Time to Devalue Big Slick (Cardplayer Article)

[Firefly]

Article Link (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=15141&m_id=65578)
by Dan Abrams
What’s the best starting hand in no-limit hold’em? The quick and popular answer is pocket aces. The next most popular answers are pocket kings, pocket queens and A-K (aka “big slick”). But I think it’s time to devalue A-K.

You make money with a hand when an opponent puts money in the pot when you are the favorite. Bluffing is not a factor in determining the value of a starting hand. You can bluff with any two cards. The way you play a hand determines the efficacy of the bluff (along with your image and the relative sizes of chip stacks). The value of a hand is a function of the number and power of the situations in which it is profitable.

Pocket aces are profitable because they are a big favorite over every other hand before the flop. The known danger is that most people can’t get away from them when they catch a bad flop. This is even more true of pocket kings, because too many people will call bets on the flop even with an ace out there.

But I am using this column to argue that A-K is the hand that has become much more dangerous and less profitable in the past few years. Years ago, it was much more common for people to play all sorts of ace-rag and Broadway hands, even for a raise. That situation massively favors the A-K, which is why big slick used to be correctly valued very highly. Back then, if you raised with A-K, you could count on regularly being called by A-Q, A-J, A-10, K-Q, K-J, and even A-9.

Even better, when you were lucky enough to flop an ace or king (about a third of the time), you had the best kicker and your opponent was drawing to only three outs (to hit his kicker). You could bet big on the flop and even get raised by someone you had dominated. You could get all of your money in on the flop as a substantial favorite. That’s even better than the popular wish of getting it all in preflop with aces over an opponent’s deuces. Years ago with A-K, even when you missed the flop, you often could make a continuation bet and take the pot. What a glorious time. Those were the “good old days.” Don’t count on that now.

Sure, it still happens now, especially at the lower limits, but the competition changed as players became more educated. Sklansky, Caro, and the rest of the poker experts effectively warned the public about playing weak kickers, especially for a raise. Nowadays, if you raise with big slick preflop, get called by A-J, and then check-raise an ace-high flop, most players won’t pay you off. Big slick just doesn’t earn what it used to.

What is worse, players will call you with a medium pair preflop and raise you even when there’s an overcard on the flop. So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call.

Another problem with A-K was caused by poker on television (I accept my share of the blame). Wacky hands played by tricky pros get a lot of airtime. More and more players are emulating that strategy, so they can flop stealth two pairs and straights. Consequently, if you’re really deep-stacked, A-K becomes tremendously precarious. Your A-K can get an apparently attractive flop of K-8-6, and you can go broke when an opponent shows you an 8-6.

As is the case with everything in poker, it depends on the situation and the players. But because the competition has changed strategy, it’s time to counter effectively. Don’t play A-K like it’s the nuts unless you’re short-stacked.

If you’re deep-stacked, you’ve got to be aware that the competition is increasingly playing for implied odds, and your big slick rarely flops the nuts inconspicuously. A-K is too often easily read, and simply doesn’t profit like it used to. It’s time to devalue A-K and make more money on other hands. Good luck.

More important than knowing most everything is knowing when you don’t. I don’t know everything. Tell me when I’m wrong.
-----------------------------------------

My .02c. The first part of his article is wrong. You still get called by A2 and K4, etc. Even at the semi high limits people call with all kind of trash preflop, so essentially i think his argument holds litte in that respect.

The second part deals with AK while deepstacked. What he is essentially arguing is that AK (and the TPTK hands that it makes) are fundamentally less valuable while deepstacked. To me this is easily true but i really don't get the chance to play a real deepstack style.
The main question i have now is:
Does AK really lose value deepstacked?

NO!!! One point that this whole article misses is that if you start only playing pairs for value you become too readable. The mystery is and always will be when someone raises preflop - are they raising with a pocket pair? AK? monster pair or little pair? AQ? or even crap?

It keeps em guessing as well as taking quite a few pots down from either hitting the flop or CB'ing as if you hit the flop.

Title should have been: Time to Devalue Abrams.

[Firefly]

I think you missed the point slightly.
With AK deepstacked you are more likely to win a small pot and lose a big one. For example when you have AK and he has 8-6 on a A86 flop, you stand to lose a portion of your chips (the same can be said anytime you get outflopped, but with TPTK its hard to get away)
For certain you can pick up several small pots along the way with AK and other overcards. And i think the authors point is not to just fold AK but realize its not the nuts and TPTK can be a hand that can get you in trouble when deepstacked.

that point was not missed, it was meaningless. suppose i have AKs and my opponent has 78s of the same suit. flop comes 456 same suit and i go broke. or suppose i have AKo and flop comes KK4 and my opponent has K4 and i go broke. you see what i'm getting at?

it's meaningless suppositions. anything can and will happen, of course your going to lose some hands and I'm not going bet crazy with TPTK as in the A86 example. Why would I? Someone shows big strength sometimes you just have to give them credit for having a hand. Deep stacks actually give you more maneuverability and allows you to be patient enough in your hand selection, especially against the DONKS.
AK is and always will be a valued hand, can you get away from it, when another player shows strength is the real question.

[Firefly]

Yeah that makes sense.
I guess i was thinking that the reverse implied odds of AK devalued it, but that goes for all big hands that get outflopped. I'm set straight :P.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

The main question i have now is:
Does AK really lose value deepstacked?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a pretty complicated question to answer. It obviously depends on the quality of your opposition to a huge extent, but his point that it's really hard to sneak AK by is a good one. I think that in order for it to not lose value when you're deepstacked, you need to focus on mixing up your play enough that you won't necessarily be given credit for AK when you have it, some of the time. Focus on Shania, in the parlance of our times.

Things I learnt from this article:

1) Dan Abrams is a dropkick

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
that point was not missed, it was meaningless. suppose i have AKs and my opponent has 78s of the same suit. flop comes 456 same suit and i go broke. or suppose i have AKo and flop comes KK4 and my opponent has K4 and i go broke. you see what i'm getting at?

it's meaningless suppositions. anything can and will happen, of course your going to lose some hands and I'm not going bet crazy with TPTK as in the A86 example. Why would I? Someone shows big strength sometimes you just have to give them credit for having a hand. Deep stacks actually give you more maneuverability and allows you to be patient enough in your hand selection, especially against the DONKS.
AK is and always will be a valued hand, can you get away from it, when another player shows strength is the real question.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a lot of merit to what you're saying. On the other hand, people in general treat AK like it's a big pair and it most certainly is not. It is a hand that far too many people are willing to go broke with, particularly after the flop. This happens a great deal in cash games as well, which I play more than tournaments.

The article should have been geared more towards devaluing AK post-flop, even when it pairs and gives you TPTK. Look at it this way. Player A raises AK in MP to 3 BB's. TAG calls in the CO. Flop is KT7 rainbow. A pots it, and is raised. For too many players, this is instant all-in because as far as they're concerned, TPTK with AK is always a monster. Additionally, how many idiots always push with an unimproved AK after the flop?

My thoughts are that this article isn't meant for the type of thinking people who are regulars on this board, but more towards "Average Joe's" who think that TPTK with AK is a set.

[stone_7]

[ QUOTE ]
if you raise with big slick preflop, get called by A-J, and then check-raise an ace-high flop, most players won’t pay you off. Big slick just doesn’t earn what it used to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is by far the most incorrect line of the whole article. Any donk that is coldcalling with AJ is not going to get blown off his hand just because you checkraise. I mainly play 2-4 limit but even in SNG's and multi's I see TONS of people get stacked with this hand and worse. Anybody coldcalling with AJ is going to pay you off when your Ace hits.

[ QUOTE ]
Your A-K can get an apparently attractive flop of K-8-6, and you can go broke when an opponent shows you an 8-6.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should only happen if you try to get tricky when playing this hand. If you raise to 3-5x the big blind and get called by 8-6 it is only a matter of time before you end up with all of this player's chips. Anybody that slowplays this hand preflop deserves what they get because they know better.

[ QUOTE ]
What is worse, players will call you with a medium pair preflop and raise you even when there’s an overcard on the flop. So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with folding AK here. You had a true hand preflop you missed the flop and your opponent has the better hand. Losing this hand isn't bad poker it is bad luck. Even if you throw a continuation bet at the pot and he plays back at you it is still good poker. You will only hit your hand 1/3 on the flop. Feel lucky that your opponent didn't hit trip nines when you made 2 pair.

IMHO ... another article with more entertainment value than educational value. Things that are not distinguished in the article:
- Suited or not suited
- Position, opening bet or already a raise or reraise
- First in? Following an open bet or raise?
- etc., etc., etc.

The one key point that he touches upon but misses is when players are making bad calls and getting miracle flops. Yeah, you will occasionally get busted in these situations, but I think you will earn more chips than you will lose over time.

One key point that he misses completely is that the concept of the continuation bet is widely understood nowadays. Therefore the AKo or AKs semi-bluff with an empty flop has much less value, because players are more inclined to cold call or raise with a pair. The obvious change would be to check and call (if the odds are ok) and try to catch a 6-outer on the turn if the odds are good and you think that may win the hand with just top pair.

Further, he misses another point which is when you find yourself with AK and top or second pair and facing a hand like AJ or KJ. Sometimes it is enough to check the flop and get the opponent bet into you the rest of the way with second best hand.

On his other point: "So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call."

I would love situations like this because it makes it easy to get away from the hand, and this is a sign of a not very crafty opponent. On the other hand, if there is an opponent who might only bet 30-40% of the pot and try to make you call with poor odds, then this is not a good situation.

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Does AK really lose value deepstacked?


[/ QUOTE ]

All one-pair hands (including AA) lose value deep-stacked. With deep stacks, the implied odds are often present for villains to call a raise with suited/unsuited connectors and small to medium pockets. However, in the on-line world, you have about thirty minutes of truly deep stack poker, and then the implied odds vanish.

[intheflatfield]

I think he's way off base here as well. I think AK is every bit as versatile and valuable as it ever was. Especially, if one knows what one is doing post-flop.

But I like the article, very +EV, assuming people believe it...

[PuertoKid]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what Abrams is saying. An important part of the value of AK is in the folding equity you get when raising/reraising with it.

If the nature of our games change such that our FE against pocket pairs takes a significant drop (e.g. people start reraising and/or pushing with pockets a lot more than before) then the value of AK drops. But then the value of other hands (e.g. JJ) goes up.

I won't make the claim that such is the case. I just think that it is a mistake to think that the value of any hand is a constant, and I think it could be helpful to examine which game situations could change the value of particular hands. That's what I think Abrams is trying to do.

[Solitare]

Poker Tracker must be buggy then.

It stupidly shows AKs to be my 5th best hand in MTTs, after AA, QQ, KK, and TT after 12K hands. Must be the small sample size. Worthless AKs is my 2nd best hand in 25$ NL. I better stop playing it.

I'm off to the Poker Track messsage board to complain about the program overvaluing AKs.

[ QUOTE ]
With AK deepstacked you are more likely to win a small pot and lose a big one. For example when you have AK and he has 8-6 on a A86 flop, you stand to lose a portion of your chips (the same can be said anytime you get outflopped, but with TPTK its hard to get away)

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot one thing, I dodge bullets baby

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Article Link (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=15141&m_id=65578)
by Dan Abrams
What’s the best starting hand in no-limit hold’em? The quick and popular answer is pocket aces. The next most popular answers are pocket kings, pocket queens and A-K (aka “big slick”). But I think it’s time to devalue A-K.

You make money with a hand when an opponent puts money in the pot when you are the favorite. Bluffing is not a factor in determining the value of a starting hand. You can bluff with any two cards. The way you play a hand determines the efficacy of the bluff (along with your image and the relative sizes of chip stacks). The value of a hand is a function of the number and power of the situations in which it is profitable.

Pocket aces are profitable because they are a big favorite over every other hand before the flop. The known danger is that most people can’t get away from them when they catch a bad flop. This is even more true of pocket kings, because too many people will call bets on the flop even with an ace out there.

But I am using this column to argue that A-K is the hand that has become much more dangerous and less profitable in the past few years. Years ago, it was much more common for people to play all sorts of ace-rag and Broadway hands, even for a raise. That situation massively favors the A-K, which is why big slick used to be correctly valued very highly. Back then, if you raised with A-K, you could count on regularly being called by A-Q, A-J, A-10, K-Q, K-J, and even A-9.

Even better, when you were lucky enough to flop an ace or king (about a third of the time), you had the best kicker and your opponent was drawing to only three outs (to hit his kicker). You could bet big on the flop and even get raised by someone you had dominated. You could get all of your money in on the flop as a substantial favorite. That’s even better than the popular wish of getting it all in preflop with aces over an opponent’s deuces. Years ago with A-K, even when you missed the flop, you often could make a continuation bet and take the pot. What a glorious time. Those were the “good old days.” Don’t count on that now.

Sure, it still happens now, especially at the lower limits, but the competition changed as players became more educated. Sklansky, Caro, and the rest of the poker experts effectively warned the public about playing weak kickers, especially for a raise. Nowadays, if you raise with big slick preflop, get called by A-J, and then check-raise an ace-high flop, most players won’t pay you off. Big slick just doesn’t earn what it used to.

What is worse, players will call you with a medium pair preflop and raise you even when there’s an overcard on the flop. So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call.

Another problem with A-K was caused by poker on television (I accept my share of the blame). Wacky hands played by tricky pros get a lot of airtime. More and more players are emulating that strategy, so they can flop stealth two pairs and straights. Consequently, if you’re really deep-stacked, A-K becomes tremendously precarious. Your A-K can get an apparently attractive flop of K-8-6, and you can go broke when an opponent shows you an 8-6.

As is the case with everything in poker, it depends on the situation and the players. But because the competition has changed strategy, it’s time to counter effectively. Don’t play A-K like it’s the nuts unless you’re short-stacked.

If you’re deep-stacked, you’ve got to be aware that the competition is increasingly playing for implied odds, and your big slick rarely flops the nuts inconspicuously. A-K is too often easily read, and simply doesn’t profit like it used to. It’s time to devalue A-K and make more money on other hands. Good luck.

More important than knowing most everything is knowing when you don’t. I don’t know everything. Tell me when I’m wrong.
-----------------------------------------

My .02c. The first part of his article is wrong. You still get called by A2 and K4, etc. Even at the semi high limits people call with all kind of trash preflop, so essentially i think his argument holds litte in that respect.

The second part deals with AK while deepstacked. What he is essentially arguing is that AK (and the TPTK hands that it makes) are fundamentally less valuable while deepstacked. To me this is easily true but i really don't get the chance to play a real deepstack style.
The main question i have now is:
Does AK really lose value deepstacked?

[/ QUOTE ]

i read the article on cardplayer and was skeptical when i saw the title. However, i think he did a good job of explaining and couching his reasoning. Obviously, it's completely stack and player dependent, but the main point was that AK loses value the deeper the stacks get, which is true in general (with some exceptions, like if you have someone who will call raises w/ AQ-AT and go broke on an ace high flop w/ like 100bb)

[gumpzilla]

I'm pretty amazed at the number of people whose responses to this thread seem to be "Ha, he said AK isn't as great as everbody thinks it is! What a tard!"

[PuertoKid]

What Sossman said. In addition, wrt cash games, Ciaffone says essentially the same thing in his book Pot Limit & No Limit Poker.

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker must be buggy then.

It stupidly shows AKs to be my 5th best hand in MTTs, after AA, QQ, KK, and TT after 12K hands. Must be the small sample size. Worthless AKs is my 2nd best hand in 25$ NL. I better stop playing it.

I'm off to the Poker Track messsage board to complain about the program overvaluing AKs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than look at the tournaments in terms of chips won...look at BB/hand won...same for cash really. For me, over the last 30k+ tourn hands AKs & AKo are about +4.85 BB per hand. While in cash games over roughly the same # of hands they are +.88BB per hand. Interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty amazed at the number of people whose responses to this thread seem to be "Ha, he said AK isn't as great as everbody thinks it is! What a tard!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm amazed that your post actually has less content than the people you are accusing.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm amazed that your post actually has less content than the people you are accusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but you did notice that I posted an actual reply earlier in the thread, right?

[CieloAzor]

It's actually a pretty good article. At no point does he say to stop playing AK or that AK is unprofitable, so anybody who got that out of it should probably read it again.

The truth is, AK suffers pretty badly from reverse implied odds with deep stacks, and until the blinds go up, it's a fairly modest playing hand. This doesn't mean you stop raising with it.

[Firefly]

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually a pretty good article. At no point does he say to stop playing AK or that AK is unprofitable, so anybody who got that out of it should probably read it again.

The truth is, AK suffers pretty badly from reverse implied odds with deep stacks, and until the blinds go up, it's a fairly modest playing hand. This doesn't mean you stop raising with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for saying what i wanted to say Cielo.
Everyone treats AK like the nuts (which it tends to be when playing with 10-20xBB, but when you truly get deep it becomes a much tougher hand to play.

[Pat Southern]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker must be buggy then.

It stupidly shows AKs to be my 5th best hand in MTTs, after AA, QQ, KK, and TT after 12K hands. Must be the small sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your argument against AK doesnt lose value with deep stacks is that its performing well in shallow stack tournaments? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

And yes, 12k hands is a ridiculously small sample size, are you happier when you get TT or JJ?

[MLG]

I thought the article was pretty good. AK probably changes in value more than any other hand from shallow stacked to deep stacked. Deep stacked AK is exceedingly meh, especially out of position.

AK has two really valuable traits that he ignores. 1) It makes AA and KK much less likely (half as likely if HU). 2) It's a flip or better against all hands. These two things together make AK preflop a sort of kamikaze semi-bluffing hand because it's very rarely that bad if you get called, and FE rocks.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
AK has two really valuable traits that he ignores. 1) It makes AA and KK much less likely (half as likely if HU). 2) It's a flip or better against all hands. These two things together make AK preflop a sort of kamikaze semi-bluffing hand because it's very rarely that bad if you get called, and FE rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop kamikaze semi-bluffing for your entire stack doesn't really happen when you're deep-stacked against competent opposition. Deep stacks is the key. It's the whole point of the article.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK has two really valuable traits that he ignores. 1) It makes AA and KK much less likely (half as likely if HU). 2) It's a flip or better against all hands. These two things together make AK preflop a sort of kamikaze semi-bluffing hand because it's very rarely that bad if you get called, and FE rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop kamikaze semi-bluffing for your entire stack doesn't really happen when you're deep-stacked against competent opposition. Deep stacks is the key. It's the whole point of the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

You added "for your entire stack" for my statement. Take that out, and it holds.

Essentially all I'm saying is that AK is a great reraising hand because it's not too scared of a call, so it can look for EV where other hands that are dominated by more hands (like medium pairs) can't.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

You added "for your entire stack" for my statement. Take that out, and it holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take it out, and

[ QUOTE ]

2) It's a flip or better against all hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

is nonsensical.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I am not a no limit-expert, but I have played quite a bit deepstack cashgame lately. I find this discussion a bit silly. AK is a bad hand if you overplay it postflop. JJ is a bad hand if you overplay it postflop. J9s can be a good hand if you play it well posflop (as can AK and JJ /images/graemlins/smile.gif). Give a donk AK every hand and he will lose all his chips. Give a top pro J9s each hand and he will do well.

[betgo]

With deep stacks, high card hands go down in value and pps ansd suited connectors go up. Brunson discussed this extensively in SS. He call all unsuited high card hands other than AK and AQ trouble hands.

The author discounts the value of bluffing, saying you can bluff with any two. However, AK is an excellent hand to semibluff with. With shallow money, you can often reraise allin or reraise so that you will commit all your chips on any flop.

With deep money it can be played similarly. You can reraise or raise limpers preflop and try to take it down. If you get reraised, you may be able to call or put in a 4th raise, depending on your read. If you get called, you can fire at most flops whether or not you connect. You can play 75s, 33, or 32o the same way, but you have more to fall back on with AK.