Limping with AA-KK?

[AdamW]

Hi, I play 10+1 at Empire and have started to limp in with AA-KK and sometimes QQ stage 1-3. So far I've had huge success in those occasions, sometimes up to three all-ins on flop with top pairs etc. I have only done this maybe 25 times so I'm just wondering if you guys think it's a good play or if raising still is better.

tia and thanks for a great forum

Adam

[Allinlife]

raising is nearly infinately better ESPECIALLY at 10+1's

build the pot so you get them commited by turn, eliminate field so you are 80% favorite (AA's pot equity in headsup), not 68% (vs 2) or less

[TheAmp]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just wondering if you guys think it's a good play or if raising still is better.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am really not into "whats the best way to play high pocket pair"...
Poker is about mixing your plays...at least good poker.
I believe this is true at any level / buy in.

Randomize...and be aware of subtle differences between positions.

The game has a lot to offer..."it takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master".

S.J.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
I am really not into "whats the best way to play high pocket pair"...
Poker is about mixing your plays...at least good poker.
I believe this is true at any level / buy in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think poker is about what play should I make right now to win me the most money in the long run. At a home game where you always play with the same people, or in a $200 SNG where the players are very familiar with eachother, then mixing it up is certainly the way to go.

In a $10 SNG at Party you see 10 new faces practically everytime you play. Even if you do play with the same person 4 or 5 times in several THOUSAND SNGs, chances are very slim that they will remember you, let alone remember how you play certain premium hands.

At the $10 level, you not only have poor players, but you have players that will never remember you. At that level, mixing up how you play hands is much less important than choosing a repeatable move that will yeild high returns in the long run.

If you find that on average you get the most money in the pot preflop in level 1 of a $10 by open pushing, then you are right to never limp with AA. If you find that on average you get the most money into the pot preflop in level 1 by limp-reraising or such a move then you are right to always do that.

Thoughts??

ss

[TheAmp]

I thought about that.

What I meant is that mixing up plays should be "built in" in a good player's head. That doesnt mean decisions are totaly random or chaotic...some plays you never make, and sometimes you play a hand "usually" like this or that...thats fine, just never say ALLWAYS regarding poker stratigy.

Take Gus Hanson for instance. I believe he would play "his" way even On-line ,using an anonymous nickname. Anything is possible for him, and he doesn't play this way only for advertising purposes. That's why he is a great player.

Even in the last hand of my life against total strangers, I hope to keep this in mind.

Thats poker as I see it.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am really not into "whats the best way to play high pocket pair"...
Poker is about mixing your plays...at least good poker.
I believe this is true at any level / buy in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think poker is about what play should I make right now to win me the most money in the long run. At a home game where you always play with the same people, or in a $200 SNG where the players are very familiar with eachother, then mixing it up is certainly the way to go.

In a $10 SNG at Party you see 10 new faces practically everytime you play. Even if you do play with the same person 4 or 5 times in several THOUSAND SNGs, chances are very slim that they will remember you, let alone remember how you play certain premium hands.

At the $10 level, you not only have poor players, but you have players that will never remember you. At that level, mixing up how you play hands is much less important than choosing a repeatable move that will yeild high returns in the long run.

If you find that on average you get the most money in the pot preflop in level 1 of a $10 by open pushing, then you are right to never limp with AA. If you find that on average you get the most money into the pot preflop in level 1 by limp-reraising or such a move then you are right to always do that.

Thoughts??

ss

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. If most of the opponents are $RANDOM_FISH, then you must play optimally for that player. Getting heads up with AA on a A|K|Q-high flop at the low buy-in games almost guarantees an early double up.

Limping and seeing a typical 4-5 handed flop with AA ensures future dry heaves.

Of course, we're talking about the early levels here. Deception has value when we're down to 5 or 6 decent-ish players.

[TheAmp]

[ QUOTE ]
Deception has value when we're down to 5 or 6 decent-ish players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not talking about deception. I am talking about game theory.

Suppose you are dealt QQ in the first hand of a big tourney. You don't know anyone and no one knows you. You raise, someone reraises and the small blind moves all-in.
Now, what should you do? Fold, Because the action suggests (strongly) you are beat?

From a theoretical point of view that statement can't be correct: If Folding is the "best" play, then the "best" play for the small blind is to go over the top with any hand ! he can win all the chips without a contest.
Therefore, the correct play should be a mixed strategy:
Fold most of the time (even 99.8%) and call in rare occasions.

I once read about a ridiculous call T.J. Cloutier (one of the all time best) once made (in his book about pot limit and no limit hold-em)- it turned out that he caught his opponent bluffing, but that's not the point. He may say he "felt it" or he read a tell or whatever you want to call it. I believe its the randomizing behind that call.

So Never say "never" or "always" in poker. Not even regarding a 5+1 at party poker.

[spentrent]

Game theory only needs to be considered when it can be assumed that all opponents are of more-or-less equal strength. This is not the case in the early levels of play of a Party Poker low buy-in tournament.

[TheAmp]

Game theory should be considered in any gaming situation.
The fact you play with idiots shouldn't make you one.

[youngin20]

yeah, but i bet you throw your mouse when someone turns two pair.

[spentrent]

You're calling me an idiot because I consider limping AA in EP against idiots to be a sub-optimal play?

I'd rather you respond to my assertion instead of resorting to name-calling.

Now say you're sorry like a big boy or you're going on time-out Billy.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not talking about deception. I am talking about game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly statement. Do you see why?

[TheAmp]

Sorry...but I didnt call you an idiot, and I really don't care how you play your Aces.

I was making a point on thinking process: "you" was intented to "myself" (or anybody else) as well...

So chill my friend,
No disrespect meant in any way...
S.J.

[TheAmp]

Yes. You got me there.
S.J.

[spentrent]

Fair enough.

[Jibbs]

I used to do this a lot with AA-KK-QQ from early position on tables that had a lot of LAG players. If you think you will get a raise behind you then it works great. You can push over the top of them and get a call about 80% of the time.

Where you get into trouble is when you do it and nobody raises and you get a big multi-way pot. You have to be ready to get away from you overcards as somebody who flops a set or two pair may take a big bite out of you. Also, they may not respect your post flop open and stay with you on some sort of draw and hit their draw on the turn or the river.

[raptor517]

so dont get attatched to the big pairs. they are good for getting in before the flop or against 1 player. not against the entire field. learn to fold them after the flop facing much action.

[Karak567]

Personally I never ever ever ever ever ever limp with QQ-AA, ever. I will raise in the SB even if it is folded to me. I don't like to get nailed by some garbage hand making two pair. I'd rather take my two pair than put the BB all in on the flop and have him call when he hit his two-pair with 2-4.

Maybe this is wrong, but that's how I do it.

[raptor517]

in the higher levels it is necessary to limp with them. at 10+1 i would probably just go all in every single time i got it because i would likely get called.

[Jibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
at 10+1 i would probably just go all in every single time i got it because i would likely get called.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Your probably right. I see a lot of people go all in with any pocket pair for some reason. They never last long because somebody finally makes a premium hand and takes them out. This might be a good strategy to piggyback onto one of these games.

Like I said earlier. I rarely limp with them anymore unless it is late with 3 or 4 players and I don't think I will be able to get any action out of them otherwise.

[Jibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
so dont get attatched to the big pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats it, problem is its a lot harder than it sounds which is one more reason I rarely limp with them anymore.

[raptor517]

i dont think its any harder than it sounds. if you get ANY action on a scary looking flop, fold. easy as pie. all you have is 1 pair.

[Jibbs]

The problem is the non-scary lookin flop where somebody hits two pair (like Q-4 /images/graemlins/frown.gif ). You have to be very careful.

[raptor517]

i understand this, and as such probably fold the best hand too much, which is fine with me.

[zaphod]

Which position do you consider the best for limping?

I have tried it a two times at level 1 from early position. Once i got 6 callers and the flop was KT9(ouch), i folded when i got action, and only lost my 15 chips.
The other time i got a raise a few callers, and a raise from bigblind and i managed to get a nice pot there.

[AdamW]

I like early position because you get a feel for the hands out there. If there is a significant raise you're probably up against TT-KK, AK-AQ(AJ) and can read the flop accordingly. But judging from the replies limping with high pockets doesn't seem like a good idea the majority of times.

Adam