Allin every time right?

[notevenhere]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My point is that if they fold, great. We've just increased our chances of winning in a big pot. If they come along, great. Now we have all our money in with the best hand.


[/ QUOTE ]
Missed this post.

This is where your logic breaks down. Having more players coming along is pure +EV for us. Why be content with pushing and probably folding everyone out when you can have more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? More people is more EV? Let me give you an example.

Say Villains have KK and QQ. What is our EV?

Below winning % are from pokerstove.

As played, we have a 67% chance of winning $67.55. So our EV is $45.26.

If button folds to our all-in, and UTG+2 calls, we have a 82% chance of winning $55.25. So our EV is $45.31.

So in this plausible scenario, it is EV neutral. Except for one thing. By calling, we allow Villains to get away from their hands when an A falls. We're also putting in more money post-flop, when we could be behind to a flopped set, such as when a K or Q falls.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You need to protect any hand you have. Why are you even raising AA in the first place, if the more the merrier is true? How many players do you find is the "merriest" to play pocket aces against? One? Two? Four? Six?

Against 5 players, AA is a dog to the entire field.




[/ QUOTE ]Because the pot is so big compared to stacks already, people don't have the implied odds to call with anything. Therefore they would be making a mistake to call, therefore you should give them every to do so. I think the only question here is whether calling or raising is better to do so, and I think calling is.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you read one of my above posts, we DID give the button implied odds to call and play for set value. Button was getting 5-1 immediate odds, and 10-1 implied odds. Add that to the fact that he has to consider that his hand might be best already (KK for example), and he makes this call every time, and is correct in doing so.


[ QUOTE ]
And 6-handed AA might be less than 50% to win the pot, but you have SIX PLAYERS MONEY in the pot! It's definitely a higher variance play which will lose money the majority of the time (hence my comment about stomaching variance) but if you can't see how this is a hugely +EV situation then I can't help you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is +EV if you PUSH PREFLOP. Are you advocating that you should Limp AA if 5 people in front of you have limped in?

[Ness3]

how did this thread get so big?

shove preflop.

ness

[obsidian]

Wow....how the hell did you not push PF. There is absolutely no reason in the world you could give me to tell me pushing PF is a mistake. The pot is already worth 2/3 your stack..push dammit.

[UATrewqaz]

Yeah I push this preflop. You have the preflop "nuts" of AA, and it's pretty clear other people like their hands alot.

A KK/QQ will almost certainly call an allin preflop here (and there is always the crazy possibility of hte other AA being out)

[notevenhere]

Consider the following.

Pretend this is a live game. Hero, instead of calling, pushes all-in. Then Hero proceeds to turn to button, and say to him that if he calls the all-in, he has the option of getting $7.05 back if he doesn't like the flop. Then Hero turns to UTG+1, and says that if you call my all-in, I will give you $14.60 back if you dont like the flop.


Is this something you would ever consider doing? If not, does it occur to you that simply calling pre-flop is the defacto equivalent of making this verbal deal?

[Finch]

[ QUOTE ]

Say Villains have KK and QQ. What is our EV?

Below winning % are from pokerstove.

As played, we have a 67% chance of winning $67.55. So our EV is $45.26.

If button folds to our all-in, and UTG+2 calls, we have a 82% chance of winning $55.25. So our EV is $45.31.

So in this plausible scenario, it is EV neutral. Except for one thing. By calling, we allow Villains to get away from their hands when an A falls. We're also putting in more money post-flop, when we could be behind to a flopped set, such as when a K or Q falls.


[/ QUOTE ]

When I first read this, my intuition said something like: "This situation can't possibly be EV neutral. After all, we have a better hand than the button." It seems to almost violate the nature of a "better hand" if it is not +EV for us if the inferior hand calls.

I think my intuition was correct, at least in this case. We may not want 12 callers, but we certainly want these two.

If both players call our all-in and the button hits his set we will still win a little over $15 because the button was the short stack in this hand. I won't do the math, but that clearly shifts the EV calculation in favor of rooting for both to call. And if the button's stack wasn't short, his extra money would also improve the EV for us if he called.

Note: I'm not advocating calling here instead of pushing. I'd push this PF every time. But, I'd do it because I expect both players to call and I want their money in the pot now, before they see the flop and suddenly decide they don't like their hands so much.

[notevenhere]

[ QUOTE ]
When I first read this, my intuition said something like: "This situation can't possibly be EV neutral. After all, we have a better hand than the button." It seems to almost violate the nature of a "better hand" if it is not +EV for us if the inferior hand calls.

I think my intuition was correct, at least in this case. We may not want 12 callers, but we certainly want these two.

If both players call our all-in and the button hits his set we will still win a little over $15 because the button was the short stack in this hand. I won't do the math, but that clearly shifts the EV calculation in favor of rooting for both to call. And if the button's stack wasn't short, his extra money would also improve the EV for us if he called.

Note: I'm not advocating calling here instead of pushing. I'd push this PF every time. But, I'd do it because I expect both players to call and I want their money in the pot now, before they see the flop and suddenly decide they don't like their hands so much.

[/ QUOTE ]


The EV is the EV. Intuition is no substitute for math. If the math says it is EV neutral, then it is. Your intuition is simply wrong. It is EV neutral because the amount of extra money being put into the hand is negated by the decreased odds of you winning the hand once this extra player is involved in the hand.

Your math is also wrong. Assuming we lose to button, but beat UTG+1, we end up with ~$15 after this hand. Since hero started with ~$25 we lose $10 in this scenario.

Now if you mean that we win ~$15 in the sense that $15 is better than $0, then I suppose this is a win. But again, who is to say UTG+1 won't be the one to hit his set? And what about the case in which post-flop, only the person who beats you continues with the hand?

[Haiku]

Definitely shove preflop; flat calling here (we know we're not folding this after the flop) is a huge mistake. When your opponents put money in the pot preflop, they're doing so with a big equity disadvantage. If you flat call and force them to put in a good portion of their stack post-flop, not only do you potentially allow them to get away from the hand, but more importantly it could be you putting in money with a marked equity disadvantage.

[Finch]

[ QUOTE ]

The EV is the EV. Intuition is no substitute for math.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never attempted to substitute intuition for math. The extra $15 that we don't lose if the button hits nudges your neutral EV situation in favor of wanting both callers. That's what the math says.

[ QUOTE ]

It is EV neutral because the amount of extra money being put into the hand is negated by the decreased odds of you winning the hand once this extra player is involved in the hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is false. And I think that understanding it intuitively is as important as the math. Since we have a better hand than the button, every dollar that he puts into the pot is +EV for us. That is the very nature of having a better hand in an all-in situation. If the tables were turned and you had QQ vs. the button's AA, you would want him to fold intuitively. But the real reason why his fold is better for you is because the amount of extra money being put into the hand is more than offset by the decreased odds of you winning the hand once this extra player is involved in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]

Now if you mean that we win ~$15 in the sense that $15 is better than $0, then I suppose this is a win. But again, who is to say UTG+1 won't be the one to hit his set? And what about the case in which post-flop, only the person who beats you continues with the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already stated very clearly that I am all-in before the flop every single time with this hand. I'm not arguing for calling before the flop. I am only saying that we want both opponents to call our all-in.

[notevenhere]

[ QUOTE ]
This statement is false. And I think that understanding it intuitively is as important as the math. Since we have a better hand than the button, every dollar that he puts into the pot is +EV for us. That is the very nature of having a better hand in an all-in situation. If the tables were turned and you had QQ vs. the button's AA, you would want him to fold intuitively. But the real reason why his fold is better for you is because the amount of extra money being put into the hand is more than offset by the decreased odds of you winning the hand once this extra player is involved in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuition really sucks here. Intuition pretty much always sucks. Which is why we take the time to do the math.

To say that the dollar amount that button puts in is irrelevent is completely ignoring the math.

Consider this specific hand we are discussing. Now imagine that instead of having commit ~$12 extra dollars to go all-in, button has only 3 cents left to go all in.

Do you want the button to:

a) Fold and hero to have an 82% chance of winning a ~$55 pot.
b) Call and hero to have a 67% chance of winning a ~$55 + 3 cents pot?

Obviously you want scenario A.

Now, nobody in their right mind folds if its just 3 cents to go to move all-in. However, I am using this an example to illustrate that the amount of money matters.

What your "intuition" is forgetting, is that any time an extra player is in the hand, we are less likely to win it. Unless he puts up enough money to justify denting my winning percentage, I want him out.

[ QUOTE ]
I already stated very clearly that I am all-in before the flop every single time with this hand. I'm not arguing for calling before the flop. I am only saying that we want both opponents to call our all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, we have proven mathematically that button folding is EV neutral. I don't see why this is still being argued.

Where do you get the impression that I think you are arguing for calling? I am disagreeing with you that we want button to call. We both agree to push the flop. I just happen to know mathematically, that its EV neutral whether button calls. So I don't care if the button calls or not. You want him to call because you think it is EV+.