AQ early facing re-raise

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]

No he doesn't. Pushing 655 chips into a 150 pot narrows the range of hands that will call. Yes, they'd reraise your 150 anyway. However, you'll get pushed back at by lessor hands and called by lessor hands just raising to 150.

Who's afraid of postflop? I welcome it. I'll outplay 90% of them every day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok first off, any postflop action isn't a spot where you can seriously "outplay" your opponent. Your only goal here is to win the blinds, and or get someone to go allin with a dominated hand, yet fold with coinflip hands.

When you make a normal raise you may convince someone to move allin with a pocket pair, whom would have otherwise folded. The question is whether or not you convince the same person to make a move with A9. People seem to generally dislike allin here, but I don't think it's so bad. These PartyPoker players don't need any convincing to shove their chips in with 44, and I sure don't want to help them do it.

Of course raising to 150 is the normal play, and there is no way to get off the hand if reraised. I'd say that a smaller raise convinces more people with weak aces and KQ to continue as compared to convincing pocket pairs to play with you. However I think it's reasonably close, especially since you usually want to avoid close confrontations in sit and gos.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]


I disagree with this statement. And you keep saying it. You're implying that because all the previous hands have folded, and there's just 4 left, that this is a 4 handed game. The problem I have with this statement is that if it were truly a 4 handed game, there would be no dead cards. How many queens or aces may have been folded prior to this hand is different than knowing that the probability they all are live is the difference.

Furthermore, I assume you mean QQ with 9 left to act is weaker than AQ with 3 left to act. This statement may be true, I've never considered it.

But how do you apply that same logic to this scenario when there are dead cards involved?

[/ QUOTE ]


Try to give us some mathemetical reasoning why the dead cards are very important and change the value of hands.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
This raise with AQ after it is folded to you is good. I wouldn't raise if there are limpers, but otherwise it is good. Obviously you're calling the all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are limpers, raising with AQ here should be automatic.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]


I once made a thread about the dead card issue in this forum because I was thinking the way you do. The consensus was that it's not an important factor. Anyway, the deck would theoretically have MORE A's & Q's, not less, because these are cards that are often in limpers hands, and nobody limped.

I don't get this, Chuck. You don't know the dead cards. It's unusable information, one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that dead cards are generally irrelevant, and they are one of those small things in poker that people try to make a much bigger deal out of then they should.

[Phoenix1010]

I think he's referring to Cloutier's "bunching factor," which I don't like to put too much stock in. You have a very small idea of what kinds of hands people are folding, so it shouldn't affect your estimates. There are no dead cards unless you've seen them. It's still random for all intents and purposes.

-Phoenix

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your plan is to call an all-in reraise from any of the remaining players, why not just push?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, although I'm sure OP had not intended to call an allin reraise from BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct, I would've folded to the BB going all-in, and it's another point that I'm wondering about.

Should I fold to the BB's all-in? If not, then I do think that pushing pre-flop is correct.

[curtains]

I know what he's referring to, however since I've never seen any evidence this factor is especially relevant, I figured I'd give Scuba to back up his claims with some math.

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]

I know what he's referring to, however since I've never seen any evidence this factor is especially relevant, I figured I'd give Scuba to back up his claims with some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason already proved the bunching factor is irrelevant because of high/low card combinations. However, at OP's level, every ace is limping the majority of the time, so Mason's rebuttal isn't as applicable.

4 handed, you can say nothing about the deck/cards of players yet to act. 10 handed with 6 folds in a low level SNG, I'd pretty certain the unexposed cards should be ace rich, althought I can't see how one can really apply this.

In OP's case, we could argue that there's a better chance Villain has Ax, but its probably so immaterial its not worth considering.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
If not, then I do think that pushing pre-flop is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I just don't agree in the slightest. Your hand is good enough that a push back could still mean hands that you've got dominated (A9s, AT, AJ, KQ). I think BB will push these often enough that I don't mind inducing a push. If someone has a pp, so be it, you're still getting the odds to call.

[dfscott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If not, then I do think that pushing pre-flop is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I just don't agree in the slightest. Your hand is good enough that a push back could still mean hands that you've got dominated (A9s, AT, AJ, KQ). I think BB will push these often enough that I don't mind inducing a push. If someone has a pp, so be it, you're still getting the odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, this thread is the counterpoint to my snowman thread, where I'm in the villain's seat. I think you're getting at the same thing that curtains was trying to tell me: it's actually ok to raise, get re-raised all-in, and call. I tend to be afraid of that situation and push instead.