Everyone makes -EV plays to reduce volatility...

[m2smith2]

I previously posed this as a question in a post about information ratio. Many people admitted they managed volatility, which of course is theoretically incorrect.

However, don’t you do just that when you raise with AA? I’ve read one or two people who have said you raise with AA to get more money into the pot, not to shut people out. But, I don’t know anyone who actually does NOT want to force some people out with that raise.

That being the case, aren’t you managing vol by raising to shut people out, especially if you’re three-betting? The fact is that you’re ahead at the start and therefore have higher theoretical EV the more people you have in the pot, right?

I’ve tested slow-playing AA under specific circumstances and got (as expected) a higher EV with a lower win rate. I think in practice you could implement this, but the problem is very few people would want to do what is required to make it successful (namely throw the hand away with the board is scary in a multi-way pot).

While you’re ahead at the start, there are a hell of a lot of flops that will put you behind to a draw in a multi-way pot.

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve tested slow-playing AA under specific circumstances and got (as expected) a higher EV with a lower win rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was your test?

[m2smith2]

20/40 tough game, with a TAP holding aces UTG+1. Note, he plays the same post-flop as any TAP - the only different was calling vs. raising from that position (also, no re-raise if it was raised back).

I ran 1 million sims for four different card codes, and compared the results w/i each card code.

Playing aces normally won on average 87.5% of the pots, with an overall EV of $130.82.

Flat calling pre-flop won an average of 80% of the pots but had an EV of $137.18.

If you take the differences within each card code (to keep it apples-to-apples), slow playing had a win rate 7.5% lower than normal play, but had an EV $6.35 higher.

I can send the parameter files to anyone interested.

[balkii]

But, I don’t know anyone who actually does NOT want to force some people out with that raise.

You do now.

[m2smith2]

How do you play it multi-way post flop? Will you let it go? And if so, what kind of flops and position combos will cause you to throw it away?

I still think most people are happy to play this hand in a narrow field. Or any big pair for that matter.

[dogmeat]

You are correct in the assumtion that we are happy to narrow the field, but for myself, if they call a raise/trip/cap - that is fine too. Although I will lose more often with a larger field, the pay-off when you win is more substantial.

As for your testing, I believe it was Ali (help here - old 2+2'ers - who used to post until some unhappiness arose) who did a large sample using a "never raise first" idea of limping. He ran simulations on many hands and developed his own method of play for each starting hand. If I remember correctly his limp (yes, even with AA) study showed a decrease of only about 6% in earnings while reducing the volatility considerably.

Maybe you can find the info here from "limping" or some other search.

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[Monty Cantsin]

Let's see if we can separate out the various claims you're making here.

1. Not raising AA pre-flop is more +EV than raising it.

I'm not sure how to handle this one. It's not an argument I particularly want to see played out at great length. Is there a way to nip it in the bud? How about this:

Think of the 2+2 forums as a kind of experiment in distributed intelligence.

They might not bathe regularly, or understand the basic principles of social interaction, but I think you'll agree that the 2+2 userbase is, overall, a pretty smart bunch of cats. They're obsessed with poker, and they spend all their time playing it and thinking about it and talking about it.

Collectively, they have gathered millions and millions of hands of experience. In collaborative and competitive discourse they have subjected this data to elaborate scrutiny and analysis. Compared to your little sim, this is like a parallel processing network of cosmological proportions.

Out of this process emerges a lot of conjecture, many theories, a bunch of heuristics, and a small but certain canon containing a handful of sacred truths.

So, forgive me for this appeal to the authority of the 2+2 overmind, but I think that you just have to accept the following as fact:

Under normal circumstances, raising AA pre-flop is more +EV than not raising it.

I forget what your second point was, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong too.

/mc

[ZeeJustin]

Raising AA preflop generally is higher EV than limping with it.

[Rudbaeck]

I'm not sure that your appeal to the overmind is correct in this case. Looking for +EV on raising pocket rockets pf from databases containing basically _only_ examples of raising pocket rockets pf will lead to confirmation bias.

I think it is better to raise than to limp with rockets, but it's not an opinion based on empirical facts.

Anyone up for writing a book based on a few million hands played by 2+2'ers?

[Michael Davis]

"But, I don’t know anyone who actually does NOT want to force some people out with that raise."

Make that one. I don't really care either way.

-Michael