Raising ATs from the BB after eight (8) limpers, good idea?

[FatLoser]

Raising ATs from the BB after eight (8) limpers, good idea?

[astroglide]

yes

[Diplomat]

Easy raise. You should be raising many hands here that like family pots, along with of course AA, KK, and sometimes QQ.

-Diplomat

[astroglide]

sometimes?

[LetsRock]

Is this really an auto raise?

ATs is not that strong of a hand. With that many limpers, you have to figure to have 2 aces out against you, so finding an ace on the board seems to be a slim prop. So it seems like you'd be playing this hand strictly hoping to hit the flush, maybe a broadway.

Why would you double your cost to see the flop?

By pumping the pot pre-flop, you're practically gauranteeing to give proper odds to anyone on any kind of draw for the rest of the hand. It's kind of hard to force your opponents to make a mistake when you set up the odds for them.

(I'm not saying never, but always?)

[astroglide]

ATs is not that strong of a hand

yes it is

With that many limpers, you have to figure to have 2 aces out against you

no you don't

Why would you double your cost to see the flop?

because against 8 other hands you will win more than your fair share

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
By pumping the pot pre-flop, you're practically gauranteeing to give proper odds to anyone on any kind of draw for the rest of the hand. It's kind of hard to force your opponents to make a mistake when you set up the odds for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly when you flop a monster they are basically stuck in the pot drawing dead or nearly dead because the pot is so big.

[LondonBroil]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy raise. You should be raising many hands here that like family pots, along with of course AA, KK, and sometimes QQ.

-Diplomat

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain why I should only sometimes raise with QQ here?

[Diplomat]

Err, the other way around -- occationally I check, but not that often.

-Diplomat

[astroglide]

i would never check qq there

[FatLoser]

Since this situation rarely comes up I didnt have a default play for it, but I had a feeling raising was correct so thats what I did. Unfortunately I didnt hit anything and a pair of unimproved pocket sevens won the ~$400 pot.

I guess I should study game theory so I wont have doubts about these situations.

[Spyder]

Rock, the way I see it is that with 8 limpers and you're holding ATs...you're shooting for the nut flush and a value raise that almost guarantees 8 more small bets in the pot is a good bet.

I could be wrong....

Spyder

[Ed Miller]

I guess I should study game theory so I wont have doubts about these situations.

This has nothing to do with game theory. But yes, you raise with ATs.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
With that many limpers, you have to figure to have 2 aces out against you, so finding an ace on the board seems to be a slim prop

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of your thinking really is paranoid and scared poker. In another thread, you said you wouldn't like to flop two-pair with a small suited connector (65s?) because you were concrened that somebody else could end up flopping a set with the third flop card. And, of course, you were worried about somebody making a bigger flush than yours.

You need to overcome this irrational fear of either drawing extremely slim or being up against monster hands. It will definitely prevent your game from advancing.

[Girazze]

Holy Moly, Dynasty!! I want to thank you for pointing out and obvious flaw, in my own opinion, to MY game. When I read Rock's reply, it was exactly what I was thinking and would have posted something similar. After reading your reply, it is just the way I have been playing since starting to play 2 months ago. Maybe that is why I started with $250 and I now have $254 in my account. I can't seem to gain ground, although I'm not losing ground, which is a good thing. I will post my suggestion as a new post rather than hijack this thread. Thanks!!

[Tosh]

I would raise many more hands here, ATs is an easy raise.

[nykenny]

yes

[Jive Dadson]

[ QUOTE ]
Since this situation rarely comes up I didnt have a default play for it, but I had a feeling raising was correct so thats what I did. Unfortunately I didnt hit anything and a pair of unimproved pocket sevens won the ~$400 pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty common result when a lot of people limp in. You also see things like a player taking it down with a pair of 7's after limping in with A7 suited. A lot of players are drawing for the same cards -- and many of those cards ain't in the deck any more. I don't like raising at all. AT is not a strong hand, particularly given the situation, and you re-open the betting for an early player to limp/raise.

[Jive Dadson]

Did anyone else read the recent Card Player magazine article about playing high cards behind multiple limpers? Even the venerable big slick is a money loser behind only 5 limpers. A computer simulation showed that there are but 13 hands that win more than their "fair share" if the hand is played out hot and cold; They are precisely the 13 pocket pairs. With 18 or more small bets in the pot, anyone with any reasonable chance at all WILL stay in to the end.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

This is an easy raise. I'd raise hands a lot less than ATs. You're getting proper odds to raise for your nut flush value plus the fact your hand will be a lot better than others in the first place. I was suprised to see so many people not wanting to raise, and not even wanting to raise QQ. I'd even raise a hand like pocket 5's in this spot.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Did anyone else read the recent Card Player magazine article about playing high cards behind multiple limpers? Even the venerable big slick is a money loser behind only 5 limpers. A computer simulation showed that there are but 13 hands that win more than their "fair share" if the hand is played out hot and cold; They are precisely the 13 pocket pairs. With 18 or more small bets in the pot, anyone with any reasonable chance at all WILL stay in to the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the article. But, I already don't trust the source.

Here's a computer simulation that shows AK is the 11th best hand you can have in a 10-handed pot in which everybody goes to the river. That's ahead of all pairs TT and lower.

http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm

[astroglide]

what hands were the multiple limpers given? i'd call bs on it. http://www.twodimes.net/poker/mini/?g=h&b=&d=&z=500000&h=Ac+Kd%0D%0A8s+8c%0D%0AJd+9d% 0D%0AAs+9h%0D%0AQc+Td%0D%0A6s+5d is an example i gave and i literally pulled all of the hands off of the top of my head.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the venerable big slick is a money loser behind only 5 limpers

[/ QUOTE ]

This has got to be one of the biggest pieces of misinformation I've read on here in a while. I can't believe Cardplayer would publish an article that said this.
-James

[MicroBob]

"Even the venerable big slick is a money loser behind only 5 limpers

This has got to be one of the biggest pieces of misinformation I've read on here in a while. I can't believe Cardplayer would publish an article that said this."


i LOOOOOOOVE card-player.

i think everyone here should share this article with every player you play against.

1st - what exactly is so venerable about card-player.
2nd - i have no trouble at all believing that one of their 'esteemed' writers would come up with something like this. some of the stuff is good...but some other articles are just ridiculous.
3rd - when did sklansky stop writing for cardplayer and why?? i'm guessing it was to tend to 2+2 publishing duties.

[blackaces13]

Dude you need to read that article again. Its completely bogus, its not even possible. I think you must have missed something. Maybe they selected 5 reasonable hands that specifically gave AK a -EV or something. 5 close to random hands never would put AK at a disadvantage.

How can only 13 hands be profitable against 5 limpers? If we assume that the limpers are loose players, as 5 of them would suggest, then it would mean that a little bit less than 1/6th of the 169 starting hands would be profitable, and actually more since you have position although your "hot or cold" thing makes position irrelevant.

169/6= 28.16. So lets say that 25 hands win more than their fair share because we'll give the limpers a little credit for being somewhat selective. 13 hands not including AK is crazy talk.

[Nottom]

Do you have a link to this article or know who the author was?

[blackaces13]

Here it is link (http://www.cardplayer.com/?sec=afeature&art_id=13843)

It was written by Daniel Kimberg and it is called "Showdown percentages against 5 legitimate callers" or something to that effect.

As Nick Burns your companies computer guy would say...YOU"RE WELCOME.

[Jive Dadson]

I couldn't help but notice that the hands you pulled out of, er, off the top of your head contain only one ace and exactly no kings.

Now I beg you, don't shoot the messengers. I'm only reporting what I read in Card Player, and the guy in Card Player is only reporting what the computer program did. You can download the computer program and try it yourself. (You'll need a C compiler.)

Jive

[James282]

That article is very misleading. His simulations are basically pointless. He suggests that against "legitimate limpers" AKs has 6.5% pot equity? You'd rather have 66 than AA in a big pot? Give me a break. I would discourage any poker player from reading another word from a guy who would write such a misleading article.
-James

[jasonHoldEm]

THe article is interesting from a mathematical/theoretical standpoint, but I think it's fairly unrealstic when applied to a real world situation...what I mean is that it's highly unlikely a situation like the one artificially created by the program would occur. Consider the odds of having that many calling hands out vs. having a few legitamate calling hands as well as some clueless players limping in with trash just because everyone else is limping.

I hope that makes sense...my point isn't that the article is wrong, it's that it's so unrealistic to occur in the real world there is no reason to adjust your play as he describes.

jHE

[James282]

Hey Jive, I suggest you think critically about the people you invoke before spouting off their opinions as fact.
-James

[blackaces13]

Well, he goes on the clarify a lot of what the results really mean in the next article he wrote when you can read by clicking on his name.

[Jive Dadson]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Jive, I suggest you think critically about the people you invoke before spouting off their opinions as fact.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

James, thank you very much for the suggestion. I agree completely. That's why I was very careful not to say I agreed with or disagreed with the article. Posting hastily just makes a person look like a blithering fool. Don't you think?

J.

[astroglide]

simulations in turbo texas holdem yield positive ev as well. that article is crap.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the venerable big slick is a money loser behind only 5 limpers

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds to me like a declarative statement with explicit agreement.

If I said, "Did anybody read the World Weekly News? The world is flat," as part of an argument, it would seem as though I agreed with them right? Your saying that "big slick," AKo or AKs, was a loser against 5 limpers showed that A) you didn't understand what the article was saying(there is a BIG difference between 5 "limpers" and 5 limpers with playable hands or B) that you think that this article is a good resource to cite when stating reasons not to raise with AKo behind 5 limpers. If I was entering myself into a discussion, I certainly wouldn't cite somebody whom I blatantly didn't agree with. You pointed the forum in the direction of a dangerously misleading article(as evidenced by the fact that you yourself were misled by it, and you seem to have at least a basic poker knowledge). I was simply trying to point out to newer lurkers/posters that the article that you cited and the information you gave was at best totally useless and at worse very damaging.
-James

[MicroBob]

he tries to make it more 'realistic' by giving the opponents 'playable' hands...and then he posts the results of an 8-way showdown....which, of course, virtually never happens.

i suspect that the list of 'playable' hands included a lot of A's and K's (as well as Q, J, T),for the opponents
i would be curious to see how often his AK hit a pair on the flop.


how about this 5 way scenario??
AK, AJ, KQ, A7s, 66

sure looks like the 66 is in pretty good shape vs. the AK since 3 of the A's and 2 of the K's are already out.

so 66 will win its fair share of pots..but if it doesn't match up it will either be taking in very small pots or won't be around to see it happen by the river.


how about this one??
AK, 44, 66, 88, TT

even when the AK matches on the flop it is very likely that one of the pocket-pair will hit trips.


and my favorite:
AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, TT


with the exception of flushes, the TT wins every single time as all the other hands are drawing dead.


of course, the AK raiser has the ability to push a couple people out of the pot whereas a 66 is either staying or leaving after the flop and is unlikely to still be around to catch on the river as we all know.


to suggest that his little experiment is justification to vary one's play in the least is very wrong.

[jasonHoldEm]

Ran these through two dimes just for fun...interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
how about this 5 way scenario??
AK, AJ, KQ, A7s, 66


[/ QUOTE ]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=279254
pokenum -h ah kd - as jh - kc qd - ac 7c - 6c 6s
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kd Ah 154692 18.18 684155 80.43 11821 1.39 0.187
As Jh 124822 14.67 718626 84.48 7220 0.85 0.149
Kc Qd 164396 19.33 680065 79.94 6207 0.73 0.196
Ac 7c 131291 15.43 712157 83.72 7220 0.85 0.157
6s 6c 263646 30.99 585416 68.82 1606 0.19 0.310
</pre><hr />

[ QUOTE ]
how about this one??
AK, 44, 66, 88, TT

[/ QUOTE ]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=279255
pokenum -h ah kd - 4h 4d - 6s 6c - 8d 8c - th tc
Holdem Hi: 850668 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kd Ah 194518 22.87 654783 76.97 1367 0.16 0.229
4d 4h 102508 12.05 746793 87.79 1367 0.16 0.121
6s 6c 134069 15.76 715232 84.08 1367 0.16 0.158
8c 8d 141820 16.67 707481 83.17 1367 0.16 0.167
Tc Th 276386 32.49 572915 67.35 1367 0.16 0.325
</pre><hr />

[ QUOTE ]
and my favorite:
AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, TT

[/ QUOTE ]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=279259
pokenum -h ah kd - as qd - ad js - ac td - kc qs - kh jc - ks tc - qh jd - th ts
Holdem Hi: 278256 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Kd Ah 3214 1.16 267062 95.98 7980 2.87 0.017
As Qd 34795 12.50 234553 84.29 8908 3.20 0.132
Js Ad 33556 12.06 235824 84.75 8876 3.19 0.127
Ac Td 3273 1.18 259956 93.42 15027 5.40 0.026
Qs Kc 0 0.00 274436 98.63 3820 1.37 0.002
Jc Kh 0 0.00 274468 98.64 3788 1.36 0.002
Ks Tc 1668 0.60 266649 95.83 9939 3.57 0.016
Jd Qh 3178 1.14 270362 97.16 4716 1.69 0.015
Ts Th 181721 65.31 86596 31.12 9939 3.57 0.663

</pre><hr />

EDIT: Messed up the last one, I think it's correct now (KQ, KJ are drawing dead preflop).

[Ed Miller]

Did anyone else read the recent Card Player magazine article about playing high cards behind multiple limpers? Even the venerable big slick is a money loser behind only 5 limpers.

Dude, you need to reread that article. Last time I read it was months ago when it came out, but IIRC (and I do RC), Kimberg assumed that everyone played TIGHTLY. He assumed that everyone played only those hands permitted by Lou Krieger's starting hands table, I believe.

To take those results and extrapolate them to a microlimit game where people play absurdly loosely is COMPLETELY wrong.

Kimberg is interested in peculiar mathematical curiousities. His articles aren't designed to suggest play in actual games.

And guys, in general... please do yourself a favor and READ EVERYTHING CAREFULLY. Read ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS before you read the conclusion. Then think critically about WHETHER THE ASSUMPTIONS APPLY to conditions that you experience. You guys make this mistake again and again, misapplying advice from all sorts of sources, including HPFAP. You just hurt yourself when you are sloppy.

[Ed Miller]

That's a pretty common result when a lot of people limp in. You also see things like a player taking it down with a pair of 7's after limping in with A7 suited.

You guys need to remember this the next time you get pocket eights. You DON'T always have to flop a set to win.

[Joe Tall]

ATs is an easy raise, in fact, I raise with less than ATs.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Spyder]

Ed,

The way I play middle or smaller pocket pairs is I look for the trips on the flop, and if I don't get them then I look at the overcards on the board.

If there are two or more cards A through T, I'm ready to fold if anyone bets.

If there's single over card and it's an A or a K, I'm ready to fold if anyone bets EXCEPT the very last player. If the very last player is the only one to bet, I'll call a small bet to see the turn.

If there is a single over card to my pair on the board and it's Q or lower, I'll pay a small bet for the turn.

If the flop is all lower than a Ten, I'm probably staying to the showdown.

I'm not saying it's right, but, it's the way I play it...I'd like to hear your comments on this if you have a minute /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Spyder

[LetsRock]

FWIW, this is similar to my small PP strategy as well.

If there's 2 overcards (even if they're not A-T), I feel that there's a higher likelyhood that someone randomly caught a higher pair than mine and I'm very likely to fold to a bet, with a little less weight given to the real estate bet. If there's only one over card, I'm more likley to call a bet to see the turn.

Obvioulsy, As or Ks on the board are more likely to cause me to fold.