how to play AA

[Stu_Ungar]

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...

Read the thread.

I have always stated that allin preflop with AA is a good situation. However AA does not perform well in a multiway pot when not all-in preflop.

The only time limping or min raising the in EP is a valid play is if the CO and Button play very aggressively and are likely to isolate

8 or 9 out are getting the correct price. A pot sized raise gives 2:1. The correct drawing odds for 8 outs are 2.18:1 and 9 outs are 1.86:1. If they aren't getting correct odds, they are getting very close to correct odds and if the caller feels that its possible that a second villian would call then the odds become more than correct.

Roger seems to think that villians will continue with all or virtually all of their preflop range.

The problem is that in the case of this example the villian continues with 77. Unless the Hero's EP range is very wide and includes a lot of AX hands, then 77 does not stack up well against his range on this flop. Therefore 77 should usuallly be folded.

What I think is the issue for me is that you are assuming the villian will continue with any TP hand against us.

What is your EP range?

I have asked RR this and he has not answered.

TP will not stand up well to our EP opening range.

Big pairs would normally be 3-bet preflop so KK type hands are unlikely.

So a thinking villain will only be continuing with hands which beat us or hands that have outs to beat us.

Now if your EP range is wide enough for obvious lesser hands to call the flop.. then this situation plays out well for us, but causes al sorts of other problems in other parts of our game

 

[cardplayer52]

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.

SPR comes into it when they don't have a draw and still willing to call. If they villian calles preflop and the SPR is bad for his hand the hero wins. Yes there will be times the villian hits a draw and the hero can't deny him correct odds to call. But the SPR comes in for all those time he doesn't and the few he does.The villian may have 33% chance to win at 2:1 odds don't forget the hero still has a 66% chance and getting 2:1 odds if called. So post flop which hand would you rather have? I'm still taking the AA here. The best way I can think to explain it is for eg. when you know your range is ahead of the villians range. So you make a call there are times the villian will hold the top part of his range and you will have the bottom of yours. Although these times you will be way behind in the long run you still made a profitable play.

 

[benevg]

Read the thread.

Stu, that was both insulting and showing that you did not read my post carefully (or should I say ironic?). Fortunately, I have enough respect for you and your opinions so that I will not be offended. I have read the thread, multiple times in fact. I have also done the math behind most of my words. This is why I introduced new things in my post, which you conveniently ignored, like the "Course of action" paragraph. Have you also done calculations, or are you just quoting poker experts?

I have always stated that allin preflop with AA is a good situation. However AA does not perform well in a multiway pot when not all-in preflop.

Show me your numbers, then we can compare how badly exactly AA does...

The only time limping or min raising the in EP is a valid play is if the CO and Button play very aggressively and are likely to isolate

Who ever advocated limping or min-raising? This is so out there, that I can only attribute it to some momentary distraction. And you are right, of course.

8 or 9 out are getting the correct price. A pot sized raise gives 2:1. The correct drawing odds for 8 outs are 2.18:1 and 9 outs are 1.86:1. If they aren't getting correct odds, they are getting very close to correct odds and if the caller feels that its possible that a second villian would call then the odds become more than correct.

Where do you see me mentioning a pot-sized raise? In my examples, the bet is about 2 times the current pot.

Roger seems to think that villians will continue with all or virtually all of their preflop range.
The problem is that in the case of this example the villian continues with 77. Unless the Hero's EP range is very wide and includes a lot of AX hands, then 77 does not stack up well against his range on this flop. Therefore 77 should usuallly be folded.

This is entirely villain's problem, and I can guarantee you that villains like that exist and will keep existing - it is those people we make money out of.

What I think is the issue for me is that you are assuming the villian will continue with any TP hand against us.

I didn't say exactly that. Villains will flop top pair and still fold on occasion, but then there are the times when they will not - and this is where weighing the probabilities should come in. Perhaps you are right that I should have worded this a little differently - to read something like "top pairs that decide to continue..."

What is your EP range?
I have asked RR this and he has not answered.
TP will not stand up well to our EP opening range.
Big pairs would normally be 3-bet preflop so KK type hands are unlikely.
So a thinking villain will only be continuing with hands which beat us or hands that have outs to beat us.
Now if your EP range is wide enough for obvious lesser hands to call the flop.. then this situation plays out well for us, but causes al sorts of other problems in other parts of our game

You are correct that especially short-stacked, the EP range should be quite small. I would put it at something like TT+, AK, AQs (not always, or even rarely). This still does not mean that all villains will play like we actually have those hands, or will even know the difference between EP range and MP range. And with this range, we would still have an unpaired hand 35-40% of the time, so why wouldn't top pair continue, especially on a low board?

"A thinking villain" will probably do all the things you said. Now new questions arise - how often will he actually have those hands and how often will his outs come? And to answer those well, I would like you to provide me with a list of hands that you put in the "calling" category for a smallish early raise by a short-stack. Because, again, this would be an entirely different situation if we have a full stack.

 

[Snowmobiler]

I agree that i dont want multi way pot with Aces

Option A is by far the better option IMO



Snow

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Stu, that was both insulting and showing that you did not read my post carefully (or should I say ironic?).

Sorry but your closing sentences implied that I felt that AA allin against multiple villains was a poor situation. As I have stated otherwise in this thread, I felt a re-read was in order.

Fortunately, I have enough respect for you and your opinions so that I will not be offended. I have read the thread, multiple times in fact. I have also done the math behind most of my words. This is why I introduced new things in my post, which you conveniently ignored, like the "Course of action" paragraph. Have you also done calculations, or are you just quoting poker experts?


Show me your numbers, then we can compare how badly exactly AA does...


Who ever advocated limping or min-raising? This is so out there, that I can only attribute it to some momentary distraction. And you are right, of course.

See next answer


Where do you see me mentioning a pot-sized raise? In my examples, the bet is about 2 times the current pot.

With a 3bb raise and 4 callers you are left with a single pot sized raise (there abouts) The only way for this 2x current post size raise is to min raise and/or have fewer callers.

This is entirely villain's problem, and I can guarantee you that villains like that exist and will keep existing - it is those people we make money out of.

Do we design startagies around idiots or thinking players?

I didn't say exactly that. Villains will flop top pair and still fold on occasion, but then there are the times when they will not - and this is where weighing the probabilities should come in. Perhaps you are right that I should have worded this a little differently - to read something like "top pairs that decide to continue..."


You are correct that especially short-stacked, the EP range should be quite small. I would put it at something like TT+, AK, AQs (not always, or even rarely). This still does not mean that all villains will play like we actually have those hands, or will even know the difference between EP range and MP range. And with this range, we would still have an unpaired hand 35-40% of the time, so why wouldn't top pair continue, especially on a low board?

"A thinking villain" will probably do all the things you said. Now new questions arise - how often will he actually have those hands and how often will his outs come? And to answer those well, I would like you to provide me with a list of hands that you put in the "calling" category for a smallish early raise by a short-stack. Because, again, this would be an entirely different situation if we have a full stack.

Against a SS with a reasonable opening range preflop there are very few hands I would call with. I would still reraise AA-QQ and AK to isolate and pay for a SS all in in a HU pot. 99-JJ really dont satck up all that well against his range. I would play lower SC with multiple limpers as I ma getting to see a cheap flop with good current pot odds. I know that if the villian shoves PF (his likely action) then I get 2:1 on my draws. So I play hands that would hit the flop and require 2:1 odds to continue.

This is not a pot I am trying to get into.. so i'm not calling overly light and if the raise is a bit higher then it makes calling less attractive.

I am certainly not calling his shove with 77, because
1> 77 does not stack up against his preflop range
2> 77 is still behind his postflop range, even taking into account he holds Ak unimproved, there are still more pairs that beat 77 in his range than combinations of AK and
3> 77 suffers from reverse implied odds just like AA.. It rarely improves. Although 77 improves more than AA (ill explain that one if you really want to know why)

Basically you are hoping that all your villains are idiots, which they may well be, but I dont design strategies to defend against the weakest players, I design them to combat the stronger players.. te weakest players beat themselves and require no strategy.

Why not just go all in from EP? if the villians really are as stupid as you think, the surely they are just as likely to call.

 

[benevg]

I agree that i dont want multi way pot with Aces
Option A is by far the better option IMO

Snow

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).

 

[Snowmobiler]

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]

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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).

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.

 

[benevg]

With a 3bb raise and 4 callers you are left with a single pot sized raise (there abouts) The only way for this 2x current post size raise is to min raise and/or have fewer callers.

if i may...

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

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.

Against a SS with a reasonable opening range preflop there are very few hands I would call with.

...

Basically you are hoping that all your villains are idiots, which they may well be, but I dont design strategies to defend against the weakest players, I design them to combat the stronger players.. te weakest players beat themselves and require no strategy.

Why not just go all in from EP? if the villians really are as stupid as you think, the surely they are just as likely to call.

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".

 

[RogueRivered]

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.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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.

 

[benevg]

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...

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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
SC T9 - 54 and PP 22-JJ (obviously higher PP I 3bet QQ is iffy I might 3bet I might call.. depends in villians opening range. AK I prob 3-bet.

By the way I am only entering this pot in position (I dont know what all of the other villians are thinking)


EDIT: SS is a shove or fold stratagy. It is not excessively tight preflop and reliys heavily on FE against deepstacks. There is a thread on this.


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...

Its good when its mechanical for us. Its not good when the villains decision is mechanical.

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.

 

[WossaPotOddz]

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

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.

 

[benevg]

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

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...

 

[WossaPotOddz]

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.

 

[Jurn8]

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

AA vs 1 Random Opponent

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

 

[switch0723]

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

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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.

 

[benevg]

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

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...

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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.

 

[benevg]

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...

 

[Stu_Ungar]

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

 

[RogueRivered]

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.

 

[benevg]

LOL

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:

I can, but I'm not going to.

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 :deal: