Folding AA preflop

[Mojomax747]

The Uk does not tax gambling income.
The same would apply for any lottery windfall, no payable tax is required.

I am unaware of the most resent tax laws ( if any ) regarding UK residents winning monies from overseas gambling but i can tell you how it stood as of the 1st Dec 2005.

More to the point i can tell you how it went if you won the wsop up till that date and you were a UK resident.

The USA and the UK had/has a tax treaty where if a UK resident won the world series all he/she would have to do was sign a form and ALL of the prize money was his or hers to keep.

I am unclear what the current situation is though because of all that has happened.

Sorry i couldnt be more helpful.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

The problem with hypothetical questions is that people can and will interpret them in their own way in order to rationalize their responses.

I could say Doyle is getting a bit old now (over 70, right?), and doesn't have the stamina anymore, and having played for a week consecutively his edge might even be minimal especially considering that I'm only 23 and used to having consecutive nights with only a few hours sleep, but I'd be missing the point of the original question if I did.

I could say the opposite, that he has a huge edge, and that should make us far more inclined to want to get our money in as a big favourite here, as such opportunities may be few and far between.

Heck, I could make an argument based on a pure hypothetical that it's a good idea to fold Aces in the first hand of the WSOP because hey, what if some terrorist had planted a bomb in the building set to go off an hour after the tournament starts (at which time if I'd called with aces and lost 50 minutes ago I'd probably be drinking somewhere well clear of the casino), but again, I'd be missing the point.

While I'm enjoying this discussion, we should all be careful not to use speculation to try and prove too much.

I remain amazed that this topic has turned out as well as it has, though. ^^

 

[Mojomax747]

if you say so dorkus but in Danneman's case in 2005 it was a fact that he was 50-50 with a friend, nothing hypothetical about it.
That is 2 points i have raised now which others didnt take into consideration.
Both valid points in my view, there is not much i can do about it if they dont fit into your thoughts when trying to cover all the angles.
Both of my points are very important in the grand scheme of things in this thread because of the huge coverage and reasoning already expressed.
Discounting them the way you do is poor judgment IMO.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Well, the simple answer is if one is going to let being staked affect their play, one should not be asking for stakes.

 

[Mojomax747]

Well, the simple answer is if one is going to let being staked affect their play, one should not be asking for stakes.

One might be offered a stake, and one might find it difficult to refuse such an offer.

It hasnt effected our play to this point so i see no reason why it should now.
As the dilemma is dominated by the prize money aspect of the topic it is fair to include the scenario.

 

[joeeagles]

The Uk does not tax gambling income.
The same would apply for any lottery windfall, no payable tax is required.

I am unaware of the most resent tax laws ( if any ) regarding UK residents winning monies from overseas gambling but i can tell you how it stood as of the 1st Dec 2005.

More to the point i can tell you how it went if you won the WSOP up till that date and you were a UK resident.

The USA and the UK had/has a tax treaty where if a UK resident won the world series all he/she would have to do was sign a form and ALL of the prize money was his or hers to keep.

I am unclear what the current situation is though because of all that has happened.

Sorry i couldnt be more helpful.

No, that actually was very helpful. Sounds like every American who plays the ME should become an English citizen first , and sign up for the ME using an English passport for ID. I also have an Italian passport and driver's license, having lived there a long time, and the first name on those is "Giuseppe", not Joe, so I have a way out . So now, lol, the only problem is finding a way to get to the FT. Fat chance, right?

 

[joeeagles]

It hasnt effected our play to this point so i see no reason why it should now.
As the dilemma is dominated by the prize money aspect of the topic it is fair to include the scenario.

Right, it shouldn't be affecting your play just like it didn't affect Mr Danneman's. The only case where it "could", would be something extreme like the one described in this thread, but truth be said I agree with you, it shouldn't change any decision you make no matter what absurd scenario comes up on the FT.

I'd still be worried about my partner chasing me with a 45 all over Vegas though if those aces would've holded .

 

[Mojomax747]

No, that actually was very helpful. Sounds like every American who plays the ME should become an English citizen first , and sign up for the ME using an English passport for ID. I also have an Italian passport and driver's license, having lived there a long time, and the first name on those is "Giuseppe", not Joe, so I have a way out . So now, lol, the only problem is finding a way to get to the FT. Fat chance, right?

From the info i could find it seems that many have done the UK thing in the past where they would claim to be English/British to avoid the tax.
I guess that might work if you are an unknown player with a vague background.
I think Italy has a similar agreement to the UK's so that may come in handy when your day comes, right?

 

[joeeagles]

From the info i could find it seems that many have done the UK thing in the past where they would claim to be English/British to avoid the tax.
I guess that might work if you are an unknown player with a vague background.
I think Italy has a similar agreement to the UK's so that may come in handy when your day comes, right?

Yes, it will come in handy, although in Italy gambling winnings are taxed, but by no extent as heavily as in the USA. The one thing I'll need to find out is if you get taxed for overseas winnings, but even if you do its not as much as it is here. As I said I'm not an accountant, but the amount you pay is also dependant in which state you are resident. Most pros have residence in Nevada not only because they play there but also because Nevada doesn't charge state tax on your winnings, so they get to save extra $.

US laws on this are somewhat embarassing. Barry Greenstein for a while now has donated all his tournament winnings to charity, yet he still has to pay taxes from his own pocket on those winnings because you are only allowed to deduct 25% for charity on your income tax, so he pays taxes on the remaining 75% even if he's not keeping it. Isn't that ridiculous? It's a sure thing because he wrote this in his book so he can't be making it up, I'd be surprised if its a lie.

 

[mrsnake3695]

I have read where posters say we are playing for 3rd place and foldings the best way to do that. I have to disagree that we are playing for third place here. Even if we have few chips and the leader has a massive chip lead we are still trying to win the tourney. I know most of us watch alot of poker on TV and we've all seen many occasions where the person with the big stack didn't win and a short stack went on to win. I was just watching last night a tourney from this years WSOP where the last place player who was all but out went on to win and the player that started with a big lead went out outside of the top 3 so anything can happen unless we give up here.

In the original scenerio 2 players had twice as many chips as us and Doyle had a "huge" chip lead which isn't specifically defined. There is no mention of us being under blind pressure at this point.

If we call and win we are either second in chips with 3 players or second in chips with 2 players. We have jumped from 4th to 2nd not third. If 3 players are left we will also have 4 times as many chips as the third place player. No matter who wins the side pot WE are in the best position to go head up for the win. Anything can happen heads up.

Now if we fold we ensure 3rd place but we will either be 6 times behind 2nd place and still way behind first or way way behind 1st place.

This of course would be much easier to figure if chip stacks were given in the original secenerio. However, by calling we become favored to finish at least 2nd with a chance to win, where by folding we are likely to finish third with almost no chance of improving.

To me the likelyhood of at least getting heads up with a reasonable chips stack for the win and being favored for at no worse second makes calling a worthwhile action.

 

[Mojomax747]

You said so yourself that a short stack can go on to beat a big stack etc.
That can still be achieved by folding AND moving up in the prize money.
So i would have to say that your theory is flawed and you are contradicting yourself.

 

[joeeagles]

You said so yourself that a short stack can go on to beat a big stack etc.
That can still be achieved by folding AND moving up in the prize money.
So i would have to say that your theory is flawed and you are contradicting yourself.

I'm absolutely on board with this. Folding gives me an opportunity to move up in the prize money and still be alive in the tourney rather than going all-in in a 4-way pot with a less than 60% chance of my hand winning.

Then I'll take my shortstack (+ bank 1 extra million at least) and try to catch up with the big stack. If I fold I have a chance to do so, if I call and lose I'm out and can no longer win. Paul Wasicka did the same thing.

Nice thinking there Mojomax, I agree 100%.

 

[mrsnake3695]

The difference here is what gives u the BEST chance to win. Obviously calling givers you the best chance to win here. If you fold you will be a very short stack to 2 players probably or possibly and even shorter stack to one. Although it's true anything can happen, it's very unlikely you will have any chance at all of winning if you fold.

Lets assume some numbers for the scenerio of 2 opponents have twice as many chips as you and another has a huge chip lead. Lets assume that huge chip lead in this case means 3 times as many chips as the rest of the table combined (I think we can all aggree that's huge and probably at the far range of possible chip stacks)

Lets give oursevles 5 million chips which gives the 2 other players 10 million each and doyle 75 million.

If we win and one of the players with 10 mil wins the side pot the chips stacks will look like this:

Player A out in 4th
Player B 10 million
Us 20 million
Doyle 65 million

If we win and Doyle wins the side pot it will look like this:

Player A out tied for 4th
Player B out tied for 4th
Us 20 million
Doyle 85 million

Now if we fold this is how the chip counts would look depending no who wins the side pot

Us 5 million
Player A or B out
Player A or B 30 million
Doyle 65 million

or:

Us 5 million
Player A & B out
Doyle 95 million

As you can see we almost have no shot of winning if we fold and will most likely only get 2nd if Doyle wins the pot.

However if we win we are favorate for 2nd and one double up away from almost being even with Doyle which gives us a realistic chance to win.

So let's assume the numbers are close to the numbers for the scenerio. Now, do you still argue that moving up one space with almost no chance to win is better than moving up 2 spaces with at least a reasonable chance to win when you are the favorate?

 

[njo1987]

you have to go with it. play percentages, that usaully makes for good poker. that and not folding the best hand when u have it

 

[Mojomax747]

Quote:


If we win and one of the players with 10 mil wins the side pot the chips stacks will look like this:

Player A out in 4th
Player B 10 million
Us 20 million
Doyle 65 million


No they wouldnt


Quote:


If we win and Doyle wins the side pot it will look like this:

Player A out tied for 4th
Player B out tied for 4th
Us 20 million
Doyle 85 million


No it wouldnt.

 

[britisharmy1]

Anyone that says they would fold this wouldn't be at the final table of the WSOP ME anyway.

I totally agree dude.

 

[ivegotstylekid]

no chance in hell im folding

 

[Ironpants]

I fold. I am just about a lock to get 2 mil and if Doyle wins, I get 4 mil. I am a tight conserative player. 1 in the hand is better than 2 in the bush. I am seldom the big winner but I am a consistent winner. I fold.

 

[fishfood]

I totally agree dude.

Pretty bold statement there pal.

 

[fishfood]

Pretty bold statement there pal.

I mean the guy who said that anybody who would fold there wouldn't be at the final table of the main event.

 

[Mojomax747]

Im going to give an example here for you mrsnake that would strengthen your thoughts even more.


6000 entries each with 20,000 starting chips ( they started with 20,000 this year )
That gives us 120M chips in total if we ignore any rounding up when chipping up.

You are the short stack, Brunson is the huge stack, and Harrington and Ivey have about the same amount of chips as each other which are double what you have.

Brunson 60M
Harrington 24M
Ivey 24M
You 12m

Brunson has 50% of the chips and 36M more than his nearest rival, i think that can be considered a big lead right?

So the stack distribution is 50%-20%-20%-10%


Now lets take another look at your example where, if we win and Harrington or Ivey wins the side pot. ( lets say that Ivey wins it )

Now look what suddenly happens to the chip counts.

You 48M
Brunson 36M
Ivey 36M

All of a sudden we have gone from short stack from 4 players to chip leader with 3 players from just one hand of cards.

Pretty amazing dont you think, and it would most definitely change our way of thinking when it came to the decision of calling and folding.


But here is the thing, and it is very important to remember this.
In Ron's excellent OP all we know is that we are the short stack, Brunson is the huge stack, and Harrington and Ivey have twice as many chips as we do.
Its the way Ron worded the whole scenario that makes it a much tougher decision in the eyes or those that opted to fold.

I mean just for the sake of it we might of only had 500,000 chips or even a million, and that would alter the example above in a huge way.


I think you can understand the point i am trying to make here, the beauty of the whole situation is that we are unclear of what our actual chip count is.
We dont even know how high the blinds are for example.


I voted for a fold with what we had to work with, but given more information and the right circumstances im pushing all-in in a heart beat.

 

[dj11]

. I had a disturbing thought that involved rutabaga and those 3 players.

I was eating rutabaga, and thunk that the primary thought in each of those three players head was , 'What is that noob still doing at our table'. Being the noob that I would be at that table, I know that each one of them saw it in my eyes that I had hit something, and each of them knew they could out play me post flop. The thought of an unspoken collusion wafted across the HD screen in my head.

All I knew was that I had AA, and also that either Phil or Dan would be seriously impacted in my favor. I also know that at best Doyle decimates em, and I end up a serious dog going heads up. I know also that all of them can not have AK. I can reasonably assume either KK, or QQ is sitting out there. That would diminish probabilities for an AK,or AQ, hitting, doesn't do much for KQ either.

So what hands would I fear here? Soooooted connectors. The bane of poker. ANd of all the suited connectors, I would fear 78 sooted the most. Statistically the hand that has the best chance of cracking AA. I heard that on TV once.

Who would play 87 sooted here. I think Harrington would not. I think Doyle would have long ago, but then he went and told the world he would, so can't any more. That leaves PHIL.

So Phil has 78 suited. OK maybe 89s.

Dan is into premium hands, so he gets the KK. Doyle has chips enough to survive this onslaught and I put him on connectors, T9 or higher, which includes AK. He is in this for the pot odds and the long shot.

So at this point I clearly am looking real good. I should be in this pot. But I think on. Craziest case scenario. First in with JJ, second QQ, Doyle KK, Me AA. Again I look real good, but really at this point it approaches a crap shoot. I am only beating no match till the river. If I assume the AAKKQQJJ scenario then there are 44 cards in the deck, 6 of which will beat me. 2 will clinch for me. We are all ~~7.5-1 against improving. Since we would all see the flop, that would be 5 chances in ~7.5 for each of us to improve, and the likelihood is whoever improves wins. But the distribution here is so weird that it is barely worth the consideration.

Back to the AA, KK, AK-JT, and Phils 78s.

My hand is essential out of the straight biz, the kings are blocking. The KK's are in better shape for the slim straight possibility, and the AK-JT are ripe for the straights. So are the 78s, with that added flush dimension.

Again I realize that even if that read is reasonable, improvement for me is looking slim, 2 outs unless doyles sooted are AK, leaving me 1 out to improve. Same for KK there. 2 outs to improve to the probable winning hand.

An aside here. Assume for a minute that my read here is right, can I not include in my out calcs all the cards that will not improve anyone elses hand? 234x would add 9 outs, would not want them to be Phils suit.

AK-JT. Pairing up at the top of that range would not help. At the low end it might help. Still this hand needs runner runner at min to win it.

Same with 78s .

Phil has called the clock on me, so I have to make the decision, and I haven't got time to get into game theory, and tourney odds.

Everything above says get in there. So I do.

Results, I speak my reads aloud, and am nearly dead on. Phil actually asks if I saw his cards. Doyle harumphs when he shows his JQ suited, and Dan hands me his business card.

Flop is 223 rainbow phils flush is gone Doyle hits a runner runner flush draw, I see sweat from Phil, Doyle has the smiley grin, and Dans face doesn't twitch.

Turns a J, Doyle winches, Phil sighs, Dans face doesn't twitch.

River is an 8. They all compose themselves while awaiting the paramedics, cause I just had a heart attack!

 

[joeeagles]

In Ron's excellent OP all we know is that we are the short stack, Brunson is the huge stack, and Harrington and Ivey have twice as many chips as we do.
Its the way Ron worded the whole scenario that makes it a much tougher decision in the eyes or those that opted to fold.

I agree with those comments Mojomax and if I may I want to add one more thing to them about Ron's post that really made this an excellent debate: the payout structure.

See, the way he did it it's clearly flawed but its also the reason why the decision can be open to the fold option and made the thread so much better. Lets look at the ME payouts last year where 1st place really was $12M, here's how it looked like:

1st place: $12M
2nd place: $6M
3rd place: $4M
4th place:$3M

If this were the payout structure in Ron's post then the decision is made much easier because now the "utility theory" really becomes accepted by a higher percentage of people, you're more willing to put your chips in this 4-way pot with AA because worse comes to worse you're garanteed $3M.

But with 4th place having only $1M garanteed the decision depends also, as was pointed out by robwhufc, which money hike means the most to you. So while the utility theory remains of course valid, the threshold where this kicks in is different for each and every one of us. For some it starts at $1M, for others it might take $2M. For Paul Wasicka $4M still wasn't enough .

I think what people fail to realize is how much is actually involved in a decision of this magnitude. You may be ready to put your chips in the pot then freeze right before because all of a sudden you think about your kids and what an extra million can do for them, just to make an example. Or you might be in your mid 50's and think "hold on, if I fold I can quit my job", to make another one, and so forth. But you'll never get a serious response on the internet, too many idiots.



Edit: I'm not referring to MrSnake in any way when I said idiots, I actually believe he would call with just about whatever reasonable stack and he at least did put some thought on his posts and explained why he would. He belongs to a handfull in that 86% that really would call w/o a blink, I don't doubt it and never did. I do disagree with some his comments, but he's not included in the "idiots" group I mentioned, I want to make sure that's clear.

 

[mindchurch]

well, i posted to day to the same question for a 22$ SNG and said call, but in this case folding definitely gives you 1 or even 2 million dollar more in prize money (as long as one of the middle stacks is out. now i want to see who gives up on a sure million bucks for a 50-50 shot? i folded.

 

[kevinfromhb]

you have to call. There is a 9% chance that the A's will improve to a set on the flop, and with the amounts bet, you can almost be assured that the other players are also carrying pkt pairs. They have only as much chance of doing the very same thing. Now...you are already in the money, and this is the time to go for the win, not a slide into 2nd or 3rd. I say go for it!

That's probably why I'll never make the WSOP...let's not delude ourselves!:vroam: