stop calling all-ins
16 September 2008 by Matt
everytime you loosen up and call all-ins without big hands you start losing more.. so stop calling unless you’re a big favorite dumbass.
decrease volatility.
and what to do about those f-ers that don’t fold? will they fold to all-ins?
Matt
Flame
Xypher
Kage
“so stop calling unless you’re a big favorite dumbass.
decrease volatility.”
You won’t see many top players with this mindset. In general to maximise winrate, you should take any edge you can get. Not just the big ones.
specifically for tournaments..
also, say late in the tour, short stack and early pos with KJo if I don’t think people are going to fold I’ll call instead of raising..
been re-reading some books lately. I think even with AKs you’re not supposed to call an all in if you have to risk your whole tournament on that one hand and you’re not really short stacked and pressured to make a move.
with AK you’re an underdog to any pair and even with a slight advantage over hands like QJ it’s a dice roll and I don’t think you should risk being out of the tournamnet until you really have to.
I think mb medium pair at least to call if you think the person who moved in is the type who will do so with Ax?
IDK still figuring it out
You are a victim of a common fallacy. Your “tournament life” has no real inherent value. If you have the opportunity to get it in as a 55% favourite, you should generally take it. I hope you have learned by now that the money in large tournaments (i assume this is what you mean) is from winning, not simply making the money/trying to stick around to a slightly higher pay level)
Weird final table payout structures and stuff might affect this, but in general most edges should be taken. Your AK vs QJ example (as a ~65% favourite) should be taken every time with a big smile on your face.
IDK harrington disagrees with you in hoh vol 1 which i’m currently re-reading
the inherent value of sticking around is, of course, the ability to see more hands. a similar concept in warcraft: the longer the game goes on, the more likely the better player is to win
in addition, sklansky also talks about chips having more ‘value’ in the later stages of tournaments
You might be right, and I don’t really want to argue against your books, but any effect like that is pretty small. Ask Harrington, Sklansky or whoever you want whether they would pass up a 65% edge (or even 55%) and I can pretty much guarantee they would not. A 65/35 edge is not small by any means. And if they do, I would consider them poor players unfit to teach poker.
Just IMO.
well yeah 65% is pretty okay but that is beside the point
Matt’s used to a 95% edge in Warcraft, mind you :)
yawn?