How would you play this hand?

[SuperBalla]

 

 

[spain]

Nod. You have to know when to fold 'em.

 

In the last tournament I played in I was looking at suited KQ on the button when a very tight player went all in over a smallish raise (not by me ... I had yet to act). We were down to 5 players I had decent chip position and there were 2 short stacks on the table (not the guy that went all in, although I did have him covered). We paid top 3 positions. To the amazement of those already out of the tournament that got a look at my hand, I folded.

 

I dont know who could possibly think that KQ is good in that spot. Very easy fold and I would love to play with the knuckleheads who were "amazed" by your good play.

[muck]

I dont know who could possibly think that KQ is good in that spot. Very easy fold and I would love to play with the knuckleheads who were "amazed" by your good play.

 

 

Note that they're already out of the tournament.

 

...which brings up a point...if they're out of the tourney, how did they see your cards?

[wildcat2334]

I dont know who could possibly think that KQ is good in that spot. Very easy fold and I would love to play with the knuckleheads who were "amazed" by your good play.

 

 

 

was thinking the same thing earlier - KQ, holy chit...........what a laydown.

 

Am thinking I would want a piece of this game.

[spain]

Online players always seem to over value AK and KQ for some reason. Nice starting hands but easily beatable post flop. If I am seeing alot of raising in front of me with KQ, I muck it faster than an Irish reacharound. AK I bring in for a raise, but I am leery of raising and re-raising. Argueably the 2 most over played hands in poker, imo...

[Def.]

Online players always seem to over value AK and KQ for some reason. Nice starting hands but easily beatable post flop. If I am seeing alot of raising in front of me with KQ, I muck it faster than an Irish reacharound. AK I bring in for a raise, but I am leery of raising and re-raising. Argueably the 2 most over played hands in poker, imo...

 

 

 

AK - aka Anna Kournikova. Looks good but never wins.

[Moneyshot]

Right. I had forgot that detail. I've done that as well.

 

Actually laid down Aces once in a tourney pre-flop. I was right in the middle of the pack chip wise, and down to the bubble. I had two all ins in front of me, both by bigger stacks, and I looked down at AA. I could have gone all in, but would have been up against a minimum of two other players, both who obviously had some sort of good hand. I decided to live to see another day.

 

Wow, this is pretty bad poker.

 

 

The guys turned over KK and QQ. I would have lost to a Q on the turn.

 

 

 

Don't be results oriented.

[Easy n Dirty]

I find it interesting that it seems most feel I played the first hand incorrectly (folding the QQ) and played the second hand okay. IMO, the folding of QQ was clearly the right play. On the second hand, as I was in early position at a full table, I probably should have just folded rather than get involved with a marginal hand out of position, but, once I raised, and then the follow up min raise, I felt compelled to call, caught what I wanted and got myself stuck. As stated, I really felt he had hearts, but he could just as easily had the KK he had or even completely missed, as he is known to take shots. He also knows I am perceived asa very tight player and would lay down most hands there unless I connected on the flop.

 

 

I don't think any of us here could feel all that strongly about what you should have done from the initial post because it was incomplete in terms of giving us information about the opposing players as well as your own table image - both critical elements in these decisions, and clearly given that you were at the final table in each instance it's reasonable to assume you had developed some sorta' feel on the opponents in question.

 

I do not agree that folding Q-Q the first time was clearly the right play, for the reasons I stated above. Arguably the right play, but there's not a clear-cut correct play here, at least given the limited info we had, may have been clearer to you again given knowledge of the other players.

 

On the second hand, I think checking after the flop may have been a mistake. You fear from the preflop action that you're up against a higher pair, so I think make a small bet after the flop here to see how the other player reacts, get as much info as you can when it comes time to make your life-or-death decision. Might not have made a difference here, but I think I bet out at that flop, maybe $3k or something in that neighborhood.

[Moneyshot]

Hand 1 -

 

Blinds are at 100-200. I still have about 18000 in chips and I am UTG (note we are 6 handed, tourney had 12 players, so we started with 2 6-handed tables). I find QQ. I raise to 600. Player to my left makes it 1200. The Button calls the 1200. Blinds fold around to me. I reraise it to 3600. The initial re-raises folds. The button now pushes all in. I get a count, and if I call and lose, I will have about 1700 in chips left.

 

 

Yuck, tough spot. I think your re-raise should have been more. I have a feeling reading about the hand and actually being in the hand makes a big difference. As played I can only say

 

Hand 2 - Blinds are at 500-1000. I am now at about 22000 in chips (about average size stack). We have condensed to a full table, and now have 8 players left. I am UTG+1 and find AJ offsuit. I raise it to 3000. Folds around to the cutoff who pops it to 6000 (he has a large stack, around 35K). Folded back to me. I call and we see a flop. The flop comes jack, seven, four with two hearts. I have the jack of hearts. I check and opponent bets 6000. Do you fold, call or raise here?

I'll give the actual results after seeing some discussion.

 

I think folding preflop wouldn't be terrible.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Moneyshot

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Wow, this is pretty bad poker.

Don't be results oriented.

 

Oh, you're a "I see aces, I'm all in" kind of guy. Good to know. I knew I could find a better place to get my money in. Finished third in the tourney and won $550.

 

Ever play a limit game? $1-$2 maybe, or some other low limit where people stick around with all sorts of hands? Aces are cracked more often than not. I knew with two big hands there was a good chance of someone catching something.

[Moneyshot]

Oh, you're a "I see aces, I'm all in" kind of guy. Good to know. I knew I could find a better place to get my money in. Finished third in the tourney and won $550.

 

Ever play a limit game? $1-$2 maybe, or some other low limit where people stick around with all sorts of hands? Aces are cracked more often than not. I knew with two big hands there was a good chance of someone catching something.

 

Wow.

 

Yes, I tend do get my money in when I am a huge favorite. But since the guys 2 outer came in...good fold.

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

I know I was a favorite. Roughly 60% if my memory serves. I don't like getting my money in on the bubble of a tourney against multiple players. I chose to live to get it in against single players, also when I had the advantage. I busted out after flopping a straight when the chip leader rivered a flush. I'll take that.

 

And I said, only time I've ever folded em pre flop. I wanted to get paid for the tourney, and I did.

[muck]

...yup...

 

Big difference between tourney play and cash game play.

 

Personally, I think I'm a much better cash game player than a tournament player ... but, I don't think I'm really all that good. If being sorta unpredictable is a skill, I'm that...and I think that works better in cash games than in tourneys.

[Grits and Shins]

I can not imagine very many situations where I would lay down aces pre-flop ... if any.

 

I understand that aces get cracked ... and I've been on my fair share of both ends of cracked aces. But pre-flop aces are the best hand possible. If somebody has any other pocket pair they have 2 outs in the deck to out-draw me on the flop (assuming there is no ace on the flop). Obviously the pocket pair can flop a straight or flush draw as well ... but they will need the turn card at a minimum to hit either.

 

Now if somebody goes all in with A-K, K-Q, A-Q or some other combination of cards pre-flop I have them dominated. Obviously they have better odds to hit a straight or flush.

 

All in all I'm likely to get my money in the pot pre-flop with aces and if I get out drawn so be it.

 

Now in the case where two bigger stacks went all in in front of me and I have pocket aces ... I would have put both on high pocket pairs, maybe A-K ... and would have happily called looking to triple up. I certainly understand that the odds of winning decreased if two other pocket pairs are all in ... but I go from 1 opponent having 2 outs to 2 opponents having a total of 4 outs ... I like those odds.

 

Those kinds of folds maybe why a person finishes 3rd instead of 1st.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Grits and Shins

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

I can not imagine very many situations where I would lay down aces pre-flop ... if any.

 

I understand that aces get cracked ... and I've been on my fair share of both ends of cracked aces. But pre-flop aces are the best hand possible. If somebody has any other pocket pair they have 2 outs in the deck to out-draw me on the flop (assuming there is no ace on the flop). Obviously the pocket pair can flop a straight or flush draw as well ... but they will need the turn card at a minimum to hit either.

 

Now if somebody goes all in with A-K, K-Q, A-Q or some other combination of cards pre-flop I have them dominated. Obviously they have better odds to hit a straight or flush.

 

All in all I'm likely to get my money in the pot pre-flop with aces and if I get out drawn so be it.

 

Now in the case where two bigger stacks went all in in front of me and I have pocket aces ... I would have put both on high pocket pairs, maybe A-K ... and would have happily called looking to triple up. I certainly understand that the odds of winning decreased if two other pocket pairs are all in ... but I go from 1 opponent having 2 outs to 2 opponents having a total of 4 outs ... I like those odds.

 

Those kinds of folds maybe why a person finishes 3rd instead of 1st.

 

 

Or gets busted out winning $0 vs living to see another day.

 

Look, once in my life I laid it down in an attempt to get paid. If that's an hour earlier or at a final table, I'm all in. But the timing of it sucked for me and I chose to get my money in against one oponent vs 2 who could be bullying with anything and get lucky. There were also 2 more players to act after me.

 

I've won this tourney three times in the past year and make the final table one out of every 3.5 times I play it. Usually 250-300 to start. I do know how to play the game. Just that one time I wanted to make sure I got paid.

[Big Country]

Pat made a valid decision... he was playing at that point to make the money. While getting in with aces there would make him the favorite, he is still going to lose the hand more times than win it with two all in hands in front of him.

 

He could easily push in here knowing he is upa gainst two opponents, and when the odds play out that he doesn't win the pot he is out (run aces against any two random hands and he is not a favorite to win the pot, run it against hands likely to push all in as described and he really is not a favorite)

[Grits and Shins]

Or gets busted out winning $0 vs living to see another day.

 

Look, once in my life I laid it down in an attempt to get paid. If that's an hour earlier or at a final table, I'm all in. But the timing of it sucked for me and I chose to get my money in against one oponent vs 2 who could be bullying with anything and get lucky. There were also 2 more players to act after me.

 

I've won this tourney three times in the past year and make the final table one out of every 3.5 times I play it. Usually 250-300 to start. I do know how to play the game. Just that one time I wanted to make sure I got paid.

 

 

I understand ... and being on the bubble for making the money is about the only reason I can think of for not playing the aces. Having said that ... I'd likely have played the aces trying to triple up and be in good position for the win, playing to win instead of playing it safe.

 

Of course folding aces AFTER the flop is a whole different story ...

Edited March 22, 2007 by Grits and Shins

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Pat made a valid decision... he was playing at that point to make the money. While getting in with aces there would make him the favorite, he is still going to lose the hand more times than win it with two all in hands in front of him.

 

He could easily push in here knowing he is upa gainst two opponents, and when the odds play out that he doesn't win the pot he is out (run aces against any two random hands and he is not a favorite to win the pot, run it against hands likely to push all in as described and he really is not a favorite)

 

 

Exactly my point. If it was one guy pushing, then fine, I'll take my chances. And if I had known for sure that both hands were the hands they ended up being, I may have even called. Aces against KK and QQ is better than running AA against say 10-J and 5-6. The first guy could have been pushing with a mediocre hand thinking nobody would call with the tourney at the bubble, but after the second guy went over the top of him (and both had me covered) it just wasn't worth my tourney life to get my AA in there against two oponents, one probably had a legit hand, the other was a question. I chose to make it to a spot where I got it in with the nuts after the flop and got out-drawn. I'll take that.

[Moneyshot]

While getting in with aces there would make him the favorite, he is still going to lose the hand more times than win it with two all in hands in front of him. (run aces against any two random hands and he is not a favorite to win the pot, run it against hands likely to push all in as described and he really is not a favorite)

 

Where are you gettig this? This is not right, ESPECIALLY against hands likely to push all in. He will win close to 60% vs 2 other hands ALWAYS. What about when the 1st raiser has KK and the 2nd one has AK, now both his opponents are drawing virtually dead. What about AQ and JJ? The worse you are going to end up is when they have hands like 89s and QJs and you are still close to 60%, and the 2nd pusher is going all in, after an all in raiser with 89 suited?. Their realistic range of hands are high PP's and large suited cards, which you wil have clobbered.

If there were 8 players left at a final table, and the first 5 went all in, then yes, folding AA would make sense. You are now going to move up 4 places in the money. But, vs 2 players, who both have more chips, who both obviously like there hands, folding here is terrible, terrible, terrible. The only thing worse than the fold, is the logic behind it.

[Big Country]

Where are you gettig this? This is not right, ESPECIALLY against hands likely to push all in. He will win close to 60% vs 2 other hands ALWAYS. What about when the 1st raiser has KK and the 2nd one has AK, now both his opponents are drawing virtually dead. What about AQ and JJ? The worse you are going to end up is when they have hands like 89s and QJs and you are still close to 60%, and the 2nd pusher is going all in, after an all in raiser with 89 suited?. Their realistic range of hands are high PP's and large suited cards, which you wil have clobbered.

If there were 8 players left at a final table, and the first 5 went all in, then yes, folding AA would make sense. You are now going to move up 4 places in the money. But, vs 2 players, who both have more chips, who both obviously like there hands, folding here is terrible, terrible, terrible. The only thing worse than the fold, is the logic behind it.

 

 

If you are playing to win and making the money is of little relevance to you, then yes, you call every time. But, if on the bubble and making the money is of relevance to you, then there is a logic behind it. Let's say you make it to the WSOP main event via a $100 double shootout satellite. Let's also say that $100 is a fairly significant buy in for you. Now you have made it to the bubble, and you are in the above situation where two all ins are in in front of you. Call and win you are in good shape and will make the money, meaning you are up at least $10,000, lose, and you get zilch. Or fold and also likely cruise into the money, also meaning a $10,000 score.

 

Let's go with aces being 60% to win. Calling here, and looking at a payout of $10,000 gives us an EV of $6000 if we call. Folding we have an EV of $10,000. Granted, this is extremely simplified as by calling, we give ourselves a better chance of adancing further when we win, but, we also risk the zero payout.

 

Further to the point, there are two all ins in front, he has to act and I dont believe it is clear how many players behind are left to act, so that is additional players that could be in the pot with a shot to outdraw you.

 

From a pure poker standpoint, yes, folding aces is a poor decision, but, from the standpoint of the significance of the payout for you, it may be the right decision IF WINNING THE TOURNAMENT is not your primary concern, but making the money is.

[Grits and Shins]

... it may be the right decision IF WINNING THE TOURNAMENT is not your primary concern, but making the money is.

 

 

Thus my statement that folding aces in that situation would lead to more 3rd place finishes than 1st place finishes.

[Big Country]

Thus my statement that folding aces in that situation would lead to more 3rd place finishes than 1st place finishes.

 

 

Agreed. I'm not saying I would fold in that situation, but I understand the reasoning to do so, particularly if in a situation that I presented where you are playing in a tourney well above your normal level, such as due to a satellite entry or some other entry, and the payouts just for making the money are significant for you.

[Moneyshot]

IF WINNING THE TOURNAMENT is not your primary concern, but making the money is.

 

 

ok, this may have some merit. I guess, if you want to just squeeze into the money...but this kind of play is pretty bad in the "long run".

[Big Country]

ok, this may have some merit. I guess, if you want to just squeeze into the money...but this kind of play is pretty bad in the "long run".

 

These statements are all situation specific, that's why I really went out of my way to propose a hypothetical ($100 entry, $10K in the money) to illustrate the situations where I would do this.

 

Here is one example of where I would strongly consider folding:

 

You are the extreme short stack at the table, say with one big bet. 9 players left. 8 get paid. Two players in front of you with the exact same amount go all-in, so a player will definitely be eliminated. You have aces. 8th place pays $10K. You have less than that to your name. You could call, hope to triple up with the side pot and see a player get eliminated, or be eliminated in 9th place out of the money yourself, or, you could fold, guaranteeing you make the money (barring a split pot).

[Bring Back Pat!!!]

Agreed. I'm not saying I would fold in that situation, but I understand the reasoning to do so, particularly if in a situation that I presented where you are playing in a tourney well above your normal level, such as due to a satellite entry or some other entry, and the payouts just for making the money are significant for you.

 

 

Tourney is a free roll with $20 rebuys and add-ons. I had put exactly $0 into the touney at this point, with a chance to make the money. Winning the tourney isn't my primary goal because only about 20% of the time does the tourney ever get to a winner. 80% of the time it's chopped, usually at 4 or 5 left. I ended up busting out 3rd and the final two chopped the rest.