AK UTG-To Renaud, Abdul, Mike M etc.

Firstly I was not inconsistent. I switched to discussing tough games because I was justifying my remark that AK utg could be worth as little as $5 utg in such games.


Second Abdul is way off when he said that players would have to play 20% of their hands to keep AK from stealing blinds more than 75% of the time. One of the blinds will call about half the time. The other hands can call about 10% of the time. And that is not evenly distributed. Earlier positions will play tighter.


The key thing is that tough opponnents will rarely make FTOP mistakes against AK since that is approximately the hand they put him on. If they avoid calling with AQ, AJ or KQ offsuit but tend to play most pairs and suited connectors, they are taking lots of equity from AK, especially when they have position on it. Mike M says I am postulating a game to fit my argument but in fact many bigger games are like this.


To bolster my argument, lets say that AK stole the blinds 25%, always checked and folded if it didn't pair the flop, and always beat one pre flop caller (who folded on the flop) when it did pair the flop. In that case it would win $25 25% of the time, win $55 $25% of the time and lose $30 half of the time. That is an EV of $5. It is of course true that in a real game you will sometimes win when you don't pair the flop. And you will often win more than $55 when you do. On the other side of the coin my original simple assumptions do not take into account that the caller is often in the blind which reduces your win to $40 or $45, and more importantly that you will sometimes pair and lose. Also the fact that you will sometimes win without pairing (usually because you bet the flop and won) is partially counterbalanced by the fact that you will

often lose more than you would by the simple check and call strategy.

I wonder if Turbo Texas Hold-em software could be used to simulate some of these hands - run about a million thru and see what the final overall cost is.


I don't know a lot about programming it...but I think I can set it up so that AK is consistantly played using a profile designed to mimic your starting hands criteria...see what produces more money...


Every game is different, but after about a million or two mil. hands, I think it would average out to a basic expectation of how much each hand paid.


I surprised that more players don't do their own computer simulations against good player profiles to see really if things like QJ offsuit in early position really does cut into the profit margin.


RB

You could just look up what you were averaging with AKo under the gun.


JG

I believe that its very unlikely that folding AKo can be less of mistake than not raising ATs after four limpers, in the same game. It defies my version of logic and TTHE simulation results HUGELY. This goes to the heart of your quiz.


There may be flies in the simulator ointment, but I don't think they are Jeff Goldblum.


Regards.

You continue to dig a deeper hole.


> Firstly I was not inconsistent. I switched to discussing

> tough games because...


It's your forum. Whatever.


> One of the blinds will call about half the time. The other

> hands can call about 10% of the time.


Do you know what this distribution of hands looks like? Just tell me what hands you would like these players to play, and how your would like them to react postflop, and I will show you your errors. You need to be prepared to handle all of the hands that I choose to raise with UTG though, not just AK.


When a tough player raises UTG, he is only holding AK about 15% of the time. If you would like to take that raise on with all pairs and suited connectors, you are in a lot of trouble, because the raiser will have a pair almost 50% of the time.


You ARE postulating a game to fit the argument. If your players are calling my UTG raise with small pairs and suited connectors, you are playing in LA, and your limits are 15-30. You might be able to decrease my value of AK, but it will come at the cost of increasing the profits of my other hands, even if I don't adjust the distributuon of my utg raises.


> To bolster my argument, lets say that AK stole the blinds 25%,

> always checked and folded if it didn't pair the flop, and

> always beat one pre flop caller (who folded on the flop) when

> it did pair the flop. In that case it would win $25 25% of the

> time, win $55 $25% of the time and lose $30 half of the time.

> That is an EV of $5.


And what would be the ev of my raising with 72o in this situation? Slightly more, since I have a greater chance of flopping an ace or a king.


This does not bolster your argument.

It is true that the strategy that costs AK UTG the most money is not the best overall strategy. It is however, typical in many higher games.

"When a tough player raises UTG, he is only holding AK about 15% of the time. If you would like to take that raise on with all pairs and suited connectors, you are in a lot of trouble, because the raiser will have a pair almost 50% of the time."


Gee, when I raise UTG I will almost always have AA, KK, QQ, AK (suited or offsuit), and AQ (suited or offsuit). Notice that there are 18 ways I have a pair and 32 ways I'm not paired. That's not 50 percent. (Now sometimes I will limp with AKs or AQs but I will also occasionally limp with AA or KK. The same is true for some other hands that I on rare occasions will raise with. So these should roughly balance out and are a very small percentage of my raising hands UTG anyway.)

Mike M writes:


"When a tough player raises UTG, he is only holding AK about 15% of the time."


Mason responds:

"Gee, when I raise UTG I will almost always have AA, KK, QQ, AK (suited or offsuit), and AQ (suited or offsuit)... That's not 50 percent."


I don't see any inconsistency here.


- Andrew

Mason... your utg strategy is quite flawed.

I see. Well that explains everything. Perhaps you could help me and tell us an UTG strategy that is not as flawed.

I believe Mike M is correct: c.50% of the time you raise utg should be with a pair. The difference between my (and I suspect Mike M.'s) strategy and yours that gets us to 50% are two-fold: 1. raising more often with other pairs -- JJ almost every time and TT half the time. 2. Limping with AQ unsuited frequently (I do this about one-third of the time). This is a far more optimal strategy against good players than yours which is far too easy to play against and leaves too much equity on the table with JJ and TT (and AQ at a more sophisticated level).

Damn it! I've been waiting in anticipation for two days now to get a big suited Ace on the button just so I raise-it-up, and NOTHING! Not one ATs or better on the button, not one before the button, and not two or three or four before the button either, NOTHIN'! Why such a fuss over a particular situation you can expect to find yourself in about three times a year?


:o)

The point, of course, is not specifically about ace suited on the button but suited connectors, especially high ones when several players limp in front of you.

When games get tight I agree with with your JJ and TT strategy since there is more chance to pick up the blinds or just one caller, and your value from flopping a set have gone down; and when games get loose it begins to make sense to limp with AQ since you have to hit the board more often to win. But if it is right to do one, I doubt if it is right to do the other. For example, in a tighter game your raise with AQo will frequently allow you to win the pot without improving. So your strategy seems contradictory to me.


Also see HPFAP-21 for more discussion.

On the contrary I think that raising every time with JJ and most of the time with TT is a big mistake in most games, which are loose enough to make this strategy unprofitable. Your goal should not be to espouse a strategy that says your raises UTG should approach 50% pairs, but that you adjust your strategy by the type of game you are in. In a loose game the UTG raise with AQ is less likely to be correct, but in a tight game it is incorrect. Raising with TT UTG is right in a tight game but not necessarily in a loose game, and raising "all the time" with JJ is almost certainly a mistake.


Masons strategy is far superior against tough players, and I think that you are not fully considering the types of hands that other players will play and how they will be played against your hands. How will a good player take advantage of your strategy when you add JJ to your UTG raising hands? That is the question you must fully consider. For example against a player like Mason an AQo after him has a tough time playing, whereas against you he will merely reraise and try to get it heads up. What do you do when an A,K or Q flops, especially against a strong player who can semibluff raise you. You are in a tough spot and will have to play poker very well in this spot,and in situations like this a good player may be able to always raise UTG with JJ and often with TT and get away with it, but for many players this is not a profitable situation, myself included.


Pat

You have it backwards about which approach is easier to play against. Take your AQo scenario. You say you would raise me every time with AQ, even though you know my UTG raising criteria is AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT (50%), AK, or AQ (66%). Why in the world would you raise someone who is a slight to prohibitive favorite (with the exception of AQ) against you? How many flops are you going to feel confident about gunning? Raising with AQ against my UTG raise has to be a fairly significant negative EV proposition. And because I'm raising JJ and some TT and not all AQs, it's going to be far more negative than against a Malmuthian. Just to make it a little more interesting for you (like the Confucian curse), I'll raise once or twice a session UTG with small pairs, low suited connectors, or TJ. The showdown value of these hands when I win far exceeds the size of the pot, as you might imagine.