AA UTG limp question

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I suppose I should have been clearer...AA plays far better in raised and 2-4 way pots than in unraised 6-way pots. Not that you wouldn't like to have AA, but you'd much rather have it in a controlled situation where your equity % is high.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't saying a lot - you could say this about any hand.

AA is going to make more and lose less in pots with many players. It's going to make about the same as it loses in small and HU pots. I'll explain later.

I'd much rather have a situation where I'm making more money. And this:
[ QUOTE ]
If you do a simple hot & cold analysis, then the more people you could get in the pot, the better off you'd be:
2-way = 85% equity. You'll win 1.7 BB for every 1 BB you put in.
3-way = 71% equity. = 2.13/1
5-way = 49% equity. = 2.45/1
10-way = 30% equity. = 3.00/1


[/ QUOTE ]
seems to prove that point pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that AA has rotten implied odds when your equity % is low. If you let 9 random hands against you, you'd only win 30% of the time and yet you'd end up paying off all the way to the showdown better than 75% of the time, and so the H&C analysis overstates the value of AA in many way pots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're wrong here. I'm going to fold my AA with much greater ease in a 9-handed pot rather than in a HU pot. It's going to be much clearer against 9 opponents when you're good and when you're not. I'm going to win more when I hit a monster and lose less when I hit nothing and the board is scary and action is coming from all sides.

OTOH, in a HU pot - I'm probably paying off a flop/turn checkraise to the river. In these pots there's only 1 player to pay me off when I have a monster and I'm a lot closer to losing the same when I'm behind as I will win when I'm ahead.