel for the action available, but
your best move is to get everything in the pot right away.

The reason is that you don't know enough to want to fold your hand. If
there were all-ins in front of you, this might have been an acceptible
move, because then you would KNOW that you would be climbing the ranking
of the tourney because of people busting out. Note: I am referring to
MULTIPLE all-ins, here. Since you have no guarantee of advancing on this
hand, the best move you can make to improve your position is build your
stacks. And the best way to build your stack with the bullets is to put
all your money on them. There is no one hand you don't want to play. What
you fear are multiple calls, and since you are right on the cusp of the
"money zone" you can reasonably expect other people to be timid about
calling a UTG All-in, and you can therefore expect to make SOMETHING out
of this hand.

I think here you were playign too cautiously, because there was no
apparent reward for staying out of the fray at that time that could
outweigh the VERY probable gain an all-in would get you.

[Ben]

"Chris Donaldson" <anon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9%rsc.16056600$Id.26...@news.easynews.com...

> I know there is a time and a place for laying down the rockets preflop. I
> also know that it is a VERY rare happening.
>
> I did it in a tourney last week and I really believe the sitation was
> right.
>
> 1. I was UTG and had a relatively short stack

Well, given that you were a few thousand(so 3-5 BB) short of average at
300/600 and were 3rd from the bottom at your table(so probably like 50th in
the tourney), that's not very short of a stack unless you were playing with
some seriously unhealthy blinds. One thing to keep in mind that the median
stack in these tourneys will almost always be significantly lower than the
average, and that's the important measure.

> 2. I had 2 other short stacks covered at my table, there were only 7
> tables left from 58 that started.
> 3. The payouts started at 60th place and there were 62 players left.
> 4. My stack was not large enough to really have a serious chance of
> contending for 1st.

Not to be too flip, but it's a chip and chair. Was Your stack x
2+900<average?

I was a few thousand below average with the blinds
> 300/600.

This makes me think you were definitely wrong. I'd guess and say you had 4
thousand chips? Around there? Unless you had like 1.4 BB and there were
shorter stacks who would have to take their blinds first, I'm playing those
rockets.

> 5. I knew for sure that if I folded them, I would indeed finish in the
> money and double my entry fee.

How did you know for sure?

> Was the situation correct? I ended up almost with about 4 times my entry
> fee and considered it a success.

Well, any time you end up with more money than you started with it's a
success. Congratulations, and I say that non-sarcastically. But I think you
played it wrong.

If this was an extremely high buyin, one time opportunity for you, I'd agree
with your call, though. I'd guess that this was a <$500 buyin online thing,
and those are running constantly.

> I knew that the short stacks were desperate and if I went all in and
> someone else had a relatively good hand, I could easily be busted out in
> 61st pos and not finish in the money, which was my goal. I had already
> outlasted 500 people and 3 1/2 hours of solid play and did not see
> throwing it all away so close to cashing.

Why was your goal "finish in the money" instead of "win as much money as I
can"? With a normal payout structure, the difference between 1st and like
4th is generally bigger than the difference between 4th and last.

I actually sat out of a satellite at the bubble once, so I wasn't actually
delt cards. Top 22 paid, 23 guys left, average stack, 3 guys with ~2 BB
apiece at another table... They could've dealt me 4 cards and I still
would've folded. So I just satout until I got my seat, then went allin.

[Robert W. Rooney]

moving in is the only correct play here. The reason is that all the money
will be in the top three or so spots so you don't worry about sneaking in,
you worry about winning the whole tourney. Focusing on the big money
spots has the highest long term EV because think how many times youd have
to sneak into the money to equal 1 big win. Anyway, just my opinion, I
wouldn't even lay down AKo or TT there, much less AA.

On May 24 2004 12:25PM, Chris Donaldson wrote:

[Kingfisher]

First I love the fact that you were thinking about the tournament
situation and factoring that into your thinking. Nicely done.

However the play and your description of it makes me wonder whether you
were playing aggressively enough in this event. Be honest with yourself.
Did you seriously consider going all in here? Was that your first thought
or were you really running scared and used the tournament situation to
justify your decision to avoid a confrontation? Only you can answer that
and discovering the answer may tell you something about yourself that you
need to know in order to be a successful topurnament player. If you are
lacking aggression, work on it! (Perhaps the lack of aggression explains
why you were on the bubble to begin with.)

So know you know that you have what it takes to make the money in a NLHE
tournament. Congrats! I was thrilled to snag 5th place for a measly $50 in
my first money finish myself. But since then I have stayed focused on
getting the top prizes. I make it point not to ran scared of bubbling
(which I have done many times.) The result is I have 5 B&M and 5 online
multi-table first places in the last 6 months. (This includes three 1st
place chops so that skews the results upwards a bit.)

Whether or not playing for 1st makes the most sense financially, it
certainly is the approach that makes the game the most fun for me. Now I
am aiming to score in bigger buyin events as so far my top wins has only
been in the $550 range. Hopefully I can keep this same attitude working at
the higher stakes...

Good luck!

KF

[Peg Smith]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:25:57 GMT, "Chris Donaldson"
<anon...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I knew that the short stacks were desperate and if I went all in and
>someone else had a relatively good hand, I could easily be busted out in
>61st pos and not finish in the money, which was my goal.

If your goal was just to make the money, you did the right thing. We
all play for different reasons, so don't worry about it.

Peg

[Peg Smith]

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:58:29 GMT, "GambleAB" <anon...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I personally would have pushed allin here.

I would, too.

>In a 'normal'
>tournament, with escalating payouts, your primary goal should be to put
>yourself in the best situation possible, so that you can do as well as you
>possibly can, and not to limp into the money.

I don't see why his goal has to be the same as yours.

Peg