Conceptual discussion question
 

Statement i) When I have AKs UTG, I obviously raise because I have a pretty huge equity edge, and I'm hoping I'll get many cold-callers.

Statement ii) When I have 99 UTG, I obviously raise because I want to put as much pressure on overcards to fold as possible. While I'd have an equity edge against most calling hands, a fair amount of the cold-calls might even have an equity edge against me. But I still raise to protect.

In short, I'd raise these hands UTG on the vast majority of tables, but for completely different reasons and hoping to obtain completely different outcomes.

So the questions are:
1) Are these two statements contradictory?
2) If so, which of the two is incorrect?

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

I'm putting my answer in white just because:
<font color="white">I don't think the statements are out and out contradictory.

I also think parts of statement 2 are incorrect.

Also, in these games, you can be making a +EV move that happens to be +EV for someone else too. So whether or not someone is correct to cold-call vs your 99 is almost irrelevant.
</font>

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

I'll do white because all the cool kids are doing it:

<font color="white">So let's say you're in a table that's particularly averse to cold-calling (this is a pretty contrived example but illustrates the question well). You could raise your 99 (UTG) and win the blinds right there, or you could limp and let all sorts of crappy naked aces (that you have an equity edge against) limp in behind you. Despite the fact that your hand is now more vulnerable to overcards, you're in a +EV situation, since you have an equity edge against 1 overcard, n'est pas? It's similar to the "winning money &gt; winning pots" statements.</font>

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

i'd think the AKs looking for cold callers is not correct. you don't mind, but folding Ax-suited or pocket pairs wouldn't be a bad thing either.- but maybe i'm just being picky [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

Grunchings of a mediocre player (in white)

<font color="white">
Statement 1: I like it. AKs is a premium hand with a big equity edge against a large field, and will play well against few or many opps.

Statement 2: While I like the reasoning for raising, I don't think the statements that coldcallers will have an equity edge. Raisers, ya, maybe some will, but not coldcallers.
</font>

Any comments from veterans will be appreciated.

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

I think the action part of the statements are correct but the reasons are incomplete. And I don't think I'm hoping for vastly different outcomes.

If I raise AK and get 5 cold callers, I'm happy because I have a nice big pot and am probably the favorite (AA or KK would generally reraise.) However, my odds of taking down this big pot go down significantly. If I raise AK and get one cold caller, I'm happy because I'm in great shape HU.

If I raise 99 and get 5 cold callers, I'm still ok, because if it's the 1 in 8 times that I hit my set, I'm likely to be paid off big time. If I raise 99 and get 1 cold caller, chances are I'm ahead and they are drawing to 6 outs.

So it's a good idea to raise because WHATEVER outcome I get, I'm probably better off than if I didn't raise.

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

Judging from some of the other replies, I would say that this isn't just black and white, there are some gray areas [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll do white because all the cool kids are doing it:

<font color="white">So let's say you're in a table that's particularly averse to cold-calling (this is a pretty contrived example but illustrates the question well). You could raise your 99 (UTG) and win the blinds right there, or you could limp and let all sorts of crappy naked aces (that you have an equity edge against) limp in behind you. Despite the fact that your hand is now more vulnerable to overcards, you're in a +EV situation, since you have an equity edge against 1 overcard, n'est pas? It's similar to the "winning money &gt; winning pots" statements.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

uh:

<font color="white"> i disagree. sure, it would be great for us if there were exactly 4 limpers after us, and they all had Ax. We'd be in great shape. But, you can't just assume there is just one potential overcard out there...


</font>

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

I'd agree with most of what the last post said except it 1 out of 5 of hitting a set (2/50)*5 for the 5 cards coming on the flop unless you were referring to the flop in which case you'd be correct... Also, I don't like cold-callers with AKs b/c then I have to hit in order to win while if I'm heads up, I can still bluff. Also, I can chase down draws this way, with more players they could drive the bets so high that pots odds don't state a call

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with most of what the last post said except it 1 out of 5 of hitting a set (2/50)*5 for the 5 cards coming on the flop unless you were referring to the flop in which case you'd be correct... Also, I don't like cold-callers with AKs b/c then I have to hit in order to win while if I'm heads up, I can still bluff. Also, I can chase down draws this way, with more players they could drive the bets so high that pots odds don't state a call

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally, when people are talking about 8:1 of hitting your set, it is indeed to hit the set on the flop. Anything beyond the flop, you'd also need to factor in additional bets, not to mention the fact that there's no guarantee you're getting to the river if you don't hit your set on the flop.

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Statement i) When I have AKs UTG, I obviously raise because I have a pretty huge equity edge, and I'm hoping I'll get many cold-callers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Improved statement i) When I have AKs UTG, I raise because I have a huge equity edge. I don't care much if a players fold or a if they coldcall. If there are fewer players, I have a better chance of holding up UI and if there are lots of players I stand to make a lot of money if I hit a favorable flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Statement ii) When I have 99 UTG, I obviously raise because I want to put as much pressure on overcards to fold as possible. While I'd have an equity edge against most calling hands, a fair amount of the cold-calls might even have an equity edge against me. But I still raise to protect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Improved statement ii) When I have 99 UTG, I raise because I have a huge equity edge. I don't care much if a players fold or a if they coldcall. If there are fewer players, I have a better chance of holding up UI and if there are lots of players I stand to make a lot of money if I hit a favorable flop.

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I raise 99 and get 5 cold callers, I'm still ok, because if it's the 1 in 8 times that I hit my set, I'm likely to be paid off big time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The probability of flopping a set or quads is about 4%. so you hit your set or better 1 in 25 times

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

oops! no you are right. it's 8.3:1 flopping a set. My bad.

Beautifully put...
 

My posts are always too long and wordy. Very efficient. (I admire skills that I don't myself possess.)

nh

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

In general I agree with those two statements. The AKs will play well HU and in multiway due to the reasons given.

I think the 99 hand is tougher to play UTG than in late position. Ideally you would either like to play this hand vs as small field or a large one; you'll win more often UI vs the small field and have a potential to win a larger pot vs a large field. The worst case for a hand like this would be to have 3 or 4 people in the hand, enough that you may win UI but, you'll be scared of any significant action with any flops containing any broadway cards.

If it's in late position you can raise/call depending on if you'd like the blinds along. UTG raises on a loose or tight table may generate the resulting number of players you'd like. UTG raises in a tough game may generate a 3 handed pot, perhaps raised again, against hands you probably don't have a large equity gain against.

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

At a table where this is true, 99 is not an automatic raise UTG for me.

[ QUOTE ]
While I'd have an equity edge against most calling hands, a fair amount of the cold-calls might even have an equity edge against me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I raise 99 UTG because I believe my hand is stronger than those of the cold-callers, so I'll trap them for 2 bets pre-flop.

Re: Conceptual discussion question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the 99 hand is tougher to play UTG than in late position. Ideally you would either like to play this hand vs as small field or a large one; you'll win more often UI vs the small field and have a potential to win a larger pot vs a large field. The worst case for a hand like this would be to have 3 or 4 people in the hand, enough that you may win UI but, you'll be scared of any significant action with any flops containing any broadway cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I mind getting scared off by flops containing broadway cards and significant action? Nope. I'm glad they do it because it allows me to bail out cheaply. As stated, I'm looking for favorable flops, and I'm going to get plenty of them (not all the time, but enough of them to make this profitable).

[ QUOTE ]
If it's in late position you can raise/call depending on if you'd like the blinds along. UTG raises on a loose or tight table may generate the resulting number of players you'd like. UTG raises in a tough game may generate a 3 handed pot, perhaps raised again, against hands you probably don't have a large equity gain against.

[/ QUOTE ]

You worry too much about the wrong things. Any hand that would 3-bet an UTG raise is going to raise an UTG limp. In both cases, I'm probably going to be facing a couple tough decisions. But that decision is less tough if I'm 3-bet preflop than if I'm raised after limping.