Folding Aces (Not what it seems)?

Happy Camper

Let's say you're at the final table of a big multi-table tournament. There are currently 4 players left, and you're a monster chip leader.

Stacks are as follows:

Seat 1 (You): 200,000
Seat 2: 32,000
Seat 3: 36,000
Seat 4: 6,000

Payout is as follows:

1st: 5,000
2nd: 2,500
3rd: 1,500
4th: 700

Blinds are currently 2,000 - 4,000, and you're in the BB holding a pair of Aces.

Everyone folds to the SB, who goes all-in.

Should you fold? I think you should.

Iago

definite fold...I'd never call in this situation unless I was holding 72o or maybe 85o, anything else and you're asking for trouble

ianmc38

haha haha

That is one of the ridiculous things 've ever heard. Even if he's holding pocket cowboys the chances of you losing the hand are still far lower than the chances of you winning.

In a nutshell no I wouldn't even if he was the guy holding 36,000 in chips. If he doubles up at any point you're only going to be a 3-1 chip leader. If you take him on and knock him out which is huge odds on you're going to be an even greater chip leader and before any more hands are dealt there'll only be 40,000 odd chips left on the table for you to take hold of. In no stituation would i fold the aces.

mewso

I'm confused here. You are saying I have 200,000 and I have 4,000 in the BB and seat 4 on 6,000 goes all-in (2,000 more to me) and I have aces and I should fold. mmmmmmm k.

ianmc38

Iago wrote:

definite fold...I'd never call in this situation unless I was holding 72o or maybe 85o, anything else and you're asking for trouble

Thats as humorous as the orginal question. Is till cant believe i'm reading it. A raise of 2000 all in with 4000 already commited sitting on an enormous stack. Pretty tough call with pocket bullets. Really tough actually!

Einstein

Happy Camper wrote:

Should you fold? I think you should.

I think you're mad.

Add to the fact you've already got 4k in the pot thanks to your blind??
Even if he has absolutely nothing, he has no choice but to go all in.
The fact that they allow themselves less than 5x Big Blind is good enough reason to call...

ianmc38

Happy camper there's a game on in mine this week if you'd like to join us you're more than welcome. and there's unlimited buy-backs for you as well.

Washout

this is one of the funniest threads ever! thanx for the laffs.

J

Dave

Clearly a troll?

RoundTower

As a massive chip leader, how does it affect your expectation to have the SB hang around for a few hands? How many chips can you win in that time?

I don't know if you can fold aces here. Ideally you want to be out of position to the short stack, because otherwise he can push on the blind every hand before you get to play. If he were UTG in this hand, and we were on the bubble, that would be different.

bohsman

ianmc38 wrote:

Happy camper there's a game on in mine this week if you'd like to join us you're more than welcome. and there's unlimited buy-backs for you as well.

I think youd be in trouble if he took you up on this offer.

ianmc38

bohsman wrote:

I think youd be in trouble if he took you up on this offer.

Yeah seems like a bit of a shark alright. I'd say Phil Ivey and Howard Lederman et al. would all tremble in their boots too. Tremble as they fold their AA that is, cos i'm sure they'd fold bullets to a 2000 reraise when they've put 4000 in for the big blind. Basically what he's saying is that if somebody reraises the massive chip leader all-in when he's sitting on the big blind there is no sitaution in which he should ever call(cos if he foilds AA then there is no possible hand he could call with using that logic). And that my friend is just absurd. Swimming with sharks in this thread!

dinjo99

Happy Camper's logic is that you want to keep the short stack in so that you can continue to bully the other two stacks as they wait for the short stack to be knocked out. I stll wouldn't fold!!

Shortstack

Stark raving bonkers :eek: There is a lot to be said for having a short stack around when you are chip leader but if you cannot turn this situation into a win 3 handed most of the time then you should take up snap.

Waylander

Actually Ian what he is asking is if you want any player going out yet. Duee to the substantial drop in prize money from 3rd to 4th all other players are bound to be playing tight, and he can raise every hand and take them down for free up until they are down to 3 players. Personally I would not fold, I think you have a big enough chip lead now to dominate, and increasing it will not make you that much stronger. I think I would definitle be trying to pick the other players off at this stage.

ianmc38

Stupid logic cos the players are so shortstacked that player with 6000 chips will be gone in 2 hands unless he doubles up. Player in 3rd and player in 2nd are similarly stacked, so if either has a showdown with the other, 1 or the other will double up. Chip leader is throwing down the pre-flop nuts to save 2000 chips in which he has an 80% chance of winning the hand heads up. Thats pot odds of 1/6 on an 80%. Please stop this stupidity. It's so ridiculous. Just stop.

Happy Camper

dinjo99 wrote:

Happy Camper's logic is that you want to keep the short stack in so that you can continue to bully the other two stacks as they wait for the short stack to be knocked out. I stll wouldn't fold!!

Finally, someone has figured it out (even if you don't agree with me)!

My theory is, if you were to knock the short stack out now, then the other two players would (correctly) start making moves. Now, short handed, you don't want this, since any move they make will be All-In, and you probably won't have a hand when this happens.

So, by keeping the game 4 handed with an uber shortstack around, making moves become too risky, and your Blind Stealing equity becomes HUGE. Even if they KNOW you're at it, the medium stacks will fold +90% of hands to your All-Ins.

ianmc38

No, cos he'll be gone within 2 rounds even if you let him steal the blinds. Either that or he'll double his stack again, therefore having 3 small-medium stacks that are each more dangerous now as using the same logic its far too dangerous for you to call any preflop move by any of 3 instead of 2.

IMO folding pocket As is a bad move in any situation. I can understand your logic but i still disagree.

Happy Camper

ianmc38 wrote:

Stupid logic cos the players are so shortstacked that player with 6000 chips will be gone in 2 hands unless he doubles up. Player in 3rd and player in 2nd are similarly stacked, so if either has a showdown with the other, 1 or the other will double up. Chip leader is throwing down the pre-flop nuts to save 2000 chips in which he has an 80% chance of winning the hand heads up. Thats pot odds of 1/6 on an 80%. Please stop this stupidity. It's so ridiculous. Just stop.

By folding, you give him some more chips (and make him more dangerous to the others), so he might stick around for longer.

Such a showdown (between the two medium stacks) is very unlikely to happen, with the presence of an uber shortstack.

Chip Leader IS NOT throwing down pre-flop nuts to save 2,000 chips, he's (she's) maintaining a short stack at the table so that he has more leverage as Chip Leader. Thus, "pot odds" are irrelevant.

Happy Camper

Shortstack wrote:

Stark raving bonkers :eek: There is a lot to be said for having a short stack around when you are chip leader but if you cannot turn this situation into a win 3 handed most of the time then you should take up snap.

Yes, you should win this most of the time, but the question is if you fold, would you win it "moster" of the time?

blaugranabhoy

Happy Camper wrote:

Should you fold? I think you should.

Camper for God's sake! No way! This is a no-brainer imo. Incidentally, what hand would you be afraid he might have?

Happy Camper

blaugranabhoy wrote:

Camper for God's sake! No way! This is a no-brainer imo. Incidentally, what hand would you be afraid he might have?

You're not afraid of any hand. Please read the rest of the thread, and all will be clear

Iago

It's not that I don't get your logic, I do. but the deferential between your stack and the other stacks is too large for the small stack to make a real difference.

A) You call and win, now you have 206,000 and are in a great position to go on and win it, even with the fact that the other stacks can afford to make moves. They still can't afford a mistake but you can. In fact you can afford to call with Ax, Kx, and even Q9 or better if you wanted to, (not a recommended strategy, just a point) thereby increasing the likelihood of beating them against what your normal hand range would be to call an all-in. You still have huge bullying power even with just those two stacks still in. Granted they're running out of time and need to make a move with any two cards, but you're still in a great position here.

You call and lose, you still have met your objective of keeping a small stack in the game and making the other two stacks less likely to make moves.

c) You fold, now the small stack has 10K and will go all-in again at the next opportunity and if they manage to double up you have 3 medium stacks. If they lose then your oppponent gets the benefit of their chips not you. Either way it's not a good situation.

While your logic isn't flawed, I think this particular situation is to stacked in your favour for it to make sense.


Not to mention that if you folded here and the small stack went on to finish higher than the other two stacks there may be a case for complaints about collusion etc. You'd find it very hard to justify folding AA to an all-in bet for 1% of your stack when you've already committed 2% and you're miles ahead.

Lafortezza

Happy Camper wrote:

By folding, you give him some more chips (and make him more dangerous to the others), so he might stick around for longer.

Such a showdown (between the two medium stacks) is very unlikely to happen, with the presence of an uber shortstack.

Chip Leader IS NOT throwing down pre-flop nuts to save 2,000 chips, he's (she's) maintaining a short stack at the table so that he has more leverage as Chip Leader. Thus, "pot odds" are irrelevant.

I *think* I know what you're getting at.
I can't remember what book it was in, maybe one of the Harington books, but whoever it was put forth the theory that:
1) the tournament is down to 10players on 2 tables, with only the final table of 9 getting paid.
2) You are big big chip leader and therefore able to put alot of pressure on the shorter/medium stacks when they are in the blinds and trying to hand on.
3) If you are in the BB, and the shortest stack is in the SB you should fold when he goes all-in.
4) this means you can continue to bully the table, as they all fear elimination, thus increasing your stack even more.
5) If you call and knock the shortest stack out then the final table forms where you will not have as much power over the medium stacks.

Maybe I'm wrong with the above, cos the first post was pretty feckin weird.

blaugranabhoy

Happy Camper wrote:

You're not afraid of any hand. Please read the rest of the thread, and all will be clear

Sorry Happy one,

I made the mistake of reading the original post without following up.

I see where you're coming from now but, for what it's worth, I still wouldn't fold with the magnitude of chip lead you have there.

ianmc38

Happy Camper wrote:

By folding, you give him some more chips (and make him more dangerous to the others), so he might stick around for longer.

Such a showdown (between the two medium stacks) is very unlikely to happen, with the presence of an uber shortstack.

Chip Leader IS NOT throwing down pre-flop nuts to save 2,000 chips, he's (she's) maintaining a short stack at the table so that he has more leverage as Chip Leader. Thus, "pot odds" are irrelevant.

I'm afraid i disagree with your logic. Most people that make the final table of a large MTT aren' going to be overconcerned about position. Even in the face of a huge chip leader thee people will still be intent on winning. The only way to win when shortsatcked is to double through and therefore in my opinion you are making another player at the table have more power.

Tell me this you raise preflop and then get reraised all in by one of the other 2 stacks. What do you do then? Fold and let an all-in bet by any other table meber dictate how you're going to play? Stupid logic as you're basing your assumption on fish that are concerned about their take home as opposed to a decent player who wants to win understanding that winning isn't about hanging round and giving in to any show of aggression fromt he chip lead. these players will have to make a stand at some point. Ugh too ridiculous to even type anymore cos ive alot of work to do and it would take me all day to rebuff this latest point.

Mark J

ianmc38 wrote:

No, cos he'll be gone within 2 rounds even if you let him steal the blinds. Either that or he'll double his stack again, therefore having 3 small-medium stacks that are each more dangerous now as using the same logic its far too dangerous for you to call any preflop move by any of 3 instead of 2.

IMO folding pocket As is a bad move in any situation. I can understand your logic but i still disagree.

^^^my response^^^

Happy Camper

ianmc38 wrote:

I'm afraid i disagree with your logic. Most people that make the final table of a large MTT aren' going to be overconcerned about position. Even in the face of a huge chip leader thee people will still be intent on winning. The only way to win when shortsatcked is to double through and therefore in my opinion you are making another player at the table have more power.

Tell me this you raise preflop and then get reraised all in by one of the other 2 stacks. What do you do then? Fold and let an all-in bet by any other table meber dictate how you're going to play? Stupid logic as you're basing your assumption on fish that are concerned about their take home as opposed to a decent player who wants to win understanding that winning isn't about hanging round and giving in to any show of aggression fromt he chip lead. these players will have to make a stand at some point. Ugh too ridiculous to even type anymore cos ive alot of work to do and it would take me all day to rebuff this latest point.

Obviously, if you want to categorize the players as superaggressive "play to win" dudes, then you should call. I didn't specify this in my orginal post, so maybe it's my fault.

But if you were playing against typical players, I think it's a clear fold. I've dealt alot of final tables (played in some ), and can say that it's not unlikely that the last 4 players, 3 are fish (even in large buyin events - poker is just too big now to expect alot of solid players at a final table). Sometimes, the final table goes on for hours, just because the players are just too tight when shorthanded.

Like in all poker problems, the answer depends on the players you are playing against. This leads to so many different answers, that it's often only useful to focus on typical generalizations. In this case, I don't think Me Vs. 3 "prize money climbing" players is far off a typical generalization.

Shortstack

If you are not confident about taking a 206,000 : 36,000 : 32,000 chip lead to victory then you should not be playing poker. How many chips do you lose by folding to all ins when holding premium cards? How many chips would you need to lose before you start calling with less premium hands? Folding is foolish here to the umpteenth degree no matter what any pro says in book trying to be clever.

The only time it is correct to fold Aces is when you are in a satellite and are guaranteed you can fold into a seat. Even then you should be raising into stacks that cannot hurt you as someone has to knock that last player out.

Lafortezza

What the hell is going on with the poker forum lately?

The OP can't be serious about the scenario in the first post. And look at all the people who replied with genuine comments, me included like a fúcking sleep deprived moron.

Happy Camper wrote:

Yes, you should win this most of the time, but the question is if you fold, would you win it "moster" of the time?

If you don't take the short stacks chips then one of the others will.

ecksor

lafortezza wrote:

I *think* I know what you're getting at.
I can't remember what book it was in, maybe one of the Harington books, but whoever it was put forth the theory that:

There's a scenario like you describe in Sklansky's TPFAP.

NickyOD

How has this thread gone on as long as it has. You should call without even looking at your cards.

Ste05

NickyOD wrote:

How has this thread gone on as long as it has. You should call without even looking at your cards.

Now there is a mystery....
I can't believe it lasted this long,
I can't believe it hasn't been binned/locked yet,
I can't believe a quasi-debate started and most of all

I can't believe I'm adding to it, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

but hey.

Happy Camper

Shortstack wrote:

If you are not confident about taking a 206,000 : 36,000 : 32,000 chip lead to victory then you should not be playing poker. How many chips do you lose by folding to all ins when holding premium cards? How many chips would you need to lose before you start calling with less premium hands? Folding is foolish here to the umpteenth degree no matter what any pro says in book trying to be clever.

The only time it is correct to fold Aces is when you are in a satellite and are guaranteed you can fold into a seat. Even then you should be raising into stacks that cannot hurt you as someone has to knock that last player out.

Obviously, a good short handed player should win 206,000 : 36,000 : 32,000 most the time, but not all of the time. Confindence in doing so has nothing to do with it. But the question is, does folding lead you to win 90% (say) of the time, instead of 85% of the time?

DubTony

NickyOD wrote:

How has this thread gone on as long as it has. You should call without even looking at your cards.

That's the only decent answer so far ... (and I know nothing)

I watched an online tournament final table (6 players left) with a similar scenario where the chip leader folded everything until it was heads up (took 30 minutes). His response to the pot sized post flop raise on the next hand was to go all-in. He lost the hand with A3s. Next hand he lead all in pre-flop and lost with QJo. Game over. Maybe he somehow fluked his way to the final table.

Daithio

Happy Camper wrote:

Should you fold? I think you should.

Are you taking the piss?

Shortstack

Happy Camper wrote:

Confindence in doing so has nothing to do with it.

Confidence has everything to do with it. Most of the top players are egotists, that is all about an abundance of confidence.

Confidence + skill = winner
No confidence + skill = loser

This applies to all sports as well as poker.

Happy Camper

NickyOD wrote:

How has this thread gone on as long as it has. You should call without even looking at your cards.

That's just silly. The answer isn't as clear cut as "you have to call with any 2!"; obviously, if it was Phil Hellmuth on the short stack, you'll be calling.

But, if the 2 medium stacks are folding alot so that they're guarenteed 3rd place money, then I think you should fold.

Happy Camper

Shortstack wrote:

Confidence has everything to do with it. Most of the top players are egotists, that is all about an abundance of confidence.

Confidence + skill = winner
No confidence + skill = loser

This applies to all sports as well as poker.

You're totally missing the point. Confindence in doing so (winning the tournament) has nothing to do with it (whether or not you should fold the Aces). I could say I'm confident in taking down the tournament 85% of the time, but to say 100% of the time would just be nonsense. Obviously, if folding Aces to a short stack bumps my 85% to 90%, I'll make that play.

But the question is, does folding my Aces bump my chances up to 90% or down to 80%?

Thus, confidence has nothing to do with it.

RoundTower

I still think there's a good case for folding. Or if not, you can change things around so there is.

NickyOD

Happy Camper wrote:

That's just silly. The answer isn't as clear cut as "you have to call with any 2!"; obviously, if it was Phil Hellmuth on the short stack, you'll be calling.

But, if the 2 medium stacks are folding alot so that they're guarenteed 3rd place money, then I think you should fold.

errr yeah it is! You're getting 5:1 to call. Since on average you will be no where near a 5:1 dog it is +EV to call with any 2 cards. When you have a chiplead it is beyond stupid to fold in any +EV situation.

Shortstack

Happy Camper wrote:

You're totally missing the point. Confindence in doing so (winning the tournament) has nothing to do with it (whether or not you should fold the Aces). I could say I'm confident in taking down the tournament 85% of the time, but to say 100% of the time would just be nonsense. Obviously, if folding Aces to a short stack bumps my 85% to 90%, I'll make that play.

But the question is, does folding my Aces bump my chances up to 90% or down to 80%?

Thus, confidence has nothing to do with it.

Considering folding any hand in that situation will bump your chances of being a winning player down by a lot of % end of story.

Happy Camper

NickyOD wrote:

errr yeah it is! You're getting 5:1 to call. Since on average you will be no where near a 5:1 dog it is +EV to call with any 2 cards. When you have a chiplead it is beyond stupid to fold in any +EV situation.

Your folding allows more leverage on the 2 medium stacks still at the table. Pot odds aren't relevant. I don't think you see this. Now, if you want to argue whether or not it's worth sacrificing a +EV situation for this leverage, then please do.

Mark J

Happy Camper wrote:

But, if the 2 medium stacks are folding alot so that they're guarenteed 3rd place money, then I think you should fold.

by that logic so, you`ll be left with 2 medium stacks.

would you push your bullets then?
or wait til they knock one or the other out so you can play heads-up with a not so medium stacked player!?

bohsman

NickyOD wrote:

errr yeah it is! You're getting 5:1 to call. Since on average you will be no where near a 5:1 dog it is +EV to call with any 2 cards. When you have a chiplead it is beyond stupid to fold in any +EV situation.

By folding your 4000 bb you are virtually guaranteed to steal the bbs 4000 the next hand and a further 6000 chips the hand after.

NickyOD

Happy Camper wrote:

Pot odds aren't relevant

LOL! Post of the ****ing year!!

Happy Camper

Shortstack wrote:

Considering folding any hand in that situation will bump your chances of being a winning player down by a lot of % end of story.

Why?

ianmc38

Happy Camper wrote:

You're totally missing the point. Confindence in doing so (winning the tournament) has nothing to do with it (whether or not you should fold the Aces). I could say I'm confident in taking down the tournament 85% of the time, but to say 100% of the time would just be nonsense. Obviously, if folding Aces to a short stack bumps my 85% to 90%, I'll make that play.

But the question is, does folding my Aces bump my chances up to 90% or down to 80%?

Thus, confidence has nothing to do with it.

Moves it to 80% because big stack bullying only beats bad hands. If you're suddenly reraised or raised all-in and lose the hand then you've shot yourself in the foot because you've allowed a fringe player to increse their stack by a decent amount. 2nd/3rd will move in on any pocket pair and probs big slick/chick/AJ/J10S.

NickyOD

bohsman wrote:

By folding your 4000 bb you are virtually guaranteed to steal the bbs 4000 the next hand and a further 6000 chips the hand after.

There's no guarantee of that at all. The shortstack should be pushing with any 2 cards the next 2 hands so he'll get his chips in before you. There's also no guarantee that the other stacks are waiting for the shorty to bust and could easily still call you if they are playing for 1st.

Iago

Happy, you've taken a premise from an author and twisted it to a situation that it's irrelevant to (maybe irrelevant is the wrong word, but you know what I mean) The theory of folding AA to a short stack raise when faced with bubble play is only valid when you can make real use of the short stack, i.e. when there are enough players/stacks and blind levels for you to steal from. It's a theory about amassing a significant enough chip stack so that when you reach the final table you greatly increase your chance of winning the tournament.

Lets forget the fact that you have AA and that you already have 4K invested in a pot wih 2K left to go. In your example folding to the shortstack would leave him with 10K and forced to put 2k in on the SB in the next hand. By your argument one of two things is going to happen the next hand.

Either you're going to raise with a hand worse than AA and he's going to call, or you're going to fold and he's going to push for an extra 6K to the BB. If the BB is as tight and running scared as you believe then he's likely to fold unless he's holding a huge hand. If he calls and wins then he has more folding equity from you, if he calls and loses then you're up against 3 medium stacks

In scenario 1, you're taking a chance on losing 10K and doubling the short-stack up to 20k

In scenario 2, you've now got one of 3 situations to deal with

16K:30K:30K : BB Folds
46K: 30K : BB Calls and Wins
20K:26K:30K : BB Calls and loses

How is either of those situations better than you beating the shortstack and being up against the final two stacks?

kincsem

There are a few possibilities here -
(1) The name of the short stack is David Blaine.
(2) The short stack is that muppet who called my large pre-flop raises twice in the Merrion last night with 25o v JJ and later 5J v QQ and won both.
(3) You read in a book that if you are short-stacked, get AA, and the three others go all-in what should you do. But you got the story a***ways.