Did I make a bad bet/play?
Should I have folded when big stack raised knowing that I'm most likely 50/50 for all of my chips? Should I have just called and waited to see the flop and been aggressive then with a continuation bet?
Despite my good play in multiple hands in that tournament, it's always the last one you play over and over in your head.
But if I really want to cash, I just call there. If the K or A hits, then I make the big bet. If I'm beat at that point, then oh well.
Quote: FinsRuleWe don't know any of the variables - how had big stack been playing, how much is the tournament for, etc...
But if I really want to cash, I just call there. If the K or A hits, then I make the big bet. If I'm beat at that point, then oh well.
Big stack was the best player by far (ended up winning). No big money, $35 entry !st $600, 2nd $400, 3rd $200 and 4th $100.
I think you're right that is what I would have done, however since the board had all low cards/rainbow on the flop, I think I would have gone all in at that point. Just wonder what he would have done then...
If the big stack had AQ, AJ, A,10 he would have likely called your all in and be in bad shape. If you just called in that scenario and folded to a 'miss' then you would be folding the best hand,
Similarly, if the big stack had raised to steal blinds with something like 8,5 then you don't want to give him a chance to catch up. By re-raising he would fold, by calling (and deciding to fold if not connected) then you give him the chance to either bluff you with the worse hand again or to connect on the flop with a weak hand.
So, by re-raising, you have a chance to get the player to put down a medium or weak hand. If he has a strong hand then with AK you are normally a 50/50 proposition anyway. The only 2 hands you do not want to see are A,A or K,K - you ideally want to see A,Q or A,J or A,10 (and K,Q or K,J suited which may result in a call depending on the player). There are far more hands that you would like to see than not (which put you in either a very good or very bad position) so re-raising is correct IMO.
If you had won that hand then you would now be the big stack and have a chance to go for the $600 ... a fair compromise for risking $100 on a 50/50 situation.
I believe that you did the right thing but the cards didn't fall your way.
FYI:
33 vs AK off when they use the same two suits, the 33 is 51.9%, AK is 47.5%. When matching only one suit, 33 is 52.6%, AK is 46.9%. When no suits match, 33 is 54.1%, AK is 45.4%.
When AK is suited with one of the same suits, the 33 is 50.7%, AK is 48.6%. When suited but not matching the 33's suit, 33 is 50.3%, AK is 49.0%.
I got these odds from the CardPlayer Poker Odds free smartphone app.
What is interesting is that you can get a 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' type of situation with hold'em hands. If you use the hands:-
A,K
J,10
3,3
So, A,K is fav over J,10 which is fav over 3,3 which is fav over A.K.
Quote: SwitchWhat is interesting is that you can get a 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' type of situation with hold'em hands.
How could that be ? If AK, JT and 33 is simultaneous excluded from the remaining deck, all hands share the same board space - and on that space one of them must have the highest probability of winning.
Quote: MangoJHow could that be ? If AK, JT and 33 is simultaneous excluded from the remaining deck, all hands share the same board space - and on that space one of them must have the highest probability of winning.
I should have phrased it better. What I mean is that if you choose one of the 3 hands then I can choose one of the remaining hands left and be fav over your hand.
You only play out one hand verses one hand (the other hand is left in the deck).
So, to put it more clearly, in a heads-up situation:-
A,K will be fav over J,10
J,10 will be fav over 3,3
3,3 will be fav over A,K
Quote: DrJohnBig stack was the best player by far (ended up winning). No big money, $35 entry !st $600, 2nd $400, 3rd $200 and 4th $100.
I think you're right that is what I would have done, however since the board had all low cards/rainbow on the flop, I think I would have gone all in at that point. Just wonder what he would have done then...
I think you have over-estimated your opponents. A $35 tournament is not high, and the big stack calling with 3-3 is a pretty dumb move.
It's hard to know the right move, but as long as you didn't fold quads (see other thread), you did fine.
That is the key statement. Losers focus on the result. The important thing is making the right decision. Which you did !
Quote: buzzpaff" I believe that you did the right thing but the cards didn't fall your way. "
That is the key statement. Losers focus on the result. The important thing is making the right decision. Which you did !
Thanks, that's what I'm looking for. I felt it was the right thing to do as I don't just want to be in the money but to have a shot at winning it all.
When I get to the bubble, I sometimes decide if I'm willing to take a small win (last place), or all I care about is the big win (1st place). You have to make that decision, then go from there. If you're interested in winning the tournament (either for the money, or the prestige), then you do what you did. But if you want to place in the money, you wait until the smaller stacks expire.Quote: DrJohnBig stack was the best player by far (ended up winning). No big money, $35 entry !st $600, 2nd $400, 3rd $200 and 4th $100.
On a side note, I'm curious as to the tournament structure. You said there were about 50 players, but the payouts don't reflect that. Even if the tournament cost was $30+$5, that still only equates to somewhere around 43 players. And a $5 fee on a $30 tournament seems excessive. (Maybe only seems excessive to me since I remember the good old days of tournaments where there were no fees, but anything over 10% seems like a lot.)
Quote: konceptum
On a side note, I'm curious as to the tournament structure. You said there were about 50 players, but the payouts don't reflect that. Even if the tournament cost was $30+$5, that still only equates to somewhere around 43 players. And a $5 fee on a $30 tournament seems excessive. (Maybe only seems excessive to me since I remember the good old days of tournaments where there were no fees, but anything over 10% seems like a lot.)
That's my fault. It's a local/home game and it probably was closer to 45 or so. There was also a bounty of $100 for taking out last months winner, $35 back to the first player out, a bonus for high hand of the night... etc. That ate up the rest of the money. The house keeps nothing.
Quote: DrJohnLong story short, in a poker tournament this weekend with players whose skills are better than mine. Despite this made it to the final table out of about 50 players. Tournament pays top four finishers. We're down to 5 players and I have about $30,000 in chips while big stack has $60,000. To my right has ~ $22,000 and to my left the two players have $5,000 and $10,000. Blinds are 1000/2000 and I am big blind. I was planning to just wait until one of the short stacks busted out so that I'm in the money, but am dealt AK off suit. Short stacks fold and dealer (Big stack) raises to $10,000. Small blind folds and I decide it's now or never and go all in. Big stack calls and turns over 3-3. Board doesn't help (Damn you Anna Kournikova!!!) and I'm out as bubble boy.
Should I have folded when big stack raised knowing that I'm most likely 50/50 for all of my chips? Should I have just called and waited to see the flop and been aggressive then with a continuation bet?
Despite my good play in multiple hands in that tournament, it's always the last one you play over and over in your head.
I suppose that the poor payout for a Fourth place finish is a mitigating factor, but on the other hand, you'd pretty much be thinking he has something or is playing the bully.
I'm going to call it a border-line decision, and say that I think no answer is right or wrong. If you were getting five times the buy for the Fourth Place finish, I'd have said that it was a crazy push, especially if the Big has been playing more-or-less conservatively. I would have personally ridden it out longer, being the second chip stack because you're looking at a darn good chance of finishing second or third vs. the possibility of being out of the money completely.
I do not disagree with the push, though, because you had a decent hand and he could have just been trying to bully people around. I'd have put him on a hand because he was out of position to be bullying, but you still had a good hand.
Should I have called the all-in bet ?
Why do guys only ask when they lose ???????
A lot more stupid decisions win pots than good decisions lose !!
Quote: buzzpaffJust once i would like to see a question : I had a pair of 3's , called an all-in who had AA, but I caught a 3 on the river to win.
Should I have called the all-in bet ?
Why do guys only ask when they lose ???????
A lot more stupid decisions win pots than good decisions lose !!
Kinda like how I always want to see on one of those home improvement shows someone go, "And then we pulled up those awful hardwood floors to reveal some fantastic carpet underneath!!!"
You only regret when you lose. When I finished residency I had more money than I was used to having and so once a month I bought one ounce gold eagles, maple leafs, and Krugerands for $250 each. I sold them last year for $1900 each. Despite making money it was still a stupid investment. The fact that it paid does lessen the bad bet.
My asking is that most of the players were better than I. I played the best poker I have played to date and got lucky at some opportune times. Just trying to further improve my limited skills.
Quote: buzzpaffJust once i would like to see a question : I had a pair of 3's , called an all-in who had AA, but I caught a 3 on the river to win.
Should I have called the all-in bet ?
Why do guys only ask when they lose ???????
A lot more stupid decisions win pots than good decisions lose !!
That last sentence couldn't be more true!
I have played a lot of poker and like most others, I only question my decisions when I lose. My best poker buddy lives in north Texas and we will go up to Oklahoma and play quite often, mostly in tournaments. On the 30 minute or hour drive back to his house after playing we discuss nothing but hands. I find it's easier for me to remember when I can discuss it fresh after making each bone head mistake.
I still make them though, just different ones.
Nothing wrong with getting lucky. last years winner WSOP was all in 8 times as an underdog at the final table. Doyle Brunson says he got lucky a lot, but usually the bet were financed with blinds and hands he stole earlier. When you get caught, well, sometimes you just get lucky. 60/ 40 will still win 40 % of the time.
Do not underestimate the value of the hand you lost. There were 2 short stacks who will remember that hand. After all, you insured they would both cash. Next time they are at same table, they will be less reluctant to steal your blinds, or call an all in bet from you.
That losing hand will pay dividends in the near future.
It is a terribly overrated hand. As is AA.
You had the proper thinking going in. Why not wait for one of the short stacks to bust out.
The problem with AK is that it is not a made hand. Because the big stack put a big move on you probably told you that he had a small pair but even a small pair beats AK. In a tournament, the big stack was not obligated to play when on the button-- if he had nothing he just could have folded. He bet so that indicated he had something.
There are just too many danger signs for you to have called, and then to have pushed all-in.
Now, looking at the flip side: you had six outs: any of the aces, or kings. You might have also had bigger straight wins, bigger flush wins.
But with only one player left till the money, I would have folded.
Quote: DrJohnLong story short, in a poker tournament this weekend with players whose skills are better than mine. Despite this made it to the final table out of about 50 players. Tournament pays top four finishers. We're down to 5 players and I have about $30,000 in chips while big stack has $60,000. To my right has ~ $22,000 and to my left the two players have $5,000 and $10,000. Blinds are 1000/2000 and I am big blind. I was planning to just wait until one of the short stacks busted out so that I'm in the money, but am dealt AK off suit. Short stacks fold and dealer (Big stack) raises to $10,000. Small blind folds and I decide it's now or never and go all in. Big stack calls and turns over 3-3. Board doesn't help (Damn you Anna Kournikova!!!) and I'm out as bubble boy.
Should I have folded when big stack raised knowing that I'm most likely 50/50 for all of my chips? Should I have just called and waited to see the flop and been aggressive then with a continuation bet?
Despite my good play in multiple hands in that tournament, it's always the last one you play over and over in your head.
Dumb call by the big stack. He gets crippled by a loss to only you. The blinds will quickly take care of the short stacks. He's lucky not good.
Quote: AlanMendelsonI wouldnt have called. You would have lost 2,000 chips instead of putting one-third of your stack at risk. AK while the best drawing hand can't beat 3-3 and it even can't beat 2-2. And it doesn't beat A-2 either if a two comes on the board.
It is a terribly overrated hand. As is AA.
You had the proper thinking going in. Why not wait for one of the short stacks to bust out.
The problem with AK is that it is not a made hand. Because the big stack put a big move on you probably told you that he had a small pair but even a small pair beats AK. In a tournament, the big stack was not obligated to play when on the button-- if he had nothing he just could have folded. He bet so that indicated he had something.
There are just too many danger signs for you to have called, and then to have pushed all-in.
Now, looking at the flip side: you had six outs: any of the aces, or kings. You might have also had bigger straight wins, bigger flush wins.
But with only one player left till the money, I would have folded.
Please don't listen to the above advice.
All In>Folding>Calling.
AK is sometimes overrated.
AA is pretty much never overrated preflop.
AK is not a made hand, but is a nice favorite over most, slight underdog against pairs <KK (Dead money in the pot offers some overlay to make up for that) and only crushed by 2 hands, AA and KK, and still wins almost 30% of time vs KK.
You did the right thing AINEC, don't be results oriented.
