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.
Say your efficiency playing online is 100% if you're constantly watching and thinking and concentrating on and about EVERY hand played in a 10 person SNG...
Often, my mind wanders or I completely ignore hands when i'm out, so my efficiency say goes down to 90-95%...
Ok, you guys that play multiple SNG's at the same time....what do you figure your efficiency is? ...by playing several games at once instead of only one? 90% tops? 80%? 70%? (obviously, your time is still well spent, since you're there anyway and your overall profit goes up... )
allthough you weren´t exactly asking for a response from me, I´ll hope that it still answers your question.
I play at least 2, sometimes 3 (have to have 2 monitors, better 3) 10$SNGs at Party at one time and in the beginning, I don´t concentrate on the play much, since either it´s extremly tight or wild and lose. And I hate to get a good hand dealt in the early/mid stage since someone is going all-in pre-flop or on the flop and I received my share of getting a beat when I was a favorite and I figured, that it´s not worth it to knock out opponents early on, since I can mostly outplay them later when it gets shorthanded.
I´ll give 100% concentration once 6 people are left and try to put pressure on the short stacks. Sometimes a big stack or even chip leader got there by beeing superlucky and is now playing ultra-tight, cause he is afraid of not making it into the money. Then I´ll attack the big stack too.
So you basically want to focus on the game when it gets short-handed and don´t overplay good hands in the beginning.
That´s my approach and it seems to work so far.
My efficiency kidn of depends on how my mood is. If I'm in a lazy or laid back mood I'll probably won't concentrate as much on the hands that I'm not a part of, so my efficiency might be around 80%. If I'm alert and energetic, my efficiency would be around 90-95%. I'm never 100% though, I'm not perfect.
Last night i'm playing in a $20 SNG at Poker Stars. There's 4 players left and the blinds are at $400. I'm in the BB with A 10s and the short stack with a little less than $800 goes all-in from the Button. The SB calls, and I call. I've got about $5,000 left, the SB has about 3,500 less, and theres another short stack at the table with less than a $1,000.
The flop come 8 9 10, and I bet $400 at the pot, the SB folds. I've got top pair with top kicker and the other player that is all-in has a pair of 9's with a K kicer. I won the hand and dragged the a $2,300 pot giving me over $7,000 in chips and pretty good control of the game.
Anyway, the SB that was in the hand started calling me a moron for betting at the hand. He said that I should have checked it to increase the odds of knocking the all-in player out.
My theory here is I've got top pair with top kicker which is probably the best hand. I'm going to bet here to protect my hand especially if the other player is drawing to an inside straight draw. I understand the part of checking it down strategy but I'm really not worried about placing in the money with the stack that I've got and there's another small stack left in the game.
Who's right here, why in the world would somebody ever give somebody free cards to outdraw them when you think you have the best hand? Like I said I do understand the part of checking it down to help eliminate the all-in player. I've been bluffed out of these types of hands when there is no side pot to see the all-in player win a pretty good sized pot with Q high.
Eliminating the small stack isn't your only consideration here. You also want to win the pot, and you were smart not to give the small blind a free chance to outdraw you. Let him whine.
I agree with Gary and the SB was probably just pissed because he didn't get a free shot at winning the pot, which is what he would have got if you didn't bet and let him stay in till the end.
Also that was a decent size pot and if you let him stay in and he wins it than that would have improved his odds of having a chance at beating you.
If I'm getting this right, if all 3 of you had almost 800 in the pot than that would be close to 2400 total in the pot which if he's got 3500 less than you, that would go along way to getting him back into the game but if he doesn't get to draw for free and you win the pot than that puts him back even further, which brings me back to my point and also why I said that he was just pissed because he didn't get a free shot at winning the pot.
I would of bet, you had a strong hand. I dont see any reason why you shouldn't, especially when you think you have a winner.
I do get a little annoyed at people that bluff at a pot like that, especially when there is no side pot yet. I usually laugh and say something like "what you think the all in is going muck his hand".
Anyway good play, nothing to be ashamed of or worry about.
You did the right thing. If I have a bigger stack and am in a side pot against a significantly smaller stack with a hand that I feel beats his, I'll try to overbet him to get him out of the pot and not catch cards against me. The less people in the pot, the better you're chance are of taking it.
I decided to take on the big boys last night, investing some of my cash game winnings in the 100+9. Mostly, it was a lark because my recent tournament play has been so poor.
In the first round I caught A2 suited in the BB and caught a KQ on a 22Q flop and doubled up right away. Then I coasted to the break, getting nothing and therefore playing nothing.
Picked up some nice hands in middle of tournament, got action and cruised into top 10. Then as the bubble was coming, I got badly cold-decked, and was 17th when the top 20 got made.
Stayed out of harm's way, stole some blinds and antes and made final table in 9th, not seriously short-stacked but not in good shape.
Then the horseshoe came. 10th out right away, and 4th place made a horrible decision and got blasted out by leader. 8th place makes a nice profit I was fine with it.
Except I pick up AA under the gun. I give a small raise to see if anyone has something good I can come over. Better than that...two people come over me, so I go all in. Called by both. 99 and QQ. Flop is 678 rainbow, so the RNG sweat is flowing. I never saw two better bricks than the 2 and 3 that hit. Took me all the way to 3d.
It gets down to 4, 1 and 2 are miles ahead of me and 4, who are about even. I get passed by 4 on some blind steals, and then pick up QQ in the SB.
I choked. The leader limped in from Button, and I just made the minimum raise. #2 calls from the BB and so does leader. Flop is AK7. I knew I was dead, but it was checked on the flop. Turn is a blank, I go all in for my last 7k, with #3 at around 13k, and the leader calls with K and the blank. He never calls if I make a real raise preflop.
Massive mixed feelings. Farthest I've even gotten at anything over $10 multi. I think I played well with only intermittently good cards. And made a nice sum, too. But I can't believe I succumbed to the pressure.
Given the chip count at about 40k 40k 14k and 10k, what was the right bet for me when Leader limped in, if not all in? I think we were at 600-1200 blinds but it might have been more. And should I have led out QQ on that board? I think it wouldn't have worked, as leader was hard to move.
