AA - What the?

[SheridanCat]

Man, this is a really good thread, I think.

T

[theben]

raise it goot

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't think your example illustrates this and I think some discussion might be interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, after I came up with the example, I had some second thoughts. I need to think harder about your example... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

First of all thanks to everyone so far. I'm glad there is at least a little ambiguity and the answer isn't as simple as it sounds.

Here's my (somewhat fuzzy) logic for not raising in EP with AA IN LIMIT HE. . (Both EP and Limit are very important distinctions) In NL, not raising is just down right stupid (excluding traps) because all of your money is on the line at any one time.
But (if I'm right), the NL mentallity to high pairs has been applied to Limit too often\uniformly.

With AA (before the flop) you are ahead. It's that simple. You're primary objective is to have as much money in the pot from as many players as possible. [I'm sticking to my guns on equity increasing with #players.] You make money in poker from other people's mistakes. It is a mistake for any player to put money in the pot against AA. It then would make sense to put opponents in this situation as often as possible - hence, no raise.

Call - Worst case scenario, 8 limpers. (You're still ahead through increased equity.)
Call - Best case scenario, Button raises, you three bet, 7 callers Button caps everyone calls. (not unlikely)
Raise - Best case scenario, all fold. (Highly unlikely).
This is before the flop.

Now a lot of the reasoning I'm getting in response to my post involves after the flop play. Any decision made in this way seems counter productive.
But to address these issues (as best I can).
Yes, if anyone after the flop makes a +ev play, chances are (but not always),they are taking some of that money from you - the made hand. But once you accept the fact that letting these players in in the first place reduced your win rate, you take the good with the bad, take your 31% win rate and rake in the monster pot. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I consider this decision somewhat akin to the check\raise.
I like Doyle's (even though he would probably cringe at me using it here) reasoning for a bet "I'd rather the chance of 1 or 3 bets, than 0 or 2".
And we all know how hard it is for a player (good or bad) to not call a raise after they've already put one bet in. This again goes to putting your opponents in situations where they will make a mistakes. ie. if you raise, only bad players will call. If you call, good, as well as bad will call. Good and bad players will more likely call the three bets after putting one in and the beauty is, if they don't, you got their one bet in for free.

<font color="red"> </font> Someone shoot me down in flames before I start believing my own crap. I'm going to post this in Poker Theory as well to see what comes back.<font color="red"> </font>

[donkeyradish]

I think limping in EP with AA you should still be hoping for a raise elsewhere so you can re-raise though.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I think limping in EP with AA you should still be hoping for a raise elsewhere so you can re-raise though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, indeed. This is a move you're seeing more often these days.

Regards,

T

As promised, I've posted the same question in the Poker Theory forum. I've received interesting responses and I've even attempted to justify my statements with some poker math. If you're interested.

[SheridanCat]

I just remembers that Mason Malmuth has a piece on this very topic in Poker Essays III. The upshot of that essay is, I believe, that it doesn't make any difference whether you raise or limp with aces in the long run.

Regards,

T

[Hoss1193]

Routinely limping with AA...nope, don't think that's a good idea. Most of the reasons have already been covered....you drive out some drawing hands that could suck out on you, you tend to get the calls (or even re-raises...yum) from hands you already have dominated, and best of all, lousy players are going to call you with hands that are hugely -EV (and therefore +EV for you). LIMPING with AA just makes it cheaper for more players to come in, and they're NOT making a mistake with hands like KTo, K8s, Q9s, etc....and then you're going to feel like a fool when these folks flop 2 pair on you.

It is an interesting point, as previously mentioned, that the types of hands with which it is considered correct to call or, even more often, re-raise are PRECISELY the hands you want to be up against: KK-TT, AKs/o, AQs/o, KQs/o. I had never thought about it this way, but it's true.

Separate but related topic, and I think this is relevant to the OP's post. Is it necessarily correct to ALWAYS raise with AA? Starting hand standards are pretty familiar to many players (even those who don't necessarily follow them). If a tight aggressive player folds many, calls a few, and raises a few hands, after a while even the dimmer bulbs at the table will figure out "hmm...a raise from THAT guy...I better watch out". Then an A flops, and even if he's got an A-low hand that he would otherwise merrily bet, raise, or at LEAST check-call to the river...against YOU, he might actually muck it. (happened to me earlier today!).

So I think it worthwhile to SOMETIMES limp with AA, just to keep 'em guessing. One thing I read some time ago (I forget the book...it was either WLLH or maybe one of Krieger's books) was to randomize an occasional limp with AA (or KK). Suggested method: Raise with AA or KK, UNLESS they're both red...that's about 17% of the time (1 of 6 ways to pair up AA or KK). That way...if you limp, and then come alive on the flop when an A hits, it may be harder for them to put you on AA because you didn't raise preflop, and they may call you down all the way with something they would otherwise muck. Conversely, later in the game, an opponent may give you credit for a stronger hand than something you limped with...because he/she knows that SOMETIMES you limp preflop with AA/KK, and it may tip them over the edge to fold a marginal but best hand against you if you bet out a quality draw on the come.

The idea of randomizing it with something like "both red", "both black", etc, is so that you don't tie these attempts to things like position, number of people in the pot, etc, where people may pick up a pattern.

My thought is that this sort of deception measure assumes that your opponents are observant/thinking enough that they'll notice the deviation from standard play, and then actually adjust their play against you accordingly. This leads me to conclude that such an approach may be more appropriate to mid-limit games with halfway decent players, rather than the typical low-limit games most of us play against the true fish.

Still, it's a feature I HAVE incorporated into my own game. I haven't attempted to quantify if it's an overall +EV trick over the long term....I don't know if there IS a way to quantify it, because even PT can't tell what's going on in the minds of your opponents. But I DO know that whenever I show down the (very) occasional pocket AA or KK in a B&amp;M after limping preflop, I see enough raised eyebrows and muttered comments "well, I didn't put you on THAT" to believe that it has a positive effect in the minds of my opponents, and makes me more unpredictable when they're trying to put me on a hand after I "come out of nowhere" with a check-raise.

I know this is somewhat dissenting from the mathematical approach to the game...I'd be interested to hear from others what you think.

[Twitch1977]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the reasons have already been covered....you drive out some drawing hands that could suck out on you

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you want to drive these people out? You want them to stay. I don't get why people raise with big pocket pairs in hopes of 'driving people out of the pot.'




[ QUOTE ]
LIMPING with AA just makes it cheaper for more players to come in, and they're NOT making a mistake with hands like KTo, K8s, Q9s, etc....

[/ QUOTE ]

They may not be making a mistake but that doesn't mean you want them out of the pot, you should welcome these hands calling.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of randomizing it with something like "both red", "both black", etc, is so that you don't tie these attempts to things like position, number of people in the pot, etc, where people may pick up a pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randomizing it based on the color of the cards is ridiculous, you should play the hand to fit the current situation, sure limping with AA is the proper play at times but the color of my aces doesn't make that choice for me, it's the conditions in the current hand. (And you're rarely going to get dealt pocket aces so many times with the same people at the table that they're going to be able to pick up a pattern.)

Now to summarize, you're raising AA to increase the amount of money in the pot, YOU WANT TO BE CALLED, you ARE NOT TRYING TO DRIVE PEOPLE OUT OF THE POT.

The best situation you could possibly hope for with pocket aces is everyone at the table in the pot with you and have it capped preflop.

If you're raising with AA hoping to drive people out of the pot you need to re-evaluate your play.

T