AK vs. AQ on the button with limpers

[Scuba Chuck]

This has been an ongoing discussion with a fellow 2+2er. I wanted to gather some opinions.

My point is that I feel you can play AQ when you're on the button with limpers exactly as if it were AK. Let me explain.

Assume Level 2 party poker. You have AQ on the button with 4 limpers in front of you. I am suggesting that you play the hand exactly the way you play with AK (with minor exceptions). The assumption here is that none of the limpers have AK. That they have Ax, small pairs, or two broadway cards.

Let's say there are two callers. From here going forward, I am advocating playing the hand, no matter what flops, as if your hand truly is AK. The one obvious exception to this would be your psychological confidence if the flop came Q high.

If the flop comes King high, and it is checked to you, you bet it as if you have AK. The action of the limpers will determine your next move. The argument against this is an example if a limper has KT, you're introuble. My point is that you play the remainder of the hand with the same worries as if someone made their set.

I posted a thread a few days ago, called "Early Play - button strategy."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1455057&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1

One of the questions was how do you play AQ on the button with limpers. The general consensus was:

ILYA Raise with limpers
Phil Van Sexton Raise with limpers
Yugoslavian Raise with few limpers, otherwise call.

Does anyone else agree/disagree?

Scuba

[rjb03]

Playing like you have AK and actually having it are pretty different. In the situation you describe you could really play any two cards like AK if you think they'll act as you want them to. I usually only play AQ like AK when an ace flops and nobody has raised, making it unlikely one holds AK. When you play it after you flop nothing, the cards don't really matter anymore; you're playing the player.

[floppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing like you have AK and actually having it are pretty different. In the situation you describe you could really play any two cards like AK if you think they'll act as you want them to. I usually only play AQ like AK when an ace flops and nobody has raised, making it unlikely one holds AK. When you play it after you flop nothing, the cards don't really matter anymore; you're playing the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you keeping in mind that "Playing your cards like they're AK" includes a PF raise here, according to most of Scuba's responders? Personally, I don't have the stones to do that with any two cards, and at the lower levels there are too many players willing to call you all the way to make it worthwhile.

The assumption that noone has AK has been getting dangerous on Paradise $10 tables. I got burned with AQ after an A hit the flop in exactly this way last night (the big difference was that I was SB. Thus endeth the Lesson on Position /images/graemlins/frown.gif). I'm keeping a book on them, so we'll see if that helps.

[KenProspero]

I think the problem with your theory (as you noted)is what do you do when a K flops.

To my mind, this makes AQ a much weaker hand than AK. Maybe I'm a wimp, but I call AQ.