Don't Fall in the "All in" Pit

by Jim Woods

You are in an early stage of a no-limit holdem tournament, with $50 and $100 blinds. You raise $300 from middle position with Big Slick because...well, that's what you are supposed to do, right? Three opponents see the beautiful K97 rainbow flop with you, and when the big blind (let's call him "Harry") checks, you bet $500. Two opponents fold, but Harry calls. A deuce falls on the turn, and again Harry checks. You bet $1,000 and Harry goes all in. What do you do?

Like most of life's questions, you should answer this one, "It depends." Are you pot-committed? What type of player is Harry? Do you even know, or is this the first hand you have seen him play? How much does he know about your play? Would he have defended his big blind with K9, K7, or 97, even suited? If he did, would he have merely called on the flop, taking the chance that you would outdraw him on the turn or river? It's unlikely that he has top set, but would it surprise you that someone would defend with 99 or 77? And wouldn't someone who flopped a set slow-play against a single opponent? On the other hand, are you ahead, and Harry is trying to put a move on you with just a pair, an open-ender, or a mere bluff?

Suppose you want to call. Do you have him covered, and if so, by how much? Will a loss here leave you crippled or well-armed? How much did you pay for the tourney? Do you like the composition of your table, and if you do, what are the odds it will break soon anyway? Would you rather be at the juicy ring game your friend just told you about? Or are you determined to make the money in this tournament?

My point is not to make you dizzy with all those questions, but to get beyond the all-too-typical response: "I have top pair and top kicker, so of course I'm going all in!" Harry could have interpreted your flop bet as a continuation bet, especially since it was only about half of the pot. However, after your substantial turn bet he has to know that you either have a real hand or are a determined bluffer. For him to go all in, early in the tournament, the odds are that he has you beaten. Whether you want to show your tough fold is another matter-perhaps the subject of a future article.

In a no-limit tournament, one big mistake can put you out. Unless the buy-in was an utterly insignificant amount of money to you, you generally expect some "bang for your buck." That means not going all in, and especially not calling all in, without a strong chance of doubling or tripling your stack.

Why are you in a no-limit tournament in the first place? A common reply is, "I'm tired of people chasing and sucking out on me in limit play. I want to be able to protect my hand." Another is, "I like to bluff!" Perhaps a less common response, but valid nevertheless, is, "Limit tournaments take too long. I want to get to the money faster!"

Given one or more of those reasons, in the early and middle stages you certainly do not want to go all in just to "see where you are" in the hand. Suppose you limp with 7 6 and the flop is J 6 2. Unless you are short-stacked, I do not recommend an all-in bet, even against a single opponent. In general, any time the betting has not allowed you to minimize the chances of someone having you dominated, an all-in with just a pair is not smart tournament poker.

"But wait one cotton-pickin' minute, Woods, you wussy," you say. "Just a pair? If I have an overcard pair to the board, I'm going all in to protect my hand!" But why bet more than you have to bet in order to achieve your goal? Remember this: When you go all in, there are four main types of opponents who will call: Someone who is ahead of you, a bad player, someone with many outs and a bigger stack, or someone who puts you on a bluff. The smaller the pot, the less likely it is that an opponent will call "to keep you honest," and the less reason there is for you to try to take down the pot as it stands. The other three types are likely to call, and even the unpredictable bad player will usually have a shot at ending your tournament. I cannot count the number of times I have heard, "Can you believe that moron knocked me out with THAT hand?" Often I have to stifle the question, "Why did you go all in in the first place?"

Another way in which I see the all in being overused is when the bettor has the nuts. A prime example occurred in this summer's World Series Main Event, Hevad Khan flopped the nut flush and was lucky enough to get two sizeable calls from an opponent who had a straight. Hevad was first to act after the river card fell (it had changed neither player's hand), and he went all in! The opponent folded and Hevad made zilch on the river, whereas a smaller bet could have produced a call or even a suicide all in by the holder of the straight.

If we want to give Hevad the benefit of the doubt (and after his televised antics, I'm not at all sure that he deserves that), I do not know what previous hands the two had seen each other play. Perhaps Hevad thought his opponent had a lower flush that he would be unable to lay down, or that his all in would make it appear that he (Hevad) had been on a flush draw all along, maybe including a pair or two, and had missed his flush on the river. However, I think a better thought process would have been as follows: "He has called both of my bets on a one-suit flop. We are fairly late in the tournament, and he is a good player. I can put him on one of the following hands: A lower flush (please, poker gods!), a straight, a set, two pairs, or a busted flush draw. I shouldn't check, because I doubt he'll bet into me, so I should bet as much as I would with top two pairs. That way, he's only likely to fold if he was chasing a flush, and I may get a small-to-medium raise out of him if he has the straight or lower flush."

In sum, use the all in sparingly until you're in the money. Unless your back is against the wall, never go all in where the only person who will call will have you dominated.

This article was published at an earlier date on PokerPages.com and is being rerun due to popular demand.

About the Author:
Jim Woods is a middle-aged attorney (but please don't hold that against him) that loves fishing and poker. He has an undergraduate degree... that comes in handy in poker, less so in poker. His one favorite poker fantasy? Using Cling Eastwood's famous line on Phil Hellmuth while having him dominated in a hand: "I know what you're thinking... But what you gotta as yourself is: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well... do ya, punk?