All or nothing for pot odds?

[Swordpoker]

Just had a facinating hand in a 18 player tourney $30+3

I was in BB with 

There was a raise of 70 in 4th (from 20, the tourney had just started) and 5 callers including me.

Flop 

3 players went all-in and I followed greedily looking at the pot odds.

It turns out that I was drawing dead to  (what he was doing all-in I'll never know)

The board paired with  on the turn and was won by the initial raiser who had 

So,

Was I right to call? I wasn't to know I was drawing dead but even so, is it a good idea to take the huge risk of going out for the chance to become chip leader early on? Should I have waited for less risky opportunities later on?

[thetank]

You would have been very correct to fold.
A call is wrong IMO.

Seems simple (as you've given away the others holdings) but its for exactly that reason.

If you've a non-nut draw, don't figure to have 9 nut outs all the time. With 3 other players all-in the likelyhood of another player having the nut flush draw is just too great.

That and very probably, one player has a set, so you can get locked out or re-drawn on some occoasions when you do make your flush.

This is probably even a fold in a cash game, in a tournament its a definite no-no. If it was a re-buy or the first hour of a freeroll I might lump it in, but otherwise my cards would be in the muck faster than *insert witty anaolgy here*

[RioRodent]

Well I wouldn't class myself as an expert but for what it's worth....

I would say you were wrong to call.

IMO, this early in a tournament when you have plenty of chips, compared to the blinds, risking it all on a draw is too big of a risk whatever the 'pot odds'.

I think calls based on 'pot odds' - where all your chips are at stake - should be reserevd for later in the tournament if you start to get short stacked.

Would you of made the same call if it had been a $300 buy-in, and not just $30?

If, as I suspect, the answer is no... then it is wrong at any level.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Cheers,
RR

[bundle]

Lesson: 1
Sit N Goes Made Easy
Howard Lederer
March 14, 2005

The Sit N Go (SNG) is online poker's great gift to the aspiring tournament player. Prior to the SNG, final table experience was hard to come by. You could enter a dozen multi-table tournaments and never find yourself at a final table. Or you could make one or two, only to get knocked out in 8th or 9th place. Adapting to an ever-diminishing number of players at a single table is a crucial skill in tournament poker, and it's a hard experience to find offline without investing a lot of time and money. Online, this experience is a mouse-click away. The SNG's advantages are many. For starters, it's low-cost, or even free. It's also fun, and convenient: You don't need to schedule it -- a SNG starts every time the table fills up -- and it's usually over in less than an hour. It is the flight simulator of Final Table play, and mastering it should be considered mandatory homework for the serious student.

Now that you know why you should play, let's look at how:

The most obvious difference between a SNG and a multi-table tournament is that when someone goes broke in a SNG, there isn't someone waiting to fill their spot. Multi-table play consists mostly of full-table, ring game poker. But as players get eliminated from a SNG, the table gets shorter- and shorter-handed. This reduction in players basically serves to artificially raise the antes. For instance, say you are playing five-handed and the blinds are 100-200: You are paying 300 in blinds for every five hands, or 60 per hand. As soon as someone gets knocked out, you're four-handed. Now you're paying 75 per hand -- a 25% increase -- despite the fact that the blinds have remained the same. Accordingly, you're forced to gamble more, or risk getting blinded out.

Since the size of the blinds relative to your stack size should always play a major role in you hand selection, I recommend starting out with pretty conservative starting hand requirements. This serves two functions: First, the blinds dictate that you play fairly tight early; the blinds are small and you are nine-handed, so they don't come around as often. Second, this helps you establish a tight image, which you hope will pay off later when the blinds are high and you might really need a timely ante steal.

But there is another not-so-obvious reason to play tighter earlier and looser later: The payout structure rewards tight play. Most SNG's pay 50% to first, 30% to second, and 20% to third. This payout structure dictates that you play for third. Why? Looking at the payout structure another way might help. Basically, the payout means that 60% gets awarded once you are down to three players, 20% gets awarded when you get down to two players, and the final 20% gets awarded to the winner. If you can just get to third, you get at least one-third of 60% of the prize pool, or 20%. You've locked up a profit, and you have a chance to win up to 30% more. It's only now that you're in the top three that your strategy should take an abrupt turn. Now it pays to gamble for the win. Let's look at the numbers again: 60% of the prize pool is off the table, and moving up one spot is worth only another 10%. But move up just one more spot and it's worth a whopping 30% extra -- that's three times more for first than it is for second. And with the blinds going up, gambling for the win is even more clearly the correct play.

I see many players employ a nearly opposite strategy. They figure they have nothing to lose, so they go for the quick double-up early. They take chances too soon when, in their view, there's "nothing on the line". Then, once they're in the money, they tighten up, thinking about that extra payout for moving up a spot. If you start to rethink your SNG approach and adopt a "slow early, fast late" strategy, you will see an almost immediate improvement in your results.

Best of luck and see you at the tables,

 
Howard Lederer

[Royal Flush]

I call if it was a nut draw...

[moritzey]

had the flop been checked and the turn brought another diamond (not the Ace), would you have called a three-way all-in?

Had the turn paired by bringing the Ace of diamonds and again, three people gone all-in before you, then what?

I think both times you should fold, expecting to be beat by at least one of the three guys - which basically means you can't really hope to improved your hand from the flop onwards in such a way that would justify a four-way all-in.

[marcro]

I would have folded preflop and not have to worry about making that flush draw after seeing the flop.

[bundle]

I would have folded preflop and not have to worry about making that flush draw after seeing the flop.

You must be some kind of rock!

[thetank]

Rocks win money at these things 

[bundle]

are you telling me you are not going to see a flop here ? and if so, what would you need to be holding to come into a pot with the implied odds here

[thetank]

That'd be telling.

[SupaMonkey]

Call or sit back and watch two players get busted. I'd fold.

[Nem]

Fold. But call if I had the 

[bundle]

That'd be telling.

And there was me thinking your a pushbot mate 

[marcro]

I would have folded preflop and not have to worry about making that flush draw after seeing the flop.

You must be some kind of rock!

No, just someone who knows KJ gets you into a lot of trouble and will cost you in the long run.