Re: Hypothetical Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not familiar with the example, but claim AA in no limit is always profitable. Move in preflop. Perhaps you meant pot-limit with deep stacks?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the example the person with AA is not aware his opponent knows he has AA every hand. Pot-limit with deep stacks could play out the same way I imagine.
[/ QUOTE ]
that's wrong as well. folded to SB who makes a raise small in comparison to both blinds stacks, at that point SB's hand is revealed to be AA (both players know the BB knows). with what range of hands can the BB profitably call? DS says all hands.
[/ QUOTE ]
And he's right. Although I heard about this as a problem given by Chris Ferguson a few years ago at an rgp convention. The idea is that the implied odds of outflopping combined with the opportunity to three-barrel bluff, two-barrel bluff/semi-bluff, and one-barrel bluff/semi-bluff each with optimal frequency make it impossible for AA to profit.
The reason Sklansky had to use KK instead of AA for a limit example is the opponent can't make pot-size bluffs so correct bluffing frequency is much lower. I.E. AA is correct to just call down. I'm not convinced KK is.
|