AA UTG limp question - Page 5

crunchy1 · #41 06-09-2005, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I suppose I should have been clearer...AA plays far better in raised and 2-4 way pots than in unraised 6-way pots. Not that you wouldn't like to have AA, but you'd much rather have it in a controlled situation where your equity % is high.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't saying a lot - you could say this about any hand.

AA is going to make more and lose less in pots with many players. It's going to make about the same as it loses in small and HU pots. I'll explain later.

I'd much rather have a situation where I'm making more money. And this:
[ QUOTE ]
If you do a simple hot & cold analysis, then the more people you could get in the pot, the better off you'd be:
2-way = 85% equity. You'll win 1.7 BB for every 1 BB you put in.
3-way = 71% equity. = 2.13/1
5-way = 49% equity. = 2.45/1
10-way = 30% equity. = 3.00/1

[/ QUOTE ]
seems to prove that point pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that AA has rotten implied odds when your equity % is low. If you let 9 random hands against you, you'd only win 30% of the time and yet you'd end up paying off all the way to the showdown better than 75% of the time, and so the H&C analysis overstates the value of AA in many way pots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're wrong here. I'm going to fold my AA with much greater ease in a 9-handed pot rather than in a HU pot. It's going to be much clearer against 9 opponents when you're good and when you're not. I'm going to win more when I hit a monster and lose less when I hit nothing and the board is scary and action is coming from all sides.

OTOH, in a HU pot - I'm probably paying off a flop/turn checkraise to the river. In these pots there's only 1 player to pay me off when I have a monster and I'm a lot closer to losing the same when I'm behind as I will win when I'm ahead.

CallMeIshmael · #42 06-09-2005, 09:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, there is NEVER a position or table to do it at in limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Not right.

crunchy1 · #43 06-09-2005, 09:42 PM

Sorry I have to say this: YUK!

[ QUOTE ]
I have limped from UTG in the past for one reason - people love to fold to a raise from someone UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? What game are you playing? $1000/2000. Cause in any game up to at least 5/10 (maybe even 15/30) people love to CALL (and the higher it gets 'call' starts to navigate towards 're-raise'). This is an absolutely ridiculous reason to limp UTG w/AA.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what it is, but I see more hands folded around from an UTG raise than any other position. I think people get the feeling that someone must really have a hand to raise from the earliest position of all... which is probably correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
MOST players are completely oblivious to the advantages/disadvantages of position. This is why we make money. If everyone played great only the house would win.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not foregoing an edge to push a greater one later in the hand, I'm trying to win the biggest pot possible with the strongest starting hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're much likelier to accomplish this goal by just raising outright and not trying to get fancy. Unless of course you're playing in that $1000/2000 game I referred to where everyone's folding all the time. Incidentally - and back to serious discussion - I see very little reason why any of us should ever be finding ourselves in these types of games (save the occasional situation where the game's gone bad and we're seeing our last hand on the way out).

[ QUOTE ]
I've only used it in particular situations (tight table, reads, table image, etc) when I felt a raise would be -EV for my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think that ANY raise with AA would be -EV... ...then you don't understand the concept of expected value.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is correct to say that raising AA from UTG is THE correct play every single time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless I missed a good post I have yet to see anyone give a solid justification on why it would EVER be the correct play to limp UTG w/AA.

crunchy1 · #44 06-09-2005, 09:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, there is NEVER a position or table to do it at in limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]No. Not right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the entire thread - you'll probably have some good input here. First you'll see that I was over-exaggerating to make my point - which I clarify several times. Second, If you have some situations where you feel it's correct that haven't already been mentioned I'd love to hear them.

CallMeIshmael · #45 06-09-2005, 09:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, there is NEVER a position or table to do it at in limit poker.

[/ QUOTE ]No. Not right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the entire thread - you'll probably have some good input here. First you'll see that I was over-exaggerating to make my point - which I clarify several times. Second, If you have some situations where you feel it's correct that haven't already been mentioned I'd love to hear them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im going running in like 5, but I will read when I get back.

I think it was OK here (note: my initial reaction was assuming he wasnt going to LRR)

(also, note that Nate (who I believed you quoted above) was OK with it)

crunchy1 · #46 06-09-2005, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was OK here (note: my initial reaction was assuming he wasnt going to LRR)(also, note that Nate (who I believed you quoted above) was OK with it)

[/ QUOTE ]
I only quoted Nate's "sucks donkey balls" comment - not any real strategic info.

I think that the KK limp sucks. If limping AA sucks - limping KK must be even worse. Now you're allowing any Ax to limp in behind you.

Furthermore, the OP in that thread obviously didn't have as good a read as he thought. If the table was really THAT tight - then what the hell was MP doing limping behind with KQo. Furthermore - the more pots in a row that are won PF or don't go to showdown - I think the more impatient people get and it gets more likely as time goes on that a big pot will develop. That's just human nature.

Nick C · #47 06-10-2005, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Cause in any game up to at least 5/10 (maybe even 15/30) people love to CALL (and the higher it gets 'call' starts to navigate towards 're-raise').

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite what you added in the parenthetical, I think you're exaggerating the ease of finding loose-passive games at 3/6 (I'm mentioning that limit specifically since it's the one I'm most familiar with right now).

But I will say too that if I'm at a table where I start getting tempted to go for limp-reraises, what I usually do is just leave once the blinds get to me -- unless the reason that I'm tempted to limp-reraise is that I have a big LAG to my left who likes to get that first raise in preflop (but doesn't 3-bet much), and no one respects his raises.

Nick C · #48 06-10-2005, 02:27 AM

I'm at a new table, and while I wait for the BB to get around to me, the guy who seems to be the one (based on my limited observation) who is making this table good leaves.

So I play a couple of orbits, and the blinds are getting stolen about 50 percent of the time. I lose one hand when my turned two pair makes someone else a straight. I win another after 3-betting preflop with AKs and turning a flush.

Then I get dealt AA in EP and consider limping and posting the hand in this thread no matter what happens. Then I say "No" to myself and raise instead:

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is UTG+2 with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
2 folds, Hero raises, 7 folds.

Final Pot: 1.66 BB

Two hands later, I fold UTG, and the folding continues all the way through the SB. BB takes the pot uncontested with his random hand. I click "Sit out" and leave the table.