Why A-K sucks

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem in this hand was definitely not the AK

[/ QUOTE ]

NH!

[rikz]

You are absolutely right, especially about the danger of being too predicatable at higher limits with better players. I was trying to describe my experiences so far in a typical 10-handed ring game at the NL $25 tables that I've been playing at.

However, what I think makes AK so much better than "any two cards plus position" is that on 1/3 of the flops, if you can put your opponent on a draw, you have the best hand on every street after the flop that isn't one of his outs. Then you can show down a winner, maybe even after inducing your opponent to bluff on the river with a missed draw if he's got position on you.

Of course, playing past your turn bet with TPTK seems to be entirely read dependent since a more solid opponent may not get that far into the hand without something better than TPTK. So I suppose that telling the difference between an opponent's made hand and an opponent's draw as your opponent is calling or reraising the flop and turn are things that I would imagine are essential at those higher levels. Is that right?

Another point, that gets emphasized in Super System for NLHE, is that AK is easy to get away from (unlike AA) if you miss the flop entirely and someone else applies pressure. You're only out the $2 raise, and you can fold out if someone ahead of you with a solid image bets the pot before it gets to you.

Thanks.

Albert Moulton

[TheWorstPlayer]

Can't believe you got this many responses being an obvious troll. Anyways, why not add another? I like your flop check against this ridiculously bad opponent. But put him all-in on the turn. That will look even more like you missed the flop. But whatever. I know you know everything that was said in this thread.