how to play AA

[cardplayer52]

i'm not so sure about that. "the best case being allin with all players. I know AA is the best starting hand but (i'm not certain) think maybe a hand like JTs in that spot would have the best chance to win. not sure how long that would take to run on pokerstove but i'll look into it.

 

[RogueRivered]

i'm not so sure about that. "the best case being allin with all players. I know AA is the best starting hand but (i'm not certain) think maybe a hand like JTs in that spot would have the best chance to win. not sure how long that would take to run on pokerstove but i'll look into it.

JTs will play better than a random hand, or maybe even a hand like 77, but definitely not better than AA. If you get 6 callers to your all-in, you have way more than 1/6 equity. You welcome callers -- it's not about winning pots, it's about winning money.

 

[cardplayer52]

JTs will play better than a random hand, or maybe even a hand like 77, but definitely not better than AA. If you get 6 callers to your all-in, you have way more than 1/6 equity. You welcome callers -- it's not about winning pots, it's about winning money.

yes allin AA is the best hand to have vs 8 random hands. AA was like 38% and JT was somewhere aroung 20%. live and learn. and i would raher be all in w/8 toher and have AA then HU with one allin. all day long.

 

[kidkvno1]

Preflop he wants to get fewer callers.

Why?

Heres why, you get callers, you get more money in the pot...
Case in point. I raise .10 get one caller, and take to pot on the flop, coz he does not want to call my all-in. Money made. he showed 10A with a flop J 10 K
Point 2, and time to think... I raise .10 again and get 3 this time, the flop is 9d 4h 9h, now i have to think who has what, so i shove all-in again, all 3 fold = money made.
Now if i had limped in, both times, i would of lost the pot, i would of been sure lose the pots if i did not shove on them.
Limping with AA = Bad out come.
RogueRivered you want some to call you, even if there range is from 1010 to AA.
Also you have better odds, with 1 caller then with a whole table of limpers. Why. your win %, with AA gos way down

 

[gkh]

Why?

Are you referring to Ed miller's small stakes book? In the book he also claims that your goal is not to knock off players preflop because your preflop equity is so much better. In fact you want callers. But everyone else says otherwise.

 

[RogueRivered]

Are you referring to Ed miller's small stakes book? In the book he also claims that your goal is not to knock off players preflop because your preflop equity is so much better. In fact you want callers. But everyone else says otherwise.

Yes, I am. I've read 3 of Ed Miller's books lately and they make a lot of sense to me. I noticed that Phil Gordon's Little Green Book mentions AA is a 85.5% favorite HU against a random hand, but a 50+% favorite against 4 random hands, so he concludes that it's better to get one caller than four. I don't see how that mathematically makes sense. If you win 4 times the money only 30 some percent less of the time, wouldn't you rather do that? It's not a tournament, so getting knocked out isn't an issue -- just re-buy.

 

[RogueRivered]

Heres why, you get callers, you get more money in the pot...
Case in point. I raise .10 get one caller, and take to pot on the flop, coz he does not want to call my all-in. Money made. he showed 10A with a flop J 10 K
Point 2, and time to think... I raise .10 again and get 3 this time, the flop is 9d 4h 9h, now i have to think who has what, so i shove all-in again, all 3 fold = money made.
Now if i had limped in, both times, i would of lost the pot, i would of been sure lose the pots if i did not shove on them.
Limping with AA = Bad out come.
RogueRivered you want some to call you, even if there range is from 1010 to AA.
Also you have better ODDs, with 1 caller then with a whole table of limpers. Why. your win %, with AA gos way down

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'm not suggesting limping, just raising less in early position. If you do that and show down strong hands, you may train your opponents to let you come in cheaply with worse holdings. They won't want to raise you if they think you might have aces again. Or you may fold weak holdings after a small raise if you get re-raised and then they'll unexpectedly run into your aces some other hand. They call that "balancing your range," right?

 

[kidkvno1]

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'm not suggesting limping, just raising less in early position. If you do that and show down strong hands, you may train your opponents to let you come in cheaply with worse holdings. They won't want to raise you if they think you might have aces again. Or you may fold weak holdings after a small raise if you get re-raised and then they'll unexpectedly run into your aces some other hand. They call that "balancing your range," right?

yeah, They say to raise the right amount, based on your position, not your cards. But i raise a bit more, the same from all positions, un less someone knows how i play. But in 2nl it don't work like that, and the same can be said in all micro tables.
I even raised the same with KK. It was well i was in position that 3 called me, on the button is were i find it hard to play any hands, but i am over coming that.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Are you referring to Ed miller's small stakes book? In the book he also claims that your goal is not to knock off players preflop because your preflop equity is so much better. In fact you want callers. But everyone else says otherwise.

Yes, I am. I've read 3 of Ed Miller's books lately and they make a lot of sense to me. I noticed that Phil Gordon's Little Green Book mentions AA is a 85.5% favorite HU against a random hand, but a 50+% favorite against 4 random hands, so he concludes that it's better to get one caller than four. I don't see how that mathematically makes sense. If you win 4 times the money only 30 some percent less of the time, wouldn't you rather do that? It's not a tournament, so getting knocked out isn't an issue -- just re-buy.

Is this the LIMIT HOLDEM small stakes book or the NO LIMIT HOLDEM small stakes book which came out about 2 months ago?

The implied odds of the hand factor in more in No limit than in Limit.

Are you playing limit holdem? (I assumed you were playing No limit)

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'm not suggesting limping, just raising less in early position. If you do that and show down strong hands, you may train your opponents to let you come in cheaply with worse holdings. They won't want to raise you if they think you might have aces again. Or you may fold weak holdings after a small raise if you get re-raised and then they'll unexpectedly run into your aces some other hand. They call that "balancing your range," right?

This is just impossible or unnecessary, depending on how you view it.

A player has a V$IP and PFR stat.

These stats can be applied to position, either by configuring your HUD to show V$IP and PFR by position, or to look at the ATS stat and estimating how the villians V$IP and PFR change due to position.

What this means is that its very simple to get a feel of V$IP and PFR for a villians early position range.

If that range is narrow, then I would be less inclined to 3bet it and less likely to play dominated hands against it.

However once the opponent starts getting involved in more hands from EP the V$IP and PFR stats increase, meaning the opening range is wider. Thus I will begin 3-betting light, and calling with a wider range of hands and generaly using my position against you.

You cannot widen your opening range and expect me to play you as though all you hold is premium hands because the stats will show otherwise.

This is why its impossible or unnecessary

 

[RogueRivered]

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'm not suggesting limping, just raising less in early position. If you do that and show down strong hands, you may train your opponents to let you come in cheaply with worse holdings. They won't want to raise you if they think you might have aces again. Or you may fold weak holdings after a small raise if you get re-raised and then they'll unexpectedly run into your aces some other hand. They call that "balancing your range," right?

Is this the LIMIT HOLDEM small stakes book or the NO LIMIT HOLDEM small stakes book which came out about 2 months ago?

The implied odds of the hand factor in more in No limit than in Limit.

Are you playing limit holdem? (I assumed you were playing No limit)

I've read 4 of them actually by Miller et al. Two were mostly limit and two were no-limit. One of the limit books also had a no-limit shortstack section that I've been referring to when discussing how tight SSers play.

You're right -- I don't play limit, only no-limit. But Miller says that no-limit is a flawed game and limit is far more robust. Someday I'll probably get more into limit.

If that range is narrow, then I would be less inclined to 3bet it and less likely to play dominated hands against it.

However once the opponent starts getting involved in more hands from EP the V$IP and PFR stats increase, meaning the opening range is wider. Thus I will begin 3-betting light, and calling with a wider range of hands and generaly using my position against you.

You cannot widen your opening range and expect me to play you as though all you hold is premium hands because the stats will show otherwise.

This is why its impossible or unnecessary

Isn't this my point? (see bolded quote from my earlier post). If I balance my range, you won't know what to do to exploit me.

Since I'm in early position, I'd prefer to bet less for those occasions I have to fold while I'll welcome your 3-bet on those occasions where I'm strong.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Think of it like this.

Your bet size should reflect the strength of the range you play from that position rather than the atual hand.

Since you play only your strongest hands from EP, the raise is at its largest. On the button your range is at its widest, hence you bet a smaller amount.

Basically what you are suggesting is that you can bet samller, widen your range.. and somehow this won't show up in your EP stats....It will!

I dont know what stakes you are playing but sub 100NL there is no need to balance your range. Opponents are not sophisticated for the range balencing to do anything other than lower your winrate.

As for wanting to play AA in a multiway pot.... do whatever you want.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I've read 4 of them actually by Miller et al. Two were mostly limit and two were no-limit. One of the limit books also had a no-limit shortstack section that I've been referring to when discussing how tight SSers play.

By the way, this is what Ed Miller has to say about the short stack strategy you are referring to.

I must take some of the blame for propagating the myth that playing a short stack means playing super-tight. In my book, Getting Started in Hold ‘em, I outline a strategy for playing a 20BB stack that I would classify as super-tight. I designed that strategy as a foolproof one for rank beginners. I wanted a strategy that was simple enough that literally anyone could follow it and that would be at least break-even in any standard, full ring cash game.
But my super-tight strategy isn’t the optimal strategy for 20BB stacks in a full ring game. It’s just a passable strategy

He isn't exactly enthusiastic about it.

I think this is where the confusion arose from in the SS thread.

 

[RogueRivered]

By the way, this is what Ed Miller has to say about the short stack strategy you are referring to.


He isn't exactly enthusiastic about it.

I think this is where the confusion arose from in the SS thread.

Hmmm, that's very interesting. Where did you get that and where can I go to find out the optimal strategy?

I've only been quoting what the experts teach -- so if they change their minds, it's good to know about it.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Hmmm, that's very interesting. Where did you get that and where can I go to find out the optimal strategy?

I've only been quoting what the experts teach -- so if they change their minds, it's good to know about it.

His website.

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/short-stack-play-is-not-a-fight-against-the-blinds-2.html

Optimal strategy is fairly well explained by belgio in the SS thread.

 

[RogueRivered]

Think of it like this.

Your bet size should reflect the strength of the range you play from that position rather than the atual hand.

Since you play only your strongest hands from EP, the raise is at its largest. On the button your range is at its widest, hence you bet a smaller amount.

Basically what you are suggesting is that you can bet samller, widen your range.. and somehow this won't show up in your EP stats....It will!

I dont know what stakes you are playing but sub 100NL there is no need to balance your range. Opponents are not sophisticated for the range balencing to do anything other than lower your winrate.

As for wanting to play AA in a multiway pot.... do whatever you want.

I feel like one of us isn't looking at this deep enough and, to be honest, I'm not sure which one it is.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I feel like one of us isn't looking at this deep enough and, to be honest, I'm not sure which one it is.

Well if you look at in terms of recipriality (Tommy Angelro)

Then by aiming to play AA in a multiway pot you purposely create a situation where you have no reciprical advantage.

 

[RogueRivered]

His website.

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/articles/short-stack-play-is-not-a-fight-against-the-blinds-2.html

Optimal strategy is fairly well explained by belgio in the SS thread.

Thanks for the link. I haven't finished the article yet, but here's a quote from Miller that is basically what I've been saying:

(About playing tight) "It’s true – to a point. When you’re playing a 10BB stack, you probably won’t be calling many preflop raises on the button with 5-3 suited like you possibly might playing deep stacks. You do want hands with showdown value. But they don’t necessarily have to be massive hands."

I guess what the SS strategy does is prove that poker is gambling after all. I always thought otherwise. SSers are just looking to take as many bets at favorable odds as they possibly can, hence the complaints from people that don't want to gamble, especially getting the worst of it.

But, sorry, this is the thread about AA, so I apologize for getting off topic.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Thanks for the link. I haven't finished the article yet, but here's a quote from Miller that is basically what I've been saying:

(About playing tight) It’s true – to a point. When you’re playing a 10BB stack, you probably won’t be calling many preflop raises on the button with 5-3 suited like you possibly might playing deep stacks. You do want hands with showdown value. But they don’t necessarily have to be massive hands.

10BB is massively different to 20.

At this level you have virtualy no FE against any PFR.

Someone opens for 4bb and you raise them 6bb.....

I'm not being funny but I really think you need to do some serious poker reading.

 

[RogueRivered]

10BB is massively different to 20.

At this level you have virtualy no FE against any PFR.

Someone opens for 4bb and you raise them 6bb.....

I'm not being funny but I really think you need to do some serious poker reading.

Oh man, what do you think I've been doing? I've been doing nothing but serious poker reading -- the problem is the conclusions I've reached from that reading often conflict with the generic advice given here, things like "you should always play with a full stack." Garbage .

By the way, back on topic, here is what Ed Miller has to say on his web site about pocket aces:

Pocket Aces Usually Win

I’ve seen hand databases from players who have played more than a million online no-limit hands. Over the tens of thousands of times these players have been dealt pocket aces, they have won more than 80 percent of the time. More than 80 percent! The fact is, pocket aces usually win.
Sure, if you play in a loose game where three or four players routinely try to crack your aces, you won’t win quite that often. But even in these games pocket aces win more than half the time. And when they win, they win huge pots.
Many players treat pocket aces like they’re cursed. They won’t raise them preflop. They’ll make a small bet like $30 into a $120 pot on the flop. They’ll happily check down the turn and river. Then they’ll breathe a sigh of relief when they drag the pot. Don’t play like this!
Pocket aces usually win. Play them that way. Raise them preflop. Bet them confidently on the flop. Most of the time they’ll win you a nice pot. Sure you’ll occasionally endure a heart-breaking loss. But don’t let your brain trick you into thinking a big loss is the expected outcome. The reality is that every time you get dealt pocket aces, it’s like money in the bank. Play them that way.

 

[kidkvno1]

10BB is massively different to 20.

At this level you have virtualy no FE against any PFR.

Someone opens for 4bb and you raise them 6bb.....

I'm not being funny but I really think you need to do some serious poker reading.

Thats one thing i have been working in to my game, but 1st in SNG, i must say wow. it works great...

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Pocket Aces Usually Win

...............

He isn't wrong. They usualy win. (its Ed Miller.. he is right about pertty much everything).

BUT

Look at the situation you are creating with multiple limpers and a SS.

You have a stack of 20BB.

Raise small, limp whatever.

You raise 3BB and get 3 callers.

The preflop pot is 10BB (one of the blinds called)

The SPR is 1. (it dosent get any lower than this!!)

So post flop what do you do? Well you have AA you have an increadbly low SPR.. the only thing you can do is to make that pot sized raise.

You can check and call, check and raise but you have to put that money in.

Now anyone with any poker sense will realise that firstly you have a range. This means that when the guy calls you with KK.. you didnt outsmart him. What else was he going to do, your EP range probably looks something like {TT+ AK}

He stacks up well against that range so he calls.

What about if there is an 8 out draw on the flop. You offer 2:1 on something which happens about 2:1 so the villian calling here dosent make a mistake either.

This is the crux of recipricality, if you were to stand up, trade places with your opponent and play the hand using only the infomation thay have, you would play it in exactly the same way they did.

Therefore you have constructed a situation where you have no reciprical advantage.

Its like shoving AA preflop and being called by KK. Did you outplay him? No, and at some point you will play KK in exactly the same way against AA.

So the key to playing good poker is to get into situations where you have a reciprocal advantage.

Playing AA in a multiway pot with a SS is never going to give you any advantage.

Deep stacked its worse, you don't need to look to recipricality, for most players implied odds is the problem, and they either find themselves winning the pot there and then or getting into a situation where multiple villians are able to outdraw tham.

 

[RogueRivered]

He isn't wrong. They usualy win. (its Ed Miller.. he is right about pertty much everything).

BUT

Look at the situation you are creating with multiple limpers and a SS.

You have a stack of 20BB.

Raise small, limp whatever.

You raise 3BB and get 3 callers.

The preflop pot is 10BB (one of the blinds called)

The SPR is 1. (it dosent get any lower than this!!)

So post flop what do you do? Well you have AA you have an increadbly low SPR.. the only thing you can do is to make that pot sized raise.

You can check and call, check and raise but you have to put that money in.

Now anyone with any poker sense will realise that firstly you have a range. This means that when the guy calls you with KK.. you didnt outsmart him. What else was he going to do, your EP range probably looks something like {TT+ AK}

He stacks up well against that range so he calls.

What about if there is an 8 out draw on the flop. You offer 2:1 on something which happens about 2:1 so the villian calling here dosent make a mistake either.

This is the crux of recipricality, if you were to stand up, trade places with your opponent and play the hand using only the infomation thay have, you would play it in exactly the same way they did.

Therefore you have constructed a situation where you have no reciprical advantage.

Its like shoving AA preflop and being called by KK. Did you outplay him? No, and at some point you will play KK in exactly the same way against AA.

So the key to playing good poker is to get into situations where you have a reciprocal advantage.

Playing AA in a multiway pot with a SS is never going to give you any advantage.

Deep stacked its worse, you don't need to look to recipricality, for most players implied odds is the problem, and they either find themselves winning the pot there and then or getting into a situation where multiple villians are able to outdraw tham.

One good thing about these discussions is a lot of new terms come up -- where did you get the stuff about reciprocity?

My point with aces is that you don't have to win the pot then and there, in fact, you don't want to. You can do better than winning the blinds. An early raise has got to get some respect, but a small raise might allow some people to call (or better yet, raise).

I still fail to see how you can mathematically explain that getting more money into the pot is a bad thing with a hand as powerful as aces.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

One good thing about these discussions is a lot of new terms come up -- where did you get the stuff about reciprocity?

My point with aces is that you don't have to win the pot then and there, in fact, you don't want to. You can do better than winning the blinds. An early raise has got to get some respect, but a small raise might allow some people to call (or better yet, raise).

I still fail to see how you can mathematically explain that getting more money into the pot is a bad thing with a hand as powerful as aces.

I can, but I'm not going to.

If you can't see it by now, then there really isn't much point in me trying to explain it further.

Getting the money allin preflop = good.
Playing a hand that does not improve postflop against multiple opponents = bad

Essentially you are hoping that for some unknown reason the villain is just going to spew chips. If he does great!! If he stops and assesses the situation......

 

[cardplayer52]

Yes, I am. I've read 3 of Ed Miller's books lately and they make a lot of sense to me. I noticed that Phil Gordon's Little Green Book mentions AA is a 85.5% favorite HU against a random hand, but a 50+% favorite against 4 random hands, so he concludes that it's better to get one caller than four. I don't see how that mathematically makes sense. If you win 4 times the money only 30 some percent less of the time, wouldn't you rather do that? It's not a tournament, so getting knocked out isn't an issue -- just re-buy.

I do beleive Phil's little green book is geared towards tournament play. that may explain alot. And another point is you probably won't be facing a "random" hand. I would guess you might even be a bigger favorite against non-random hands. Ax and 22+