Hank Azaria laying down KK.....should I be impressed?

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Nath I wouldn't and I don't think anyone would argue; you're a better tournament player than me, better player overall for that matter. I'm not intending to come off as an authority on the this subject. I am intending to voice my opinion and back that opinion up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. And I'm trying to use the experience I've accrued and the authority that gives me to explain to you why it's wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
To sum everything up No I wouldn't fold KK pf like Hank did, even if the guy flat out told me he had AA because I wouldn't believe him, and I think there's some considerations about table image if I fold in that spot, it's too weak tight for my liking. But I can't see how folding KK is bad when your opponent shows AA. Yes the pot odds, the pot odds, the pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]
KK is about a 4:1 underdog against AA. If you're getting 4:1 pot odds to call, you make money in the long run.
Go read the recent thread in MTT about "When to take a coinflip". Read the Matt Matros article I linked. The pot odds make it a positive-expectation gamble, and therefore you are making a mistake if you don't play it.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd refer you to page 202 of TPFAP, entitled You're Broke, You're Done. That's pretty much my thinking why take a slighty EV+ call if it means you stand a very good chance of being eliminated.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has been covered extensively in the MTT forum; the consensus is that you are rarely good enough or have the time vs. the field to make passing on a close +EV gamble a good idea. In general, you are not as far ahead of the field in terms of skill as you think you are.

[ QUOTE ]
Also no one had researched the hand I thought the hand occured later in the tournament when I really think you should avoid hands you are well behind in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I called an all in at the WSOP main event with 32 offsuit because I was getting 3 to 1 pot odds. I really don't think you understand just what a big factor pot odds are in tournaments. They might be even more so than in cash games because a nitty tight player who doesn't gamble much can still make money at no-limit cash, just not as much as he could otherwise. He will never win a tournament unless the deck completely hits him in the face.
You don't win tournaments by passing on favorable gambles. You just don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the advice I'm giving in this thread is WSOP FT/ME late stages specific. You're right I've never been to one of these, so it's alot like listening to Uncle Rico talk about how he'd of been playing in the NFL if his high school coach had started him etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and no offense, but the advice is equally as misguided as Uncle Rico's NFL aspirations.

[ QUOTE ]
You kinda made my point for me though, you've been to 1 WSOP FT. There's no guarantee you'll be back next year or the year after that. So the "advice" I'm giving takes that into consideration

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be more interested in hanging out at the final table as long as possible. For me, the fact that there's no guarantee I'll be back is MORE incentive to play for first. An opportunity to win a WSOP bracelet does not come easily, and to weak-tight my way out of one because I wanted to "survive" would haunt me for a long time.

Take a look at the coverage of my final table. I play a number of big pots with marginal holdings and even hands where I expected to be behind, because they were correct plays according to the pot odds. I was playing to win.

Here's the deal: You don't know how often a good spot is going to come along. If you keep waiting for a better one, you will lose chips getting ground down waiting-- and that spot may never even surface. So whenever you have the chance to make a play that has a positive expectation, you need to take it.