Limping with AA vs. Limping with KK

In his March 1 Card Player article, Bob Ciaffone discusses "varying your game." While saying that he probably raises with big pairs 90% of the time, he says he prefers to limp, when he does, with the intention of re-raising, with K-K, rather than A-A. This is because, holding A-A, there are only two other aces in the deck and the chances of the pot being raised behind you are much less than they would be were all four aces in the deck.


I wonder what you all think of this. Isn't it also true that, not raising with K-K, you invite all the A-xs or stronger A-x hands to play behind you, jeopardizing your pocket kings? That is, with A-A is might be less likely that there will be a raise behind you, but with K-K it's also more likely there will be an A-x hand limping behind you.


On a semi-related note, I was wondering what percentage of the time you think the first raiser in a pot has an ace in his hand?

Just to add a bit of mix to the above post: If you are UTG with KK in a 10 handed game there is only a 13.3% chance no one else has an Ace (Super/System p.578). So Ax is out there 86.7% of the time. Limping with KK UTG does not appear to be a wise move based on pure probability (of course a certain percentage of Ax hands will be flipped into the muck by most players). Limping and re-raising from Mid to late position may be another matter. Much depends on game situations and type of players etc. Bob does state this is a play only 10% of the time so this may have more benifits than drawbacks in the long run. It is an interesting take on varying your play. I'm looking forward to other opinions.


-Zeno

Anecdote about this....


2 days ago a solid player limped in EP in a tight 8-16 game. 2 more limpers to me and I raised on the button with ATs. He limp reraised me with KK.


I floped an ace.


Had he raised preflop, my hand is still sitting in the much, and he is raking in the chips.

I like the advice given on twoplustwo better than what Ciaffone says here. I would rather play my AA and KK hands fast and throw in a limp raise with something like 6-7 suited to vary my play. Clarkmeister's scenario is exactly what scares me about slowplaying KK. That damned Ace seems to flop every time I have KK in the hole.

Andy,


I’m too tired and lazy to think this through but Ciaffone is definitely going against conventional wisdom here. But he may be right against typical opponents. I hope someone else will comment with the logic and math.


Regarding your related note, I would guess when I don’t hold the ace the typical open raiser from any position has an ace about 40% of the time.


Regards,


Rick

Limping with KK is a disaster waiting to happen. There will be many Ax hands limping in preflop. I have limped with AA many times, but I knew my opponents well.

for what it's worth, KK wins 70% of completed hands against ATs and 80% of hands with an xxx flop

a few reasons why i think it doesnt matter in this or any cases:


first of all, he got you and others to put in 3 bets pre-flop with a dominated hand. thats good, IMHO.


second of all, when an ace flops, and you have KK, you are not going to get full value out of your KK anyway, especially in a multiway pot. so who cares whether the Axs play or not? 99% of poker players cold call with ATs anyway.


a side note: maybe raising on the button with ATs with a solid early limper in a tight game isnt the best idea?

I think it's a waste of AA, KK respectively. What can really be accomplished except donating? You limp in with AA, KK and one of two things happen. Either you don't get to re-raise or you have more people tied to the pot than you would really like to have. If it gets too bad, say six players in the hand, those holding some questionable junk, now have odds to stay in with you, at least to the flop.


Secondly, playing your two good outs, against at least two good outs for each player to improve their hand with to stay with you to the river doesn't appear to be a wise move.


Even throwing a little gamble in your game, could be done in a better way as already suggested.

I agree, but keep in mind Ciaffone says he does this only about 10% of the time; 9 times out of 10 he raises.

But when you have KK, you should not worry that Ax will call if you limp, you should worry that Ax might fold if you raise.


I think limp reraising is okay with either AA or KK but doing so with QQ is probably a big no-no.

I don't think anyone limp-raises with AA or KK because they think it's more profitable that raising. And think they do if for the thrill.


Tommy

I think that not raising on the button with ATs after three limpers is silly. How much easier does your hand play if you flop an ace if you raised preflop? Much. I don't think its even that close really.


FWIW, Sklansky posted a problem in General Theory back in October a few months ago which claimed not raising ATs in this spot was worse than mucking AK UTG by a wide margin.

Going by memory, but I'm pretty sure Bob agreed that limping with Q-Q was a big no-no.

You know what, it IS more thrilling to limp than to raise with it. Never thought about that.


I took one example from Bob's article out of context. He was talking about ways of varying your game and pointed out he only does it very rarely, perhaps 10% of the time when he has A-A or K-K up front. I'm too lazy to do the math right now, but if he's only doing it one time in ten when he has A-A or K-K from UTG or the next position, it can't be happening too often.

Given that this is the 'General' forum, I think we need to back up one step and consider how the limp-reraise's effect is a strong function of the character of the game.


Sometimes I land in a game where there are some OK but somewhat over-aggressive players and some weaker players who can nevertheless grossly categorize their opponents. I think I'm getting marked as a dangerous opponent in such games. My early position raises attract fewer callers than most other players'. If I pick up KK under the gun in such a game and I raise, I win the blinds as often as not. If one of the bullies raises under the gun, he'll get multiple callers as often as not.


I do try to limp-reraise occasionally in this situation but it hasn't happened often enough for me to be able to characterize the results. It does seem to me to be worth more than the blinds to get into a three-bet, multi-way pot, even with KK instead of AA.


--JMike

You will hold AA or KK 1 out of every 110 hands - 0.90%. Assume you have them in early position about 33% of the time. And only 10% of those times that you have them in early position will you try for the limp re-raise. It comes down to a rare play. Is it even worth doing if so rare?


Bob is taking a common pot-limit and no-limit ploy and trying to fit it into some limit playing strategy. Will it work better at higher-limit games (30-60 on up) than in mid-limit games? Is it to "dangerous" of a play at the higher limits? Any opinions.


-Zeno

1) ATs isn't really dominated by KK. ATs is not too much of a dog to KK. This argument would be stronger with AA, which really does dominate AT.


2) Although KK won't play as well when in Ace flops, it will play well enough if it wins the pot! If the only A's are out are Ax's, then raising to get them out means you've (very likely) got the best hand on the flop, even if an A flops.


3) In a tight game is exactly when you do want to raise with ATs on the button. You want to knock out the blinds. In a loose game you would be more inclined to think about limping, especially if you know the blinds will call you.

given how often I play (~10-15 hours a week), I'd make this move only once a quarter or so. Four times in a year isn't going to make anyone change their opinion of my game.

I also think that, in California, at least, you'll get enough cold callers that giving limpers a cheap shot at your aces or kings is a little too risky for my tastes.

For trapping your three outer for three bets. Save your results based analysis for the analysis of your own play.....not theoretical discussions.

Zeno,

I agree with you completely. In NL or Heads up in the final table of a tournament, it's something you would use to trap an opponent. It could also be used if everyone folds and your playing the cutoff and you believe the button and blinds will fold. I still believe it's risky, but at least you may get some action. For the purposes of deception, I would rather raise with a weaker holding, and hope that if I do raise AA or KK, that it will get no respect.

"second of all, when an ace flops, and you have KK, you are not going to get full value out of your KK anyway, especially in a multiway pot. so who cares whether the Axs play or not? 99% of poker players cold call with ATs anyway."


Good point. The limp reraise issue only arises when you are UTG or perhaps some other early position. As such, regardless of whether you raised or not preflop, you may lose the pot (even when you have the best hand) when the flop comes with an Ace.


I think the argument that you should raise KK to get the Ax hands into the muck is not a very good one. Of course, you should generally raise (rather than go for the limp reraise) but the raise is made for other reasons than the one given.

I might be slightly mistaken here, but I believe that Abdul, Izmet and Angelina would say that limp-reraising with Aces or Kings is more profitable than open-raising IF the game is tight enough that you have a good chance of just winning the blinds when you open-raise. I distinctly remember either Abdul or Izmet writing that winning only the blinds with these hands is a disaster since they are worth much more than the blinds. It does rather make sense to me but I am not often in a spot to apply it--maybe I'm just lucky that way;-)

Hey, if Angelina and Abdul say so, count me in. Thankfully I don't play in games tight enough to make limping with aces profitable.


Tommy

I think the key is what your table image is. When I am getting really terrible hands and have the reputation of "a rock", a raise in EP by me can often just win the blinds. I had KK once when everyone thought I was a rock, I raised, and just won the blinds. But in another game when my table image wasn't the same, I tried to limp reraise with KK (again) in EP, no one raised, and I lost the pot and a good bit of money too.

In my mind the biggest thing is you have to have a damn tight table image. If you don't know if you have it I would always raise. If you think they are all going to just fold because by chance or circumstance you haven't gotten a decent hand in an hour or more and they are observant, then I would definitely limp. Even if no one raises, I'd rather take that chance than just win the blinds and nothing else.

That said, as great as KK or AA is, it is just one pair. I think a good rule of thumb is, don't limp with these hands unless you think a raise will fold out everyone else behind you, and you are UTG. In all other situations, raise it.


Tim

Did you even read my post? The lead in is "Anecdote about this".


Thats anecdote. Not analysis. Not opinion. Not anything you are alluding to. I'll try and find my post which says "Limp reraising with KK is horrible and I have proof because of an ATs hand at Bellagio. " I'm sure its somewhere around here based on your reaction.


And my "three outer" is only about a 2-1 dog to him, so save your attempts at making me feel like I made the biggest suck out of all time.

I still like my plan better. You're going get a specific pair once every 220 hands, so you're going to limp with your Aces or Kings once every 2,190 hands and raise with them the other nine times, right? Do you get advertising value for that? Will anybody remember it? I don't think so. Rich the Rock is probably talking up Ciaffone's book on RGP, huh?. How long before we get another one of his fold your Aces pre-flop rants?

This is where mixing it up will make it so you don't have to worry so much about just picking up the blinds. Throw in a raise with something like 6-7 suited once in a while. Tommy gets action with his big pairs because he raises with crapola like 2-6 offsuit. If they're dumping every time you come in, then you're playing too predictably.

Well, you did say that he would have dragged the pot had he raised straight up.......but no hard feelings. Those particular statements rub me the wrong way, I respect your play, no offense intended.

I don't know that Angelina says so. At least Izmet or Abdul said something like that;-)

No prob......just felt like you were jumping down my throat when all I was doing was telling a story. I'm reading Andy's post and I'm like "Hey, this exact thing happened against me yesterday!" Just wanted to share.


And hey, he *would* have taken it down. I don't remember who said 99% of players call raises with ATs, but I wouldn't have been one of them in this spot.

Why wouldn't it be a good idea to get out hands that could beat you?

Because Ax will lose to KK way more often than it will win...we just tend to remember the losses.

Remember, we limped with a view to getting in a reraise. Sometimes, that does not pan out but the bad thing about this is not that we let the Ax in but that we let him (and all other hands) in cheaply.


And if the limp reraise does pan out and we trap Ax in for 3 bets, we have done real well theoretically even if an Ace flops and we lose the pot.

OK, I see you're point. KK will beat Ax about 60% of the time. The 30% or so times that an ace flops, you'll wish you would had raised if that would have gotten him out. But the other 70% you might want him in to make more money.


So the question is, do you want someone in who has a 40% chance of beating you to make more money off of him, or do you want him out. Intuitively, I want him out. I don't even think it's close. However KT and QQ are free to stay. /images/smile.gif

It Depends


Emm

This issue persists because no one wants to make the argument for sacrificing ev in order to reduce fluctuations. Most players, especially pros, want to do this, but few want to address it squarely. In one sense, it can't be addressed because there are so many variables. We want to find a discernable advantage. Uncertainty forces us to err on the side of the obvious advantage (always raise with the best hand), even though more study might lead to the conclusion that increasing risk might improve long-term results.


This phenomenon tends to skew discussions about tactics because people are always coming up with rationalizations about why maximizing short-term gain, going for the obvious advantage, actually maximizes long-term gain. Bob's argument and your counterargument are examples. In essence, he's saying don't limp-raise as often with aces because you'll lose ev if you don't get raised. Well, if they can't raise because they don't have an ace, how can they cold-call without one? Your counterargument sensibly points out that kings don't win as often as aces, which is true, but hardly makes the case against limp-raising with either.


Limp-raising will remain forever problematic. Abdul always raised with the big pairs early, but noticed then when he moved from California to Vegas, the tougher customers at the Mirage wouldn't give him action. Mason advised him that some better players occasionally limp-raise, he notion he initially resisted. After running a zillion turbo sims, he concluded that limp-raising was far superior, including down to jacks, and this strategy remains a key to his published preflop advice. It also appeared, in more conservative form, in the revised HPFAP. To mask the big pair, Abdul proposed limp-raising with hands like eights and ATs. Since then, however, he's been a proponent of always raising when you open the pot, and masking the big hands by playing weaker ones. This is the strategy that most aggressive players prefer in middle to late position, because they'll often induce a 3-bet, and because they almost never open the pot by limping. To do this earlier, you need to be a lot more confident of your play, because so few hands are profitable in early position.


The only problem with limp-raising with big pairs early is that you'll tend to do it more often against the sort of opponents who will read it automatically. They'll often read the utg limp as a big pair, since you never open-limp with AQ/AK/TT, and you'll do nothing more than give the big blind a free ride. The argument that you'll invite several callers who might suck out on you is a bad one because it doesn't refute the argument for long-term ev (although it supports the argument for reducing fluctuations), and because it undervalues to power of these hands in several-way pots.

why would you limp with aa from an early position if you are a strong player most observant players will give you credit for a strong hand by calling from early position anyway and your opponents will take that into account before entering the pot so you might as well get more money in the pot with the best hand

If someone is holding Ax, the chances of an Ace coming on the flop are less than 20%. If two guys are holding Ax, the chances are of course even less.

If your opponents are so "tight" that you are pretty sure they'll muck to a raise, you need to be fastplaying MORE. Not just with AA or KK, but with all sorts of plays.


Gobble up a few blinds your cards don't deserve... your opponents will loosen up, or go home pennyless.


Slow playing might be fun, but its costly. Its also very popular. In most card rooms a raise pre-flop means you DON'T have aces or kings.


There MIGHT be situations where a slowplay is effective, but I can't imagine there is any doubt that on average slowplaying costs more money than it generates.