AA; how much to raise BTF

[KC50]

NLHE online freeroll with 700 entries; 1st round; 4th hand of tourney; everyone has similar stacks.

EP folds. Your next with AA. How much (x the big blind) do some of you raise here?

[cferejohn]

I pretty much always raise the exact same amount, whether I have AA or I am stealing with 72o. Online, players have limited information, so I try to limit it yet further. Therefore, I would raise whatever I'd been planning as my standard raise for this limit. Usually 3x the BB.

[KC50]

What brought me to post this was that a friend questioned my $15 raise. He said I should have put in at least a $50 raise btf. As it turn out LP called with K-10o and the sb also called with A-6o. The flop came 2-10-J. I bet $50; LP raised me all-in and I called. He hit another J on turn and I'm eliminated.

[gunbuster]

Preflop mistake was probably not a large enough raise, unless you were looking for action, which you got. Now that you got the action, you should have bet more on the flop. If you are willing to call an all-in raise, then you should be willing to bet a whole lot more to put the player to a decision. Lets say you overbet the pot and he comes back at you. I would probably let this hand go at this point. If you are a better player than the rest at the table, you'll earn the money back. This early in the tournament, I'm not going to call too many all-in bets unless I am a clear favorite. With this flop, you could have been up against a lot of hands that may have you beat on the flop, or may be only be slight dogs to you post flop. Get out and wait for a better opportunity.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Ok. It's the first round, and you've got AA. Everyone's got similar stacks. Let's use the paradise one table tourneys as an example. They start you with T1000 and the blinds start at 5-10.

Here, I don't like to make a real small raise with AA. The reason for this is that if I just raise to 20, any old moron with any old two cards might call me. At this point, I've given them a very cheap chance to draw out on me when I've got the best hand. Not only that, but they might just win a whole bunch of my money, or even break me, when they flop two stupid pair and I foolishly bet big when I flop an overpair. Not going to happen. Therefore I will be raising more than just a piddly little double the blind. I usually make it about 80-200 in this situation, depending on the exact situation. The more limpers have already entered the pot, the more I am going to raise. I won't open raise from the button for 200 when the blinds are only 5+10, because my aces are worth more than the blinds, and I'd like to get some action on them. Once there are limpers, I'm going to win more if they all fold, so I'll raise it more in that case.

The only exception is if I am UTG and decide to try for a limp-reraise. This move works better when you have a reasonable chance of having someone else raise after you limp. If there's an aggressive player or players in the game, I'll try to do this. When they raise, I put in a BIG reraise. Depending how much they raise, I might go all-in. For instance, say I limp for the blind (any reasonably small blind amount, let's say 20) and someone else makes it 200. Well, if I have something like 1000, and so do they, I'm going to go all-in. Now if I limp and someone raises from 10 to 20, well, then I'll probably make it 150-300. I'm NOT going to let them off cheap, no way, after all they have a "raising hand." But I might not go all-in if the pot is too small. I want action on my hand, but not too much action, or at too cheap of a price. They've gotta PAY to try and beat my nuts-before-the-flop.

You pretty much would rather get a bunch of money into the pot BEFORE THE FLOP when you have AA, while you still have the best hand. Before the flop, any idiot can put it all in with AA and be getting the best of it, and that's what you would rather do. AA is much harder to play after the flop in no limit. After all, what you gonna do when you have AsAc and the flop comes Jd Qd 9h and you only raised a little bit and five people called you?

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As indicated in my post, I think a more dynamic approach to big hands like AA is in order. For one thing, merely raising triple the blinds allows people to call you with many hands, especially when the blinds are small. You don't really want that much action in a no limit game unless you've made a big raise. After all, if you have T1000 and someone raises to 30 with AA, of course they are making a mistake if they call. But when your aces get cracked by someone who called your small raise with KTo you'll see what I mean.

The only exception to what I'm getting at is if you are in a steal position. In that case, you SHOULD raise a "standard" amount, even with AA, so that it appears you're trying to steal. You're hoping to catch someone with a hand, hoping they'll play back at you. If you steal the blinds, oh well... better to win a small pot than to lose a big one.

[maplepig]

i will often limp with this hand and let the other players do the betting in a loose aggressive table. If no one gets aggressive, fine. You are not going to win much anyway. Try to play the hand on the flop. If table gets too aggressive postflop and the board looks scary, I may just fold it. If anyone gets aggressive behind you preflop, reraise to make all callers pot stuck, and then push it on the flop.

[ALL1N]

The key here is that as it is only the 4th hand, you have no image yet. A large raise looks abnormal from a good player, but they don't know that yet, so make it big. I'd consider 5-6 x BB.

[gunbuster]

I'm inclined to play this hand different in a tournament situation. I'm going to try to get action, but no more action than one or two callers. And if the board looks scary, I'm usually done. Last thing I want is to have 4-5 people get pot stuck, because chances are my aces are no good anymore, and I have a hard decision to make as far as letting them go.

I'd rather see one raiser get in for about 200 and then win the pot right there. Hey, I've gone from 1000 TC to 1200 TC. It's not doubling up, but it's early in the tournament and going broke when the blinds are 5-10 is kinda silly to me.

[maplepig]

this is freeroll here. there's no money investment. The only thing you are investing is time. AA wins 50% 9 handed, I'll be happy to make the 50% shot to get 9x the stack. That's why it's important to make them pot stuck. Don't let them make easy fold since your AA is stuck anyway if you have raised significant amount. If there's no action preflop, then you can play the normal tight game. Of course this strategy does not apply to other mutlitable tournaments where most players are tight and careful, but for freeroll it's better to have a big lead or bust out early.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

gunbuster, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, it's just I happen to disagree with pretty much everything you said in this post, by about 180 degrees.

> Preflop mistake was probably not a large enough raise,
> unless you were looking for action, which you got.
The raise was fine. If you raise more with big hands, and less with mediocre or stealing hands, or any other pattern, it will get noticed and you will be abused.

> ... you should have bet more on the flop.
Why? Doing that simply guarantees that worse hands fold and that you lose more to hands that outflopped you.

> If you are willing to call an all-in raise, then you
> should be willing to bet a whole lot more to put the
> player to a decision.
This is a common fallacy. Many players are afraid of going broke, and don't ever want to call all-in. However, if you can induce an opponent to go all-in when they're way behind, you should welcome the opportunity. Again, why would you ever make a bet that virtually guarantees that worse hands will correctly fold, and than cause you to lose more to better hands that will (almost) never fold?

> If you are a better player than the rest at the table,
> you'll earn the money back.
If you're folding the best hand a lot, you're not a better player than the rest of the table.

> This early in the tournament, I'm not going to call too
> many all-in bets unless I am a clear favorite.
This sounds like classic weak-tight advice. You're here to play poker, and part of being the best poker player is the willingness to take on risky situations when your judgment says you're getting the best of it. If you wait for spots where you are "clearly" getting the best of it, and fold the rest, you are either going to get blinded out or get hit by the deck. Most of my wins do not come from getting a lot of great starting hands. They come from lots of well-timed steals and lots of extracting the maximum with hands that are the best, even if they're not that strong in an absolute sense. Sometimes you need to be betting with something much weaker than top pair, top kicker, even when you expect to get called.

> With this flop, you could have been up against a lot of
> hands that may have you beat on the flop, or may be only
> be slight dogs to you post flop. Get out and wait for a
> better opportunity.
Again, classic weak-tight advice. Your job isn't to fold whenever you might be beat, but when your poker judgment says you are likely to be beat (likely as compared to the pot odds, etc.). You might be beat pretty much every hand you play. Here, there was no particular reason for our poster to believe they were beat, and in fact they had the opponent drawing to 5 outs twice. In theory of poker terms, it would have been a disaster if they had folded.

They played the hand quite fine, and got unlucky. Move on to the next hand (cash game) or next tournament, that's all.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[gunbuster]

I think you have to look at it in context of the tournament though. The tournament just started. Perhaps I'm weak-tight, but if I'm in the WSOP. I've raised pre-flop showing strength, bet the flop and someone raise me all in on a pot that hardly justifies all-in, I'm probably going to lay down my aces here in face of a JT rag flop, unless I have a different read on the player. Beaten by JT, JJ, TT or a small pair that caught. Hands that you would beat would be AT, AJ, KK and QQ. You're not likely to get an all-in reraise from AT or AJ, so you're looking at a slim number of hands that you can beat.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
This is a common fallacy. Many players are afraid of going broke, and don't ever want to call all-in. However, if you can induce an opponent to go all-in when they're way behind, you should welcome the opportunity. Again, why would you ever make a bet that virtually guarantees that worse hands will correctly fold, and than cause you to lose more to better hands that will (almost) never fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, when the money isn't deep, you'll tend to see a lot more people going all in with hands that weaker. In this case, you can probably call more all-in bets. But 4th hand in the tourney, who's going to risk all-in with a marginal hand?

Now turns out it was a free roll tournament, which changes a lot of things, as people will push all in with anything. But again, back to the WSOP example -- I just paid $10,000 to get into the tournament. 4th hand in the tourney, I get put to a decision post-flop whether to call AA vs all-in. Preflop, no problem. I'll go all in w/ my aces every time. But would you call this all-in now?

Pick on me if you want. Call me weak-tight if it makes you happy, but EARLY in a tournament I'm content to steal blinds, win small pots and only get in huge confrontations when I feel that I'm a good favorite. It's early in the tourney and being no-limit, you are almost always in the game.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

It seems you're changing the context.

In the original hand, the player did not believe himself to be behind, and so he correctly called with AA. Your advice read that because he "might" be behind, he should've folded.

Now, in response to my post, you're describing scenarios where you expect to be behind, and then conclude that it's correct to fold. Of course it's correct to fold when you believe you're behind, have confidence in that belief, and are not getting anywhere near the odds to suck out. But that's not the point.

The point is, you're playing poker. A big part of poker is using your skill and experience to arrive at a judgment about the strength of the opponent's hand. If that judgment says you're the favorite, then folding to their all-in raise is almost certainly a mistake.

Your original advice read otherwise, at least to this reader.

In fact, here's what I read from your advice.

It's the first hand of the WSOP. You get AA and raise preflop. 1 caller. Flop comes JT3. You bet, and he raises all-in. Hypothetical 1: he's a very tight player. Hypothetical 2: you know this guy from your hometown poker games, and he literally could have any hand that is one pair or better, as well as any open-ended straight draw. Your advice, as originally worded, would dictate folding in both hypotheticals.

I sure as hell wouldn't fold in Hypothetical 2.

If you would fold in Hypothetical 2, you're weak-tight, and have very little chance of being a long-term winner in big bet poker, cash games or tourneys.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[gunbuster]

In hypothetical 2, it would depend on the size of the pot to me. If my buddy from the home poker game is betting his 10K stack on a pot that's 500-1K, you've probably got to give him credit for something. If you're going to get little better than even money, then you have to be at least 50% sure that he isn't betting into you with hands that have your Aces beat.

I don't think you can just say, "He's Joe from down the street, he'll play anything. I'm calling", without looking at the post-flop play too. I ask myself "Why would he risk his whole stack for a pot that's 1/10th his stack?" Maybe he really doesn't want me to call. Maybe he is overplaying his hand ---- Or, he could really have the goods.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

maybe he's overbetting the pot because he knows you'll fold the winner.

[KC50]

Thanks Greg...coming from you, I'll take it you thought I didn't play the hand that bad. I thought I played the hand ok although my buddy got me thinking, which is why I posed the question of the preflop raise in the situation descibed. And thanks to all for the various opinions and comments.