Online Poker

[runningaces]

Let me chime in on this a bit. I play some larger poker tournies ( 1-2k buy ins). There is time when you can just about get to be a coin flip favorite with AA preflop. It takes alot of people going all in with you, someone can run the numbers but if something like 5 other players are all in with you then you're only a minimal favorite to win the hand.

A prime example was a WPT event aprox. 2 years ago. They are down to 8 players and trying to get down to 6 for the televised final table. Player 1 moves all in, player 2 moves all in, Doyle Brunson looks down at AA and mucks his hand. Yes Doyle was prob. a 60-65% favorite but he didn't want to risk all of his chips and a chance at the grand prize ( which by the way he won). Sidenote, Doyle would've won the hand.

I've had a few situations where I've had AA with alot of action in front of me pre flop, what I do with multiple players in front of me is basically let them know by my bet and my look is here it is ALL IN, I have no choice with this hand. Any damned fool knows you have Aces and will lay there hand down, if you're real lucky someone will be pot committed and you can go all in heads up against them.

My 2 cents. By the way I play on Poker Stars all the time, If someone is a beginner poker player I reccomend starting with small stakes limit holdem.

 

[callipygian]

Well look at it another way if you are willing to fold pocket aces first hand of the tourney because you are afraid of busting out due to a suckout on the first hand shouldn't that mean you should fold pocket aces at every stage in the tournament until you make the money?

Absolutely not! As the blinds increase the ratio of your stack to the blinds decreases; you become more tolerant of risk as a result.

at what point is it right to play pocket aces then in a tourney?

Harrington covers this concept in his books. I'm not 100% sure of the lettering, so I'll just describe the two ratios that he considers important. One is the ratio of your stack to the blinds, I think it's called M. The other is the ratio of your stack to the average stack, I think it's called Q. The bottom line is that as either of these ratios becomes smaller you become increasingly tolerant of risk - if you're going to be blinded out in 2 hands you might as well go all-in on K3o, but if you're the chip leader and the blinds are small you might fold KK to a large raise.

If you notice, a lot of the top pros don't even play the first few hours of the WSOP ME. They'll allow their stacks to get blinded away slowly and make their grand entrance after everyone else has started.

 

[AussieBlackjack]

Absolutely not! As the blinds increase the ratio of your stack to the blinds decreases; you become more tolerant of risk as a result.



Harrington covers this concept in his books. I'm not 100% sure of the lettering, so I'll just describe the two ratios that he considers important. One is the ratio of your stack to the blinds, I think it's called M. The other is the ratio of your stack to the average stack, I think it's called Q. The bottom line is that as either of these ratios becomes smaller you become increasingly tolerant of risk - if you're going to be blinded out in 2 hands you might as well go all-in on K3o, but if you're the chip leader and the blinds are small you might fold KK to a large raise.

If you notice, a lot of the top pros don't even play the first few hours of the WSOP ME. They'll allow their stacks to get blinded away slowly and make their grand entrance after everyone else has started.

Ok well i can see your logic on both points, especially your logic on the concept from harrington as strangely enough that makes a bit of sense to me..maybe i should buy one of his books.Having said that though i still will never fully agree with folding pocket aces but can now see why some people would do it in certain circumstances in a regular cash tournament. The other reason why i also tend to agree more with you now is because i was in an online tourney yesterday and got dealt pocket kings second hand of the tourney and lost more then 3 quarters of my chips (to a guy who lost a bit on the first).

 

[moo321]

For pete's sake, guys. Don't fold aces before the flop.

You certainly should never do it early in a tournament for "risk aversion". A risk averse play would be folding pocket twos against suited overs, giving up maybe a 1-2% edge in favor of not busting.

The bubble fold might possible make sense, IF you had a small fraction of a big blind. Even then, it seems like you should go for more chips.

 

[callipygian]

can now see why some people would do it in certain circumstances in a regular cash tournament

Actually, if the tournament is regular (e.g. daily tournament) I would never fold AA; worse thing happens is that you register the next day. It's specifically at big tournaments that you'd want to avoid risk - the ones where, if you bust out on the first hand, you can't rebuy and you can't re-enter until next year.

You certainly should never do it early in a tournament for "risk aversion".

Well, I wouldn't do it because in a big tournament my risk of busting out before cashing would be like 99.99999% anyway. But if I were one of the top poker players in the world who had a better chance of cashing, I'd consider it.

Let's say you were Phil Ivey and you were dealt aces on the first hand of the WSOP ME, and some moron pushes all-in. Would you risk your entire tournament on a 80%-20% chance (e.g. AA vs. KK)?

 

[moo321]

Let's say you were Phil Ivey and you were dealt aces on the first hand of the WSOP ME, and some moron pushes all-in. Would you risk your entire tournament on a 80%-20% chance (e.g. AA vs. KK)?

Yes.

 

[callipygian]

Yes.

I don't agree. I argue it's like taking even money on a blackjack when you've got a huge bet on the table. At high bet-to-bankroll ratios, correct risk-adjusted strategy is to lower variance and accept a lower EV.

 

[moo321]

I don't agree. I argue it's like taking even money on a blackjack when you've got a huge bet on the table. At high bet-to-bankroll ratios, correct risk-adjusted strategy is to lower variance and accept a lower EV.

Even money is like a 5% loss for risk aversion. This would be like taking even money at a -12 TC. I wouldn't do either.

Seriously, what type of hand are you expecting these pros to get all-in with that's better than 80%? Do you see pros waiting till they flop set over set before they get all in?

You're also forgetting about the value of having a chip lead for a skilled player. If 4 guys move all-in and I have aces, I have a coin-flip to end up with 5 chip stacks. At that point, my odds of winning the tourney become much better than they would be with 1 chip stack.

 

[callipygian]

Do you see pros waiting till they flop set over set before they get all in?

At the beginning of a big tournament, yes.

At that point, my odds of winning the tourney become much better than they would be with 1 chip stack.

Yours, maybe; mine, definitely. I, and perhaps you, would have negative EV for the tournament. I'll gladly take variance over my long-term result, which is that I get shellacked. But for a top player, he's much more likely to take long-term EV of playing fundamental poker than doubling up on the first hand with an 80% chance.

This would be like taking even money at a -12 TC. I wouldn't do either.

Yes, you would - heads-up in the elimination round of a blackjack tournament where you're last to act and you've got between 51% and 99% of the leader's chips.

 

[moo321]

Yours, maybe; mine, definitely. I, and perhaps you, would have negative EV for the tournament. I'll gladly take variance over my long-term result, which is that I get shellacked. But for a top player, he's much more likely to take long-term EV of playing fundamental poker than doubling up on the first hand with an 80% chance.

Yes, you would - heads-up in the elimination round of a blackjack tournament where you're last to act and you've got between 51% and 99% of the leader's chips.

I think you're imagining impossible scenarios for these poker players. I've never EVER seen a pro fold aces before the flop, nor have I ever seen them even fold less dominant hands simply for risk aversion.

Closest thing I've ever seen was when Hellmuth folded a straight-flush draw with two overs against what he estimated to be top pair (it was actually top two pair, I believe). And that's only Phil Hellmuth.

You just aren't going to win if you're unwilling to get your money all-in with an 80% lead. There are almost no scenarios that commonly occur that are better than this.

Can anyone even find a video of a decent poker player folding aces preflop?

The only time I could possibly think about it is if you had a flat payout structure (such as, top 5 people go to the next round) or if you were on the button, on the bubble, and had 100 in chips and a big blind was 1000.

And the blackjack tournament thing is obviously a different situation.

 

[callipygian]

Can anyone even find a video of a decent poker player folding aces preflop?

I don't think they exist because nobody would have the camera crews out on the first few hands of a major tournament. Also, I doubt that anyone goes all-in on the first hand of the WSOP ME or similar events. Remember, we're not talking about someone folding AA to a min-raise at the final table: it's folding AA to an all-in on the first hand of a tournament which is profitable but infrequent.

I wouldn't be surprised if nobody's EVER been caught folding aces preflop on tape. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened (or that it should never happen).

And the blackjack tournament thing is obviously a different situation.

Different but not completely different.

(1) You give up EV.
(2) You shed variance.
(3) You're willing to give up EV because the increase in EV is small.
(4) You are very risk-averse because negative variance has catastrophic consequences.

 

[1357111317]

What do you guys think is better for making money online? Cash games or SNG's? The problem I see with SNG's are the double digit rake usually. Anyone able to overcome this significant handicap?

 

[mjbballar23]

What do you guys think is better for making money online? Cash games or SNG's? The problem I see with SNG's are the double digit rake usually. Anyone able to overcome this significant handicap?

I would definitely go with Cash Games. SNGs have become much tougher to make money on because players are getting better and the rake is also a factor (though it is for cash games too). If you must play SNGs i would recommend the 27, 45, and 90 mans. Fish are drawn to the more lucrative payout schedule. Same reason why ploppies love the BJ side bets with huge pay outs.

 

[ragroller]

poker is the only game were i feel comfortable doubling my initial buy in when playing any form of gambling game.
Cash games are the way to go , its the true form of poker

 

[N&B]

Folding AA at the bubble can be a wise decision, unless one is so short-stacked that ante + open is a large bet to the bankroll (might as well go AI). I've been in just that situation in tournament on-line poker a few times. Not pleasant, but folding against a raise is a good move... if just called, an AI is a good move. Just don't count on me doing that all the time. :whip:

 

[1357111317]

How many hands of 9man online poker do you think you need to play to be confidant that you are a winning player? If you had a WR of 18bb/100 over 10k hands is that enough to be reasonably sure that someone is a winning player?

 

[mjbballar23]

How many hands of 9man online poker do you think you need to play to be confidant that you are a winning player? If you had a WR of 18bb/100 over 10k hands is that enough to be reasonably sure that someone is a winning player?

10k is not enough. I'd like to see at least a 50k hand sample. Even the best players can have 50k breakeven stretches so that may not always be enough but should give you a pretty good idea.

The biggest thing is not having HUGE downswings (10+buyins). In a 9 max game these are not normal and are likely the result of running bad + some big costly mistakes. I've had 3 10 buy in down swings and i kept telling myself that they were just bad luck but after showing the hands to a friend, he was quick to point out several mistakes that i had made.

 

[callipygian]

How many hands of 9man online poker do you think you need to play to be confidant that you are a winning player? If you had a WR of 18bb/100 over 10k hands is that enough to be reasonably sure that someone is a winning player?

The calculation is the same as the n0 calculation for blackjack. It all depends on your WR, variance, and how confident you want to be. Most people have a (SD/EV) of around 10, so if you want 97% confidence (2 SD), your n0 is going to be in the neighborhood of 40k hands.

Note that live play tends to reach the long run quicker because win rates are significantly higher compared to the variance - a typical LLHE win rate of +1.5 BB/hr and standard deviation of 15 BB/hr gives a n0 of around 12k hands. Of course, it will probably take you longer to play 12k hands live than 40k hands online.

 

[jozef88]

You are probably playing me :laugh::laugh::laugh:

ahahahaha....