AK blows

[psuasskicker]

In the generally loose games I play in I like to limp/call with AK in all but late position. It masks my hand and if there's no raise, can be played in that situation post flop without much of a problem. Opinions?

Sounds like a good way to get broke quick.

That, or you play pretty weak-tight post-flop. But you're gonna let someone with some sort of garbage follow you in and get yourself clobbered.

Maybe it works, but this sounds like ugly advice to be making. Especially because it bodes the question "How do you get ANY action when you raise PF when your raising hands don't even include AK?"

Example: I was at Borgata in a game with a woman who was an absolute rock PF. Barely ever saw a flop and almost never raised. Played with her all day from across the table...eight hours, she raised maybe twice. Next day I have her on my right. Sweet woman (about twice my age), and she and I are chatting it up the whole time. About two hours into the session she opens from early position for a raise of 5x BB. What possible hands am I gonna call her with knowing that she knows I'm solid and not stupid, and that she's tighter than a nun's you-know-what?

I just wanted to mention that you all are forgetting the times that the OP flops TPTK and loses. When he flops a K and hit oppenent has AA or if he flops AKx and opponent has AA/KK or flops a K or A and opponent has a set.

Happens about as often as his opponent flops a big hand and he flops a bigger one. Like AAK with his opponent on KK. Or QJT with his opponent on QQ or JJ. Or a wide variety of other things as well.

You gotta know when you're beat and know when to release a hand and know how to push your edges and know how to get paid off. Like RBK said...you have to know how to play post-flop.

Folding this hand PF is a girly play that doesn't belong at the higher levels. If you can't feel comfortable playing this hand for a reraise, what hands exactly will you ever play for a reraise? AA, obviously. KK? QQ? You become that weak tight and you're begging for trouble. Not just cause you'll have tons of pots stolen from you, but because you'll never get action when you have a real hand.

This is simply not true. Almost all reraises at this level are AA-QQ.

Okay.

</sarcasm>

I don't know if I would go as far as to say that "almost all" reraises in position are AA-QQ... but I agree with your general classification that this is far more likely than the wide 88, AJs, KQo, etc range.

Maybe. But I have a pretty wide range of reraising hands, especially if I know I'm against someone that'll fur-coat fold a good hand to me. It's got reverse implied odds for opponent written all over it. He won't commit money to the pot without a real hand. I can reraise PF, and if I can't take it there, I can bet the flop, and if I can't take it there I give up without a monster of a hand; and I'm gonna take it at one of those two spots a LOT of times.

Mostly I don't limit my reraising hands to just AA, KK, or QQ. I think this is a fault of many NL players, especially at the higher limits. So many players assume almost every PF reraise is AA-QQ, and also then assume they can only reraise with AA-QQ because they won't get their reraise called or reraising unless the opponent has a monster of a hand.

That's not tough NL play. That's scared NL play.

I literally cannot believe my eyes that I'm reading a thread with seven people saying folding here is either 'correct' or 'acceptable' (some of them veterans to this forum). This isn't a tournament where you should think about protecting your chips. Folding here is about as weak-tight as it comes.

I can't not hammer this point enough. If you're folding here, you aren't good enough to be playing at these levels. You're playing too scared, and will almost never find a hand worth playing, and then once you do you'll never get any action on it.

"Going like Broomcorn's uncle" comes to mind...

- C -

[radioheadfan]

I think we've come to the conclusion that folding isn't a bad option at all, although perhaps not optimal (the issues of reverse implied odds [when you hit and reraiser has AA/KK] and insufficient implied odds when you hit are the key arguments here).

One thing we need to nail down is a basic hand range for a typical 2/4 NL online player playing a full $400 on the button. Since the player is unknown, we have to assume he is "typical". I put the typical player reraising in the spot on JJ-AA, or AKs, with a small sprinkling of 88-TT and AQs. The "typical" player isn't doing this with 67s.

What do people think about reraising?

PS - Of course against a known opponent who knows you, this situation is completely different when he knows you're capable of opening with a wide range of hands, and he knows that you know this. Also, he should be able to reraise with a wider range than QQ-AA, AKs so the argument for reraising can be made with much more authority. I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on re-reraising the UNKNOWN button reraiser.

[Marnixvdb]

I wouldnt reraise an unkonw buttonreraiser, unless he has a short stack, then i would do it inmediately. Like you say, typically a 2/4 player only reraises with a narrow range of hands, but this changes considerably when they are short. I would put him in if he had app. 40bb, I would call if he had app. 40-65bb, to go in on a A of K flop, and most likely fold if he had more.

[silkyjonson]

Im reading this post and played the exact scenario 2 times yesterday at a 1-2 nl with a 800 dollar stack against a 300 dollar stack, and I think everyone is ignoring a very important fact that the opponent may still have AA/KK and puts you in a horrible position to lose a lot of money if by some chance you do hit, so in my opinion depending on the player I will be folding more often in this situation

[psuasskicker]

I think we've come to the conclusion that folding isn't a bad option at all, although perhaps not optimal

I think some people have come to that conclusion.

I also think that people that will blindly follow the masses and not thinking things through - for all the angles - will find themselves walking off bridges a few times too often in life.

The "typical" player isn't doing this with 67s.

Maybe. But I think this is one of many reasons so many people that are advocating a fold here as good or acceptable aren't really thinking that deeply about this problem. I hear all this talk about "reverse implied odds", and almost no one talking about reverse implied odds of actually making this fold.

Reverse implied as in, when are you going to find a hand worth playing for any money? And how will you get yourself paid once you do?

What do people think about reraising?

Gotta have a mighty powerful read to pull this one off. While it's possible he's got an open set of reraising hands, it's definitely possible he doesn't. You have a speculative hand here. The only think you can beat right now are AQ fools that overvalue garbage, and outright bluffs. A reraise commits a LOT of money with a hand that you're not gonna like in the least if he comes back over top of you, cause five betting PF is highly unlikely to be anything but AA or KK, and all of a sudden you're in an ugly position with a lot of your money in the pot.

I think everyone is ignoring a very important fact that the opponent may still have AA/KK and puts you in a horrible position to lose a lot of money if by some chance you do hit

No one's ignoring it, but if you can't figure out how to get off your hand without losing a ton of money when you do hit, you're destined to lose a lot of money regardless of whether or not you're folding AK here.

- C -

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]



I just wanted to mention that you all are forgetting the times that the OP flops TPTK and loses. When he flops a K and hit oppenent has AA or if he flops AKx and opponent has AA/KK or flops a K or A and opponent has a set.

Happens about as often as his opponent flops a big hand and he flops a bigger one. Like AAK with his opponent on KK. Or QJT with his opponent on QQ or JJ. Or a wide variety of other things as well.


[/ QUOTE ]if you cant see that this is incredibly untrue, than you have no chance. id didnt read the whole post, but THIS IS RETARDED.

[NiceCatch]

I think it's extremely important to make the distinction of playing this short-handed versus playing it long-handed. Players are much more likely to re-raise with less than AA/KK/QQ/JJ short-handed, that you have to call with AK. Long-handed, with no reads, I'd be much more inclined to fold. However if you like the fact that the opponent has defined his hand, go ahead and call; like a previous poster said, play some post-flop poker.

[TwoNiner]

[ QUOTE ]
No one's ignoring it, but if you can't figure out how to get off your hand without losing a ton of money when you do hit, you're destined to lose a lot of money regardless of whether or not you're folding AK here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your in an online game with these stacks and your not going to lose a ton of money if you hit your hand and he has aces or kings. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] It's ironic your calling other players weak when you'd obviously give up top pair top kicker with little hastle.

You might have an argument (i like the folding camp with no read), but this point is silly. The fact is once he calls your bet or checkraise you'd want to throw-up in your mouth because you hit your hand and don't have a damn clue if your good or if this is some jackoff internet player (which is partly what you expected with your call). So the guy you have no read on and know crap about, your giving credit for a set of kings or aces after one falls giving you the exact hand you wanted. If he is a sane player he can play top set correctly enough for you to lose a ton of money.

[BobboFitos]

i think you're misguided into believing a weak tight play (such as a fold here) is a bad fold/play. sure, the situation is hardly a clear fold, but it most definately is not a clear call (or raise!)

[psuasskicker]

if you cant see that this is incredibly untrue, than you have no chance. id didnt read the whole post, but THIS IS RETARDED.

If you don't know how to get off your hand without getting killed on a K high flop with AK then you don't know post-flop play. Now, I'll grant you that will happen more than the times you flop a monster that beats his. But that's not monster vs. monster.

But you think your opponent's gonna have a set a lot of the time when you have the fourth of that card? I'm not worried about it happening when he's got KK cause I can get away from a K high flop. I know how to play post-flop NL poker. I'm more concerned about an A flopping when that's the case, and all four Aces aren't gonna be out there often enough for me to consider it any more than I'll consider something like my flopping a straight to his trips or whatever along those lines.

So your in an online game with these stacks and your not going to lose a ton of money if you hit your hand and he has aces or kings.

Probably not my stack. I say "probably" because I might wind up paying off a set of rockets if he hits that, though it would depend on quite a few things. But I know how to get off my hand when I need to get off it without losing all my money. TPTK is what it is...a solid hand that you can only withstand so much with.

But you're telling me it'd take a ton of info to tell you you're beat if you flop K high? How much action is a hand that can't beat AK going to withstand there? Look at it from button's perspective for a minute if you have QQ and a K-rag-rag flops.

Are you going to automatically suspect AK or better and completely shut down, not committing any more money to the pot?

If you get check raised or bet into on the turn, how good does your hand look, and will you fire back at the player?

You guys are asserting that the standard line here will be:
- A/K flops and you win nothing.
- No A/K flops and you have to fold.
- A/K flops and you get killed by a monster.
Then you're justifying everything by screaming about reverse implied odds and how you won't get any more money when you're best and will lose tons of money when you're not and flop TPTK.

That's such simplisting thinking it's frankly mind-boggling to me that it seems so wide-spread in a mid to high limit forum. Those are three possible scenarios out of hundreds of scenarios, which include but are not limited to:
- You flopping TPTK which is best and him paying off a bet or two.
- Your both flopping huge hands where yours is better.
- Your flopping a big hand + monster draw (AsKd on an Ad8d4d flop).
- Your opponent being on a stone cold bluff.

And besides ALL those other considerations you aren't talking about, you're all completely ignoring the one point I'm hammering on and no one here has even made half an attempt to address...this isn't the only hand you're playing at this table. Folding here means you're not willing to play premium hands elsewhere when someone wants you to commit money. That leads to your rarely playing in anything but very small pots. That leads to your being completely incapable of building big pots.

And if you can't build (and win) a big pot in this game, good luck being profitable...at least more than marginally.

I feel like this is such a ridiculous discussion that it isn't even worth most people trying to argue how bizzar it is to advocate folding AK here. If I can't convince you, that's fine, to each their own. But you certainly won't convince me that folding in this situation is ever warranted. So unless someone would like to add something that's legitimately different from what's been said, I'll just leave it at that...I'm becoming repetitive now and it's not worth it anymore.

- C -