Raise or fold?

I was recently involved in one of those animated strategy discussions which tend to take place after one player asks another player what he would have done with a particular hand in a particular situation. These little chats often turn in to very loud debates involving many more than the original two players adding their two cents, and this discussion in particular completely polarised the group. The question itself was soon forgotten, and the more generalised one of how to play late stages of multi-table tournaments to win became the main subject – one which has been tackled by every major poker writer in differing ways since the poker theory door was first opened.

But to start with the situation which set them off: You are close to the bubble of a tournament. The blinds are 500 – 1,000 and the chips are unevenly distributed, with a handful of players way ahead of the pack and everyone else with between five and fifteen big blinds. Your table is pretty tight, with the biggest stack on there taking advantage of this, as expected, raising a high percentage of pots and reaping the rewards from those reluctant to risk going out so close to the money. He’s also been taking stabs at the little guys trying to force them to take a gamble. You have 10,000 in the cutoff, and the big stack raises again, under the gun, to 3,000. This time, a short stack takes the plunge for 7,000. You have been dealt pocket 10s. Raise all-in or fold?

The initial questioner had folded here, and his initial questionee agreed with his play. The reasoning went thusly: although the criteria for moving on the initial raiser are at this point pretty low, the all-in guy has messed things up for you. Taking what is most likely at worst a 50/50 shot against two random overcards becomes a grey area if the big stack calls (which he is likely to do) with a greater likelihood of there being three overcards against you, or, even worse, a bigger pair. This latter is not too worrying though, as the little stack was as aware as everyone else that the big stack wasn’t restricting himself to premium starting hands, and would call to gamble out the little stacks. So the all-in could easily be in there with a dodgy pair or a mid-Ace. There is also the unlikely possibility that the big stack actually has a big hand this time around, but it’s not worth wasting energy on worrying about that.

The questioner said that if he’d had a bigger stack and could have been sure of moving the bully off the hand he would have been inclined to push and take on the desperate short stack with what is, after all, a genuine hand. The problem, as far as he could see, was that he would be up against two players, and even if he were to lose the main pot and take the side pot, he’d still be in worse shape than if he waited for a better spot. Tens against, say, A9 and KQ in this situation are only a tiny favourite (38% to 26% and 35% respectively). With 10,000, he still had enough, he said, to pick up blinds, or double through to a more reasonable stack in a more favourable situation.

At this point, a vehement opposition arose – “Do you want to win the tournament or don’t you?” Well, everyone knows the answer to this question, at least. The other side of the argument went something like this: The short stacks all around were taking shots at a double up, and not playing this situation would probably guarantee a sneak into the money. But in one round’s time, the 10,000 will be 7,000 and just like the little guy there you won’t be able to push anyone off anything. 10,000 is barely enough to make the chip leader pause before calling, as it is. Are you really going to find better than 10 10 in the next nine hands?

More importantly, this situation provides the possibility of a near-treble-up, which will give you a stack which isn’t teetering on the edge of desperation. You’re also not likely to be up against huge hands, and a favourite is a favourite. Unless the tournament is a satellite, or has a super-flat payout, the main idea is to accumulate chips – all of them – in order to secure one of those top prizes which is vastly more than a sneak-into-the-money one. Over time, playing to win is the only strategy. In the short term, yes, you may well bust out here, or go down to a desperate stack, but in the long term you’ll be in with a chance to actually win.

So there were the two sides – fold and use what equity you had in a more favourable situation, or take a gamble now. There was total disagreement between the debaters, and despite talking about it for a good half hour, neither side could convince the other that their play was the better one. Those on the “better situation” side were quick to clarify that they were not advocating folding their way as far into the money as they could get – simply that their attack on the aggressive players could be made at a more advantageous time, and that a raise like the one made under the gun here might be picked off with a 10k stack if the pesky all-in hadn’t gotten in the way. Those on the “right here right now” side were adamant that the only way to actually win tournaments was to go for it in exactly these sorts of situations. “What good is 1,500 in blinds going to do you anyway?”

Recently a horde of aggressive young players have been dominating the tournament circuit. WPT winners Roland de Wolfe, Juha Helppi and Gus Hansen play a swashbuckling high-risk high-reward style of game which seems to secure a top-spot finish or guarantee an early exit. It’s not the same thing to start a lengthy tournament with an “accumulate or die trying” mentality as to play the later stages in this fashion. Most experienced players advise a tight start with a gradual loosening, and a lot of late-stage moves are dictated according to stack and position. Without reliance on any given system, this kind of situation divides experienced players and illustrates the complexities of tournament play. If your first instinct is towards one approach to this question, a good challenge is to try to argue the opposite – it is a good exercise in clarifying your own reasoning for acting in a certain way, or questioning whether it is correct after all.