My Articles - My Blog - Video - Poker Work - Charity - Downloads - Links - Subscribe
Necessary Evil?
It is the first hand of a tournament and you are the big blind. Everybody folds around to the small blind, who pushes all-in for £10,000. As he does so, he catches his unprotected cards with his sleeve and they flip over, revealing the A♥ K♠. It is £9950 to call, and you look down to see the Q♦ Q♣…
The situation I just described is a controversial one in the poker world. In fact, it has created some of the most heated discussions I have ever witnessed on internet forums, turning ordinarily levelheaded players into angry, opinionated Neanderthals. One side of the fence argues that you should call, because you have the best hand, and because you need to build up chips to have any chance of winning a tournament. These are the people who ‘play to win’ – or so they say. The other side of the fence argues that by calling you are taking an unnecessary risk, and that you should fold and wait for a better opportunity later.
So what are the arguments for both sides? Who is right? Well, as is so often the case in controversial situations, the answer is somewhere in between the two extremes.
Before we delve any further, you should understand that essentially the argument revolves around expected value or EV for short. The EV of a decision is the amount of money that you would win or lose on average if you could somehow make it many times, and it is an extremely useful concept in poker. EV allows us to compare the long-term profitability of competing decisions, and actually prove that one decision is better than the other.
In 2002, David Sklansky released his book ‘Tournament Poker for Advanced Players’, which extended ideas he had introduced in his seminal ‘Theory of Poker’ and applied them to the suddenly popular (at the time) concept of poker tournaments. In that book, Sklansky explains that your primary goal in a tournament is not to go broke, and how this means that you should avoid close gambles for large portions of your chips whenever possible. Let’s examine our example and apply Sklansky’s theory to it.
With the queens, we are a 57% favourite over our opponent, so if we call we can expect to win 57% of the pot on average. This works out like this:
0.57 x £20,000 = £11,400.
At the end of the hand on average, we will have £11,400. If we fold, we have £9950. The difference in the expected value of the two decisions is £1450 – that is, you win £1450 more by calling than you do by folding. Clearly in a cash game or rebuy tournament you should make this call.
The problem with calling is that 43% of the time, you are out of the tournament. That means you have no further opportunities to make profitable bets, and use your skill to make money. If you make just a few of these calls, you are a favourite to have been eliminated from the tournament.
The exponents of the ‘conservation’ theory argue that folding is the correct play, despite the fact that it is the least profitable, because you can wait for a bigger edge to push your chips in later in the tournament. In technical terms, the decision with the highest EV may not be the correct decision if its variance is high.
Recently however more people have begun to argue for gambling in this situation. There are many arguments for calling:
- The call is the more profitable alternative. On average, it adds nearly 15% to your stack – a significant profit, not to be sniffed at.
- You are a favourite to win. Many players argue that a 57 to 43 shot is not a ‘coin flip’, and is actually quite a significant edge.
- If you win the pot, you will have a significant chip lead on your opponents that will allow you to play more aggressively and take chances to build up chips. Your chip lead will also give you a cushion with which to absorb defeats, whether they be outdraws or not, and plenty of time to wait for big hands if necessary.
- If you lose the pot, you can spend your time playing a profitable cash game somewhere, or go to the bar to whine about your bad luck.
- The prize structure in most tournaments is so top-heavy that you cannot afford to give up any edge. It is much more important to win than it is to cash in a tournament where ninth place gets their buy in back, and first place gets piles of cash and all the fringe benefits associated with a win.
It might seem that the arguments for calling and the arguments for folding are irreconcilable. However, as is often the case with competing theories, they actually complement each other and the right decision depends on other factors.
Whether I would call or fold with the queens would depend on several factors.
Firstly, what is the prize structure of the tournament? In the UK, we are used to watching six-handed single-table heats on television, in which the first place player moves on to the next round and the second place finisher gets nothing (there are few things less enjoyable than finishing second in such a tournament – trust me, I know). In a tournament where first place gets a substantially bigger prize than second place, the only correct strategy is to gamble. To put it simply, you cannot afford to give up any chance to accumulate chips, and every time you pass up a profitable opportunity, you reduce your chances of winning that prize.
In a typical single table tournament online however, first place receives 50% of the prize pool, second 30%, and third 20%. In tournaments like these, your primary goal is not to win but to finish in the money as often as possible. Therefore, you should be more inclined to pass up marginally profitable, high variance gambles.
Secondly, how skilled are your opponents? Sklansky’s entire theory of eschewing close gambles assumes that you are one of the best players in the tournament. After all, if you are not more skilled than most of the other players you may never find another profitable situation in the entire tournament! If you feel that you can outmanoeuvre opponents you should be less inclined to make a call like this.
Lastly, how is the tournament structured? Again, many of the shorthanded tournaments we are used to watching on television are complete crapshoots, where the stacks are short and the blinds increase very quickly so that the tournament ends before teatime. In a competition like this, you may never find a better opportunity to push your chips to the middle and you should call without much thought.
If I were playing in a competition at my local casino with a bunch of gamblers who treat the game like bingo, I would fold the queens. In fact, I was in a situation not so long ago in a tournament at the local casino in Edinburgh in which I did give up a close gamble like this.
I was second in chips at the table with £7775, and had reraised the second position player’s £500 raise to £1500 holding the A♠ K♠. The player on the button – the only player who had me covered, and the only player at the table I had any respect for, moved all-in and the second position player called for about £4000. I very quickly folded, knowing I could outplay the rest of the table for the whole night if I avoided this one confrontation with the chip leader.
If however I was playing at a Professional Poker Tour event with nine professionals, I would call. I am under no delusion that I can outplay these kinds of opponents, and I would be happy to take a gamble knowing I may not be one of the best players in the tournament, but I do have the best hand.
In summary, before you automatically shove your chips into the pot with a strong hand like pocket Queens, consider just how likely it is that you are risking your entire tournament on a gamble. Then consider whether you will have a chance to outplay your opponents later on. If not, take the gamble. However, if you are one of the best players in the tournament and there is plenty of room left to play, you may be better off biding your time and waiting for a better spot.
You call and hold your breath as the dealer arranges the pot and begins to deal the flop. As she spreads the cards in the centre of the table, you catch sight of the A♦ and cringe. ‘Oh well’, you think as you gather up your belongings, ‘you can’t win them all.’
To Gamble or Not to Gamble?
(These are all extremely contrived examples, but they should help to illustrate the point).
Scenario #1 – The Botched Steal
It is the bubble stage of a multi-table tournament and with blinds of 1000-2000, it is folded around to the button who makes it 6000 to play. You look down at the A♥ 6♥ in the small blind, and decide to raise to 16,000, in an attempt to defend against the button’s probable steal. Whoops, bad timing! The big blind, with 17,500 in chips, moves all-in over the top, and the button folds. What do you do?
You may notice that I’ve excluded a lot of information from this example, such as how many chips you have, the playing styles of your opponents, and so on. It doesn’t matter - this call is absolutely automatic. There is 39,500 in the pot, and it costs just 1500 more for you to call. There is no chance you have the best hand, since this is the bubble of the tournament and one of the short stacks has decided to move all-in knowing he will probably get called. However, you are getting over 26 to 1 on the call, and there is no hand you are that big an underdog against. You’re taking a gamble, but it’s such a good gamble that you can’t possibly pass it up.
Scenario #2 – The Big Stack on a Draw
It’s the middle stage of a tournament and you are second in chips at the table with 80,000. The blinds are still 100-200, and you are under the gun with A♦ K♥. You raise to 600, and the only caller is the chip leader, who has 80,025. Every other player at the table has less than 5,000 in chips. The flop comes A♣-7♣-2♥. You lead out for 1000, and the chip leader raises all-in! In a convenient misunderstanding, the chip leader shows his cards – the Q♣ J♣. Do you call or fold?
Again, this decision is automatic. You fold, knowing that you are folding the best hand. The key to this is that you are playing the pot against the only player who can eliminate you, and the other players are so short. If you fold, you can pick off the shorter stacks with ease, and coast into a high money finish. If you call, you’re going to be eliminated from the tournament about 38% of the time, and you’ll have nightmares for weeks about how you blew such a huge stack on one hand. This fold is so clear-cut, you should even consider folding pocket aces with the same board.
Scenario #3 – The Heads Up Coinflip
You’re playing heads up at the end of a tournament, and you have 500,000 in chips. Your opponent, who plays just as well as you, has only 100,000 in chips, and is on the 10,000 small blind. She moves all-in for her entire stack, and you squeeze the 2♦ 2♣. Its 80,000 more to you - should you call?
Yes, you should call. There are three key factors at work here. One is that your opponent is getting a little desperate, and will move in with a large number of hands. In other words, you are more likely to be up against two overcards than you are against an overpair. The second is that you have such a dominating chip lead over your opponent. If you lose this hand, you will still have a 2 to 1 lead over her, and will be about a 67% favourite to win the match. If you win, the match is over immediately. The last factor is that your opponent is equally skilled. If your opponent was a fool, you would probably fold and wait for a better situation, knowing that you did not have to take close gambles to beat them. If your opponent was a great player, you would call with a very wide range of hands, knowing you probably couldn’t outplay them later, and your best shot to win the tournament was to take a gamble.
Alex Scott May 2006
