AQ SB Hand

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
1) My intention was not to three bet on the flop, and possibly to fold if there was a raise depending on circumstance. With 5 other players and a coordinated board of middles, I am not going to throw a lot of chips in here if someone fights back.

2) I am still thinking about this. I originally posted it just as a pot control hand, because this the type of hand I see a lot of people doubling someone up with. Now I am thinking I misplayed this preflop and that in the 33's there is some real value to raising pf here to thin the field and set up a post flop situation where you will be lead/folding, check/folding, or getting all your chips in where one party overvalues their hand (and hopefully that party isn't you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). In the 55's I would be much more leary of playing this hand in that manner, but I am really shocked at some of the play I am seeing in the 33's, it is beyond bad. I'm tempted to try some lower level STT's to see if it can possibly get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) if your plan was bet and fold to a raise, do you think that there is comparable value in checking and seeing what the action is behind you (which is potentially free?) or do you think that that winds up putting you in a position where you have to check call bets on multiple streets too often? if you're just plain called on the flop in more than one spot, are you checking the turn?

i think that people are overestimating the percentage of the time that your hand is no good if you get action on this board in the 33s. the board is QTx rainbow. your'e gong to get action from various players from any queen, some tens, KJ, J9, sets, and two pair. but i think that at the lower stakes you're going to see a whole lot of people who are willing to go stack donating with top pair worse kicker, possibly enough to make turning yourself into a tptk stack donating donkey a realistic thing to do.

2) i'm a bit undecided on this, now, part of that could be because i'm not that familiar with playing the 800 chip games any more, but i do mix up my play in this spot in the sb preflop. i probably raise about 40% of the time, maybe up to 60% of the time. my raise % usually has more to do with who's at my table and who limped, which is easier to do when you're playing hte higher stakes games where you know everyone. i think that putting in 10% of your stack preflop here out of position isn't hte greatest thing. but at the same time, it's not horrible either. when you do hit the flop with fewer players, you're going to be much more comfortable putting hte rest of your stack in, so that's a point for it. i think that the big point against it is that many players, particularly 2+2ers at the 33s and below, assume that just because you raised preflop means you have to lead at the flop, because harrington says continuation bets are awesome. say you raise to about 100, now have about 900 behind, but get 2 callers. the pot's now about 400, and to make a sensible lead at it, you're going to have to lead out 200+, leaving you with 700 behind, and very much wanting to fold if raised. but if you don't necessarilly lead out at every flop just because you've raised, you're in tons better shape. duh.

i think that there's a lot of people who undervalue position, and what it means w.r.t. your preflop actions. the original idea of talking about this hand in a pot control manner is a great one. and particularly that's why i'm more interested in your continued analysis of stuff in (1) above. i think that people do however, underestimate the amount that things like "i will be in position" and "i will be out of position" for the rest of hte hand, should influence your decisions in the early parts of the hand.

yes, it's not fun to invest lots of stack in a hand where while you might have the best preflop hand, you're going to be at an innate disadvantage for the rest of the hand. similarly, it's fun to get more stack in in spots where you might have the best hand and will be in advantageous position for the rest of the hand.

personally i think that hte reason this hand is pretty interesting is the specific stack depth. as another poster pointed out, one level up and it would be a reasonable push preflop. at this level, as i semi-reasoned, it's harder to raise any amount because you're getting yourself married to a pot if you continue where you might not thin the field very much at all at the 33s. the absolute worst thing that happens, right, is that you wind up 5 or 6 handed to the flop for 7x as many chips, and see the exact same flop. having more chips in hte pot shouldn't influence the idea that "6 handed tptk is not a lock to win" but at hte same time, your hand is so good!

anyway, that's a lot of words for right now.

c

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, when the action gets to you in the SB preflop, how sure are you that none of the limpers have AA, KK, QQ, or AK? 98%? 99%?

What should you do in poker if you are 98-99% sure that you have the best hand?

I'm sure that plenty of folks think completing here is fine, but it's not. It's funny how most people are content to invest 500 chips into a multi-way pot where you are a dog to have the best hand, but are reluctant to raise to 80 chips when you are virtually sure to have the best hand.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, AQ is behind any pair.

It's a close decision here. Limping is fine. Raising is fine. I base my decision on the table texture and the buyin level.

[Scuba Chuck]

Cit, I would think the primary consideration for limping here is your position preflop, and the high number for potential callers behind you if/when you raise.

Furthermore, once the action goes the way it did on the flop, 4 callers, and one of the very likely scare cards for a situation with 4 callers, doesn't it make more sense to check the turn?

FWIW, on the lower levels, I see QT often played, but I think more often than not it's raised on the flop or river, so the two callers would really have bells going off for me with a 200 chip bet. So in essence, we're really worried about KJ or J9. So I can see why a river call, rather I could go either way.

On the flop, I think there's merits for both leading the flop, and check/raising, so I'm indifferent about his play there. The result is difficult, because this turned into the type of situation you wished you had check-raised, but hindsight is 20/20.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
Cit, I would think the primary consideration for limping here is your position preflop, and the high number for potential callers behind you if/when you raise.

Furthermore, once the action goes the way it did on the flop, 4 callers, and one of the very likely scare cards for a situation with 4 callers, doesn't it make more sense to check the turn?

FWIW, on the lower levels, I see QT often played, but I think more often than not it's raised on the flop or river, so the two callers would really have bells going off for me with a 200 chip bet. So in essence, we're really worried about KJ or J9. So I can see why a river call, rather I could go either way.

On the flop, I think there's merits for both leading the flop, and check/raising, so I'm indifferent about his play there. The result is difficult, because this turned into the type of situation you wished you had check-raised, but hindsight is 20/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with basically all of this.

c

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]

I think raising here with AQ is -EV, for the above reasons. Maybe I play better postflop now, I dunno, but when I raised AQ out of the blinds it always hosed me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often did you check/fold the flop? I think the key to raising this preflop is the ability to not spew chips on the flop when it misses you but clearly could have hit someone else.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, when the action gets to you in the SB preflop, how sure are you that none of the limpers have AA, KK, QQ, or AK? 98%? 99%?

What should you do in poker if you are 98-99% sure that you have the best hand?

I'm sure that plenty of folks think completing here is fine, but it's not. It's funny how most people are content to invest 500 chips into a multi-way pot where you are a dog to have the best hand, but are reluctant to raise to 80 chips when you are virtually sure to have the best hand.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, AQ is behind any pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that ESPN says that AQ is behind any pair when the cards are dealt... but you are not behind any pair.

Check your PT data and see whether you do better from the blinds with 33 or AQ. Or imagine playing an infinite series of hands against me... one of us always has a small pair, the other always has AQ (but neither knows what the other has or that we will keep playing this over and over); which would you rather hold?

Don't let your knowledge of hot and cold values obscure the way you think about poker hands when the blinds are small.

Irieguy

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, when the action gets to you in the SB preflop, how sure are you that none of the limpers have AA, KK, QQ, or AK? 98%? 99%?

What should you do in poker if you are 98-99% sure that you have the best hand?

I'm sure that plenty of folks think completing here is fine, but it's not. It's funny how most people are content to invest 500 chips into a multi-way pot where you are a dog to have the best hand, but are reluctant to raise to 80 chips when you are virtually sure to have the best hand.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, AQ is behind any pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that ESPN says that AQ is behind any pair when the cards are dealt... but you are not behind any pair.

Check your PT data and see whether you do better from the blinds with 33 or AQ. Or imagine playing an infinite series of hands against me... one of us always has a small pair, the other always has AQ (but neither knows what the other has or that we will keep playing this over and over); which would you rather hold?

Don't let your knowledge of hot and cold values obscure the way you think about poker hands when the blinds are small.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but I'm not playing Irieguy heads-up until the end of time. I'm playing donks, now.

All the donks have seen ESPN. I've seen countless re-raises all-in w 66 and the like in this situation.

So you call the push, of course... and you're behind. Yep.

Not to mention traps.

I'm not saying raising is bad. I'm just saying it's a close decision.

Don't let thought experiments obscure the way you think about poker hands when the donks are donking. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with raising here, even raising a lot, is I will likely have multiple callers and likely miss the flop. Also, I would not say there is nearly that high a chance I have the best hand since I am behind all pairs, and players with pairs are not folding at this level in my (limited) experience. If I raise, there is a good chance they won't fold postflop, either, so I am left in a tough spot if I miss since a continuation is not very effective here, but if I hit I could easily stack someone with a middling pair (less chance if I hit the ace).

So basicly, if I am raising I am only raising to clean up my hand for those times I hit and to get people mentally committed to the pot. I do this some times but I think complete here for 5 is fine, too.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I have a feeling that I will not be able to convince everyone that most of the discussion in this thread is rubbish... so I will just make a brief comment here.

Thinking about poker in the above way is very uncreative and limits your ability to play well from the blinds.

"I don't want to raise because nobody will fold anyhow, and I'm behind all pairs, and a continuation bet won't work..." is a poisonous line of thought. When a hand like this comes along for me in the SB, I would be more likely to think "I have the best hand, I am going to raise, and if somebody calls I am likely to get chips from them whether I hit the flop or not."

Blind play is crucial in SNGs, and I'm glad that this hand got me to think about it some more. I will either start a thread on blind play philosophy or post some hands similar to this one, but played very differently.

Irieguy

[Melchiades]

[ QUOTE ]
Blind play is crucial in SNGs, and I'm glad that this hand got me to think about it some more. I will either start a thread on blind play philosophy or post some hands similar to this one, but played very differently.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be great.

I limp here usually. Mostly because I'll get lots of callers at the 16's and 27's most of the time, and I'm not confident in my ability playing a big pot with lots of callers out of position. After my limp, I usually check raise this flop.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My problem with raising here, even raising a lot, is I will likely have multiple callers and likely miss the flop. Also, I would not say there is nearly that high a chance I have the best hand since I am behind all pairs, and players with pairs are not folding at this level in my (limited) experience. If I raise, there is a good chance they won't fold postflop, either, so I am left in a tough spot if I miss since a continuation is not very effective here, but if I hit I could easily stack someone with a middling pair (less chance if I hit the ace).

So basicly, if I am raising I am only raising to clean up my hand for those times I hit and to get people mentally committed to the pot. I do this some times but I think complete here for 5 is fine, too.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I have a feeling that I will not be able to convince everyone that most of the discussion in this thread is rubbish... so I will just make a brief comment here.

Thinking about poker in the above way is very uncreative and limits your ability to play well from the blinds.

"I don't want to raise because nobody will fold anyhow, and I'm behind all pairs, and a continuation bet won't work..." is a poisonous line of thought. When a hand like this comes along for me in the SB, I would be more likely to think "I have the best hand, I am going to raise, and if somebody calls I am likely to get chips from them whether I hit the flop or not."

Blind play is crucial in SNGs, and I'm glad that this hand got me to think about it some more. I will either start a thread on blind play philosophy or post some hands similar to this one, but played very differently.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think evidence is an excellent idea, rather than vague philosophical attacks on concrete statements, based on experience, made by posters that I (at least) respect.

If you can provide such evidence, please accept my apologies for spewing so much "rubbish" and "poison" into this thread.