Poker money/live games vs tournaments
- Thread starter Wwanderer
- Start date
I always find it funny how willing people are to go all-in on, what is basically, a coin toss.
Even with a pocket pair, where you are a slight favorite, you would think that you would want better odds than 55% to get all your money in.
I do it to, sometimes. I guess we just like to gamble.
But I prefer to get my money in when I am more of a favorite than that.
That's one of the things that impressed me watching the WSOP circuit events. Jennifer Harmon folded AK, pre-flop, facing some action before it got to her. I had not seen anyone on tv fold AK pre-flop before. But she was at the final table and didn't want to gamble at that point, where she was likely to be in a coin toss.
Even with a pocket pair, where you are a slight favorite, you would think that you would want better odds than 55% to get all your money in.
I do it to, sometimes. I guess we just like to gamble.
But I prefer to get my money in when I am more of a favorite than that.
That's one of the things that impressed me watching the WSOP circuit events. Jennifer Harmon folded AK, pre-flop, facing some action before it got to her. I had not seen anyone on tv fold AK pre-flop before. But she was at the final table and didn't want to gamble at that point, where she was likely to be in a coin toss.
Last edited:
I don't have that much experience with heads-up tourney play, but this sounds right ot me. Patience is usually the best bet in poker, and I'd think that it tends to be in particularly short supply when you are down to the last two players, with many many hours of play behind and the tantalizing jackpot just ahead...all the factors seems right to encourage even good players to try to rush things a bit. And if you can take advantage of that...
I wonder if they would still do so if they were playing for actual money rather than just 1st place vs 2nd place, and thus winning a decent amount whichever way the coin toss turns out. That is a lot less of a gamble than if it were the difference between going home with nothing versus everything.
-Ww
I wonder if they would still do so if they were playing for actual money rather than just 1st place vs 2nd place, and thus winning a decent amount whichever way the coin toss turns out. That is a lot less of a gamble than if it were the difference between going home with nothing versus everything.
-Ww
Waterclone said:
I always find it funny how willing people are to go all-in on, what is basically, a coin toss.
Even with a pocket pair, where you are a slight favorite, you would think that you would want better odds than 55% to get all your money in.
I do it to, sometimes. I guess we just like to gamble.
But I prefer to get my money in when I am more of a favorite than that.
That's one of the things that impressed me watching the WSOP circuit events. Jennifer Harmon folded AK, pre-flop, facing some action before it got to her. I had not seen anyone on tv fold AK pre-flop before. But she was at the final table and didn't want to gamble at that point, where she was likely to be in a coin toss.
Even with a pocket pair, where you are a slight favorite, you would think that you would want better odds than 55% to get all your money in.
I do it to, sometimes. I guess we just like to gamble.
But I prefer to get my money in when I am more of a favorite than that.
That's one of the things that impressed me watching the WSOP circuit events. Jennifer Harmon folded AK, pre-flop, facing some action before it got to her. I had not seen anyone on tv fold AK pre-flop before. But she was at the final table and didn't want to gamble at that point, where she was likely to be in a coin toss.
In heads up it depends on the chip stack and position, whether going all in is the right move, even if its a "coin flip". Sometimes the idea is not to be called and even if you are you have a decent chance of being on top. Its akin to bluffing at a pot with a four to a flush, even if your bluff is called you still have outs. Bear in mind most pocket pairs (7's and up) USUALLY dominates in heads up.
I honestly used to think that way. But then I came in second 5 times in a row. When youre "patient" (or in what youre describing "tight") any time that you do make a move your opponent knows right away you have something and folds, so you dont win any big pots. Meanwhile the smart aggressive play is blinding you out or killing you in big pots because you fold middle pair when you should be calling.
I can see that analysis making sense too, although as soon as you sense that your opponent is playing you that way, you can switch to bluffing him out with mediocre or nothing hands. As always imo, in real situations you need to pay attention to how your opponent is playing and not commit to *any* single, fixed strategy.
For an opponent in a hurry to "get it over with", I like Slinky's approach. Btw, when someone is in a hurry, they usually do everything a bit faster...look at their cards, make their bets/checks/folds, stack their chips and do stuff like stare at the dealer as he/she shuffles and deals (as though trying to will him/her to move faster), etc.
-Ww
For an opponent in a hurry to "get it over with", I like Slinky's approach. Btw, when someone is in a hurry, they usually do everything a bit faster...look at their cards, make their bets/checks/folds, stack their chips and do stuff like stare at the dealer as he/she shuffles and deals (as though trying to will him/her to move faster), etc.
-Ww
Yeah...and in many other ways too, not just the tight-loose spectrum. I think I have posted the comment here before, but anyway that is why I always find the typical abstract discussion of the "right way" to play some particular hand/situation (such as one sees here and on many online poker sites) of very limited value for guiding real play. There is no single such "right way" that is independent of your opponent(s) style of play in most cases.
-Ww
-Ww