![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Has Han The Man Got One Wrong?
Jun. 3rd, 2005 09:17 pmIdling through Harrington On Hold 'em, I came to this hand on page 115 (Hand 3-4). I'm not sure that I agree with Harrington's analysis.
The blinds are 800/1600 with 200 antes. You are down to the last three tables in a major tournament. Harrington doesn't say whether you are already in the money or approaching the bubble (I think that this is an important factor), but I'm going to assume that everyone is already in the money and that no important "trigger point" (i.e., a massive jump in the prize money) is imminent.
With 8 players at the table you are in MP2. Players A, B and C fold. You have QS QD with 60,000 in chips. You decide to raise to 4000. My first instinct if I had QQ in this position would be that this might be a fraction low, but the stacks of players potentially still in range from 21,000 to 39,000, so this raise is probably threatening enough. What you really want is one opponent, but not two. I would probably make this something like 5,100, but I'm more of an online tournament player. Live, 4,000 here is probably the equivalent of 5,100 online!
Anyway, PLayer E to your left folds and player F, with 37,000 and on the button, raises to 10,000. The SB and BB fold. What do you do?
Harrington's recommendation is that you should reraise all-in, because by doing so you are risking 27,000 of your own money to win 45,000. You do so, and your opponent calls, showing KK.
The board comes 8-7-3 (all spades)-J-4 (neither spades), and you lose.
It's at this point that I think Harrington becomes guilty of "hindsightitis".He writes "Note that you were destined to lose a lot of money on this hand. had you not put him all-in on the flop but just called, the flush draw would have fored you to put him all-in on the flop".
So, Harrington is saying "it makes no difference that you went all-in pre-flop, because you would have gone in on the flop and lost anyway". Well yes, as things transpired, you would have, but there are a number of scenarios where just calling pre-flop and then betting post-flop is the better move.
Indeed, I think that one might say that, as a general principle, if you think that all of the money is going to go in anyway, and the situation is already heads-up, and you will be first to act after the flop then a call and an automatic all-in on the flop is a better move than a reraise all-in before the flop.
Let's look at where the call pre-flop turns out to be a non-optimal play. Well, the answer is obvious. It's sub-optimal when your reraise would have caused your opponent to fold pre-flop, and he would have beaten you and he would have called your post-flop all-in bet. it is also sub-optimal when your bet on the flop is not called, and you would have beaten him.
Harrington goes through the range of hands that he thinks opponent can have. These run through AA, KK (you are big dog), through AK (you are slight favourite) through lower pairs (say Js down to 9s), where you are a big favourite, and "any other holding" you are big favourite. As Dan points out, this makes you a likely favourite. But that does not mean it is right for you to make it a chip race.
The key combinations here are the AK (16 combinatons), KK (6 combinations) and the lower pairs (18 combinations).
Say you flat-call here. Most of the time it will make no difference. You go all-in on the flop and you are called by the KK. But suppose the flop comes Axx? What if you go all-in now?
Your opponent will still have 27,000 chips in front of him. Will he call you down? If he is any half-way decent player he will be thinking that AQ, AJ, AT, or A9 are your most likely holdings. QQ or any other pair will be lower down the pecking order. I reckon he will fold. But even if he doesn't. Even if he calls you, then you are no worse off than you would have been if you had put all your money in pre-flop.
I accept that you are perhaps giving up some expected value on those hands that you win in the chip race, particularly when opponent has the lower pair. But if he has AK or KK, then by flat-calling and going in all-in on any flop (you probably get the AK to fold on a rag flop, which wins if an A or K would have come on turn or river, although of course your winnings are reduced from the all-in pre-flop and if an A or K does not come on turn and river).
I dunno, it seems to me that flat-calling with QQ in this situation and then moving all-in on the flop has about the same EV overall, but with less volatility (i.e., you are slightly more likely to win the pot, but the average size of the pot will be slightly smaller). Is this a good thing? In the scenario that harrington describes, I suspect that it is.
The blinds are 800/1600 with 200 antes. You are down to the last three tables in a major tournament. Harrington doesn't say whether you are already in the money or approaching the bubble (I think that this is an important factor), but I'm going to assume that everyone is already in the money and that no important "trigger point" (i.e., a massive jump in the prize money) is imminent.
With 8 players at the table you are in MP2. Players A, B and C fold. You have QS QD with 60,000 in chips. You decide to raise to 4000. My first instinct if I had QQ in this position would be that this might be a fraction low, but the stacks of players potentially still in range from 21,000 to 39,000, so this raise is probably threatening enough. What you really want is one opponent, but not two. I would probably make this something like 5,100, but I'm more of an online tournament player. Live, 4,000 here is probably the equivalent of 5,100 online!
Anyway, PLayer E to your left folds and player F, with 37,000 and on the button, raises to 10,000. The SB and BB fold. What do you do?
Harrington's recommendation is that you should reraise all-in, because by doing so you are risking 27,000 of your own money to win 45,000. You do so, and your opponent calls, showing KK.
The board comes 8-7-3 (all spades)-J-4 (neither spades), and you lose.
It's at this point that I think Harrington becomes guilty of "hindsightitis".He writes "Note that you were destined to lose a lot of money on this hand. had you not put him all-in on the flop but just called, the flush draw would have fored you to put him all-in on the flop".
So, Harrington is saying "it makes no difference that you went all-in pre-flop, because you would have gone in on the flop and lost anyway". Well yes, as things transpired, you would have, but there are a number of scenarios where just calling pre-flop and then betting post-flop is the better move.
Indeed, I think that one might say that, as a general principle, if you think that all of the money is going to go in anyway, and the situation is already heads-up, and you will be first to act after the flop then a call and an automatic all-in on the flop is a better move than a reraise all-in before the flop.
Let's look at where the call pre-flop turns out to be a non-optimal play. Well, the answer is obvious. It's sub-optimal when your reraise would have caused your opponent to fold pre-flop, and he would have beaten you and he would have called your post-flop all-in bet. it is also sub-optimal when your bet on the flop is not called, and you would have beaten him.
Harrington goes through the range of hands that he thinks opponent can have. These run through AA, KK (you are big dog), through AK (you are slight favourite) through lower pairs (say Js down to 9s), where you are a big favourite, and "any other holding" you are big favourite. As Dan points out, this makes you a likely favourite. But that does not mean it is right for you to make it a chip race.
The key combinations here are the AK (16 combinatons), KK (6 combinations) and the lower pairs (18 combinations).
Say you flat-call here. Most of the time it will make no difference. You go all-in on the flop and you are called by the KK. But suppose the flop comes Axx? What if you go all-in now?
Your opponent will still have 27,000 chips in front of him. Will he call you down? If he is any half-way decent player he will be thinking that AQ, AJ, AT, or A9 are your most likely holdings. QQ or any other pair will be lower down the pecking order. I reckon he will fold. But even if he doesn't. Even if he calls you, then you are no worse off than you would have been if you had put all your money in pre-flop.
I accept that you are perhaps giving up some expected value on those hands that you win in the chip race, particularly when opponent has the lower pair. But if he has AK or KK, then by flat-calling and going in all-in on any flop (you probably get the AK to fold on a rag flop, which wins if an A or K would have come on turn or river, although of course your winnings are reduced from the all-in pre-flop and if an A or K does not come on turn and river).
I dunno, it seems to me that flat-calling with QQ in this situation and then moving all-in on the flop has about the same EV overall, but with less volatility (i.e., you are slightly more likely to win the pot, but the average size of the pot will be slightly smaller). Is this a good thing? In the scenario that harrington describes, I suspect that it is.
