No advice
Hey Cowboy,
It seems like you don't want advice. You're just posting a tip about a little trick you like to do in poker. That's OK. I do some weird little things myself. I went through a phase where I liked to mini-raise every hand pre-flop. I'd convinced myself that it gave me an aggressive table image, a richer pot should I hit something, and the occasional blind steals. Of course it's just a weird little play with no real value, but I was hooked on it for awhile.
You post your tip, you get a couple people telling you why it doesn't make sense, then you just say we don't get the point.
Try again.
In the first place, it's a very unlikely scenario. Say you start with the typical 1500 chips with 10/20 blinds. An initial raise to 300 is non-standard and just doesn't make much sense at all. Who would be doing that? Somebody that doesn't want action? Who would be calling it? Somebody with a big hand? If the bet to you gets up to 300, chances are there were re-raises along the way; therefore it's unlikely that the scenario meets your condition of two people or less calling behind you - since the early raisers will have to respond to the re-raises. There aren't many situations where five people are going to be calling that big of raise.
So let's say somebody makes a more reasonable 4XBB raise to 100. There are four players in the pot by the time it gets to you on the button. Should you call? Possibly. But 100 is not 20% of your stack.
Let's say that you make your call with Any Two Cards as you state. Well, then you might as well play them blind. A random hand. Let's say all five hands are random. What is your eV? Absolutely neutral! You'd lose $300 four times and win $1200 once provided subsequent streets are checked down. If they're contested, you're probably only going to win with a monster. How often does that happen?
So you're throwing in 20% of our chips with neutral eV. Do you really think that makes sense?
But it's worse than that. Although your ATC hand is random, the other four really aren't. The other four hands are hands that active thinking players have decided are worthy of a raise, a re-raise or a call with lower
pot odds than being offered you. There is more value to a raising hand than to your random calling hand. CfPoker showed you the stats on a poor hand against four random hands. Now give those other hands some value by putting the raiser on reasonable hands like pairs, broadways, SC, etc and your eV drops even lower. Your play just makes no sense at all. None.
But you're sticking to it because once out of five times, you'll nearly double up (or more) against four random hands. But that's ONLY if you play the hand to the river - which you might not. And ONLY if the board matches your hand and ONLY if your miracle hand doesn't get sucked out on. Keep track of your stats. I think you're going to have a hard time finding many situations where you have 20% of your stack in a pot with four other players pre-flop. And when you do - your eV is at best neutral pre-flop but in reality much worse.
If your little scheme works out, it could be great for you. Not only do you have great cards and hit a miracle flop - you get a couple other players all in and really cash in on the hand. Great when it works, but it doesn't work very often. It's a lottery play.
You don't seem to be bothered by the prospect of starting 80% of your tourneys with a 20% (or more because some hands invite a chase) chip loss on the first hand. You talk like 20% is nothing. You ignore the fact that those chips WON'T be there to leverage a bigger pot when you do get a hand. And they WON'T be there to assure your survival when you're all-in and you unexpectedly lose a draw. So you'll be playing from behind more often, be out altogether more often. And WHY? Because you have visions of a jackpot score - which is not even going to happen the 20% of the time you have the best pre-flop random hand because, as I said, you're not up against truly random hands and because you're unlikely to play most of your draws to the river.
I sincerely appreciate you sharing your approach. I don't know everything, but I've carefully considered your scenario and am responding based on breaking your chances down analytically. I might be wrong - in which case I welcome proof to the contrary. I don't mind being wrong; that's how I learn.
But I just gotta say you just don't seem to be considering the evidence. You put your play out there. I thought you were asking for some analysis. But then, when you get it from a couple people - all you say is we're missing the point.
It's your game. It's up to you. I really appreciate the fact hat people on CardsChat share their secrets and do their best to share reasoned answers. But they can only help if we're interested in being open enough to examine our own barriers.
I wish you luck.
Gary
