AA, KK, QQ: PF Raise For Value or to Narrow Field?

[TomBrooks]

In Texas Hold'Em, and particularly at micro limits where I play as a newbie, mostly on Party, when raising AA, KK, and QQ pre-flop; is the raise strictly for value, or also to help limit the field?

While I try to avoid tight tables, I have occasionally found myself in situations where a raise makes almost everyone fold. It crossed my mind I might want to not raise AA, KK, or QQ occasionally if I think this is going to happen on some tight tables. What do you think?

TomBk

Also, do you think my first sentence above is run on?

[Rudbaeck]

It's for value, and you should raise even on tight tables. Limping with the intention of reraising is ok, if someone madly aggressive happens to be in late position. At higher limits where opponents actually come equipped with brains a very occasional limp becomes correct, it's still a losing play for that hand, but you want them to not totally rule out the possibility of you holding a big pair even though you only limped.

Obviously the optimal number of callers to your AA raise UTG is 9.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
when raising AA, KK, and QQ pre-flop; is the raise strictly for value, or also to help limit the field?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
While I try to avoid tight tables, I have occasionally found myself in situations where a raise makes almost everyone fold. It crossed my mind I might want to not raise AA, KK, or QQ occasionally if I think this is going to happen on some tight tables. What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Varying your play on occasion is always a good idea. At a tight-aggressive table, I'd be more apt to limp big pairs.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
In Texas Hold'Em, particularly at micro limits where I play as a newbie, mostly on Party, when raising AA, KK, and QQ pre-flop; is the raise strictly for value, or also to help limit the field?

Also, do you think my first sentence above is run on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a run-on sentence, but I think the commas can be placed in better spots. The semicolon usage is incorrect, also. How about:

In Texas Hold'Em, and particularly at micro limits where I play as a newbie (mostly on Party), when raising AA, KK, and QQ pre-flop, is the raise strictly for value or also to help limit the field?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[CORed]

You raise primarily for value. Big pocket pairs are strong hands against any number of players. Always raise QQ. Thinning the field is a little more important than with AA or KK. If you are opening, especially in early position limp-reraising AA is an option. You should only do this occasionally, and only if the table is very tight, so tight that it is very likely that you raise will get only the blinds, or very aggressive, so you it its very likely that there will be a raise, and you can reraise. Doing this too often is a sure case of Fancy Play Syndrome, and will probably cost you money. Raising should be your default play. A raise making almost everybody fold isn't too bad a thing with a big Pocket Pair. Your EV goes down a little, but you probability of winning the pot goes way up. It's only really bad if everybody folds. AA and KK are worth more than the blinds (assuming a normal structure).

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the optimal number of callers to your AA raise UTG is 9.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the EV for AA peaks off at around 7 callers (this has to do with dead money from the blinds).

ref: http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm
Assuming both blinds fold (SB calls for 8 callers), EV for AA as a function of callers PF:
Callers +EV (SB)
0 3.5
1 4.69
2 5.51
3 6.07
4 6.43
5 6.64
6 6.76
7 6.79
8 6.59
9 6.22

And the EV peaks at 8 callers if we're assuming both blinds are always calling.
Assuming both blinds call (BB calls for 1 caller):
Callers +EV(SB)
0 3.50
1 3.84
2 4.40
3 5.11
4 5.59
5 5.90
6 6.10
7 6.21
8 6.25
9 6.22

Taking into account the negative implied odds your aces are getting against a bigger and bigger field (you stand to lose more after the flop when you are drawn out on than you generally stand to gain when you have the best hand), and the fact that the EV margin decreases significantly after 4 callers (I mean the difference in EV between four and five callers is much less than the difference in EV between three and four callers) the optimal number of callers is probably close to four.

So my answer to the original question is that it's for both purposes--basically you are making your opponent make a mistake. When your opponent puts money into the pot with a worse hand (a -EV decision) he is giving you money. By limping with AA, you allow players to call one SB instead of two. Instead of their decisions being fold (EV 0) and call your raise (EV -X), their decisions are fold (EV 0) or call the big blind (EV ~-X/2). To a point, you want the players to call your raise with inferior hands--but eventually the huge pot size and your opponent's implied odds on you catch up with the raw strength of your hand. By raising you are most likely going to decrease the number of players in the pot (almost always a good thing) and even if everyone at the table calls, your +EV is 6.22 SB (31.1% of the 20SB pot) instead of 3.11 SB (31.1% of a 10SB pot). Your PFR serves both purposes, not just one.

[TomBrooks]

Hi Einbert,

That's a very interesting chart you referenced. I'm afraid I didn't quite follow your whole analysis, however. I will like to reread it later and expect it will sink in more. Right now I'm wondering if the EVs you listed are based on the "winning percentage" x "the number of bets"

Cheers,
Tom

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
In Texas Hold'Em, and particularly at micro limits where I play as a newbie (mostly on Party), when raising AA, KK, and QQ pre-flop, is the raise strictly for value or also to help limit the field?

[/ QUOTE ]I like that wording better, Jin. Well done. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] -TomBk

[Dave H.]

[ QUOTE ]
In Texas Hold'Em, and particularly at micro limits where I play as a newbie, mostly on Party, when raising AA, KK, and QQ pre-flop; is the raise strictly for value, or also to help limit the field?

TomBk

Also, do you think my first sentence above is run on?



[/ QUOTE ]

You do not have a run-on sentence. Rather, you have a sentence fragment (prior to the semicolon) followed by a misuse of the semicolon.