Aa Two Hands In A Row.

[FARGOpokerND 22]

I am at the casino last night playing 1/2 NLHE as usual. I started with a $100 buyin and got to $150 and our table busted up. I get to my next table and I am card dead for the next hour and a half. I made a terrible hero call and got down to about 90 bucks. I start catching a few cards and work my way back to about $280. I'm on the button and look down at AA. I get 3 limpers and raise to 7 which is my standard play with a big pckt pr. Flop is 8c2dQs. Villain(who has been caught big betting a bluff on at least 4 occasions) bets 10. I raise to 30 and he calls. The turn is Qd. Villain bets 22. I call. River is 7c. Villain goes all in for 40. Hero??Second hand: AA in the cutoff. 2 limpers, I raise to 7. BB calls. 2 folds. BB is a weak passive player that calls way too often with weak hands and folds good draws(he has about $50 in front of him). Flop is 4cKcTd. BB checks, I bet $20. BB calls. Turn is Kd. BB pushes all in for $30. Hero??

I read through the whole thread but all I really care about is the bolded above for now. That line of thinking is just 100% wrong and will just KILL you. I know it has been thoroughly discussed but it needs to be discussed even more.There is not a single time when doing this is going to be correct. You are just inviting 8 people to crack your JJ-AA every damn hand. Don't play your big pairs fancy. Be raising 4x + 1x for every limper...MINIMUM... One guy said raise to $15 makes it look like a steal...NO!!! That should be a standard raise...Making it 20-25 makes it look like a steal, and you'd maybe even get ONE call from someone out of that.If your logic for raising to $7 was to keep "peanut" in, then that is a horrible line of thinking as well...You are pricing other people in just to keep one donk in. Ok, so you may be able to beat him, but now you have the other 98237498 people to worry about. Just bet, bet, bet.You are the type of person that seems to sit there and let everyone price themselves in and give them the proper odds to chase whatever they are chasing and there is NO way that this style is profitable in the long run.Raise more (not just your "standard 7") with your premiums, and get max value.

1. He is an older man with a ton of money and he loves big pots. He makes very loose calls and then buys a lot of pots with big bets. He was the person that I wanted to keep in the pot. 2. I didn't want to raise him out of the pot.

Those two comments don't go together well. If he likes big pots...raise more.

I understand that the more that I raise, the fewer people that I have to compete against. But I can't overstate the fact that I wanted to keep the villain in the hand.

Bad thinking...Don't raise less just to keep one guy in.

The last time that I raised to $7.00 with AA, in nearly the same situation, I made $185 from the hand.

Don't be results oriented.

My son feels that if I had pushed the flop, Peanut would have thought that I had AQ and probably would have folded.

and

The $20 more to Peanut was nothing with his Q4o.

Don't make sense when together.I will now leave this for Ryan, the attention-whore, so he can confirm I am probably right and then start a fight with someone.

[whatgreatis 0]

I will now leave this for Ryan, the attention-whore, so he can confirm I am probably right and then start a fight with someone.

Fargopoker is right about everything. OP, play me hu4rollz.

[FARGOpokerND 22]

Fargopoker is right about everything. OP, play me hu4rollz.

Now you need to post a dick-waving graph so you can hump this thread into submission and prove you are the so-called FCP STRAT KING

[whatgreatis 0]

Now you need to post a dick-waving graph so you can hump this thread into submission and prove you are the so-called FCP STRAT KING

looll. That's why I love you.

[NoBBiR 0]

Fargopoker is right about everything. OP, play me hu4rollz.

ROFL

[rjkdb8 1]

The thing is when you get three or four callers, your potential ev is lower because they're not all going to put stacks in post flop.

I still lean towards disagreeing with this and would like others to chime in/explain this to me. Obviously the difficulty of post flop play has to be considered, but I still think reluctance to fold AA once you're beat is a separate issue. So let's ignore that consideration for the time being.Now obviously there are pathological examples where you're going to be way ahead even when you see the flop with several opponents. For instance, AA has 96% equity if your four opponents hold 22, 22, 33, and 33.But even if we consider what we can characterize as more likely scenarios, AA still often wins unimproved even against numerous opponents. Lots of our opponents entering the pot are likely to have a big ace or a pair and if the flop pairs the board and no one hits a set, everyone now has a very long way to go to catch up.Since this isn't the first time this concept has ever been discussed, i've borrowed some #s I found elsewhere. If you could take AA and put it up against any number of random hands, what would the optimal number be? Let's have each player put 100 in the pot for the sake of simplicity. AA vs. 1 random hand: 85.2% x 200 = 170.4 AA vs. 2 random hands: 73.4% x 300 = 220.2 AA vs. 3 random hands: 63.9% x 400 = 255.6 AA vs. 4 random hands: 55.9% x 500 = 279.5 AA vs. 5 random hands: 49.2% x 600 = 295.2 AA vs. 6 random hands: 43.6% x 700 = 305.2 AA vs. 7 random hands: 38.8% x 800 = 310.4 AA vs. 8 random hands: 34.7% x 900 = 312.3 AA vs. 9 random hands: 31.1% x 1000 = 311.0So, where is the spot when adding a caller becomes bad for our expectation? Not until the tenth caller. Up until that point every additional caller was making us money. Leaving aside the consideration of what to do on the flop, which I think is a whole different issue, what am I missing here? Thanks in advance.

[BaseJester 1]

Leaving aside the consideration of what to do on the flop, which I think is a whole different issue, what am I missing here? Thanks in advance.

Nothing. Solid post, IMHO.

[FARGOpokerND 22]

Simple. The goal of aces is to raise enough to get as many people to call still...a balance of both.Its like this, would you rather see 5 ppl at $7 a hand or make it $15 and get 3 callers?Or you could be like me, raise to $17 with TT and get 6 callers and flop quads. That works even better...just sayin.

[KingJames 11]

Fargo is right as is NoBBiRI was for raising big for two reason1. get value from your big hands2. thin the field someTo rjkdb8, I don't curse when a third or more call when I have AA, I was just trying to help the OP see that you need to raise more with premium cards for the reasons that have been discussed at length!

[SwolyswoND 1]

I still lean towards disagreeing with this and would like others to chime in/explain this to me. Obviously the difficulty of post flop play has to be considered, but I still think reluctance to fold AA once you're beat is a separate issue. So let's ignore that consideration for the time being.Now obviously there are pathological examples where you're going to be way ahead even when you see the flop with several opponents. For instance, AA has 96% equity if your four opponents hold 22, 22, 33, and 33.But even if we consider what we can characterize as more likely scenarios, AA still often wins unimproved even against numerous opponents. Lots of our opponents entering the pot are likely to have a big ace or a pair and if the flop pairs the board and no one hits a set, everyone now has a very long way to go to catch up.Since this isn't the first time this concept has ever been discussed, i've borrowed some #s I found elsewhere. If you could take AA and put it up against any number of random hands, what would the optimal number be? Let's have each player put 100 in the pot for the sake of simplicity. AA vs. 1 random hand: 85.2% x 200 = 170.4 AA vs. 2 random hands: 73.4% x 300 = 220.2 AA vs. 3 random hands: 63.9% x 400 = 255.6 AA vs. 4 random hands: 55.9% x 500 = 279.5 AA vs. 5 random hands: 49.2% x 600 = 295.2 AA vs. 6 random hands: 43.6% x 700 = 305.2 AA vs. 7 random hands: 38.8% x 800 = 310.4 AA vs. 8 random hands: 34.7% x 900 = 312.3 AA vs. 9 random hands: 31.1% x 1000 = 311.0So, where is the spot when adding a caller becomes bad for our expectation? Not until the tenth caller. Up until that point every additional caller was making us money. Leaving aside the consideration of what to do on the flop, which I think is a whole different issue, what am I missing here? Thanks in advance.

The only problem is that this equity requires us to get to showdown, which is going to be near impossible to do correctly in a multiway pot. When you're up to 3-5 opponents and one of them leads at you or c/r the flop (assuming you didnt hit a set), a lot of the times youre going to either call down as a huge dog or get bluffed off the best hand.

[rjkdb8 1]

The only problem is that this equity requires us to get to showdown, which is going to be near impossible to do correctly in a multiway pot. When you're up to 3-5 opponents and one of them leads at you or c/r the flop (assuming you didnt hit a set), a lot of the times youre going to either call down as a huge dog or get bluffed off the best hand.

What if occasionally we win a pot large enough to more than make up for all the times that we call as a dog or get bluffed off the best hand? Will this happen often enough to make the scenario profitable for us on average over time?

[FARGOpokerND 22]

Fargo is right as is NoBBiRI was for raising big for two reason1. get value from your big hands2. thin the field someTo rjkdb8, I don't curse when a third or more call when I have AA, I was just trying to help the OP see that you need to raise more with premium cards for the reasons that have been discussed at length!

For the record, I understood what you were saying, it was just worded kind of funky, which can lead to people misinterpreting what you implied.

[SwolyswoND 1]

What if occasionally we win a pot large enough to more than make up for all the times that we call as a dog or get bluffed off the best hand? Will this happen often enough to make the scenario profitable for us on average over time?

I don't think so personally, although I'm not sure how to back that up. I just don't think we will stack an opponent with AA multiway as often as HU.

[pokerinc 0]

What if occasionally we win a pot large enough to more than make up for all the times that we call as a dog or get bluffed off the best hand? Will this happen often enough to make the scenario profitable for us on average over time?

so you're saying to limp or min raise aces? I mean, you'll get one or two folds and then be up against the optimal 7 callers right?

[rjkdb8 1]

so you're saying to limp or min raise aces? I mean, you'll get one or two folds and then be up against the optimal 7 callers right?

So you're saying to just open the pot by moving in with aces? I mean, you'll get everyone to fold and be up against the optimal 0 callers right? I'm saying my intuition tells me that we should be raising only for value preflop and not to "thin the field." I am also saying that I am not certain that I am correct but so far I haven't been convinced otherwise.

[FARGOpokerND 22]

So you're saying to just open the pot by moving in with aces? I mean, you'll get everyone to fold and be up against the optimal 0 callers right? I'm saying my intuition tells me that we should be raising only for value preflop and not to "thin the field." I am also saying that I am not certain that I am correct but so far I haven't been convinced otherwise.

You should be raising what is a standard raise for all your other hands. And you should be playing optimally anyways, which is generally a pot-sized raise. Therefore if you are playing optimally with all your other hands, raising the pot with your AA should be accomplishing your objective of maximizing profits for every player that calls, whether only 1 person picks up a callable hand or 5.Yes, if the whole table calls, then whatever, proceed cautiously, but odds are they all won't so this is really a non-issue.In fact, this whole debate is silly and you guys are pretty much arguing the same thing. Don't do anything "special" because you have a monster, just keep playing your fucking game.You raise for value. You play EVERY hand for value, whether to maximize your value when you win and minimize the losses.But the thing is, raising less to keep more players in (Since your theory is that more people helps to maximize your EV) is wrong. It makes your game exploitable. This has turned into a stupid thread.

[rjkdb8 1]

But the thing is, raising less to keep more players in (Since your theory is that more people helps to maximize your EV) is wrong.

I never said anything about raising less to keep more players in the hand. Or min raising. Or limping. The theory is not that more people in the pot is good, it is that more money in the pot is good. In the calculation that I posted above where everyone puts $100 in the pot, pretend that happened at $100NL. I'm saying that once we make that raise, we are rooting for all of our opponents to call.

This has turned into a stupid thread.

I just wanted to make that clarification and now I will be quiet. I am not trying to be purposefully difficult, I was really just genuinely interested in understanding/exploring this.

[FARGOpokerND 22]

Well then it really just came off as that was the play you advocated making.I guess it just wasn't clear enough to understand for me.Probably my fault, oh well.Yes the more people in an all-in situation when you hold AA, the better. But that is such a non-issue that it really isn't practical except in theory.

[babylondonks 5]

Fargopooker is wrong

[BaseJester 1]

Speaking strictly of hot & cold performance, there are some hands that prefer as many additional opponents as possible. AA still kicks all of their butts. When folks say, "JTs plays better against many opponents," they mean that, given JTs and at least one callers, additional callers improve that player's equity. They don't mean that given lots of callers, it's better to have JTs than AA. At least, they shouldn't mean that.

hot_and_cold.xls

[mtdesmoines 3]

This thread is making my head hurt. And I mean a lot.

[melaskins 0]

According to most statistics that I have seen, I was 48,000/1 to get AA two hands in a row. There's some debate over the exact number but regardless, it's pretty rare. I wonder what the stats would be that I would get those two hands and lose 80% of the chips that I had. It was a perfect storm scenario that I get the table bluffer in the first hand and the short stack in the next. And I had position on both and had both covered in each hand. I hear people say all the time "I hate getting aces." I hear "9T is my favorite hand." AA is still my favorite hand. I'll take it any day over any other hand. No matter how you play them, in the long run, we will all win more holding AA than we'll lose with them. Or at least we should. There are some people that feel the proper way to play them is to just shove with them. To me, that is playing scared and loses more value than it protects. I don't guess it is any worse to lose a huge pot to a set, with AA, than it is to lose a huge pot to a straight with a set. I saw someone post on here that we shouldn't be looking for right and wrong decisions but optimal plays. I guess that applies more to the monster hands than it does most other hands. I definitely didn't play this particular hand as well as it should have been but my only real regret is that I didn't push the flop. Oh and in the second hand, yeah, he had a K. This genius went on to state that if I had bet more before the flop, he would have folded. I told him, I didn't want him to fold and thanks for the free poker lesson. Yeah, I was a little tilted by then.

[NoBBiR 0]

I don't think it's 48,000 to 1. It's only 216-1 to get aces, so getting them back to back is just 432-1, since past outcomes don't effect the second deal.

[mtdesmoines 3]

According to most statistics that I have seen, I was 48,000/1 to get AA two hands in a row. There's some debate over the exact number but regardless, it's pretty rare. I wonder what the stats would be that I would get those two hands and lose 80% of the chips that I had. It was a perfect storm scenario that I get the table bluffer in the first hand and the short stack in the next. And I had position on both and had both covered in each hand. I hear people say all the time "I hate getting aces." I hear "9T is my favorite hand." AA is still my favorite hand. I'll take it any day over any other hand. No matter how you play them, in the long run, we will all win more holding AA than we'll lose with them. Or at least we should. There are some people that feel the proper way to play them is to just shove with them. To me, that is playing scared and loses more value than it protects. I don't guess it is any worse to lose a huge pot to a set, with AA, than it is to lose a huge pot to a straight with a set. I saw someone post on here that we shouldn't be looking for right and wrong decisions but optimal plays. I guess that applies more to the monster hands than it does most other hands. I definitely didn't play this particular hand as well as it should have been but my only real regret is that I didn't push the flop. Oh and in the second hand, yeah, he had a K. This genius went on to state that if I had bet more before the flop, he would have folded. I told him, I didn't want him to fold and thanks for the free poker lesson. Yeah, I was a little tilted by then.

When all the chips go in, both players usually have big hands/draws, and someone is headed for a cooler/bad beat. That's the game.EDIT: what I mean is that, honestly, very little of your profit comes from getting AA. It comes from playing the other 221 hands better than your opponent does.

[BaseJester 1]

I don't think it's 48,000 to 1. It's only 216-1 to get aces, so getting them back to back is just 432-1, since past outcomes don't effect the second deal.

I think you need to multiply instead of add.