Independent Trials v. Cumulative Stats

[SnareSound]

[ QUOTE ]
each hand is an island unto itself

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly correct. You have 8 different decisions here. Do you really fold AA at any one point because you might bust? No. There's no chance I turn down that huge edge ever just because I won it last time or the last 1000 times. If I just won AA AIPF risking all of my chips the last 1000 times, and I'm now presented with this question:

You have AA and your opponent has you covered and has gone all in. I instacall. If you don't (barring satellite, flat payouts, etc, obv), you should quit poker. This OP question is like asking if you should bother playing a tournament at all because you might bust.

Edit: Sorry this came off harsh; it wasn't meant to be. I'm very opinionated on this point and don't intend things personally.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are forgetting that after a double up or two, we don't have to worry about busting because we will become the chip leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Reread the parameters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. So villain's magically keep appearing with more chips at your table. It's still dumb to fold.

[MJBuddy]

Why wouldn't I push each time?

I mean, why am I afraid of busting?


If you can't put it all in with Aces, stop playing poker. You're way too timid to handle the gambling aspect of this game if you're afraid of putting all your money in as a huge favorite repeatedly during a tournament.

[Sherman]

I just thought of a better scenario, one that more accurately describes the imaginary one the OP has presented.

You are playing in a cash game. You get dealt AA every single hand and someone with more $ than you moves in every single hand. How many hands in a row do you call with?

That is basically what the OP is asking. Obviously you will always (eventually) lose all of your money in this game if you always call.

However, it is still a dumb game. Just as in cash games your opponents do not have infinitely large sums of money, they don't have infinitely large sums of chips in tournaments. Assuming that they will always have you covered is basically assuming you will NEVER win the tournament. Think about how dumb that is. Let's enter a tournament in which I can never win. Ignorant.

Anyhow, so long as in neither case (cash game or tournament) are you risking your entire bankroll, you should call. And in a tournament, the number of chips you have is NOT your bankroll. Your bankroll is.

Edit: BTW, at some point today I passed 2500 posts to make Carpal/Tunnel. Yeah me. I should obviously stop posting and play more.

[kurtkatt]

i just cannot understand how ppl accumlate those amount of posts. its crazy i tell u


(obv derailing this thread cuz its dumb and ppl should post or read other threads instead)

[kurtkatt]

oh, and to work on my post count obv...

[DQuadfather]

So then a question for all those who think my OP is retarded: does this mean that you shove/call all in with any 51% favorite until you bust as well? At the end of the day, you're still favored to win, no?

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
So then a question for all those who think my OP is retarded: does this mean that you shove/call all in with any 51% favorite until you bust as well? At the end of the day, you're still favored to win, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you aren't favored to win if you have to call until you bust. That is why this post makes no sense. You are basically asking, "If you have to play until you lose, should you still play?"

[4CardStraight]

Sure your odds arent great of winning with AA 8 times in a row.

Ya know what tho, your odds of winning a 2000 person tournament arent that stellar either.

You get the money in when you have the edge.

If you dont put it in against the bigger stacks with the better cards, HOW ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO ACCUMULATE CHIPS?

I think theres a flaw in thinking that there will be better spots with uncontested chips. Ive pretty much never been at a table where the short stack at the table was able to blind steal even as much as 20-25% of the hands.

Its awefully hard to get it all in as a bigger favorite than with AA preflop. Like after the flop how many people are willing to get it all in with you when they have less than 5 outs? Sure its even better to get someone in on the turn, where if they have less than 10 outs your better than the AA was preflop, but really how many situations like this occur in your average tournament for a single player?

Even if you have top set and they have a crummy flush draw on the flop your still not as good as AA vs a hand preflop. (AA vs anything is 80%+, JJ vs 4c5c on Jc8c2s is only 72%) And I think every tournament player around is willing to go broke on the flop with top set, in almost every circumstance of prize pool, payout structure, and table dynamics. I sure dont know many that would muck it.

[ThePershore]

It's obviously wrong to assume that villians with bigger and bigger stacks for some reason appear at your table, but ignoring that:

You have at least a 17% chance of winning all 8 all in's in a row, at which point you would have 256 times your starting chips (and so prolly say 150 times the average stack or whatever), at which point you could pretty much sleep to the final table so er yeah I take all 8.