P
ph_il
...
Silver Level
mendozaline
Rock Star
Silver Level
Ok, but remember the problem that was presented above was pre-flop knowing nothing more than your own two cards. Is it really valid to consider what they might call with when you're still working on what they might have in the first place?
You're right that the Warren chart is pre-flop considering any two cards you might get played against all the way to the river, and is not considering what cards someone would play versus cards they wouldn't play, but I'm not so sure those considerations can really be useful in actual practice. Seems a little circular to me.
I could be wrong, though.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
For real?
It's pre-flop and hero is first to act - how exactly would you propose to be "working on what they might have in the first place"? This is online, so there aren't even physical tells to go off.
So all you can consider is how your hand shapes up against their potential calling range. Especially in this situation, what it's relevant to know is how much trouble you're likely to be in if you get called.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
Well, I think I see where he's going...at least sort of. The whole idea is that as first to act, you are facing ATC. For purposes of calculations in general, and for simplicity, your odds of winning (based on the previous charts) are what they are for ATC going to showdown. Pretty straight forward. If the argument is that pushing with a very strong hand with four players is wrong because you'll get called by big hands and lose, then the submission is that you'd also have to modify your value by how often your opponent will actually have the hands in question.
So, for the purpose of discussion, let's say look at just one opponent for the moment. I don't feel like running several numbers (I'm sure someone will actually do that following this post anyway), so speaking at a bit higher level for sake of concept... If the opponent will only call with the top 20% of hands, then right off the bat we win 80% of the time because he folds. Then, for the 20% of the time he does call, our 88 will win about 50% of the time overall, which is another 10%. If so, then a push with 88 in this position (with an effective M of 1.28) looks to win approximately 80% of the time against the one opponent. Complicate it further and get two people with decent enough hands, but remember that the second caller will likely have slightly less premium hands because he is getting better pot odds after the first caller, reasonable implied odds, and an opportunity to help knock out a player and move up the money as well. For my money, in this situation, this is a push.
Anyway, that's where I see it going.
So, for the purpose of discussion, let's say look at just one opponent for the moment. I don't feel like running several numbers (I'm sure someone will actually do that following this post anyway), so speaking at a bit higher level for sake of concept... If the opponent will only call with the top 20% of hands, then right off the bat we win 80% of the time because he folds. Then, for the 20% of the time he does call, our 88 will win about 50% of the time overall, which is another 10%. If so, then a push with 88 in this position (with an effective M of 1.28) looks to win approximately 80% of the time against the one opponent. Complicate it further and get two people with decent enough hands, but remember that the second caller will likely have slightly less premium hands because he is getting better pot odds after the first caller, reasonable implied odds, and an opportunity to help knock out a player and move up the money as well. For my money, in this situation, this is a push.
Anyway, that's where I see it going.
mendozaline
Rock Star
Silver Level
As my sister used to like saying: "THANK you!" {which roughly translated it means something like: "That's what I'm talking about."}
Right.
Oz, this is the answer. What's relevant first and foremost is "what is the likelihood that the opponents fold?" That's what I meant by: "Is it really valid to consider what they might call with when you're still working on what they might have in the first place?"
True, you can always take things to the next level, but I think that what Jack just showed is that it doesn't really change the picture significantly, not when you consider that you win all the "folds" cases. The "push"'s power is threefold: (1) everybody folds, you win and (2)if everybody doesn't fold, hopefully you played cards that give you an edge if called. In this situation 88s are above the line, all things considered, and (3) even if you get called by better cards, you can still get lucky and win anyway.
IMHO, I think Warren's chart is about as complicated as we have to make it.
But if you want to talk about yet another level, how about this: Suppose you're opponents know your playing style, and know that you're capable of going all-in in this situation with 88. They don't know you have 88 but they know you're capable of pushing with it. So now, maybe they adjust their normal calling hands to something that they think would give them fair odds to beat 88. What odds do we use, in this case, if we try to consider "range of possible calling hands?"
Last edited:
aliengenius
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
This is all fine and dandy if you are talking about chip equity, and winning the most tournament chips. However, what you fail to consider here, is how that stands vis a vis your actual real money equity: our goal isn't to win the most tournament chips here, it's to make the decision that will win the most actual real dollars long term.
mendozaline
Rock Star
Silver Level
Tournament Play differs from cash ring play.
You're absolutely right to point that out. I keep forgetting to stress that point, probably because I almost never play ring games anymore. On page 14 of Sklansky's "Tournament Poker" he outlines 10 "differences" between tournament poker and cash ring poker. I don't want to re-type them here, but they're pretty significant.
If I was to add an 11th difference to Sklansky's list, it would be:
11. There's a constant trade off between "survival" and "winning the whole shebang". Using good cash ring skills will immediately get good players to the final tables, but winning the tournament requires adjustments to their game, so that they have enough chips to compete in the latest stages.
At least, that's what I found, but I might not be good enough to make that blanket statement.
I would be interested to know how well good solid players do in tournaments, without any adjustments to their game at all, in these days of the Jackal.
In Phil Hellmuth's 300 page book, there is one sentence that I think was the most powerful idea I've ever seen so far, regarding tournament play: "Isolate the Jackal."
That's one way to get the chips you need to win.
Yes, you're right. I should clarify something that I've been taking for granted in these conversations. I'm only talking about tournament play, where we all get a certain amount of chips to start with, and the goal is to win the tournament holding all the chips.
You're absolutely right to point that out. I keep forgetting to stress that point, probably because I almost never play ring games anymore. On page 14 of Sklansky's "Tournament Poker" he outlines 10 "differences" between tournament poker and cash ring poker. I don't want to re-type them here, but they're pretty significant.
If I was to add an 11th difference to Sklansky's list, it would be:
11. There's a constant trade off between "survival" and "winning the whole shebang". Using good cash ring skills will immediately get good players to the final tables, but winning the tournament requires adjustments to their game, so that they have enough chips to compete in the latest stages.
At least, that's what I found, but I might not be good enough to make that blanket statement.
I would be interested to know how well good solid players do in tournaments, without any adjustments to their game at all, in these days of the Jackal.
In Phil Hellmuth's 300 page book, there is one sentence that I think was the most powerful idea I've ever seen so far, regarding tournament play: "Isolate the Jackal."
That's one way to get the chips you need to win.
mendozaline
Rock Star
Silver Level
That about says it all. Win one all-in in round one, and then avoid losing those chips back (avoid loose all-ins), and you're pretty much gauranteed to at least make the top 10% or even the final table with a good size chip stack.
It's interesting, though, because during those first rounds when the blinds are 10/15 you can do nothing for long periods of time and still be in good shape halfway through the tourney, and quite possibly make the final table by avoiding mistakes and making a few good moves. The only problem is when I've done that, and made the final table I was the short stack with 1000 chips or so, and the big stack had 60,000+, and the blinds give you a few hands at most to make a miraculous recovery to win. True, you can get a small payout that way though, so again it's hard to say which side of the "survival" vs. "win it all" trade-off is better for you long term. In the final analysis aliengenius could be right in that you're better off playing good solid poker, than you are using the tournament modifications. At least as far as steady profits go. I'm not sure, because like I said I don't think I'm good enough to win if I don't take a few all-in chances both early on, and like the one presented in this thread at the final table.
There's another thing, too. As the buy-ins get higher, would I really have the nerve to go all-in on the first round? Maybe with AA, but I'm not so sure about KK, QQ, or AK (especially AK, I lose way too often with AK) or worse hands, which win alot of all-ins in the first round of lower buy-in tournaments. I wonder what Annette Obrestsad's theory is on the subject. Does she take big risks early or avoid big risks early?