Doc AZ’s big starting pair hand strategies! New player forum topic.

[mscags]

Another excellent post Doc. I'm glad that you're back and will be waiting for more!

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At your suggestion, I read the 2nd half of his post. My copies of TOP and 7CSFAP mysteriously fell off my bookshelf as I was reading it. Suggesting that you should raise in late position with Aces into 7 callers because you're only "putting 13% of the money in the pot" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between pot odds and implied odds.

Surely I'm not the only one who recognizes how asinine that is. In fact, see pg. 32-33 of 7CSFAP, starting at the 4th full paragraph, for the correct play in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The example in 7CSFAP you reference used a pair of tens with an offsuit five kicker. A pair of aces will have far more equity than a pair of tens. Especially with a quality kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

How am I wrong exactly? Pointing out the fact that the example given in 7CSFAP is 10s, not aces, doesn't make me "wrong." Besides, this isn't me talking, this is 7CSFAP. I'll take DS et al over an anonymous web blogger anyday.

"Suppose you have a big pair, but there were several players in....even if your hand was live, it would become correct only to call, not raise or reraise."

Don't ignore the wisdom of these pages just because the DS chose to illustrate these principles using tens instead of aces. The reasons, given by DS, are just as applicable with aces. Having aces doesn't change the first "strategic" reason discussed at the bottom of page 32, not does it change the second "odds" reason listed on page 33. The equity of Aces in an 8 way pot is simply not enough to justify a raise...let alone a cap.

[bigredlemon]

The fundamental difference between tens and aces is that there are a lot of overcards that can defeat tens. There are not that can beat aces. IIRC, Sklansky specifically talks about aces being the exception, although I can't find that page right now.

[HtotheNootch]

Thanks Doc.

[sexdrugsmoney]

Many thanks Doc from a Stud newbie.

*goes back into hole and watches expert debate over 7CS4AP.*

[Roland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At your suggestion, I read the 2nd half of his post. My copies of TOP and 7CSFAP mysteriously fell off my bookshelf as I was reading it. Suggesting that you should raise in late position with Aces into 7 callers because you're only "putting 13% of the money in the pot" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between pot odds and implied odds.

Surely I'm not the only one who recognizes how asinine that is. In fact, see pg. 32-33 of 7CSFAP, starting at the 4th full paragraph, for the correct play in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The example in 7CSFAP you reference used a pair of tens with an offsuit five kicker. A pair of aces will have far more equity than a pair of tens. Especially with a quality kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

How am I wrong exactly? Pointing out the fact that the example given in 7CSFAP is 10s, not aces, doesn't make me "wrong." Besides, this isn't me talking, this is 7CSFAP. I'll take DS et al over an anonymous web blogger anyday.

"Suppose you have a big pair, but there were several players in....even if your hand was live, it would become correct only to call, not raise or reraise."

Don't ignore the wisdom of these pages just because the DS chose to illustrate these principles using tens instead of aces. The reasons, given by DS, are just as applicable with aces. Having aces doesn't change the first "strategic" reason discussed at the bottom of page 32, not does it change the second "odds" reason listed on page 33. The equity of Aces in an 8 way pot is simply not enough to justify a raise...let alone a cap.

[/ QUOTE ]


“This concept should not be taken too far, however. Remember, the idea is that you play this way if your hand cannot easily improve to a very strong hand. If, for instance, you have 5h Ad Ah you should raise and re-raise, even in a multiway pot as long as long as all the aces and fives, and most of the hearts, were live.” (p.143)

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At your suggestion, I read the 2nd half of his post. My copies of TOP and 7CSFAP mysteriously fell off my bookshelf as I was reading it. Suggesting that you should raise in late position with Aces into 7 callers because you're only "putting 13% of the money in the pot" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between pot odds and implied odds.

Surely I'm not the only one who recognizes how asinine that is. In fact, see pg. 32-33 of 7CSFAP, starting at the 4th full paragraph, for the correct play in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one. The example in 7CSFAP you reference used a pair of tens with an offsuit five kicker. A pair of aces will have far more equity than a pair of tens. Especially with a quality kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

How am I wrong exactly? Pointing out the fact that the example given in 7CSFAP is 10s, not aces, doesn't make me "wrong." Besides, this isn't me talking, this is 7CSFAP. I'll take DS et al over an anonymous web blogger anyday.

"Suppose you have a big pair, but there were several players in....even if your hand was live, it would become correct only to call, not raise or reraise."

Don't ignore the wisdom of these pages just because the DS chose to illustrate these principles using tens instead of aces. The reasons, given by DS, are just as applicable with aces. Having aces doesn't change the first "strategic" reason discussed at the bottom of page 32, not does it change the second "odds" reason listed on page 33. The equity of Aces in an 8 way pot is simply not enough to justify a raise...let alone a cap.

[/ QUOTE ]


“This concept should not be taken too far, however. Remember, the idea is that you play this way if your hand cannot easily improve to a very strong hand. If, for instance, you have 5h Ad Ah you should raise and re-raise, even in a multiway pot as long as long as all the aces and fives, and most of the hearts, were live.” (p.143)

[/ QUOTE ]

The passage, discussed in the context of playing loose games, talks about the "horse race concept" where you've got 2-3 other players (not SEVEN) drawing against your hand. Moreover, the caveats of IF hearts are live and IF ALL of the aces and 5s are live are important ones.

Doc asserted that you raise and cap into SEVEN callers, and made no caveats regarding live cards...he gave this advice on the basis of pot odds...on 3rd street. gimmie a frickin break.

Bottom line for me is that its bad advice to tell players "new to poker" to raise with aces into seven callers because "you're only putting 13% of the money in." Like I said before, this logic demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the concepts of pot odds and implied odds. We can argue all day about what *exactly* 7CSFAP is saying, but I'd rather not. I'd rather someone try to prove the correctness of raising and capping into 7 players based on pot odds.

[Phat Mack]

Doc, is that you? Great to see you posting! Now I have a stupid question: Was this intended to be a hold 'em post or a stud post? Some of the language makes me think it might be a hold 'em post....

[lane mcbride]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The passage, discussed in the context of playing loose games, talks about the "horse race concept" where you've got 2-3 other players (not SEVEN) drawing against your hand. Moreover, the caveats of IF hearts are live and IF ALL of the aces and 5s are live are important ones.

Doc asserted that you raise and cap into SEVEN callers, and made no caveats regarding live cards...he gave this advice on the basis of pot odds...on 3rd street. gimmie a frickin break.

Bottom line for me is that its bad advice to tell players "new to poker" to raise with aces into seven callers because "you're only putting 13% of the money in." Like I said before, this logic demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the concepts of pot odds and implied odds. We can argue all day about what *exactly* 7CSFAP is saying, but I'd rather not. I'd rather someone try to prove the correctness of raising and capping into 7 players based on pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 5h 138828 27.77 361165 72.23 7 0.00 0.278
Th 6h 3h 73699 14.74 426246 85.25 55 0.01 0.147
Jc 7c 2c 70435 14.09 429524 85.90 41 0.01 0.141
Qs 8s 8c 78070 15.61 421855 84.37 75 0.01 0.156
9s Tc Jh 54574 10.91 445262 89.05 164 0.03 0.109
2s 6d 2h 38391 7.68 461596 92.32 13 0.00 0.077
3s 8d 3d 45818 9.16 454167 90.83 15 0.00 0.092

there's an example of a plausible situation with 7 or so players. Notice how high the equity of the aces is (note that it is very important that the cards are live though)

you are getting 6 to 1 on any bet and you are about 3 to 1 to win the pot.

in a pot with 7 or 8 callers I would guess (though I dont' have empirical evidence to support it) that a full house is going to be most likely to be the winning hand. If this is the case, it seems it would be very advantageous to start with the highest possible pair

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
you are getting 6 to 1 on any bet and you are about 3 to 1 to win the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the error that Doc AZ is making. Its wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong to compare the POT odds to the showdown odds. The only way you are getting "6 to 1" on your 3 to 1 hand is if you get 7 callers on each and every round of betting. Not gonna happen. The only callers you'll get beyond 5th will be the 4-to-flushes, 4-to-straights, 2prs, and trips...one of which will snap your aces for more money than you'll win when they hold up, over time.

I repeat, it is wrong to compare pot odds on 3rd street to showdown odds. This mistake is frequently made on these message boards. Its the difference between pot odds and implied odds, and I refer you to TOP for an explanation of this difference.