Mike Caro on Pocket Aces

From MCU at Planet Poker:


Truth About Aces In Hold'em


Despite common advice, you do not want to raise with aces in order to chase players out of the pot before the flop in hold 'em. That pair of aces usually makes as much money or more with extra opponents chasing you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't raise. But it means when you do raise, you're usually doing so hoping opponents will call, not fold.


Thinning the field has its moments, but -- contrary to what you've heard -- raising with aces before the flop for that purpose isn't one of them.


Comments? Maybe someone who agrees can elaborate on why this is so?


- Oski

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Caro on this one. Of course, pocket aces is such a powerful hand that you have positive EV regardless of the size of the field. But in general, I think your EV is higher if you raise and have only 3 opponents than it is when you just limp and have 6 opponents. I also think that giving the blinds a free/cheap flop is a mistake. But I do not know how you would proof this one way or another.

i don't think that Mr. Caro is necessarily supporting much limping with aces. just explaining the reasoning behind raising with them. he says that they are worth a lot no matter how big the field. still correct to raise, and make the field pay double when you got the rockets. kind of like how you can make the right play for the wrong reasons sometimes. sure, its easier on the variance and the stomach when you can narrow the field a bit with a raise from AA. but you are making money on each caller as well. how would you feel if you raised with AA and won only the blinds? i think that AA should be raised in almost all circumstances. the extreme exceptions being when you think you will only win the blinds with a raise, or you think you can trap some extra bets with a limp-reraise. but you have to be pretty darn sure that its gonna happen for limping to be correct.

I have had so many experiences in limit poker where I raise with AA from the early position and get six cold callers and think to myself "F U C K", because I know that I am quite a bit less than even money and will probably lose a bunch of bets on this one protecting my hand.

Jim,

MC is just saying you want as much money in the pot as possible, not to check. Of course if there is the same money with less players then that is better, thats why 3-betting usually works out.


This is why you raise out of the blinds with AA no matter how many limpers. Also why it may be correct to limp-reraise in a tight game.


D.

I agree with all your points.

The only proof that comes to mind is how many more times A's get cracked in loose games than tight ones. But thats not too scientific, is it? I'll take the large field and raise everytime in a limit game, as my wins will be larger than my losses. I think people lose more money than they should in a large field, simply because they lack the discipline to throw rockets away, even with a set, when they are obviously beat.

I think one point about raising w/ Aces is very important. That is, many of the hands that will cold call 2 bets(or even 3-bet) usually are drawing very thin, such as any pocket pair or hands like AKo, KQo, AQo. So you want them to come along and put more money in the pot. Of course, you would hate to be up against many hands such as 87s or JTs. So raising will usually keep you in play against hands that are dominated more often. Once those first couple of players call, though, these suited connectors in LP(JT suited on the button for 2 bets with 4 callers and loose blinds? Count me in!) have a reason to get involved. At that point, you just hope that your rockets will stand up.


DN

I think he's right. When I raise with Aces, I always want callers. The more the merrier to a point...I don't think having all 9 opponents calling is optimal (though it's still a very good situation). I like having about 6 opponents. I consider that to be the point of diminishing returns. Don't ask me to explain why. I have no clue why I think that but think it I do.

Jim Brier writes, : But in general, I think your EV is higher if you raise and have only 3 opponents than it is when you just limp and have 6 opponents.


I know very well you might think simulations are bogus, but nonetheless I thought I would run some to test this limited question:


Do aces make more money from UTG when in with six opponents, including only cases where there is no preflop raise, OR AA UTG with the AA raising, three opponents, for precisely two bets (in other words discounting when there is three bets or more).


10-20, TTHE simulation, unmodified.


Case 1:


AA under the gun, with six opponets for one bet:


profit is ~46 dollars per hand.


Case 2:

AA under the gun raises, gets precisely three callers, no further raising:


Profit is ~58 dollars per hand.


Notes:


The profiles are unmodified. This means, along with many other things, that they don't account for their preflop actions when making postflop decisions. It should be clear that using a less agressive "Malmuthian" approach (not to suggest he wouldn't raise AA) is going to be better when the player utilizes this lack of preflop agression to spring later in the hand.


This does not necessarily address your question anyway, because we are not allowing the limping AA to profit by bad raises in behind (I could do that but didn't), or limp reraising. This would change things.


sims are isolated analyses. They do not include the balancing effects of your entire hand range UTG. For example, if you said to me, for the rest of your life you have to merely call with UTG AA 95% of the time, would I be happy? Well, it wouldn't be that bad. I would just change how I play some of my other hands. I now may limp reraise more. I now may get "protection" for some of my vulnerable limping hands. Even handicapped as such, I might compensate. The main concern is how the overall hand range does. The Yoga, says Sredni.


These sims were quickies. I spent no time verifying the results and internal actions. They could be wrong. These do not compare to my normal higher standards when I post a serious simulation result.


There are actually a ****load of things that make this sim result very limited in its use(even beyond the typical anti-sim naysaying), but I thought I would throw it out there, anyway.


I am very happy to see that posters have begun to recognize more and more lately that "proof" is important. While we may choose to debate matters for intellectual and learning purposes, ultimately when one cannot prove it in a scientific manner, and there remains genuine disagreement, I vote to put my waving hands down.


Regards.


R

No doubt one would rather have 3 opponents for 2 bets each as opposed to 6 opponents for 1 bet each. But do you prefer 3 opponents over 6 opponents when you raise? Mike would say 6. So would I.


Mike might say he wants all 9 opponents to call his raise. I wouldn't. I don't have the foggiest why I prefer 6 over 3 but not prefer 9 opponents over 6.

On the contrary, you are much better than even money on this hand. The money is coming no matter how many players call you. To say you are less than even money with AA would mean that it is not correct to play any hand against 6 opponents.


Mike

WARNING: This may be completely wrong.


This is a play that I have run a few times and has worked perfectly. Note that I may have won more bets by simply raising and getting a couple to call, but they may all fold their KJo and QTo if they believe that you are a tight player and would raise with only a good hand. Overly aggressive players that act after me are the ones I will look for – ones that will be happy to bluff their hands.


AA in the cutoff all fold to me. I call with AA. Very aggressive players learn that a late limper is usually weak. They know that I would have raised with almost any good hand. The button or blinds will raise almost automatically because they think, with the aggressive attitude, that they must take control of the pot. Well, this gives you a world of opportunity to thump over aggressive players on the head – they will bet the whole way and even raise your turn bet trying to make you fold. Again, I am no pro, but it has seemed to play well against aggressive players that will try to run me out of a pot with AJo or similar hand that they believe are bigger than mine. This is about the only time I will limp with aces, when I am certain that an overly aggressive player will try to run everyone of a pot with bets and raises. I think it works because you’re will be against no more than three opponents with random hands that you are 100% sure to be ahead of. Limp/reraise on this same guy may not be so bad either, but I prefer to wait for at least the flop and possibly the turn to de-cloak. All this is assuming the board was a little non-threatening. If the flop is [393] and the SB bets and the BB raises, well you might have a problem. If nobody raises pre-flop you can come out betting and raising on the flop and anyone chasing a draw or hoping to trip up are in much trouble because the pot odds will never be there for it.


Comments? I’m sure some have tried this, how did it work for you?

To clarify -- what we're discussing is not which action to take, but rather, why. I think that once we decide in advance to raise with aces, which I have, then it's best if it doesn't matter why.


With aces, I don't raise to build the pot, and I don't raise to thin the field, and I don't raise because I have the best hand. I raise only because I am convinced it is the best play.


If it's possible that having different reasons for the same action can give us an advantage -- and the existence of this thread suggests this is so --- then the advantage I gain by not having the usual reasons for raising aces is that I have no opinion on what happens after I raise. I'm immune to emotionally affected decisions. A player who raises to thin the field is disappointed when seven players call. The player who raises to build the pot is disappointed when everyone folds. I have no reaction either way. When seven players call and the flop comes, the situation is what it is. When I raise and everyone folds before the flop, I'm not less happy during the next hand.


The resultant thoughts from examining three players or six, raised or not, are fruitful. But at the table, I think thinking is overrated and potentially expensive.


Tommy

I have heard this before, but saw a post a few weeks ago that solidified this for me. This is all assuming that you have some control over if your opponents will fold or not. If you can raise with your aces and have 4 players for 2 bets or 8 players for 1 bet, same money, how many opponents do you need to stay in front of now? I would prefer less, the exception to this is when you actually flop a hand, now it does not matter, but flopping a hand with your aces is hard unless you have a set or three flush on board, one of your aces making the fourth. When I first started to play, I often limped with them, but then I found I let the blinds in for cheap or free, and if they hit anything, they are tied on, sometimes ahead of me. I still see a lot of players now limp with them then raise on 4th to thin the field, but to me this seems a little too late, all your going to have chase you now is top pair or a really good draw, everyone else that calls your raise will usually have you beat already with your rockets.

well I'm no HE expert Hell I'm not even a HE numbskull but i believe that you should use knowledge of your opponents to determine the play that causes the majority of them to make the biggest mistake possible against you and that is to call hands that cant possibly beat you and fold hands that very possibly can.

...and got my butt handed to me by a hand that NEVER would have called 2 bets cold (I tripped--he BABY FLUSHED (and I had the A of the flush suit). There is no reason to decrease the chances of winning with AA by giving drawing hands the right odds to stay by limping in -- PP are better heads-up, hence I do not like to limp with them and watch a baby flush draw out on me that wouldn't have called the raise. I believe that it is better to try limping with AK or AKs, but NOT a big PP. I believe that letting as many people in as possible it too greedy and will increase your fluctuations needlessly, while not really increasing your overall amount won...but then again, I am not an expert and have never written a book....

"Do you prefer 3 over 6 when you raise?"


I think I would prefer having only 3 but I really don't know. Fortunately, it is an academic question since all you can do is raise and see what happens. Most of the time your raise will eliminate players which I believe is good especially if the players being eliminated have connectors and suited cards. The problem is that when you don't raise, they have no decision to make especially if they are in the blinds.


Gary Carson has argued that raising to eliminate players is not a poker concept. I believe he makes the point that the elimination of players is a byproduct usually and that to think of it as a poker concept is to confuse cause with effect. Regardless, I believe elimination of players is important especially as pots get large. In the bigger games, most pots are heads-up or 3-way because pots routinely get raised and reraised. The better players have learned that being in a crowd is not a good thing at the poker table. The larger the field the harder it is to win without making the best hand. But you need to be able to win pots without always having to make the best hand when you play in the bigger games. This is much more likely to happen in heads-up and 3-way pots than in multi-way pots.

i haven't read the other messages but here is my take and I'm pretty sure it's correct. If you are in early position and you are getting way too much respect on your raises then try for a limp reraise since just winning the blinds isn't optimal for aces. You are probably in the best shape against like 2 to 3 opponents. In real life you often will still get a few callers behind you when you raise so raising is almost always gong to be correct. Caro has some wacky ideas and he words some things wrong but the bottom line is that your raise will usually thin the field to some degree and you do want this- once again to a certain degree. If all fold then its no good but just about any other situation is good.

I don't exactly know what Caro is trying to get at when he says you don't want to thin the field, I am guessing he is just trying to say that aces are really strong and can stand multiway action, but who cares- anybody with any sense knows that AA is by far the best hand in hold'em. So the bottom line is to still raise almost every time.

I think I kept repeating myself too much, my messages suck sometimes- oh well.


Kris

"The better players have learned that being in a crowd is not a good thing at the poker table."


Well I don't think thats really true.


It may be true that at a table of mostly good players the crowd will not be there, but you prefer to play against bad players. And if the table is so bad that you find yourself in 6 way pots with AA, great!.


If you could find a 30-60 that played like a loose passive low limit game it would be perfect.


D.

i was in a 90 player tournament a few days ago, and one particular player had twice (bluff?) raised my blinds, resulting in my having to fold to his flop bet both times


this time i had Aces and decided i would recoup a little before i raised him on the turn


he caught his two-outer Ten to his TT on the turn and i was outer the tourney

.. But you need to be able to win pots without always having to make the best hand when you play in the bigger games. ..


I don't think this has much to do with playing Aces pre-flop.


As to the question about raising with Aces pre-flop, IMO Aces lose EV from players who would have called a raise pre-flop on that betting round. Also if the blinds would have folded had you raised you probably lose EV with a call instead of a raise. The question in my mind is do you gain EV over and above what you lost on later rounds and/or from players coming in? Often when you raise you create a big pot pre-flop which ties a lot of players on to the showdown including yourself and you're going to be playing aggressively with them after the flop. So your cost of playing them is high after the flop usually. Based on the above I would think that you'll more than likely need to showdown the best hand if you raise with Aces not vice versa. BTW I think raising is the best play with them pre-flop. IMO good players can win plenty of money after the flop with them even if they don't "hide in the woods" pre-flop. Lot of hand waving here.

Of course you have to play it and play it aggressively. I just get a little irritated when six or seven people all call your preflop raise because I'm probably in for a beat.

Being "even money" would be truly one of the most lucrative positions in poker; this is seldom true in actuality. The pot is usually laying you much more than even money; even a headsup pot is laying extra with the blinds. In a 6-way pot, if you win half the time, you'll make a killing. There's 5 bets going in for every one of yours. While this # will obviously change as people fold, the concept is still true. You're trying to win the most $$$ you can, not the highest number of pots.


BTW: I ALWAYS raise AA and KK be4 the flop - to much equity lost by not doing so.

No one's even arguing about whether to raise with them. It's usually pretty obvious how to play them both before and after the flop.


Give me a good discussion on how to play overcards or middle pair any day. I can handle my AA just fine.

so much discussion on aces is precisely because it is the preflop nuts. there is nobody that can rightly say that you should fold it preflop, in any situation. so the discussion becomes raise or limp. the advocates for limping are usually the ones who get them cracked in LL games. or the people who take them too the river too often. sometimes they just aren't gonna win. sometimes you gotta drop out. the ones who stress raising are the ones who know that, long term, you want to make the most money on the nuts as you can and make people pay to draw against you.

"there is nobody that can rightly say that you should fold it preflop, in any situation. "


while this may be true in a ring game...in a tourney, there are times to fold it preflop...


b

You make more money from AA than any other hand. Therefore, you could argue that it's more important to play AA correctly than any other hand.

You get AK almost 3 times as often as AA. So which hand is more important to play well? Also, which hand is harder to play well? And with which hand does the manner in which you play it make a bigger difference?

of course there are circumstances in tournaments. i assumed we were talking about $$ games here.

could cost you more than AA if you dont know how to get away from it.


i think AA has more room for erroroneus(?) play than AK.


that and the fact AA cant be dominated preflop...


good question though...be good in its own post..


"which hand is the toughest to play, and why?"

hmmm


maybe


b

I agree with Tommy. When I raise and thin the field I think "Ok that's good, I've increased my chances of winning this pot" and when I raise and get lots of action/callers I think "OK that's good now I'm a favorite to win a big pot".


To this day my most memorable holdem hand of all time is the following. Mirage, 1991 I believe, 20-40 Holdem. There was a guy in the game known as Battle Mountain Paul who always manages to get the game going wildly and this one was the wildest. Anyway, I have AA and the betting is capped 7-ways before the flop. To make a long story short, the aces never improved but I still won a huge pot. Many people since have told me what a huge underdog I was and said things like "I'd much rather have 67 suited in that situation than AA" and I've always thought "bullshit". If I tell you it's capped six ways before the flop and you can join in and have any hand you'd like, would you not pick AA? I would every time (assuming no knowledge of what the other players have).


Claude

Its rarely correct to limp. The reason people want to "thin the field" is because they psychologically feel the "right" to win with AA.


AA is a roller coaster... and one that will cost you a lot of money and make you even more if played correctly. Incredibly high variance with AA, coupled with an aversion to losing after ahead makes people want to avoid playing several players. This is wrong.


You want players to call because they are making a mistake. With 9 callers you are at least a little bit of a favorite on everyone.


"Thinning the field" reduces your variance... as well as your profit. You might feel better when your AA stands up and you collect a few bets a little more often...


But, "thinning the field" is not the correct poker play.

What do your sims say about 6 vs. 9 opponents calling your raise with AA?


BTW, I have no idea how much work is involved in running these sims. So, if what I am asking you to do for me as a favour is time consuming, don't worry about it. But if it's something that you could do wit relative ease and post your results, I would be grateful.


Thanks, backdoor.

skp,


Email me, if you would.


I am happy to do the sim when I have a chance, although I didn't think you were "into" them.


This threads gotten buried, so i won't respond here.


Regards.


frankensteinross@hotmail.com

sort off. you were more likely to loose that pot than to win it. but you were more likely to win it than any other individual in the hand.

mistake in thought processeing. hand me the rockets.

Actually, shouldn't you concentrate on the decent to good hands that come to you MUCH more often than Aces? The aiplanes may make the most money per hand, but for the money volume, I would think that hands that are received more frequently would be more valuable..

You are correct, SKP: Although the point of diminishing returns for the number of callers when you raise with aces varies in accordance with the nature of the opponents and your own skills, six (or maybe five) appears to be the ideal number of callers for maximum profit.


Straight Flushes,

Mike Caro

There is no question that you would rather have four opponents chasing you for two bets than eight for one bet. I apologize if somehow I didn't make my position clear on this in other venues.


This doesn't necessarily mean you should always raise, though. Just calling can be a profitable alternative sometimes. But, if you choose that tactic, you're hoping that there are many active opponents (up to a point) for many bets -- not nine active opponents for a single bet.


By the way, the reason I'm occasionally posting here is out of respect for David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Additionally, I seem to have single-handedly, unintentionally destroyed RGP.


So, please be kind or I'll tell GCA about this forum, too.


Straight Flushes,

Mike Caro

once again PURE genius by the esteemed Mr. Angelo. tommy thank you for saying what some of us try to think but never seem to express as well as you. J.Brown