AA small blind question

[bigslick2727]

Ok. You are playing 3/6 with 10 players. You have AA in the small blind position. You have 3 callers and someone in late position raises. Do you:

A. Reraise and get more money into the pot.

B. Call the raise and play aggressive post flop.

It seems that most people just call the raise and try to lure more people into the pot. In my opinion, you should reraise and get more money out there while you can.

What is everyone else's take?

[Jeffro]

Against this many callers I’m going to reraise to hopefully get 1 or 2 of them to fold. If it was a caller and a late position raise I seriously consider just calling here, not for the reason of luring more people in to the pot but how well my holding is hidden, a reraise from a solid player in the blinds screams big hand.

[J.R.]

[Dynasty]

Against this many callers I’m going to reraise to hopefully get all of them to call.

Jeffro,

You need to learn to love it when they call as big underdogs.

[PokerPrince]

I would certainly reraise here. For one you get more money into the pot with the best hand. You may even lessen the field somewhat. I see Dynasty's point about the people calling as huge underdogs but I my giant pockets pairs against fewer opponents. They play much better that way. Besides, you want to punish those weak limpers and make them pay the maximum price to see that flop.

PokerPrince

[Dynasty]

I (like) my giant pockets pairs against fewer opponents. They play much better that way

No, they don't. AA plays best in a capped family pot.

[TexasEmil]

I'm on your side. I don't see why to "slowplay" A/A. I'm always three bet it when it comes to me in that situation. A/A makes it best with not that many callers else it has to improve.

[bernie]

they hold up more with fewer opponents but tend to make more with more opponents...per hand, if you win...

actually, it may be a wash....since if you win more against fewer, those pots may add up or exceed over a pot with more players....

baically your win % against a certain # of players and pot size against win% against more players with pot size.

hmmm....i may have to look into that...

b

[PokerPrince]

Where are you getting this information from? Very large pocket pair have a much higher percentage to take down a pot when there are less players contending for it. This is a fact.

PokerPrince

[Ed Miller]

Very large pocket pair have a much higher percentage to take down a pot when there are less players contending for it. This is a fact.

Yes.. it is a fact. However winning more pots has very little to do with making the most money.

Here's a question for you PokerPrince... which would you prefer... playing AA as one of ten hands capped preflop where you are allin (and let's say that all nine of your opponents check it down postflop just to piss you off) or playing AA for 3 bets preflop against two opponents where they will both fold to your flop bet 100% of the time? Figure out the EV for each situation and then tell me which option is better.. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Dynasty]

Where are you getting this information from?

For me, it's intuitively obvious. You've got the best possible hand. Therefore, you want to get as much money into the pot as possible which is a capped family pot.

I assume you've been to this webiste:

http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm

Against 3 opponents, you should expect to win with AA 63.9% of the time. Against 9 opponents, you should expect to win approximately half as often but you have three times as many opponents putting money into the pot. It doesn't take a complicated formula to figure out that you'll make a lot more money against 9 opponents rather than 3.

[rigoletto]

It's the amount of money, not the amount of pots, that matters! Dynasty explained the math in his post, I would just like to ad; that you have to know when to get away from your Rockets in a family pot. I believe a lot of people don't win as much money as they ought to because they keep going to the river when they are obviously beat and this is why they are weary about playing AA multiway.

[togilvie]

AA does not play well in a family pot. (Unless it's a very small family)

See Tom Weideman's post on the Expected Value for made hands for the analysis. There's a copy on Best of Rec.Gambling at:
http://www.kimberg.com/poker/borg.html

As he points out, your EV declines when you have 3 or more callers, even though you're a massive favorite over any player individually.

[Dynasty]

Weiderman's conclusions are grossly flawed.

This sentence, the focal point of his arguement from his essay, should make it clear that you want AA in a capped family pot.

The expected return is the probability of winning the hand times the amount to be won, minus the probability of losing the hand times the amount to be lost.

Would you rather have AA against 9 opponents and win 22.5 big bets bets 31.1% of the time (pre-flop bets only being counted) in a capped family pot or would you rather have AA against 4 opponents and win 7.5 big bets 63.9% of the time?

Weiderman's Jacks example was atrocious. It was not applicable to the situation and probably misleads most readers.

Weiderman's general idea does apply in this way: You would much rather have AA against 5 opponents putting 3 bets into the pot (15 bets total) than against 8 opponents putting 2 bets into the pot (16 bets total). Even though, there is more money in the pot with 8 opponents, your EV is better against 5 opponents putting the extra bet in.

[Mikey]

although it is true that they are all calling as underdogs if they did infact call your 3-bet, you chances of winning the pot have gone down when everyone takes the flop rather than when you make it a heads up confrontation.

[Ed Miller]

Weiderman's conclusions are grossly flawed.

Dynasty is 100% correct. The main flawed assumption is his whole premise that each hand has an independent chance to beat AA. In Holdem, none of the hands are ever independent (due to the community cards). It will be much harder for nine random hands to beat AA on a rainbow board of KJ852 than on a three-flush board of 98776. In the latter case, four or five of the random hands might beat AA (but AA only loses one pot), while in the prior case, AA will usually fend off all the competition. The hands are in no way independent... and suggesting they are is an atrocious and misleading assumption. Weiderman should have just saved some face and turned off his computer halfway through his misguided post.

If you want to understand how AA plays multiway, listen to Dynasty for God's sake... or work out the EV problem from my other post on this thread.

Arguing with Dynasty about points like this is like 3-betting the old lady's river raise... how many times does she have to show you the nuts before you learn better?

[togilvie]

If his conclusions are grossly flawed, it should be relatively easy for you to point out where they are flawed.

He lays out a formula for estimating EV. Is this wrong? What would be the correct formula?

He then sets the derivative to 0 find the maximum. Is this wrong? What would be the correct approach?

While his results are clearly not exact, they are based on a strong foundation and seem like good estimates. Calling them "grossly flawed", seems IMHO, a bit much.

[PokerPrince]

I see your point but I wasn't JUST talking about AA. I said big pocket pair(JJ+). Should people be more inclined to limp reraise in aggressive games with AA if the preference is more opponents?

PokerPrince

[Binkus]

I would defintly reraise, if Im in late position ocasinaly I would just call to conceal my strenght but even then Im still going to reraise 80-90% of the time, but since you have poor position for the rest of the hand show your strenght now and try to get it heads up on the flop

[Dynasty]

The preference isn't to have more opponents. The preference is to get the most money into the pot with an occassional exception.

In the initial post, there were 3 limpers, an LP raiser, and then you could 3-bet or call in the small blind with your AA.

If you just call, the 3 limpers will also call. The Big Blind will call a certain percentage of the time. Let's call it 50% for no good reason other than simplicity. So, if you just call, you will get 3.5 additional small bets (theoretical because of Big Blind) into the pot and see the flop against 5 opponents.

If you raise, you are very likely to get more money in the pot. You only need the LP raiser and two of the limpers/big blind to call your 3-bet in order to get more money in. If that happens, you will get an additional 5 small bets of your opponents money in the pot.

I'm saying the ideal situation would be if all your opponents called the 3-bet and you ended up getting an additional 9 small bets into the pot.

You will occassionally come across the rare situation where getting less money into the pot works out. If you 3-bet and get called only by one limper and the LP raiser, you've only gotten an additional 3 small bets into the pot and will face two oppponents. However, that's a better EV spot than smooth-calling and getting 3.5 (theoretical) small bets into the pot and takin the flop against five opponents.

This is how I would rank the scenarios I describe above:

Best: 3-bet and get called by everybody
2nd: 3-bet and get called by 3 players
3rd: 3-bet and get called by 2 players (inlcuding LP)
4th: Smooth call (a very distant 4th in EV terms)

[rigoletto]

I actually won a pot with AA last night. It was capped preflop with 5 opponents. I took down a pot of about 25 BB against top pair, and what I believe to be middle or bottom pair and a draw to runner runner flush (the advantage of big pots: everybody and their mother stays in with marginal draws).

I believe I put something like 5 or 6 BB in this pot, which means I only have to win about 2 out of 10 times to break even and I believe my expectation is more like 5 out of 10. I think this illustrates Dynastys point!