Example 1: Blinds 800/1600, 2 of 3 tables remaining. In middle position, I raised all-in for my last 12,000 chips - just over half the average stack. The player at the cutoff reraised all-in for 27,000.
With two full tables left, raising to isolate makes sense. At this point in the tournament, a player needs to focus on accumulating and preserving chips. By reraising an all-in you are likely going to scare off all but premium hands. He clearly wanted to isolate and take his chances against only one player.
Example 2: Blinds 2,000/4,000, 8 players left. A player pushed all-in for 6,000. There were three callers including me.
Post-flop, it was checked to me and I checked the dry side pot. But, the third live player didn't get the memo and made a bet. There were grumbles from irritated players who chided the bettor. (Note: in most tournaments, encouraging other players to check-down against an all-in while cards are live is complicity and considered a form of cheating).
Why would other players care? Aren't we still trying to accumulate and preserve chips? Wouldn't anyone want to increase their odds at the pot and play heads-up against the all-in?
This is really a question about expected value in relation to the stage of the tournament.
In the first example, the reraiser has to eliminate 8-10 other players before he can win anything. Therefore, the expected value from the reraise is that he will play heads-up and either eliminate or double-up one player. Either way it does not immediately affect what will ultimately be won and by whom.
In the second example, all the players involved were already "in-the-money". Therefore, the expected value is in eliminating another player and guaranteeing more for those who remain, regardless of its effect on any one player's chip stack. (Note: Eliminating other players can also be more important than chip accumulation at or close to the bubble).
Let's assume that the all-in player has pocket Aces and all the callers have small pocket pairs... 4s, 5s, and 6s. If the flop is 8h, Kd, 2c and two players check to the player with 5s who presents a bet, the other players are likely to fold forcing a heads-up situation. Before the bet, the player with 5s (and everyone else) needs one of six cards to hit in order to improve: a 4, 5, or a 6 (30.7%). After the bet and subsequent folds, there are only two cards (5s) that can hurt the all-in (11.7%). The all-in player is now more likely to win and quadruple-up.
There are always exceptions. Substantial side pots or big hands (straights, flushes, full-houses, etc.) may be justification for a bet. However, most players will understand the implied complicity of checking down a pot when it will likely result in climbing even one rung in the reward ladder.
As always, your comments are encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As usual in poker, this is a situation that is subject to all the of the little elements involved. It's good that you were clear about the stipulations of the hand but was this example hand shown down? What did the re-raiser re-raise with? With the blinds at 2,000/4,000 and the all-in player is only in for less than double the blind, I don't see why normal play can't resume. There are arguments that can be made for both sides (in relation to example 2). Pardon my lack of specific math since I'm more of a feel-based player...
ReplyDeleteOn one end this isn't exactly grounds for an isolation play. You want a couple decent hands in the pot to try and eliminate the all-in player to move up the ladder.
At the same time, a player who feels he has the all-in player beat can continue to play the hand in an attempt to accumulate more chips. You need to do with a premium hand though, none of that middle pair nonsense. If you have a marginal hand or middle pair then checking it down will essentially be the more profitable play in the long run.
But with that expected value mumbo jumbo aside, the mission here is to win the tournament and accumulate more chips instead of just "moving up the ladder". If he or she can build a substantial side-pot and scoop the main pot then, by all means, raise.
You touched on two important issues in your response.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, you mentioned "feel-based" play. Sometimes it's better to understand the math rather than be bound by it. Also, despite all the math associated with this game, it is just as much art.
Secondly, focusing on winning vs. advancing can change how you view this topic either in subtle or overt ways.
Regarding the actual card play, I filled in some of the blanks for you (and other readers) in my follow-up post, "Checking it Down - Or Not."
Unfortunately, I still haven't even scratched the surface on this contentious issue.