Was reading through the Rakefree.com site, Dutch Boyd's project to get rake free poker online, and I came across an interview with him, I thought this was very interesting:
1. What advice can you give to help me win poker tournaments?
Best thing I can tell you is to pick your spots and be aggressive. The idea behind NL tournaments is not to show your hand unless you're sure it's good. Think about this... let's say you are short-stacked. If you get pocket Aces against, say pocket Jacks, you're 4.5:1 to win... or about 82%. So you get your money in and go all-in, get called, and are hoping to double up. You do. Very next hand, you get Aces again. You push all-in and get called by QQs... again, 82%. You win and double up again. But you're still just an average stack. Next hand you get them AGAIN! You push all-in and get called by a big stack with pocket 22s. Still 82%, but this time you lose. Ouch. Bad-beat, righ? Sure, sure...
But the funny thing is, it's not a bad beat at all. You see, you are basically betting a parlay. You must win the first + second + third. Figuring out the chances of winning all of them is done by multiplying all of the percentages together (82% x 82% x 82%)... it comes up to roughly 55%. So you are only a slight favorite to still be in the tournament after being all-in three times with the best hand in the game.
So how is it that people like Stu Unger, Johnny Chan and Doyle Brunson could win the biggest event more than once? They must have gotten lucky... actually, they just rarely put themselves in a position where they were all-in. This year, before my hand with Moneymaker, I was only all-in one time during the whole tournament. Moneymaker was only all-in one time... against me. In order to win tourneys, you have to keep from going all-in.
The best way to do that is to steal. Consider these ideas:
- AK v. 72o is only about a 6:4 favorite
- If you're on the button and everyone folded to you, the chance of one of the blinds having a pocket pair is only about 1/8
- The chances of QQ flopping a set or overpair is about 66%
- The chances of JJ flopping a set or overpair is about 50%
- The chances of TT flopping a set or overpair is only about 33%
- The chances of any pair flopping a set is about 13%
- The chances of any non-pair holding flopping a pair is 33%
What this means is that if you raise with 72o, you're only going to win the pot if it goes to showdown 40% of the time. But if the calling player will check and fold to a bet on the flop if he doesn't improve, the value of that 72o is a lot more than 40% of the pot. There are many times in tournaments where you don't have to even look at your hand... a raise is correct. There were several times in the WSOP that I didn't look.
If you combine those basic maths with your ability to read your opponents (whether a preflop raiser or the blinds will call a reraise and whether they improved on the flop), you'll do well.
There is pretty much a correct formula for how much to raise. Before the flop, if you're the first one in, it should be either 3 or 4 x the blind. If there are limpers, it should be whatever you would raise if you were first in + the pot. If there is a raiser, it should be about 3x his raise. Early in the tournament, you can increase these amounts since players are much more likely to call. Later in the tournament, you can decrease these amounts since players are less likely to call. But remember that if there are antes, there is a lot more at stake and it's better to win the pot right there instead of seeing a flop.
Hope that helps you on your way.
Maybe this can counter the argument of the guy who gets KK early on, then QQ, then finally AA, and pushes all-in on each of them, gets AA snapped by garbage and cries bloody murder, well as Dutch said it, you're only slightly better than 50% favorite to survive all three all-ins.
I don't buy that logic at all. Each hand stands on it's own. Yes, prior to all three hands, your odds of winning three all-ins in a row can be calculated. But, you can't look back. Past history does not affect what's going to happen on the current hand. I say play your cards as you would if you hadn't just got aces twice in a row. For me, that would be to raise big enough to either get heads up or take it down right there. (If you want to limp and lay em down if you don't flop a set, fine, just don't base the decision on past events.)
Please tell me what I'm missing here. Of course superstition/karma would be haunting me, too, but the odds have NO BASIS on past events - right?
(Now, if you got aces four times in a row, I would probably wonder how many aces were in that tainted deck. )
It's not that previous hands dictate the outcome of future hands. Dutch's point is that the more times you put yourself in this situation, the more inevitable it becomes that you will bust out, no matter what hands you're playing.
Think of it as a proposition bet. I'm going to give myself pocket kings. You may have either pocket aces, or 64h.
If you choose the 64h, we will only deal out one board. If the 64h wins, you will win the wager.
The catch is, if you choose the AA, we will deal out eight boards hot-and-cold (reshuffling each time), and the AA has to win all eight hands for you to win the wager.
Which is the better play?
The probability of 64s beating KK once, is .2124.
The probability of AA beating KK eight hands in a row, is .1864.
As you can see, it's better to play one hand as a huge underdog than eight hands as a huge favorite, when losing once means that you are eliminated.
Bah, I agree that you do not want to put yourself all in when in a tournament, but few people acually get this chance. I don't see this advice as groundbreaking, or even stimulating, just plain DOH. It is just basic advice that you want to steal some blinds to stay alive when running bad.
I mean of course you want to go all in as few times as you can when in a tournament, that just makes sense, but is not really something you have a huge amount of control over, especially in a big tournament where someone can get a huge stack of chips, but have nothing to do with you.
If I am in a situation where I can come to a table in a poor enough chip position that I can double up, then double up again, and still not be in the chip lead I would be thrilled with the chance to toss all my chips in, again.
I guess what you're saying is that if you make a policy of always going all-in with aces, you're destined to get em cracked, and potentially bust out of the tourney. I suppose I can see that.
Of course, short-stacked, you need to double or triple up, so it's worth the risk.
So here's a serious question: How DO you play AA with an average or above-average stack in a tourney??
My gut still tells me to raise with the intent of getting heads up (so you've got the best chance of winning), and then play it hard, going all-in if you are re-raised. I would say most of the time you'll just scoop the blinds. If you do get called or re-raised it'll be a very strong hand (AK, KK, AQ or AJ), but you're still a favorite.
But, seriously, how do you recommend playing aces in a tourney?? Maybe this should be a new thread?
All Dutch is saying is that people unknowingly put themselves into situations that are coin flips for all their chips. The key word is unknowingly. He used the all-in three times in a row example because it's easily understandable by anyone who has ever even watched poker on television. He's just saying, play solid poker, limit coin flip situations for all your chips.
PS: I play Aces like I have the best pre-flop hand possible.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pepkep:
Bah, I agree that you do not want to put yourself all in when in a tournament, but few people acually get this chance.
I mean of course you want to go all in as few times as you can when in a tournament, but is not really something you have a huge amount of control over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is obvious that you don't want to face an all-in showdown. That is the only way you can be eliminated from a tournament, after all. What's not so obvious is, how do you keep yourself out of that situation?
You avoid having to go all-in by stealing enough to keep your stack size healthy. That's clearly the other component of the overall strategy Dutch is espousing here.
When I combine the Dutch Boyd article with the Rune Hansen article at this site (which I've been meaning to start a new thread about BTW), it all starts to come together. From the Hansen article (emphasis mine):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I play in 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear. Based on the size of the blinds, the average stack size and my chip stack I decide in advance what gear I will use. This decision is based on how badly I need chips and how passive the table is. 3rd gear means that I raise it in three times in the coming round. Knowing that I have to try and steal three times before the blinds reach me again, I pick my hands accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ostensibly "second gear" means that he knows he has to steal twice during the next round, first gear means one steal, etc. The point is that he's making this decision based on what he has to do at this juncture to keep his stack size healthy.
Proper stealing -> Healthy stack size -> no all-in showdowns.
Also, I believe Dutch is saying that you want to avoid all-in showdowns, not avoid all-in moves in general. To steal blinds and stay alive with a small stack, you're going to have to push everything you've got to the center.
This may seem to counter what Dutch is saying. But by going all-in as the aggressor, you're actually PREVENTING a showdown. Because of the "Gap", which is very wide at this stage of a tournament, players behind you will fold a lot of hands that you don't want to be in a showdown with. Even hands inferior to yours will outdraw you a certain amount of the time, so you want those out too. You can't lose if nobody calls you.
When you make all-in steal plays, you are going to get called sometimes, and end up facing all-in showdowns anyway. That's the risk you take, but by playing aggressively you'll keep the number of such situations to a minimum.
That's my take on things, anyway.
