There is one, and only one, most dangerous play in a sit n go poker tournament.
In terms of level of risk and gravity of consequence, it ranks far above all the others.
It is this one - when you call an opening pre-flop bet early in the tournament with all of your chips, and thus if the hand is lost, would mean your elimination.
In other words, when you agree to an opponent's invitation to a race for all of your chips.
Or, said yet another way, when you agree to relinquish all control of the play of your hand, and designate that the cards alone, through the operation of fate, should decide whether you are eliminated or not.
Have you thought of the situation quite this way before? Essentially, when you call an all-in bet you are placing a blindfold around your head, shoving your chips in the middle, sitting idly by, and waiting for a fickle, untrustworthy, scoundrel (luck) to decide your fate.
Naturally, you protest.
"What if I am holding two great cards? I would be willing to take the risk of elimination in the hope of doubling-up my stack.
Furthermore, an opportunity like that may not come along again.
If I double-up, my chances of winning are enhanced, and there would then be one less opponent between me and the money.
And, aside from all of that, I would have been challenged.
I am not going to allow an opponent to push me around.
I am a courageous warrior, not a retreating coward!" Okay, you have made some compelling arguments, except for that ego business.
And, I reckon one or more of your arguments are the same ones that most players use when jumping into a race.
But, before we start jumping, why don't we dig a little deeper.
First, let's take a closer look at the qualifying conditions mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs: 1.
'Opening pre-flop bet'.
This means that an opponent has opened the betting by shoving in enough chips to cover your stack.
There was no raise and re-raise action.
There was no action of any kind to suggest the strength of his hand.
There were only two indications of his strength - the fact that he pushed, and possibly his position.
So, compared to the normal play of a hand, you are at a disadvantage for lack of information.
You do not have a gage as to the strength of your opponent's hand - he could be weak or strong, or anything in between.
2.
'Early in the tournament'.
This amounts to another information disadvantage for you, since you would not have had enough time to observe the current style of this opponent.
You could assume his motivation, but there are too many possibilities without more information.
He may be setting a trap with A-A for a greedy opponent.
He may be incorrectly stealing a too-small pot with 2-3 off-suit.
He may be on tilt from a bad-beat elimination in a prior tournament.
He may be taking a calculated risk with J-T suited.
Or, he may be motivated by solely the hope of an early double-up because he knows, due to his inexperience, that that is his best chance of surviving the middle stage of the tournament.
You do not know, nor have you had enough observation time to have a good hunch.
3.
'Outcome is to be decided by fate'.
Say, you have been dealt two premium cards.
Still, there is no guarantee of a winning outcome.
Granted, mathematics tells us that you will win the showdown most of the time - of course, assuming that you do in fact hold the best starting hand.
But, your 'most of the time' could be a real thin margin - basically, a coin-flip.
And, probability plays by funny rules - your 'most of the time', regardless if a thin or wide margin, might not become a reality until having first suffered through numerous losses.
So, in this one trial you cannot depend upon 'most of the time' to make you a winner.
Probabilities do not work that way.
Your A-A could, for example, lose to K-K, A-K, J-T, even 2-2, many times in a row, before finally standing-up in a showdown.
You see, the notion of being a favorite is conceptual, not absolute.
Indeed, when gambling you should most always press your margins (edges) when a favorite, within the limits of your bankroll.
But, in a sit n go tournament you are playing with a small, finite, non-replenish-able bankroll (stack).
Your stack is vulnerable, easily damaged, and if lost, then you are effectively tournament bankrupt.
This would be an unacceptable outcome, one to be guarded against.
So, while you may be a conceptual favorite by a wide margin, you are never a guaranteed, absolute winner.
Thus, when you press your margin by calling the all-in bet, if the improbable happens, and you lose; you are absolutely, not conceptually, eliminated.
The finality of the decision (being eliminated from the tournament), gives the matter of pressing margins in this situation a different flavor than a similar situation in a cash game.
In other words, there is no similar finality in a cash game, unless you become truly bankrupt.
If you lose with the same A-A hand in a cash game, which probability-wise you would always have played due to your wide margin, then you just buy more chips.
And, wait for the next good opportunity to get all of your chips in the middle - hoping that Lady Luck will be more kind.
See the flaw with calling an all-in bet in a tournament? Simply stated - no matter how good your starting hand, all of the factors we will be considering combine to yield a generally negative expectation.
It is a difficult, but important concept, so here are some important points, followed by a common tournament scenario:
It seems like a sweet situation.
You most certainly expect to win.
There is really no need to worry about expectations - whether you are way ahead, or merely a coin-flip favorite.
You just know you have a really good hand that should, and probably will, win.
Anyway, you are committed to accepting fate's decision.
Although, you have not really thought that far ahead.
Then, darn it, the worst happens - your opponent sucks-out.
He rivers a flush with his crappy Q-J off-suit.
You have been eliminated even though you held a much better starting hand, say K-K.
"Unbelievable," you think.
Or, was it? While you are signing up for your next tournament, you bitterly recall that you have lost with every one of your recent premium holdings.
In the next tournament, guess what? The same thing happens again - you get eliminated with the very best starting hand, this time with A-A.
Now you are beginning to question the integrity of the poker room.
"This cannot be happening," you think.
"This site must be rigged," you wail.
Well, the site is not rigged.
You have just gotten a harsh, but not uncommon, dose of the worst that probability has to offer.
When it comes to poker and probability, whatever can happen, will happen.
Meaning, that you can suffer every imaginable bad beat, over and over - think, losing streak.
And, just because a bad beat just did happen to you, does not mean that it will not happen again, real soon, and repeatedly.
Contrarily, just because a particular outcome has not happened (like winning), does not mean that it is about to happen.
We are all stuck with a lifetime (in cards and otherwise) of whatever probability happens to dish out.
Be it too long a stretch of bad luck, or too short a stretch of good luck, or any twisted variation in between.
Even though you might have had a positive expectation of winning, that matter of the negative possibility, no matter how remote, might dominate the outcome for several trials in a row, or for the majority of the next several dozen trials.
Indeed, it is conceivable that you might not live long enough to see your particular starting hand actually win at its expected rate.
That is why we say that being a statistical favorite is merely a conceptual distinction.
The possibility of winning is conceptual, because while statistically it could and should happen, it may not actually happen.
For you, given your limited number of trials (one, a dozen, perhaps even a hundred), and especially for any one particular trial, you are subject to the vagaries of fate (otherwise known as variance or luck).
However, on a more positive note, the possibility of losing should not discourage you from often taking risk.
Especially, a good one that enjoys lots of edges.
But, rather inform you that there are situations when you would not want to take the risk no matter how enticing.
In many situations, good judgment can contribute more value to an expectation than probability.
4.
'Relinquish all control'.
In this sense, we are thinking of controlling the destiny of our stack, the same as we could if we were in post-flop play.
But, since we are all-in we can no longer make any decisions, such as folding our hand, and thus protecting our stack from ruin.
Nor can we raise, or make any other moves to out-play an opponent; and, possibly win the pot, despite perhaps holding an inferior hand than an opponent.
Relinquishing control is the antithesis of poker.
Think about it.
Since this is so, then it would seem that in a sit n go, the last thing that you would want to do is to use all of your chips to call an opponent's pre-flop all-in bet.
Almost every other way to accumulate chips is much less risky - by virtue of remaining in control.
As usual, every rule in poker depends on the situation, and is thus subject to exception.
Here are eight situations, when you might want to make an exception to the rule: 1.
When you hold A-A or K-K.
Granted, they are the two best, but remember that there are no guarantees.
For example, A-A could easily lose to any hand with lots of outs, such as J-T suited, which could make a straight, flush, trips, or two pair.
This is why you prefer not to play your top pocket pairs in a multi-way pot.
Because, while you may dominate one of the opponents holding, say, T-T (who might still beat you), the others may be on multi-out draws (who will have a real good chance to beat you).
And, even though A-K and Q-Q, for example, are premium hands, their risk (and certainly any lesser hands) is great enough to definitely warrant the muck pile.
2.
When you have a good read on your opponent.
Perhaps, you just observed him in another tournament.
And, you can see that he is definitely off of his game.
Maybe, even on tilt.
3.
When you know your opponent's starting hand range.
Perhaps, you have good notes on your opponent.
Perhaps, you have seen enough of his showdowns to know that your hand would typically enjoy a wide margin for success.
4.
When your opponent's position would suggest a steal.
An opening bet from the cut-off or button position could be evidence enough to suspicion a steal.
5.
When your gut tells you to do so.
Some things cannot be quantified.
Likely, your subconscious has seen or recalled something that your conscious mind has missed.
This would be a situation when things just do not add up.
An internal alarm has started sounding, and you have a strong feeling that you should call your opponent's bet.
Of course, under the conditions laid out above - early in the tournament and a pre-flop bet - there would be pretty slim evidence for such a feeling.
So, this could be one of those times when you allow your intuition to override logic.
6.
When it is later in the tournament.
Later in the tournament, circumstances, like your M, may dictate that a call is necessary.
At this point, you would essentially have little or no choice in the matter.
7.
When your opponent's push is out of character with betting patterns.
Sometimes an opponent's pot-size bet seems to suggest more strength than does a push.
Meaning that, by comparison to a pot-size bet, a push, even though it is a much larger bet, is often seen as a play by a weak hand.
The smaller pot-size bet appears to be acting weak, suggesting that it wants a call, and thus is strong.
Whereas, the push is acting strong, suggesting that it does not want a call, and thus is weak.
8.
When a particular opponent pushes.
Sometimes you recognize the opponent, and know him to be the weakest or the strongest player in the tournament.
In the case of the weakest, you might decide to call because you would rather attempt to win this player's chips now, than to allow another player to win them later.
In the case of the strongest, it may serve your purposes well to attempt to eliminate this player now before he builds a chip lead.
Of course, there can even be exceptions to exceptions.
Such would be the case with the trickiest player in the tournament.
He would push with A-A because he knows that many players would think him to be weak.
This consideration was thrown-in to further underscore your overall deficit of information.
Alright, things are probably getting confusing.
First, there was the one rule - do not call an early tournament pre-flop bet that would put you all-in.
Followed by four broad reasons in support.
Then, by eight reasonable exceptions.
And now, we have three related concepts to consider.
These concepts will help round out our understanding of the rule: 1.
Acceptable All-In Play.
The theories regarding the play of the most dangerous hand do not apply when you are the one opening with an all-in bet.
In that case, you have leverage (fold equity) on your side.
As well as, all of the above reasons, applied in reverse.
That is, the theories against calling would become the very reasons that an opponent should not, and probably would not, call your bet.
And, the theories would not apply to post-flop play where you and an opponent became all-in, and went to a showdown decision.
In this case, you would have enjoyed full information, and been able to exercise your judgment with each action, thus remaining in decision making control.
2.
Perfect Information.
Even if you knew an opponent's two hole cards, and even if your cards were better; there would be times when the risk of a race - possible elimination - would not be worth the reward.
This would especially be the case in two scenarios:
Tournament Stake.
In the early rounds, the only stake you have in the tournament is the nominal entry fee.
After a while, your stake increases to include time.
And, after an opponent is eliminated, your stake has become a growing chance of making the money.
This explains why some opponents play like maniacs in the first rounds of a tournament - their stake is small.
Consequently, in their minds, the reward of doubling-up far out-weighs the risk of losing their small stake - a nominal entry fee.
Basically, if they cannot play the tournament with an early chip advantage, then they do not want to play.
This is usually a strategy employed by inexperienced players, who do not have confidence in their ability to otherwise accumulate chips.
Which, helps to explain why it is not a good strategy for an experienced player, and why one would not want to call their pre-flop all-in bet.
Why play a loser's game? Their limited strategy - push-or-fold - is generally not a suitable strategy for an experienced player.
Obviously, you would not want to play their game.
But, would rather want to force them, through non-participation in their game, to play your game.
Finally, here is the bottom line: As a good general rule, if you have a choice, do not call pre-flop all-in bets early in a tournament.
Because, no matter how strong your hand, it is always akin to a blind decision.
The lack of information, plus the surrendering of control, plus the probability of bad luck, all of which could result in the gravest of outcomes (elimination), is (figuratively, speaking) the same as gambling with your life without a safety net.
In other words, it is a bad gamble.
So, pass on the invitation to race.
And, wait for a situation where you would have a greater edge - more information, more control, and preferably a stack large enough to survive a loss without being eliminated.
In terms of level of risk and gravity of consequence, it ranks far above all the others.
It is this one - when you call an opening pre-flop bet early in the tournament with all of your chips, and thus if the hand is lost, would mean your elimination.
In other words, when you agree to an opponent's invitation to a race for all of your chips.
Or, said yet another way, when you agree to relinquish all control of the play of your hand, and designate that the cards alone, through the operation of fate, should decide whether you are eliminated or not.
Have you thought of the situation quite this way before? Essentially, when you call an all-in bet you are placing a blindfold around your head, shoving your chips in the middle, sitting idly by, and waiting for a fickle, untrustworthy, scoundrel (luck) to decide your fate.
Naturally, you protest.
"What if I am holding two great cards? I would be willing to take the risk of elimination in the hope of doubling-up my stack.
Furthermore, an opportunity like that may not come along again.
If I double-up, my chances of winning are enhanced, and there would then be one less opponent between me and the money.
And, aside from all of that, I would have been challenged.
I am not going to allow an opponent to push me around.
I am a courageous warrior, not a retreating coward!" Okay, you have made some compelling arguments, except for that ego business.
And, I reckon one or more of your arguments are the same ones that most players use when jumping into a race.
But, before we start jumping, why don't we dig a little deeper.
First, let's take a closer look at the qualifying conditions mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs: 1.
'Opening pre-flop bet'.
This means that an opponent has opened the betting by shoving in enough chips to cover your stack.
There was no raise and re-raise action.
There was no action of any kind to suggest the strength of his hand.
There were only two indications of his strength - the fact that he pushed, and possibly his position.
So, compared to the normal play of a hand, you are at a disadvantage for lack of information.
You do not have a gage as to the strength of your opponent's hand - he could be weak or strong, or anything in between.
2.
'Early in the tournament'.
This amounts to another information disadvantage for you, since you would not have had enough time to observe the current style of this opponent.
You could assume his motivation, but there are too many possibilities without more information.
He may be setting a trap with A-A for a greedy opponent.
He may be incorrectly stealing a too-small pot with 2-3 off-suit.
He may be on tilt from a bad-beat elimination in a prior tournament.
He may be taking a calculated risk with J-T suited.
Or, he may be motivated by solely the hope of an early double-up because he knows, due to his inexperience, that that is his best chance of surviving the middle stage of the tournament.
You do not know, nor have you had enough observation time to have a good hunch.
3.
'Outcome is to be decided by fate'.
Say, you have been dealt two premium cards.
Still, there is no guarantee of a winning outcome.
Granted, mathematics tells us that you will win the showdown most of the time - of course, assuming that you do in fact hold the best starting hand.
But, your 'most of the time' could be a real thin margin - basically, a coin-flip.
And, probability plays by funny rules - your 'most of the time', regardless if a thin or wide margin, might not become a reality until having first suffered through numerous losses.
So, in this one trial you cannot depend upon 'most of the time' to make you a winner.
Probabilities do not work that way.
Your A-A could, for example, lose to K-K, A-K, J-T, even 2-2, many times in a row, before finally standing-up in a showdown.
You see, the notion of being a favorite is conceptual, not absolute.
Indeed, when gambling you should most always press your margins (edges) when a favorite, within the limits of your bankroll.
But, in a sit n go tournament you are playing with a small, finite, non-replenish-able bankroll (stack).
Your stack is vulnerable, easily damaged, and if lost, then you are effectively tournament bankrupt.
This would be an unacceptable outcome, one to be guarded against.
So, while you may be a conceptual favorite by a wide margin, you are never a guaranteed, absolute winner.
Thus, when you press your margin by calling the all-in bet, if the improbable happens, and you lose; you are absolutely, not conceptually, eliminated.
The finality of the decision (being eliminated from the tournament), gives the matter of pressing margins in this situation a different flavor than a similar situation in a cash game.
In other words, there is no similar finality in a cash game, unless you become truly bankrupt.
If you lose with the same A-A hand in a cash game, which probability-wise you would always have played due to your wide margin, then you just buy more chips.
And, wait for the next good opportunity to get all of your chips in the middle - hoping that Lady Luck will be more kind.
See the flaw with calling an all-in bet in a tournament? Simply stated - no matter how good your starting hand, all of the factors we will be considering combine to yield a generally negative expectation.
It is a difficult, but important concept, so here are some important points, followed by a common tournament scenario:
- The rules of the game tell us the rank of the cards and of the hands - which ones beat which ones (A is the best card, Royal Flush is the best hand).
- Computer simulations tell us the expected frequency of two hold'em starting cards becoming a winning hand (A-A is best).
- Note that every possible starting hand (169) can make a winning hand, just as every one of them can also lose - there are no sure things.
The best starting hand, A-A, can lose to the worst, 2-3 off-suit. - The expected frequency for each such occurrence, creating a winning or losing final hand, will be different for each starting hand - some a little or lot more, and some a little or lot less than any other.
This sort of sliding scale from best to worst has been divided into nine groupings - Group 1 are the premium holdings, Group 9 are the trash hands. - Observations tell us that what actually happens (A-A losing a hand), compared to what was expected to happen (A-A winning the hand), can vary widely - the expected frequency of occurrence can be skewed by the size of the sample (number of trials).
- Sample size can exacerbate (too few trials), or reconcile (enough trials) - presumably, the more trials the closer the actual (A-A winning) will come to the expected (A-A winning).
- Each trial is independent - whatever happened in the past (A-A losing) has no influence on what will happen next (A-A losing again) (the cards have no memory).
It seems like a sweet situation.
You most certainly expect to win.
There is really no need to worry about expectations - whether you are way ahead, or merely a coin-flip favorite.
You just know you have a really good hand that should, and probably will, win.
Anyway, you are committed to accepting fate's decision.
Although, you have not really thought that far ahead.
Then, darn it, the worst happens - your opponent sucks-out.
He rivers a flush with his crappy Q-J off-suit.
You have been eliminated even though you held a much better starting hand, say K-K.
"Unbelievable," you think.
Or, was it? While you are signing up for your next tournament, you bitterly recall that you have lost with every one of your recent premium holdings.
In the next tournament, guess what? The same thing happens again - you get eliminated with the very best starting hand, this time with A-A.
Now you are beginning to question the integrity of the poker room.
"This cannot be happening," you think.
"This site must be rigged," you wail.
Well, the site is not rigged.
You have just gotten a harsh, but not uncommon, dose of the worst that probability has to offer.
When it comes to poker and probability, whatever can happen, will happen.
Meaning, that you can suffer every imaginable bad beat, over and over - think, losing streak.
And, just because a bad beat just did happen to you, does not mean that it will not happen again, real soon, and repeatedly.
Contrarily, just because a particular outcome has not happened (like winning), does not mean that it is about to happen.
We are all stuck with a lifetime (in cards and otherwise) of whatever probability happens to dish out.
Be it too long a stretch of bad luck, or too short a stretch of good luck, or any twisted variation in between.
Even though you might have had a positive expectation of winning, that matter of the negative possibility, no matter how remote, might dominate the outcome for several trials in a row, or for the majority of the next several dozen trials.
Indeed, it is conceivable that you might not live long enough to see your particular starting hand actually win at its expected rate.
That is why we say that being a statistical favorite is merely a conceptual distinction.
The possibility of winning is conceptual, because while statistically it could and should happen, it may not actually happen.
For you, given your limited number of trials (one, a dozen, perhaps even a hundred), and especially for any one particular trial, you are subject to the vagaries of fate (otherwise known as variance or luck).
However, on a more positive note, the possibility of losing should not discourage you from often taking risk.
Especially, a good one that enjoys lots of edges.
But, rather inform you that there are situations when you would not want to take the risk no matter how enticing.
In many situations, good judgment can contribute more value to an expectation than probability.
4.
'Relinquish all control'.
In this sense, we are thinking of controlling the destiny of our stack, the same as we could if we were in post-flop play.
But, since we are all-in we can no longer make any decisions, such as folding our hand, and thus protecting our stack from ruin.
Nor can we raise, or make any other moves to out-play an opponent; and, possibly win the pot, despite perhaps holding an inferior hand than an opponent.
Relinquishing control is the antithesis of poker.
Think about it.
Since this is so, then it would seem that in a sit n go, the last thing that you would want to do is to use all of your chips to call an opponent's pre-flop all-in bet.
Almost every other way to accumulate chips is much less risky - by virtue of remaining in control.
As usual, every rule in poker depends on the situation, and is thus subject to exception.
Here are eight situations, when you might want to make an exception to the rule: 1.
When you hold A-A or K-K.
Granted, they are the two best, but remember that there are no guarantees.
For example, A-A could easily lose to any hand with lots of outs, such as J-T suited, which could make a straight, flush, trips, or two pair.
This is why you prefer not to play your top pocket pairs in a multi-way pot.
Because, while you may dominate one of the opponents holding, say, T-T (who might still beat you), the others may be on multi-out draws (who will have a real good chance to beat you).
And, even though A-K and Q-Q, for example, are premium hands, their risk (and certainly any lesser hands) is great enough to definitely warrant the muck pile.
2.
When you have a good read on your opponent.
Perhaps, you just observed him in another tournament.
And, you can see that he is definitely off of his game.
Maybe, even on tilt.
3.
When you know your opponent's starting hand range.
Perhaps, you have good notes on your opponent.
Perhaps, you have seen enough of his showdowns to know that your hand would typically enjoy a wide margin for success.
4.
When your opponent's position would suggest a steal.
An opening bet from the cut-off or button position could be evidence enough to suspicion a steal.
5.
When your gut tells you to do so.
Some things cannot be quantified.
Likely, your subconscious has seen or recalled something that your conscious mind has missed.
This would be a situation when things just do not add up.
An internal alarm has started sounding, and you have a strong feeling that you should call your opponent's bet.
Of course, under the conditions laid out above - early in the tournament and a pre-flop bet - there would be pretty slim evidence for such a feeling.
So, this could be one of those times when you allow your intuition to override logic.
6.
When it is later in the tournament.
Later in the tournament, circumstances, like your M, may dictate that a call is necessary.
At this point, you would essentially have little or no choice in the matter.
7.
When your opponent's push is out of character with betting patterns.
Sometimes an opponent's pot-size bet seems to suggest more strength than does a push.
Meaning that, by comparison to a pot-size bet, a push, even though it is a much larger bet, is often seen as a play by a weak hand.
The smaller pot-size bet appears to be acting weak, suggesting that it wants a call, and thus is strong.
Whereas, the push is acting strong, suggesting that it does not want a call, and thus is weak.
8.
When a particular opponent pushes.
Sometimes you recognize the opponent, and know him to be the weakest or the strongest player in the tournament.
In the case of the weakest, you might decide to call because you would rather attempt to win this player's chips now, than to allow another player to win them later.
In the case of the strongest, it may serve your purposes well to attempt to eliminate this player now before he builds a chip lead.
Of course, there can even be exceptions to exceptions.
Such would be the case with the trickiest player in the tournament.
He would push with A-A because he knows that many players would think him to be weak.
This consideration was thrown-in to further underscore your overall deficit of information.
Alright, things are probably getting confusing.
First, there was the one rule - do not call an early tournament pre-flop bet that would put you all-in.
Followed by four broad reasons in support.
Then, by eight reasonable exceptions.
And now, we have three related concepts to consider.
These concepts will help round out our understanding of the rule: 1.
Acceptable All-In Play.
The theories regarding the play of the most dangerous hand do not apply when you are the one opening with an all-in bet.
In that case, you have leverage (fold equity) on your side.
As well as, all of the above reasons, applied in reverse.
That is, the theories against calling would become the very reasons that an opponent should not, and probably would not, call your bet.
And, the theories would not apply to post-flop play where you and an opponent became all-in, and went to a showdown decision.
In this case, you would have enjoyed full information, and been able to exercise your judgment with each action, thus remaining in decision making control.
2.
Perfect Information.
Even if you knew an opponent's two hole cards, and even if your cards were better; there would be times when the risk of a race - possible elimination - would not be worth the reward.
This would especially be the case in two scenarios:
- If it is an easy tournament, where you expect to outplay all of your opponents without having to take great risk.
And, - You are one elimination away from making the money, and a race between two other opponents develops.
Even if you knew the hole cards of both opponents, and even if you held superior cards to both, you would not want to join the race.
Considering that the outcome of their race virtually assures you of making the money, there is no rational warrant for you to trade certainty for chance.
Tournament Stake.
In the early rounds, the only stake you have in the tournament is the nominal entry fee.
After a while, your stake increases to include time.
And, after an opponent is eliminated, your stake has become a growing chance of making the money.
This explains why some opponents play like maniacs in the first rounds of a tournament - their stake is small.
Consequently, in their minds, the reward of doubling-up far out-weighs the risk of losing their small stake - a nominal entry fee.
Basically, if they cannot play the tournament with an early chip advantage, then they do not want to play.
This is usually a strategy employed by inexperienced players, who do not have confidence in their ability to otherwise accumulate chips.
Which, helps to explain why it is not a good strategy for an experienced player, and why one would not want to call their pre-flop all-in bet.
Why play a loser's game? Their limited strategy - push-or-fold - is generally not a suitable strategy for an experienced player.
Obviously, you would not want to play their game.
But, would rather want to force them, through non-participation in their game, to play your game.
Finally, here is the bottom line: As a good general rule, if you have a choice, do not call pre-flop all-in bets early in a tournament.
Because, no matter how strong your hand, it is always akin to a blind decision.
The lack of information, plus the surrendering of control, plus the probability of bad luck, all of which could result in the gravest of outcomes (elimination), is (figuratively, speaking) the same as gambling with your life without a safety net.
In other words, it is a bad gamble.
So, pass on the invitation to race.
And, wait for a situation where you would have a greater edge - more information, more control, and preferably a stack large enough to survive a loss without being eliminated.
SHARE
