AQ vs 66 multiway

I was rereading Bob Ciaffone's book "Improve Your Poker" when he discussed AQ vs. 66 in a multiway pot. Interestingly, he preferes AQ over 66 in a multiway pot since it is teh better drawing hand, and the 66 cannot win without making trips.


I think he has it backwards, and I was wondering what others thoughts are. My thoughts were that I would prefer the 66 in a multiway pot since I can win a bog pot with trips but can get away easily if I do not make trips. Conversely with the AQ I am not that much of a favorite if at all in a multiway pot. This seems like standard 2+2 analysis, but perhaps I am not grasping the whole picture.


All thoughts are appreciated,


Pat

My preference can change depending on factors such as whether there has been a preflop raise, my position in relation to the preflop raiser, my position in relation to the button, the preflop raiser's raising requirements in the position that he is raising from, the presence of players in the game who are apt to lose a lot of chips if I hit the flop hard etc etc.


But overall, I too prefer the 66 in a multiway pot. It's a case of implied odds with the 66 vs. possibly reverse implied odds with the AQ (although clearly the danger of reverse implied odds with AQ is much much lower than with KQ,QJ,AT and the like).

Assuming I'm on the button or the cutoff and there has been 3 or more limpers, I'll take the 66 all day long.


If I'm UTG or next, I'll take AQ so I can raise to narrow the field. Assuming there are 3 or more callers following my raise...give me back the 66 and my raise :-)

My preference depends entirely on position. From the blinds or UTG, I prefer 66. From the button or cutoff, I'd rather have AQ.

Dear Patrick,

Can you give us the specific section you refer to? I have read Improve your Poker a couple of times (in fact, it is one of my favorite poker books) but cannot recall this specific passage. It would surprise me if Mr. Ciaffone indeed prefers AQ over 66 in a multiway pot (although AQs can be a fine hand for a multiway pot, of course, especially when it seems like no one is in there with AK). Thanks,

Rolf.

it is on page 14.


Pat

If it's three way and the third opponent has two nonredundant overcards (the most common situation) or an overpair, you have the worst hand. (You have a straggling second best in the case of AA.) If it's five way or more, 66 is the better hand in large part because the odds of investing money postflop and losing anyway are much smaller than with AQ. You hit the set or you muck, and most of the time you hit the set you win.


Four way is the fun one. 66 doesn't yet have high multiway equity, and AQ still has power. The answer for cold sims depends on the other two hands.


All the responses regarding position are important too. Four way against AQ and two unknown hands I'll take 66 early and AQ with position.


Matt

Tommy:


If you prefer 66 to AQ UTG, do you routinely limp in with this hand? Assuming the game is not extraordinarily tight, do you routinely limp in UTG with AQ? Would your basic strategy consider raising with 66 UTG? How about AQ?


Clearly conventional wisdom values AQ over 66 UTG in as much as medium/small pairs in this position are not considered "strong" and typically put in the Fold catagory in early position.


If you prefer AQ to 66 in late position with multiple limpers, is there a magic number of limpers that would change your mind?


Again, conventional wisdom highly devalues Ace Face in late position when there are multiple limpers and even recommends an occassional raise from a pocket pair in this postion to build a pot, making it more difficult for the limpers to fold if you flop a set.


Just very curious to get a more detailed explanation of your strategy. I know there are clearly game conditions that could support your view, however, I am more interested in a basic strategy that can be applied to a typical game.

Cigar Man: "Just very curious to get a more detailed explanation of your strategy."


It's nothing out of the ordinary. I didn't see Patrick's question as one of strategy because the condition was multi-way pots, and the decision to open or not UTG is made without knowing if the pot will be multiway. So what I did was pretend that we'd know the pot would be multiway, whether we opened with AQ or 66, and in that case, I'd prefer the 66 because it's so much easier to play out of position than AQ.


Leaving the multi-way premise out ...


"do you routinely limp in with this hand [66]?"


Yes.


"do you routinely limp in UTG with AQ?"


Very very rarely.


"Would your basic strategy consider raising with 66 UTG?"


Yes, if I thought I could steal the blinds.


"How about AQ?"


Virtually every time.


Tommy

Patrick,


I think his point was that they are both drawing hands and that it's considerably easier to improve A-Q than 6-6. The amount you win when you make that improvement is going to be less with A-Q, and you're more vulnerable to losing more with it when you hit, so it's a much more exciting hand to play.


If it's a pot-limit or no-limit game, are you going to call a big bet from anyone (say A-Q) with 6-6 if the flop is K-8-2 ?

you are right and i understand that is his point, i just think that he is wrong. AQ might have a better chance of improving but it does not have a higher EV in that situation, since you can easily improve and make a losing hand. With 66 you can play if you get a set, which will win 75% of the time, or fold and get away cheaply. Although you dont say what you think my guess is that you also think that he is incorrect,but i could be wrong.


pat