So close... yet so far away

[Dan Druff]

At the WSOP, I played Event #55, the "50/50 No Limit Holdem" event, with a $1500 buyin.

This was an odd event where 50% of the field gets paid in some way. If you make through 50-75% of the field, you get 2/3 of your buyin back ($1000). If you make it through 75-90% of the field, you get your full buyin back and break even. If you make it past 90% of the field, you start profiting. Most tournaments you get $0 unless you get top 10%.

Well, of all things, this is the event I ran really deep in this year, so of course I got paid less than usual for getting that far (since some of the money was used up paying those 50-90% places).

1123 entered.

40 people were left, including me. I had 151,000 in my stack, from 7500 starting.

Then this happened:

http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/upda...es-a-bad-beat/

Ugh.

93.2% chance to win that, coming into the river. Instead of ending up with 300k, I had a crippled 17k, and busted a few hands later.

Cashed just $4275. First place is 200k. If I won that hand, there was a fair chance I would make the final table.

[youtube]rXPMYA7EqYE[/youtube]

[jbjb]

I had just left there a couple hours ago. Was watching the $111,111 One Drop. I plan on watching the finals tomorrow.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan your link isn't working. Can you fix?

[redietz]

I lost to the old one-outer on the river the other day and was disgusted. Your loss meant more than a couple of dinners, and I salute you.

[FABismonte]

Dan your link isn't working. Can you fix?

The link works for me. Dan, sorry to hear about the bad beat. At least the WSOP blog noted you took the loss in stride.

FAB

[Alan Mendelson]

When I click on Dan's link I get this:

404 Page Not Found

We're sorry but you have tried to reach a page that does not exist. If you think you have reached this page in error please contact the site administrator at info@worldseriesofpoker.com

[Alan Mendelson]

I was able to find the post of my own recounting Dan's bad beat. Dan sorry you lost this way but I have a few questions to ask about this. I am not a professional player and I'm really not a "good player" so I need to be educated:

1. Pre flop you have suited AK which by itself is not a winning hand. Any pair beats AK including 2-2. With A-K you are hoping either to pair up, or to beat a "no hand" of an opponent. Did you "read" the other player as bluffing with nothing?

2. Without a made hand, meaning a pair, why did you go all in pre flop? Of course it would have been different once you had seen the flop with top pair, top kicker.

[Dan Druff]

I was able to find the post of my own recounting Dan's bad beat. Dan sorry you lost this way but I have a few questions to ask about this. I am not a professional player and I'm really not a "good player" so I need to be educated:

1. Pre flop you have suited AK which by itself is not a winning hand. Any pair beats AK including 2-2. With A-K you are hoping either to pair up, or to beat a "no hand" of an opponent. Did you "read" the other player as bluffing with nothing?

2. Without a made hand, meaning a pair, why did you go all in pre flop? Of course it would have been different once you had seen the flop with top pair, top kicker.

You are looking at this the wrong way.

You are correct that, if facing a pair, AK is always slightly behind. If you have AK all-in preflop against 22, you are indeed a slight underdog!

So why is AK a much better hand to shove all-in than 22?

There are a few reasons for this.

First, it's not just about what you are beating, it's about what beats you. 22 is a bad bad to take all-in (unless you're short stacked and have little choice), because the hands that will CALL your all-in bet are often CRUSHING you to where you have a high chance of losing. So if you go all-in and are called by ANY other pocket pair, you are a huge underdog at that point. And if you're called by a non-pocket-pair, then you are still just approximately 50/50 to win. So there's not much upside to 22 all-in. It's either crushed or coin-flipping.

AK is the opposite. It often gets called by hands like AQ, AJ, AT, and lower suited ace hands, and sometimes things like KQ, KJ, KT, QJ. And sometimes you will be up against a total bluff all-in, where again you are in good shape. But what if you are against a pair? Then you're still not in that bad of shape, as it's close to 50-50 whether you win or not. There is one and only hand which completely crushes your AK, and that's AA. You only have a 5% chance of winning that one, but fortunately your opponents don't have AA too often, so most times you go all-in with AK and get a call, you have a reasonable shot at winning. What about KK? That is not great for AA to be up against, but the AK still can win around 30% of the time.

Why not just wait for AK to make a hand on the flop? Because your opponents are typically aware enough to lay down most hands that AK beats after the flop. So if you have AK and your opponent has QQ, and the board is A46, you aren't going to get many chips out of him, as he will be scared of the obvious A on the board. At the same time, if you miss (say the board is 942), you aren't going to want to commit a lot of chips, and in fact your opponent may run you off even if HE missed, too!

The bottom line is that AK is a hand that needs to be played aggressively pre-flop, especially in the deeper stages of the tournament.

You also need to constantly chip up in tournaments in order to keep alive. You can't just sit on the same stack and expect to do well, due to the rapidly escalating blinds. This differs from a cash game, where breaking even over hours of play doesn't hurt you.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Dan, that's great information. Sorry you had the bad beat.

[redietz]

Even at the amateur low levels, tournament play requires constant aggression as compared to cash play. Negreanu has often described himself as "not the kind of guy who goes all in with 44." I think he's referencing the tendency of young players today to take confidence from the pocket pair being a small fave versus the AK. They take solace from the 52-48 edge or thereabouts to convince themselves it's "the percentage thing to do." I'd rather play like Dan, especially late in a tournament.

Having said that, I made a final table in a $12 rebuy last night and got smoked by pocket 3s. I'm always surprised by a 33 call versus my all-in, even when I'm short stacked.

[Alan Mendelson]

Big Slick - Anna Kournikova ((nice to look at, seldom wins))

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm always surprised by a 33 call versus my all-in, even when I'm short stacked.

I don't want to put this on the same level as Dan's play because it isn't, but earlier today I played in an online tournament that required me to win 9 previous levels in order to qualify. There were 90 players today and the top prize was $2,000. In the very first hand in the tourney I am dealt the most coveted hand in poker -- AA. Four players before me called the big blind and I went all in with AA. Two other players called. One had A-5 off suit, and one had 88. You know what happened... an 8 on the flop and after winning 9 previous levels I was out of the championship game on the first hand.

I wouldnt call an all in with 88 especially when it can be beaten by 99, TT, JJ, QQ, KK, and yes AA too. But I was called and Mr 88 thinks he's now a poker genius.

[redietz]

Going down on the opening hand with AA against two moron calls would make me want to smash the screen. I could live with losing to QQ or KK getting lucky, but not 88. I guess there was somewhere he needed to be.

[Alan Mendelson]

Actually on that online site 88 often hits trips. I am sure the site is not random (rigged, in other words). I won't mention it here.