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

[lane mcbride]

good point. very good point. most people wouldn't fold in a pot that big though. and you will probably know where you stand before you have to invest any money... good point though. I should do the math to figure out what you are looking at to invest to stay to the river vs. potential profit(x) likelihood of winning

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

GRB, they really aren't comparing current pot odds to showdown odds.. I agree, we shouldn't compare current pot odds to showdown odds.

The example that you are thinking of is this: You are the bring in with XYZ , (any 3 cards), you have one opponent with A5A who completes the bring in, and now you are getting 11:3 on your money.. (assuming you are in a 5/10 with 2 BI and .5 ante...) Now, if we made our decision to continue on by determining if we were simply a better than 11:3 underdog, this would be wrong, and would only be correct if we were to be ALL IN at this point, like in a NL tourney situation. If we did make our decision on the 11:3 criteria, we would probably end up defending our bring in with most holdings..

Now, in this situation when deciding whether or not to call down, we should be more concerned with our chances of being ahead by the river, and the effective odds of calling down.. which will be close to 1:1..

In doc's post, he is saying that we are getting about 6:1 on about a 3:1 shot. He gets the 6:1 from the fact that 6 people will be calling subsequent bets from you. (It says nothing about the ante, or current pot size.) Its like you are making a gamble with a 3:1 shot, bot are able to get paid 6:1, so why not get as much $$ in there as we can.. Its no different than raising a 4 flush on 4th street. When I make a decision to raise a 4 flush on 4ht, I usually figure I'm about a 45% chance to win the hand, and my decision to raise or call is usually determined by the number of callers I figure I will get.. If the raise is on my right, I may just smooth call at that point if there are others left to act, because I am a 1:.9 shot.. My decision only takes into consideration the SIZE OF THE POT if I have some big cards that I think will help me win if I catch a big pair.

DOCAZ is talking about collecting bets as a money favorite.. No different than if you had rolled trips, a powerful drawing hand, or a strong made hand on any other street..

Beer$$

[Andy B]

Nothing in Doc's post reads like a blog, and I hardly think that someone who does business as "grb137" should get on anyone's case for being anonymous. I went over Doc's post and didn't find anything particularly asinine.

I don't agree that comparing pot odds to showdown odds is wrong. They aren't the same thing, but simulation results can help give you a feel for what constitutes a raising situation or a calling situation or a folding situtation. Even if I accept that this comparison is wrong, it doesn't mean that it is wrong to raise with a pair of Aces after seven limpers.

I am in the raise-with-Aces-about-every-time camp. In the situation that Doc describes, where everyone limps in and you hold Aces in last position, you're just giving up way too much by not raising. I think that "I'm putting 12.5% of the money in when I have 25% equity" (probably a little more) is a good way to look at it. I assure you that Doc is aware of the difference between pot odds and implied odds. If I understand you correctly, however, I think that you are concerned with reverse implied odds, in that you think that your hand will become a playing loser on later streets. This is entirely possible. If your opponents are limping in with quality starting hands--three-flushes, three-straights, decent pairs, etc., then your Aces may well be playing losers. If you were against a table full of decent players where most pots were two- or three-way, and you suddenly had a hand crop up where six people limped, I wouldn't be all that excited about my Aces. I would still raise, because I do have an edge, but if you want to limp in that spot, that's fine.

Usually when you have six or seven limpers, though, it's because people are playing a lot of hands. Weak hands. Hands that your Aces have crushed. You're just giving up too much if you fail to raise against these hands.

I couldn't find it because I didn't look very hard, but I believe that there is something in 7CS4AP that says that if people really are limping in with just anything, you are simply giving up too much if you fail to raise with a pair of Jacks. If that's the case, then failing to raise with Aces approaches crime-against-humanity territory.

Having people fold later on in the hand is good. They will have put in a bet or three, and now they can't draw out on you. Your pot equity will frequently still be that same 25% or so, 25% of a bigger pot because you raised on third street.

Do you play limit hold'em? If so, what do you do with AA on the button after six people have limped? How about AKs?

Now I do agree that there are some spots where you shouldn't push third-street edges too hard. I think putting in the first or second raise with a good three-flush is frequently a good play. Jamming with such a hand is dubious, however, because a bloated pot will make the hand harder to play on the later streets if the cards don't fall as you would have liked. I don't think think that that is the case with a pair of Aces. Most often, you will play until the end, usually driving the betting, unless someone gives you a reason not to. And if looks like the draws have gotten there, it's usually easy enough to get away from the hand.

[grb137]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in Doc's post reads like a blog, and I hardly think that someone who does business as "grb137" should get on anyone's case for being anonymous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you're talking about. I could care less about anonymity. I'm sorry you don't like my handle, which is based on my school email account that derives from my initials. If you're nice, you can call me Greg.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that comparing pot odds to showdown odds is wrong. They aren't the same thing, but simulation results can help give you a feel for what constitutes a raising situation or a calling situation or a folding situtation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, simulations are useful for determining relative strengths of hands. This usefulness, however, in no way justifies comparing pot odds to showdown odds and then thinking that "its ok to raise because I'll be winning 25% of the pots in which I've put in %13 of the money." As DS says in the preface to his "Match-Ups Appendix," simulations do not "take into account how a hand is played, knowledge of the opponents, or the fact that the hand will be played to the river" As I said in the previous post, the only way you'll be winning 25% of pots in which you've only put 13% of the money in is if everyone calls all bets.

[ QUOTE ]

Even if I accept that this comparison is wrong, it doesn't mean that it is wrong to raise with a pair of Aces after seven limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never made this assertion. My assertion is that you cannot use favorable showdown v. pot odds to justify raising with Aces into a field of 7 limpers. You might be able to justify the play on some other grounds, but you cannot using justify it using pot odds, for the reasons I've given.

[ QUOTE ]
I am in the raise-with-Aces-about-every-time camp. In the situation that Doc describes, where everyone limps in and you hold Aces in last position, you're just giving up way too much by not raising. I think that "I'm putting 12.5% of the money in when I have 25% equity" (probably a little more) is a good way to look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is a good way to look at it....because?

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you that Doc is aware of the difference between pot odds and implied odds. If I understand you correctly, however, I think that you are concerned with reverse implied odds, in that you think that your hand will become a playing loser on later streets. This is entirely possible. If your opponents are limping in with quality starting hands--three-flushes, three-straights, decent pairs, etc., then your Aces may well be playing losers. If you were against a table full of decent players where most pots were two- or three-way, and you suddenly had a hand crop up where six people limped, I wouldn't be all that excited about my Aces. I would still raise, because I do have an edge, but if you want to limp in that spot, that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Implied odds explain situations when your odds are better than they seem." (TOP, p. 59). This occurs when "the existence of future bets is the very reason you play your hand." (p. 55). I understood DocAZ to be advocating raising with a hand that only has a 25% chance of winning (ie. 3-to-1 dog) based on the fact that you'd only be putting in 13% of the money. In order for that to be true, you have to assume the existence of future bets. This assumption is why I'm saying there seems to be confusion about pot odds and implied odds.

I see your point though. I should have said “the effective odds aren’t there”

[ QUOTE ]
Usually when you have six or seven limpers, though, it's because people are playing a lot of hands. Weak hands. Hands that your Aces have crushed. You're just giving up too much if you fail to raise against these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your aces have a smaller pair or a drawing hand crushed for sure. As DocAZ pointed out though, against 7 such hands your Aces only win 25% of the hands. And frankly, you’re only giving up $7 by raising.

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't find it because I didn't look very hard, but I believe that there is something in 7CS4AP that says that if people really are limping in with just anything, you are simply giving up too much if you fail to raise with a pair of Jacks. If that's the case, then failing to raise with Aces approaches crime-against-humanity territory.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t look very hard either. Even if it is there, its not entirely on point unless it specifically talks about raising into 7 limpers. Find where it advises a raise into SEVEN limpers and I’ll buy you a steak dinner.

[ QUOTE ]
Having people fold later on in the hand is good. They will have put in a bet or three, and now they can't draw out on you. Your pot equity will frequently still be that same 25% or so, 25% of a bigger pot because you raised on third street.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, having people fold later is good for aces. However, as people drop, the proportion of $$ that you’ll be contributing to the pot will no longer be as low as 13%. Either one of two things will happen (or both):
1. As people drop, you’ll be contributing a larger percentage of the $$$ into pot than that 13% figure back on 3rd
2. As people stay, you’re pot equity will decrease as 1, 2, or more of the other hands improve (a 3-flush improving to a 4 flush, small pair improving to two pair or trips).

[ QUOTE ]
Do you play limit hold'em? If so, what do you do with AA on the button after six people have limped? How about AKs?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I suck at hold’em.

[BeerMoney]

Uhmmm.. Did you read my post?

I actually agree with you. I think we should wait until the river to raise and charge people to play the pot with us. Poker's not about pushing small edges early, cause we have no idea how the hand is going to be played out. That 25% figure is a fictitious number. Really, our chances of winning are 50/50. We either win, or we lose. Right?

GRB, what criteria do you use when deciding to raise with a hand? Do you like to see a hand that's going to win less than 1/N times, where N is the # of oppponents? Do you like to raise as the underdog? I think that's a ballzy move! That's what I do to roland sometimes. I know he has me crushed at that point, but the hand hasn't been played out yet, so I call his raises to see what's gonna happen. Its fun, and I'm 2/2 doing this.. Silly roland raising when he thinks he has an edge..

[Andy B]

You called Doc, a guy I consider a friend and a man whose opinion I value, an "anonymous blogger." I asserted that he is neither, and pointed out that the pot is calling the kettle black while I was in the neighborhood. If you prefer to remain anonymous, that's fine with me.

7CS4AP doesn't talk about any hand with seven limpers. It's geared towards mid-limit Vegas games which just aren't that loose. I do think that if they had a section on very, very loose games, they would advocate raising with Aces after seven limpers. Ray is the only one of the authors who ever posts in this forum anymore, and there not very much, so we likely won't hear from any of them.

It is my opinion that, of the myriad reasons to raise in poker, the most important one most of the time in a loose stud game is to get the most money in with the best hand. With Aces in last position after numerous limpers, you almost certainly have the best hand. By raising, you are getting the money in with an edge, and that, to my way of thinking, is the whole object of the game. In order not to raise in that spot, there has to be some playing consideration that makes it desirable to keep the pot small. I don't know what that would be.

[ QUOTE ]
I understood DocAZ to be advocating raising with a hand that only has a 25% chance of winning (ie. 3-to-1 dog) based on the fact that you'd only be putting in 13% of the money. In order for that to be true, you have to assume the existence of future bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. You are getting 7:1 on a 3:1 shot. This isn't pot odds or implied odds; this is current betting round odds. 7:1 vs. 3:1 is a large enough overlay that I would need a very good reason not to raise. You haven't given one.

Say you were playing on-line and a hand cropped up where you had pocket Aces in last position after the field had limped. A friend happens along and offers to give you 7:1 that you won't win the hand. Would you take that bet? I know I would.

[ QUOTE ]
And frankly, you’re only giving up $7 by raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say here.

In reading your posts, this one in particular, it seems to me that you are not so much arguing that raising in last position with Aces is wrong as you are saying that Doc is looking at things the wrong way. It doesn't seem to me that you've really said much about the right way to look at things, and you really haven't brought all that much to the discussion. You seem to be only interested in stirring things up, and I for one don't need it. Doc comes in here saying what a pleasant forum we have, and you respond by being a jerk. Next time, don't bother finishing his post.

[donny5k]

I really hope that entire post is sarcastic. And if so, you are correct and have pointed out the poor logic grb is using. Doc isn't talking about future bets when he raises with a pot equity edge, he is talking about the 3rd street bet. He will also make decisions on later streets the same way in a multiway pot. If the other players don't improve, his equity will improve and he will once again put extra bets in based on the number of callers he expects vs. his chances of winning. Ed Miller's book that was referenced talks about this in his pot equity section. The example in hold'em is raising with hands like nut flush draws on the flop because although you are 20% to make your hand on the turn, you have (at least) 35% equity on the flop, because if you make your hand by the river you'll always win. So if these equity considerations aren't even close, like raising a nut flush draw on the flop in holdem with 4-5+ players or this aces example, implied odds couldn't possibly change the decision.
There are some HUGE misconceptions/misapplications of theory in grb's writing.

[Michael Emery]

[ QUOTE ]

It is my opinion that, of the myriad reasons to raise in poker, the most important one most of the time in a loose stud game is to get the most money in with the best hand. With Aces in last position after numerous limpers, you almost certainly have the best hand. By raising, you are getting the money in with an edge, and that, to my way of thinking, is the whole object of the game. In order not to raise in that spot, there has to be some playing consideration that makes it desirable to keep the pot small. I don't know what that would be.



[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. In a loose stud game you should be raising not to limit the field but to increase your overall expectation on the hand. This is especially the case in such games due to the fact that opponents arent entering the pot with hands that make sense to play a vast majority of the time. Its the same reason you would raise in the big blind in hold'em with pocket aces after many limpers. Sure you make the pot on the flop much larger, and therefore they play correctly in many instances, but sometimes you lose too much by not raising. Notice I am only refering to loose games here with players coming in with weaker hands than normal. In a tough game, where players are coming in with hands that make sense, you would be better off in most instances by just calling (rather than completing) after several limpers. Your pot equity edge isnt nearly as large now and you need to play diffrently. In such a game, much of grb's advice is very correct.

[ QUOTE ]

Say you were playing on-line and a hand cropped up where you had pocket Aces in last position after the field had limped. A friend happens along and offers to give you 7:1 that you won't win the hand. Would you take that bet? I know I would.


[/ QUOTE ]

So would I. But at the same time you're being a bit unfair in your comparison, Andy. As you know, the money already in the pot contributed by the antes, bring-in, limpers, changes the strategy quite often here.

Mike Emery

[TheShootah]

I have no idea what Greg is saying either. It makes no sense to not raise. Here is the easiest way to think about it, hands down. You are putting more money in with the best hand. Done. Think of it in terms of equity. If you have the nut flush draw in hold em on the flop, and you are up against 3 others, you would need only 25% equity to stay in the hand. But you have around 35%, so putting in bets would be a great idea, since there is a serious overlay. It's even better in the aces case. Against six others, you only need to win 13%, but you stand to win about 25% of the time. That is nuts. Anyone who doesn't raise limpers with AAx has some serious leaks in there game, imo. I agree with you that you can't compare showdown odds to pot odds, because of course you have to call bets on other rounds, and that lessons your odds. But you can you showdown statistics to figure out when you have an edge in equity. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Michael Emery]

[ QUOTE ]
The example in hold'em is raising with hands like nut flush draws on the flop because although you are 20% to make your hand on the turn, you have (at least) 35% equity on the flop, because if you make your hand by the river you'll always win. So if these equity considerations aren't even close, like raising a nut flush draw on the flop in holdem with 4-5+ players or this aces example, implied odds couldn't possibly change the decision.
There are some HUGE misconceptions/misapplications of theory in grb's writing.


[/ QUOTE ]

While grb might have worded his response asking for an argument, much of what he replied is actually correct. Raising here with aces in last position is MUCH diffrent than jamming with the nut flush draw on a hold'em flop against several players.

Mike Emery