Playing in wild loose games

At low-limit stud, I worked out a strategy that worked, but I had problems applying it to Hold-em, because I wasn't quite sure about he value of certain starting hands. Complicating the matter is that I play tournaments, and this strategy is incorrect in tournaments. So after playing a tournament, I forget my low-limit strategy and start playing in cash games like I play in tournaments.


I would like everyone's imput on this. I'm not going to give everything away. I just want to describe the approach in general. It is this.


(1) Forget raising with big pairs, unless you really think people will drop.


(2) Raise with suited connectors.


(3) Play for the draw


In short, Big pairs lose so much value, you're better off not playing them agressively.


Comments, please.

(1) Forget raising with big pairs, unless you really think people will drop.




Serious question: I'm relatively new to all this compared to many of the posters, so forgive me if I'm missing something, but: if you have AA or KK (or even QQ) why do you want people to drop?

There is a big difference between winning the most pots and winning the most money. Your objective should be to win the most money and that is why you should raise with your big pairs. If you start keeping statistics about the hands you play you'll see just how much money AA and KK wins for you. No other hands even comes close. Forget about big slick, it's not a tenth as profitable as aces or kings. But you can't fall in love with them and never drop.


So just keep raising. If they call they made a mistake and that is what you want. As more people enter the pot the less likely it is that you'll win it but the bigger it will be when you do. Even if the win rate will drop for aces and kings the increased pot size will more then make up for it.


Sincerely, Andreas

Very clear. Big pairs play well against only one or two opponents. Otherwise, the combined odds of one of three or more players drawing out on you makes you big pair a long term loser

Very clear. Big pairs play well against only one or two opponents. Otherwise, the combined odds of one of three or more players drawing out on you makes you big pair a long term loser




I can see this with (again, maybe) QQ and JJ, (anything TT or below, I wouldn't classify as a "big pair") but AA and KK?


I'll take AA and KK jammed up preflop against a full table all night...and "not the favorite" does not equate to "long term loser". I don't have the figures in front of me, but I seem to recall AA winning 30% of the time against 9 random hands (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) played to the river?


If everyone wants to make a mistake and call or reraise a raise with AA/KK, that should be a GOOD thing, assuming you're the one with AA/KK.

I've found that it doesn't work. When you raise with AA or KK and get many callers, the pot gets large enough so that it is no longer a mistake for them to call you all the way to the river.

thank you for your comment. Seems that ones variance increases in these types of games. I'm not sure if the numbers really pan out as the loses tend to mount quickly and your odds of winning do go down substancially as the number of players in the pot increases.

I've found that it doesn't work. When you raise with AA or KK and get many callers, the pot gets large enough so that it is no longer a mistake for them to call you all the way to the river.


but all the money that makes it correct for them to draw they put in the pot with way the worst of it.


also, many times your AA hand is similar to a really strong draw(you are not favored to win the hand), where only 20 of the river cards that can drop will win for you. even then, you are only a 1.3:1 underdog and with 2 opponents or more you should be putting in as many bets as possible on the turn. if you have 4 opponents, you are putting in 20% of the money, but 44% of that money is yours. i dont see any problem with this situation.


its about profit, not winning this pot. maximize your expectation.

This system is so grossly misguided that it is difficult to accept that even you believe in it. If you do, you are going to expeditiously lose your entire bankroll.


You are intentionally not raising for value with your best possible hands (AA,KK,QQ). No other hands will make more money in a pot contested by 10 players. Raise for VALUE. Raise for VALUE. Raise for VALUE. You do not want anybody to fold when you raise with your big pairs. You want all 9 opponents to call you all the way to the river every time you hold these hands. It doesn't matter that AA will lose 70% of the time 10-handed game of "showdown". What matters is that the money you make from the 30% of the time you win with AA in this type of game will be vastly greater than the money you lose the other 70% of the time. Just do some very simple math.


Note: This is VERY SIMPLIFIED and is only being used as an example of how awesome a hand AA is in a 10 handed pot.


You play 10 hands of "showdown" holding AA. You win the pot 3 times. You lose 7 times.


Each time you lose, it costs you 3.5 big bets (2 small bets pre-flop because you raised for VALUE, 1 small bet on the flop, 1 big bet on the turn, 1 big bet on the river). In sum, you have lost 24.5 big bets with AA in these 7 hands.


Each time you win, you pull in a pot of 31.5 big bets. 31.5 is calculated by taking 3.5 (from above) and multiplying in by your 9 opponents (9 * 3.5 = 31.5). In sum, you have won 94.5 big bets with AA in these 3 hands.


94.5 - 24.5 is a PROFIT of 70 big bets with AA. AA is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT the best possible hand to play in a 10-handed pot. The second best hand is KK. The third best hand is QQ. Suited connectors are WAY BEHIND.


You have taken a well known concept and completely distorted it. The concept is that pairs go down in relative value in a multi-way pots while drawing hands like suited connectors go up in relative value. The concept is true. But it doesn't mean that AA,KK,QQ, and the other big pairs are no longer the best hands and are not worthy of pre-flop raises, re-raises, and capped raises.


What the concept means is the gap between big pairs and drawing hands like suited connectors is not as substantial in a multi-way pot as it is in a short-handed pot. But the gap is definitely there. Big pairs are the best hands to hold in both short-handed pots and multi-way pots.


Without trying to create another math example, suited connectors are not automatically worthy of a raise. Certainly AKs is worthy of a raise. But 54s shouldn't even be played from early position and raising is out of the question. Big suited connectors like KQs, QJs, and JTs are very valuable hands in these multi-way pots and are worthy of a raise especially if you've got good position. But these hands still trail far behind the big pairs.


Play for the draw? Not in Hold'em. Drawing to the best hand is very applicable to stud but it's a money-losing way to play Hold'em.


You've got everything backwards. You are so wrong it's sad.

Just to give you an indication as to how aces do against different number of opponents I'll give some illustrative results from cold simulations. Against random hands aces wins:


1 Opponent win% 85, EV = 0.85*2 - 1 = 0.70

3 Opponents win% 64, EV = 0.64*4 - 1 = 1.56

9 Opponents win% 31, EV = 0.31*10 - 1 = 2.10


So aces wins 3 times the money (not the pots, big difference) against 9 opponents then against 1 opponent. Obviously, cold simulations are not 100% accurate but they give a strong indication. Just for curiosity, let's compare the loss of EV when you are not raising with aces to the loss of EV when you always fold AKs (which obviously would be a mistake against 9 people, right?). Against 9 opponents holding random cards:


AKs, win% 22, EVfold - EVcall = 0 - (0.22*10 - 1) = -1.2

AA, win% 31, EVcall - EVraise = (0.31*10*1 - 1) - (0.31*10*2 - 2) = -2.1


In other words, it's almost twice as costly NOT to raise with aces as it is to always fold AKs against 9 random opponents. If you wish to reduce variance it's way better to always fold AKs than it is to stop raising with aces.


If you're losing money with aces your postflop play needs SERIOUS work. You have such a huge edge preflop that it would be nearly impossible for aces to be long term losers.


Sincerely, Andreas

Call me silly, but do you have some real world data to back up what you are saying? It appears that you are relying on a theory where no one plays even average low limit play. Holdem slots is closer to the LL play that you are suggesting. It happens, but not often, and not for long, at least in my arena of knowledge.


There is no written guarantee that your win rate will follow "the book" and you will win thirty percent of pots just like clockwork as you suggest. You could go in the red for tens of thousands of dollars before AA starts coming out on top of the money heap playing against a full table at LL HE.


More money can be won in the long run with AA, but is your wallet your really deep enough to draw from for the amount of time it may take for you to come out a winner with AA against a continual full table of players coming at you in low limit HE? If your wallet is deep enough to go through the possible losses, perhaps you may consider higher limit play where AA pays off more consistantly?


Who is going to call you all the way to the river with crap in their hands? One or two maybe, but unless your players are totally clueless, they will drop at the flop unless they get some sort of help. You won't be making all those bets you suggest in your model when you win with AA unimproved.


AA is a make it or break it on the flop hand at LL HE, not worth going to the river with against a table full players unimproved - considering real world bankrolls and real world players. I also believe the chance of AA winning unimproved may be about 15 percent, not the 30 percent you suggest.


Finally, do you have any data suggesting QQ is in the same ballpark as AA, KK? From what I have read and experienced, it takes a long third place behind AA, KK.


May I suggest Morton's theorem for your peruse. It should be somewhere on the web if you search for it.

If you could find Mortons Thereom for us and give us the website it would be great. You're right, but I'm glad everyone disagrees with me. I really think a lot of people have forgotten how to play low-limit or have gotten lucky with big pairs.


I find that if I raise I invariably get reraised and the pot gets capped. I end up with everyone in the pot and no one going anywhere. Invariably a flush, straight, trips, or two pair are win. My only hope is to hit my third ace or at least pair the board.


People will pay a lot of money to see the flop. When there is a lot of money in the pot, they are hesitant to fold. But if you keep the pot small, let them see the flop, they may fold in your bet on the flop or the turn.


You just can't play AA against a full table. Even a table to terrible players can beat you. And its never two small bets; its cap, cap, big bet, call a big bet, lose.

If you could find Mortons Thereom for us and give us the website it would be great.


http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=58ccda9812a70be9&rnum=43


I really think a lot of people have forgotten how to play low-limit or have gotten lucky with big pairs.


I dont think you are being very open-minded here, rather you are being very results oriented. There might be a reason you got 4 dissenting opinions and 1 agreeing.

I also believe the chance of AA winning unimproved may be about 15 percent, not the 30 percent you suggest.




The original poster said that the approximate win percentage of AA against 9 opponents is 30%. This does not take into account whetner the hand improved or not.


That being said, even assuming the same 9 opponents, if you are correct, and it's 15%, I'd still be tossing 10% of the money in the pot and winning 15% of the time.


Raise.

"And its never two small bets; its cap, cap, big bet, call a big bet, lose."

I think the key is not automatically going all the way to the river with your pocket A's. You have to know when you are beaten and if you don't have a reasonable chance of drawing, then get out. But I would keep raising until that point in time.


sam

Sam wrote:


"I think the key is not automatically going all the way to the river with your pocket A's. You have to know when you are beaten and if you don't have a reasonable chance of drawing, then get out. But I would keep raising until that point in time."


Post flop play is the key here. It seems that part of the benefit of raising preflop is that the pot is giving AA odds to draw to a set or full house.


Also, I disagree with Dynasty about the value of draws in HE; strong draws are key in this type of game. Check out Gary Carson's book on hold'em.


Jeff

Mike,


I wasn't trying to re-create the actual game conditions of a LL table. That's why I said my math example was VERY SIMPLIFIED and was being played in a game of "showdown". If computer simulation programmers haven't effectively recreated game conditions, I can't do it in a single post.


So how does that effect the numbers? You win less when your AA holds up because opponents fold post-flop or pre-flop. And you lose less when you fold post-flop. The important information to take out of the example is that you will win with AA less often than you lose but, when you win, it will more than make up for the losses. It's the broader concept that you should have heard.


As far as being concerned with losing too much money with AA at a full table because players keep drawing out on you, then I say this. If you haven't got enough money to raise pre-flop with AA, then you don't have enough money to play poker.


You say you think 15% is a more accurate figure. My 30% number used is a widely known number taken from computer simulations where all hands are taken to the showdown

You WANT the pre-flop betting to be capped. You WANT everybody to try to outdraw you. Or at least you should.

Sam makes a strong point which hasen't been discussed much in this thread. Strong post-flop play will increase your earnings when you are ahead and decrease your losses when you are behind.

My comment about drawing in Hold'em wasn't very well stated at all.


This is what was in my mind but didn't come out well at all. In Stud (which Rick "The Rock" P. plays) you can play pure drawing hands such as any three clubs on 3rd street profitably (assuming live cards). However, in Hold'em you can't play any two clubs profitably. Similarly in stud, you can play something like 7,8,9 on third street (although carefully!) but 87o in Hold'em is garbage.


What I said in my original post didn't sound anything like that but it is what I was thinking.


Of course, you can play strong draws such as suited connectors, especially if they are big. And small pairs qualify as drawing hands which can be played.


I thought about buying Carson's book yesterday but got Feeney's book instead. Maybe another day.

A little off topic....


There is a story where I live about a newlywed husband who brings home a nice steak. The newlywed wife takes it and cuts it up into pieces before cooking it. The husband is aghast! That nice steak all cut up! He asks the wife why she did it. The wife reply's, "because that's how my mother did it." He goes and asks the mother in law why. She replies, "because that's the way my mother did it." He asks the Grandmother, and she replies, "because the pan I had was so small...."


He who has a thorough knowledge of himself and the enemy is bound to win all battles. He who knows himself but not the enemy has only an even chance of winning. He who knows not himself and the enemy is bound to perish in all battles.


-Sun Tzu


If ideas are not exchanged in this forum, and there are no dissenting opinions, what do we learn that is new?


For low limit only.....


Where I play, playing strictly S&M will have you watching the game and wondering what happened. It's rather easy to punish a player who plays low limit playing strictly S&M. S&M is the base line, a jumping off point, and a place to return to, but it isn't the whole game. Perhaps it's unique to where I live, but if you can't play more than one style of play, you can't play for very long.

and if any of your styles of play is to not raise preflop with AA or KK, you can play in my game anytime.

Since low limit games are filled with players with few and sometimes practically no skills, it's best to play straightforward (I wouldn't call it S&M) poker. You don't need to mix up your games and make sophisticated plays. Just bet and raise when you've got the best hand and fold when you don't have any chance to draw to the best hand. It's not too much more complicated than that. (Well, maybe it's a big more complicated.)


I live in Vegas so I'm playing against new tourists every week. If you're up against the same group of people regularly, then you need to vary your play in some way if they are even a little bit observant.

Okay, then if we both accept thirty percent as being correct, in a sim playing all hands to the river, how does that relate to the actual win rate with AA against a full table?


Perhaps it is our own personal definitions of loose that put us at odds? Loose to me is where K2o is calling the third raise preflop because the rush of winning with big little feels so good, because 69o made the second raise because 69 has sexual connotations and you gotta have sex with poker, because 74o was utg and had to bet, it ain't fun if you don't bet. The players are there to have fun.


You may even take out the raises if you wish but that makes it a more 'normal' LL game to me.


I hold two Aces, they hold 18 other cards, two of which may be aces. The flop will most likely hit at least two of them and miss me. Part of those that miss the flop, have never seen a bad hand and they can make that runner runner straight. Plus with all that raising or no raising, the pot for a few is getting to the point where the thought of winning is an adrenaline rush in itself - who needs cards, just bet and have fun!


If you take the looseness out of the game, and you pump up the pot, most of the players will dump their hands at the flop. You are left with players who's hands have excellent post flop potential.


It may be possible that I do not have enough money to play poker, but whatever the depth of my pocket or your pocket, it is finite, and there are better investments for me in a wild loose game.


I will save my raises for post flop when I think I can better predict what the outcome is going to be, and even then it's a crap shoot in a loose game.


I believe these ideas are referred to indirectly on page 167... and 173... of HFAP 21'st Edition. Of course, I may be reading it wrong.


As for the original poster who is coming to HE from Stud, I see a lot of deep thought in his ideas. I am sure he will tune them up to fit his playing style.

You are dead wrong about the big pairs. You should ALWAYS raise with KK and AA. In very rare circumstances, you might not want to raise with QQ, but in general I ALWAYS raise with it too. I think I may have NOT raised with QQ ONCE in the last two years. With JJ or lower, you can use more discretion as to when to raise. If you take a flop with AA or KK and it's not a raised pot, two things happen. First, you LOSE MONEY, PERIOD. Second, you give the BB a chance to suck out on your for free, which boils down to you LOSING MONEY AGAIN. Sometimes the BB will suck out on you because you gave him a chance to suckout for free. Every opponent who enters the pot against you when you have a big pair will suck out on your some of the time, causing you to win the pot less often. This is catastrophic if he would have folded for a raise, ESPECIALLY since your failure to raise already cost you money in the first place. Big pairs get sucked out on A LOT in loose games. Raise anyway.


Raising with suited connectors is pretty futile if you do it on a regular basis. They want to see the flop CHEAPLY. I generally don't raise with T9s or lower, except once in a blue moon. With JTs, I raise with if I'm late and there's lots of players, or sometimes in other circumstances, like opening first in late position. QJs I sometimes raise with, but if I can get a bunch of players to play against, I will generally NOT raise. KQs I raise with probably 80% of the time, and NO ONE gets to see a flop with me for less than two bets if I have AKs.


Playing for the draw is the one thing on your list I agree with.


Dave in Cali

" Raise for VALUE. Raise for VALUE. Raise for VALUE."


As USUAL, your posts are extremely vague and unclear. Could you be more specific about your point here? Try to clarify what you mean when you write these posts, we're all very confuse-ed. :-)


" What the concept means is the GAP* between big pairs and drawing hands like suited connectors is not as substantial in a multi-way pot as it is in a short-handed pot. But the gap is definitely there. Big pairs are the best hands to hold in both short-handed pots and multi-way pots. "


Well said. Very true. *I capitalized GAP to further emphasize your point.


" Play for the draw? Not in Hold'em. Drawing to the best hand is very applicable to stud but it's a money-losing way to play Hold'em. "


This is the one point in your post I disagree with. With a clarifier. In LOOSE games, the best draw is very often the money favorite over the best hand. Sometimes this is very pronounced. Say you flop the best hand, top pair, kings, with AKo, but I flop the nut flush draw, and it's multi-way. Say also there's an opponent with a gutshot, and another with a small pocket pair, and another with bottom pair. You are a big favorite over any one of your opponents to WIN THE POT. However, each out held by your opponents takes the pot away from you one time when it comes. I however, holding the nut flush draw, am not affected by these player's suckout cards (with the exception of certain rare runner-runner combinations). My hand is sucking equity out of your hand, sucking the equity given to the pot by the weak draws away from your pockets and into mine. It's an exception to the FTOP, and is very common in loose games. In a six way pot, with a flop of Ks Js 5c, I would much rather have As4s than KdQc, especially if the field is loose and will call the whole way with weak draws. In loose games, playing for the draw is generally good poker, especially if you temper your playing decisions with reason (i.e., not playing 54s UTG in a LAG game).


Dave in Cali

You have the best of it then. Usually when I sit down, I usually know at least six of the ten players, or at least know how they play. Then I know at least one of the strangers is a travelling semi pro who stopped for a day or two.


If I played strictly S & M, or if anyone else does for that matter they may as well play their cards face up. I ran into this when I started. I thought I would never beat the game.


I've had to learn how to play S & M style, be a junk card player, weak, aggressive, and develop a hybrid style that suits my personality which is a bipolar fluctuation between rock and maniac.

My comment...


" Play for the draw? Not in Hold'em. Drawing to the best hand is very applicable to stud but it's a money-losing way to play Hold'em. "


... was very poorly stated. There is no way you could understand what was in my head by what I wrote. This time I really was vague an unclear.


At the time I'm typing this, my re-statement is three lines below this post.

Thank you

What's the title of Carson's book?

I'm finding that people will pay a lot of money just to see the flop. They will play and pay anything, and I mean anything, just to see the flop. Just as in stud, I may be willing to let them see a card or two if I can keep the pot small enough to make them less likely to call after the flop, and less likely, as a group to draw out on me; because that is what you are up against -- playing against the entire table, not one player.


This is what makes big pairs unplayable in large multiway pots. You simply need a stronger hand to win when five to nine players are willing to play to the end. Invariably, one of them will hit thier miracle card.


I don't think I'm taking this out of context. If I think I can get people to fold with a bet, I will; but with I can't, the bet is worthless. Just like you said, it's not a value bet. It a bet to narrow the field. If it won't narrow the field, why make it?

Pocket A's are indisputably the best hand in hold'em. If you can't raise with them preflop, why raise at all? Would you really prefer AKs in a multiway pot? Maybe. But this is only because most people shut off their brains when they have pocket A's. With AKs, you concern yourself with questions like: Did I hit top pair? two pair? flush draw? straight draw? Am I beaten?


But with pocket A's, people assume that they've already won. I see people all the time, making crying calls all the way to the river with A's when a flush or a straight is glaring in their face from the flop!


Pocket A's is the best starting hand, but it is only 2/7 of your complete hand. But by the flop, 5/7 of your hand is determined.


I lose with pocket A's a good portion of the time. But I will cap preflop everytime. (Unless for deception purposes.) Why? Because when no one makes their draw or you make your draw, the pot is huge. And no one has a better chance of winning that pot preflop than you do. You have the best hand!


But remember when that flop hits. You may have the best pair, but it is still just a pair.


sam


P.S. - Now, if it's a matter of not being able to handle the swings that this type of strategy brings, then move to a lower game or take up golf instead.

I can hardly believe I read this.


"If I think I can get people to fold with a bet, I will; but with I can't, the bet is worthless. Just like you said, it's not a value bet. It a bet to narrow the field. If it won't narrow the field, why make it?"


Answer: To make money.

I have to respectfully disagree with the idea of slowplaying aces in a wild low-limit game before the flop (and since you are holding the absolute nuts at the time, you are slowplaying). At least in the low-limit games I play in ($2/4-$4/8 at Canterbury Park in Minneapolis), many times over 1/2 of the money in the pot is put in pre-flop. Would you rather have people put money into the pot when they could conceivably beat you (after almost any flop, turn, or river) or when you have the relative nuts (pre-flop) and the best draw? Plus, the more money low-limit players put into the pot, the more tied they are to that pot and more likely to put bets in even when they're drawing dead and know it (so when you hit your set or get aces full, they'll continue to call or raise with second pair or the case ace). I've dragged many $200+ pots with aces and kings, and I'll admit that many more times, I've lost $20+ when they missed. I think people get the attitude that it's not worth raising with pocket aces, because they don't win every time and when they lose, it IS very costly and painful (I remember the time someone sucked out 2 pair on the river with a 2/3 offsuit...). But the total money you gain is much more than the total you lose, and in any hold 'em game I've played in so far, A/A is the most profitable hand by far (followed by K/K, Q/Q), especially if you raise/reraise pre-flop.

Even if you go braindead after the flop you have an edge. Let's assume you have to call a bet on every street to get to showdown.


EVcall = 9*1 * 0.31 + 4*1*0.31 + 3*2*0.31 + 1*2*0.31 - 6 * 0.69 = 2.37


(Assuming 4 opponents see the turn, 3 see the river, and only 1 on the river) If you're going to play it in this braindead manner wouldn't you prefer the preflop betting beeing capped?


EVcap = 9*4 * 0.31 + 6*1*0.31 + 4*2*0.31 + 2*2*0.31 - 9 * 0.69 = 10.5


(Assuming more callers since you'll have bloated the pot preflop)

And that is just assuming braindead postflop play. Even though the game of "showdown" is not like real holdem it should be considered.


For curiosity let's examine the case where you only win one bet on each street when your hand is good and lose the described scenario when not (4sb pre, 4sb flop, 2sb turn, 2sb river)


EVwild = 9*4 * 0.31 + 2*1*0.31 + 1*2*0.31 + 1*2*0.31 - 12 * 0.69 = 4.7


Oops, still positive EV (and that is with tight postflop players). What if you weren't to cap it preflop but still lose a cap on the flop (1sb pre, 4sb flop, 2sb turn, 2sb river)


EVweak = 9*1 * 0.31 + 2*1*0.31 + 1*2*0.31 + 1*2*0.31 - 7 * 0.69 = -0.2


So your weak preflop play turned a winner into a loser.


If you're going to get braindead postflop you better cap it preflop.


Sincerely, Andreas

"This is what makes big pairs unplayable in large multiway pots. You simply need a stronger hand to win when five to nine players are willing to play to the end. Invariably, one of them will hit thier miracle card.


I don't think I'm taking this out of context. If I think I can get people to fold with a bet, I will; but with I can't, the bet is worthless. Just like you said, it's not a value bet. It a bet to narrow the field. If it won't narrow the field, why make it? "


Like Dynasty said in his response, you make bets with big pairs to make money. Being the money favorite is what you want when you are in the pot. You will NEVER be a favorite to WIN the pot when it's six or seven way action. You will lose the pot the majority of the time, period. Yes, this is because the fish will inevitably suck out on you. However, the times you DO win the pot, you will make far more than you lost those times the fish sucked out on you. Value bets don't narrow the field, they get money into the pot when you are the money favorite. In loose games, they are by FAR the most important play you can make, because you really CAN'T make plays that narrow the field very often. Yesterday I played and had a small win. I got big pairs (QQ-AA)dealt to me about six times. My aces held up once, and my queens held up once. All the rest lost. If you count what I lost vs. what I won, I probably made about six times more than I lost, perhaps a bit more (I didn't keep exact track of the pot sizes and bets lost). I only won two other pots all night. Every other hand I played got sucked out on, even though I was ahead on the flop almost every time. The occasional big pot makes up for all the suckouts. That's just the way this game works when you're playing against loose players.


No one will ever convince me that NOT raising pre-flop with big pairs in multiway pots is in any way a good or profitable strategy. I mean they can flop a set, can't they? If it's seven way action, and you're on the button with pocket sixes, you can raise that for value, right? So why not with big pairs too? Plus, sometimes they will stand up on their own too! RAISE!!!


Dave in Cali


by the way, Dynasty, you clarified your point from the previous post well.


Dave in Cali

I play almost exclusively in low limits. With the odd exception of an occasional foray into the land of 10-20, I play at the $3-6 to $6-12 level. And I see all sorts of games, from the loosey goosey games The Rock is describing to some of the tightest rock piles you will ever encounter in LL. I know you have to be able to change gears, throw in the odd curveball against some of the more alert players from time to time to keep them off guard, and have multiple weapons in your arsenal to maximize your profit potential. Effective checkraising, limp re-raising, semi-bluffs and the even the odd outright bluff as appropriate. But through all this, there is one constant in my game.


I raise, re-raise, and cap it pre-flop with big pairs, especially with AA and KK. No exceptions. I don't always raise with Ace's, but I always raise with Ace's, if you know what I mean. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed on here for years. Now maybe at mid and high limit games, there can be a case made for deceptively limping, but IMO, if they are going to come along with a wide variety of junk, they are going to pay full fare for the privilege.


Sure, the bullets get cracked. If the weaker players never hit these hands, or saw others do the same, they would quit calling. But to sit there and advocate not raising with the top two or three most profitable hands in the game, just because lots of people will call your raises, is in my opinion, ludicrous. Sure, you would like to reduce the field with your raises and improve your chances of winning the pot. Yes, I understand that in doing so, you create situations where the oppostion can play correctly with weaker hands to run you down. So be it. It is part of the game.


But every session or so, I have players comment to me at the table, "Good raise, Dunc. I would have made (whatever) if you hand't raised". And to give the BB a free-roll at you is just out of the quesion for me.


As someone else pointed out, don't get married to your big pairs post-flop. Get better at laying them down when it's obvious you are beat. But please don't Fear the Reaper. I hear it every day from Norma Jean, and Henry, and Bert, and all the rest of the calling stations. "Oh, I never win with Aces, no point in raising." If they only knew.

this is what i was referring to in the general theory post where i said JJ was not that great of a hand against a field of inferior pairs and draws and overcards. against each individually you are likely to win, but their combined outs against you are overwhelming. which is why suited connectors are valuable starting hands in LL. JTs has been more profitable in LL games than AA.

"...JJ was not that great of a hand against a field of inferior pairs and draws and overcards. against each individually you are likely to win, but their combined outs against you are overwhelming. "


It makes no difference. It only matters if you are the MONEY favorite. Of course you are probably not going to win the pot most of the time when seven players see the flop. It goes for ANY hand, AA, JTs, or 23o. ALL hands have the phenomenon of "implicit collusion" working against them in a multi-way pot before the flop. It doesn't matter if it's suited connectors, pairs, or cheesy trash. However, if you were to calculate the equity that each hand has pre-flop, JJ would have the most equity against a loose field most of the time, even if it doesn't win the pot all that often. That's what really matters when deciding whether to raise with jacks. The big pot you win when they hold up will more than make up for the bets you lose when they don't. Most of the time, you will lose a few bets, then once in a while, you will win a big pot and make an overall profit. This is how you have to think in order to succeed at hold'em, especially in loose games.


Dave in Cali

Okay guys, I must have a skull four inches thick, but I respect what you and Dave have to say.


I do raise with Aces, but I am selective about it. I am also not a bit shy about dumping them on the flop. When I dump them I think I just blew X chips I can't invest in a drawing hand. I would rather invest in hands like AKs -> KTs. I now have flush, straight, and Big pair (questionable with JJ and TT imo)possibilities against an almost family pot. These options seem like better odds than looking at AA with only a few outs, but I have no math to back it up.


In my thinking, I would much rather invest in a drawing hand in a LL lag game than Aces. The returns seem to be faster and the pots are usually pretty juicy - easily comparable imo to a pot Aces can drag in, and my money is not floating in space for waiting to come back to me the way it appears to be with Aces.

I'm truely glad that I can't change player's minds. It's good that we disagree, because we learn from each other.


Part of my problem is that my bankroll can't handle it. Second is my experience. I've found a profitable way to play big pairs both in stud and hold'em. I don't consider them big hands. In stud, rolled up trips is big, but with a pair of aces, you have to knock players out. It's no different in hold'em. Both are seven card games. While top pair wins more often in hold'em, it doesn't change the general approach. With pairs, and even two pairs, you have to narrow the field.


Not trying to knock players out when you have a big pair is, in my opinion, a big mistake. This is what I am attempting to do by waiting until a more opportune time, such as after the flop, to make this play. Yes you give up some equity, but you improve you chances of winning.

Yes, you do give up equity by not raising. You play in a way as to minimize your swings. Many of us are not looking to minimize swings, but to maximize profit.


I guess that's what makes you "The Rock". I guess the "best" way to play a hand depends not only on how much you can win, but also how big of a swing you are willing to take, depending on who you are.


sam

No matter how many players you are up against, AA has such a huge overlay, that not to raise for value in a loose game is almost criminal. Even 10 handed AA is only about a 2-1 dog against the collective (my memory for the exact numbers is hazy).


AKs is worth playing for lots of bets. However, hands like KJs or KTs, which _may_ play more easily, don't actually win that often. Yes, they can make straights and flushes, but they are unlikely to do so, and you will be paying through the nose just to get there. When you win, you win a big pot, to be sure.


If you can play the drawing-type hands cheaply to the flop, that is great. On the flop you will know if you are going, and if you are, then playing fast is often correct. However, you shouldn't be wanting to raise these types of hands preflop. Consequently, you shouldn't be wanting others to raise preflop. Consequently, in a loose-aggressive game you shouldn't be wanting to play these hands very often. Consequently, usually you shouldn't be playing them.


Eric

If your bankroll can't handle the swings, you shouldn't be playing at the limits you are. Not raising big pairs for value because of bankroll considerations is probably one of the reasons you have a bankroll that can't handle the swings.


Although I don't have precise mathematical proof at this exact moment, I highly doubt that improving your chances of winning the pot after the flop makes up for the lost equity from not raising pre-flop. This is especially so because you lose some equity post-flop by not raising, because the BB gets a free chance to try and beat you, when sometimes they would have folded. Give them a free chance to beat you and sometimes they will.

First thing I want to say is I HATE aces -- I WIN more with aces but the mental pain of losing, in my mind, doesn't make up for my winnings. Dumb thinking yes -- but what I feel nonetheless.


I've read through the thread and I think there's actually one thing that hasn't been brought up. In LL games, I find most players are very poor at putting people on hands. I've found the easier I make it for my opponents to put me on hands, the easier it is for me to react, and manipulate their thinking.


A pre-flop raise with AA clearly tells the table you have something. A re-raise typically tells the table you have something big. Even in a loose game, the players do pay attention and can see who's raising for fun, and who's raising because they have cards. Depending on how you play it could mean you have AA KK QQ AKs. Doesn't matter if it gets capped in my mind -- it's what you're telling the table. I usually hope I can re-raise so I can tell everyone what I have! Why?


Sooooooooooooooo much information! I have a greater ability to judge who thinks they can beat me, who's drawing, and if I'm behind.


I USE this information -- and YES I will fold. That is the key. Fold when you are beat! But It's taken a while for me to figure out how to process all the information gleaned and I have to be confident I'm beat. But, I need that information!


What kind of information? Post flop. Someone betting in front of me is telling me they have top pair and feels that I don't have a pair. I raise to tell them I can beat top-pair on the board. If they raise they tell me they can beat top pocket pair. Do I believe? All depends on my assessment of the other players, but I have way more information by raising pre-flop, and/or raising on the flop. All with SMALL bets. I can then decide if I'm going to the Turn/River when the action gets good.


And, I'm always leery of the callers in my raising wars. Do they wake up on the turn? Again, I know they've woken up after all the raising, and this is a much stronger statement than someone just getting into the action on the turn.


I really think I NEED this information and they only way to get it is to raise/re-raise pre-flop and flop. The key for me is to "listen" to this information and fold -- say when a weak/tight player wakes up on the turn, or a weak player keeps raising me. I then make a wise decision going into the turn/river based on that information. Not only do I find I win more money, I can minimize my loses when I'm the dog.


So, my expected win is actually greater than the theoretical average.


Just my 2 cents.

"Not trying to knock players out when you have a big pair is, in my opinion, a big mistake."

How many times to you have to be burnt with Aces to learn your lesson? How many losing sessions because you were drawn out on the end? I find that I win when I don't overplay big pairs in loose games. I lose when I don't. It's just that simple.

"AKs is worth playing for lots of bets. However, hands like KJs or KTs, which _may_ play more easily, don't actually win that often. Yes, they can make straights and flushes, but they are unlikely to do so, and you will be paying through the nose just to get there. When you win, you win a big pot, to be sure."


Isn't this similar to what was said about Aces? I don't want to be drawing with Aces. There are too few outs.

You don't need outs. You have the best hand.

I'm not sure which post you were quoting from, but I think I made it clear that regardless of any post-flop considerations, I felt that raising pre-flop was imperative and mandatory. Knocking people out starts with not giving the BB a free chance to suck out.

And my point is that raising pre-flop to knock players out doesn't work in these loose wild games. So I'm suggesting a different approach.

No you don't. Once that many people are willing to see you to the river, you will need to hit trips or better to win.

Reading this long thread, I noticed that everyone seems to have their view of what wins and what does not. I know that when I play, that eventually, the better plays will win the most money, low limit Hold'em seems tougher to beat than what you read about in the books, because there are so many players in each hand. Playing correctly and knowing when to release your losing hand when you are beat or have little chance of drawing out is huge. It may seem like you never win with aces because against 5-9 opponents its hard, but that raise may take you from winning 15-30% to 35-50% thats huge. is also right about putting players on hands too. When I play and I know I'm beat, I often will look at my cards one last time thinking 'only if' before I muck them, every now and then one of my neighbors gets a glimpse of this, and often they marvel at how I can throw away such a good hand, but my hand never reached its potential, someone elses did, I don't care what he had or paying him off to see it. I will save my chips for a conflict later when I have the best of it.

I still believe that the lost equity by not raising with aces, combined with the times the BB sucks out on you when your raise would have made him fold, is worth far more than any additional chance of knocking people out post-flop that might be gained by not raising pre-flop. I can't prove it mathematically, but I think it should be fairly clear in most situations where you have a multi-way pot delimma. If you could raise any pair for value because of a multi-way pot, you should certainly do the same with big pairs. Plus, if the game is that loose anyway, you might not really stand that much of a chance to knock them out post flop anyway, unless they flop nothing, so you might as well get the money into the pot while you still have the nuts.

This is such a loooonnnnnnngggggg but interesting thread. I will raise with AA 99.9% of the time. The only exception is in a tournament where,if I'm very short stack, I may limp to get more players in the pot.


Just like what I said, I will raise with AA 99.9% of the time. After the flop, as Kenny Rodgers sang: " Know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em. Know when to run".

Ironwood is right on, get your $$$ in when you are the favorite and protect it when you know your beat. In low limit, you just can't bluff the best hand to fold. That's what I think will be the hardest transition from 3-6 6-12 to games like 10-20 and up.

Since engaging in this topic, I've been dying to get AA in a loose/wild game and got it yesterday. I posted the hand above. It's titled 'AA hand dedicated to Rich "The Rock" P.'


A few people are continuing with the issue of raising pre-flop with AA.