Zooty Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 No way. The difference between AQ and even AJ and a hand like A9 or A6 is significant. With AQ or AJ, you have straight draws. If the flop comes, for example, Q 7 2, you have top pair with top kicker. On the other hand, with a hand like A9, and a flop of 9 7 2... sure, you have top pair and top kicker, but you will lose to more hands. Personally (depending on position of course), I don't play Ax unless the "x" is a 10 or higher (or suited). 1272354[/snapback] I may not have made my point well. The idea is to not overplay the hand. I see a lot of people pushing back with these hands when they should be laying them down. Its a matter of how many raises can you still call. The straight draw is a good point but the odds of hitting the straight aren't all that great and it depends how much you need to put into the pot. I'm talking in no-limit. Limit its a whole different game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I agree that A-K is overated. But this is a four player game. In a shorthanded game, higher cards are worth more. A-K in a four handed game is a hugh hand. 4 handed you can bet or raise with any hand. How some of you guys declare so confidently that BC or that other guy had a pair is beyond me. Taking this hand in isolation, not knowing the players, I don't see how you get away from A-K. I push em all in. 1272518[/snapback] In a 4 player game with 2 people already committed all-in I would probably lay it down. Against 1 other player I'll go with it. 3 way, you are over 60% to Lose the hand. I don't like those odds. Plus if we are talking NL tournament I'll let one of the others bust and wait for another hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Interesting ... never played w/ a notebook. Anyone ever play w/ a notebook at a live cash game / tourney? 1272541[/snapback] Its very helpful especially with a lot of players you don't know. It also helps to go back and see what hands got you into trouble to avoid the same mistakes in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 In a 4 player game with 2 people already committed all-in I would probably lay it down. Against 1 other player I'll go with it. 3 way, you are over 60% to Lose the hand. I don't like those odds. Plus if we are talking NL tournament I'll let one of the others bust and wait for another hand. 1272589[/snapback] And you know BC is going to call 2 all-in bets how? (Or even 1 for that matter). Unless I am missing something, BC is going to have to fold in the face of 2 all in bets unless he has a monster hand. You guys want to wait around and let everybody bust each other out. But, I would rather take your money than let somebody else do it. Unless I am pretty certain that BC has a huge hand (or there is some other reason he would not fold a good hand), or I'm pretty certain that the raiser would not have raised without a big pair, I am going all in because I want to force BC out of the hand and go heads up with the raiser. As Az pointed out, unless the guy has AA or KK the worst thing that can happen is a coinflip. Maybe the guy has A-x or even K-x. In a 4 handed game, I'm playing A-K uber-agressively unless I get a whiff a monster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 And you know BC is going to call 2 all-in bets how? (Or even 1 for that matter). Unless I am missing something, BC is going to have to fold in the face of 2 all in bets unless he has a monster hand. You guys want to wait around and let everybody bust each other out. But, I would rather take your money than let somebody else do it. Unless I am pretty certain that BC has a huge hand (or there is some other reason he would not fold a good hand), or I'm pretty certain that the raiser would not have raised without a big pair, I am going all in because I want to force BC out of the hand and go heads up with the raiser. As Az pointed out, unless the guy has AA or KK the worst thing that can happen is a coinflip. Maybe the guy has A-x or even K-x. In a 4 handed game, I'm playing A-K uber-agressively unless I get a whiff a monster. 1272670[/snapback] My impression of BC was that he is a fairly tight player and wouldn't have bet $350 without a big hand. Then as I recall he only had something like $600'ish left in chips ... if he bet 350 out of his 900 chips why wouldn't he call an all in? I felt like I was in good chip position and didn't need to risk that big a portion of my stack on a draw ... surely both were betting pairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 My impression of BC was that he is a fairly tight player and wouldn't have bet $350 without a big hand. Then as I recall he only had something like $600'ish left in chips ... if he bet 350 out of his 900 chips why wouldn't he call an all in? I felt like I was in good chip position and didn't need to risk that big a portion of my stack on a draw ... surely both were betting pairs. 1272678[/snapback] And that is a key p[iece of information.. the stack sizes. IIRC, I had just under 1000 total, the all in guy made it so I was all-in, and Grits had a significant chip advantage... maybe 4000 in chips are so at that point, so, in theory, he was risking 25% of his stack at the risk of tripling up one of his opponents, and, considering we had just come off of me winning the previous tournament, I think he liked his chances better with me at best doubling up to only 2000 rather than tripling up to 3000 and being tied with him for the chip lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 My impression of BC was that he is a fairly tight player and wouldn't have bet $350 without a big hand. Then as I recall he only had something like $600'ish left in chips ... if he bet 350 out of his 900 chips why wouldn't he call an all in? I felt like I was in good chip position and didn't need to risk that big a portion of my stack on a draw ... surely both were betting pairs. 1272678[/snapback] Well, he had plenty of chips left, so I don't think that he was pot committed. So the question is would he have called 2 all in bets? Obviously, he would have in this case, but it seems to me in most cases he can't. I can understand folding here. It certainly is the safe play. I am not being critical at all. But what I don't understand how you can say "surely both were betting pairs." I can imagine that hand being played out without either having a pair. How can you be so sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Do you keep a notebook when you play? Keep track of how much you win or lose with those hands. I'd bet that you'd find that over the long run, you lose with those hands. 1272531[/snapback] Note taking is key. I take a lot of them online. Well, used to, but haven't been playing as much online as I used to so I have limited notes on my recent players and more importantly, my own play for that matter other than the end net financial results. Offline, if in Vegas where it is very unlikely I will be seeing these players again, I keep mental notes of each player... I often times amaze myself.. and my wife, with the accuracy of my recall of hands played at the table. Down ot inconsequential hands where I feel I may have made a small mistake that cost me a bet or two, etc. With the friends that I play with regularly, I keep some notes occassionally, but most of them are so consistent in the way they play certain hands that I just refresh myself on their styles if it has been a while and focus on amking slight adjustments to my game when I need to to throw them off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Well, he had plenty of chips left, so I don't think that he was pot committed. So the question is would he have called 2 all in bets? Obviously, he would have in this case, but it seems to me in most cases he can't. I can understand folding here. It certainly is the safe play. I am not being critical at all. But what I don't understand how you can say "surely both were betting pairs." I can imagine that hand being played out without either having a pair. How can you be so sure? 1272698[/snapback] Do you often bet a third of your stack from first position without a pair? Do you often go over the top of somebody that bets a third of his stack from first position when you are in the little blind without a pair? I wish I could recall who it was that went all in and what he had ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Do you often bet a third of your stack from first position without a pair? Do you often go over the top of somebody that bets a third of his stack from first position when you are in the little blind without a pair? I wish I could recall who it was that went all in and what he had ... 1272706[/snapback] It was ziachild I think . IIRC, you were to my right, DMD to my left, zia next to him and Puddy to his left. Puddy was already out, unless this was the hand that knocked him out, meaning we were 5 handed at the start. I know it wasn't DMD all in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 It was ziachild I think . IIRC, you were to my right, DMD to my left, zia next to him and Puddy to his left. Puddy was already out, unless this was the hand that knocked him out, meaning we were 5 handed at the start. I know it wasn't DMD all in. 1272725[/snapback] Yes it was either Puddy or Zia ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Do you often bet a third of your stack from first position without a pair? Do you often go over the top of somebody that bets a third of his stack from first position when you are in the little blind without a pair? I wish I could recall who it was that went all in and what he had ... 1272706[/snapback] I don't know what you mean by "often." And I don't know why you are so hung up on pairs. Maybe you have some kind of read on BC, but a reasonable player could have had any number of hands in his position. And the raiser could have had a pair or not. Would you have been that surprised if he turned over A-Q? If you wait for pairs before you bet big or raise big, you won't be doing either very often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 I don't know what you mean by "often." And I don't know why you are so hung up on pairs. Maybe you have some kind of read on BC, but a reasonable player could have had any number of hands in his position. And the raiser could have had a pair or not. Would you have been that surprised if he turned over A-Q? If you wait for pairs before you bet big or raise big, you won't be doing either very often. 1272733[/snapback] I have been fairly successful at the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I have been fairly successful at the table. 1272734[/snapback] I don't doubt it. The only thing that I questioned is how you knew that both players surely had pairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 I don't doubt it. The only thing that I questioned is how you knew that both players surely had pairs. 1272738[/snapback] I obviously didn't know ... I suspected. Let's assume for a minute that only 1 of them as a pair ... I am still and under dog to that one ... and if the other has big slick as well that removes some of my outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I obviously didn't know ... I suspected. Let's assume for a minute that only 1 of them as a pair ... I am still and under dog to that one ... and if the other has big slick as well that removes some of my outs. 1272741[/snapback] True. But what if BC had a pair of 5s or somesuch? The raiser goes all in and you go over the top. Now, unless BC thinks that he is really pot committed, can he call 2 all in bets with a pair of 5s? And if BC folds and the raiser has A-K, then you split BC's money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 True. But what if BC had a pair of 5s or somesuch? The raiser goes all in and you go over the top. Now, unless BC thinks that he is really pot committed, can he call 2 all in bets with a pair of 5s? And if BC folds and the raiser has A-K, then you split BC's money. 1272744[/snapback] After committing a third of his stack why wouldn't he push the rest of his chips in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 After committing a third of his stack why wouldn't he push the rest of his chips in? 1272749[/snapback] Well, he had 600 chips left. Odds are, the best case scenario for him is that he is facing 3, probably 4 overcards. Pot odds are wrong methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Well, he had 600 chips left. Odds are, the best case scenario for him is that he is facing 3, probably 4 overcards. Pot odds are wrong methinks. 1272756[/snapback] My thoughts are in first position he wouldn't have committed a third of his stack on a small pair ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Do you often bet a third of your stack from first position without a pair? Do you often go over the top of somebody that bets a third of his stack from first position when you are in the little blind without a pair? I wish I could recall who it was that went all in and what he had ... 1272706[/snapback] 1. Situation dependent.... often, no, but possible and have I done it.. definitely. 2. No, but again, situation dependent. If you had a much larger stack and it was AK suited, then I may be pushing enough to make sure anyone else in the hand was all-in. The pot is giving you a nice overlay if I were to laydown at that point. Anywho, some stats on AK vs. two random hands.... I figure 31 million samples is enough to provide a good statsitical idea... the AK had a 48% pot equity and a 51% win chance against two random hands. Now, if course we can assume thatthey are better than average hands, particularly the re-raise all-in hand, but, this should illustrate that the AK did in fact have a good amount of equity in the pot, but, it turned out to be a good laydown. 30,987,802 games 91.406 secs 339,012 games/secBoard: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 25.8926 % 26.50% 00.95% { random }Hand 2: 25.9008 % 26.51% 00.95% { random }Hand 3: 48.2066 % 50.13% 00.98% { AKo } On a side note, the biggest hand I have ever layed down preflop is QQ, and it was a great laydown. Extremely tough decision, but in the end oe of the two opponents did in fact have kings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 My thoughts are in first position he wouldn't have committed a third of his stack on a small pair ... 1272758[/snapback] Well, if you put him on a big pair, you certainly made the right play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 SO, let's look at a few possibilities. 55 vs. 4 unmatched overcards, both suited however, but neither in the 5's suit. 49,229,403 games 131.219 secs 375,169 games/secBoard: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 30.0089 % 32.46% 00.08% { 5d5h }Hand 2: 38.3380 % 41.49% 00.08% { AcKc }Hand 3: 31.6531 % 34.24% 00.08% { QsJs } We see here that the AK has a definite equity advantage in this situation. Now, let's see AK vs AK vs 55 14,720,428 games 44.500 secs 330,796 games/secBoard: Dead: equity (%) win (%) tie (%) Hand 1: 19.0949 % 02.60% 21.79% { AcKd }Hand 2: 19.0947 % 02.60% 21.79% { AhKs }Hand 3: 61.8104 % 78.77% 00.18% { 5c5s } Now, with only two overcards, and really only 4 outs against (not including str8 and flushes), the 5s are at a distinct advantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 maybe you guys should go play poker or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 maybe you guys should go play poker or something. 1272776[/snapback] I don't play poker, for money, against people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziachild007 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 I don't remember 100% if this was the same hand you guys are referring to, but if is the hand I am thinking about, I had AA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.