|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/2/2008 12:39:01 AM PACIFIC |
 All in with AKs, from CP Mag, mkpoker, 19. Oct 2003 19:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In the current issue of Card Player, Andy Glazer writes a very interesting column about "small-bet" style tournament play. In it, he posits a hypothetical situation where you have AKs and you accidentally see that your similarly middle-stacked opponent has AKo. You're 100% sure AKo will call if you push all in. Glazer doesn't talk about other players at the table, but it's assumed that you and AKo are the only two players remaining. Glazer writes that "an expert...would probably not move all in...because the expert wants more than a 5 percent edge when all of his chips go into the pot." He writes that a "non-expert" should go all-in, because he needs to "gamble" and should take whatever small edges he can. Please...tell me what I'm missing here! I think every player (expert or non-expert) should go all in in this hypothetical. I'd suggest that Glazer is misstating the advantage of AKs over AKo **because virtually every time AKs doesn't win, it will be a split pot.** (According to poker stove, AKs wins 7 percent of the time, AKo wins 2 percent, and the pot is split 91+ percent). So what's most important isn't the 5 percent edge Glazer references (7% win rate vs 2%) but that **among hands that aren't split, AKs stands a 3.5:1 advantage.** (In other words, AKs is 3.5 times more likely to win than is AKo). Those are certainly odds worth taking! In fairness to Glazer, this hypothetical wasn't the main point of his column, and it's possible he didn't think it through. He also notes that your "certain" expectation of a call is a bit unrealistic and in the "real world" the possibility of just picking up the blinds argues strongly for a big bet. But accepting his hypothetical to the letter, I think it must be the right play to push all-in. Can somebody tell me what I'm missing? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, modestmice, 19. Oct 2003 19:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 19. Oct 2003 19:31 mkpoker wrote: > In the current issue of Card Player, Andy Glazer writes a very interesting > column about "small-bet" style tournament play. In it, he posits a hypothetical > situation where you have AKs and you accidentally see that your similarly > middle-stacked opponent has AKo. You're 100% sure AKo will call if you push all > in. Glazer doesn't talk about other players at the table, but it's assumed that > you and AKo are the only two players remaining. > > Glazer writes that "an expert...would probably not move all in...because the > expert wants more than a 5 percent edge when all of his chips go into the pot." > He writes that a "non-expert" should go all-in, because he needs to "gamble" and > should take whatever small edges he can. > > Please...tell me what I'm missing here! I think every player (expert or > non-expert) should go all in in this hypothetical. I'd suggest that Glazer is > misstating the advantage of AKs over AKo **because virtually every time AKs > doesn't win, it will be a split pot.** (According to poker stove, AKs wins 7 > percent of the time, AKo wins 2 percent, and the pot is split 91+ percent). So > what's most important isn't the 5 percent edge Glazer references (7% win rate vs > 2%) but that **among hands that aren't split, AKs stands a 3.5:1 advantage.** > (In other words, AKs is 3.5 times more likely to win than is AKo). Those are > certainly odds worth taking! > > In fairness to Glazer, this hypothetical wasn't the main point of his column, > and it's possible he didn't think it through. He also notes that your "certain" > expectation of a call is a bit unrealistic and in the "real world" the > possibility of just picking up the blinds argues strongly for a big bet. > > But accepting his hypothetical to the letter, I think it must be the right play > to push all-in. Can somebody tell me what I'm missing? i also read that and scratched my head. maybe barry t/roy/rolf can explain if he was talking out of his a**. the small bet big bet concept is ok though ------------------------------------------------------------- "I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, KJo, 20. Oct 2003 02:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I read it too, and he seems to be an idiot. He's applying theory to practical situations that don't apply. Yes, the theory goes that expert players want more than a 5% edge, but that's if you don't absolutely know your opponents cards. AKs over AKo is a sure thing, since it will almost always be either a push or a win. If you can't push all your chips in in this situation you're not an expert player, so there goes the theory again. Eli on 19. Oct 2003 19:31 mkpoker wrote: > In the current issue of Card Player, Andy Glazer writes a very interesting > column about "small-bet" style tournament play. In it, he posits a hypothetical > situation where you have AKs and you accidentally see that your similarly > middle-stacked opponent has AKo. You're 100% sure AKo will call if you push all > in. Glazer doesn't talk about other players at the table, but it's assumed that > you and AKo are the only two players remaining. > > Glazer writes that "an expert...would probably not move all in...because the > expert wants more than a 5 percent edge when all of his chips go into the pot." > He writes that a "non-expert" should go all-in, because he needs to "gamble" and > should take whatever small edges he can. > > Please...tell me what I'm missing here! I think every player (expert or > non-expert) should go all in in this hypothetical. I'd suggest that Glazer is > misstating the advantage of AKs over AKo **because virtually every time AKs > doesn't win, it will be a split pot.** (According to poker stove, AKs wins 7 > percent of the time, AKo wins 2 percent, and the pot is split 91+ percent). So > what's most important isn't the 5 percent edge Glazer references (7% win rate vs > 2%) but that **among hands that aren't split, AKs stands a 3.5:1 advantage.** > (In other words, AKs is 3.5 times more likely to win than is AKo). Those are > certainly odds worth taking! > > In fairness to Glazer, this hypothetical wasn't the main point of his column, > and it's possible he didn't think it through. He also notes that your "certain" > expectation of a call is a bit unrealistic and in the "real world" the > possibility of just picking up the blinds argues strongly for a big bet. > > But accepting his hypothetical to the letter, I think it must be the right play > to push all-in. Can somebody tell me what I'm missing? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, mkpoker, 20. Oct 2003 17:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Anyone interested can read Glazer's column online at http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=13581 I'd be very interested to get perspective from our more regular tourney players out there. The more I think about this hand, the worse Glazer's logic seems. Has he got any defenders in UPF-land? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, modestmice, 20. Oct 2003 20:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 20. Oct 2003 17:55 mkpoker wrote: > Anyone interested can read Glazer's column online at > > http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=13581 > > I'd be very interested to get perspective from our more regular tourney players out > there. The more I think about this hand, the worse Glazer's logic seems. Has he got > any defenders in UPF-land? i cant see that happening. im the dumbest one here and think its stupid | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, KJo, 20. Oct 2003 22:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Have I said yet that I always agree with you? :) Eli > > i cant see that happening. im the dumbest one here and think its stupid > | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, chasepoker, 21. Oct 2003 09:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think everyone might be getting confused with the example given Glazer only uses this as an example of small bet poker. This is shown when he says "It just means that with most other factors equal, id rather avoid big pots" he does not advocate tight play or is afraid to go all in but merely that given the opportunity he would rather not gamble all of his chips in situations where he does not hold a significant edge. The AKo vs AKs just shows that heads up all in you will win only 5% more than if you fold but you will lose your entire stack one in fifty times and that the gain is not worth the risk. This presumes you are one of the best players at the table and i doubt whether this applies to many people here ( including myself ). The reason we cannot get our heads round this scenario is that we are not as good as Glazer and whilst we would welcome the situation he feels he can do better by waiting for an opportunity where there is less risk but for more gain. It is all hypothetical and just an example of small bet poker i wouldnt read to much into it at worst it is just a bad example of what he means and at best it shows us the principles of small bet poker ! Chasepoker | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, modestmice, 21. Oct 2003 09:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 21. Oct 2003 09:31 chasepoker wrote: > I think everyone might be getting confused with the example given Glazer only uses > this as an example of small bet poker. This is shown when he says "It just means > that with most other factors equal, id rather avoid big pots" he does not advocate > tight play or is afraid to go all in but merely that given the opportunity he would > rather not gamble all of his chips in situations where he does not hold a significant > edge. > > The AKo vs AKs just shows that heads up all in you will win only 5% more than if you > fold but you will lose your entire stack one in fifty times and that the gain is not > worth the risk. This presumes you are one of the best players at the table and i > doubt whether this applies to many people here ( including myself ). > > The reason we cannot get our heads round this scenario is that we are not as good as > Glazer and whilst we would welcome the situation he feels he can do better by waiting > for an opportunity where there is less risk but for more gain. > > It is all hypothetical and just an example of small bet poker i wouldnt read to much > into it at worst it is just a bad example of what he means and at best it shows us > the principles of small bet poker ! > > Chasepoker like i said, im the dumbest one here. thanks for finally explaing what the hell he was talking about. but, really, andy's analogies and examples put me to sleep. ----------------------------------------------------- "I prefer talking with old persons of the female sex who peddle family gossip; next, with the insane-and last, with very sensible people" -S. Kierkegaard | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: All in with AKs, from CP Mag, hokie95, 23. Oct 2003 10:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think his point is that he has a very small edge at that point in the hand (pre-flop) and to make a practice of pushing all-in on someone with this small a margin will eventually get you down to the felt (that same 5% edge provides for a 2% eventuality where you lose everything.) That doesn't mean (or, at least I didn't read the article to say) that you wouldn't go all-in post flop, when most of the time you would be a prohibitive favorite or tied. If you think of the decision as purely pre-flop, it makes more sense. Of course, maybe I am on crack. Again. Or I have simply parroted back what somebody else already said. -Hokie95 | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|