royalburrito24
Legend
Silver Level
AA is a dog against all other hands in a 9 way pot where everyones got pocket pair
realistically, not many situations
AA is a dog against all other hands in a 9 way pot where everyones got pocket pair
realistically, not many situations
J
jeffred1111
Visionary
Silver Level
Preflop, in this very situation, AA is stil 18% to win while all the other hands are at 8% (assuming 22+ range). Don't know where you got this stat.
Postflop, with the same scenario, on any board that doesn't give you a set with AA, the AA had 10% equity, has does all the other hands if ranges are still 22+ for all the other hands.
Cheetah
Visionary
Silver Level
I plotted it myself. And yes, these are values for either unraised pot or if applicable, raised not enough to kill implied odds for drawing hands or FE for weak pairs.
Emperor IX
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
If someone is lucky enough to hit the, what, 1 in 100 chance of hitting a bigger set than me then I'll gladly pay him off. There are an absolute crapload of hands thta will pay off a set of 8's but NOT Aces. Think about it, if you have Aces and there's an ace on the board, then there are not a lot of people who will pay you off without the last ace (which is unlikely). And without that set, all you have is an overpair. Again: Reverse implied odds.
Bombjack
Legend
Silver Level
From my DB (which is only 17,700 hands because it got wiped in June and I've mainly played PLO since then), I've had AA 84 times, it's won 95% of the time, for $795 net. I've had 88 87 times, it's won 50.6% of the time, and made me $27 net. T9s won 45.6% of the time and lost me $6. All playing at least 100BB, since I always buy in full and top up.
Cheetah
Visionary
Silver Level
It depends how these hands are played.
You have won 50.6% with 88. You would hit a set on the flop 10.8% of the time. And you would lose occasionally with a set. So if you played 88 for set value only, your win % would be about 10%. Since it is about 50%, that indicates that 80% of the time it won it was not played for set. So I suspect that the small $27 profit is due to losses when it was played as pair. In that case, especially when it is an overpair, there are huge reverse-implied odds with that hand.
J
jeffred1111
Visionary
Silver Level
Exactly my point. We are giving away reverse implied odds sure, but I doubt that if we are not going to stack with just AA against a scary board here, (wich would be completly donkish), we will we be losing more money playing AA than 88.
J
jeffred1111
Visionary
Silver Level
Hmm, a set of 8's will pay off a set of A's. Really, I underatand the point being made and it is one I make all the time (big PP lose vlaue), but we have to understand that villain will hit his set only 10% of the time and we should have the discipline, since this is a gazillion bb deep, to fold AA when the action get serious (he bets' you raise, he calls and then c/r on turn on 8,9,5,6 board for example). And I can see T9 hitting a flush draw while AA hits a set and playing him off if the board pairs and gives him his flush.
AA is still the nuts preflop and probably on the flop: you'll win pots with it but maybe you won't see showdown with it this deep.
Bombjack
Legend
Silver Level
Exactly. In my earlier post I was saying it has big reverse-implied odds for when people have a better hand than a set of 8s, but yes, it also has the same problem as a pair.
I'm a winning player, but don't play perfectly. I've certainly over-played 88 in a couple of cases and lost big pots (usually because I was on tilt), but I wouldn't however go so far as to say I'd make more with this hand by folding it every time I didn't flop a set - this may well be true, but it's difficult to tell (from Poker Tracker's limited reporting). Losing with it 90% of the time doesn't instinctively seem to indicate I'd win more than if I lose with it just 50% of the time.
It would also be interesting to know whether people win more with small pairs in raised or unraised pots. Playing a small pair in a limped pot it similar to playing it in a raised pot with very deep stacks.
Last edited:
Vollycat
Rock Star
Silver Level
I must be confused here. We are still trying to say that AA will lost more money then 88 over time? Or that when the board goes sour, AA will lose more money for that particular hand, then if we had 88?
Pokerstove running over 48 million hands when AA vs 88 vs Ts9s:
AA 67.075% winner
88 15.980% winner
Ts9s 16.944% winner
Run over 61 million hands on AA vs 88 heads up:
AA 80.462% winner
88 19.538% winner
I just don't understand the conversation here. If we are talking about specific scenerios where yeah 88 or T9s cracks AA, OK then I suppose I understand. But poker is not about specific hands when talking about the big picture like this--it's about the long haul MILLIONS of hands.
By the way, the 'best' hand to crack AA is 67s (which is still a 21% to 78% dog) . FYI
tenbob
Legend
Silver Level
This thread seems to be confusing people. We are not taking about a straight up pre-flop decision. We are taking about a specific situation where a very small amount of our stack has been involved pre-flop, and a very large amount is left for betting on later streets. Hence the running pokerstove over 100 Billion million hands pre-flop does not apply.
I really dont want to run into the math of this, but to play AA un-improved for a pot size greater than 100xbb, makes anyone playing 88 (or any other small pair) profitable, purely as a set mine.
Once we get deeper than this we have to look at the implications that hitting our set with 88 has for us, can we really fold it with action on an A 8 2 flop, does AK really play for stacks here. Sometimes, but not if This is where I feel that we reach an inflection point at around 200bb deep, we need to be playing set or better hands, or indeed set beating hands. This is where the huge value of AA spikes hard again, because we do have a hand that beats a set, even though we are playing a set ourselves. Now we can play on that A 8 2 board very happily for our full 500xBB stack.
Edit : I should have a look at cheetah's graph again, because i feel the values should change once again once we get into the >200bb range
Edit 2 : I was hoping our resident Mr Paullson posted in this thread.
Where the suited connector comes into this is something that has always been a somewhat difficult concept for me to grasp. Becasue as Bombjack pointed out, we are usually drawing to a shitty flush or good straight. And lots of times we will be faced with very difficult decisions with combo-draws that a lot of times we just cant fold. The thing is with them, we are usually drawing good, and seeing an expensive turn isnt as good as just shoving as a semi-bluff. Blah, this is where playing for massive stacks makes me feel uneasy.
But going back to the set beating concept our medium suited connector will break lots of people on a 7s 8s Ax flop, but the idea that we will be paying to draw is something that we have to do, combine this with the fact that AA is not folding here, give a poorly played top set some room as we are playing for stacks.
Ill likey be back to this thread in a few days.
I really dont want to run into the math of this, but to play AA un-improved for a pot size greater than 100xbb, makes anyone playing 88 (or any other small pair) profitable, purely as a set mine.
Once we get deeper than this we have to look at the implications that hitting our set with 88 has for us, can we really fold it with action on an A 8 2 flop, does AK really play for stacks here. Sometimes, but not if This is where I feel that we reach an inflection point at around 200bb deep, we need to be playing set or better hands, or indeed set beating hands. This is where the huge value of AA spikes hard again, because we do have a hand that beats a set, even though we are playing a set ourselves. Now we can play on that A 8 2 board very happily for our full 500xBB stack.
Edit : I should have a look at cheetah's graph again, because i feel the values should change once again once we get into the >200bb range
Edit 2 : I was hoping our resident Mr Paullson posted in this thread.
Where the suited connector comes into this is something that has always been a somewhat difficult concept for me to grasp. Becasue as Bombjack pointed out, we are usually drawing to a shitty flush or good straight. And lots of times we will be faced with very difficult decisions with combo-draws that a lot of times we just cant fold. The thing is with them, we are usually drawing good, and seeing an expensive turn isnt as good as just shoving as a semi-bluff. Blah, this is where playing for massive stacks makes me feel uneasy.
But going back to the set beating concept our medium suited connector will break lots of people on a 7s 8s Ax flop, but the idea that we will be paying to draw is something that we have to do, combine this with the fact that AA is not folding here, give a poorly played top set some room as we are playing for stacks.
Ill likey be back to this thread in a few days.
Vollycat
Rock Star
Silver Level
Tenbob-
Now that's a post. Thanks for the explanation-very well done sir.
I agree with everything you said. I guess my confusion is that deep stack or not, preflop, you are trying to get it all in there, and worrying about 'made hands', connectors, blah blah, is pointless.
If you bet out accordingly with AA preflop (like you should typically--especially online imo) then you are trying to induce mistakes from people with hands like 88 and T9s. If you get a caller, and the flop comes 258 rainbow, I believe AA is going to lose their ass 90% of the time. So be it--he hit his 12% longshot. I can understand getting away from the hand if the 88 goes all in for another 200BB off a 10BB pot...but then the 88 guy is and even bigger idiot because he just lost a ton of money because that AA may actually lay it down.
Still, I took the original post, and some of the original replies, as making a case for AA to be a weaker hand then 88--my mistake if that was the case. 88 is not stronger post or preflop--sorry it is not. Only when the draw comes in does 88 come through--just like any other hand below the value of AA (every hand). There are certain hands that play better multi way--which are still lower in value then AA. No doubt, playing AA in a multiway pot can be tough--but you should still want AA everytime. It still will make you more money over time then any other hand.
Now that's a post. Thanks for the explanation-very well done sir.
I agree with everything you said. I guess my confusion is that deep stack or not, preflop, you are trying to get it all in there, and worrying about 'made hands', connectors, blah blah, is pointless.
If you bet out accordingly with AA preflop (like you should typically--especially online imo) then you are trying to induce mistakes from people with hands like 88 and T9s. If you get a caller, and the flop comes 258 rainbow, I believe AA is going to lose their ass 90% of the time. So be it--he hit his 12% longshot. I can understand getting away from the hand if the 88 goes all in for another 200BB off a 10BB pot...but then the 88 guy is and even bigger idiot because he just lost a ton of money because that AA may actually lay it down.
Still, I took the original post, and some of the original replies, as making a case for AA to be a weaker hand then 88--my mistake if that was the case. 88 is not stronger post or preflop--sorry it is not. Only when the draw comes in does 88 come through--just like any other hand below the value of AA (every hand). There are certain hands that play better multi way--which are still lower in value then AA. No doubt, playing AA in a multiway pot can be tough--but you should still want AA everytime. It still will make you more money over time then any other hand.
Bombjack
Legend
Silver Level
Lol, what does Paulson know - he plays minbet where you never fold Ace-high, let alone a pair... 
For the record can I say I'd much rather have AQs than T9s or 88 when playing deep. It makes nut hands (while at the same time allowing for second nut hands to be possible) - the others don't, unless you get a straight flush or quads. Something you have to worry about much more in PLO than hold'em.
For the record can I say I'd much rather have AQs than T9s or 88 when playing deep. It makes nut hands (while at the same time allowing for second nut hands to be possible) - the others don't, unless you get a straight flush or quads. Something you have to worry about much more in PLO than hold'em.
Cheetah
Visionary
Silver Level
I think this thread got completely off-track at least relative to its title. This is partially due to the way the question was asked in the original post.
Comparing AA vs 88 is a secondary consideration. What difference does it make which one I prefer. I am dealt what I am dealt. And the interesting questions is: what is the value of what I am dealt given my stack? This is the title of this thread.
Let's say that there were an absolute way to rate which hand is more profitable (which I don't think there is because it depends on how people play). Let's say that AA is rated 10, and 88 is rated 5. If I see 88, am I going to fold and tell the dealer: "Hey, schmuck, didn't you know that I prefer AA?"
If it is profitable to play certain hands given our stack (and many other factors), then we should play them. Why turn down +EV?
For a particular player, using their stats, they can see which hands are more profitable for them. But this is dependent on how they are played. I can imagine someone consistently overplaying top pair and overpairs and losing a lot when stacks are big. Those players might have a better win rate for 22 than 88.
To summarize, the question in this thread is how the value of a group of hands changes depending on stack size.
Comparing AA vs 88 is a secondary consideration. What difference does it make which one I prefer. I am dealt what I am dealt. And the interesting questions is: what is the value of what I am dealt given my stack? This is the title of this thread.
Let's say that there were an absolute way to rate which hand is more profitable (which I don't think there is because it depends on how people play). Let's say that AA is rated 10, and 88 is rated 5. If I see 88, am I going to fold and tell the dealer: "Hey, schmuck, didn't you know that I prefer AA?"
If it is profitable to play certain hands given our stack (and many other factors), then we should play them. Why turn down +EV?
For a particular player, using their stats, they can see which hands are more profitable for them. But this is dependent on how they are played. I can imagine someone consistently overplaying top pair and overpairs and losing a lot when stacks are big. Those players might have a better win rate for 22 than 88.
To summarize, the question in this thread is how the value of a group of hands changes depending on stack size.