Bellagio 15-30 & 30-60: UTG flopped nut flushes. Missed check-raises?

[Dynasty]

A rare two hand post! Both games were loose but a bit more aggressive than I wanted them to be. The 30-60 game was particularly aggressive.

Lately I've been playing my big hands by betting, betting, and betting with little trickery. I haven't been making any efforts to squeeze one extra bet out of opponents. I'll take one on every street if they'll give it to me.

Hand 1 (15-30 from late Friday night):

I'm UTG with A/images/graemlins/club.gif4/images/graemlins/club.gif and limp. I get 3 more limpers behind me in MP and LP. Both blinds play and the flop is take by six players for one bet each.

The flop is: 6/images/graemlins/club.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif2/images/graemlins/club.gif

Small Blind checks. Aggressive woman in the Big Blind bets. I raise. The next player folds and then a loose but aggressive-when-he-has-it MP 3-bets. LP and Small Blind fold. Big Blind calls two more bets. I make it 4 bets and both players call.

The turn is: 6/images/graemlins/club.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif2/images/graemlins/club.gifT/images/graemlins/heart.gif

Big Blind checks. I bet. MP raises. Small Blind folds. I 3 bet. MP calls.

The river is: 6/images/graemlins/club.gif5/images/graemlins/club.gif2/images/graemlins/club.gifT/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet and get called.

Right after the hand, it seemed clear to me that the MP had a big hand, maybe even the King-high flush, and thought he was good on the turn when he raised. I've played a similar hand before and had told myself that a river check-raise will often work in that spot. Anybody think I should have gone for it?

Hand 2 (30-60 from early Sunday morning):

I'm UTG with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and limp. A loose MP calls. A regular and aggressive 30-60 player raises in LMP. The Button and one of the Blinds calls as do I and the MP. 5 players see the flop for 2 bets each.

The flop is: T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

The Blind checks. I bet. MP folds. LMP pre-flop raiser calls. Button and Blind folds. Heads-up on the turn.

The turn is: T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif2/images/graemlins/diamond.gifK/images/graemlins/heart.gif

I bet and get called.

The river is: T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif2/images/graemlins/diamond.gifK/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

That puts four diamonds on the board. I bet. LMP pre-flop raiser throws his hands in the air in disgust and mucks.

In retrospect, it's clear that the LMP put me on the Ad for a flopped flush draw that got there on the river. With the "dangerous" King coming on the turn, is this a good spot for a turn check-raise? Or, do I bet hoping to get 3 bets in on the turn?

[Gabe]

Hand 1. I think usually yes.
Hand 2. No. Only if they will bet very weak hands and call check-raises with them. They might be calling with a very weak flush draw that they will not bet.
I usually do not play Axs UTG, but if i flopped as many flushes as you, I'd play anything suited.

[HDPM]

In the first hand your 3-bet on the turn w/ the opponent only calling makes a check raise iffy IMO. I can see the possibilities for a check raise, but you had a situation where you had a guarantteed call. I think I'd take the sure 1 bet in that spot. That's an hour of earn for you if you get cute and he checks behind. I guess tho if he bets it enough it is better to check raise, but I just don't see him betting enough after your 3B on the turn. As to the second hand the turn is the street for a check raise. 4 diamonds on board aren't going to allow the guy to bet the river of course. And the betting pattern on the hand sets up a ck raise better IMO.

Now, that time you check raised me on the river after I bet your set for you the whole way.....
(Well played but you might have gotten an extra bet w/ a turn check raise since I pay off like a slot machine.)

[rtrombone]

You can't go for a check-raise at the river in hand 1. At least, you can't unless you have some kind of exceptional read on your opponent. There are two reasons why: (1) You 3-bet the turn and now you check the river?! Most people will be flat-out confused by this action. When people are confused, they don't bet for value. They almost always play more passively. (2) A thinking opponent will ask himself why you didn't bet. If you have anything decent, why don't you? You know you're not going to get raised at the river, not after 3-betting the turn (and just getting called). So why check and call at the river? You're not going to induce many bluffs after 3-betting the turn. A thinking opponent will put you on something like the A /images/graemlins/club.gif, a hand which will not call a river bet, or your holding--the ace-high flush (with an outside chance of a straight-flush). The vast majority of hands in between, you're going to bet. Either you were getting cute at the turn or you're getting cute now.

There's also: (3) You feel really, really dumb when you get 3-bet at the turn and then check-raised at the river.

In hand 2, against a pretty aggressive player I would pause and then bet the turn. Hopefully, he raises so you can make it 3 bets. Some people will bet if checked to but will not raise your bet. Against these people, you are right that the king is a good card for a check-raise attempt.

But limping with Axs UTG in a loose and "particularly aggressive" game can't be right. Maybe if I was running good and flopping as many nut flushes as you were.

(I still wouldn't.)

[jkinetic]

You posted, "Both games were loose but a bit more aggressive than I wanted them to be. The 30-60 game was particularly aggressive."

If that was the case, what were you doing limping in with those hands in the first place???

Hoping to flop a flush???

As far as the check raising goes in hand 1 I would have gone for it since you categorize MP as "loose but aggressive-when-he-has-it".

In hand 2, I would just bet out as you did, since your position is so poor just get the money in the pot.

On a side note, if you flop an ace, at any point can you lay it down?

[Dynasty]

I think everyone can just stop the "why are you playing Axs UTG?" comments. Those hands are easily playable in almost all Las Vegas middle limit games.

In fact, one of my game selection rules has evolved into: If you can't play 22 or Axs UTG in this game, then you shouldn't be playing in this game.

You guys are way too tight if you're folding these hands.

[Vehn]

I can't remember the last time I limped UTG with ace rag suited in any game.

[Vehn]

You're nuts /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Games just aren't that great anywhere. While I didn't play a ton when I was in LV in May, I never felt it was a good enough game to limp in UTG with those hands. In particular the $20 at the Mirage was most certainly not a good enough game for that, BUT all games were profitable for skilled players. Don't limp up front with cheese. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[jkinetic]

"In fact, one of my game selection rules has evolved into: If you can't play 22 or Axs UTG in this game, then you shouldn't be playing in this game."

I agree with this statement, just as I agree with a statement that my friend makes all the time, that if you are not taking bad beats in a game then you are in the wrong game, which I think he got from Ted Forrest.

But my point was this, can you get away from your hand if an ace flops, because that is where the value of your hand will go up if you can.

As far as the game selecion goes, in LV the game selection is not as great as say in LA, where at any given time on any given day there is a good enough game in LA to limp in with those hands.

Now on a weekend game in LV I can see limping in with those hands as you did, but during the weekdays probably not.

As far as being way too tight, that is relative to the game conditions. I think hand selection should never be cut and dry, it should be contingent upon the lineup of the table and position.

[ACBob]

So Dynasty, UTG you like to limp with A small suited?

Do you think most of the local $15-$30HE Bellagio players do also? Not being critical, just trying to learn. Thanks.

Bob Lewis

[ACPlayer]

In fact, one of my game selection rules has evolved into: If you can't play 22 or Axs UTG in this game, then you shouldn't be playing in this game.

Good rule, but you description of the game as aggressive does not appear to fit the rule.

My rule is that i should expect to make a profit of about 12 small bets to make it worth while to limp with this cheese. So the game should be such that the typical pot is likely to have approximately 16-18 SB (including my money) for the limp to be profitable - preferably with most of the money going in pre-flop with A4; and on the flop and beyond with 22 - that is I want little action on the flop with the suited hands and love action on the flop with small pairs).

[Diplomat]

Hey Dynasty,

I have not looked at the other posts, so here are my thoughts on their own:

Hand 1: Checkraise the river? Maybe...your opponent would have to be pretty damn aggressive to bet again on the river after being three-bet on the turn. Let's say he has a king-high flush; he stopped at one raise on the turn, why would the river change anything for him? Granted he might bet thinking you got aggressive with a set of sixes or something, but I think the best way to be sure to collect at least one bet on the river would be to bet. Of course, you know your opponent better than I do; but rarely can I get away with such a move after the turn action.

Hand 2: I really like a turn checkraise here. Now, you might give me a tap for simplistic thinking, but a turn check here looks like you are afraid of being raised or cannot beat a king. I think you would get a bet here from JJ, QQ, definitely KK, and almost definitely AA. Then again, it also looks like a trap...but I'd still go for a checkraise.

-Diplomat

[rtrombone]

Limping with hands like 22 and Axs may be correct in loose passive games, but it CANNOT be correct to do so in loose, very aggressive games. The more aggressive the game, the more incorrect it is to limp with these holdings up front.

If you are regularly paying 2 or more bets to see the flop with these hands, you cannot win in the long run even if you are the best post-flop player in the world.

You may be right that it's correct to play these hands in the majority of Vegas middle-limit games. If there isn't much raising pre-flop and you're regularly getting 2+ limpers plus the blinds, fine.

In a "particularly aggressive" game, though, there's just no way it's right. None. Was your characterization of the 30-60 game accurate?

I'm surprised more people aren't piling on here.

[anatta]

The river check raise with the Ace high flush when you suspect another flopped flush sounds like a great idea to me. But I can't believe you are playing 22 UTG in an aggressive 30-60 game. AXs seems incredible as well. To me, that's insane.

[elysium]

hi dynasty
you should not be in either of these hands from that position. i know you're going to give me an earfull, but at your level of play, there are nothing but solid players in there with you. when you flop top pair, yes you'll get this thing heads up, but you'll be heads up against godzilla.

only once in about seven times will you flop a flush draw. when you get there, you'll be facing the same question you're posting here now. this same exact question.

the main problem with coming in from EP with that holding is that it forces you to ask the qustion that you're posting. hidden deeply within the question is the very reason that you should not be in the hand in the first place, and if by chance you do enter, for whatever reason, you must pre-plan months in advance for this eventuality because you will face this question each and every time you enter in with Axs from EP; do i bet and spook, or do i allow a free-card to slide off that will crush this vulnerable hand?

no matter how gingerly mason, tommy, or clark answer you here, their answer will always be wrong. there is no right answer. the closest that even the best in the world can come to giving you the right answer is by answering with the question, 'didn't you realize that this would be the quandary prior to entering in with this particular holding?'.

your question in fact is the answer to the question, 'why shouldn't we enter in with Axs from EP?'. why? even when you flop a once in a hundred nut-flush, you still are left asking 'do i bet and spook, or do i check and allow a free-card off that crushes this vulnerable holding?'.

are you going to play Axs from EP again for very good reasons? yes, you better believe you are. i know you dyno. you're going to do it because certainly it is totally correct. and i know you have a borderline cult following that will tear me to ribbons if i dare say otherwise. so, i totally agree with you that it is the thing to do. but i really don't know what to do afterwards dynasty. should i bet and spook, or do i allow a free-one to slide off that crushes me? i should ask you. i should ask you?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I think everyone can just stop the "why are you playing Axs UTG?" comments. Those hands are easily playable in almost all Las Vegas middle limit games.

In fact, one of my game selection rules has evolved into: If you can't play 22 or Axs UTG in this game, then you shouldn't be playing in this game.

You guys are way too tight if you're folding these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I limp UTG in most of my games w/ 22 and A2s. But I don't when the game is a "particularly aggressive" one. To me, that means a typical hand has a small field seeing the flop for multiple bets. That's not the type of game I want to be limping in with those hands UTG.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played a similar hand before and had told myself that a river check-raise will often work in that spot. Anybody think I should have gone for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You 4-bet the flop and 3-bet the turn. If MP has exactly the King-high flush, I think your checkraise will work. But all that action could have come from any flush. There are a number of smaller flushes that he'll check behind after the 3-bet (many players would check the Queen-high flush after all that action). Given all that, I'd just bet and take my sure single river bet.


[ QUOTE ]
With the "dangerous" King coming on the turn, is this a good spot for a turn check-raise? Or, do I bet hoping to get 3 bets in on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Against an aggressive pre-flop raiser, I'd probably go for the turn check-raise here. You'll even get a single bet from some complete misses that can't resist betting the King when checked to, but will fold to your turn bet.

[elysium]

[Tyler Durden]

I also think the decision to play these hands in this position was a poor one.

[AceHigh]

Checking my pokerstat database, I find Axs right around neutral EV from early position in Paradise .5/1 games and losers in Paradise 2/4 games. This is with about 60,000 hands played.

Thanks to pokerstat I've pretty much quit playing Axs in early postion. FWIW, I don't think you lose much if anything by not playing Axs up front, except in the loosest and most passive games.

I don't know anything about the Bellagio 30/60 games and Dynasty "probably" (LOL) plays better post flop than I do. /images/graemlins/grin.gif But I bet he could drop these hands and it would be +EV or EV neutral for him in those games.

Hopefully Mason or David will comment.

[Mike Gallo]

Hand 1, I would have called the turn raise and check raised the river. The only question you need ask, will your opponent bet the river and will he call the river check raise. Better yet, will he reraise your river check raise?

With the "dangerous" King coming on the turn, is this a good spot for a turn check-raise? Or, do I bet hoping to get 3 bets in on the turn If the player puts you on a singleton A of trump, then go for the turn check raise. If he thinks you have a made hand bet since he will not bet into you.

I do not understand why Dynasty has taken so much heat for these hands. He didnt ask about his preflop decisions, rather his turn and river decisions.

He has the skills needed to make a fold if he doesnt hit his hand. He also has just confused his opponents. They used to think Dynasty played textbook poker. That of course if he plays against thinking opponents.

Michael

[HDPM]

If dropping the hands were EV neutral, he shouldn't do it. Obviously if the hands are -EV he would want to dump them. But anytime a player can play a truly neutral EV hand in a tougher game he should do it if he can stand the variance. Because then opponents will wonder if he is playing 22, 88, AXs or is planning a limp re-raise. You would stand to get isolated a little less I would guess. And opponents won't kow where you are at post flop as well either. So if you play well post flop the neutral ev hands are great. Determining if something is truly neutrl is more difficult.

[34TheTruth34]

I usually try to check-raise the turn if I think LP has a real hand and isn't bluffing with one high suited card. But, since players always seems to bet the turn with a flush draw anyway, it may almost always be right to check-raise the turn. I just think it's hard to get multiple bets out of people on the river. For example, if I flopped a set of fives in the first hand in LP I might reraise on the turn even though I certainly would just call on the river.

Those must be some real soft 30-60 games if you're limping UTG with that trash...

[bruce]

Ace little suited in early position is a playable hand sometimes. Firstly you can play the hand if you are capable of folding top pair. Secondly, the hand is playable
if your limp is going to induce half the table to limp and you will have a large family pot. I think the hand is unplayable if you are going to have to put in two or three bets BTF in a 3 or 4 way pot where in addition to reducing your implied odds you also have the worst position. Interestingly when you play Ace rag UTG in a 3 or 4 way pot
top pair of Aces is often a big enough hand to take down the pot.


Bruce

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]


Re: A5s utg by Vince Lepore 02/06/03 03:41 AM


It is my experience that in many if not most of the games at the $15-$30 level, you would want to limp UTG with A5s.


MM



[/ QUOTE ]

[Georgia Peach]

In Hellmuth's PPLtP he advises to limp with AXs as long as you're not calling a 3-bet (pp82-83). Phil never takes into account the position you are in when limping; I assume he might frown on an UTG limp, although he doesn't really discuss position and subsequent betting (or not).

I think AXs is a hand you can limp with as long as you can let it go quickly. One or two bets regardless of position. It's gambling from EP, but what the heck. And it worked out well for Dynasty. It certainly sends a message to the other players and makes Dynasty's EP limping as something to ponder.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
It's gambling from EP

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop fooling yourself. Everytime you sit down at a poker table, you are gambling.

[Tyler Durden]

I'll go with Mason every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Dynasty, if you're always right, why do you bother posting hands?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll go with Mason every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused. I thought the post you responded to was one w/ Mason suggesting limping UTG w/ A5s in a $15/30 game, the same thing Dynasty is suggesting.

Dynasty - do you still like your limp in the "particularly aggressive" 30-60 game? That's the thing I thought was questionable.

[Pot-A]

Hand 1: After the three-bet on the turn, it's hard for MP to put you on anything but a flush. Since he obviously doesn't have the ace, it's hard to imagine him falling for that. If he does bet, it's hard to imaging he'll call your raise.

Hand 2: Actually, if you're going to try a checkraise, I like the river better. Sure, he knows you have the flush, but a check says "awwww, damn, my baby flush got counterfeited".

[Tyler Durden]

I'm an idiot, don't mind me. But my question to Dynasty stands.

[Georgia Peach]

"Stop fooling yourself. Everytime you sit down at a poker table, you are gambling." A quote from El Dynasty.

Oh, we're being honest now. And to think after reading so many of your posts on this board I thought poker was a game of skill.

Yes, every time you sit down at a poker table you are gambling. But if you think that's gambling, try driving in Atlanta traffic. Georgians are very nice people, until they get behind the wheel. Then it's "look out grandma."

But, back to Dynasty's bit of wit. There are "gambles" and then there are other "gambles".

Limping from EP with AXs is a bit of a different gamble than from LP. At least I think so.

But thanks for the advice about not fooling myself. I'm much wiser now for that sage and timely tidbit.

[Tyler Durden]

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty, if you're always right, why do you bother posting hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I was probably wrong about not making a check-raise attempt in either hand, but especially the 30-60 hand. That's the question I was asking.

I didn't post the hand to ask if my UTG limps were correct. I already knew they were. As for the 30-60 limp with A6s, I'm still sure it's right despite describing the game as particularly aggressive. There were a few players playing quite a bit of trash . The game was aggressive when somebody was able to open raise with that trash, even if it was from EP.

[rtrombone]

You must be the only one here who thinks it's right to limp with Axs UTG in an aggressive game. The fact that others are playing trash does not give you a license to limp with trash out of position yourself. What's important is the percentage of hands that are being raised pre-flop. When a lot of players are limping with garbage, a good observant player will raise frequently with big cards in position to destroy the limpers' implied odds. If somebody raises in LP with trash like AT offsuit, you are hurt far more than he is.

You imply that it was aggressive only when somebody open-raised, and that it was a limp-fest otherwise. If so, there's a greater chance that your limp is correct. But then this would hardly qualify as a "particularly aggressive" game.

I repeat, if you are regularly paying 2+ bets to see the flop with crap like Axs and 22 UTG, you simply CANNOT win in the long run. You have horrible position. As elysium is so fond of saying, you will lose the maximum when you lose and win the minimum when you win. Not to mention you will repeatedly pay at least double what you should be paying to try and flop lucky, which, after all, is what you really must do if you're going to win with holdings like these.

Do you know how many hands you can play before flopping the nut flush or the nut flush draw (and then get there)? If you flop an ace, you lose the maximum when you're outkicked and win the minimum when you're not. In an aggressive game, it's 2+ bets every time...

I feel it is very important that people understand how costly it is to limp UTG with Axs and baby pocket pairs in an aggressive game. Your post-flop play can be god-like and you will still be hard-pressed to break even in the long run.

Go with the consensus on this one, folks.

[DanS]

Quote:
"I limp UTG in most of my games w/ 22 and A2s. But I don't when the game is a "particularly aggressive" one. To me, that means a typical hand has a small field seeing the flop for multiple bets. That's not the type of game I want to be limping in with those hands UTG."

B.S., Ulysses. I can't speak for the Vegas mid-limit games, and for the AJ's 15/30, I have to combine hearsay with limited experience, but...

There is no f'n way in the world that A2s is profitable UTG more than a small, small select smattering of the time. It would take limping with it ONCE and being four handed to the flop for 2 bets to say "I ain't doing that in this game, with this exact set of game conditions, again." Even if you are one of the five best postflop players in the entire subset of AJ's 15/30 players, that play is not going to gain you much (if any) expectation. Even if you could give two sh!ts about variance, save that hand for MP with a limper (or two). I've talked with haakee and bad beetz about this, and feel free to flame me for this, but we reached a consensus that if you didn't dick around so much preflop you'd be good for, let's say $50 an hour in that game instead of whatever, say high thirties-$40/hr, SD issues aside. I just opened my self up with that comment, so lemme have it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dan

[Magikist]

I'm in agreement with you 100% here, rtrombone.
My games (on Paradise Poker) are so agressive that any limps in EP are sure to get you isolated heads-up with an aggressive, often strong player. Not a favorable spot to be in, especially out of position. A sure negative EV play, without a doubt.
Dynasty's nonchalance in rejecting out-of-hand the idea that his UTG limp may have been wrong is not surprising. However diseminating such information, without the caveat that your post-flop play must be extremely good in order to get away with such plays as a varaiance - he should know better. At least he should explain himself every now and then.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no f'n way in the world that A2s is profitable UTG more than a small, small select smattering of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that Mason up there agreeing w/ Dynasty that A5s is worth limping w/ in most $15/30 games? If they are correct that that is a good limp in their Vegas $15/30 games, then I'm 100% sure that it's a +EV play in the AJs $15/30. Whatever garbage Dynasty says they are coming in with in his game, well, they're coming in with worse in mine. Sometimes the game is a little aggressive w/ a lot of raising pre-flop. I drop some of this crap then. But many times the profile of the game is a pre-flop limpfest followed by unbridled aggression post-flop. That's a great situation in which to flop big w/ garbage like A2s and 22. I think these hands are often (usually?) playable in the LC 20-40 as well and with the lineup there on Sunday, I might have played them in the 40-80 as well.

[ QUOTE ]
I've talked with haakee and bad beetz about this, and feel free to flame me for this, but we reached a consensus that if you didn't dick around so much preflop you'd be good for, let's say $50 an hour in that game instead of whatever, say high thirties-$40/hr

[/ QUOTE ]

So? It would also probably be more profitable for me if I wasn't in the group that pots for drinks every third hand. And FWIW, I dick around a lot postflop as well.

But back to the matter at hand. Even if it will sometimes end up raised and shorthanded, I still think it's correct to limp in w/ A2s in a game where you are likely to see the flop for one bet and when you flop big it's likely to get capped on the flop and the turn by multiple opponents who are drawing dead.

[Pot-A]

That's the profile of a game where it's profitable to limp with any two cards that can make a big hand. In that case I might go ahead and limp, but first I'd swivel the eyeballs inward to check if I was limping because I was bored or on tilt.

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But back to the matter at hand. Even if it will sometimes end up raised and shorthanded, I still think it's correct to limp in w/ A2s in a game where you are likely to see the flop for one bet and when you flop big it's likely to get capped on the flop and the turn by multiple opponents who are drawing dead.

[/ QUOTE ]


...granted. I'll accept your premise. It's just hard to believe (and this is coming from another Norcal'er who's seen the terrible play you've alluded to, consistently) that people could play *that* crappy such a large percentage of the time. But they can, and they do, and I trust your judgment, but it still leaves me perplexed.

Dan

[Vehn]

I don't care what Mason says. rtrombone is 100% correct. You cannot habitually limp with ace rag suited UTG in typical mid limit games and expect to do well long term. Period.

Think about it. Even in "really good" games, i.e. 4-6 to the flop every hand for 1 or 2 bets, there's a tremendous chance you're dominated. The suitedness doesn't make up for it. Think about it, some chump limping in with A7o murders your hand, even in multiway pots. Check twodimes.

I wonder what Tommy Angelo would have to say about this.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If dropping the hands were EV neutral, he shouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'll agree. But if they are EV neutral or -EV, and you aren't sure, wouldn't you be better off simply not playing them?

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, one of my game selection rules has evolved into: If you can't play 22 or Axs UTG in this game, then you shouldn't be playing in this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you know if these hands are +EV or not in the games you play. The only reason I have a clue, and it's only a clue, is because I use pokerstat and have more information than you.

[Ulysses]

Well, I'll definitely concede that it can't be wrong to just muck these hands. But I will contend that in the right games (where you see the flop for one bet and opponents will go crazy w/ worse hands and draws) these hands can be profitable.

Nonetheless, I agree that folding these is probably the best default move.

[Vehn]

Well I've never played in California but I have in Vegas and your above description does not match that game at all. I can't imagine its correct to frequently limp UTG with A2s in the Mirage $20 or Bellagio $15 or the $30 for god's sake.

[Ulysses]

I've played in both places and I agree that there are many more games here in CA that I'd limp in with those hands than in Vegas.

[Dynasty]

Can somebody put up a link to the pokeroom.com EV numbers?

[Josh W]

I cannot comment on the rest of the hand, because everything would depend 100% on my reads.

As for preflop...you say the game(s) is aggressive, so you anticipate a preflop raise.

If a 'normal' player in this game (4th most aggressive, 5th tightest player at the table) raises UTG, in which positions would you call with A5s?

See, to me, since you now have better position than UTG, and have position on UTG raiser, it seems like you'd be more willing to play this hand. But since there is a raise, you'd be less apt to play it.

If I remember right, when Mason said that Axs is playable in normal bellagio 15-30 games UTG, he said that's because the game was usually passive. If the game is more aggressive than normal, I'm thinking that Mason's advice may change. (not saying your game was too aggressive to play it).

Josh

[Ulysses]

PokerRoom EV Stats (http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/evstats/expValue)

[AceHigh]

Some quick numbers from poker room.

A2s at lowest limit:
Total EV statistics for A2 s


Your query:
Pocket cards: A2 s
Position: 1
Players: 10
Table limit: $1/2
Position Players
1 10 -0.04

The total average for A2 s is 0.00 (regardless of table limit, position and number of players).

Your query:
Pocket cards: A5 s
Position: 1
Players: 10
Table limit: $1/2
Position Players EV
1 10 0.21


The total average for A5 s is 0.09 (regardless of table limit, position and number of players).

Your query:
Pocket cards: A5 s
Position: 1
Players: 10
Table limit: $2/4
Position Players
1 10 -0.22

[Clarkmeister]

Ace -

Position 1 is the SB. Obviously this is a big difference than UTG which is position 3.

10 handed UTG EV for A5s by limit:
1-2: +.09
2-4: +.37
3-6: +.04
5-10: +.29
10-20: +0.0

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Ace -

Position 1 is the SB. Obviously this is a big difference than UTG which is position 3.

10 handed UTG EV for A5s by limit:
1-2: +.09
2-4: +.37
3-6: +.04
5-10: +.29
10-20: +0.0

[/ QUOTE ]

All +EV? How can that be? Especially since the typical pokerroom.com player must, by definition, be a losing player after the rake.

Imagine what the EV of these hands would be for a winning player. Damn. I hate not only being right but also having data to back it up.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dynasty:

I think you played both hands fine. I doubt if your opponent (in either case) will bet and then call your raise often enough to make it worthwhile.

Best wishes,
mason

[Josh W]

Are those numbers right?

I mean, they may be. I don't know pokerroom at all, but I checked it out, and it said that the TOTAL EV of A5s, regarding of position, number of players, or limit is 0.09BB. It makes sense that it would have more EV when shorthanded, and more EV in late position. Yet the EV posted for a full table, UTG (I assume Clark is right about position 3 being UTG) is much higher than that.

That really seems counterintuitive to me.

Josh

[anatta]

I always thought the middle limit games in Vegas were the toughest in the world. An aggressive 30-60 game should be tougher than your average on-line 10-20 game where the EV is 0. Also, 22 is negative EV. Your post flop skills probably make AXs marginally profitable for you, but no way 22 in an aggressive 30-60.

I was suprised to see AXs UTG is profitable in most games.

[Dynasty]

I have no doubt that 22 is much more playable than Axs in any mid-limit Vegas game.

[rtrombone]

What do the pokerroom EV numbers prove? First of all they're all from 10-20 and lower games. Second, we don't know a f*cking thing about the texture of these games. It very well may be the case that the majority of these games are loose passive, making the UTG limp with Axs correct. As I acknowledged before, Dynasty may be absolutely right that it's correct to limp with this hand in your typical low-limit and middle-limit game.

Under the game conditions Ulysses described (limp-fest pre-flop, mega-action post-flop), it is correct to limp with far more hands than normal, because of your tremendous implied odds. The huge action post-flop makes for some pretty big pots, I imagine, so you're really risking one small bet pre-flop to win, say, a 25+ small bet pot. Those are some sweet odds.

But Ulysses, and Vehn, and everybody but Dynasty, maintain that one cannot limp with Axs UTG in an AGGRESSIVE game. To limp with this kind of holding or a small pocket pair, when you EXPECT a raise behind you, is a losing play, plain and simple.

I defy anybody to show me the EV of playing these weak-ass hands UTG in an aggressive game. I mean, come on. Do you know how many small bets you'll lose before you flop lucky? How many times your inferior position will cost you post-flop, even against mediocre opposition? How often the pot will get raised and 3-bet behind you, forcing you to fold without seeing the flop?

There's just no way this is a profitable play.

I think this is the first time I've seen Dynasty be wrong about something. Frankly, I'm stunned that we're even having this discussion.

[anatta]

7/20/03 20-40 Clark Keeps Raising You


[ QUOTE ]
Loose Aggressive (i.e. typical) Mirage 20-40 game. An average hand is 3 players for 3 bets

[/ QUOTE ]


Look, if you say 22 is profitable here, what can I say. I don't play it, you do. The math seems to me to dictate otherwise, but poker is played at the tables.

My tables are on planet Earth. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Ulysses]

If a 'normal' player in this game (4th most aggressive, 5th tightest player at the table) raises UTG, in which positions would you call with A5s?

I think Josh made a good point in his post. Now, sure, if UTG raises, it gives you some indication about the range of hands he might have and thus it's easier to throw away that A5s. And it'll be less likely to be multi-way, blah blah blah. I know. So maybe I change the parameters a bit:

Two limpers, next guy raises, do you cold-call w/ A5s in LP?

Anyway, I think the crux of either question is simply this - do you still think it's a good hand to limp w/ UTG when you expect to pay more than one bet to see the flop? I don't think it is.

[Dynasty]

The pokerrrom #'s are very relevent. They are real-life stats of the exact hand in the exact position in the exact type of games I'm saying Axs is playable UTG. Have you got any #'s to contradict them or are you just guessing?

Here's something else that occured to me. If all the Tighty McWhitey's are folding these hands UTG, then the hands are showing a profit by losing players almost exclusively. That's says quite a bit.

There seems to be a quite a bit of leeway being taken with my "particularly aggressive" line in the orginal post. For no reason, you've got the pre-flop betting raised and/or (edited) 3-bet a majority of the time. Where is that coming from?

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
do you still think it's a good hand to limp w/ UTG when you expect to pay more than one bet to see the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are we expecting this simply because a game is aggressive? Aggressive doesn't just mean pre-flop raising. It means players will raise the flop with top pair and flush draws. It means they'll try to steal the blinds with a wide range of hands if it's folded to them in LP. It means they value bet the river with medium-strength hands.

In this exact 30-60 game, I'd say half the pots were raised pre-flop but it wasn't as common after players limped in (closer to one third of the time). Even if it's raised 50% of the time, you should expect to put in .75 small bets before the flop.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a quite a bit of leeway being taken with my "particularly aggressive" line in the orginal post. For no reason, you've got the pre-flop betting raised and 3-bet a majority of the time. Where is that coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say it gets 3-bet a majority of the time. In his post, he said that you can expect a raise and it will also sometimes get 3-bet. He gets that from your characterization of the game as a "particularly aggressive 30-60" game. If there's not a raise pre-flop a majority of the time, I wouldn't describe a 30-60 game as a "particularly aggressive" one.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If there's not a raise pre-flop a majority of the time, I wouldn't describe a 30-60 game as a "particularly aggressive" one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are using too narrow a definition of aggression and focusing far too much attention on pre-flop betting.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
7/20/03 20-40 Clark Keeps Raising You

[ QUOTE ]
Loose Aggressive (i.e. typical) Mirage 20-40 game. An average hand is 3 players for 3 bets

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Clarkmeister's description of the Mirage 20-40 game was very inaccurate. I've never played in that game when an average hand was three players for three bets. Also, that description is a tight-aggressive game, not a loose-aggressive one.

Usually, the 20-40 as well as the Mirage 10-20 and Bellagio 15-30 are three to five players for one or two bets (on average about 1.33 small bets).

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are we expecting this simply because a game is aggressive? Aggressive doesn't just mean pre-flop raising. It means players will raise the flop with top pair and flush draws. It means they'll try to steal the blinds with a wide range of hands if it's folded to them in LP. It means they value bet the river with medium-strength hands.

In this exact 30-60 game, I'd say half the pots were raised pre-flop but it wasn't as common after players limped in (closer to one third of the time).


[/ QUOTE ]

Dynasty,

Now you're just sounding like someone trying to rationalize a position.

Of course I know that "aggression" can refer to many aspects of play and occur on many different streets. Thank you for the explanation, though. But I also know this. On my relative scale of aggression, "extremely aggressive" > "particularly aggressive" > "aggressive" > "normal" > "passive" > "very passive." And I also know that most aggressive players who are aggressive post-flop will happily raise pre-flop to isolate or kill implied odds of limpers who they think are coming in with sub-par holdings.

So you're saying w/ a straight face that in a "particularly aggressive" 30-60 game (and I don't think I'm playing fast and loose w/ semantics here at all) only 50% of the hands are raised pre-flop, and if someone limps they're raised only 33% of the time? I don't buy it. Either you're changing your tune here or your idea of an aggressive 30-60 game is very different than mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it's raised 50% of the time, you should expect to put in .75 small bets before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If a 'normal' player in this game (4th most aggressive, 5th tightest player at the table) raises UTG, in which positions would you call with A5s?

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't call the riase. If it's raised ahead of you, you know you are putting at least two bets into the pot pre-flop with a possibility of it being three. So, in the long run, you expect to put in something like 2.2 small bets when you make that cold-call.

When you limp UTG, you don't expect to put nearly that many bets into the pot pre-flop. Even if it get raised half the time, you only expect to put in 1.5 small bets.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if it's raised 50% of the time, you should expect to put in .75 small bets before the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad math on my part. It would be .75 big bets or 1.5 small bets. Sorry.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Usually, the 20-40 as well as the Mirage 10-20 and Bellagio 15-30 are three to five players for one or two bets (on average about 1.33 small bets).

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't get it, Dynasty. Here you're saying that an average Bellagio 15-30 is 4 players for 1.33 SB.

Yet you think it is unreasonable for others to assume that a 30-60 game you describe as "particularly aggressive" will be more aggressive pre-flop than a typical 15-30 game at the same place?

You're not being logical.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that (based on the information you have provided) in this thread you're talking about playing Ace-rag suited UTG in a situation where you expect a 4-handed or less flop for more than 1.33SB.

[Dynasty]

There is nothing in my posts which said the game was tight. I definitely expected the pot to be contested by at least four players. Most of them were. In fact this game was playing looser than the 15-30. But, the difference was not significant enough to mention.

[AceHigh]

Dynasty, not sure how you came up with those numbers. I went into this page, http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/positionStats.php?players=10 and got the EV numbers for the following hands by position. Looks like you have to get to A7s, before these hands are profitable. A5s is profitable utg, but A6s isn't so I'm not sure what that means. This chart doesn't take limit into account or like you point out, quality of players playing the hand.

[ QUOTE ]

Cards SB BB UTG 4 5 6
A7 s -0.10 -0.08 0.01 0.18 -0.06 0.10
A6 -0.30 -0.27 -0.19 -0.16 -0.12 -0.11
A6 s 0.03 -0.15 -0.13 0.07 0.01 -0.01
A5 -0.24 -0.30 -0.13 -0.16 -0.13 -0.15
A5 s 0.22 0.05 0.14 0.09 -0.04 0.09
A4 -0.27 -0.28 -0.11 -0.12 -0.17 -0.15
A4 s -0.01 -0.05 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.08
A3 -0.28 -0.33 -0.18 -0.10 -0.12 -0.13
A3 s -0.10 0.01 -0.08 0.08 0.13 -0.07
A2 -0.27 -0.36 -0.17 -0.13 -0.17 -0.16
A2 s -0.13 -0.11 -0.01 -0.04 0.09 0.05


[/ QUOTE ]

[anatta]

Yeah, you're right, that ain't too loose, and I hope its not typical. If it is, no wonder CM went to LA!

[Pot-A]

What it means is A5 can make a wheel using both cards and A6 can't. A2-A3 suited aren't profitable because they make the stupid end when the straight comes.

[lefty rosen]

Pokerroom low limits and mid limits are tight passive, when you get to 10/20 it's aggressive and tight and the 25/50 is aggressive and tight and they hardly ever have a fulltable going except for some Saturday nights......

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Pokerroom low limits and mid limits are tight passive, when you get to 10/20 it's aggressive and tight and the 25/50 is aggressive and tight and they hardly ever have a fulltable going except for some Saturday nights......

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play online. So, I can't contribute to what the pokerroom.com games are like. I just assume that since the statistics comes from a very large database that the games in the long run are "typical".

If the games truly are tight-passive and tight-aggressive, I'm surprised the hands do so well. Those are not very good conditions for those hands. Loose play by your opponents is something I consider absolutely necessary for 22 and Axs to be profitable.

[elysium]

hi dynasty
the truth is dynasty that we all in fact do play the Axs and the 22 from UTG position, and we all make even worse plays than that. the cost of having fun with these hands is minimal, and it breaks the monotony, especially when you've been twiddling your thumbs for several orbits and the dang Axs and 22 only arrives when you're in EP. so we play them to at least look active, reasoning that if we don't play a little, when we finally get a bona fide hand, no one will call. sometimes we get stuck when it's raised behind us, sometimes not. we reason that it's profitable to play in these situations because of the calls that these hands generate when we show down; the calls later on when we have powerful hands.

but you don't talk about it here on 2+2 dynasty. everyone's watching. even i have to register indignation, and me?.....last month i raised in from UTG with 52o. it was a base game, and some of the toughs from the military base came out to whoop on ol' elysium. they ran away crying about my raise from UTG with 52o. i a game against you or clark, i'd never do that because when i showed down, you'd know what i was up to. those guys...whew, anything stronger than 52o from UTG is considered a valid playable hand, and wouldn't be considered unpredictable. so i wouldn't gain by showing down Axs or 22 or 33 from UTG because they play that and worse. and you fail to mention that you know when your opponent has AK or even AQ and that when he's dealt good starters, you don't play Axs and the like from UTG. you don't mention that when you come in from UTG with 22 or 33, you're rarely raised. you don't say, 'but i know my opponents are weak when i play these starters.'; ulysses, clark, myself and a few others think that's what's going on, but most of the 2+2 ers who attempt the same feat invariably get raised and pay off like a slot machine. there are at least a thousands things you're not adding into your post that make your play from UTG with these holdings ev realingned. but you can't tell us how you do it because you yourself may not know how you do it. you might be slightly autistic dynasty, and are involuntarily shuffle tracking; you may be a little nuerotic and hyper-sensitive to opponent pupil and/or pulse contraction and rates. or you may be a genius. how ever you do it, you're never shown AK type holdings by your opponents when you enter in with the hands you've listed. the only thing is that after reading your post, you make it too easy for some 20 year old out there to be super-stimulated by Axs from UTG with his or her tuition money. they will push all-in to show good faith in your instruction to them, and you will be blamed for their poor results even though had you been there holding their hand, you would have advised against it in that particular situation, but wouldn't have had the time to fully explain why. and so it's easier, and more responsible, to just advise against it across the board in all situations. when the 2+2 er begins to play at your level, he or she will understand why he was advised against it, even though at the higher levels of thinking, it may be a profittable play on a few occasions. we know you win with it, but we also know how utterly hamstrung the newbie will be when he's faced with a myriad of options only one of which is correct with a hand that requires perfect play on all streets, and is next to impossible to get away from. the sharks will smell the chemical release of poker blood spilled by the confused newbie, and raise in for the kill. the end result won't be pretty dynasty; the end result will be very far from pretty, i can tell you that.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

When you limp UTG, you don't expect to put nearly that many bets into the pot pre-flop. Even if it get raised half the time, you only expect to put in 1.5 small bets.



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. They never ever ever threebet?

That nit aside...I think you've cleared up a lot with your explanation. It seems obvious that many people felt "particularly aggressive" meant many hands three-bet preflop, especially since Clark in a recent post said two or three bets preflop was typical (then, we'd assume an aggressive game to have even more of this).

I think you've cleared up the game description quite a bit. I'm guessing if you had said that most pots were 5 ways preflop, for 1.5 small bets on average, then nobody (very few people) would give it a second thought.

Josh

[Tyler Durden]

It sounds like we're all just arguing semantics. I think the vast majority of 2+2ers would define an aggressive game as having at least one preflop raise.

[anatta]

Exactly right. I had Clarkmeister's post in mind regarding "typical" Vegas games, and "particularly aggressive" to me meant at least that type of game. If the game is aggressive after the flop, but fairly loose and not too bad before the flop, I can see 22 and AXs being profitable.

In very wild games, where the pot is capped almost always on every street, with everyone at the table gambling it up, I will play any pocket pair or suited ace. Flop a set, overpair or flush draw cap, if not fold. I might be wrong, but I think it was Barry Tanenbaum (SP?), who suggested this strategy on this forum.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
we know you win with it, but we also know how utterly hamstrung the newbie will be when he's faced with a myriad of options only one of which is correct with a hand that requires perfect play on all streets, and is next to impossible to get away from. the sharks will smell the chemical release of poker blood spilled by the confused newbie, and raise in for the kill. the end result won't be pretty dynasty; the end result will be very far from pretty, i can tell you that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just in case some of you didn't make it to the end of Elysium's latest epic post. I love it.

[Tommy Angelo]

"I wonder what Tommy Angelo would have to say about this."

In Vegas, my default would be to fold UTG with Axs and 22. In Vegas, if I were Dynasty, I would play both hands often. Here at home, I would play both hands at AJ's most the time, tending to limp with 22, and raise with Ax. I would play 22 at Lucky Chances most the time, raising about half the time I played it. I would fold Axs at Lucky Chances most the time, and never limp with it.

(To speak of small pocket pairs in the same preflop breath as any other hands is just goofy to me. I was immediately turned off by HFAP hand groupings the first time I saw that pocket pairs were scattered in with other hands.)

When I'm playing with home-field advantage, I believe the correct play for me with both these hands is very close, and that means the decision to play or not is made based on nearly infinite other things, things I usually am not even consciously aware of. (And not just because I am so often nearly unconscious.) I do know that I never fold and then think, man, I should have played, and likewise, I never play one of these hands and think, man, I should have folded. What is is, what was was.


Tommy

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I would play both hands at AJ's most the time, tending to limp with 22, and raise with Ax.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to think people wonder why I always 3-bet Tommy w/ any two when he raises UTG....