Wow, I can't believe how much pros abuse all in..

[Surf_Thug]

It seems that all players abuse all-in. But most pros are usually smart enough not too, but latley it seems they are abusing it too.

I just can't figure how risking a 2-4 Million Dollar stack with a semi-great hand to win maybe 300k in the pot is a good play.

Just the slite chance they will stumble upon a well concealed monster seems to be enough to make this play be a long run loser.

Especially when you are in the later part of a tournement and not only is your stack, but your total tournement life is at stake.

Can someone justify this play, or am I correct that it is terrible?

[ekillian]

WTF. Do you not make sense because I'm drunk. No... it's not that it's the fact that you're being really fucking vague. A mediocre hand can easily be the best hand in a heads up ot which is regular late in a tourney. Plays like this from a pro will likely be based on a read and presumably it'll be backed with positive EV. The pro knows that every now and then he'll be wrong, but in the long run it's profitable. That statement is based on whether or not the pro has decided he's making the positive EV play. It's also about table image. If you know the guy is weak and will fold to a bet of 700k why not push and look a little reckless for later?

[Surf_Thug]

Yes the situation is vauge, that is why a vauge response would suffice.

The EV is definetely negative in this situation. Whether it be long run or short run.

Maybe they are using it to set up a table image for later on, that could be possible.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand a 3 million dollar power move all-in with a marginal hand + little information on their oponent, when a 600k raise would accomplish the exact same thing.

[Estrop]

What? Little knowledge of their opponent? They are pros! I don't know.. but one of the main reason they are pros is because they can read players very well. Pushing all in is either saying, my hand is a monster or my not so good hand beats yours. Do you think if they suspected a lot of strength in someone they would push all in.

If you play scared of consealed monsters.. you will never make your potential profit.

[EasyT]

The trouble here is that people watch the pros play the final table on TV and try to incorporate what they see into their $25NL ring games!

Do you think Daniel Negranu got to the final table pushing his whole stack time after time with marginal hands?

Final table play is exciting to watch, but is not the same way these guys played to get to the final table. Their play is excellent at the final table, just don't try to apply their play to other circumstances.

[Surf_Thug]

First, Pro's don't have a read on every player. There are tons of amatures and no names at the table.

Second, My question wasn't answered again.

Yes their read on the player was that they were weak. So they pushed all their chips in and horribly over bet the pot. In the situation i'm talking about, both times a pro did it he ran into a concealed montster and lost his whole entire stack.

My question is why not bet maybe 1/4 this amount when it would do the same thing, and give you a chance to lay down your hand if the oponent comes over the top.

Is there any justification for this play besides just setting a reckless table image?

[dalecooper]

You're going to have to be more specific. Who was the pro, how much was the all-in, how much was the pot, was there any betting prior to that, etc. If there are multiple examples, list them. I can't address this question intelligently in a vacuum. I watch a fair amount of televised poker and I haven't noticed that many pros shoving all-in with huge stacks against other huge stacks for tiny little pots, so I really don't know what you mean.

[Surf_Thug]

The question is a general one, and to me seems pretty cut and dry, even without specifics.

I will try to remember the situation though.

WPT Event

Bycicle Casino. Final Table. The shaved head white boy Raises pre flop. Catches a monster (Catches trip 9's to make a full house). Checks it out to the turn.

Very little in the pot at this point, maybe 300k or something.

On the river a 2 comes. This card trips up Joe Awada giving him a small full house, while the (white boy) has trip nines on the flop giving him a bigger full house.

The white boy makes a small bet, just to exact a little more money out of his oponent. Joe Awada goes all in assuming the white boy had nothing, and also assuming he had a scinch on the hand.

Joe Awada is second in chips at the time so he has about 2 million, the white boy is the chip leader.

Joe bets 2 million chips into maybe a 350k pot, runs in the white boys monster, and goes broke exciting the tournement.

-----------------------------

That is the best I can describe the situation. It seems to me that even good players get blinded by semi good hands. Basically Joe was so confident in his small full house he stopped playing poker and just said all in. When if he would have made the correct play it seems to me that he could have had more information to see if his hand was best or not.

[storm75m]

Sound like in that situation he's gonna lose his stack anyway... full house vs. full house, someone is going home. If he would have raised a smaller amount, he would have been reraised, and someone would have pushed at one time or another.

[a500lbgorilla]

The WPT is rigged...

-'rilla

[dalecooper]

The question is a general one, and to me seems pretty cut and dry, even without specifics.

General questions are bad questions when it comes to poker. Without specifics there's just no telling.

I'll look at your example in a minute, but here are some good reasons to use the all-in seemingly prematurely, over a small pot:

- With cards to come... you are 99% certain your hand is best by at least a thin margin (10% or more), but you don't want to give free cards to a certain draw. You're taking the edge in a double-up situation if he calls; otherwise you're using a power move to win a modest pot that may very likely not have been yours if the hand continued.

- With no cards to come... you are 99% certain your hand is best, and you put your opponent on modest holdings. If you make a value bet he may be smart enough to suss it out, but if you overbet the pot he may call thinking it's a bluff on a broken draw. You also gain more EV in the long run if he calls the huge overbet only 1/4 of the time, but would have called a weak value bet half the time.

- Table image. Especially in long-running games or tournaments where you might spend hours at one table against the same players, having an aggressive, "I'll go all in at the drop of a hat" image can make them think twice about tangling with you when their hands are marginal. Any raise from you may make them hesitate and reconsider a decent hand.

- Table image part 2: if you're always on the attack you might get someone to call (after several previous folds) when you have them crushed. This is the ideal situation and very good players pick the right spots for this change-up.

- Tournaments only - you are looking for double up opportunities wherever they may lay. This is especially true if you are not the best player in the tournament (reducing your chances to win), if the blind structure is fast (randomizing the potential outcome no matter how good you are), etc. If you think you have an edge in a tournament, you might take any chance to double up and knock someone else out. If they just fold, at least you have table image going for you.

A lot of this stuff applies mainly to tournaments because some different principles govern your actions at various points. Because you have to consider survival and your chances to make the money, EV is not the only factor to consider on a hand by hand basis, and often you have to completely overlook what you know about it. I doubt many pros make a lot of colossal overbets in high stakes cash games, but it has its place in tournaments for sure.

[Surf_Thug]

Sound like in that situation he's gonna lose his stack anyway... full house vs. full house, someone is going home. If he would have raised a smaller amount, he would have been reraised, and someone would have pushed at one time or another.

True, I definetely think he would have been beat reguardless. My point was though if he had just re-raised, maybe a light bulb would have gone off in his head, or at least he could have given himself one more chance to reconsider.

This is obviously an extreme example, but I'm just trying to make it very cut-and-dry to I can get this point across.

[Surf_Thug]

Thank you Dalecooper!

Someone finally answered my question and justified their play.

Question #2:

Sorry for the general questions. Slap me if this one is too general also.

If your giving your oponent horrible pot odds, and I mean horrible, rather than just pushing all in, isn't ok to let him draw?

It seems to me you'd make more $$$ long run if you gave him horrible drawing odds on the turn, let him miss(which he will most of the time), and then he'd have to lay his drawing hand down on the river without imporvment.

Of course this would all change if you had a guy who really loved to chase. You could then push him all in if you figured you could get a call and leave yourself at least 65% or so to knock him out.

If you didn't have a chaser though, it seems to me it would be more profitable to leave him with horrible drawing odds instead of just push him out on the flop.

[dalecooper]

Thank you Dalecooper!

If your giving your oponent horrible pot odds, and I mean horrible, rather than just pushing all in, isn't ok to let him draw?

Yes, but a lot of poker players have a fear of playing this way and having to make complicated decisions as more cards come along. They aren't great at reading the other players so they minimize their decision-making by shoving all their chips in as soon as possible. I would prefer to keep my opponent in for at least one more card, but against people who chronically chase flush draws, I may try to bet them out, especially in tournament play, where winning each pot is arguably more important than long-term profit.

[Surf_Thug]

Thank you for the advice.

I'm good at letting go when I'm beat. It seems to me the my style of play would be best suited by giving the oponent bad drawing odds. If I see a the trouble card come, and my opponent pushes at me hard, I would have no trouble letting go of my hand.

[dalecooper]

If you can be disciplined about folding whenever you feel they made their draw, that's absolutely the best way to play. You want calls from worse hands whenever possible. It gets more complicated in larger pots with lots of players, where you might not be a favorite vs. the field, but against 1 or 2 people where you know you're well ahead, let them draw some cards. Even better if they are drawing for pot odds that are on your side of incorrect. If they'll keep calling close to pot-sized bets, let 'em.

[pokerja3]

keep in mind that u are only seeing select hands....they want to show the most interesting hands to the audience......but i do agree that all in is abuseed.....(But, it is possible that, because most of the hands shown on tv are all in moves, we are not seeing the whole picture)

[Greedo017]

let's ask michael, he'll know.

[ekillian]

First, Pro's don't have a read on every player. There are tons of amatures and no names at the table.

You're so right! Pros can't read no names and amateurs!

[Surf_Thug]

Surf_Thug wrote:
First, Pro's don't have a read on every player. There are tons of amatures and no names at the table.



You're so right! Pros can't read no names and amateurs!

I didn't say they can't read, I said they don't have a read.

[Greedo017]

IMO, lots of pushing is seen because at the end of tournaments there are two situation: both people are even, or one is a big stack and one is short stacked. A big stack and a short stack both are the type of people who should be pushing a lot. The short stack needs to double up, or else he might as well give up, and the big stack needs to keep putting pressure on the short stack so he'll fold and not try to double up. In a heads up situation, if he just bet the pot the other guy might very well come over the top of him with nothing, and then you're left trying to decide whether or not to fold. just get it all in there and make the other guy make the tough decision. I can't really advise without knowing more specifics, because how short the short stack is relative to the pot is a big factor, but if someone is down 2-1 and the pot is ~1/5 of their stack, just go ahead and push.

[Greedo017]

something's messed up with me beign able to login to edit, but anyway, i wanted to change /erase some of that last post to basically say, if a pot sized bet is borderline on making you pot committed, so you might as well push. that's the case a lot of the time too. In general though, I would say you will much more often see the big stack pushing than the little stack, because a big stack can take a 25% chance at ending it right there no sweat.

[Surf_Thug]

I definetely understand betting too little and leaving the crippled player pot commited. This was not the situation I was refering too.

A situation I would be refering too would be pushing 5-10 times the pot all in. When I think maybe half that would yeild the same result.

I understand that if you push 5x the pot, and the other player moves all-in w/ nothing you have a problem, but isn't that the point? You have that much more information to disect the situation and maybe you make the call for all your chips anyways, but this gives you that last second to reconsider. Maybe it will dawn on you that you have been trapped all along.

Maybe you will be out played occasionally, but usually good players don't make an all-in move drawing totally dead agaisn't a player who already has shown to be very very strong. Then that player would have to take into account that you just bet 5x the pot and are probably pot commited anyways.