AK at the final table in the small blind
King of the off deuce
The table just came together, average stack is 8000, I'm sitting on
about 13,000, 600 - 1200.
I'm in the small blind to start the final table and get Ad Kd
Dealer raises to shorten his stack to just under 10,000.
Do I call this raise or come back at him? I've been reading alot on
RGP about the AK being overvalued by most players, and I had yet to
play a hand against this guy to get any glimpse of style of play.
Thoughts?
Alan Mudd
Was the final table 9 or 10 players?
Alan Mudd
Lord Thanatos
If he moves in, Muck it.
If he call, Move in on the flop
Put your opponent to a decision. Play aggressive but do not commit all your
chips if you are not sure where you stand.
LT
"King of the off deuce" <pb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:861f95c5.03030...@posting.google.com...
Gary Carson
deuce) wrote:
>Final table of a 40 man NLHE tourney, final 8 places paid.
>
>The table just came together, average stack is 8000, I'm sitting on
>about 13,000, 600 - 1200.
>
>I'm in the small blind to start the final table and get Ad Kd
>
>Dealer raises to shorten his stack to just under 10,000.
>
>Do I call this raise or come back at him?
I'd probably call then bet the flop. If there are a couple of
players fixing to bust out, then I might fold.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Jerrod Ankenman
I jam, assuming he raised to like 3000 or so. This has a bunch of
benefits.
1) You don't play the hand in such a way that you fold.
2) You establish a presence as a "person to not be screwed with".
3) You probably win the chips he put in already.
I'll put all my chips in against any button-raising standards or calling
standards there.
Jerrod Ankenman
Alan Mudd
at the table, if there are 9 players then next one out is bubble, you sinply
don't risk your entire stack when in bubble with the exception of holding AA
or KK.
If the rasie was small this is one of the few occasion in No Limit that it
might be correct to flat call.
Reraising in this position with AK is not sound play, AK is a draw hand, you
are dog to any pair.
If you are already in the money the play changes considerably, but at this
stage of the tournament your number one priority is to cash, once you have
cashed your priority is then to win.
Alan Mudd
"Jerrod Ankenman" <jerroda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E680D37...@yahoo.com...
King of the off deuce
> How much was the raise?
>
> Was the final table 9 or 10 players?
>
> Alan Mudd
I apoligize. 10 player table - he raised $2500.
Jerrod Ankenman
> The play at this point entirely depends on the stacks of the other players
> at the table, if there are 9 players then next one out is bubble, you sinply
> don't risk your entire stack when in bubble with the exception of holding AA
> or KK.
Well, I guess this would be true if it were a supersatellite or
something. In a typical tournament payout structure, 9th place money
is not that far away from zero relative to higher payouts.
> If the rasie was small this is one of the few occasion in No Limit that it
> might be correct to flat call.
Why, so you can fold the 2/3 of the time when you don't hit an ace or
a king and your opponent bets his A-rag? This seems like a strong way
to play.
> Reraising in this position with AK is not sound play, AK is a draw hand, you
> are dog to any pair.
Oh, I see. The "you don't risk your stack" mantra only applies to your
not your opponents. If you reraise, they'll call all-in with 22, but
not AQ.
Hint: In pair vs AK, the AK wants to see all five cards. The pair
wants the hand to end on the flop.
> If you are already in the money the play changes considerably, but at this
> stage of the tournament your number one priority is to cash, once you have
> cashed your priority is then to win.
I'm glad players think this way. It's almost like writing a check to
the aggressive guys.
By the way if you have stack size 24 on the button and the blinds are
1-2, and you'll only commit all your chips with AA or KK, then you can
only raise to 6 with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, and AK. If you raise with more
hands than this, your opponents can exploit you by jamming with any
two cards.
Raising with 3% of hands on the button seems like solid poker to me.
Jerrod Ankenman
King of the off deuce
> The play at this point entirely depends on the stacks of the other players
> at the table, if there are 9 players then next one out is bubble, you sinply
> don't risk your entire stack when in bubble with the exception of holding AA
> or KK.
>
> If the rasie was small this is one of the few occasion in No Limit that it
> might be correct to flat call.
>
> Reraising in this position with AK is not sound play, AK is a draw hand, you
> are dog to any pair.
>
> If you are already in the money the play changes considerably, but at this
> stage of the tournament your number one priority is to cash, once you have
> cashed your priority is then to win.
In a limit tourney, same situation raise of 600, do you call the raise
or reraise 600?
Bill chen
> at the table, if there are 9 players then next one out is bubble, you sinply
> don't risk your entire stack when in bubble with the exception of holding AA
> or KK.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but this statement by itself is
just absurd. I would say many factors including the payout structure
and how your opponents play are more important than the factors you
cite. For example if the payout structure is like 40/24/13/9/6/4/2/2
then it would seem you wouldn't care much about finishing 7th or 8th
instead of 9th and would try to win (or come in top 3). Also if your
opponent is likely to be rasing with lots of hands on the button as a
steal but will not commit *his* chips unless he has AA or KK, you
should shove in.
>
> If the rasie was small this is one of the few occasion in No Limit that it
> might be correct to flat call.
I disagree completely. First, I hink there are many occasions in NL
where it is corrrect to call--when you are in position, when you are
unlikely to win the hand with a re-raise, and when your hand lends
itself well to flop play. I don't think any of these three
conditions hold.
>
> Reraising in this position with AK is not sound play, AK is a draw hand, you
> are dog to any pair.
Not if the other guy is going to fold most of his pairs.
>
> If you are already in the money the play changes considerably, but at this
> stage of the tournament your number one priority is to cash, once you have
> cashed your priority is then to win.
Absolutely wrong. Your priority is to maximize your equity, not to
maximize your chances of cashing. The only time your statement is
correct is in a super-satellite, where all of the players tht cash get
the same prize. For example in many payout stuctures it may be
correct to take a 1/3 shot of busting out if you are getting even
money when you could have virtually guaranteed your finish in the
money by sitting on your hands.
Bill
Alan Mudd
tournament when the s/b is such a small percentage of your stack as a whole.
You are playing a player who has just been sat next to you from another
table, you have no knowledge of what He rasies with or if He's a compulsive
theif.
You are button next hand , the likelyhood is that there are at least two
players who will bust out very shortly why become overaggressive one or two
places from the money.
Whatever way you put it AK is dog to any pair - all board cards included to
the tune of approx 44/56, I'll take the pair every time in this situation.
If the blinds were a substiantially higher proportion of your stack the play
here would be completley different.
The blind was T600, his stack was T13000, the raise was T2300, so the s/b is
less than 5% of his stack, the raise is nealry 20% of his stack and your
suggesting you will commit 40% of your stack to save 5% in a position where
you have no previous information about the players playing style.
What is your play here if He comes back over the top all-in ?...do you call?
or are you suggesting you rasie all-in from the word go?
If (lets imagine here) you could see his cards and He was holding QQ - would
you commit with AK on the hope of hitting - or would you fold?
And interestingly I'd like to hear you feedback on a post I made a day or so
ago, "on line tournament hand - feedback please" which was very similar to
this situation albeit far further out of the money.
There are many situations in poker where there is more than one way to play
a hand or more than one style of play that can be construde as being
correct, in the case here - I'd probably let this hand go unless I knew more
about the player, and I'm generally a more aggressive player.
Alan Mudd
Alan Mudd
raise you are probably ahead at that point and if He comes back over the top
your probably in a bit of trouble, the difference here being your not
risking any more than the cost of a small blind to find out where you stand.
This is a completely different situation than NL.
Alan Mudd
"King of the off deuce" <pb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:861f95c5.0303...@posting.google.com...
Alan Mudd
> just absurd. I would say many factors including the payout structure
> and how your opponents play are more important than the factors you
> cite. For example if the payout structure is like 40/24/13/9/6/4/2/2
> then it would seem you wouldn't care much about finishing 7th or 8th
> instead of 9th and would try to win (or come in top 3).
Not at all taken the wrong way - after all this group is for
discussion...:-)
Yes I agree the structure of the payout makes a difference to the play, but
then I have tended to play in tournaments that have a flatter payout
structure than most on line ones
Also if your
> opponent is likely to be rasing with lots of hands on the button as a
> steal but will not commit *his* chips unless he has AA or KK, you
> should shove in.
Importantly here the poster says you have absolutely no inforamtion about
the raiser, you've never played him before and He's been sat next to you
that very hand.
.
>
> >
> > If the rasie was small this is one of the few occasion in No Limit that
it
> > might be correct to flat call.
>
> I disagree completely. First, I hink there are many occasions in NL
> where it is corrrect to call--when you are in position, when you are
> unlikely to win the hand with a re-raise, and when your hand lends
> itself well to flop play. I don't think any of these three
> conditions hold.
Here I disagree, but then again this is a personal opinion, if I can't raise
a hand in No limit I'm generally inclined not to play it, flat calling will,
more times that not, just buy you trouble.
> >
> > Reraising in this position with AK is not sound play, AK is a draw hand,
you
> > are dog to any pair.
>
> Not if the other guy is going to fold most of his pairs.
See above...you have no idea how your opponent plays, so you cannot make
this assumption.
>
> >
> > If you are already in the money the play changes considerably, but at
this
> > stage of the tournament your number one priority is to cash, once you
have
> > cashed your priority is then to win.
>
> Absolutely wrong. Your priority is to maximize your equity, not to
> maximize your chances of cashing. The only time your statement is
> correct is in a super-satellite, where all of the players tht cash get
> the same prize. For example in many payout stuctures it may be
> correct to take a 1/3 shot of busting out if you are getting even
> money when you could have virtually guaranteed your finish in the
> money by sitting on your hands.
Again - totally dependant on the sliding scale of the payout, but I take
your point.
Alan Mudd
Gary Carson
<alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>Whatever way you put it AK is dog to any pair
I suppose it would be if you play it poorly.
>- all board cards included to
>the tune of approx 44/56, I'll take the pair every time in this
situation.
If my only alternative is to play the AK passively, then I'd take the
pair too. But, that's not the only alternative.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Paul Phillips
Alan Mudd <alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>or are you suggesting you rasie all-in from the word go?
Of course that's what he's suggesting, he doesn't have nearly enough
chips to re-raise out of position without going all the way.
I can't believe guys like you ever make it close enough to the money
to face this situation anyway. (No offense.) How do you get so many huge
hands that you can treat AKs like it's garbage against a BUTTON RAISER?
The magnitude of the errors you are making would be vastly smaller if you
started playing AK like AA instead of like 27.
I doubt the ability of anyone who wouldn't move in with AKs in this spot.
Anyone can occasionally score in a tournament by playing way too tight and
hoping to get enough cards to win, but in the long run you get murdered.
>There are many situations in poker where there is more than one way to play
>a hand or more than one style of play that can be construde as being
>correct, in the case here - I'd probably let this hand go unless I knew more
>about the player, and I'm generally a more aggressive player.
You consider yourself an aggressive player and you fold AKs in the small
blind against a button raiser? That's a joke, right? Everyone is aggressive
with AA -- that's not what makes somebody agressive.
Remember that the button might think like you, and fold everything to
your re-raise, which makes moving in all the more necessary. You have
nicely illustrated what a huge opportunity bubble time is for good
players though. I know someone who in the WSOP main event folded a giant
hand in the big blind to an all-in raise from a small stack so the bubble
situation would last longer, since he was taking the blinds three times
an orbit with his dominating stack.
You're way too focused on AK being "a dog to any pair", so what? What
matters is how often the button will fold to an all-in (and it's very
likely a huge percentage of the time) and what range of hands you will
face if he does call. There is nothing you can see there that's that
big a tragedy short of #1 and #2, and a sane player will fold many hands
that are small favorites over you, such as 33.
By the way, AKs is not a dog to ANY pair.
--
Paul Phillips | As scarce as truth is, the supply has always
Caged Spirit | been in excess of the demand.
Empiricist | -- Josh Billings
i pull his palp! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Paul Phillips
Alan Mudd <alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>In limit I'd re raise, he might fold there and then
See, this makes me doubt your sanity. Where have you played a limit
tournament where someone raised the button, was three-bet by the small
blind, and then folded before the flop? In thousands of hours of poker
I do not think I've seen that even once, at any limit.
--
Paul Phillips | Cleanliness is next to cleanlimbed.
Stickler |
Empiricist |
up hill, pi pals! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
**MR.MANHATTAN**
> -- HE MIGHTVE SEEN THE OTHER GUYS CARDS....THATS HOW I FOD A-K OUTTA THE
SMALL BLIND IN A TOURNEY.......LOL
> Paul Phillips | As scarce as truth is, the supply has always
> Caged Spirit | been in excess of the demand.
> Empiricist | -- Josh Billings
> i pull his palp! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Alan Mudd
> to face this situation anyway. (No offense.)
No offense taken, a question was posted on how to play a particular hand at
a particular stage of a tournament one or two places from the money.
There are many variables that we are not privvy too, the most important
being the payout structure.
Now I've given my idea of what I would have done on that hand in that
position yet the replies here are making an assumption that that is how I
play during all stages of a tournament, where in my reply did I explain how
aggressive or passive my play is during other parts of a tournament?
How can you make assumptions on how another player will play when you have
never seen them play a hand before the one they are playing there and then?
As is the information given in the question...
<SNIP>
Remember that the button might think like you, and fold everything to
your re-raise, which makes moving in all the more necessary. You have
nicely illustrated what a huge opportunity bubble time is for good
players though. I know someone who in the WSOP main event folded a giant
hand in the big blind to an all-in raise from a small stack so the bubble
situation would last longer, since he was taking the blinds three times
an orbit with his dominating stack.
I couldn't agree more, but what relevance does this bare to the question as
posted? The player was a not a huge chip leader and quite frankly this isn't
the WSOP..different circumstances....
<SNIP>
By the way, AKs is not a dog to ANY pair.
Please expand taking into consderation the situation described by the
original poster (which is the situation that is being analysed).
Alan Mudd
Alan Mudd
>
> I suppose it would be if you play it poorly.
>
> >- all board cards included to
> >the tune of approx 44/56, I'll take the pair every time in this
> situation.
>
> If my only alternative is to play the AK passively, then I'd take the
> pair too. But, that's not the only alternative.
> Gary Carson
I agree, but is it sensible play in this situation to play the AKs
aggressively when one or two places from the money and you have zero
information on how your opponent plays?
Alan Mudd
Alan Mudd
> tournament where someone raised the button, was three-bet by the small
> blind, and then folded before the flop? In thousands of hours of poker
> I do not think I've seen that even once, at any limit.
You've never seen anyone fold preflop after being three bet in a heads up
situation like this? NEVER?
That I find strange...
Gary Carson
<alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>I agree, but is it sensible play in this situation to play the AKs
>aggressively when one or two places from the money and you have zero
>information on how your opponent plays?
>
I think it's sensible.
But, you never have zero information. You mgiht know some things only
approxiamitly, rather than exactly, but you still know some things.
You know it's a button raise. You know that most players will make a
button raise with a wide range of hands. You know that you have no
particular reason to think he's an unusually weak player who would
only raise from the button with the nuts.
You know all those things. Gotta go with what you know.
Failure to act unless you know everything with certianty isn't going
to get you very far.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Alan Mudd
difference being there were 50 players left in the tournament at this stage.
I posted this few days ago looking for responses and got none, do you
consider the play here correct by the s/b and do you consider my play
correct?
I'm genuinely interested in people's thoughts here as I may be missing
something about rasing all in preflop with AK and similar hands when one or
two players at the table have already shown strength.
Alan Mudd
> Tell me I'm not going insane and that I played this correctly......approx
50
> players left I'm 3rd Chip leader in tournament, as usual pokerstars
software
> has dumped first four stacks on the same table.....I'm button with QQ, UTG
> raises ....I reraise his entire stack to isolate......(Question - should I
> have just gone all in here considering the size of the stacks following
me?)
> I thought my reraise was an obvious isolation raise.....why on earth would
> small blind commit his entire stack here with AKo?
Should I have folded here assuming AA or KK the only two hands that dominate
me or should I genuinely be concerned about AK too taking a shot?
>
> I see this regularly in on line tournaments, people commiting stacks on AK
> and AQ and getting all upset when someone calls with 55 and beats
them.I've
> yet to completely understand this all or nothing gambool play when there
is
> still half the field playing in a tournament, but I'm seeing the same
faces
> make the same plays and appear with some regualrity on final tables.
>
> I keep going out or tournaments in this kind of situation in these events
should I rethink
> my play here?
>
> I do not see play like this nearly as regularly in live events, or if I
do -
> it tends to be much closer to the money when a gamble is required.
Any comments appreciated
Alan Mudd
(Muddy)
>
>
> > PokerStars Game #46519484: Tournament #50833, Hold'em No Limit - Level V
> (50/100) - 2003/03/05 - 23:20:13 (EST)
> > Table '50833 11' Seat #3 is the button
> > Seat 1: Squishy (1395 in chips)
> > Seat 2: TRASH (2615 in chips)
> > Seat 3: Muddy (6500 in chips)
> > Seat 4: riverit (5590 in chips)
> > Seat 5: ratster (6607 in chips)
> > Seat 6: aragon (1695 in chips)
> > Seat 7: G316K (9250 in chips)
> > Seat 9: Rosie Girl (3545 in chips)
> > Squishy: posts the ante 25
> > TRASH: posts the ante 25
> > Muddy: posts the ante 25
> > riverit: posts the ante 25
> > ratster: posts the ante 25
> > aragon: posts the ante 25
> > G316K: posts the ante 25
> > Rosie Girl: posts the ante 25
> > riverit: posts small blind 50
> > ratster: posts big blind 100
> > *** HOLE CARDS ***
> > Dealt to Muddy [Qs Qc]
> > aragon: raises 300 to 400
> > G316K: folds
> > Rosie Girl: folds
> > Squishy: folds
> > TRASH: folds
> > Muddy: raises 1400 to 1800
> > riverit: raises 3765 to 5565 and is all-in
> > ratster: folds
> > aragon: folds
> > Muddy: calls 3765
> > *** FLOP *** [7d 2h 3s]
> > *** TURN *** [7d 2h 3s] [Ac]
> > *** RIVER *** [7d 2h 3s Ac] [As]
> > *** SHOW DOWN ***
> > riverit: shows [Ah Ks] (three of a kind, Aces)
> > Muddy: shows [Qs Qc] (two pair, Aces and Queens)
> > riverit collected 11830 from pot
> > *** SUMMARY ***
> > Total pot 11830 | Rake 0
> > Board [7d 2h 3s Ac As]
> > Seat 1: Squishy folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> > Seat 2: TRASH folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> > Seat 3: Muddy (button) showed [Qs Qc] and lost with two pair, Aces and
> Queens
> > Seat 4: riverit (small blind) showed [Ah Ks] and won (11830) with three
of
> a kind, Aces
> > Seat 5: ratster (big blind) folded before Flop
> > Seat 6: aragon folded before Flop
> > Seat 7: G316K folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> > Seat 9: Rosie Girl folded before Flop (didn't bet)
>
Alan Mudd
have been your play here?
Bill chen
> > Please don't take this the wrong way, but this statement by itself is
> > just absurd. I would say many factors including the payout structure
> > and how your opponents play are more important than the factors you
> > cite. For example if the payout structure is like 40/24/13/9/6/4/2/2
> > then it would seem you wouldn't care much about finishing 7th or 8th
> > instead of 9th and would try to win (or come in top 3).
>
> Not at all taken the wrong way - after all this group is for
> discussion...:-)
>
> Yes I agree the structure of the payout makes a difference to the play, but
> then I have tended to play in tournaments that have a flatter payout
> structure than most on line ones
Yes, generally the flatter the payout after the next step, the more
"survival" is more important. The online tournies I have played have
ranged from super-flat (usually) to winner take-alls, but I agree
online tournies are usually flatter .
>
> Also if your
> > opponent is likely to be rasing with lots of hands on the button as a
> > steal but will not commit *his* chips unless he has AA or KK, you
> > should shove in.
>
> Importantly here the poster says you have absolutely no inforamtion about
> the raiser, you've never played him before and He's been sat next to you
> that very hand.
> .
> >
> > >
> > > If the rasie was small this is one of the few occasion in No Limit that
> it
> > > might be correct to flat call.
> >
> > I disagree completely. First, I hink there are many occasions in NL
> > where it is corrrect to call--when you are in position, when you are
> > unlikely to win the hand with a re-raise, and when your hand lends
> > itself well to flop play. I don't think any of these three
> > conditions hold.
>
> Here I disagree, but then again this is a personal opinion, if I can't raise
> a hand in No limit I'm generally inclined not to play it, flat calling will,
> more times that not, just buy you trouble.
True, I can't prove that calling a small bet/raise when you are in
position is frequently correct. However, I just find it hard to play
this particular hand postflop out of position. Against a typical
button raiser who may have a dominated ace, if the flop doesn't come
with an ace or king, you may have to give up the best hand. Also, I
claim that even if I strongly suspect my opponent has a strong pair
like QQ, I would rather shove in than call. By calling, I will miss
the flop 2/3 of the time and have to give up the pot, whereas he is
unilely to pay me off the 1/3 of the time wen I hit an ace or king,
unless AQ or KQ flops.
>
> > >
> > > Reraising in this position with AK is not sound play, AK is a draw hand,
> you
> > > are dog to any pair.
> >
> > Not if the other guy is going to fold most of his pairs.
>
> See above...you have no idea how your opponent plays, so you cannot make
> this assumption.
Well right. There could be opponent profiles where calling is
correct. For example an opponent who will almost always make a big
postflop bet after raising--then you can wait to see if you hit and
have a nice payoff when you do, while not risking your stack if you do
not. But against a typical NL tourney opponent who may be stealing
with a wide range of hands on the button but will not aggressively
commit wit them postflop I like my chances of shoving in.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If you are already in the money the play changes considerably, but at
> this
> > > stage of the tournament your number one priority is to cash, once you
> have
> > > cashed your priority is then to win.
> >
> > Absolutely wrong. Your priority is to maximize your equity, not to
> > maximize your chances of cashing. The only time your statement is
> > correct is in a super-satellite, where all of the players tht cash get
> > the same prize. For example in many payout stuctures it may be
> > correct to take a 1/3 shot of busting out if you are getting even
> > money when you could have virtually guaranteed your finish in the
> > money by sitting on your hands.
>
> Again - totally dependant on the sliding scale of the payout, but I take
> your point.
>
The plays you make are dependent on the payout structure but is
goverend by the overriding rule of maximizing your tournament equity.
Reading over my post, I feel I should apologize for my tone, but it
*really* pushes my buttons when some one claims that one should just
try to survive when one is close to the money.
There seems to be two schools of thoughts here. One is "survive, you
can't win if you don't make the money" and "play to win, that's where
most of the money is" It's easy to say "a pox on both your houses",
since indeed both schools of thought have lost sight of the goal of
poker--to make money or to play with the highest ev. However, like
hot blooded Mercutio, I am partial to the "play to win" school since I
believe that it's generally closer to correct and I may be seen
defending Romeo from the unjust attacks from the house of Capulet.
Bill
Alan Mudd
> goverend by the overriding rule of maximizing your tournament equity.
> Reading over my post, I feel I should apologize for my tone, but it
> *really* pushes my buttons when some one claims that one should just
> try to survive when one is close to the money.
No need to apologise, a heathy debate never did anyone any harm, you need a
reasonably thick skin to play poker and post on here...:-)
I suppose what it comes down to is how you originally learnt the game.....I
was taught by a professional player and you tend to pick up the style of the
person who teaches you, only now I'm developing my own style of play, but
when you come across a situation where your not sure of the absolute answer
you naturally tend to fall back to what you were originally taught.....
I post answers and sometimes questions on this forum because I'm genuinely
interested in feedback, sometimes what we think is right may not actually be
the best play but it takes one or two explanations to make it clear.....
While I absolutely agree with the philosophy of being the aggressor in NL
games there's a very fine line between being aggressive and gambling, the
advent of online tournaments has promoted far more aggression and gambling
in these events than I expect to see when playing live, maybe it's the way
to go...or maybe it's just a different style of play....
Alan Mudd
Gary Carson
<alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>Fair point Gary, so given the information of the original poster what
would
>have been your play here?
I don't know. Originally I said I'd probably call then bet the flop.
I'm becoming swayed more towards just raising now. In either event,
I'm getting all my chips in.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
King of the off deuce
> Final table of a 40 man NLHE tourney, final 8 places paid.
>
> The table just came together, average stack is 8000, I'm sitting on
> about 13,000, 600 - 1200.
>
> I'm in the small blind to start the final table and get Ad Kd
>
> Dealer raises to shorten his stack to just under 10,000.
>
> Do I call this raise or come back at him? I've been reading alot on
> RGP about the AK being overvalued by most players, and I had yet to
> play a hand against this guy to get any glimpse of style of play.
>
> Thoughts?
Well, the endgame is this: I reraised, all-in.
He turned over QQ and caught Q - crap - rag flop
With a HUGE dent in my stack, I busted out at 9, one player later, out
of the money. When I walked from the table I thought that I had
played that hand well.
Then I began questioning myself. That's why I posted here.
Alan Mudd
>
> He turned over QQ and caught Q - crap - rag flop
>
> With a HUGE dent in my stack, I busted out at 9, one player later, out
> of the money. When I walked from the table I thought that I had
> played that hand well.
>
> Then I began questioning myself. That's why I posted here.
Look a few posts up in this thread, I was in an identical situation except I
was the guy on Button with QQ, on this ocassion I didn't catch anything but
my opponent with AK caught an A turn and A river...so be it......it's about
as close to a coin toss you get in poker.....I wasn't close to the money I
went out in this case 50th but I was quite well stacked at that point......
I also felt I had played correctly, I'm sure the AKo player felt He'd played
correctly......so this situation appears to be a genuine "coin toss" when
either play can be defended as being correct and the end justifies the
means.....there are numeorus occasions during a tournament when I would take
either side of this play quite happily.....I personally chose not to make
that play when one or two places from the money especially if there are many
stacks holding less than I am and I'm facing chip leader or a stack that
could possibly cripple me.
That doesn't make my play weak, it just makes me more of a percentage player
I suppose.......If I we're a millionaire and money didn't matter I'd
probably being playing for the qudos and all out for the win ....but that
just ain't the case...I play for the money and I make sure I get there
before I start tossing coins....
Alan Mudd
Grant Peacock
trying to be a limit holdem specialist. If someone told me two days
ago that I would be lecturing RGP on NL I would say you are nuts I
have only played it 5 times. But I can't help it here.
Reconstructing from the two posts, blinds are 600-1200, hero has AK
sooted in the small blind, hero has T13000 which is a tad more than
the button. Button "raises about 2500" which must mean he makes it
3600.
Now, in online poker there are no race-offs so it is possible to have
literally 1% of the big blind for your stack. If there are two
players in this situation then OKAY I can see the point in just not
playing poker until they bust out. But assuming most of the table is
still part of the action, I just don't see how folding can be right.
After the button raise there is 5400 on the table; that is more than a
third of your stack. If you go all in, he gets about 9:5 (chips) on
his call. He doesn't know you either, you are putting the pressure on
big time. But he can't just roll over with a good hand, he made some
commitment to this pot already. You made him make the last guess, and
it is impossible for him to play as if he sees your hand. If he could
see your hand he would call with any pair or AK and muck all other
hands. Even if he is this clairvoyant, going all in isn't too bad of
a play. In fact, I would prefer to GO ALL IN AND FLASH MY CARDS than
to fold. But he doesn't know my hand. He is forced to guess, and he
is FREQUENTLY going to go wrong -- either by folding with a pair, or
better yet calling with AQ KQ or weaker.
It's the gap principle not the GRAND CANYON principle.
Sure, it hurts to come 10th when they pay 8, but I didn't enter the
event to come 8th. Raising may decrease my chances of coming 8th or
better, but it increases my chances of coming 1st.
Making a call or a smaller raise, planning to go all in anyway, might
be a better play, I have no idea. Shit I don't even PLAY this game.
"Alan Mudd" <alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<b4a3fl$cji$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
Tom Weideman
> There seems to be two schools of thoughts here. One is "survive, you
> can't win if you don't make the money" and "play to win, that's where
> most of the money is" It's easy to say "a pox on both your houses",
> since indeed both schools of thought have lost sight of the goal of
> poker--to make money or to play with the highest ev. However, like
> hot blooded Mercutio, I am partial to the "play to win" school since I
> believe that it's generally closer to correct and I may be seen
> defending Romeo from the unjust attacks from the house of Capulet.
Quite possibly the only rgp post in history to use a Shakespearean reference
in a discussion of utility. I look forward to the King Lear version of the
Kelly Criterion.
Tom Weideman
Paul Phillips
Alan Mudd <alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>That doesn't make my play weak, it just makes me more of a percentage player
>I suppose.......
No, a percentage player is precisely what you are NOT when you avoid
*clearly* +EV situations just so you can say you cashed.
>If I we're a millionaire and money didn't matter I'd
>probably being playing for the qudos and all out for the win ....but that
>just ain't the case...I play for the money and I make sure I get there
>before I start tossing coins....
Ooh, I wish qudos was a word, that'd come in handy in scrabble. I don't
know if that millionaire crack is aimed at me or what, but I'm sure you can
find some poorer and smarter folk than I to agree that you're wrong.
I know you believe you are "playing for the money" by passing with
AKs in this spot -- you're just not correct. You sorely underestimate
how much equity you have between the likelihood of the button folding
and the likelihood that you have him dominated, balanced by the huge
UNlikelihood that you are worse than 54/46.
But hey, never let it be said I encouraged people TOO hard to play well...
so do feel free to keep folding there. I get a huge warm fuzzy feeling to
think there are small blinds that would lay down AK to my button raise.
Alan Mudd
> know if that millionaire crack is aimed at me or what, but I'm sure you
can
> find some poorer and smarter folk than I to agree that you're wrong.
Firstly it wasn't a crack just my thoughts .....I haven't got the slightest
idea who you are or what your wealth is or isn't, so why on earth did you
think this was aimed at you? And why do so many people feel any comments on
here are some sort of personal insult when they are often someones ideas or
comments about how to play poker...beats me.
> I know you believe you are "playing for the money" by passing with
> AKs in this spot -- you're just not correct. You sorely underestimate
> how much equity you have between the likelihood of the button folding
> and the likelihood that you have him dominated, balanced by the huge
> UNlikelihood that you are worse than 54/46
So say you are bubble, UTG and UTG+1 are both short stacked to the tune
they'll be blinded off entirely in the next two hands, button rasies your
AKs and He has enough to cover you entirely. How much equity do I have in
this position...now before you start thinking this is some sort of insult
question...it's not...I'm interested in your views...I might actually learn
something here and I don't mind admitting that. But saying do you realise
how much equity your passing up without a reasonable illuistration of your
statement isn't very helpful.
>
> But hey, never let it be said I encouraged people TOO hard to play well...
> so do feel free to keep folding there. I get a huge warm fuzzy feeling to
> think there are small blinds that would lay down AK to my button raise.
Well if you feel you wish to contribute to the posts on here then you'll
happily explain the mathematical reasoning behind your statements as many
well respected players on here do, or dare I say it, you come across as
somewhat arrogant....
As for my grammatical or spelling errors in my previous posts, I'm dyslexic
(I never understood why they made tha word so damn hard to spell!)
occasionally I forget to spellcheck my posts and strange words slip
through.....but feel free to continue to be condescending.
Alan Mudd
Paul Phillips
Alan Mudd <alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>Firstly it wasn't a crack just my thoughts .....I haven't got the slightest
>idea who you are or what your wealth is or isn't, so why on earth did you
>think this was aimed at you?
Usually when someone takes counterpoint to me and says "if I were a
millionaire maybe I would [do whatever]" they're making direct reference
to my financial status. Sorry if that's not what you meant but I
promise you I wasn't leaping to crazy conclusions there, as it's no big
secret that I'm reasonably well off.
>So say you are bubble, UTG and UTG+1 are both short stacked to the tune
>they'll be blinded off entirely in the next two hands, button rasies your
>AKs and He has enough to cover you entirely. How much equity do I have in
>this position...
Yes, but that wasn't the situation, was it? And even under that VERY
extreme situation, there's still a strong case to be made for moving in.
But OK, in pathological situations where you'll surely be in the money by
waiting one hand, you can make a case for folding. But all-ins survive
very frequently and those may be the last good cards you see this tournament.
I'm not giving them up without a fight.
>Well if you feel you wish to contribute to the posts on here then you'll
>happily explain the mathematical reasoning behind your statements as many
>well respected players on here do, or dare I say it, you come across as
>somewhat arrogant....
OK, you want some math? I'll sketch out how to do it and you can plug in
some numbers. Pick the range of hands you think the button will raise in
this spot -- and this is the critical number by the way. Knowing nothing
about the opponent it's probably a dead minimum of 15% and it could be as
high as 100%. Now decide which ones he'll call with if you move in, and
work out how you match up against each of those hands. Now compare your
tournament equity after the summation of the possible results with what
you had after folding.
It's a bit of work to do all this, and I'm not particularly inclined to
do it, but if you don't believe me, YOU should, since you're the one who's
going to find out how enormously profitable it is to move in with AKs here,
unless you make aburd assumptions like "opponent only raises the button
with pairs, and always calls the all-in." More reasonable is: opponent
raises the button with any ace, any two paints, any suited connectors 89s
and up, and any pair, and only calls the all-in with: 88-AA, AJ-AK. You
should be able to easily eyeball how profitable the raise will be under
those assumptions. If your assumptions differ dramatically from that then
I suggest you think people play tighter than they do when first in.
>As for my grammatical or spelling errors in my previous posts, I'm dyslexic
>(I never understood why they made tha word so damn hard to spell!)
>occasionally I forget to spellcheck my posts and strange words slip
>through.....but feel free to continue to be condescending.
I haven't yet been condescending to you (though I'm certainly capable of
so doing.) I genuinely wish qudos was a scrabble word.
--
Paul Phillips | Love is a wild snowmobile ride across a frozen lake that
Stickler | hits a patch of glare ice and flips, pinning you beneath
Empiricist | it. At night, the ice weasels come. -- Matt Groening
i'll ship a pulp |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Jerrod Ankenman
> the tournament when the s/b is such a small percentage of your stack
> as a whole. You are playing a player who has just been sat next to
> you from another table, you have no knowledge of what He rasies with
> or if He's a compulsive theif.
Well, to be perfectly honest, the only time how the player plays would
impact my decision here would be if the player would literally only
raise on the button with JJ+.
> You are button next hand , the likelyhood is that there are at least
> two players who will bust out very shortly why become overaggressive
> one or two places from the money.
Well I generally would not call this play "overaggressive." Generally, I
would make this play (or an analogous play, depending on stack sizes) at
any stage of any tournament. AKs is a strong hand, and deserves to be
played that way. I might use the term "necessary" or "normal" to
describe the play, however.
> Whatever way you put it AK is dog to any pair - all board cards
> included to the tune of approx 44/56, I'll take the pair every
> time in this situation.
I have no idea where you got this number. Let me throw some equity
numbers at you:
AKs vs 88: 47.5%
AKs vs 22: 49.9%
AKs vs QQ: 46.0%
AKs vs (AA-88): 42.7%
AKs vs (all pairs): 45.6%
AKs vs (AA-88,ATs+,AJo+): 55.5%
AKs vs (any pair, any ace, KTs+, KJo+): 64.6%
So while you're correct that AKs is a dog to any pair, it sure as hell
isn't a dog to AQ. And I seriously doubt you're going to find many
players who will call all-in with 22 but not with AQ.
> If the blinds were a substiantially higher proportion of your stack
> the play here would be completley different.
>
> The blind was T600, his stack was T13000, the raise was T2300, so
> the s/b is less than 5% of his stack, the raise is nealry 20% of
> his stack and your suggesting you will commit 40% of your stack to
> save 5% in a position where you have no previous information about
> the players playing style.
Well, no, actually, I suggested putting 100% of your chips into the pot.
> What is your play here if He comes back over the top all-in ?...do
> you call? or are you suggesting you rasie all-in from the word go?
>
> If (lets imagine here) you could see his cards and He was holding QQ
> - would you commit with AK on the hope of hitting - or would you
> fold?
Well, I'd probably fold if I could see that he had QQ. Just as I would
fold if I saw that he had AA, or KK. Unless he would muck to an all-in
reraise, in which case I would jam. Isn't that what you were advocating
previously?
> And interestingly I'd like to hear you feedback on a post I made a
> day or so ago, "on line tournament hand - feedback please" which was
> very similar to this situation albeit far further out of the money.
> There are many situations in poker where there is more than one way
> to play a hand or more than one style of play that can be construde
> as being correct, in the case here - I'd probably let this hand go
> unless I knew more about the player, and I'm generally a more
> aggressive player.
I think it's an enormous mistake to fold this hand preflop.
Let's just make a model. Let's say that our hypothetical opponent raises
any pair, any ace, and kings down to KT. Given that you hold AKs, this
is 249/1225 hands. Of these, our hypothetical opponent is going to muck
to a reraise except with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, and AQs, let's say.
That's 36 hands out of those 249.
So, once he raises, if you reraise, you'll win the 3500+600+1200 = 5300
in the pot immediately 213/249 times, or 85.5% of the time. And he'll
call the remaining 36 times, or 14.5%. Then you'll lose your whole
stack...
Wait! You can still win if he calls!!!!
Against AA-TT, AKs, AK, and AQs, AKs has 45.7% equity.
So when you get called, you win 45.7% * (27200) = 12,430, and since you
put in 13,000, you lose 570.
So the EV of folding is 0, and the EV of reraising is .855 * 5300 - .145
* 570 = 4450.
That's net, btw. Earlier I think you said that the average stack was
8,000, which puts 80,000 in chips in play. So it's an error of more than
5% of the chips in the tournament to fold. Now, maybe if you watch this
guy on the button play a few more hands, you'll get enough information
on his play to gain a 5% of the chips in the tournament advantage, but
my reading skills kinda suck cause I'm a math guy, so I'll just jam and
take the money now.
Oh, one quick aside. Let's say that the guy on the button will only
open-raise with AA-TT, AQs+, AK, and will only call the all-in with AA
and KK, which seems to be a plan you might buy into based on your
previous comments.
So he's raising 36 hands, and calling with 6.
So 5/6 of the time you win 5300, and 1/6 of the time you put in 13,000
and get back 23.1% of 27,200, or 6290. So you lose 6,700 when you get
called.
5/6 * 5300 - 1/6 * 6700 = 3300
That's a hell of a lot of chips to leave on the table. And this guy is
hemorrhaging money by raising so infrequently, too.
Jerrod Ankenman
Bayes' theorem rocks when you have AK.
Paul Phillips
lovely exercise for the reader, you go and spoil it like some kind of
math guy or something.
In article <3E6A9271...@yahoo.com>,
Jerrod Ankenman <jerroda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bayes' theorem rocks when you have AK.
It should be renamed AK's theorem.
--
Paul Phillips | Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of
Apatheist | destruction, we should be thinking about getting more
Empiricist | use out of the ones we already have.
King of the off deuce
> Now, in online poker there are no race-offs so it is possible to have
> literally 1% of the big blind for your stack. If there are two
> players in this situation then OKAY I can see the point in just not
> playing poker until they bust out. But assuming most of the table is
> still part of the action, I just don't see how folding can be right.
Don't know if this affects your analysis or not, but it wasn't online poker.
Jerrod Ankenman
>
> Jerrod, what the hell are you doing? Just when I had left this as a
> lovely exercise for the reader, you go and spoil it like some kind of
> math guy or something.
Uh. My bad.
Jerrod
Alan Mudd
> >they'll be blinded off entirely in the next two hands, button rasies your
> >AKs and He has enough to cover you entirely. How much equity do I have in
> >this position...
>
> Yes, but that wasn't the situation, was it? And even under that VERY
> extreme situation, there's still a strong case to be made for moving in.
> But OK, in pathological situations where you'll surely be in the money by
> waiting one hand, you can make a case for folding. But all-ins survive
> very frequently and those may be the last good cards you see this
tournament.
> I'm not giving them up without a fight.
I posed this hypothetical situation to try to understand your reasoning
more. In the original post we weren't actually informed if there were any
short stacks at all, we were told the players stacksize the raisers stack
size and an average for the other 8 players.
At what point do you abandon your s/b and throw away the AKs.....?
If you are chip leader - this is an automatic reraise, if your short stacked
this is an automatic all-in.....
It's the in between stage that becomes a grey area, at this stage of a
tournament there are many players that will not take on a stack that can
damage them when next player out is bubble, on the other hand there are
players that will try to take advantage of the situation in a kind of
reverse pshycological kind of way....in the way that was suggested by the
play in the WSOP in a previous post.
At this point I need to say I clearly agree with the mathematics of this
particular hand at nearly every other stage of a tournament, as I've already
said I would happily make this play in almost all other situations, but the
situation we have had described by the original poster when you are playing
for bubble depends more on the format of the tournament payout and the
player who is making the play against you and the stack sizes of the other
players sat at the table.
How would your decision be effected if the guy that had just sat to your
right and made the raise was TJ Cloutier, or what if you'd never seen this
guy play poker before in your life. Would you still make a purely
mathematical play?
Personally I think there are a few situations where the player and stack
sizes of the other players at the table and your position financially at
that point in the tournament dictate that you should muck this hand and not
commit your entire stack to it, for me this is one of those situations.
Alan Mudd
timmer
you are being way too serious about the "millionaire" cracks.
Kudos to you my friend.
timmer
"Paul Phillips" <rg...@improving.org> wrote in message
news:b4ds5m$i5j$1...@spoon.improving.org...
Paul Phillips
Alan Mudd <alanc...@trousersbtinternet.com> wrote:
>Personally I think there are a few situations where the player and stack
>sizes of the other players at the table and your position financially at
>that point in the tournament dictate that you should muck this hand and not
>commit your entire stack to it, for me this is one of those situations.
If you can read Jerrod's post (the one that illustrates that
you're abandoning 5% of the chips in the entire tournament by folding)
and still think that, then more power to you: I can't think of a single
thing to add to it.
--
Paul Phillips | These are the climbs that try men's soles.
Vivid |
Empiricist |
all hip pupils! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
JonCooke
> Here is a hand history very similar to that being discussed, the main
> difference being there were 50 players left in the tournament at this stage.
>
> I posted this few days ago looking for responses and got none, do you
> consider the play here correct by the s/b and do you consider my play
> correct?
>
> I'm genuinely interested in people's thoughts here as I may be missing
> something about rasing all in preflop with AK and similar hands when one or
> two players at the table have already shown strength.
>
> Alan Mudd
>
>
>
> > Tell me I'm not going insane and that I played this correctly......approx
> 50
> > players left I'm 3rd Chip leader in tournament, as usual pokerstars
> software
> > has dumped first four stacks on the same table.....I'm button with QQ, UTG
> > raises ....I reraise his entire stack to isolate......(Question - should I
> > have just gone all in here considering the size of the stacks following
> me?)
If you go all in, probably you'll only get called by AK/AA/KK/QQ
(Those hands seem to be impossible to put down for your typical
pokerstars opponents)
In fact if you raise at all, you'll probably only get action behind
you from those hands.
That's 29 holdings & 3 opponents to worry about, so there is about an
8% chance you'll run into one of those hands behind you.
Your 6500 chips are just too valuable to be risked going all in to
pick up 500 if things go well. You want a better time than this to
risk all your chips, especially since things are currently going well.
So make a raise that is small enough to enable you to get away from
your hand.
Here, making it 1200 seems about right.
When the AK comes over the top give it up. Don't worry that this is
exploitable - you make the same play with KK/AA except you don't give
those up. The AK is making a bad mistake across the full distribution
of hands you could have for your raise.
> > I thought my reraise was an obvious isolation raise.....why on earth would
> > small blind commit his entire stack here with AKo?
Because he's a weak player.
> Should I have folded here assuming AA or KK the only two hands that dominate
> me or should I genuinely be concerned about AK too taking a shot?
Yes you should have folded, unless you decided to exploit a known lack
of values in the player who raisd you.
This is a world away from the other example.
A reraise with three big stacks behind him from a solid chip leader,
when the blinds are so relatively small shows a big hand. AK should
not play.
When the button raises at late stage, AK is a monster, for all the
reasons given above.
> > I see this regularly in on line tournaments, people commiting stacks on AK
> > and AQ and getting all upset when someone calls with 55 and beats
> them.I've
> > yet to completely understand this all or nothing gambool play when there
> is
> > still half the field playing in a tournament, but I'm seeing the same
> faces
> > make the same plays and appear with some regualrity on final tables.
Having a big stack in the late stages if you are aggressive is worth a
lot.
Top players can generate that big stack over a series of well timed
coups. Weaker players may be happy to gamble a bit to get a big stack,
taking some 50/50s - even 40/60s may be worth the risk for certain
styles of player.
Jerrod Ankenman
> > >So say you are bubble, UTG and UTG+1 are both short stacked to the tune
> > >they'll be blinded off entirely in the next two hands, button rasies your
> > >AKs and He has enough to cover you entirely. How much equity do I have in
> > >this position...
In all but the most drop-off-the-face-of-the-earth payout structures,
I'm still moving in here.
<snip>
> At what point do you abandon your s/b and throw away the AKs.....?
By the way, it makes no difference to me that I have a SB in the pot;
I'd make the same play in any spot.
> If you are chip leader - this is an automatic reraise, if your short stacked
> this is an automatic all-in.....
>
> It's the in between stage that becomes a grey area, at this stage of a
> tournament there are many players that will not take on a stack that can
> damage them when next player out is bubble ...
These players are making an extremely costly mistake by refusing to
commit their chips is significantly +EV situations. This doesn't mean
you should just toss your stack around on coinflips all the time. But
the "heads" side of this coin is plated with lead.
> ... on the other hand there are
> players that will try to take advantage of the situation in a kind of
> reverse pshycological kind of way....in the way that was suggested by the
> play in the WSOP in a previous post.
All the best players in the world are in this group. In fact, being in
this group is necessary but not sufficient for being a strong NL
tournament player.
(I know, the WSOP is different because of money-utility curves, so
some people who play well for thousands of dollars don't play well for
millions of dollars)
> At this point I need to say I clearly agree with the mathematics of this
> particular hand at nearly every other stage of a tournament, as I've already
> said I would happily make this play in almost all other situations, but the
> situation we have had described by the original poster when you are playing
> for bubble depends more on the format of the tournament payout and the
> player who is making the play against you and the stack sizes of the other
> players sat at the table.
No. It doesn't. It's so good that you don't even have to consider
those things.
> How would your decision be effected if the guy that had just sat to your
> right and made the raise was TJ Cloutier, or what if you'd never seen this
> guy play poker before in your life. Would you still make a purely
> mathematical play?
All plays are purely mathematical plays. Given a set of assumptions
about a situation, there is always a correct way to play. Now you can
argue about the assumptions and what they mean, but once you've agreed
on assumptions, there is a right answer to every poker situation. My
claim is that for any reasonable set of assumptions that you make
about this situation, folding AKs to a button raise is just a
mind-numbingly enormous mistake.
Just to address the TJ Cloutier thing, let's do one more model real
quick, and then I'll be done with this.
Let's say that TJ is the guy on the button. Now TJ's a pretty decent
player, and though I don't know offhand, let's say that TJ is going to
raise from the button with all pairs, A8s+, ATo+, KQs, and KQo. I'm
sure it's more than this in real life, but hey, we'll be conservative.
Now you look at your cards. Because of his amazing reading ability, TJ
knows exactly what your hand is. So now he's only going to call your
reraise with hands that have the correct odds.
Folding has an EV of 0. When you reraise, you're putting in 9500 into
an 8200 pot. So TJ is getting 17700:9500, or 1.86-1 to call.
Of the hands he raised with originally, all the pairs are better than
1.86-1 and all the aces and kings are not. So he'll call with all the
pairs.
All the pairs is 72 hands, plus 51 aces, plus 12 KQs. So that's a
total of 135 hands he's raising with.
63/135 of the time, he's going to fold correctly when dominated. In
these instances, you win 5300, as before.
72/135 of the time, he's going to call correctly when ahead or getting
proper odds. In these cases, a total of 27200 goes into the pot, and
you have 45.6% equity in that money.
So your EV from reraising a raiser who raises very loosely with pairs,
and fairly tightly with Ax hands (bad for you) and then plays as well
as if he could *see your cards before the flop* (more bad for you) is
(63/135) * 5300 + ((.456*27200)-13000)*72/135 = 2155 .
> Personally I think there are a few situations where the player and stack
> sizes of the other players at the table and your position financially at
> that point in the tournament dictate that you should muck this hand and not
> commit your entire stack to it, for me this is one of those situations.
Hey, it's your money. But I would defy you to come up with a set of
reasonable circumstances where it wouldn't be a fairly catastrophic
mistake to muck.
Jerrod Ankenman