John Feeney's AQ test on Party

[skp]

Party 15 players:

What do you do with AQ off in MP and on button when an unknown UTG raises.

With known players, what Pokertracker criteria determine your course of action?

And what is your usual course of action against a UTG raiser who appears to be a winning player (I am leaving the description general on purpose).

[URMeowed]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you do with AQ off in MP and on button when an unknown UTG raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three bet and three bet.

[ QUOTE ]
With known players, what Pokertracker criteria determine your course of action?

[/ QUOTE ]

None. Although I use tracker, it's more for stat collection on myself. I just don't think tracker paints an accurate picture on what that particular player is capable of...only gives you averages. Not saying it's not useful to get an idea on other players, just that I would rather rely on current game conditions.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is your usual course of action against a UTG raiser who appears to be a winning player (I am leaving the description general on purpose).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's player dependent and game dependent. Factors include but are not limited to what I feel his raising criteria is, what that player thinks of me, overall table makeup and type of players to act behind me and how they would react to my reraise.

But what do I know...I'm just a cat.

Meow.

[astroglide]

i threebet it unless i have a reason to fold

[JAA]

"i threebet it unless i have a reason to fold"

Exactly...And my most likely reasons would be that pokertracker indicates that the player is tight preflop (say VPIP<20 or so) and he has done nothing to make me think he is playing anything but his normal game. (I say this because pokertracker can be deceiving if taken in a vacuum. I have seen people my PT has labeled as TAA become what I would describe as LAA for a period of time, particularly if they are running bad and/or taking beats.)

- Jags

[URMeowed]

[ QUOTE ]
And my most likely reasons would be that pokertracker indicates that the player is tight preflop (say VPIP<20 or so) and he has done nothing to make me think he is playing anything but his normal game.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if his normal game is playing 20% of the hands and raising all 20%, you would muck AQ???

Meow.

[steveyz]

How many people with VP$IP of 20 do you see a PFR of 20?

[amulet]

if it is a good player who raised UTG and there are several to act behind me i fold. if it is a "monkey" who raised i 3 bet. if it is an unknown, it would depend on how the table reacts to raises, do they love the action, or do i shut out the rest. but if i do not know if the player or he is a good player, i think folding is correct, your are too easily dominated.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With known players, what Pokertracker criteria determine your course of action?

[/ QUOTE ]
None. Although I use tracker, it's more for stat collection on myself. I just don't think tracker paints an accurate picture on what that particular player is capable of...only gives you averages. Not saying it's not useful to get an idea on other players, just that I would rather rely on current game conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that the power of pokertracker to make these decisions for us is overrated. The main problem is that when we make a decision based purely on preflop raise %, we fail to consider that there are some people who raise a very wide range of hands in late position, but have very conservative raising standards up front. I guess if the tools told us only what someone's raise % is from their current position it would be very useful, but you'd need a lot of hands on someone before you had accurate numbers then. I'm not trying to say that the tools are useless because there is clearly going to be some correlation between preflop raise % and UTG raising standards and we should definitely note people with extremely high or low numbers and act accordingly, but I do agree that some people seem to overestimate the sort of percision we have from these tools in making these decisions.

[ QUOTE ]

But what do I know...I'm just a cat.

Meow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good kitty.

[URMeowed]

My point was wtf does tightness preflop mean when he raised it? Meowhead. I guess I should elaborate for you humans. Would it make a difference if he played 20% of the hands and raised 12% of them or 6% of them? Better?

Meow.

[Buckshot]

I think Feeney's AQ test wasn't meant to apply to Party poker. I think it's under the pretense that you assume a player can play until that player dictates otherwise. On Party, it's the polar opposite. Everyone's a donkey unless their play dictates otherwise.

So, 3-bet and 3-bet.

~stephen

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Feeney's AQ test wasn't meant to apply to Party poker. I think it's under the pretense that you assume a player can play until that player dictates otherwise. On Party, it's the polar opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]
Feeney doesn't say that you should fold AQo to an unknown EP raise. He says that if you never fold AQo pf for one raise, you're playing it too much. He doesn't pretend to make assumptions about the general texture of specific games (the Party 15-30, for example) and what your play should be to the unknown in that game, he only outlines a thought process that gives you reasons to fold AQo to one raise at times.

[URMeowed]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone's a donkey unless their play dictates otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. How true.

Meow.

[bxpeter]

Without information, 3-bet every time. With pokertracker stats, I'll fold to those with vpip 16-18 and pfr smaller than 5. There aren't many of those players, but there are some.

Against a player with vpip over 30ish and pfr smaller than 5, I would probably 3-bet. It should make sense that these guys are raising the same hands that the tight-passive are raising, but I've noticed that this isn't always the case.

I would usually 3-bet a seemingly winning player because these players are raising UTG with a wide-enough range of hands.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Feeney's AQ test wasn't meant to apply to Party poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I recall, the AQ test says that if you automatically play AQo every time against a UTG raiser, you are making a mistake. Just because you think that reraising is the best play against the majority of people (and against unknowns) in a given game in know way means that the test doesn't apply there. It means that you are considering your opponents and how they play before deciding if this hand is playable, and thus you are "passing the test".

[URMeowed]

[ QUOTE ]
I would usually 3-bet a seemingly winning player because these players are raising UTG with a wide-enough range of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

PURE COMEDY!!! MEOWY.

Meow.

[JAA]

Maybe I should have articulated it differently...If he has a VP$IP circa 20, he is fairly tight. Assuming nothing else is out of line (aka PFR=VP$IP, which is a joke), I would strongly consider folding. I guess I should have said VP$IP<20 and PFR<8. I hate cats.

Woof - Jags

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
if it is a good player who raised UTG and there are several to act behind me i fold. if it is a "monkey" who raised i 3 bet. if it is an unknown, it would depend on how the table reacts to raises, do they love the action, or do i shut out the rest. but if i do not know if the player or he is a good player, i think folding is correct, your are too easily dominated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.
Its a fold if their PFR% is 8% or less and I have a reasonable number of hands with them.
Above 8% it becomes player and position dependant.
I.E. number of limpers, how often the player goes all the way to the river, his agressiveness. My position. etc.
Note: Im not in the game to push every marginal edge.
Playing 4 tables, when you have a very small edge, its often better to just let it go.

[JAA]

"I would usually 3-bet a seemingly winning player because these players are raising UTG with a wide-enough range of hands."

You really think that a winning player is raising a wide enough range of his hands UTG that AQo is a 3 bet?

If you 3 bet me with AQo every time I raise UTG, me love you long time.

- Jags

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Feeney's AQ test wasn't meant to apply to Party poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I recall, the AQ test says that if you automatically play AQo every time against a UTG raiser, you are making a mistake. Just because you think that reraising is the best play against the majority of people (and against unknowns) in a given game in know way means that the test doesn't apply there. It means that you are considering your opponents and how they play before deciding if this hand is playable, and thus you are "passing the test".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea if i remember correctly, the time he says to fold is vs an player with similar UTG raising standards as himself.
ie. something like aa-99 ak-a10s, so, while you are tied with AQ, and ahead of aj and a10, you are behind to all other hands, and its hard to tell which time this is. So, its best to just get your money in play in a better spot.

[droidboy]

What do you do with AQ off in MP and on button when an unknown UTG raises.

Three bet and three bet.

It mostly depends on how many players there are. If there are seven plus players, and the raiser is your standard tight early raiser (10-15%) I'll usually fold. If he's one of those wild early raisers who raise 20% or more of the time when they open, I'll three bet them. There is a certain class of players who I'll cold call against in the right situation, but usually it's raise or fold, with me folding more often.

With known players, what Pokertracker criteria determine your course of action?

None. Although I use tracker, it's more for stat collection on myself. I just don't think tracker paints an accurate picture on what that particular player is capable of...only gives you averages. Not saying it's not useful to get an idea on other players, just that I would rather rely on current game conditions.

I don't use tracker, so I'd be curious as to how people answer this. Unless you have very specific information, there's just no reason to [censored] with a legitimate UTG raiser. I agree with the cat, tracker is probably better for tracking your own game. I'm sure you can use it to find fish and sharks, but finer granularity than that is gonna be hard to come by.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[URMeowed]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate cats.


[/ QUOTE ]

In general or in your game? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Meow.

[amulet]

with all due respect, that is bad poker. let's say a good player raises, what hands can he have? AA,KK,QQ,JJ,TT, we can skip 99 and AJs for this. He can also have AK, or AQ. there are 30 possible big pairs and 32 AK, AQ, before your AQ. if he has AA, KK, QQ, you are more then a 4 to 1 dog, if he has AK you are a big dog, you are not really 50/50 vs JJ and TT because your not going to the river with nothing, you hit the flop 1/3 of the time, usually pay to see the turn if you miss. overall if you look at the math you a huge dog, or do you think a good player raises with additional hands?

[skp]

There are lots of winning players who just about always openraise UTG. And they do it with hands like 88 and even QJs that may be too good to fold but not right to just limp in with given game conditions. So, they raise.

I think that's what the other guy meant: Yes, UTG is a winning player but he raises with a lot of hands. Ergo, 3 betting him with AQ even though he is a good player makes sense.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of winning players who just about always openraise UTG. And they do it with hands like 88 and even QJs that may be too good to fold but not right to just limp in with given game conditions. So, they raise.

I think that's what the other guy meant: Yes, UTG is a winning player but he raises with a lot of hands. Ergo, 3 betting him with AQ even though he is a good player makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.

[bxpeter]

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of winning players who just about always openraise UTG. And they do it with hands like 88 and even QJs that may be too good to fold but not right to just limp in with given game conditions. So, they raise.

I think that's what the other guy meant: Yes, UTG is a winning player but he raises with a lot of hands. Ergo, 3 betting him with AQ even though he is a good player makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I meant pretty much. I wouldn't go as far as to add QJs in there, but to me, a good player in the party 15/30 will raise with a lot more than just AK, AA-TT. AJ, QK, and 99 will definitely be in there, many will raise KJs and ATs and maybe 88. I guess its hard to answer the question correctly, because there are good players that do raise a lot more hands and good players that don't.

So I guess I'll go with what others said, 3-bet unless I have reason not to - very tight, low pfr data.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a post where bicyclekick says he routinely plays QJs UTG in thisgame and he is (supposedly) a long-term winner:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1694666&page=&view=&s b=5&o=&vc=1

[skp]

Well, I never fold 88 and I usually openraise with it UTG on Party (I just about always limped when I played live as I used to play in a notoriously loose game).

I usually openraise UTG with QJs. Sometimes, I limp. Rarely do I fold.

And I am a winning player albeit I haven't been there "long term".

Because the thing is that even if playing 88 and QJs UTG (or anywhere in EP) are wrong, that type of error simply can't turn a winning player into a losing player given how infrequently the situation occurs and given how small the error would be even if one were to accept that it was an error. Heck, you could even pick a couple of specific hands like 53s or A4s and raise with it everytime in EP and it wouldn't be that big a mistake.

There would be a problem if these UTG raises were made regularly with 53s and their ilk. But 88 and QJs? C'mon, these hands do just fine IMO. I would be surprised if they were money losers and shocked if the loss was more than trifling.

Perhaps, someone has some pokertracker data on how they have done with these hands UTG.

[AceHigh]

I would probably fold against an unkown.

Against a know I would 3-bet against opponents with pfr of 9% or more fold against opponents with 6% or less.

[SinCityGuy]

Unknown player raises UTG. I have AQo.

There's a very good chance that I'm either in a coinflip situation or a big underdog.

I fold and move on to the next hand.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi. long-time winner here. i play 88 and QJs utg every time.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi. long-time winner here. i play 88 and QJs utg every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay guys. I'm getting beat up pretty good over this remark and perhaps I invited that. Let me try and soften this up a bit. These hands have cost me more money than I've won with them when I played them in EP. Same for Ax suited. This is just my experience and yours may very well be different. I have since really tightened up my starting hand requirements in EP and I've stopped open-limping altogether. But I also have to say that I am primarily a B&M player and a lot of you guys are more qualified to talk about what works and doesn't work in the online mid-limit games.
I think this has turned into a really interesting thread.

[NMcNasty]

This is an easy three-bet. Most winning players still raise with hands like KQ and AJ from early position (although I don't recommend this), and thats all you need for 3 betting with AQ to be profitable, especially when you consider the power 3 betting has in the AQ vs AQ mirror match. When both players miss the board, the 3-better will take down the pot more often than not.

[Buckshot]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea if i remember correctly, the time he says to fold is vs an player with similar UTG raising standards as himself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Although I worded it poorly this is pretty much what I meant when I said "you assume a player can play until that player dictates otherwise", i.e. he's not a complete idiot or reckless in his UTG requirements.

~stephen

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you do with AQ off in MP and on button when an unknown UTG raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold

[ QUOTE ]
With known players, what Pokertracker criteria determine your course of action?

[/ QUOTE ]

PFR % > 5, I will 3 bet sometimes, cold call sometimes depending on their VPIP and agro factor.

[ QUOTE ]
And what is your usual course of action against a UTG raiser who appears to be a winning player (I am leaving the description general on purpose).

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a winning player like you skp it's an easy 3 bet. There are too many hands in your range from 77-AA, KQ offsuit or suited and up to make AQ offsuit an easy 3 bet.

Lawrence

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
Against a winning player like you skp it's an easy 3 bet. There are too many hands in your range from 77-AA, KQ offsuit or suited and up to make AQ offsuit an easy 3 bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Damn.

[RunningSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
Against a winning player like you skp it's an easy 3 bet. There are too many hands in your range from 77-AA, KQ offsuit or suited and up to make AQ offsuit an easy 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


Most winning players in the party 15/30 have utg raising standards of something like AA-99, AKo-AJo, AKs-AJs, KQo, KQs. AQo does not have positive equity against these hands, althoug being in position does help. Still i would not call this an "easy 3 bet" :

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 52.3790 % [ 00.46 00.07 ] { AA-99, AKs-AJs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Hand 2: 47.6210 % [ 00.41 00.07 ] { AQo }

[Vaftrudner]

Same for Ax suited.

This could mean a lot. /v

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]

Most winning players in the party 15/30 have utg raising standards of something like AA-99, AKo-AJo, AKs-AJs, KQo, KQs. AQo does not have positive equity against these hands, althoug being in position does help. Still i would not call this an "easy 3 bet" :

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 52.3790 % [ 00.46 00.07 ] { AA-99, AKs-AJs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Hand 2: 47.6210 % [ 00.41 00.07 ] { AQo }

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, ding. We have a winner.

[hogger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of winning players who just about always openraise UTG. And they do it with hands like 88 and even QJs that may be too good to fold but not right to just limp in with given game conditions. So, they raise.
Your kidding right?

I think that's what the other guy meant: Yes, UTG is a winning player but he raises with a lot of hands. Ergo, 3 betting him with AQ even though he is a good player makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

[hogger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most winning players in the party 15/30 have utg raising standards of something like AA-99, AKo-AJo, AKs-AJs, KQo, KQs. AQo does not have positive equity against these hands, althoug being in position does help. Still i would not call this an "easy 3 bet" :

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 52.3790 % [ 00.46 00.07 ] { AA-99, AKs-AJs, KQs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Hand 2: 47.6210 % [ 00.41 00.07 ] { AQo }

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, ding. We have a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about the dead money in the blinds? 10% of the average pot? Add that in!

[droidboy]

What about the dead money in the blinds? 10% of the average pot? Add that in!

You can't add that in. Or to be more precise, there are so many things to add in (implied odds, betting, folding, other players who may have AA, etc...) that the only way to properly account for them all is to use something like TTH to run simulations.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

-ActionBob

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]

Really brilliant comment, ActionBob. I look forward to more pearls of wisdom from you. In the meantime, take a look at skp's reply to my post. Its a good example of the thought processes of someone who actually has a brain.

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

-ActionBob


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really brilliant comment, ActionBob. I look forward to more pearls of wisdom from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're certainly right its a bit childish, I just couldnt think of anything else to say to such an obviously ridiculous and incorrect statement.

How's this: I can assure you that your comments about QJs and 88 are wrong. I (and I'm certain many other players here) win a signifcant amoount with both of these hands UTG.

-ActionBob

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that anyone who makes a habit of playing 88 or QJs UTG is a winning player. Not saying that it isn't common in online games, just that these people can't be long-term winners.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

-ActionBob


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really brilliant comment, ActionBob. I look forward to more pearls of wisdom from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're certainly right its a bit childish, I just couldnt think of anything else to say to such an obviously ridiculous and incorrect statement.

How's this: I can assure you that your comments about QJs and 88 are wrong. I (and I'm certain many other players here) win a signifcant amoount with both of these hands UTG.

-ActionBob

[/ QUOTE ]

After I made this post I realized that the tone of it was very heavy-handed, like I was stating an opinion as if it were an absolute. That's not the case. I put up a another reply to those people who took me to task on it and I tried to clarify what I was saying.
There are many good players whose opening hand requirements are a little looser than mine. I myself used to limp in EP with the hands we're talking about and I've stopped doing it. In fact I am not open-limping period. If I'm opening I'm raising, and in EP I can't reconcile doing this with 88 or QJs. In many cases I will, however, open-raise with these hands in MP.
There's a reply to my post from Skp that I think is worth reading. Hope you'll take a look at it.

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, someone has some pokertracker data on how they have done with these hands UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

The data for each specific hand is going to be very limited, but FWIW here's mine (filtered for full games).

88: .06 BB
QJs: 1.19 BB

-ActionBob

[ActionBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Unknown player raises UTG. I have AQo.

There's a very good chance that I'm either in a coinflip situation or a big underdog.

I fold and move on to the next hand.




[/ QUOTE ]

Unknown player raises UTG. I have AQo.

There's a very good chance that I'm either in a coinflip situation or a big favorite.

I three-bet and play out the hand.

-ActionBob

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you do with AQ off in MP and on button when an unknown UTG raises.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fold

[/ QUOTE ]

3-bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a winning player like you skp it's an easy 3 bet. There are too many hands in your range from 77-AA, KQ offsuit or suited and up to make AQ offsuit an easy 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I knew it was SKP, i would fold for sure.

In general, we disagree on some basic things Lawrence. In this instance, we are exactly opposite.

[droidboy]

Unknown player raises UTG. I have AQo.

There's a very good chance that I'm either in a coinflip situation or a big favorite.

I three-bet and play out the hand.

-ActionBob

Maybe it's because I don't play in the 15/30 at party, ever. But I just don't see how you are going to be a big favorite versus a random player who is raising UTG at a full table very often. Sure they might be raising with a smaller ace, but most of the UTG raising hands have you in bad shape. Maybe random players there really do raise UTG with more than 15% of their hands in that game. I really don't know. While you do have position, you'll also have to face being 4-bet. And what do players 4-bet there with? AK, and any pair they raise UTG with?

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[ActionBob]

I'm curious to see people's stats with AQ who have a large database. I'm certainly a proponent of 3-betting AQ in most spots on the Party 15 games including against most early raisers. I had spent a lot of time specifically discussing AQ and AQs once with a solid player (who was in the camp who would fold AQ often against early raisers as well as one who did not raise it as often from the blinds as I felt was correct) and we compared some numbers. I was winning nearly twice as much with AQ as he was. Now it could certainly be a statistical anomoly, but if we had more numbers to compare to it might tell us more. Of course this will be far from a perfect study as there's certain many other AQ variables involved, but it may at least help. So if you do choose to post them, giving a general idea of your standard line of play with AQ may help as well.

Anyway here's what I've got filtered for 7-10 handed games (111,000 hands).

AQs 1.31 BB/hand
AQo .54 BB/hand

-ActionBob

[ActionBob]

Thanks for the input Andrew. The other thing to consider, especially if you don't often play the Party 15 games and may not see this in games you play, is the money you will get in from the players behind you who are going to put in 3 bets just as easily as 2 with their ragged aces and KQ and all sorts of other trash as well. I certainly don't have any numbers to go with this, but I would say its extremely common for this to happen. In fact I'd guess that its a small minority of Party 15 players who are going to fold KQ or AT for 3 bets cold. There can be many times you both are making a lot of profit from the calls by the other players even when you are a dog to the initial raiser.

-ActionBob

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]

What about the dead money in the blinds? 10% of the average pot? Add that in!

You can't add that in. Or to be more precise, there are so many things to add in (implied odds, betting, folding, other players who may have AA, etc...) that the only way to properly account for them all is to use something like TTH to run simulations.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com (http://www.pokerstove.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can add that in. If there were no blinds, then I don't know that 3-betting with AQo would be worth it (nor with any hand save AA, but you get the point).

[Buckshot]

Same filters. ~85k hands. I'm in bed with 3-betting.

AQs .94BB /100
AQo .64BB /100

~stephen

[bicyclekick]

My db's are split but this is my recent one - ~100k hands

7-10 players

AQo - .60
AQs - 1.07

I hate to jump on the bandwaggon...but saying that 88 and qjs aren't profitable utg is misguided.

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway here's what I've got filtered for 7-10 handed games (111,000 hands).
AQs 1.31 BB/hand
AQo .54 BB/hand


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to make a special point that I nearly always 3-bet early position raisers with AQs, it's AQo that I tend to fold by default. Actually, I pretty much always four-bet with AQs preflop.

Are the results you quote for early position only?

Your sample size is miniscule (~330 hands for AQs and ~1000 for AQo), so it's really hard to judge the results. Results don't really start to converge to stable numbers till you get upward of 10K samples.

It really comes down to what the UTG raise is raising with. If they are raising with less than 10% of their hands, you are kacked. If they are raising with 15% or more you are fine three betting with AQo. In between 10-15% is a grey area, and really depends on the player. I know pros that open-raise up front with 22% of their hands. I also know pros who open with only 9% of their hands up front.

[ActionBob]

I understand the sample will be very small as I posted when asking for them. I was just trying to get a general feel for results between players in the "AQ jam it up camp" and the "AQ play it a bit more carefully vs raisers camp".

-ActionBob

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the sample will be very small as I posted when asking for them. I was just trying to get a general feel for results between players in the "AQ jam it up camp" and the "AQ play it a bit more carefully vs raisers camp".


[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, simulations I've done indicate that you should always three-bet a lone raiser with AQo if they are opening at about the right frequency. Despite that, I'm much more cautious versus early raisers who know what they are doing.

I guess I'm just a wuss.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

- Andrew