| Page 4 - This is a discussion on how to play AA within the online poker forums, in the Learning Poker section; Originally Posted by Snowmobiler I agree that i dont want multi way pot with Aces Option A is by far the better option IMO Snow ... |
| | ||||||
![]() |
|
| |
|
#106 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
| Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker | how to play AA | |
|
|
|
#107 | ||||
| ||||
| 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] |
|
#108 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
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. |
|
#109 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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". |
|
#110 | ||||
| ||||
| 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. Last edited by RogueRivered : 23rd July 2009 at 7:32 PM. |
|
#111 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
If you have an argument, take the time to put into your own words. |
|
#112 | ||||
| ||||
| 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... |
|
#113 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
If you get away from the idea that poker is about the cards in your hand and view it as a game of decisions, then when you make a good decision you either make money in the LR or lose a smaller amount than a lesser player would in the same situation. So by setting up a situation that plays out mechanically for your villain, you are allowing him to make better decisions than he normally would, thus improving his win rate. |
|
#114 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
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. |
|
#115 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#116 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#117 | ||||
| ||||
| 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 Last edited by Jurn8 : 26th July 2009 at 1:21 PM. |
|
#118 | ||||
| ||||
| 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 |
|
#119 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#120 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
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... |
|
#121 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
SS strategy hinges around shove or fold, not min raise than shove the flop. |
|
#122 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#123 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#124 | ||||
| ||||
| 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. |
|
#125 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
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: Quote:
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 |
|
#126 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#127 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#128 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#130 | ||||
| ||||
| 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). |
|
#131 | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
|
|
#136 | ||||
| ||||
| 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 |
| Similar Threads for: how to play AA > Texas Hold'em Poker | ||||
| Thread | Replies | Last Post | Forum | Thread Starter |
| * April Asperger Apricot Auto-Erotic Asphyxiation Serious Poker Content Chat Thread* | 1925 | 1st May 2011 6:15 PM | Cash Games | Marginal |
| Analyzing a hand for a beginner | 14 | 18th April 2011 8:06 AM | Learning Poker | Brave_n_Crazy |