LycoPoker54 0 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I was just re-reading Super System today, and came upon the part where Doyle says he would rather have AK than AA or KK. His reasoning is that with AA or KK you either a) win a small pot or B) lose a huge pot. I can understand that. However, I think I disagree with Doyle. AK is still a drawing hand, and you need to hit on the flop to make it playable (excluding bluffs and continuation bets). I have had AA and KK many times and beat QQ, JJ, and 10 10 when we both got it in preflop. I'm assuming this isnt as prevelent at the higher levels that doyle discusses (I play .50/1 up to 1/2)? Just wondering what your thoughts are on this, and your reasoning for those thoughts. Link to post Share on other sites
trystero 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I've never read SS, but if you asked him that question "would you rather have AK or AA, seriously big boy," he would unquestionably say AA. It just shows way more profit than any other hand. Given a sufficient sample, KK should be next on the list.The concept he's talking about is probably reverse implied odds, and this also applies to AK (so I'm not sure why he said he'd rather have AK - I would guess he'd say 77 or 88 instead). When you play better opponents - solid regulars, I guess - who aren't willing to stack off preflop with weaker pocket pairs and unpaired hole cards, then your hand value goes down. Even if your opponent flops top pair (KQ on a Q67 board e.g.) he knows enough not to go broke with one pair, so he'll fold if he's facing too much pressure. So this is when AA gets dangerous - when the flop looks innocuous, such as J69, but your TAG opponent isn't giving you big action with top pair anymore. Then you're left saying, "I can't fold an overpair - he could have KJ/AJ! - when in fact he never raises you big on the flop with TPTK. This also works with AK. In cash games, its value comes from bad players who overplay dominated aces or kings. So when you 3-bet AK preflop you're likely to get calls from pretty much any ace. But when you move up in limits that isn't going to happen anymore. Your opponents won't call your 3-bet with AJ anymore, so if you do get action with AK it's probably when you're behind - on a AJ6 flop, for example, when your opponent's got JJ. Of course this isn't universally true, and it's not meant to suggest that you only win small pots with AK or lose big ones - often your opponent can take a relatively passive line with a dominated top pair, only to lose 50 BBs because he couldn't fold TP to your sustained pressure. Of course, poker eventually comes full circle - at the lowest limit games, it's usually correct to go all-in with AK preflop with 100 bb effective stacks because your opponents overplay weaker aces. They just don't understand the fundamental concept of domination, and that AQ's a huge underdog to AK. Then when you move up in limits, this play becomes indicative more of confused tournament players, because your opponents aren't willing to play AQ for stacks. But then in higher limit games all of this goes out the window, because so many players are hyperaggressive and thus bluffs/semi-bluffs constitute a high portion of their ranges. AK becomes, once again, a premium hand.btw, the whole "drawing hand" mentality is faulty. AK isn't a "drawing hand" against dominated aces or kings - it crushes them. Against many so-called "made hands" it is still almost even money. Instead of viewing hands in the false dichotomy of "made and drawing" (this distinction matters only at the river, at which points hands cannot draw any longer), you should view them in terms of equity. Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 LOL @ DoyleThe whole 'win a small pot lose a big pot' thing is a load of crap as well, the average pot size when you're holding AA is probably goin to be bigger than when you're holding any other two cards, and most of those you'll be winning. Link to post Share on other sites
OhKeePa 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 i think the theory lies in which hand is easier to get away from...if the flop comes 10 6 4 mixed suites you can easily fold the AK when bet into on the flop...on the other hand, w/ AA/KK you are probably re-raising... and possibly into a situation where you are drawing to two outs...obviously he would rather have AA then any other hand... but sometimes it's nicer to have a hand you know you can get away from... depending on the flop Link to post Share on other sites
fckthis 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 stop reading strat from the 1970s. While no one in todays games would make this statement, an interesting case could be AK or QQ/JJ etc. Link to post Share on other sites
LycoPoker54 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 What strat books should I read then? I was under the impression that SS1+2 were some of the best strat books out there... Link to post Share on other sites
NoBBiR 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 LOL @ DoyleThe whole 'win a small pot lose a big pot' thing is a load of crap as well, the average pot size when you're holding AA is probably goin to be bigger than when you're holding any other two cards, and most of those you'll be winning.It was just that way in the 70's. Before the Poker boom, people were still giving Doyle money with KQ on K54 flops when he had AK, so obviously it's more preferable, because you get it more often and won more pots with it than today. Now, with all the nits, Ak lost a lot of value.stop reading strat from the 1970s. While no one in todays games would make this statement, an interesting case could be AK or QQ/JJ etc.70's poker logic is sort of backwards.What stat books should I read then? I was under the impression that SS1+2 were some of the best strat books out there...They're still great books, but some of the logic is backward. Theory of poker, sir, theory of poker! Link to post Share on other sites
Sheiky 0 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 It was just that way in the 70's. Before the Poker boom, people were still giving Doyle money with KQ on K54 flops when he had AK, so obviously it's more preferable, because you get it more often and won more pots with it than today. Now, with all the nits, Ak lost a lot of value.70's poker logic is sort of backwards.They're still great books, but some of the logic is backward. Theory of poker, sir, theory of poker!I think this is wrong, todays game's are soo much more aggressive that the value of a one pair hand goes way way up, AK hasn't lost any of it's value Link to post Share on other sites
KingJames 11 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 What strat books should I read then? I was under the impression that SS1+2 were some of the best strat books out there...Harrington on Cash GamesSS1+2 are good for basic understanding of a lot of different games... if you're going to try you're hand at a HORSE tourney, read all 5 of those sections and I bet you'll do well, but for Cash Game, especially NLHE try Harrington and some theory books Link to post Share on other sites
KingJames 11 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 stop reading strat from the 1970s. While no one in todays games would make this statement, an interesting case could be AK or QQ/JJ etc.AK over QQ/JJ at lower limits as you'll win with AK vs dominated aces and kings and lose with qq/jj to players who play those AX KX hands that you beat with AK Link to post Share on other sites
Acid_Knight 2 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Harragon on Cash GamesFYPI hope this wans't lost on anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
KingJames 11 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 FYPI hope this wans't lost on anyone. That kid is great... keeps me scratching my head and laughing... Link to post Share on other sites
David_Nicoson 1 Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 It's just a dopey exaggeration.Don't overplay AA/KK. Problem solved. Link to post Share on other sites
mtdesmoines 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 LOL @ DoyleThe whole 'win a small pot lose a big pot' thing is a load of crap as well, the average pot size when you're holding AA is probably goin to be bigger than when you're holding any other two cards, and most of those you'll be winning.My biggest pots are usually won with suited gappers because some clown can't lay down his AA or KK. It's just a dopey exaggeration.Don't overplay AA/KK. Problem solved.Yeah. Poker is a people game played with cards. Know where you're at. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now