I quit my job today to be a professional poker player...

One easy example of why it's wrong to fold kings for those reasons is that I wouldn't have even been there if I hadn't gone to the felt with much worse hands.

I busted 2 players on pre-flop all-in calls with Ace Jack. Both times I correctly put them on weaker aces and rode out the board. I also called a 3-way all-in with Queen 10, once again correctly and tripling up.

I even called an all-in on the flop with 63 (bottom pair of 3s) correctly against Ace 9 making a move.

Without being willing to risk my whole stack those times I would have busted long before the money. The key is just not to get it wrong and if the guys get lucky they get lucky. You can't play to not let people get lucky, you play simply to get your money in while you're ahead and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, I tried. If you don't think there's a difference between 70% pre-flop hands in cash games and tourneys, you should stay the hell away from tourneys. You were still sitting on 25 times the big blind and you think you're at your end game? Deep in your end game? Are you shitting me? (The end game starts later today)(Do you play chess?) Your stack was only a bit below average among the entire remaining field. If I've ticked you off by playing couch-quarterback; I am sorry. But; your assumption that you had to go to the felt in that position is flat out wrong. If you choke out of 30% of the tourney's shortly after you cash (in the tourney's you get that far) by gambling pre-flop; you are doing yourself a horrendous disservice. If you are really good enough to cancel 2 Aces with near certainty; you should have plenty of post flop opportunities to make your moves without scratching lottery tickets. It may well be true that most pros insta-call from that position... but that means most pros are doing it WRONG. The numbers simply don't support it. For dog's sake Craven, just do the math.

By all means; lie cheat and steal to get there; but once you're in the money; tighten the f*ck up and get paid.

PS. If you're reading that field as accurately as you say you are; I fully expect to hear you're graduating from the 1-2 games altogether, soon. You should be sitting next to Phil Ivey at the Bellagio.

Pps. Did I read correctly that you were the 3rd caller for all your chips holding QT? I hope to hell you were (at least) under 10 times the BB then...

You guys put too much thought into this stuff. Instinct is the key.

I just started a freeroll over at Full Tilt. An enormous challene to win one of these things because nobody really cares, initially, and the all-ins drop like bombs over England in the 40's.


The trick is to wait them out. When the number of players is halved... then you begin to play.

So you smoke a cigarette first?

What's your name there?

I would tell you my name but you might remember me as being a real asshole from the past.

I am currently in 7th place.

I just took a hit. Now I am in 8th

There are 58 left, out of 350

A couple of suckers just went all-in, actually three of them, so I folded.

Two more down.

I do think there's a difference, in a tourney it makes even more sense to risk your stack since its value is diminishing.



How many big blinds I had is pointless, since I also have to pay the small blind and the antes.

I had said I was at 2,000-1,000 with 400 antes but after looking up the structure online I realize I was wrong and remember that we were actually a few minutes into 3,000-1,500 with 400 antes (the 2000-1000 level had 300 antes).

But even if it were 2000-1000 with 400 antes that's barely over 9 rounds. Rounds are what are important, not big blinds. So I basically know that within 54 hands I was going to be all even if I take the risk aversion to its logical extreme. The odds that I would have a better hand than kings within 54 hands are slim.

In reality I had less than 8 rounds and about 48 hands. This is end-game Bill, sure they stopped the tournament to play the final table later today but that doesn't mean that 42 players left isn't deep in the end game.

But remember Bill, I'm going over all of this just to try to (vainly) illustrate to you how you have every single detail of this wrong and even if it were the first hand of the tournament calling all-in pre-flop with Kings is textbook poker. Not taking the chance to double up at that stage with Kings is something I've never heard anyone but you advocate. Like I said earlier you have to take up this poker case with everyone I know.



Yes... why?



Nope, it was about half of average, and the mathematical average isn't much of a factor (in comparison to, say one's position within the field).



You haven't ticked me off for playing couch-quarterback. But you might be detecting some frustration because what you've been arguing is the poker equivalent of someone saying the moon is made of cheese and it's a bit odd to find yourself being told, in all seriousness, that it is in fact made of cheese.



I never said I had to. I said it was the right thing to do, like any poker player I know will tell you.



Bill, it's this kind of absolute certainty when you are holding a position that, as I can't help but repeat, every single poker player I know (ranging from home-game hero to TV-pro) would consider absurd that makes me frustrated in replying.



I would have had a bit over 40. And you are making no sense Bill, with 3,000 blinds the average pre-flop raise (with any ace) was over 10,000 chips (a fifth of my stack). Playing any hand at all at that point is almost sure to risk half my stack by the flop and to get to the river it was certainly going to get to the rest of it.



Bill I guess you are right and every winning poker player on earth is wrong. I guess the poker mathematicians are also all wrong. Or the dude in this thread who can't add up the cost per round is wrong.



I could have folded my way to about 25% of a chance at a thousand or two more. But that would mean to give up on any chance of real winnings (I'd have needed to double up within 40 hands to have any real chance of making final table.



What game you play has nothing to do with your skill-level and everything to do with the size of your bankroll.

I have the bankroll to play 1,2 to 3-5 comfortably. I do not have the bankroll to play higher stakes. I've been offered (tonight again for that matter) to be staked for those games but I am not comfortable gambling with other people's money.



The BB means nothing, the cost per round does. At that stage I was at just about 10 times the BB and had a bit above 4 rounds of play.

But that doesn't matter either. If I know I'm significantly ahead I should put my money in. Never calling a pre-flop all-in means that all anyone needs to do to beat you is always put you all-in pre-flop.

In any case I'm going to try not to keep arguing this with you. It is, without any exaggeration, the most absurd poker theory I have heard from any poker player I have talked to. If you'd really like to press it further I encourage you to find an example of winning someone winning any WSOP tournament at any time in history using that strategy. I also encourage you to find a poker newsgroup and argue that with the rest of the poker community a bit (I don't really need to be the representative of sound poker play for everyone). And if all else fails and you persist in thinking you're right and everyone else is wrong, we'll have to agree to disagree and perhaps you can put your theory to practice and beat us all.

By the way, I called a 3-way all-in pre-flop today with Ace-7 off suit. That should drive you a little less batty (though in an odd reversal of all poker players' logic you'll say it makes more sense in a cash game) but it too made sense.

One dude was going all-in blind. His friend was going to try to help him beat whatever caller there was out there if he had a decent hand.

I deduced (from position and reading the two players acting after me) that I'd be the only caller in the field. It's a huge gamble but it's the right thing to do.

In the off chance that you're not going to stubbornly ride your position to your grave you should run the scenarios through the rule of thumb:

If you do it 1,000 times what decision is the right one over the average? Calling with an Ace is right against a blind hand and 1 potential caller over time. The odds held up and I tripled up for my only winning showdown of the day giving me my profit for the day (prior to that my only winnings were coming from offering to side-bet players to call out their hands).

The same applies to tournaments, you are taking a one-hand to one-tournament perspective on the situation when you should be looking at 100's of tournaments.

If I am in that situation 100 times in 100 different tournaments I put myself in good position to make final table in those tournaments about 90% of the time.

It's a frickin' no-brainer dude. And now I better get away from this subject before it makes me a donkey. ;-)

Your "vanity" has paid off. I concede that your position was indeed sufficiently desperate to warrant the pre-flop gamble.

I over-defended my theory, IMO, in reaction to your having too thoroughly dismissed it as absurd. In a six handed game; much over 10 rounds capital I still hold that it does not make sense to gamble preflop (against bigger stacks) when you're in the mezzanine area of getting paid. Yes; my strategy makes me ripe to be run over (don't tell anyone)… but I maintain it is sound, and is strictly a matter of discipline.

While obviously not against that level of competition; I have way too frequently ridden shorter stacks for many rounds (deeper into small money), by not overvaluing my starting hands (any two-pair post flop, with the same read is far less risky).

I must also quibble with your assumption that this is a "give up" strategy… as I consider it simply a more conservative means to the same end. Big stacks that early in the money aren't that much more likely to sit at the final table than smaller stacks. Tripling up with 6 tables to go; you do not increase your odds of winning the big prizes by 50; but that is what you risk when going all in preflop. When measured against the payout differences; the more conservative strategy will IMO sit you at more final tables; as well as earn you higher positional payouts during the natural course. Accordingly the importance of big stack building comes second to survival in most tourney situations.

You'd probably laugh you're a$$ off at my tendency to strongly defend my made hands, rather than risking trapping for bigger pots, too. As well as my tendency to rarely go all in at other points; even when the odds are strongly in my favor. Frankly; I think my winning percentages will go up when I pull the trigger and move into bigger games. Currently; the hands that take me down are too often hands that should never have been around to be made in the first place.

I also find your confidence in your reads nothing short of astounding. You apparently read pros as accurately as I read home-game donkeys. I'd like to believe the only difference in play is the size of a bankroll; but I cannot. Most of my personal bankroll disappeared with my restaurants…so accordingly; you won't see me taking my chance to "prove the pros wrong" until I've legitimately earned my poker-roll by playing poker. At my current rate of progression; I expect to be joining your profession by the end of summer… though not necessarily in your footsteps.

I'm really starting to think Omaha is better suited to my strengths (so much less gambling involved.) I believe the luck factor in Omaha is reduced by a TON. Consequently; the Donkeys don't get to win 40% like they do in Hold'em. More like 10 to 20%. Skilled players should basically get to divide up dead-money a lot more consistently than they do in Hold'em. If Texas Hold'em is Chess; Omaha is closer to Backgammon.

Interesting that you do indeed play Chess. I would very much like someday to sit down on the other side of a Chess board from you and see how well your genius translates to the Chess Board.

So Gus, was that really you the other night at Full Tilt?

A2K SHOULD ADD A GAMBLING FORUM.

**** i love hold em' , anyways the other day flop is 2 a's with a king,

turn is a king (im thinking to myself SCORE!)

river is a 5.

Guess who had pocket aces? ME FOR ONCE! lol the guy next to me had the king, he was a good sport about the whole incident

wsop just happened in vegas and i wanted to go, bein broke sucks.
I didnt even watch it i was so pissed.

Played a tourney in a series of tourneys this week in Costa Rica (culminates on Friday with a $1,500 tourney) and never won once when I went to the felt with the best hand. Had people dominated several times but never one one of them. However I did win one all-in when I was behind (10s vs jacks) and I hate days like that. My mistake paid off and all the times I didn't make a mistake and put big money in I lost (thankfully stealing pots was keeping me alive).

Anywho, I finished 18th in a lackluster showing. I'll play the main event (that's what they are calling the friday tourney) if I'm awake but it's a 3-day tourney and I hope to have a more statistically accurate poker experience if I'm going to put in that much time.

Craven De Kare, Come on down.

http://www.crownpoker.com.au/AussieMillions.aspx?topicID=932

Standing in the dark by the Hotel's pool, I'm listening to some soft Stan Getz and smoking a cig. The night air is especially cold and the stars are bright.

"What the hell are you doing" I thought to myself, "that was some serious money." The beat I'd just taken replayed in my head.

"It should have worked" came the reply. "I'm not going to argue with you", I said to myself and walked back to the table.

Some days I wonder what the hell I know about poker....

Just another night in the life of the Jack of Hearts?




Tomorrow is another day.....

You can know everything there is to know about poker. But you can't account for, for want of a better word, luck.

Sorry you had a bad night, craven.