Explanation of All-in
When a player goes “all-in” , it means they've put all of their chips on the table, but it doesn't always signify that every chip is in jeopardy. The actual risk taken is determined by the specific amounts wagered. effective stacks . For example -
Both Player A and Player B decide to go all-in after seeing the flop.
Player A has $50 while player B has $100.
Even if Player B has pushed all of their $100 into the pot, they are only risking $50 of their total stack because that's how much Player A's stack exceeds theirs. Thus, while we can still refer to Player B as being “all-in” , not all of their chips are truly at risk.
The act of going all-in doesn’t automatically reveal who the aggressor is in the situation. Both raising all-in and calling all-in are possible actions.
Example of All-in in a sentence -> My opponent re-raised me before the flop, leading me to decide to go all-in .
Incorporating All-in into Your Poker Strategy
A typical question among players is, “which hands are appropriate for going all-in in poker?” The concern with this question is that it is too simplistic. Decisions about commitment depend on a multitude of factors. Nonetheless, it's still feasible to outline some broad principles that can help discern when going all-in is a wise choice.
As The Caller
Understanding when to respond to an all-in bet from an opponent becomes clear once you identify the key factors involved. The real skill lies in accurately evaluating those factors. Deciding whether to call an all-in bet relies primarily on the pot-odds available and your pot-equity .
Example
Imagine there's $100 in the pot on the river, and our opponent pushes all-in with their final $50. If we believe we only have a 30% chance of winning when we call, is calling this bet advantageous?
A beginner player might think that calling would result in a loss most of the time. After all, they could lose the pot 70% of the time after making that call. However, remembering that there’s already $100 in the pot is crucial—this means we don’t have to be favored in the bet for it to be a mathematically smart choice. As long as we expect to win more than 25% of the time, making the call would actually yield better returns than folding. For an in-depth look at how these calculations work, refer to the glossary on pot-odds .
As the Aggressor
Determining whether to push all-in while being the aggressor is much more complex and is influenced by additional factors. As the caller, our focus is solely on pot-equity . However, as the aggressor, we must consider both our pot-equity (should we get called) and our fold-equity (how often our opponent might fold) to assess the anticipated value of an all-in bet. (It's noteworthy that you can't just sum pot-equity and fold-equity together, contrary to what some strategic resources may incorrectly suggest).
As a general rule of thumb, the greater our fold-equity and pot-equity , the more effective an all-in shove is likely to be. The precise correlation between these two factors can be clarified through an expected value calculation . More information can be found in the glossary entry on expected value .
It's sufficient to have either fold-equity or pot-equity , as long as at least one of those factors is adequately high. For instance, if we maintain over 50% equity against our opponent’s range when we shove all-in , then the shove becomes profitable even if there’s no fold-equity (this is often referred to as 'value betting'). Conversely, should our opponent fold at a high enough rate (often called the 'break-even threshold'), even an all-in shove without pot-equity will be profitable (commonly known as bluffing). The break-even point for an all-in bluff shove connects to the size of the bet placed.
Example
With $100 in the pot on the river, if we decide to bluff-shove all-in with our last $50, how frequently does our bluff need to succeed for us to make a profit?
In this river situation, we can confidently assume that if our opponent calls, they will always possess the better hand. This means we effectively have zero fold-equity in this scenario.
Less experienced players might think that we need to win more than half the time for a bluff to be worthwhile. Surely, if our bluff falters more often than not, what's the point? However, it's crucial to remember that the potential winnings from our bluff are substantially higher than the amount we risk. In this case, we’re putting in 33% of the total pot ($50 into a $150 pot), and thus, if we can get away with bluffing successfully over 33% of the time, it would yield a better expected value than simply folding.
Rough Commitment Guidelines
After engaging in a specific game format over time, players typically cultivate an instinct for how frequently they should risk their chips. These all-in decisions will take into account various aspects, such as the following.
- The effective stack sizes (we can loosen our chip commitments when stacks are shallow).
- The nature of the opponents we face (be cautious when calling all-ins from tighter players, and so on).
- The ratio between the stack and the pot (the more we commit early on, the less likely we are to fold later on).
- ICM factors (particularly during MTTs or SNGs).
For example, in No-Limit Texas Hold'em, it is generally agreed that it would be an error to fold a top pair hand if the effective stack size is 25 big blinds or below.
See Also
Expected Value , Stack-to-Pot Ratios , Bluff , Value-bet , Pot-Odds , Equity , Fold-Equity , Effective Stacks , Tournaments , ICM , Sit and Go