Overlimping AA for deception?

[Klepton]

just the idea of seeing stoxtrader overlimp after the obvious fish at the table limped would cause every alarm in my head to go off

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a good idea? Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the only time it is correct to overlimp with aces is when you are pretty sure it will be raised behind you, and then you can 3 bet. Sure you may let in some pocket pairs and suited connectors and other hands in this process which means you will lose more often, but deploying this strategy should win more money in the long run and thats all that matters. If the above conditions were not meant I would never overlimp with Aces, the deception is too costly in my opinion.

[gonores]

This is your best and most thought-provoking post ever.

[johnnycakes]

[ QUOTE ]
This is your best and most thought-provoking post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, do you have any provoked thoughts to share on the matter concerning the actualy query?
Or were you being sarcastic?

edit: OK, it's gotta be sarcasm. If anyone other than Stox had made the original post, there'd be no confusion.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a good idea? Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are looking for deception I would prefer adding a few more raising hands in stead. And I agree with Klepton: You overlimping would make me very suspicious.

[Kevin J]

With AA I tend to make whatever play will yield the biggest pot. If overlimping is it, fine, but I think that's very rare.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it a good idea? Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ].

you have to weight the benefits w/ the costs. just a statement of the obvious.

Benefits:

- your hand is unknown. at high limits it will certainly throw your opponents off a GREAT deal and may greatly affect their play against you in the future.

- if flop comes T High w/ a flush draw and QTs or the like is out there you stand to win a nice pot and have him putting in much more money than he would had you raised and gave him the idea you have a big pair before the flop comes out.

- people will be less likely to raise if you overlimp b/c the play will stick in their head.

NOTE that two of these make overlimping in low limits very bad.

COSTS:

- since you didn't "define" your hand pf, you stand to be in some unfamiliar situations vs. the blinds and/or other limpers on otherwise seemingly innocuous flops.

- you lost ALL the pf equity gained from that additional bet should nobody raise behind you (x% of the time). this is an immediately, directly measurable and observable hit to your EV

- you give drawing hands vs. you the exact implied odds they need to be played profitably. this becomes more and more costly the higher the limit where agressive play could easily cost you more than it would otherwise if a limper hits a hand you couldn't easily read.

so that is the basic outline.

i think overall its a bad idea (0verall= on average). however, it MAY be correct vs. people who play well, who you play with all the time, who constantly raise overlimpers, who overplay their hands in limped pots etc...

interesting thought stox, but i think its still a raise.

Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
just the idea of seeing stoxtrader overlimp after the obvious fish at the table limped would cause every alarm in my head to go off

[/ QUOTE ]

where in the OP do you see that?

Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is your best and most thought-provoking post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, do you have any provoked thoughts to share on the matter concerning the actualy query?
Or were you being sarcastic?

edit: OK, it's gotta be sarcasm. If anyone other than Stox had made the original post, there'd be no confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

anybody else doesn't play against a strong overall player pool in high limit games.

Barron

Bottom line, you can play it either way, and your choice should be largely dependent upon game conditions. However, that being said, you're never wrong to raise re-raise and cap PF with AA.

But deception has value too.


I think there's a time and a place for both plays.