how to play AA

any numbers on why you think that, or is it just "general rule of thumb"? again, remember, we are talking about a short stack situation, where you can't lose all that much (which is the main reason it is unprofitable in full-stack situations).

I have to use my experiance in multi way pots with Aces
Depending on the hands you are against J 10 suited,pct 8s ect,I usually find when against 3 opponants,my odds of winning hand fall to about 30%.If I narrow to 1 player,I am usually85% or so.Against 3 opponants and mini raising,the only hands that call your all in prob have good equity against your aces.JMO



Snow


quote=benevg;1249260]any numbers on why you think that, or is it just "general rule of thumb"? again, remember, we are talking about a short stack situation, where you can't lose all that much (which is the main reason it is unprofitable in full-stack situations).[/quote]

Thats true, but you are right on the cusp.

If the stacks were say 40bb then you have enough behind to punish draws.

At 20bb in a multiway pot you give them correct or near correct odds to draw.

So the hand plays out very mechanically.

Have a look at my earlier post on recipricality.

if i may...
even with 3bb raise and 4 callers, flop bet is still 21BB in a 15-16BB pot, with no further implied odds. 1.7:1 may be close enough for the 9-out draws, but it would still be wrong.

see, YOU are a thinking villain. the fact that there are 4 players calling when they have no good hands to do that with tells me they aren't really (and this here is just the situation where they have beaten themselves without much of my strategy). AND in addition, I really do not care what my opponents are (apart from how i think they will sometimes call me with worse hands that you would), I have based most of my thinking purely on math and probabilities (and if you find something wrong in that and point it out to me, i would love to correct it). I will eventually get to the point where I will post a more detailed analysis, and in the best case i will also make it tweakable, but who knows when exactly

And why not just go all-in? Because even idiots more often realize that an all-in likely means a top hand than when it is "just a raise".

Benevg, thank you for taking over my argument. You are doing a fine job! I had to get out; it was getting emotionally draining.

Edit: Stu, see pages 52 and 53 of Elements of Poker. I think that's kind of what we are arguing about.

No cryptic debates.

If you have an argument, take the time to put into your own words.

2 small things, Stu:

1. I asked for hands that you would call with, pre-flop, not the shove on the flop. This is a small but very significant difference. If you could also give me % of the time you would be calling with those hands, this would be awesome

2. Why is it bad to play the hand mechanically? I have always been under the impression that SS play is pretty much 99% mechanical...

Let's take the original figures for PFwin% and assume we raise 4 big blinds in scenario A and 2.5 big blinds in scenario B and we'll exclude small/big blinds in the equations for the sake of simplicity.

A we raise to 4 and get 1 caller, there's 8 big blinds in the pot and we have 85.5% equity which = 6.84 big blinds

B we raise to 2.5 and get 4 callers, there's 12.5 big blinds in the pot and we have 50% equity which = 6.25 big blinds

Add the fact it's infinitely more easy to play HU post-flop than 5way....


I guess there's a slight metagame advantage with playing AA in this fashion but it's so rare for a short stack to get 3bet that you rarely need to protect set-mining your small-mid pairs by representing aces.

the 50% equity figure assumes no betting after the flop. it is entirely possible in my mind that some of those hands would fold on the flop, when they would have caught a card or two on later streets to win otherwise. this is exactly the type of thing i am trying to do the math for...

Post flop equity will decrease V's more opponents but I'm sure me and every other professional poker player on the planet is wrong and the math you're trying to do will prove that aces play better in multiway pots.

aces do not play well in a multiway pot, I shall show you some equity ranges in a minute

[b]AA vs 1 Random Opponent[b]

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

12,585,434,400 games 28.722 secs 438,180,990 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 85.204% 84.93% 00.27% 10689050508 34206936.00 { AA }
Hand 1: 14.796% 14.52% 00.27% 1827970020 34206936.00 { random }

AA vs 4 Random Opponents

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

23,345,732,592 games 251.476 secs 92,834,833 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 52.241% 52.10% 00.14% 12163604969 32340272.40 { AA }
Hand 1: 08.380% 08.17% 00.21% 1908343194 47928371.57 { random }
Hand 2: 12.194% 11.89% 00.31% 2775334222 71469575.40 { random }
Hand 3: 14.355% 14.00% 00.36% 3267789690 83506690.57 { random }
Hand 4: 12.831% 12.08% 00.75% 2820997954 174417653.07 { random }

as you can see your about flipping with 4 opponents where as you crush one opponent

Is this thread for real? just as a quick note

At 100nl, if you get aces all in against 1 random hand 100 times, your expected amount won is $7000, (win $100 85 times, lose $100 15 times)

If you get it in against 4 random hands 100 times, your expected amount won is $15000 (win $400 50 times, lose $100 50 times)

So yes, in the short term you want aces against 1 opponent, but you should always be looking long term where you want it all in against as many people as possible


I've just woken up so this may not be what your talking about, but now people know. Maths is probably off aswell coz im tired

No the thread is not about getting AA all-in preflop. It concerns getting AA all in on the flop against multiple villians.

FYP

this is the only really worthy distinction here - nobody would argue you want to play with less opponents if you are a full stack when not all the money is in the pot pre-flop.

also, the equity those softwares would calculate is only based on being all-in preflop. and jurn, even then you DO want to play against 4 people, even if it looks like flipping to you - that is because when you win, you win 4 times as much as what you lose when you lose...

So this is starting to turn simply into a 'how to play SS' argument.

SS strategy hinges around shove or fold, not min raise than shove the flop.

this never had anything to do with a case when you do not have a short stack. if you ever argued from the point of the full-stacker, then obviously you have missed something there. and by the way - i have never really played SS, but by your second line, i can tell you do not know/care to learn much about it either...

LOL

I'm not completely up on short stack strategy, but I know the basics. I can't think of very many hands, none basically, that a short stacker would raise pre-flop, get 4 callers, and fold post flop. His equity pretty much demands he put in the rest of his stack, even if he's a pretty big underdog.

i would like you to explain that, please. if you say i am wrong in any of my inferences, that may be good. but just because you refuse to listen to arguments and just go on and on about something you read in a book does not mean you should laugh at people who do not take everything for granted the same way. by now, i have reasonable doubt that you have even tried to comprehend what RR and i have been trying to explain...

also, now that i have seen what it takes, i am nearly 100% certain that the following quote from a couple pages earlier in this thread was an empty boast:
the math that goes behind something like that is actually very complex and time-consuming to do. counting on approximation engines like PokerStove can only get you so far...

in that post, you go on to say that this is done only in hope that the opponent will spew chips. but you fail to account for a couple things: a) they have already spewed chips by calling preflop, and b) since they have no way to know exactly what we have, they can still make mistakes (as defined by Sklansky) by either calling or folding. so perhaps that hope is not without a foundation...?

if you take offense at any of the above, i am ready to apologize, provided you show me where i am mistaken

..

so i am wasting my time, again because you have read something somewhere and refuse to look into it. okay, i'll just stop, eventually. (btw, i have not seen that thread - care to point me to it?)

this is completely right - by my estimation, only about 12 billion very simple options to consider and condense into a meaningful form.

next, you would tell me there is only one correct SS strategy

geez you were unlucky, try using sharkscope before you play, and i definetly recomend raising 3x the big blnd at least when you have pocket aces preflop

in the thread you linked to, it is very well explained that SS does not exactly hinge on shoving preflop. quite often, it works so that you shove on any flop, much like i said in this discussion. so there is nothing really new there.

i am also fairly certain that your idea of how to calculate all those odds is quite close to the truth, but not exactly there (much like PokerStove's). all you have managed to do is to persuade me that you simply like your rule-of-thumb saying and plays, and won't consider changing them until a pro comes along and tells you that it is correct to do so. i am saying this because i have started putting in the time and effort that you don't want to, and initial estimations support my point, which you still vehemently refuse to even consider because no pro/author ever said/wrote it.

regarding the SAGE system: first, it is completely not applicable in this case. second, while it tells me that it is a mathematically proven way to be unexploitable, it only works in specific cases. in fact, in cash games where the blinds are not as quite as small as for SAGE purposes, it would be close to a disaster to try to adhere to a simple push-or-fold strategy. third, saying that "mathematically unexploitable" equals "no room for creativity" is not very true either. of course, there are certain limits to what you could do, but in most good strategies, you can make choices about this or that, for example what hands to bluff with. and this choice would make your strategy no more exploitable than if you made it differently. you simply have to pick the right % of hands to do it, and you are set (and this was written in many good books).

ok

Lee Nelson said it best:

" There's no such thing as Check or Call, it's either Raise or Fold".

He da man.

It was a bad beat but it wasn't 1%. I don't see any huge mistakes in the way you played it, you were just unlucky.

Honestly all you could have done is initially raised a bit more but you did everythign right you raised small hiding your AA getting your opponent yo go all-in with a worse hand. Nothing wrong just bad luck.

Damn them pocket Aces they look invincible but they are'nt....you had him trapped after flop and the enemy allin ...it was just the chance of happenstance that he caught the third 7 that time......

i dont have a problem with your check raise...but when he shoved you should have been out of the hand...it so happens you were not beat at the time and it was a terrible play on his part...but either way...you gotta fold to that shove...this reminds me of a hand i had at the casino last weekend...1/2 dollar game i raise to 7 in early posingtion with AA...get 3 callers...flop is JJ7...i check and there is a bet...a raise of that bet followed by a call...i get out...8 for the turn and alot more action and the pot is getting huge...river comes an ACE...making JJ the only hand that has me beat...more action and the showdown comes first better turns JA reraiser KK...and JK for the button...this pot was a montster and i missed out on a lot of money...but it was the right fold

You always want AA pre-flop allin, so you did nothing wrong...
But because of the multiway pot you were in the AA can get beat a lot faster...

That's enough. There was some kind of discussion that ended in July.