folding AKo early

[stripsqueez]

hand 4 of a $50 NL SNG at empire - i get AKo on the button

UTG+1 open raises to T60 and there are 3 callers to me

i fold

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Irieguy]

Well, as much as I hate to play a premium hand from last position getting 5 to 1 odds or more... I think I'd consider a way to see the flop here.

Irieguy

[adanthar]

Absolutely horrific.

OK, reraising isn't mandatory, but you have got to call here.

[ChrisV]

Man. See a flop, you big baby /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sometimes you get setted, that's life. I'm looking to crush some dominated hands here.

[stanky]

man and I thought I played tight

-Pete

[stillnotking]

I'm checking my calendar to see if this is Crazy Laydown Day and someone forgot to tell me. First there was a thread about not playing TT to a standard raise, then one about not limping late with KQ, and now this.

Let's see, I bet I can come up with a story to top all these.

"It was the end of the $10K main event and I was heads-up with John Juanda. I barely had him covered and it was his button. He pushed. I glanced down at my cards and saw two red aces. Of course this was a textbook fold; he had to have the two black aces, and spades had been hitting the flop all night."

[stripsqueez]

i can see that i've convinced you all that fold is best but i'll try some analysis anyway

this early in a tourney AKo is plainly a drawing hand - its cactus unless an A or a K flops - if i hit the flop as described then i will only get action out of a hand that i dominate or a hand that beats me and its unlikely i will be able to distinguish between the 2 - my implied odds are significantly worse than playing a hand like 22 - if i hit a hand like 22 then there is less risk post flop

multi way pots suck early in a tourney - your primary objective should be to avoid substantial risk and whilst the reward for winning a multi way pot is big in terms of tournament chips those chips arent worth much now - i'm getting maybe 5/1 for my call and lets say i'm a 30% chance to win - its a big overlay but i think investing more than a token amount of chips on a 30% chance to win is simply too much risk this early

i'm content to spend my T60 looking for low risk investments - if that doesnt happen then i can usually organise a coin toss when i have blinded down to T700 or so - if i win that coin toss i will have less chips than doubling up early but my chips will be worth a lot more

i dont know if the choice i made was right - i do think its a lot closer than anybody replying so far thinks

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[radioheadfan]

Forget folding, forget calling.

I think a strong argument can be made for pushing here. You have AK!

Lots of fold equity and even if you get called you're either a coin toss, facing a hand you dominate, and in rare situations are up against aces or kings.

If I think my opponents are way loose, I call and wait to hit before pushing. If the opposition is reasonable, I'm pushing 90% of the time here.

[Marcotte]

Great post. One of my biggest leaks is playing drawing hands early (67s+ and worse in the SB), and AK can't flop open-ended. It would definately make a difference on the beginning chip count I think though. (How many at Empire?) I still think I would raise at PokerRoom with 1500 chips. I don't know $50, but at the $10 level a raise to 300-350 is more likely to get called by AQ-T than 88-22. (I'm not sure if that raise amount is right, you might need a little more to discourage more than two callers at $10)

However with starting stacks of 1000 or less I think I could be persuaded to lay it down.

[ChrisV]

These arguments about not knowing whether you're dominating or are beaten could apply equally well to high pairs. I don't see what the major difference is between flopping Axx or Kxx with this hand and flopping undercards with a big pair.

One of the following is true - either it really isn't possible to distinguish between a dominated hand and a hand that beats you, in which case you must be getting paid off in a big way by dominated hands. Or, it is possible to distinguish the two and you should work on your postflop play.

Your odds of winning the hand are not so relevant as your odds of beating someone out of a large chunk of chips.

Your idea of the chips not being worth much now doesnt make a lot of sense - if I double up, say, then I can sit there and not play a hand for the next 4 rounds and my chip amount will still be larger than if you blind down to 700 then double up.

Finally, even if you don't like the idea of Axx and Kxx flops, consider the potential of AK to hit rock solid flops. Boards like QJT, AAx, KKx, AKx offer huge potential to double up safely.

[ChrisV]

Not 100% sure about the 50's, but in the 200's you will never, ever be called by a dominated hand here (unless somebody's drunk). By pushing you succeed in getting the hands you want in (AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ) to fold, while the hands you aren't so keen on (TT-AA) are most likely to call.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
These arguments about not knowing whether you're dominating or are beaten could apply equally well to high pairs. I don't see what the major difference is between flopping Axx or Kxx with this hand and flopping undercards with a big pair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You can't be serious.

The major difference is that crappy players see an A or K on board and they think they're beat.

The same crappy players flop a T with KT or AT and are ready to go all the way.

eastbay

[Marcotte]

[ QUOTE ]
These arguments about not knowing whether you're dominating or are beaten could apply equally well to high pairs. I don't see what the major difference is between flopping Axx or Kxx with this hand and flopping undercards with a big pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

AK + Axx,Kxx is actually a little stronger than AA/KK versus undercards. The Axx flop only gives (usually) 2 cards to help your opponent(s). If the A(or K) helps them, then you probably have them dominated. With AA/KK, that third card that doesn't improve your hand increases their chance of improving dramtically.

However, your much more likely to flop undercards with AA/KK than you are to flop Axx/Kxx with AK.

[ QUOTE ]

Your odds of winning the hand are not so relevant as your odds of beating someone out of a large chunk of chips.


[/ QUOTE ]
How do you beat someone out of a large chunk of chips without winning the hand? Surely your not playing AK for advertising value?

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, even if you don't like the idea of Axx and Kxx flops, consider the potential of AK to hit rock solid flops. Boards like QJT, AAx, KKx, AKx offer huge potential to double up safely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is just as likely as flopping two-pair or trips with any other connecter and is less likely to flop a nut straight (draw) than JTo.

In thinking about this hand some more, I don't think you can call. You have to raise or fold. If you call, you have to give up without improvement, but heads up you could play it post flop without TPTK.

[ChrisV]

Well obviously it's less likely when you flop an A or K that someone else has top pair, but otherwise it's the same deal - if the flop is Kxx and they have KT, or Axx and they have AT, they're in.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Well obviously it's less likely when you flop an A or K that someone else has top pair, but otherwise it's the same deal - if the flop is Kxx and they have KT, or Axx and they have AT, they're in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Combined with what you already said about the frequency of the scenarios, I think people are more frequently scared of kicker than they are of overpairs. As it should be.

This becomes increasingly true as we get down to, say, A9 or below. Now the same dunce who wouldn't consider that TT might be out, might lay down to strong action based on his kicker, especially if there's anything at all spooky about the board.

There's also that people who might instantly lay down 99 when an A flops might also decide that no one has a J if the board is Jxx, and you've got the overpair.

Then there's the ultra-rag boards which turn 99 itself into an overpair, which will often go all the way.

More boards pay off big pairs than AK. Is that in dispute?

eastbay

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you beat someone out of a large chunk of chips without winning the hand? Surely your not playing AK for advertising value?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying is, you don't look at your odds of winning the hand and the current pot odds and make a decision like that, because you have implied odds should an A or K flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is just as likely as flopping two-pair or trips with any other connecter and is less likely to flop a nut straight (draw) than JTo.

In thinking about this hand some more, I don't think you can call. You have to raise or fold. If you call, you have to give up without improvement, but heads up you could play it post flop without TPTK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flopping two pair and trips is just as likely with any other hand. The difference is they're never the best trips and the two pairs can always lose to better two pair.

It's true that JT flops more straights. AK making a straight isn't a big consideration, except that you virtually always win a big block of chips when QJT is on the board as it has invariably hit someone else hard as well.

Lastly, "If you call you have to give up without improvement" isn't an argument against calling. That's exactly what you do. Call, try and hit a flop, otherwise fold. Trying to win every pot is limit thinking. Being able to give up on the flop is often a GOOD feature in a line of play.

[ChrisV]

That is true. But I don't see the same dunce folding KQ on Kxx, or AQ or AJ on Axx.

[Gramps]

I'll second your analysis. I'll fold AK here a lot of the time - I call when there's a couple of known players in the hand (or the PFR alone) who will go to war with crap for all their chips at the 10/15 level.

It's not just about whether this opportunity has the potential for reward - it's also the fact that you're putting at risk all future opportunities for reward (where the risk/reward balance is much more in your favor) if you flop top pair and lose.

Though the lower the level, the better a call is IMO (as people are more likely to war here with top pair/less than top kicker).

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just about whether this opportunity has the potential for reward - it's also the fact that you're putting at risk all future opportunities for reward (where the risk/reward balance is much more in your favor) if you flop top pair and lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this argument a number of times and I don't think it holds water.

Things are complicated by the fact that doubling your stack doesn't double your $EV. For argument's sake, suppose we have a betting opportunity that we know for a fact slightly more than doubles our $EV when we win. If we lose, we're out of the tournament. These two outcomes are exactly equally likely.

Suppose I have such a betting opportunity on the first hand of an SNG. Should I take it? To me the answer is quite obviously yes. If I lose, I'll just start another SNG. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
These arguments about not knowing whether you're dominating or are beaten could apply equally well to high pairs. I don't see what the major difference is between flopping Axx or Kxx with this hand and flopping undercards with a big pair

[/ QUOTE ]

if i have a big overpair to the flop then i can reasonably expect action from top pair good kicker or a hand that beats me - when i hit Axx holding AK i expect action from another A or a hand that beats me - leaving aside the point that in a decent game anyone holding AJ on a board of Axx is plenty scared about putting more chips in i think its less likely your getting action from a hand that beats you in the first scenario because its easier to explain why your getting action


[ QUOTE ]
Your odds of winning the hand are not so relevant as your odds of beating someone out of a large chunk of chips

[/ QUOTE ]

thats largely right - like i think i said 22 has a much better chance of getting all of someones chips when it hits than AK does when it hits - there will be times an A will flop and everyone folds when i bet - thats much less likely if i hit 22

[ QUOTE ]
Your idea of the chips not being worth much now doesnt make a lot of sense - if I double up, say, then I can sit there and not play a hand for the next 4 rounds and my chip amount will still be larger than if you blind down to 700 then double up

[/ QUOTE ]

true - i wasnt attempting precision - i just figure that if i can survive till the blinds are 150/300 or so with more than half my starting chips i still have a big chance to win money and i therefore dont like risking that chance

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, even if you don't like the idea of Axx and Kxx flops, consider the potential of AK to hit rock solid flops. Boards like QJT, AAx, KKx, AKx offer huge potential to double up safely.

[/ QUOTE ]

any hand can flop the best thats why i virtually always put T5 in from the small blind pre-flop in the first round in an unraised pot

i feel bad bagging AK so much

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
That is true. But I don't see the same dunce folding KQ on Kxx, or AQ or AJ on Axx.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

eastbay

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not just about whether this opportunity has the potential for reward - it's also the fact that you're putting at risk all future opportunities for reward (where the risk/reward balance is much more in your favor) if you flop top pair and lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen this argument a number of times and I don't think it holds water. Things are complicated by the fact that doubling your stack doesn't double your $EV. For argument's sake, suppose we have a betting opportunity that we know for a fact slightly more than doubles our $EV when we win. If we lose, we're out of the tournament. These two outcomes are exactly equally likely.

Suppose I have such a betting opportunity on the first hand of an SNG. Should I take it? To me the answer is quite obviously yes. If I lose, I'll just start another SNG. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if a play increases my average +EV$ on the first hand of an SNG, I'll make it. I believe the described AKo hand is -EV$ in a lot of spots - even if it's slightly +EV chip-wise. And you can get into some complicated $/hour argument if you're a player that restarts an SNG every time they're eliminated (so that a play that is slightly -EV $-wise for that particular SNG, actually increases the $/hour you make), but I don't so I won't.

My point is that you don't necessarily splooge at the first slighty +EV (chip-wise) opportunity you're given in an SNG. Just because a play is +EV doesn't make it the best play automatically. If (on average) you will be provided with an opportunity to make a much higher +EV play later on, then folding the first +EV play 100% of the time often becomes +EV ($-wise).

If I knew a play on the first hand of an SNG would increase my $EV (over what my average $EV is in an SNG), then I'd go for it. But, I think the AKo example is often a -EV$ play, even if it's slightly +EV chip-wise. That's because by folding, I'll (on average) get a much opportunity to get my chips in the middle with much the best of it, so by taking the first marginal opportunity, I'm missing out on the much opportunity later (even if it's for a few less chips, it's often better if I can get in much more the favorite).

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not just about whether this opportunity has the potential for reward - it's also the fact that you're putting at risk all future opportunities for reward (where the risk/reward balance is much more in your favor) if you flop top pair and lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this argument a number of times and I don't think it holds water.

Things are complicated by the fact that doubling your stack doesn't double your $EV. For argument's sake, suppose we have a betting opportunity that we know for a fact slightly more than doubles our $EV when we win. If we lose, we're out of the tournament. These two outcomes are exactly equally likely.

Suppose I have such a betting opportunity on the first hand of an SNG. Should I take it? To me the answer is quite obviously yes. If I lose, I'll just start another SNG. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly it's not hard to conjure up a situation where you can argue otherwise: A field weak enough that you money >50% of the time.

Closer to reality: I think it depends on your overall edge, and can easily go either way.

In the $33 SnGs, I've moneyed 45% of the time over a decent sample (~500 SnGs). So one question to ask is: if you double through, are you going to money 90% of the time? I think I don't money 90% of the time that I double through early. I money a lot, 75-80% maybe, but this is NL after all and one beat from someone else who doubled through is enough to take you out.

In a game where my edge is smaller, it becomes increasingly difficult to pass up.

Edit: I now see that you said "doubles your $EV" as oppposed to your stack. I think that is a less interesting discussion, as the connection between stacks/$EV early is too ill-defined for the discussion to have any meaning.

eastbay

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
However with starting stacks of 1000 or less I think I could be persuaded to lay it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange... My statement would be: "However with starting stacks of 1000 or less I think I could be persuaded push it all in."

[Gramps]

much (better) opportunity....much (better) opportunity.

My keyboard is missing the "better" key...

[stillnotking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not just about whether this opportunity has the potential for reward - it's also the fact that you're putting at risk all future opportunities for reward (where the risk/reward balance is much more in your favor) if you flop top pair and lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this argument a number of times and I don't think it holds water.

Things are complicated by the fact that doubling your stack doesn't double your $EV. For argument's sake, suppose we have a betting opportunity that we know for a fact slightly more than doubles our $EV when we win. If we lose, we're out of the tournament. These two outcomes are exactly equally likely.

Suppose I have such a betting opportunity on the first hand of an SNG. Should I take it? To me the answer is quite obviously yes. If I lose, I'll just start another SNG. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly it's not hard to conjure up a situation where you can argue otherwise: A field weak enough that you money >50% of the time.

Closer to reality: I think it depends on your overall edge, and can easily go either way.

In the $33 SnGs, I've moneyed 45% of the time over a decent sample (~500 SnGs). So one question to ask is: if you double through, are you going to money 90% of the time? I think I don't money 90% of the time that I double through early. I money a lot, 75-80% maybe, but this is NL after all and one beat from someone else who doubled through is enough to take you out.

In a game where my edge is smaller, it becomes increasingly difficult to pass up.

Edit: I now see that you said "doubles your $EV" as oppposed to your stack. I think that is a less interesting discussion, as the connection between stacks/$EV early is too ill-defined for the discussion to have any meaning.

eastbay


[/ QUOTE ]

Something I don't see anyone mentioning is the time factor. Busting out of an SNG early has the downside of "passing up future opportunities for reward", true, but it also has the upside that you can simply fire up a new SNG. And since everyone's gambling time is limited, that is an important upside. To put it another way: finishing 10th is much better than finishing 4th.

As far as the connection between early stack size and moneying, I think it is very clear and very strong, especially if you are playing correctly with respect to stack sizes (i.e. trying not to mix it up with other large stacks). True, doubling your stack size does not double $EV, but I bet it multiplies it by at least 1.8.

[adanthar]

The bottom line is that there are times when AK can and should be folded to one raise. Examples include a solid UTG raising to 125 with you in the SB, a guy going all in if you have him pegged as having a pair, etc.

Spending 6% of your stack getting 5:1 odds to a 3:1 shot of flopping TPTK on the button is not one of those times and I can't believe this has even spawned a serious thread.