($55) Aces full - a hand you don't see everyday

[bluefeet]

Very first hand of a $50+5

Seat 1: ( $1000 )
Seat 2: ( $1000 )
Seat 3: ( $1000 )
Seat 4: ( $1000 ) SB
bluefeet ( $1000 ) BB
Seat 6: ( $1000 )
Seat 7: ( $1000 )
Seat 8: ( $1000 )
Seat 9: ( $1000 )
Seat 10: ( $1000 )
Level:1
Blinds(10/15)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to bluefeet [ Td Th ]
5 folds
Seat 1 calls [15].
Seat 2 calls [15].
1 fold
Seat 4 calls [5].
bluefeet checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ As, Ad, Ah ]
Seat 4 checks.
bluefeet bets [35].
1 fold
Seat 2 raises [100].
1 fold
bluefeet ???

[1C5]

There is no way he has you beat here with that raise.

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way he has you beat here with that raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way he has you beat here with that raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you guys push? I think thats the line I'd take.

[bluefeet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way he has you beat here with that raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you guys push? I think thats the line I'd take.

[/ QUOTE ]

I reraised to t300, he called.
Turned "5", I push, he folds.

An Ace certainly isn't raising the flop.
A PP>TT is probably raising over the limper PF.

Figured a mid-PP might just push back on the flop - probably call. I was willing to give a couple "big cards" the wrong odds to chase the turn. Having come this far, a PP might just call the turn push.

[handsome]

It's either push or fold *edit* or reraising is good too. Calling sucks because:
1. This is NL and we're OOP.
2. There's no card that will help us improve on 4th street.
3. It gives a hand like KQ good value.

Pushing IMO is bad without any reads (which seems apparent, as it's the first hand) because no donk at the 55 level will call with a dominated hand like 33, but will call with a dominating hand like Ax/JJ+.

In conclusion: Save your chips for a better spot. Before reading Gigabet's posts I probably would have reraised.

[1C5]

1st hand so no reads. So you fold here?

Terrible fold.

[handsome]

Yea, I fold. Staying in the hand is probably EV+ but I personally feel that my edge over other 55 players is great enough that I can fold this with no regrets.

Sometimes you should forego a EV+ situation for more EV+ situations in the future.

[whodaman]

not if you can just join another tourny with the same donks in it
you should take advatnage of all ev+ situations on the 1st hand of a 55 on party

[runner4life7]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You clearly do not understand what this statement means

"Sometimes you should forego a EV+ situation for more EV+ situations in the future."

Thats with regards to pushing with like a +.1% or something with ICM not folding when you have the best hand because you think you are better than them. This isnt a situation where he is like a 51% favorite I am willing to say most of the time he will be at least 80% fav here and you are not that much better to throw away stuff like this, in fact you are worse than you think if you do.

You have to reraise.

If he pushes, you can re-evaluate, however, he is not making the raise with an ace, he will slowplay that. He most likely has something along the lines of KQ. I wouldnt even push on the turn, but maybe thats a leak.

[handsome]

For the record, I would've check-folded the flop, but I'd like to state that I see where bluefeet is coming from with the raise that he made. Everyone has a different playing style and I have to emphasize that this does not fall in line with the one I foster (please respect that).

runner4life7, I appreciate that you criticized my input but remember, we have to consider the following factors:
1. the likelihood of us cashing when we check-fold the flop.
2. the likelihood of us cashing when we double up on the first hand.
3. the likelihood of us busting to the case A, JJ+, or suckout (greater than you think).

IMO, #2 is great but not SO MUCH greater than #1 that we should get all our money in and risk a 10th place finish (when #3 happens). Feel free to disagree, but I'm just presenting an alternate way of playing that also yields long-term success with less volatility.

[Simplistic]

i find it interesting that everyone automaically assumes that the raise means no ace.

[1C5]

If villian was that smart, he wouldn't be in the 55s. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
If villian was that smart, he wouldn't be in the 55s. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]but it's really not that smart of a play. as noted in the mentality of this thread, nobody is willing to give credit for the case ace.

[runner4life7]

he definitely could have the ace, but im just saying more often then not I think we have him beat.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
i find it interesting that everyone automaically assumes that the raise means no ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason most villains here aren't raising the ace is that they're afraid of losing K-high and low-paired opponents. Think about it, you're slowplaying this every single time you get it...seeing how much more villain will commit on his own, hoping that villain catches a card to fill up if he's not already paired.

I would think raising this ace would take an opponent who a) is better than to be playing the 55's, and b) that opponent knowing that Hero is a thinking player.

Those two conditions seem highly unlikely to be met on the first hand of a 55.

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i find it interesting that everyone automaically assumes that the raise means no ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason most villains here aren't raising the ace is that they're afraid of losing K-high and low-paired opponents. Think about it, you're slowplaying this every single time you get it...seeing how much more villain will commit on his own, hoping that villain catches a card to fill up if he's not already paired.

I would think raising this ace would take an opponent who a) is better than to be playing the 55's, and b) that opponent knowing that Hero is a thinking player.

Those two conditions seem highly unlikely to be met on the first hand of a 55.

[/ QUOTE ]i'll agree that most villains won't, but i don't think you should automatically discredit it.

edit: if you feel that people at the 55s are that bad then low pairs would likely stack off.

[Bluff Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
It's either push or fold *edit* or reraising is good too. Calling sucks because:
1. This is NL and we're OOP.
2. There's no card that will help us improve on 4th street.
3. It gives a hand like KQ good value.

Pushing IMO is bad without any reads (which seems apparent, as it's the first hand) because no donk at the 55 level will call with a dominated hand like 33, but will call with a dominating hand like Ax/JJ+.

In conclusion: Save your chips for a better spot. Before reading Gigabet's posts I probably would have reraised.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is absurd

[FlyWf]

1. We know where 3 aces are.
2. Fastplaying aces doesn't require a smart opponent here, it requires a psychic one. Fastplaying will get the most money out of TT, but there was no PFR. How can the ace put anyone on a hand as good as TT?

So of the tiny percentage of time villian has the case ace he won't slowplay a tiny percentage of the time. Thus, safely discredited.

[handsome]

Wow, thanks for explaining yourself. Very productive.

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
1. We know where 3 aces are.
2. Fastplaying aces doesn't require a smart opponent here, it requires a psychic one. Fastplaying will get the most money out of TT, but there was no PFR. How can the ace put anyone on a hand as good as TT?

So of the tiny percentage of time villian has the case ace he won't slowplay a tiny percentage of the time. Thus, safely discredited.

[/ QUOTE ]in cash games it's pounded into our heads that with a monster hand you build the pot. if somebody has nothing and folds than so be it, but when a donk decides he can't laydown a mid pp then you stack him off. the same concept applies to tournaments too.

[FlyWf]

I know 'fastplaying is the new slowplaying', but no way. You want to give KJ a chance to spike something you can stack him with. If you were going to get a PP's money you'd still get it on the turn or river, but you don't want to chase out unpaired high cards.

NL SNGs are not MTTs and they aren't limit cash games. And uh, when people say to jam with monsters they don't mean this monster. You've throttled the deck. TT-88 are the only hands you can think about stacking here.

[Simplistic]

[ QUOTE ]
I know 'fastplaying is the new slowplaying', but no way. You want to give KJ a chance to spike something you can stack him with. If you were going to get a PP's money you'd still get it on the turn or river, but you don't want to chase out unpaired high cards.

NL SNGs are not MTTs and they aren't limit cash games. And uh, when people say to jam with monsters they don't mean this monster. You've throttled the deck. TT-88 are the only hands you can think about stacking here.

[/ QUOTE ]if hero is betting and villain is smooth calling, which is more suspicious? all i'm trying to say is that there's more than one way to skin a sheep. to outright dismiss the ace is still in my mind bad

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
to outright dismiss the ace is still in my mind bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, we're not outright dismissing the ace because it's not possible for villain to have an ace and raise, we're dismissing the ace because the combination of him a) having the ace, and b) raising the flop with quad aces...is SO LOW as to not be worth it.

You know how when you get dealt KK ITM, all you're thinking about is how to get all your money in? Sure, it's POSSIBLE your opponent has AA (a lot MORE possible than villain here having quad aces and raising the flop with them)...but it's not likely enough for you to play the hand any differently preflop than if it were impossible. I think this is what people are saying. The likelihood of villain having quad aces AND raising them on the flop are less than 1%...thus, you don't spend a lot of time worrying about the fourth ace. Sure, one out of every hundred times you encounter a situation that meets all of these criteria (which might take 3 years even if you play 70 SnG's a day) you'll be toast...the other 99 percent you'll make more money by playing your hand as though your opponent does not have 4 aces. It's a HUGE gain to go with VERY likely assumptions. In fact, that's all we have...we can never know FOR SURE what our opponents hold -- we can only make deductions on the best available information to determine what is most likely for them to hold.

[fisherman112]

i find it's +EV to have more chips. explain to me what hand limps preflop and then raises an AAA that has TT beat? if you really want to plat that tight, you could just call him down or call the turn and block bet the river. folding is ridiculous. why would someone with an ace raise the flop?
i agree that pushing is unnecessary since nothing is calling you unless the guy was raising with an ace (very, very unlikely), but folding is the worst of all your options.

[Kristian]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone has a different playing style and I have to emphasize that this does not fall in line with the one I foster (please respect that).


[/ QUOTE ]

I think what people are trying to say is that this is not a matter of playing style (or respect for that matter). I agree with a bunch of others that you are giving really bad advice on this hand.


[ QUOTE ]

... we have to consider the following factors:
1. the likelihood of us cashing when we check-fold the flop.
2. the likelihood of us cashing when we double up on the first hand.
3. the likelihood of us busting to the case A, JJ+, or suckout (greater than you think).

IMO, #2 is great but not SO MUCH greater than #1 that we should get all our money in and risk a 10th place finish (when #3 happens). Feel free to disagree, but I'm just presenting an alternate way of playing that also yields long-term success with less volatility.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do disagree. All three of the numbers you are considering are fairly easy to estimate (at least if you replace "likelihood of us cashing" with "EV of $ won from tournament"), and the result you come up with is very clear: You just can't throw this very profitable situation away and present it as a path towards long term success. You are ahead or way ahead nearly every time this hands comes along (about once every 2000 years), throwing it away is just horrible.

I am wondering if you would agree that taking a 65% chance to double, 35% to lose it all, on the very first hand of an SnG of any level is a good move, provided you are playing only for maximizing hourly income?

[Hendricks433]

I think that was a good way to play it. Next time just post a little at the time to not let people be results oriented /images/graemlins/wink.gif