Situation 2 where you've just made the final table and everyone shoves all in... by folding you virtually GUARENTEE that you'll get 2nd or 3rd or 4th if there's split pots or the people that win have less chips and there's sidepots. This is MOST obvious if you only have like enough for one big blind,or hardly enough chips to have a shot at winning anyways
Situation 2 and a half is if there's under 18 players left, you have 35% of all chips or more you're in the money and there's someone that either has you outchipped or cripples you and he moves in on you. AND you're dominating the table, everyones folding and yielding to you, and there's no reason to get involved. You have a REAL shot at winning the whole thing, especially if this guys a maniac. It's a questionable decision either way, but if you fold you're getting top 5 90% of the time... due to the payout up top, and that you could still easily win without playing the hand, it's possibly a fold, not sure if I'd be able to make it or not because it's one that you'd question, over and over again.
anyways, the reason I'm posting it is because he compares some table going all in everyone at the tale and you having pocket aces and why it's a call... It's not that I question the call at all... but the comparrison of "not being able to multiply your chips by a factor of 8" is a little iffy since he only uses all ins as example... I have a little response
one thing I failed to address:
In article XXXXX@news.xxx.net>,
>Probably because you went all in again with less than
>50% chance of winning and got bounced out anyway (of the money
Let's say you will magically be offered a series of heads-up 54/46
matchups, such as QQ vs. AKs, and you get the good end of the stick
each time. Three times you can double up your entire stack with
the best of it -- even MORE than a 50% chance!
46% of the time you are busted after the first.
71% of the time you are busted after the second.
86% of the time you are busted after the third.
So this "amazing" opportunity leaves you with 8x your stack 14% of
the time and busted the rest.
Whereas calling with AA left you with 10x of your stack 31% of the
time and busted the rest.
How's that 50% sound now?
But wait, you're better than that. You'll always get your money in
with 60/40 edges, such as AKo vs. QTs.
40% of the time you are busted after the first.
64% of the time you are busted after the second.
78% of the time you are busted after the third.
So you get 8x your stack 22% of the time. Still not looking so hot
compared to a 31% chance at 10x.
You're even BETTER though. You always get in as a 2-1 favorite,
such as KK vs. ATs.
33% of the time you are busted after the first.
56% of the time you are busted after the second.
70% of the time you are busted after the third.
Finally we're close to the AA situation in terms of probability
of survival, though recall that we had 10x stack improvement with AA
and you only get 8x with the "three double-ups" approach.
Is any of this clear yet?
The only way around calling with AA after nine people move in is if
you think you are so good, you never have to go all-in, and that if by
some awful twist of fate you do end up all-in, you will always have
the most dominating situation imaginable (e.g. always pair over pair.)
That is much like the brand of delusion hellmuth lives with, and it's
the reason he is the person I mentioned who might fold AA there.
But hellmuth is the most extreme case of this alive, and I'm fairly
sure even he couldn't live with himself if he folded.
It's not even close.
Paul Phillips | Love is a wild snowmobile ride across a frozen lake that
Future Perfect | hits a patch of glare ice and flips, pinning you beneath
Empiricist | it. At night, the ice weasels come. -- Matt Groening
ha! spill, pupil |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
The calling with aces after all those all ins are obvious, not to mention that 31% of the time you are alive you get to see all those situations QQ vs AK, or whatever...
However, I think it should be noted that there are a lot of players out there (like say Scotty Nguyen) who are hardly EVER all in and manage to accumulate chips just the same, perhaps more steadily and slowly, but by the time they are, they have amassed a lot more chips so there all ins are MUCH more significant chipwize
Just for fun and arguments sake lets say a player like Daniel Negreanu chops away and play lots of pots, instead accumulated 3 times their stack while not even getting involved in an all in, they may play an occasional pot with aces, but by the time they get ALL there money in, they have a HUGE edge.... even so, by this time you have to account for there increase in chips
Situation 1 he goes all in with aces goes from 10,000 to 80,000
he THEN accumulates 30,000 without getting a large portion of his chips in... this puts him at 110,000 with a 31% chance of survival.
Situation 2 he doesn't get this opportunity, but he chops away all the way up to 40,000, THEN gets his Kings against AQs or overpair vs a flushdraw and is about 70/30 to double up... putting him at 80,000 with a 70% chance of survival. Which is better? a 31% chance to get to 110,000 or a 70% chance to get to 80,000? I have to say the second one.
But lets just say situation one continues and he has 110,000 and again gets it in with the best of it 60/40 and goes to 220,000 and then accumulates 50,000, while situation 2 accumulates 50,000 more to 130,000 then gets it in as a 60/40 favorite...
Situation 1= player has 270,000 just over 15% of the time
Situation 2= player has 260,000 about 36% of the time....
Do you catch my drift?
If you can accumulate chips, double ups are increasingly important as the tournament goes on... Giving up on one 60/40 double up early because the 40% of the time that you get knocked out you'll end up missing out on an opportunity to accumulate chips up and up and take a 60/40 that means much more as it's later, when you have more chips, and it's at a point
If you are a better player, it's not necessarily that you get your money in BETTER, it's that you accumulate chips by chopping away, betting 2.5X the big blind, betting half the pot... Getting a larger pot, but still not risking elimination. By the time you DO, you have amassed enough chips that it's much more valuable, blinds and antes are higher, pot size is larger, and it means a LOT more than it would early. And usually the players that play small pot poker are able to chop away, and they get played back at, or someone trys to trap them and slow plays too long and they're good enough not to bite, and they might even hit, and when they do they'll get PAID OFF BIG! Lets say a Negreanu style of player has K8s and opponent has AA. If the opponent reraises Negreanus probably folding. So the opponent tries to set a trap... Flop comes 294 with 1 spade... "Negreanu" bets opponent just calls because it's not a dangerous board at all, turn comes Q of spades opponent checks ready to check-raise, but "Negreanu" recognized that opponent wouldn't call out of postion there without a hand, so he checks PLUS he gets a freecard, even if his opponent is weak he might bluff into a made hand... Now the river comes an ace of spades. Opponent gets nervous that he won't get paid off if he checks so he fires out a fairly small bet. Daniel Recognizes that his opponents strong, and that he won't be able to get away from it, so he reraises HUGE OVERBETTING the pot. His opponent has seen this guy in virtually EVERY hand, and he really just doesn't give him credit for catching a back door draw, so he either moves in, or calls a huge bet, maybe even calls ALL his money. This is the type of thing that happens. They keep the pot small and try to chop away, but if they hit a big draw, they bust an opponent who's virtually drawing dead who can't get away from his hand. The pros might not fall for it, but there's enough amatures in these HUGE fields. Now He goes back to chopping away, not risking a large amount of his stack at any time.
You cite the fact that you'll never get a chance to amass 8 times the amount of chips in front of you putting it all at risk... THAT"S NOT WHAT"S IMPORTANT... the overall VALUE of the chips is what's important....
This is a common mistake people make all the time when it comes to opportunity costs and economics, If a $20 CD was 50% off, or a $1000 computer was 10% off, and you could only have the time to get one, or it was a rebate and you could only do one, which would be more valuable to do? Assuming you were buying both? The computer of course... saving $100 is MUCH better than saving $10... 10 times better.
I'm not saying I wouldn't take the aces all in, I definitely would, and THEN if I got to accumulate more chips and happened to go against someone with more chips my double up would mean that much more... The BEST part about that is, the 31% of the time you win, your chances of winning the tournament go way up, your ability to survive goes way up... You basically get to find out very early in the tournament what kind of shot you're going to have, if not you go home, and can tell quite a story, and start playing the cash games... and save a LOT of time.
So what am I saying? Your example fails to recognize that the great players accumulate a lot of chips BEFORE they have to get it all in. The bigger the field, and the easier it is to accumulate chips WITHOUT having to go all in, the more value the double up later on.
I just watch all the guys that end up doing very well, and even the ones that got extremely lucky, usually did there "getting lucky" part LATE not early... how many times have we seen people take risks and become the chipleader day 1 only for it to mean NOTHING later? Heck we've seen HUGE stacks get UNLUCKY late or get too aggressive and give away everything, but they risked a lot more 1st to get where they were, 2nd after they accumulated chips they didn't slow down and they gave there chips away in a couple hands. And what about all those players that end up SHORT stacked at the final table when the blinds are HUGE? Joeseph Hachem and Steve Dannemen were BOTH pretty short stacked.
Obviously if I have the aces I call, and If I fold the aces, I won't Magically get hands that I wouldn't if I called and won.... However, if I had a choice between getting aces the first hand with the entire table going all in and being card dead afterwards, or getting a series of hands with time between to continue to accumulate chips, and you ignore the time spent, and opportunity costs (being able to play in another tourney if you go out) I'll take the second option anyday.
However, If I could choose to have aces and have everyone all in on the BUBBLE... or have KK QQ JJ and AA headsup all in early and middle stages... I'm taking the aces on the bubble EVERYTIME.