Time to Devalue Big Slick (Cardplayer Article)

IMHO ... another article with more entertainment value than educational value. Things that are not distinguished in the article:
- Suited or not suited
- Position, opening bet or already a raise or reraise
- First in? Following an open bet or raise?
- etc., etc., etc.

The one key point that he touches upon but misses is when players are making bad calls and getting miracle flops. Yeah, you will occasionally get busted in these situations, but I think you will earn more chips than you will lose over time.

One key point that he misses completely is that the concept of the continuation bet is widely understood nowadays. Therefore the AKo or AKs semi-bluff with an empty flop has much less value, because players are more inclined to cold call or raise with a pair. The obvious change would be to check and call (if the odds are ok) and try to catch a 6-outer on the turn if the odds are good and you think that may win the hand with just top pair.

Further, he misses another point which is when you find yourself with AK and top or second pair and facing a hand like AJ or KJ. Sometimes it is enough to check the flop and get the opponent bet into you the rest of the way with second best hand.

On his other point: "So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call."

I would love situations like this because it makes it easy to get away from the hand, and this is a sign of a not very crafty opponent. On the other hand, if there is an opponent who might only bet 30-40% of the pot and try to make you call with poor odds, then this is not a good situation.

[Sam T.]

[ QUOTE ]
Does AK really lose value deepstacked?


[/ QUOTE ]

All one-pair hands (including AA) lose value deep-stacked. With deep stacks, the implied odds are often present for villains to call a raise with suited/unsuited connectors and small to medium pockets. However, in the on-line world, you have about thirty minutes of truly deep stack poker, and then the implied odds vanish.

[intheflatfield]

I think he's way off base here as well. I think AK is every bit as versatile and valuable as it ever was. Especially, if one knows what one is doing post-flop.

But I like the article, very +EV, assuming people believe it...

[PuertoKid]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what Abrams is saying. An important part of the value of AK is in the folding equity you get when raising/reraising with it.

If the nature of our games change such that our FE against pocket pairs takes a significant drop (e.g. people start reraising and/or pushing with pockets a lot more than before) then the value of AK drops. But then the value of other hands (e.g. JJ) goes up.

I won't make the claim that such is the case. I just think that it is a mistake to think that the value of any hand is a constant, and I think it could be helpful to examine which game situations could change the value of particular hands. That's what I think Abrams is trying to do.

[Solitare]

Poker Tracker must be buggy then.

It stupidly shows AKs to be my 5th best hand in MTTs, after AA, QQ, KK, and TT after 12K hands. Must be the small sample size. Worthless AKs is my 2nd best hand in 25$ NL. I better stop playing it.

I'm off to the Poker Track messsage board to complain about the program overvaluing AKs.

[ QUOTE ]
With AK deepstacked you are more likely to win a small pot and lose a big one. For example when you have AK and he has 8-6 on a A86 flop, you stand to lose a portion of your chips (the same can be said anytime you get outflopped, but with TPTK its hard to get away)

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot one thing, I dodge bullets baby

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Article Link
by Dan Abrams
What’s the best starting hand in no-limit hold’em? The quick and popular answer is pocket aces. The next most popular answers are pocket kings, pocket queens and A-K (aka “big slick”). But I think it’s time to devalue A-K.

You make money with a hand when an opponent puts money in the pot when you are the favorite. Bluffing is not a factor in determining the value of a starting hand. You can bluff with any two cards. The way you play a hand determines the efficacy of the bluff (along with your image and the relative sizes of chip stacks). The value of a hand is a function of the number and power of the situations in which it is profitable.

Pocket aces are profitable because they are a big favorite over every other hand before the flop. The known danger is that most people can’t get away from them when they catch a bad flop. This is even more true of pocket kings, because too many people will call bets on the flop even with an ace out there.

But I am using this column to argue that A-K is the hand that has become much more dangerous and less profitable in the past few years. Years ago, it was much more common for people to play all sorts of ace-rag and Broadway hands, even for a raise. That situation massively favors the A-K, which is why big slick used to be correctly valued very highly. Back then, if you raised with A-K, you could count on regularly being called by A-Q, A-J, A-10, K-Q, K-J, and even A-9.

Even better, when you were lucky enough to flop an ace or king (about a third of the time), you had the best kicker and your opponent was drawing to only three outs (to hit his kicker). You could bet big on the flop and even get raised by someone you had dominated. You could get all of your money in on the flop as a substantial favorite. That’s even better than the popular wish of getting it all in preflop with aces over an opponent’s deuces. Years ago with A-K, even when you missed the flop, you often could make a continuation bet and take the pot. What a glorious time. Those were the “good old days.” Don’t count on that now.

Sure, it still happens now, especially at the lower limits, but the competition changed as players became more educated. Sklansky, Caro, and the rest of the poker experts effectively warned the public about playing weak kickers, especially for a raise. Nowadays, if you raise with big slick preflop, get called by A-J, and then check-raise an ace-high flop, most players won’t pay you off. Big slick just doesn’t earn what it used to.

What is worse, players will call you with a medium pair preflop and raise you even when there’s an overcard on the flop. So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call.

Another problem with A-K was caused by poker on television (I accept my share of the blame). Wacky hands played by tricky pros get a lot of airtime. More and more players are emulating that strategy, so they can flop stealth two pairs and straights. Consequently, if you’re really deep-stacked, A-K becomes tremendously precarious. Your A-K can get an apparently attractive flop of K-8-6, and you can go broke when an opponent shows you an 8-6.

As is the case with everything in poker, it depends on the situation and the players. But because the competition has changed strategy, it’s time to counter effectively. Don’t play A-K like it’s the nuts unless you’re short-stacked.

If you’re deep-stacked, you’ve got to be aware that the competition is increasingly playing for implied odds, and your big slick rarely flops the nuts inconspicuously. A-K is too often easily read, and simply doesn’t profit like it used to. It’s time to devalue A-K and make more money on other hands. Good luck.

More important than knowing most everything is knowing when you don’t. I don’t know everything. Tell me when I’m wrong.
-----------------------------------------

My .02c. The first part of his article is wrong. You still get called by A2 and K4, etc. Even at the semi high limits people call with all kind of trash preflop, so essentially i think his argument holds litte in that respect.

The second part deals with AK while deepstacked. What he is essentially arguing is that AK (and the TPTK hands that it makes) are fundamentally less valuable while deepstacked. To me this is easily true but i really don't get the chance to play a real deepstack style.
The main question i have now is:
Does AK really lose value deepstacked?

[/ QUOTE ]

i read the article on cardplayer and was skeptical when i saw the title. However, i think he did a good job of explaining and couching his reasoning. Obviously, it's completely stack and player dependent, but the main point was that AK loses value the deeper the stacks get, which is true in general (with some exceptions, like if you have someone who will call raises w/ AQ-AT and go broke on an ace high flop w/ like 100bb)

[gumpzilla]

I'm pretty amazed at the number of people whose responses to this thread seem to be "Ha, he said AK isn't as great as everbody thinks it is! What a tard!"

[PuertoKid]

What Sossman said. In addition, wrt cash games, Ciaffone says essentially the same thing in his book Pot Limit & No Limit Poker.

[bigfishead]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker Tracker must be buggy then.

It stupidly shows AKs to be my 5th best hand in MTTs, after AA, QQ, KK, and TT after 12K hands. Must be the small sample size. Worthless AKs is my 2nd best hand in 25$ NL. I better stop playing it.

I'm off to the Poker Track messsage board to complain about the program overvaluing AKs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than look at the tournaments in terms of chips won...look at BB/hand won...same for cash really. For me, over the last 30k+ tourn hands AKs & AKo are about +4.85 BB per hand. While in cash games over roughly the same # of hands they are +.88BB per hand. Interesting.