Limping with AA

[Spyder]

So far, it has been my experience that your chances of winning with this hand drop by about 10% with every person staying to see the flop. When and why would you ever limp with AA?

Newbs want to know.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Spyder

[megabit]

You limp when you get greedy and want to have more money in the pot. Certainly increases your risk, but the possible rewards go up too.

[Webster]

You limp when you a limper and want to lose the hand because some bozo does not fold with his bad cards and catchs a break.

Then you kick yourself for not raising and play real poker again!

The rerason you raise is that you have the BEST hand and would rather have ONE person then many playing against you.

There are better hands to win MORE money but AA will win you more often then any other hand.

You want the least amount of people playing you! Don't worry about the size of the pot - you want to win it and win it RIGHT NOW! The longer the hand takes the more chance you have of losing.

[Nottom]

If the table is agressive and you can anticipate a raise behind you you can limp with the intention of reraising. Additionaly, if the table is somewhat tight you don't really have to worry as much about people limping in with K3s or whatever nonsense people will limp with in a loose game and shouldn't be caught off guard as often by some oddball two-pair. Now this isn't a good reason for limping, but does allow you to better know where you stand post flop if you wiff on your limp-reraise.

This makes limp re-raising a useful tool in a tough game where people will respect an UTG raise and you will often just pick up the blinds but there are players who will raise an EP limper becasue they sence weakness. Of course the best course of action in this sort of game at the low/mid-limits is to try and find another one.

[bigpooch]

In NL, it makes sense to sometimes limp with AA because of
all the other hands you should be limping in with. In LHE,
if you sometimes limp in with other hands in early position,
you should also limp in with AA often (but you should also
occasionally raise with it!) in early position.

[SoBeDude]

Hi Webster,

No offense, but this is really, really, really wrong.

You raise AA not to get people to fold, but because you're getting the best of every dollar they put in the pot against your aces.

Please realize you make MORE money with every caller, not less. Yes, you will win the hand less often with more callers, but you'll win MORE money.

Look at this chart:

# of opponents
......1......2......3......4......5......6......7. .....8......9
AA 85.3 73.4 63.9 55.9 49.2 43.6 38.8 34.7 31.1

The number is the % of time you'll win with AA against the number of opponents, if all go to showdown. So against 1 opponent, AA wins 85.3% of the time. against 9 opponents it wins 31.1%.

Now look what happens to money won when more people play against your AA. Lets say the preflop bet is $10. now with 1 opponent, you're making 85.3% of your opponents $10 call, or $8.53. (you'll win the $10, 85.3% of the time)

Now against 9 opponents each putting in $10, you're winning only 31.1% of $90. Thats $27.99 average every time you have AA.

So given the choice, I'll take the bigger stack of money.

-Scott

[Webster]

You are correct on the reason to raise. Although - you STILL should raise and not limp.

No offense taken - it's always good to learn and I'm certainly not above learning.

[Jedi Flopper]

In NL Holdem I will limp with AA if UTG with the intention of reraising all in if the pot is raised. In limit, I would almost never limp with AA.

[MrDannimal]

Just as an example, I was playing 1/2 at UB last night, and there was this guy raising PF about 80% of the time. Another player commented that he was fuming, and the guy said "Not fuming, just raising every hand."

He was 3-4 seats to my left (don't remember exactly, doesn't matter).

If I were acting before him with AA, I'd limp. I know he's a virtual lock to raise, and the table knows he's rasing with anything (and he was, and showing it down), so they're more apt to call 2. I 3-bet, and love it.

But it takes cases like that for me to even consider limping with AA. At these limits, there's just no reason to unless you've almost certain to get in a 3 bet.

[Spyder]

There's an error in your message. You forgot to subtact the losses.

Here is your table with another row added. The nex-to-last row is how much you won or lost, after 100 10/20 hands if all participating go to showdown with no raising. The last row is how much you won or lost if you raised and then all participating called to the end.

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
# of opponents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AA 85.3 73.4 63.9 55.9 49.2 43.6 38.8 34.7 31.1

4236 5616 5004 2832 -480 -4606 -9408 -14688 -20412
4942 6552 5838 3304 -560 -5376 -10976 -17136 -23814

</pre><hr />

I'm not saying your theory is wrong, just that your math isn't holding up.

The raise makes you money ONLY if you can get 5 or more people out of the pot. If the game is very loose and noone ever folds pre-flop, then, you should not raise (I would think).

Spyder

[davidross]

AA and KK are the only 2 hands that are worth more than the blinds. So winning just the blinds with either of these hands is actually a loss for you. If you think the chances are high that a raise will win you just the blinds but limping will bring a raise behind you(allowing you to 3 bet) or at least some action, then it's a good play.

I used to limp a lot with AA and KK as part of an overall strategy that saw me limp with a lot of hands. However I am raising preflop more now and I have stopped limp-re-raising with them as part ogf an overall strategy.

[CrackerZack]

You're both wrong.

I'm lazy and don't feel like explaining why but I will briefly.

David, there was a post just recently in the SS about this. someone went off to pokerroom's ridiculous amount of stats and found about 8 hands that are worth more than the blinds. AKo,AKs, AQs, QQ, maybe a couple of others.

Spyder, I didn't read the math, but won't vouch for it on face value, but this:
[ QUOTE ]
If the game is very loose and noone ever folds pre-flop, then, you should not raise (I would think).

[/ QUOTE ]
is flat out wrong.

If no one folds and you still win 30% of the time, you're getting 3/10ths of every bet put in PF. if 9 people are doing this, you get 3 bets for every bet you put in. Its hard to find a better deal around.

[Spyder]

Zack, the math doesn't prove you out...if all participating stay to the showdown (which was the caveat of the table first presented). Now, we all know that is a very rare case. But, the idea that you win 30% of the time GAINS you money in cases such as these isn't supported by the math.

The reason I raise with AA is to get people out as fast as I can. If I have a case where I KNOW someone will bet in front of me, I certainly would consider limping so I could 3-bet, but, again, I'm just trying to get people out of the pot. The more that stay, the more often you lose with AA.

Also, from an early position, when you 3-bet, you pretty much give your hand away. Could be good, could be bad.

I'm a newb and I'm a listen'...set me straight /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Spyder

[CrackerZack]

If 9 people go to showdown with you, you're hand will be the winner 30% of the time. So assuming you put in 1 BB every street, you'll lose 4 BBs 7x for a total of -28 BBs, and win 36 BBs 3x for a total of +108 BBs for a whopping total of +80BBs. This is a dream come true. You're gonna avg winning 8BBs per hand this happens. Given in real life it'll never happen, but doesn't change the math. You should be raising with AA for value PF. If lots of people join the party, be mentally prepared that your chance of winning this hand may drop below 50%, but your EV on the hand is going up. It always sucks to lose with AA but the more people involved the more theoretical money you're making and being good players fighting luck, you have to always make the most theoretical money and wait for lucky to even out to the theoretical level.

Edit, on the other hand for a total of 6 going to showdown you win about 50% of the time, by the same bet logic as above. You lose 4BBs 5x for a total of -20BBs and win 20BBs 5x for a total of 100BBs for a total of 80BBs or 8BBs per hand.

Edit: fixed the math not to count your own money.

[Spyder]

Ahh....I understand now, and, I see the mistake in my math. When subtracting the losses, I sutracted the TOTAL losses, ie, the whole pot, instead of the individual losses /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'll fix the table to demonstrate your point. You are exactly right. I'll post a new table in a few mins.

I'm a newb and just proved it /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Spyder

[Spyder]

Here is the new table bearing out Zack's and others' arguments:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
# of opponents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AA 85.3 73.4 63.9 55.9 49.2 43.6 38.8 34.7 31.1
4236 7212 9336 10770 11712 12312 12624 12738 12660
4942 8414 10892 12565 13664 14364 14728 14861 14770

</pre><hr />

There you have it...

Spyder

[JPNet]

If there are no raises, and you bet/call to the river, you would put in 10,10,20,20=60*100 hands = 6000, so you can't possibly lose 20,000 no matter how many players are in the pot. With your 9 handed example and rounding off to 30% win rate, you would lose 70% of the 6000 or 4200. However, the other 8 people would also put in 60 each, 100 times so 60*8*100=48000. You would win 30% of the 48000 and lose 4200 for a total win of 10400, not a loss.

[Spyder]

Yeah, Zack pointed out my error and I corrected the table in a sub-thread above. Thanks for pointing it out, though /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Spyder

[JPNet]

Yup, sorry, I posted slowly, in between the 2 posts.

[BugsBunny]

I don't know about your math, but heres the way mine works. To keep it simple let's just look at 9 players (worst case scenario according to you).

$10 bet (no raise).
100 hands = total investment of 10*100 = 1000
You win 31.1% of the hands. Just to keep it "real" we'll say you win 31 of the 100 hands and lose 69. So:

31 times you win and collect the 100 pot for a total of 31*100 = 3100. The other 69 times you lose and collect nothing. But you have to subtract your initial investment (1000 total) from what you collected. So your net *profit* (not loss) = 3100-1000=2100 or $21/hand.

Your full (corrected) chart would now look like this. (This is for 100 hands. 1st line is a flat call of a $10 bet. Second line assumes a raise to $20 with all calling)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> # of opponents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AA 85.3 73.4 63.9 55.9 49.2 43.6 38.8 34.7 31.1

706 1202 1556 1795 1952 2052 2104 2123 2110
1412 2404 3112 3590 3904 4104 4208 4246 4220
</pre><hr />

Note that there *is* a small dropoff between 8 and 9 opponents, but not very much. But raising will make more than calling every time, and if you get some of the opponents to drop you're usually better off. One interesting exception - if you were 4 handed (or more) to start (3 opponents or more) and your raise makes it HU you would have been better off flat calling in terms of total profit - even though you would be getting cracked much more often. But if the raise leaves you with 2 or more opponents you make more money by raising.

Of course none of this takes postflop play into consideration, so is artificial in that sense, but still interesting.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about your math, but heres the way mine works. To keep it simple let's just look at 9 players (worst case scenario according to you).

$10 bet (no raise).
100 hands = total investment of 10*100 = 1000
You win 31.1% of the hands. Just to keep it "real" we'll say you win 31 of the 100 hands and lose 69. So:

31 times you win and collect the 100 pot for a total of 31*100 = 3100. The other 69 times you lose and collect nothing. But you have to subtract your initial investment (1000 total) from what you collected. So your net *profit* (not loss) = 3100-1000=2100 or $21/hand.

Your full (corrected) chart would now look like this. (This is for 100 hands. 1st line is a flat call of a $10 bet. Second line assumes a raise to $20 with all calling)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> # of opponents
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AA 85.3 73.4 63.9 55.9 49.2 43.6 38.8 34.7 31.1

706 1202 1556 1795 1952 2052 2104 2123 2110
1412 2404 3112 3590 3904 4104 4208 4246 4220
</pre><hr />

Note that there *is* a small dropoff between 8 and 9 opponents, but not very much. But raising will make more than calling every time, and if you get some of the opponents to drop you're usually better off. One interesting exception - if you were 4 handed (or more) to start (3 opponents or more) and your raise makes it HU you would have been better off flat calling in terms of total profit - even though you would be getting cracked much more often. But if the raise leaves you with 2 or more opponents you make more money by raising.

Of course none of this takes postflop play into consideration, so is artificial in that sense, but still interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that added postflop action is the entire reason for limping with aces. If you discount the fact that you'll always have at least top pair and will be betting in the lead a majority of the time, your results aren't going to be accurate. It is true that if you limp preflop, and then from that point on, you treat everyone as basically all-in, yes raising almost always makes more sense, but that isn't accurate.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I raise with AA is to get people out as fast as I can. If I have a case where I KNOW someone will bet in front of me, I certainly would consider limping so I could 3-bet, but, again, I'm just trying to get people out of the pot. The more that stay, the more often you lose with AA.

Also, from an early position, when you 3-bet, you pretty much give your hand away. Could be good, could be bad.

I'm a newb and I'm a listen'...set me straight /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Spyder


[/ QUOTE ]

You actually wanted added customers with aces, pocket pairs invite them, big offsuit cards do not (AKo is the hand you absolutely MUST raise with preflop to limit the field). Here's a good link (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/mummert/poker/) that goes into this among other topics.