how to play AA

[WossaPotOddz]

O I don't understand what you mean here about the part in bold and how that relates to the formulas.

The figures were arbitrary.

Imagine if everytime you played AA you won a single big blind when they held up or lost a single big blind when they get cracked.

Playing V's 1 person = 85.5% win rate so after 100 hands you would have 85.5 big blinds profit and negative 14.5 big blinds from the occasions you lose. Net profit 71 big blinds.

Playing V's 4 people = 50/50 so outcome is 0.

Obviously there are lots of variables in final pot sizes but this is the most basic example of why you want to isolate with AA and how catastrophic it is to play aces in 4+ player pots.

The argument, "but multiway pots are bigger on average which makes up for the equity lost in showdown potential" is flawed because when a multiway pot balloons I can assure you that pocket aces will be utterly redundant by that point unless you have AAAxx or AAAAx or TJQKx.

 

[cardplayer52]

in a cash game i would no doubt rather have AA vs 4 players. but in a tourney where survival is key i would much rather be HU or in a 3 way pot. you might lose equity but IMO chips really have no cash value there like monopoly money. unless i'm ITM then that changes everything. so i agree with phil here i'd rather be HU and although i lose some EV i may gain some in later hands by the way i played this. people seeing i raised with AA tend to remember that and my preflop bluff may have some more weight.

 

[RogueRivered]

Oh Oh, I can feel my skull thickening again -- you're losing me. I'll take back the part about raising small in EP and big in LP (since my database and everyone seems to say the other way around is best), but I stand by most everything else I have said in this thread. See responses in bold below. Actually, I only take it back in a deep stack situation. With 12 BBs, I'm not so sure I should.

You can only win big with AA if someone else has a high PP or AK, with AA you win a small pot or loose a big one.

In this case, hero was shortstacked (12BBs), so we're not going to lose too much, but we stand to gain quite a lot. I'd rather win money than pots.

And don't play cash games if you don't have the BR which can take these swings, you can't play good if you're scared to bet big enough.

Definitely agree here 100%.

The figures were arbitrary.

Imagine if everytime you played AA you won a single big blind when they held up or lost a single big blind when they get cracked.

But in this case I'm winning 4 BBs and only losing 1.

Playing V's 1 person = 85.5% win rate so after 100 hands you would have 85.5 big blinds profit and negative 14.5 big blinds from the occasions you lose. Net profit 71 big blinds.

Playing V's 4 people = 50/50 so outcome is 0.

No, vs. 4 people I'm winning 4BBs 50 times and losing 1BBs 50 times
(4BBs x 50) - (1BBs x 50) = 150BBs, which is better than 71 BBs.

Obviously there are lots of variables in final pot sizes but this is the most basic example of why you want to isolate with AA and how catastrophic it is to play aces in 4+ player pots.

The argument, "but multiway pots are bigger on average which makes up for the equity lost in showdown potential" is flawed because when a multiway pot balloons I can assure you that pocket aces will be utterly redundant by that point unless you have AAAxx or AAAAx or TJQKx.

You have to remember that we were shortstacked here. Our money was going in no matter what and the other players did not have implied odds to try to beat us. I agree with you if stacks were very deep. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be; fairly deep is my guess.

in a cash game i would no doubt rather have AA vs 4 players. but in a tourney where survival is key i would much rather be HU or in a 3 way pot. you might lose equity but IMO chips really have no cash value there like monopoly money. unless i'm ITM then that changes everything. so i agree with phil here i'd rather be HU and although i lose some EV i may gain some in later hands by the way i played this. people seeing i raised with AA tend to remember that and my preflop bluff may have some more weight.

I very much agree with you here. Tournaments are a whole different story when getting knocked out is final. But this is a shortstacked cash game, so we'll just re-buy -- no big deal.

 

[RogueRivered]

Actually, I meant to say hero had 24BBs, not 12BBs. Sorry -- I forgot it was a $.50/$1 game.

 

[FTPHeHaTeMe]

Yea depending you position and how aggressive the table has been.. I would def do no less then 4x if its a cash game.. but tournament if your bigstacked late you can do 3... idk i never like to take a chance I would rather collect blinds atleast then your winning money and not losing to some fish.. GL next time

 

[LizzyJ]

Yea depending you position and how aggressive the table has been.. I would def do no less then 4x if its a cash game.. but tournament if your bigstacked late you can do 3... idk i never like to take a chance I would rather collect blinds atleast then your winning money and not losing to some fish.. GL next time

I've seen some FT pros raise AA up to 8xbb or even 10xbb and I'm surprised how many times they get called. I think Michael Craig put out a video on FT on why he makes strong raises wih premium pairs. I would rather win a small/moderate pot HU with AA than lose a huge multi-way pot. Need proof? Go to any freeroll and in the first hand when everyone goes all-in you'd be surprised how many times AA gets cracked in a multi-way pot. Just an observation.

The only times I like playing in multi-way pots is when I have a speculative hand: A-rag suited, suited connectors and need many people in the hand to get the correct pot odds. But that's another discussion for another day. Otherwise, I prefer making strong bets on each street to narrow down the field...lessens the chance of a suckout.

But the game is always evolving and new ideas are everywhere. Keep us in the loop on how this new AA strategy is workin' out.

 

[RogueRivered]

No offense, but some of you can't see the forest for the trees. You are so worried about winning the pot, any pot, that you can't see all the money you're missing.

Go back and look at the original post. This is not a tournament and this is not a deep-stacked situation. Most of the advice you are giving is cliche, what everyone says. But everything is situation dependent, and although I agree with a lot of what has been said regarding implied odds and limiting the field, those do not apply in this situation.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

No offense, but some of you can't see the forest for the trees. You are so worried about winning the pot, any pot, that you can't see all the money you're missing.

Go back and look at the original post. This is not a tournament and this is not a deep-stacked situation. Most of the advice you are giving is cliche, what everyone says. But everything is situation dependent, and although I agree with a lot of what has been said regarding implied odds and limiting the field, those do not apply in this situation.

All you need to do is come up with an agrument for guaranteeing villians decent odds for 8 out draws and a reason why 4 opponents are not significantly more likely to have hit the flop hard as opposed to just one, then you would be well on your way to putting forward a logical argument rather than repeating over and over "I play Aces like this cuz I want to" in numerous different guises.

Your own data shows that you earn more IP than OOP but still you maintain that a small raise in EP allowing multiple callers to see a flop is a good thing.

I think I said it a few posts ago, but if this is working for you then keep doing it.

Obviously the villains you play use the size of your bet to gauge the strength of your hand rather than your EP range.

This is akin to a kid eating a freshly baked pie and denying it with jam smeared all over his face.

But seriously, if the type of villain you are against is the sort who would believe this child had nothing to do with the dissaperence of the aforementioned pie.. keep doing it.

 

[PDMike425]

i figure since I always get beat, just fold with AA.

 

[cha4zz]

i figure since I always get beat, just fold with AA.

That's my kinda outlook on AA.

I raised 5x BB in a HU sng on FT earlier, to be re-raised all in by a 5,9. As per usual, the guy hits a full house on the flop and I lose.

In all seriousness, I've always found raising at least 5x BB to make sure MOST garbage hands don't call is the best way in a ring game, but people get too hung up on AA and refuse to let it go, even when it's clear that they're well behind.

 

[RogueRivered]

All you need to do is come up with an agrument for guaranteeing villians decent odds for 8 out draws and a reason why 4 opponents are not significantly more likely to have hit the flop hard as opposed to just one, then you would be well on your way to putting forward a logical argument rather than repeating over and over "I play Aces like this cuz I want to" in numerous different guises.

Your own data shows that you earn more IP than OOP but still you maintain that a small raise in EP allowing multiple callers to see a flop is a good thing.

I think I said it a few posts ago, but if this is working for you then keep doing it.

Obviously the villains you play use the size of your bet to gauge the strength of your hand rather than your EP range.

This is akin to a kid eating a freshly baked pie and denying it with jam smeared all over his face.

But seriously, if the type of villain you are against is the sort who would believe this child had nothing to do with the dissaperence of the aforementioned pie.. keep doing it.

You're too funny! Why do you keep forgetting that this is a shortstacked situation? Your so-called 8-out chasers are playing at a very bad SPR. They want SPRs around 13, not around 1. Here we have an SPR around 1 and a top pair hand -- perfect. What more could you ask for? Only more players chasing draws with bad SPRs. That's what we have here.

My database shows I do better with slightly bigger raises in EP for my entire range. That is good to know, but you should know that I don't play shortstacks and I don't raise small with AAs. I never said I did. I'm not saying I or anyone should in that situation. Stop quoting situations that aren't actually what is going on in this hand, with these stack sizes. The thing I don't know is what stack size makes it better to raise bigger with aces in early position. I have a feeling it is a bit bigger than we think. If you can get the SPR down to about 1 pre-flop, then I bet with any stack size it would be good to have more opponents.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

You're too funny! Why do you keep forgetting that this is a shortstacked situation? Your so-called 8-out chasers are playing at a very bad SPR. They want SPRs around 13, not around 1. You have an SPR around 1 and a top pair hand -- perfect. What more could you ask for? Only more players chasing draws with bad SPRs. That's what we have here.

They are getting about 2:1 though arent they.. and correct drawing odds are 2:1.

So where does SPR come into it?

Edit: I know what SPR is.. I just want to know why YOU think SPR is a governing factor in this situation.

 

[LizzyJ]

I gotta give Stuey props for being patient and trying to explain everything out. Like my daddie use to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink".

 

[RogueRivered]

They are getting about 2:1 though arent they.. and correct drawing odds are 2:1.

So where does SPR come into it?

Edit: I know what SPR is.. I just want to know why YOU think SPR is a governing factor in this situation.

Well, you know, at this point in the hand, maybe they are correct to continue. I'm not worried about that. What I am saying is I welcome all of them to try. They can't all be right to continue -- they are making a mistake. I want more people making a mistake in the hand with me. I can't make a mistake here. I have pocket aces and I am definitely committed. I'd run this a million times and be a rich person.

Edit: Also, think about what you are saying here. One of them, maybe, is getting 2:1, but they are getting all-in against me at less than 1:1. How is that profitable? I'm already all-in, I can't pay them off any more than 1:1; their only hope is to draw the other player all-in too, and then maybe they break-even, while I sit back and profit no matter what.

 

[RogueRivered]

I gotta give Stuey props for being patient and trying to explain everything out. Like my daddie use to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink".

I gotta wonder why people don't stop and think about what they're saying.

Edit: But I agree with your daddy. It is frustrating when people don't understand even though they've had it explained a million times.

 

[WossaPotOddz]

Rogue seriously, this isn't some sort of personal vendetta against you. There's a reason we are saying it's not good to see a multiway pot with pocket aces.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Edit: Also, think about what you are saying here. One of them, maybe, is getting 2:1, but they are getting all-in against me at less than 1:1. How is that profitable? I'm already all-in, I can't pay them off any more than 1:1; their only hope is to draw the other player all-in too, and then maybe they break-even, while I sit back and profit no matter what.

Rethink this paragraph.

It really dosnt matter who shoves first. (post sized raise whatever) The outcome will be 2:1 offered on a draw.

There is no 1:1 in the situation.. I dont know where you got that from.

 

[RogueRivered]

Rogue seriously, this isn't some sort of personal vendetta against you. There's a reason we are saying it's not good to see a multiway pot with pocket aces.

No, no. Most of you don't. It just gets frustrating when people who don't agree with you start to throw around insults or belittle you. I think for the most part I've tried to keep this on topic and positive. I don't like to resort to insults to try to prove I'm right. I only want to talk about poker and the math and odds behind it.

I'm wondering what your response is to my rebuttal of your math example. I feel like I can really discuss it with you in a constructive manner. I think I'm beyond that point with Stu.

 

[iRiis]

mmmm. Lemme see.

Lets simplify things. You have 10BB and are dealt AA UTG. You have 2 options. You can limp/small raise and get 4 callers 10bb pot that you will win 40% of the time. (assuming callers will fold to any bet unless they make a better hand than you, two pair/trips). That means you would win 4bb a time. Now say you raise to your 10BB. 20% of the time you get 1 caller, the other 80% you take the blinds. Of the 20% you get 1 caller the pot is 20bb and you take it down 75% of the time. Overall you are getting 4.2bb a time.

mmmm ok, having run that through for myself and realising that it is extremely simplified, and that by tweaking any of the numbers would change the favour of it... I am now a bit lost. I really though multiwaying would be much worse. Maybe I made bad assumptions etc.

edit: I didnt' take into account the money you would throw away post flop when you end up behind in the multiway pot to two pair etc and think you're good. That would change things.

 

[RogueRivered]

mmmm ok, having run that through for myself and realising that it is extremely simplified, and that by tweaking any of the numbers would change the favour of it... I am now a bit lost. I really though multiwaying would be much worse. Maybe I made bad assumptions etc.

edit: I didnt' take into account the money you would throw away post flop when you end up behind in the multiway pot to two pair etc and think you're good. That would change things.

I think you are starting to see what I'm talking about. It's only bad when you're not committed and stacks are deep.

Since the effective stack is so low, your opponents aren't all likely to fold on your flop bet. The only two hands that beat you after the flop are a set of tens or a full house of sixes full of tens. And note that you can't be losing to two pair, you already have two pair, aces and tens.

 

[iRiis]

I think you are starting to see what I'm talking about. It's only bad when you're not committed and stacks are deep.

Since the effective stack is so low, your opponents aren't all likely to fold on your flop bet. The only two hands that beat you after the flop are a set of tens or a full house of sixes full of tens. And note that you can't be losing to two pair, you already have two pair, aces and tens.

I was thinking about the general case - where we didn't see that particular flop. But yeah; depending on a number of factors it could be better to go multiway. But I think the point is in normal circumstances with normal assumptions etc your real ev is better if you raise big and cut down the field in this kind of situation.

 

[RogueRivered]

I was thinking about the general case - where we didn't see that particular flop. But yeah; depending on a number of factors it could be better to go multiway. But I think the point is in normal circumstances with normal assumptions etc your real ev is better if you raise big and cut down the field in this kind of situation.

Yeah, I agree. That was my point -- in this situation it's different, but people are acting like all situations are the same.

I forgot to mention another hand we are behind -- pocket tens, i.e. Quads. Yikes!

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Since the effective stack is so low, your opponents aren't all likely to fold on your flop bet.

mmmm

 

[billyth3kid]

i agree with liv3player... better to win the small pot... but on the other hand if you got your money in while you were ahead 98% then you played it perfect... if you do that 100 times 98 times u win 2 times you lose... id keep doin what your doing if your consistenly getting your money in while your ahead

 

[benevg]

i have been reading this, and thinking about it, and although i started on the "traditional"/Stu side, i have been slowly starting to think RR may have a good point here. Of course, before anyone tells me how misguided i am, i should make the note that this only applies to a very specific set of circumstances, and i'll try to list them below. i'll also try to make this a bit more general and not about the specific example/flop, but i think it should apply.

1. This is a cash game, not a tournament
2. We play a short stack (why, is completely irrelevant, it is a prerequisite)
3. We are dealt AA in early position.
4. We want to make sure we get the most +EV (always, but seems forgotten on occasion)

so, options discussed are:
A. Raise to 4-5BB, get one caller. Pot = 9-10 BB, stack = 19-20BB
B. Raise to 2.5BB, get 3-4 callers. Pot = 10-13 BB, stack = 21-22 BB

Course of action: in both cases, shove flop since we are close to pot-commited anyway. Someone mentioned SPR, whether it applies here is questionable (as is my understanding of the concept, admittedly), but we definitely have small enough SPR (about 2) to make this move less than horrible.

Now, what will happen / who will call (assumptions and general simplifications):
- 2 pair on unpaired boards will be about 73% against us
- sets / trips on paired boards will be ahead of us (about 90%)
- flushes will be ahead of us, but we may have re-draws (97 or 69%)
- draws (8-9 outs) will not be getting the right price (65-70% for us)
- draws (12-15 outs) will be correct to call us (still, about 50%)
- we are still beating any top pair hand (80% for us)
- everything else will certainly fold

How we weigh those exactly is something i need to further figure out, but i can already see situations where B is more profitable than A not saying it definitely is, but it could well be, more math to come...

Now, the specific example with the paired board - we are only really afraid of Tx and 66, anything else we would love to get it in against. As it happened, nobody had those hands, and out EV was increased because we had 4 people in the hand and not 1. Or am i wrong in this?


as a small side note, without a real connection the the above:

Find me a single poker author who states that AA (or any big pair) performs well in a multiway pot.

Find me a poker player who wouldn't like to have AA and be all-in preflop against any number of other people at the table, 1000 times. Chances of winning may be dropping with more players in the pot, but not as fast as the rate of winnings goes up. we can't really equate this situation to "all-in preflop", but it would help to think about different perspectives...

i would have liked to see some more input on this from more of the "local authority" people, especially those who would be able to see the whole situation and not just have some "canned response" - but i guess it would be kinda hard to get them through 3 pages of mostly unstructured arguments back and forth. let's say i was less than impressed with bw's response earlier in the thread, sarcastic as it probably was...