ATs facing allin preflop

yes, I'm serious.

If I remember correctly, I've been playing alright, nothing remarkable, not overly aggressive or nitty. I really have no idea why I don't have 400+ on this table.

Villain is an unknown. I havn't been paying much attention to this table. I have a couple heads up games going on other tables and have too many open to begin with. WHAT I DO KNOW: I opened up the recent hands list and this guy had won the large majority of them. With the limited time I had to go through them, he hadn't overbet pushed a single time but was raising a ton preflop.

Basically what I want to know is, what can I expect to see here? I think we can weight it away from the monster pairs and complete garbage, but I think he needs a decent-semi decent hand to make this push. I don't really know how to weight it though to be honest or what hands he can be doing with.

Anybody want to venture a guess and say whether this is a call or fold? I'm not interested in hearing 'wait for a better spot', all I really care is if this is +EV or not. If it is, I call. Assume that wanting to play deeper with this guy cancles out future implications of me calling him here semi-light (eg he would be less likely to push in the future) so neither of those matter.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (3 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($1392.45)
Button ($340.30)
Hero ($342)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T, A.
1 fold, Hero raises to $16, BB raises to $1392.45

I'm tempted to call for shits and giggles.

this would be the worst call ever.

Originally Posted by gabe

this would be the worst call ever.

oh yeah, definitely.

I can't imagine what villain has. I'd assume AA and also assume he has brain damage.

lolol!!

you are mistaking loose aggression in other areas for loose aggression here. I'm pretty sure you said he has never reraise pushed preflop, right? You don't know what that action means, then. He could be a loose raiser, but is he a loose reraiser? Does he push with nuts are shit.

Sadly you don't know these factors so you can't possibly call here and have it be +EV.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by gabe

this would be the worst call ever.

oh yeah, definitely.

I can't imagine what villain has. I'd assume AA and also assume he has brain damage.

lol no, it is a 1-tabling aggrofish, in a blind war, i have an ace, he thinks he's all bossy, and despite not pushing yet pre, he has raised like every hand and I think that means something. oh, and while it might be smart for just this reasoning, who plays AA like this? I'd be shocked to see AA. WHICH MEANS WORST CASE SCENARIO, ONE OF MY CARDS IS LIVE, RIGHT??

Ok, I called.

I'll be taking guesses as to what he had. Possible prize(s) to the first person with the correct answer.

hint #1: I was quite pleased with my call after the hand.

hint #2: It wasn't something absolutely ridiculous. e.g. not 92o or a hand of similar preflop worth.

hint #3: If you think I won this hand at showdown, you're crazy. I've actually never won a hand that was all-in before the flop, favorite or not.

You didn't...

KJ DIAMONDS <>

:Ts: :Js:

A8?

55?? a guy at my 100nl table today was reraising big whenever he got a pocket pair 22-88

JJ

Someone made this move on me the other day when I had AA, and he showed down JTs (it was his second or third hand at the table). It made me wonder whether I should start calling these bets more often. AT is a little bit too terrible of a hand for me to think about calling here though.

22

Why would you gamble for all your chips with a small edge against a player who will give you his money when you have a big edge?

77

AJ+

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Why would you gamble for all your chips with a small edge against a player who will give you his money when you have a big edge?

because (assuming that I do have a small edge, which may not apply to this hand) it's not like I cover the guy and once he busts, he's gone. He's sitting with 350xbb. If I double through, then I have what I feel is a massive edge against a hugely overaggro player and we're nearly 200bb to boot.

Also, you don't want to pass up small edges in cash games.............

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Why would you gamble for all your chips with a small edge against a player who will give you his money when you have a big edge?

i hope you are leveling. i want to shoot myself everytime i hear something like this. even gabe kaplan on high stakes poker says things like "greenstein made that laydown because this is a cash game and not a tournament so even though he had a small edge he correctly decided to wait for a better spot" if its +ev in itself or +ev longterm due to metagame or other reasons, and you have a proper bankroll, you call.

my guess is KQs btw

K9

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

AJ+

leave off the + sign fool!

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (3 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($1392.45)
Button ($340.30)
Hero ($342)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T, A.
1 fold, Hero raises to $16, BB raises to $1392.45, Hero calls $326 (All-In).

Flop: ($1734.45) T, 5, 9 (2 players, 1 all-in)

Turn: ($1734.45) 8 (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($1734.45) J (2 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: $1734.45

Results in white below:
BB has Jd Ah (one pair, jacks).
Hero has Td Ad (one pair, tens).
Outcome: BB wins $1734.45.

btw, this hand happened a couple orbits later. I have 3-bet a few times since and I think he's getting fed up. I probably could have found a fold somewhere, but given my experience with super aggro donk fishes, the way this hand played out, it's really never a monster pair. He'd probably smooth call or do something like min 4-bet pre, and the flop bet is laughable. riiiiiiiight man, if you have AA I'll pay it off....

edit: he actually did min 4-bet pre. ha! I'm funny.

He left after this hand by the way HYACHACHACHACH

also, when I had no idea that this guy was THIS crazy. If this hand had taken place before the one in the OP then I would have beat him in the pot with ATs. As is, I think that was a marginally bad call but not nearly as bad as people think. This is possibly results oriented but I'm not sure.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

UTG ($1735.45)
MP ($115.20)
Button ($329.90)
Hero ($396)
BB ($96)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T, T.
UTG raises to $16, 2 folds, Hero raises to $56, 1 fold, UTG raises to $96, Hero calls $40.

Flop: ($196) 3, 4, 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets $180, Hero raises to $300, UTG calls $120.

Turn: ($796) A (2 players)

River: ($796) 8 (2 players)

Final Pot: $796

Results in white below:
Hero has Tc Ts (two pair, tens and eights).
UTG has Jd Qh (one pair, eights).
Outcome: Hero wins $796.

i cant believe you called this.

dont move up quite yet.

Originally Posted by nutsinho

if its +ev in itself or +ev longterm due to metagame or other reasons, and you have a proper bankroll, you call.

i think there are some special dynamics involved with 1-tabling LAG fish that makes this not true because of different things they will do depending on results of hand

Originally Posted by gabe

i cant believe you called this.

dont move up quite yet.

you're playing against a guy that is raising almost literally every hand preflop. you're not paying much attention. you're not quite sure how he will respond to a raise in front. You open your sb with a hand that is actually ahead of the vast majority of hands in the game and the villain instantly goes all-in in the BB.

Sorry, if this is a bad call then it's certainly not terrible. It's not like it's a 9-tabling regular that is obviously doing something that looks retarded to get a call.

Originally Posted by gabe

Originally Posted by nutsinho

if its +ev in itself or +ev longterm due to metagame or other reasons, and you have a proper bankroll, you call.

i think there are some special dynamics involved with 1-tabling LAG fish that makes this not true because of different things they will do depending on results of hand

agreed, which can be reasonable justification for passing up a small edge, but I also want to get deeper with the guy which can be reasonable justification for calling a bit light here. Obviously if I'm always dominated it's the easiest fold ever but I don't think that's the case.

good call bad beat

Originally Posted by nutsinho

good call bad beat

haha, my thoughts exactly

Originally Posted by nutsinho

if its +ev in itself or +ev longterm due to metagame or other reasons, and you have a proper bankroll, you call.

Thats true at 100bbs since you can always rebuy. BUT if the money is deep so rebuying would mean effective stacks are much smaller then you have to consider yourself as effectivly on a short bankroll and I think folding small edges (when you know you are against a player who will give you bigger ones later) is correct.

e.g. Villain has a nasty habbit that when he gets a PP, (any PP) he open pushes preflop (or pushes over a raise) and turns his cards up. Folded to you in the SB with 600BBs. Villain also has 600BBs in the BB. You make it 4BB with AcKc and villain pushes the rest in before showing you 2d2h.

1,712,304 games 0.010 secs 171,230,400 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 50.0842 % 49.77% 00.31% { AcKc }
Hand 2: 49.9158 % 49.60% 00.31% { 2d2h }


When you call you will win 604BB 50.0842% of the time and lose 600BB 49.9158% of the time.

EV is 302.5 - 299.5 = +3BB right here.

So by your logic you should call since it is +EV.

BUT You should wait until you have an overpair and heres why.

The EV of the same situation but with you holding 88 is

1,712,304 games 0.010 secs 171,230,400 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 80.9849 % 80.48% 00.50% { 8c8d }
Hand 2: 19.0151 % 18.51% 00.50% { 2h2s }

489.1 - 114.1 = +375BB

While the EV of the same situation with 100BB stacks is

84.2 - 19.0 = 65.2

The difference between these two situations is 375 - 65 = 310BB

So you are gambling 3BB of EV now to hopefully win an extra 310BB later.

You are getting implied odds of 103:1 so you dont have to be right very often. You need him to put you allin with an underpair less than 1% of the time after this for it to be correct to fold the AK hand.

Obviously this is an exaggerated example but it illustrates the point that even in cash games it is sometimes correct to fold small edges and wait for bigger ones. Obviously with 100BBs you can always rebuy for the same amount so it is ALWAYS incorrect to fold any edge.

Lukie, you're sick.

i think the bottom line here is that you NEVER SAW HIM PUSH BEFORE


The second biggest consideration is that you are barely ahead when ahead, and drawing very unlive when behind.

fold

YOU GUYS ARE CRAZY

consider:

This player had basically been playing the same way for another orbit or two. This hand happened AFTER the hand in the OP so it doesn't apply to my decision making in that hand. It just goes to show you how a crazy laggfish overvalues hands. Things to point out: repopping from the blinds when this guy opens UTG is such a massive show of strength compared to simply opening from the SB. It is also a 6handed table instead of 3 handed. QJ is soooo much weaker then AT/AJ in terms of preflop strength. yadayadayada. I don't expect to convince anyone, but whatever.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

UTG ($1735.45)
MP ($115.20)
Button ($329.90)
Hero ($396)
BB ($96)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T, T.
UTG raises to $16, 2 folds, Hero raises to $56, 1 fold, UTG raises to $96, Hero calls $40.

Flop: ($196) 3, 4, 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets $180, Hero raises to $300, UTG calls $120.

Turn: ($796) A (2 players)

River: ($796) 8 (2 players)

Final Pot: $796

Results in white below:
Hero has Tc Ts (two pair, tens and eights).
UTG has Jd Qh (one pair, eights).
Outcome: Hero wins $796.

for what it's worth (i suck at NL), i think this is a bad call.

you got ATs. at best, you're against 2 unders, in which case you're 2:1 to win. under pair, you're coin flip. overpair, you're like 1:7 or something brutal like that. dominated, you're like 1:5.

best case scenario is 2:1, and you're willing to gamble your entire stack? shouldn't even matter who the player is!

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

best case scenario is 2:1, and you're willing to gamble your entire stack?

For what it's worth, I don't agree with this call, but I don't think it's THAT bad. I think I would probably call with a range of 88+, AQ, AK.

Maybe it's because I like to play with a 100-buyin bankroll, but I don't understand why the specter of losing a buyin if we're wrong is supposed to be so horrifying. Are you guys the nits who wait for AA when a maniac like this is at the table and curse your bad luck when someone else stacks him twice before you get the chance to play a hand?

Not being willing to gamble with these guys is a huge waste of money. I got berated by one of those nits for calling all-in preflop with AK last night and stacking the maniac (obviously I'm better than Lukie at winning preflop all-ins, work on that dude). Don't be the guy who plays so tight that someone else wins hundreds of dollars while you keep paying your blinds.

let's see...

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 30.2871 % 29.93% 00.36% { ATs }
Hand 2: 69.7129 % 69.36% 00.36% { TT+ }

Hand 1: 30.5087 % 27.61% 02.90% { ATs }
Hand 2: 69.4913 % 66.59% 02.90% { AJs+, AJo+ }

Hand 1: 48.7871 % 48.55% 00.23% { ATs }
Hand 2: 51.2129 % 50.98% 00.23% { 99-22 }

Hand 1: 60.8140 % 60.58% 00.24% { ATs }
Hand 2: 39.1860 % 38.95% 00.24% { KJs+, QJs, KJo+, QJo }

Hand 1: 66.3774 % 66.13% 00.24% { ATs }
Hand 2: 33.6226 % 33.38% 00.24% { 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, 92o+, 82o+, 72o+, 62o+, 52o+, 42o+, 32o }

hmm...i expected the numbers to be a lot worse than this...

Originally Posted by mcatdog

Originally Posted by |~|ypermegachi

best case scenario is 2:1, and you're willing to gamble your entire stack?

OK, Lukie - you are correct in that his range pushing here is stupid wide. HOWEVER, aren't you still way behind his range? He would have to be pushing any ace, any pair for this call to be good.

To claim that this was a good call implies AJ is not at the ass-end of his range here, which seems kinda optimistic.

Originally Posted by zenbitz

To claim that this was a good call implies AJ is not at the ass-end of his range here, which seems kinda optimistic.

yea, whenever i make a big call and he has like the same hand with a slightly worse kicker, i always fee like my call is kinda poor

Originally Posted by Lukie

you're not paying much attention.

And this is the number one reason why I fold....

any pair, any broadway.. Easy fold.

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 50.5989 % 47.77% 02.83% { AcTc }
Hand 2: 49.4011 % 46.57% 02.83% { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

I don't see why this is a serious discussion. If I raise with deuces preflop, my opponent pushes all-in for a full buy-in, and shows me A-K, I still fold. I prefer to play poker in cash games, not flip coins.

Also, here's an interesting link about expected value:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-stpetersburg/

"The ‘expected value’ of the game is the sum of the expected payoffs of all the consequences. Since the expected payoff of each possible consequence is $1, and there are an infinite number of them, this sum is an infinite number of dollars. A rational gambler would enter a game iff the price of entry was less than the expected value. In the St. Petersburg game, any finite price of entry is smaller than the expected value of the game. Thus, the rational gambler would play no matter how large the finite entry price was. But it seems obvious that some prices are too high for a rational agent to pay to play."

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I don't see why this is a serious discussion. If I raise with deuces preflop, my opponent pushes all-in for a full buy-in, and shows me A-K, I still fold. I prefer to play poker in cash games, not flip coins.

Also, here's an interesting link about expected value:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-stpetersburg/

"The ‘expected value’ of the game is the sum of the expected payoffs of all the consequences. Since the expected payoff of each possible consequence is $1, and there are an infinite number of them, this sum is an infinite number of dollars. A rational gambler would enter a game iff the price of entry was less than the expected value. In the St. Petersburg game, any finite price of entry is smaller than the expected value of the game. Thus, the rational gambler would play no matter how large the finite entry price was. But it seems obvious that some prices are too high for a rational agent to pay to play."

assume 2/4 with 100bb eff stacks. You open to 16 straight in the co with 22, button tables AKo and pushes allin. Blinds fold.

$384 for you to call to have 52.65% ($424) equity in a $806 pot. Folding is a mistake here that costs you $40. Say your winrate in said 2/4 game is 2.5ptbb/100 (+20cents/hand) This is 200 hands worth of expectation. This is a very bad fold under most circumstances.

edit: if you want to be nit-picky and include rake ($3), it's still a $38.50ish mistake.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I don't see why this is a serious discussion. If I raise with deuces preflop, my opponent pushes all-in for a full buy-in, and shows me A-K, I still fold. I prefer to play poker in cash games, not flip coins.

Also, here's an interesting link about expected value:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-stpetersburg/

"The ‘expected value’ of the game is the sum of the expected payoffs of all the consequences. Since the expected payoff of each possible consequence is $1, and there are an infinite number of them, this sum is an infinite number of dollars. A rational gambler would enter a game iff the price of entry was less than the expected value. In the St. Petersburg game, any finite price of entry is smaller than the expected value of the game. Thus, the rational gambler would play no matter how large the finite entry price was. But it seems obvious that some prices are too high for a rational agent to pay to play."

you're basically arguing that a 10% edge isn't good enough to gamble on. It's 1 buy-in. Ouch.

to further prove how right I am in the 22 v AK example, take a professional blackjack player. He counts cards and has roughly a 1% edge. We have a 10% edge on this call (+$38.50 expectation on a $384 call).

So let me get this straight, you were happy to see that he flipped over a hand where you were a 70/30 underdog?

Yeah, I don't follow.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I don't see why this is a serious discussion. If I raise with deuces preflop, my opponent pushes all-in for a full buy-in, and shows me A-K, I still fold. I prefer to play poker in cash games, not flip coins.

Also, here's an interesting link about expected value:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-stpetersburg/

"The ‘expected value’ of the game is the sum of the expected payoffs of all the consequences. Since the expected payoff of each possible consequence is $1, and there are an infinite number of them, this sum is an infinite number of dollars. A rational gambler would enter a game iff the price of entry was less than the expected value. In the St. Petersburg game, any finite price of entry is smaller than the expected value of the game. Thus, the rational gambler would play no matter how large the finite entry price was. But it seems obvious that some prices are too high for a rational agent to pay to play."

I agree with lukie on this one. Its like saying "as long as you have an edge then you should call, but if the edge that you have costs too much then you shouldn't." But, I still don't agree in the preflop call.

yeah dsax, jeff makes some good points. If you don't agree with the preflop call in the ATs (e.g. you think it is -ev), then I understand that. FWIW, in hindsight, I think it was probably slightly -EV with the info I had at the time and probably slightly +EV after I had played with him for a bit. However, I don't think we should be passing up the edge if we think we have one. If your reasoning is just to reduce variance (which is in essence what I think you're arguing), then I do not agree with it. Difference of opinion I guess. Also, sorry if I came off as an asshole in any of my posts. It's just the example you gave is actually a pretty bad example in my very humble opinion.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

So let me get this straight, you were happy to see that he flipped over a hand where you were a 70/30 underdog?

Yeah, I don't follow.

when did I say I was happy that I was a 70/30 underdog? I thought AJo was way ahead of his range there. Literally worst case scenario there (facing an ace with a bigger kicker), besides the always unlikely AA.

lukie why are you still arguing

Originally Posted by gabe

lukie why are you still arguing

b/c I enjoy it and I'm right.

Originally Posted by Lukie

hint #1: I was quite pleased with my call after the hand.

So this doesn't mean you were happy when you saw AJ? It means you were happy when you later learned what a laggrodonk he was?

This kind of reminds me of the hand I posted where I called a guy down with bottom pair (43 on 993 board) becuase he had recently pushed me off a much better hand. I had a read, and it was good, but at the time I had no reason to believe it was good (I had only played like 10 hand with him and his only showdown was KK!)

I posted the link to point out that the fact that a gamble has positive expectation is not sufficient in showing that it is a "good" gamble. If it were, then it would be a good gamble to pay $3 million to play the St. Petersburg game, where you only win $2 half the time.

Originally Posted by zenbitz

Originally Posted by Lukie

hint #1: I was quite pleased with my call after the hand.

So this doesn't mean you were happy when you saw AJ? It means you were happy when you later learned what a laggrodonk he was?

This kind of reminds me of the hand I posted where I called a guy down with bottom pair (43 on 993 board) becuase he had recently pushed me off a much better hand. I had a read, and it was good, but at the time I had no reason to believe it was good (I had only played like 10 hand with him and his only showdown was KK!)

meh, I saw AJ and was confident he could do it with much worse, just that he happened to wake up with a monster (by his standards) that specific time. That's all I meant by it.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I posted the link to point out that the fact that a gamble has positive expectation is not sufficient in showing that it is a "good" gamble. If it were, then it would be a good gamble to pay $3 million to play the St. Petersburg game, where you only win $2 half the time.

interesting for sure, but this obviously doesn't apply here...

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I posted the link to point out that the fact that a gamble has positive expectation is not sufficient in showing that it is a "good" gamble. If it were, then it would be a good gamble to pay $3 million to play the St. Petersburg game, where you only win $2 half the time.

how is this in any way relevant when lukie is playing with a 100+ buyin bankroll?

-EV

To all the people talking about not plaing small edges, get a bigger BR. This edge is so small that it's negative, fold.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

I posted the link to point out that the fact that a gamble has positive expectation is not sufficient in showing that it is a "good" gamble. If it were, then it would be a good gamble to pay $3 million to play the St. Petersburg game, where you only win $2 half the time.

That problem is flawed because it does not take into account all the variables. Its really just a bankroll question IMO. If you have a trillion bazillion dollar bankroll then you probably would come out ahead betting $100 a time to play the St. Petersberg game. If you only had say $1000 then youre more likely to bust and "when youre broke youre done" so playing this game on a short bankroll is likely to bust you.

Its exactly the same as the adjustments youd make to play poker in a tournament. You have to consider your tournament "cash" EV not just your chip EV. If someone who covers you pushes and shows you even a 55/45 flip in your favor it is often correct to fold since folding gives you the most real money EV. In a cash game youd correctly call it every time with a large bankroll.

In a similar problem say you sit at a $100NL table with a bankroll of $2000. You run a little hot and work up to $2000 in the course of an hour.
You are now playing $100NL with a $4000 bankroll. You look over at the $200NL tables and see that the players are at least as bad over there as they are here and decide you will finish this hand and then move over to 200NL to double your longterm hourly rate. Someone ahead of you who also has $2000 pushes allin and shows you a 51/49 flip in your favour. The EV of a call is +$40 but the (almost) half the time you lose you wont be able to move up to 200NL so it is probably even more longterm +EV to just fold it and secure your winnings and move up to $200NL right now.