I absolutely agree, I just dial the risk back a little bit with QQ when it's this early and everyone has me covered. Even if I have to fold on the flop to an A, I know I still have enough chips that if I stack someone I'm right back in it.

Jason, I recommend you pick up Kill Phil. not because I don't like your style. I think you could see where the all in method makes more sense than solid poker and where and when to apply it. At the least you will understand the All-in specialists better.

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

its an good move, 2nd hand of a $5 STT your likely to get called by a far greater range of hands than just AA,KK,AK...what happens if you raise to 500, and he goes all-in, you just give him credit for the monster hand and leave 1/3 of your chips on the table? bullshit. If he was so smart, and had AA, KK, he probably wouldn't have raised 5xBB into a unrised pot for fear of scaring everyone off.

the all in move is fine, most of the time you won't get called, and you've increased your stack 10%, when you do get called most of the time you win and you increase your stack 100%, and small amount of time you lose and you saved yourself 45 minutes and do something else....its win-win

if you hang around to find out who the idiots are in a $5 STT its too late, their chips are with someone else already...once in a while you get caught out and look like an idiot yourself, but who cares what ppl on the internet think..

__________________
I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour and who then asks: Am I then a cheat? for he wants to perish.

those calculations (in HOH) depend on ASSUMPTIONS.


people are going to call with a lot more than AAKKQQ and AKs.

I wanna say something stupid about long term not applying in SnGs, but I can't even spit it out - but it is true.

in the games i have been playing the range of hands that call on average is a lot bigger than that.

e.g. something like AA-55, Ax Kx Qx Jx, i have occaisionally seen players call all-in with suited connectors etc.

I am with Jason, Bonch et al on this one.

There is a reason Kill Phill was written...............its for people who cant play after the flop. I think HOH proved more than adequately that the push is -EV. I am here to play poker. Yes there are morons at the lower stakes....I count on that fact. Why would I want to gamble when I know I can outplay at least 7 of the people at the table?

I am not thrilled by getting called here PF. This is not a cash game where I can count on the fact that I am a favorite proving out over time. This is a tourney. If I push as a 2 to 1 favorite 3 times in a row where I am covered, it does not matter that I was a favorite. The one time that I am beat I am OUT of the tourney. Kaput. End of story! I think you need to weigh the elimination factor much more heavily than you do.

Outplay your opponents. Dont gamble with your tournament life until you have to.

Use your skills. Use your advantage. Push your edges hard.....just don't put yourself on a limb early in a tourney when doubling up is no guarantee of making the money.

Blanket statements are never good. I read it and realized there are correct times to implement this strategy. There is no "correct" way otherwise every single good player would do it a certain way.

In a $5 SnG this is a perfect opportunity to use the overbet all-in. There is 130 chips in the pot, which on the second hand is a good sized pot and you have the 3rd best hand in the game.

If you get a caller you could get blown off this hand on many flops not to mention the times the guy outflops you with a hand he may have folded pre-flop. If you raise to 400 and he calls with 44 and the flop is J64 and all the money goes in, who is the bad player?

Well noone really, but when you start with 1500 chips and commit 1/3rd pre-flop you have to bet at least 500 or so on the flop if he checks to you. Not to mention you fear any flop with an Ace or King wihich is 35% of the time (31% if you include the times you flop a set). So a 3rd of the time the flop scares you and say 6% of the time you get outflopped.

And, all that assumes he calls the re-raise to 400!

I guess it is just a difference of, do you want to play poker? or, Do you want to win money because the other players suck at these levels?

The all-in strategy in Kill Phil shows a fundemental flaw in NLHE tournaments that doesn't exist in NL cash games. Far too many people incorporate cash game concepts into tournaments.

Sit and Go's don't lend themselves to "proper" poker strategy.

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

The -EV proof depends on the assumption that people only call with good hands.

This early, you're getting calls from people with friggin QJs. You understanding this and getting the idiots to give you their money instead of someone else makes you the better player ya know... it doesn't mean you're giving up some kind of advantage.

The point about survival mattering is interesting... but if I get all my money in 3 times as a 2-1 favorite... by the third time there isn't anyone at my table that can eliminate me! A FAR more usual circumstance when I win my first gamble is each one after that is against someone with no more then 1/3 of my stack...

I of course play very well with a big stack. Getting one is a HUGE advantage for me in a sit 'n go, and I'll make lots of moves to try and get one.

__________________
-You may not know this, but poker is a game of incomplete information.

I think there's some misunderstanding as to where I stand on this one. I don't have a problem with anyone pushing all in PF with QQ. I do understand the all in specialists - I'm one of them.

I also understand that with QQ we'll get a lot of calls from crap aces and kings early on (with all the maniacs out there), and be 70% to stack the other guy. But there's a ratio of picking up pots to getting our all in called. And early on most of the time we're going to get our call, with probably 30% of the time just picking up a very insignificant pot. With KK or AA we'll be about 82% to win or better most of the time, and except for the extremely rare KK vs AA, we're never worse than 70% to win.

With QQ we're not as well off. So I think we slow down just a little (yes just a little) because the # of times we're going to pick up that insignificant pot just don't help us enough for the # of times we're not that much of a favorite to win. As the starting pots grow, that ratio increases, and now we can move all in with QQ PF.

I'm still for getting all of our chips in the middle on the flop if there's no overcards. If there are, we play it more cautiously.

This is much the way I play AK or AQ early on. I min raise or flat call any raise in any position. If an A or K flops (or a Q with AQ), I go all in on the flop. Same with a set, or Flush Draw+Straight or Overcard Draw.

Anyway, I'll check out Kill Phil. I'm open to playing the Queens faster PF early on, but I know I can still money with 1/2-2/3 my stack a good amount of the time, so I'm not looking to bust out early on QQ.

Ok, just ordered Kill Phil from Amazon. Even did the 2-day shipping instead of standard.

Maybe I'll come back in a couple of days and tell you that you were right . . .

BTW, I did want to make a comment on people who think there's a "right way" to play poker. They eat the fish, we eat them and the fish.

Poker is a lot like war. I will use whatever tactic, whenever needed, to win. Period. And I usually target the "right way" players as soon as they open their mouths to correct someone on how they "should have played it". Now that they've opened their big mouths, I know who they are and how to beat them. Their chips will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

LOL