3.5 bets cold to AKo

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold man. Not even close. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if UTG and superLAG has Ax or Kx some of your cards are dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably the most significant reason to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't buy it. You catch your pair 5% less often, but you have him dominated and will make up for it (and a lot more) because he's going to spew postflop.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't underestimate the value of not losing a big pot. If you happen to catch top pair (see the calculation I did elsewhere -- even with 4 live cards it's still somewhat often), you're going to collect at least a few bets from the other players. Combine this with the immediate size of the pot, and it's like winning a regular sized pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it?

So, by your numbers, you will make one pair 23% of the time that capper holds AK. You're paying 3.5 bets to see a flop when the initial pot will probably be 20 bets (I'll ignore the rake). Which, since we're assuming you can only win half of it, is 10 bets. So your immediate equity from the dead money already in the pot is 2.3 bets. Which I'll admit is a little better than I initially thought, but don't forget that your opponents get implied odds too. Top pair is an inredibly transparent hand (meaning QQ isn't getting in a raising war with you), and ANY kind of draw is going to be continuing after the flop and they will have odds to do so. So you have to somehow get a little under 5 more small bets into the pot, not in actual bets, but in equity vs. the drawing hands after the flop (which are probaably getting correct odds to continue by the way) those times you flop top pair, to make up for your flop call. And I'm still assuming top pair is always good when you flop it, add that it could be beaten already and calling is even worse. I don't really think you can. I'm really not convinced that there's going to be too much action unless an A or K flops and someone else (other than button AK guy) has one. But going through any line of reasoning that ends in "I cold-call a cap hoping half my outs are dead" is almost certainly going to be a waste of time.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't underestimate the value of not losing a big pot. If you happen to catch top pair (see the calculation I did elsewhere -- even with 4 live cards it's still somewhat often), you're going to collect at least a few bets from the other players. Combine this with the immediate size of the pot, and it's like winning a regular sized pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it?

So, by your numbers, you will make one pair 23% of the time that capper holds AK. You're paying 3.5 bets to see a flop when the initial pot will probably be 20 bets (I'll ignore the rake). Which, since we're assuming you can only win half of it, is 10 bets. So your immediate equity from the dead money already in the pot is 2.3 bets. Which I'll admit is a little better than I initially thought, but don't forget that your opponents get implied odds too. Top pair is an inredibly transparent hand (meaning QQ isn't getting in a raising war with you), and ANY kind of draw is going to be continuing after the flop and they will have odds to do so. So you have to somehow get a little under 5 more small bets into the pot, not in actual bets, but in equity vs. the drawing hands after the flop (which are probaably getting correct odds to continue by the way) those times you flop top pair, to make up for your flop call. And I'm still assuming top pair is always good when you flop it, add that it could be beaten already and calling is even worse. I don't really think you can. I'm really not convinced that there's going to be too much action unless an A or K flops and someone else (other than button AK guy) has one. But going through any line of reasoning that ends in "I cold-call a cap hoping half my outs are dead" is almost certainly going to be a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that this is a standard low limit game, KK-JJ are going to pay off the flop and turn and almost certainly pay off a river bet. You're not *JUST* playing for the chop. You're playing for the chop, plus the change to be playing against QQ-JJ. Count the number of hand possibilities. You're doing pretty well against capper's hands.

Also, in big pot poker, everyone is going to have odds to chase everything. This does not mean that your hand is not profitable. It is simply a matter of having *TONS* of dead money in the pot preflop. Given the number of players in the pot with you, it's going to be a horse race to see who wins because nobody is folding (adding to your implied odds).

Will they draw out on you? Yes. Should it bother you? Nope. You still make money postflop when you catch a pair and have the best hand. This is a misconception of postflop play that has come up every now and then. It is possible for *EVERYONE* to play profitably postflop if the pot preflop is large.

You keep focusing on all the bad things that can happen without giving proper attention to the good things that can happen. Don't forget that you've got some cold-calling donks in the middle who are just *GIVING* their money away preflop. You've got superLAG who, if he's holidng something like A9s will pay off HUGE if you catch an ace.

If this were a tournament situation, a conservative fold may be a wise play. But this is a cash game, and turning down profitable situations just because they might turn into expensive gambles is not a wise approach. The only time AKo is in deep trouble is when it's against AA and it's in moderate trouble against KK, with only 2 or 3 outs depending on what other cards are out. But simply by having AKo, you cut the chances of both of these bad situations in *HALF* (AA goes from 6 combinations to 3 combinations -- as does KK).

[aK13]

I'm folding.

I also fold QQ in this spot.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm folding.

I also fold QQ in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding QQ is better than folding AKo because it flops hands with very few redraws... But QQ is worth a call in a 6-way pot because your implied odds are VERY VERY LARGE when you snag a queen, and you might surprise yourself by winning UI.

Don't forget -- YOU'VE ONLY GOT 30 FREAKING HANDS AS YOUR READ. This isn't some well established rock capping in position, it's a relative unknown.

[Xhad]

Well, that post was related solely to the situation where capper has AK...and when you are playing for a chop, there is not enough dead money in the pot. Especially since I didn't even get into those times that you flop top pair and it sucks, like when the board is all one suit or someone flopped a set or something.

[ QUOTE ]
Count the number of hand possibilities. You're doing pretty well against capper's hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider all the hands in the range to be equally likely. I consider TT-AQs to be very unlikely, JJ-AK somewhat less so, with QQ-AA being his hand at least half the time.

What I was demonstrating is that the situation where he has AK sucks, so that leaves QQ-TT and AQs where you're happy, and I just don't think it's so likely he has those hands to make up for the times he has AK, AA, or KK (in the case of KK, cold-calling a cap for three outs also sucks, even with the other callers). Especially since you're drawing even against the good hands. And especially since it's not impossible for the intial raiser or even the LAG to also have one of these hands.

The other part that I really don't agree with is your assertion that implied odds mean much in this hand. Four reasons:

-Because the pot is so gigantic, people are going to have odds to chase all kinds of draws after the flop, which severely diminishes your EV on later rounds. There just aren't enough later-round "mistakes" to give you much in the way of Sklansky bucks after the flop.
-Because the pot is capped, and isn't as likely to be capped after the flop because not everyone can hit their hands, the preflop action is probably going to be a large percentage of the final pot.
-For the most part (as in, other than the LAG) an A or a K tends to kill the action, unless someone else has one (going back to dead outs), OR they have top pair beaten, OR they have a great draw to beat one pair, meaning you're not making as much EV on the late streets as you would with a stronger draw. People might call you, but they won't go to war with you, and you need quite a few bets on later streets to justify the preflop call.
-Implied odds have to be discounted further still when you can hit your hand and have it not be good. Normally this isn't even a consideration with AK preflop, but it is when it got capped before the action even came to you, and by someone not yet known to be aggressive. Now add to that the fact that when people hit nutty two-pair or straight hands on the later streets you pretty much have to pay off just for the size of the pot. This goes back to the "pot is huge" argument; implied odds are strongest when you have some kind of strategic advantage on future streets, here you really don't because with several opponents likely going to the river you won't necessarily be able to know where everyone is at and what cards beat you, if you're even good to begin with. And unless something obvious like a flush hits, you won't likely be able to get away from your top pair because the pot is so big.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
and you might surprise yourself by winning UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think calling with QQ is better than calling with AK*, for this reason. As I stated above, I think implied odds mean little when you're cold-calling a cap; I'm not calling unless I think my hand might already be good.

[aK13]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't forget -- YOU'VE ONLY GOT 30 FREAKING HANDS AS YOUR READ. This isn't some well established rock capping in position, it's a relative unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume no reads on anybody here, and I also assume that post party players lay on the passive side at micro/small stakes.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that post was related solely to the situation where capper has AK...and when you are playing for a chop, there is not enough dead money in the pot. Especially since I didn't even get into those times that you flop top pair and it sucks, like when the board is all one suit or someone flopped a set or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

MUBS. The times you flop top pair and it's good will outweigh by a fair margin the number of times you flop top pair and it's no good. Why? It's a simple matter of needing lots of things to happen at once. Assuming you flop top pair, it is less likely that someone will catch a set because there are only two cards that can help them instead of three.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Count the number of hand possibilities. You're doing pretty well against capper's hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't consider all the hands in the range to be equally likely. I consider TT-AQs to be very unlikely, JJ-AK somewhat less so, with QQ-AA being his hand at least half the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sort of scaling is a fundamental error in counting hands. You're drawing a false conclusion based on false assumptions.

How do we put players on hand ranges? You consider the action and try to pick as many hands as possible which are consistent with the play. For a generic player, AA-JJ, AK, AQs are all reasonable capping hands. Artificially saying that AA-QQ must happen at least half the time weights the hands in a way that is inconsistent with reality.

Here's what I mean. Suppose we *KNOW* that villain will cap only AA-QQ and we have not looked at our cards. If he turns up his cards, we expect to see AA 1/3 of the time, KK 1/3 of the time, and QQ 1/3 of the time.

Now we look at our cards and see AK. We now know that he most likely has QQ. But we can say more. Given that he capped *AND* we have AK, there are 3 ways for AA and KK and 6 ways for QQ. So we know that half the time we will see QQ and 1/4 of the time we'll see AA and KK. Knowing about *OUR* cards affects the hand range for villain. This is a basic probabilistic assumption that you *CANNOT* throw out.

In the same way, you cannot blindly assert that villain has AA-QQ more than half the time. You must consider the number of hands which are consistent with a cap and calculate from there the liklihood of each hand. Here, we have (given that AK is in our hands):

AA = 3 ways
KK = 3 ways
QQ = 6 ways
JJ = 6 ways
AK = 9 ways
AQs = 3 ways

So that AA-QQ happens 40% of the time, JJ-AK 50% of the time, and AQs 10% of the time. There are some scalings you can do to attempt to increase the accuracy (unknown villain only caps JJ 50% of the time), but in order to do that, you make further assumptions about villain which are somewhat unsound (such as you know how often an unknown villain caps JJ).

[ QUOTE ]
What I was demonstrating is that the situation where he has AK sucks, so that leaves QQ-TT and AQs where you're happy, and I just don't think it's so likely he has those hands to make up for the times he has AK, AA, or KK (in the case of KK, cold-calling a cap for three outs also sucks, even with the other callers). Especially since you're drawing even against the good hands. And especially since it's not impossible for the intial raiser or even the LAG to also have one of these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying KK is a muck preflop if it's already capped? This is an awful conclusion. Why would KK be a muck, but AA be all-in? This is such a sharp distinction between the #1 and #2 starting hands.

[ QUOTE ]
The other part that I really don't agree with is your assertion that implied odds mean much in this hand. Four reasons:

-Because the pot is so gigantic, people are going to have odds to chase all kinds of draws after the flop, which severely diminishes your EV on later rounds. There just aren't enough later-round "mistakes" to give you much in the way of Sklansky bucks after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This suggests another conceptual error. You do not turn down a profitable situation because you may not get Sklansky bucks out of it. Sklansky bucks refer to money you make when villains make FTOP errors. When the pot is large preflop, it is possible for *EVERYONE* to play profitably postflop without making any FTOP errors. What this means is that folding takes away your chance to play in a profitable situation. Then you lose money instead of winning it.

By your logic, if someone dropped $1000 into a micro limit pot, you should fold AA because everyone is getting odds to draw out on you.

[ QUOTE ]
-Because the pot is capped, and isn't as likely to be capped after the flop because not everyone can hit their hands, the preflop action is probably going to be a large percentage of the final pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

HyperLAG is one excellent reason to think it might get capped somewhere postflop. Also, your implied odds don't need to be very big because you're not starting with a tremendous deficit to make up. You're not starting with a last place hand and trying to draw a first place hand. You've got a first or second place hand which you are hoping will hold up or to catch a single opponent.

[ QUOTE ]
-For the most part (as in, other than the LAG) an A or a K tends to kill the action, unless someone else has one (going back to dead outs), OR they have top pair beaten, OR they have a great draw to beat one pair, meaning you're not making as much EV on the late streets as you would with a stronger draw. People might call you, but they won't go to war with you, and you need quite a few bets on later streets to justify the preflop call.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Kill the action" may mean you won't get bets and raises going crazy on all streets, but you can very well get much more "action" from people chasing all sorts of random junk.

Not making "as much EV" is an odd concern. You're talking about not winning *BONUS MONEY* due to everyone else playing stupidly. That's fine. You're already winning lots of money by holding a strong hand.

[ QUOTE ]
-Implied odds have to be discounted further still when you can hit your hand and have it not be good. Normally this isn't even a consideration with AK preflop, but it is when it got capped before the action even came to you, and by someone not yet known to be aggressive. Now add to that the fact that when people hit nutty two-pair or straight hands on the later streets you pretty much have to pay off just for the size of the pot. This goes back to the "pot is huge" argument; implied odds are strongest when you have some kind of strategic advantage on future streets, here you really don't because with several opponents likely going to the river you won't necessarily be able to know where everyone is at and what cards beat you, if you're even good to begin with. And unless something obvious like a flush hits, you won't likely be able to get away from your top pair because the pot is so big.

[/ QUOTE ]

The strategic advantage you have going into later streets is that you often won't be there unless you have the best hand. I'm not saying you should go nuts if you flop top pair postflop, but against any reasonable range of hands (it's a multi-way pot, remember?), you've got a considerable edge when you hit top pair on the flop.