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.