Laying down AA first hand

[Beejayville]

I havn't been playing Poker that long but when the percentages are with you in the way of AA then it is call for me.

Why would the first hand be any different than the last hand?

If you go all in with the best hand and lose then it would surely be considered a bad beat?

If you fold AA when the percentages are in your favour then it is a bad play in my book.

Why would you play AA any different in the first hand than you would in any other hand?

AA heads up against one other person you have the best hand and only bad luck can beat you...If i had AA first hand I would be pot comitted and be prepared to take the consequences no matter how much i paid to enter...If i folded AA when percentages in my favour, I may as well fold every other hand...Odds dictate it is a must play hand in my opinion in the context it is provided here.

Take the pot first hand and knock the other chopper out of the tournament and show others at the table that you have the testicular fortitude to play the hand you are dealt.

If you are worrried about going out first hand with AA then maybe you don't have the belief in your game.

GAF was right

[Valiant23]

You shouldn't call an all in with AA if you're playing a super satellite for a tourney and all prizes are of equal value and the guy who is all in has you covered.

Bad beats never happen to good players. In fact they don't exist. Trust me on this.

Statistically speaking I believe bad beats are when you're a 95% favourite, but Gaf? prefers one outers on the river. All in preflop with AA is no where on the league table of bad beats (try your quads losing to higher quads).

[Beejayville]

Originally Posted by gazabroad

I´ve learnt the hard way too many times.

At the start of the tournament when the blinds are still low it is an instant fold unless you know the other player, and the way he plays.

You wouldn´t toss a coin for the seat and still pay the entrance fee win or lose.
Basically thats what this situation amounts to.

I respect your opinion but don't understand your logic.

Pre flop and you have AA and raise 5-6 times the blind and everyone folds and only one other person goes all in...What has he got that can beat you pre flop?

I may have misread the thread I am not sure...Unless he is extremely lucky you are in the box seat with a double pot to win...The odds justify the call.

As GAF says it is a split pot at worst all going well...What's the difference between the first hand and the fiftieth hand, if you are scared to bet the first hand when odds are in your favour, then you will be scared to bet the fitieth hand when the odds are in your favour.

I believe you have to have belief in your game and play your hand as it is, whether it is first hand or last hand..It defies logic that anyone would fold when the percentages are so much in theor favour, especially the best 2 cards.

Call him, get rid of him, and one less person you have to worry about...if he flukes a hand that puts you out, then put it down to a bad beat...Percentages say you will win around 80% of the time apparently, and that's a great percentage for me to take on.

[Beejayville]

Originally Posted by Valiant23

You shouldn't call an all in with AA if you're playing a super satellite for a tourney and all prizes are of equal value and the guy who is all in has you covered.

Bad beats never happen to good players. In fact they don't exist. Trust me on this.

Statistically speaking I believe bad beats are when you're a 95% favourite, but Gaf? prefers one outers on the river. All in preflop with AA is no where on the league table of bad beats (try your quads losing to higher quads).

Possibly right Valiant...bad beat to me is a hand I would bet on every time that i thought was good enough to win, but got beat by a better hand at the time.

I'm not sure about all these satellites etc that you mention...I would never fold AA unless it meant me doing it to finish in a high place in a tourney and the risk was just not worth it...It would be like Liz Hurley coming into my hotel room and me telling her to take off and I wait until someone better looking with a better figure comes into my room...I would be better off flopping with Liz Hurley and hoping she raises me

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by Valiant23

but Gaf? prefers one outers on the river.

One outers on the river aren't bad beats Mr V - will happen 1 time in 47 - you wills see it EVERY session you play, pretty much (assuming you get down to the showdown enough) ..... but it's par for the course.....

In my book bad beats have to be a runner runner combination ... if one card gets you out of trouble then the odds arent that remote.....

[slapdash]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

One outers on the river aren't bad beats Mr V - will happen 1 time in 47 - you wills see it EVERY session you play, pretty much (assuming you get down to the showdown enough)

Not sure that's true. 1 time in 47 that you have one out going to the river,
you'll win, but in the vast majority of deals the hand that's behind doesn't
have one out going to the river! In a typical session, I suspect there are a
lot fewer than 47 deals where there's a "one out", hit or not.

(Doesn't make it any more of a bad beat, of course, though personally 1 in 47
is bad enough odds that I'd count it as a bad beat anyway ... not that I'd
moan about it ... honest! )

[Paulie_D]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

You LPM'ers dont know your odds very well do you?

KK v AA would be 5% (assuming 2 outs) with one card to come .....

Here it is pre flop, so we are talking 20% for the KK to win the hand (sometimes a K will fall, but the A will also hit ..... KK can win with straights and flushes too ....) - The AA will lose 1 time in 5, which is quite high!! The Aces winning certainly arent a given, buy you're getting not far off even money for an 80% shot.....

"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago"

So, you're either in front to KK or drawing even on AA. Either way, barring a RRRR straight or flush, you're probably safe. If it's KK and he hits his 5%(?) so be it.

[Paulie_D]

Originally Posted by Beejayville

Unless he is extremely lucky you are in the box seat with a double pot to win...The odds justify the call.

As GAF says it is a split pot at worst all going well...What's the difference between the first hand and the fiftieth hand, if you are scared to bet the first hand when odds are in your favour, then you will be scared to bet the fitieth hand when the odds are in your favour.

I believe you have to have belief in your game and play your hand as it is, whether it is first hand or last hand..It defies logic that anyone would fold when the percentages are so much in theor favour, especially the best 2 cards.

Call him, get rid of him, and one less person you have to worry about...if he flukes a hand that puts you out, then put it down to a bad beat...Percentages say you will win around 80% of the time apparently, and that's a great percentage for me to take on.

Erm...what he said!

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by Paulie_D

"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago"

The odds of not hitting at least one of 2 cards, with 5 to come are (I think ) ...

48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48 * 45/47 * 44/46 = 80.8%

so the chance of hitting at least one of the 2 remaining Kings with 5 cards to come is:

100% - 80.8% = 19.2%

SO that's ignoring any RRRR possibilities (and ignoring hitting the K and losing)

[GotaFancy?]

Originally Posted by slapdash

Not sure that's true. 1 time in 47 that you have one out going to the river,
you'll win, but in the vast majority of deals the hand that's behind doesn't
have one out going to the river! In a typical session, I suspect there are a
lot fewer than 47 deals where there's a "one out", hit or not.

(Doesn't make it any more of a bad beat, of course, though personally 1 in 47
is bad enough odds that I'd count it as a bad beat anyway ... not that I'd
moan about it ... honest! )

You're right (as usual )

I think more where I was coming from is that when you get to showdown, you will have a series of "chances"....

1 in 10
1 in 5
1 in 20
1 in 10

etc.....

Your "ev" over this range of showdowns will be for some of them to get turned over ...... if you have 47 showdowns in a session (of varying chances) then your odds of a "bad beat" are approximately equal to losing one, one outer on the river.....

Agree though, you wont be getting 47 showdowns in a session where you are up against a one outer!!!

[slapdash]

I'd call every time (and even if it was the first hand of the WSOP, I really
don't think I'd have any psychological difficulty in doing so), but there are
circumstances where I really don't think it's obvious, not for psychological
reasons, but based on equity. Most of the points have been made before,
but to summarize:

If I call, I have around an 80% chance of winning, unless he also has AA,
so my expected winnings are around 60% of my starting stack. In a cash
game it would be a no-brainer.

But in a tournament simple pot odds aren't applicable, especially in a very
large pot.

Just to fix the numbers, let's suppose there are 1000 players and a prize pool
of $1,000,000.

For calling to be a +EV decision in terms of tournament equity, doubling my
stack has to multiply my tournament equity by more than 1.25.

Even for an average player, doubling your stack doesn't double your
equity, in a tournament which is not winner-takes-all. [To take it to the
extreme, my equity now is $1000, but if I multiplied my stack by 1000 (i.e.,
won all the chips) I only win first prize ... maybe $250,000 ... so I only
multiply my tournament equity by 250.]

This is a bigger effect the flatter the prize structure is.

If I'm a better than average player, then doubling my stack doesn't even
double my chance of winning. [Again, taking it to the extreme, I have more
than a 1 in 1000 chance of winning now ... because I'm a better than average
player ... and so if I multiply my stack by 1000, I don't multiply my chance
of winning by 1000 (or I'd have more than a 100% chance of winning).]

This is a bigger effect the better I am, and also a bigger effect if the stacks
are deeper and the blind levels longer, so that skill is rewarded more.

In a very deep-stacked, long blind level tournament, with a flat prize
structure, and a player much better than average, I don't think it's at all
obvious that his tournament equity would be multiplied by as much as 1.25
by doubling his stack on the first hand, especially if he was at a weak table.
I don't think it's obvious, but I really don't know.

Of course, if there were a player who thought he was that good, I wouldn't
expect him to tell anybody that he'd fold all hands in this situation, or he'd
just be inviting people to rob him .... unless he were Phil Hellmuth, perhaps.

[mrmuzeman]

In a very deep-stacked, long blind level tournament, with a flat prize
structure, and a player much better than average, I don't think it's at all
obvious that his tournament equity would be multiplied by as much as 1.25
by doubling his stack on the first hand, especially if he was at a weak table.
I don't think it's obvious, but I really don't know.

I appreciate the observations but in reality it doesnt really work like this imo. You cant think along these lines in all honesty in the heat of battle. By this sort of logic youd only ever risk your entire stack if you were a 90%+ favourite or had a lock and you cant do that in poker. A tournament is won or done well in by a series of different moments where hopefully you get your money in infront and hold up, this being one of those moments.

Of course, if there were a player who thought he was that good, I wouldn't
expect him to tell anybody that he'd fold all hands in this situation, or he'd
just be inviting people to rob him .... unless he were Phil Hellmuth, perhaps

I guarantee Hellmuth would call this. Hed be in there like a fcuking shot with one of his patented all in shoves where the chips spill about everywhere

[Valiant23]

True enough!

Funny Hellmuth has been mentioned because it was thinking about him in relation to this debate that suggested something that supported MCFC's argument.

I saw somewhere that Hellmuth had or has a habit of turning up late for tournament starts.

Now I agree a lot of this could be psychological and he wants to make an entrance and be noticed but regardless of that he will probably miss about 2 levels and say 30-40 hands (how many are dealt roughly per hour live Mrm?), Including the possibility of being dealt AA first hand. So what if he turns up late in order to avoid getting 'into trouble'.

I'm not saying AA is trouble but I am saying that other players are, or can be.

[mrmuzeman]

Now I agree a lot of this could be psychological and he wants to make an entrance and be noticed

I think you hit the nail on the head there

how many are dealt roughly per hour live Mrm?

It depends on the type of game. In an ME type scenario thered be a lot of raise it and take it going on id imagine and not much action at all so probably in the region of 30 hands an hour. But in your standard £10 rebuy donkathons where theres muchos action your looking at more like 20 I reckon.

[Beejayville]

Some great reading in here chaps, especially for me from a novices point of view

When i posted the other night i just got home from a local free poker tournament they have around the district each week and you get points for finishing positions etc.

Very first hand at my table one guy raised 4 times the blind pre flop and got re raised twice...First guy went all in and the second guy folded, and third guy called all in.

First guy had AA...Second guy folded 66, and third guy showed JJ...From memory a 6 came out on the flop and not much else...AA won the pot and JJ was out first hand and had to go to the bar

So the guy who went all in with AA very first hand won, but funnily enough, if the guy wth 66 went all in he would have taken both out...I would have folded 66 myself rather than go all in so guess he made right fold.

The guy who went all in AA ended up winning the event, although he almost choked when heads up.

Just for interest...I took Ads25 and his missus along to show them the finer points of the game as they have been getting into it online.

Well I went allin with Ads missus a few hands later and she put me out

Ads25 made it to the final table and finished 7th and his girlfriend finished 10th. The old man was a long way down, but it did give me the opportunity to have more drinks without having to worry about hands

http://www.australianpokerleague.com

1.	APL030474	John Diano	167
2.	APL030629	Clinton Harris	142
3.	APL030425	Anita Brown	117
4.	APL030675	Luke Western	92
5.	APL030470	Michael Jackel	82
6.	APL030706	John Desengano	72
7.	APL030260	Adam Talbot	62
8.	APL030653	Mark Thomas	52
9.	APL030257	Robert Biggs	52
10.	APL030661	Linda Reus	21