peterbirks | Tournaments are easy games... or are they?

You have to love reading Mason Malmuth and, it would appear, all the other writers in the new(ish) 2+2 Internet magazine, because it would appear that no play they ever make goes wrong. I swear that Malmuth hasn't reported on a hand that he lost since 1986. I, meanwhile, only seem to report on hands that have gone belly-up. Is this part of some underlying national psyche? Or is it, rather, representative of the fact that you learn more from hands that you lose than those that you win? Nearly all of Malmuth's posts seem to be along the lines of "look how good I am", whereas I would rather see more along the lines of "now, how can we improve on this?"

Here's a hand that set me thinking in a tournament that I just busted out of in 66th place out of 82.

I am in the small blind at near the end of level 2 with 1250 out of my original 1500 chips. There are 66 players left (but, you could have guessed that from the previous sentence, couldn't you?), making the average stack about 1800. There is one limper in mid-position who has 1600 chips. This is a low-level tournament, so I have no reason to suspect a slowplay with a powerhouse. He probably has a limping hand.

One more limper and I complete. BB checks. The argument isn't about whether I should raise here. At this point in the tournament I think not. Far better to go for a double-through if a 3 flops.

And a 3 does flop, along with an Ace and a two, both of which are spades. (I suspect you can see where we are heading here). I decide to check and attempt to get an Ace to put in some cash. BB checks and limper bets 360 into a 120 pot. Next player folds and it's now to me. That kind of bet looks like an Ace trying to protect its hand to me, rather than anything already made. I decide to call. BB folds.

Turn brings the nine of spades. I check and my opponent goes all-in. Do I call with my remaining 835 chips into a 1700 chip pot?

Well, that isn't the question I'm asking, actually. In a more Lederer-like manner, my question is as follows. How sure do I need to be that I am behind before I fold? In other words, suppose I think there is a 50% chance that my opponent has A9, or 22 (to make a set), do I call? Obviously, yes. What if I think there is only a 25% chance that he has these hands (or worse?). What if I think there is only a 5% chance that I am in front? What if I make it a 0% chance?

In this instance I put my chance of being in front at about 5%, and I still called. Part of my reasoning here was that this was not the last tournament I would play on this site, so I didn't want people to think that I could be bullied off a pot on the turn if I had called a sizeable bet on the flop. In other words, I wasn't playing as if this was my last tournament in my life. Ayway, he flipped 54 of clubs for the straight and my 7-to-2 chance failed to come in on the river, and I was out.

Should I fold this turn even if I am almost certain I am behind? I don't know. In terms of expected EV for that particular tournament, I should probably lay the hand down (or go all-in on the flop). I suspect that most "experienced" tournament players would say that a call here is correct, but, what if they are wrong?