|
|
. |
 |
 he Guardian Poker Column |
|
| |
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
| Victoria
Coren |
| Wed 10 Feb 2010 |
| |
 |
| |
|
|
|
Should I have gone all-in – or
folded?
|
Poker
is a game where you can – and must – keep learning as the years go
by. Betting fashions wax and wane; two of the world's top players, Vanessa
Rousso and Gus Hansen, have both recently said that they completely changed
their game strategies in the last year. But also, on a micro level, every hand
brings its own new challenges. In the High Roller event at Deauville, I found
myself in a situation I had never encountered before. |
|
|
The field was down to 10, playing
five-handed on two tables. I had only 13 big blinds. The under-the-gun player
raised to 2.5 big blinds. (This is the kind of tournament where every player
thinks he's the best in the world, so they all love small raises and minimum
bets. They all think they have an edge after cards. They can't all be right . .
.)
My hand was A K. Simple, eh? A straightforward, no-brainer all-in. But
here's the catch: during the deal, before any action took place, the ace of
hearts was exposed and removed from play.
Immediately, it is far less
likely that my opponent has the hand I want him to have: a weaker ace. If I put
him on a pair, my odds to beat him are reduced by nearly 10% by the loss of my
overcard from the deck.
I moved in anyway, because he might have
nothing and I don't want to sink below 10 big blinds. Sadly, the small blind
was lurking with JJ and knocked me out. Most fellow players say it was correct
to move in, but some say it would have been fine (or even correct) to fold. The
debate proves that poker can always catch you off guard, even in a simple
scenario like AK suited when you're short stacked.
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
. |
|
Main Menu)
