A3 Suited on Botton...Opinions needed

[Ed Miller]

If there is a bet to you besides the 1 in 10 times you flop your flush draw (which you will still only make 1/3 of the time) you must fold, as you clearly don't have the best hand.

That's just not true. People bet lots of stuff besides top pair. Against many bettors, I would raise with a pair of aces, not fold.

If it is checked to you, whether you pair your ace is irrelevant, you will likely be able to steal the pot with any two cards. If you are called by either limper, than your hand is probably no good anyway, even with your ace. A limper without an ace will usually fold when an Ace flops.

That is also just plain not true.

1) If it is checked to you, you can't just count on stealing the pot
2) If you are called, it will often be by bottom or middle pair, or worse, and you can bet your ace for value the whole way

3. 4 6 is easy to get rid of, and will pay you off more when it hits than your lone pair of aces.

Well, 64s is easy to get rid of... but getting rid of hands doesn't make money. I don't know why you think spiking a four or six will get you paid off better than a "lone pair of aces."

Spiking an ace with A3s is MUCH more likely to make you a winner than spiking a four or six with 64s. Bottom line. That's why A3s is considered to be a "better hand" than 64s. It's not a collective lapse of judgement that people think A3s is better. It is better. Just like JJ is a "better hand" than A3s.

People aren't taking you seriously because what you are saying is just plain wrong. Don't mean to be rude, but it's true.

[MRBAA]

I think the ace often has a lot of value in loose low limit games where people come in with all kinds of stuff (like 4-6 suited, for instance). In a tight, tough game then, yeah, you're not loving an ace. But the key to these hands -- and any hand -- is you have to play decently postflop. You're not calling a raise preflop, so against most players you're eliminating AK, AQ, AA-JJ as possible hands you're against. Now when the flop comes with an ace you have to look at what else is in the flop, what's the action, who's giving the action, and do some basic hand reading. If you can't do this and will call down everytime against ace/better kicker, little two pair, etc., then you need to learn to play better. But if you can get away when you're beat more often than not and extract bets from middle pair, etc. when you're best, then by all means play this. The fact that an expert, higher stakes players like Joe Tall and Clarkmeister will play these from very early tells you how confident they are in their hand reading skills. I'll do the same in a very passive game, but will muck in even a slightly more aggressive one before middle position, simply because I hate it when I get raised behind. Now I don't know if my ace is good, the pot is pretty big, and I may have a tough choice between calling and folding when an ace flops and the pre-flop raiser bets.

[Mike Gallo]

Would you care to comment on any other point that I made?

Not really, I don't wish to belabor the point. See Major Kongs response.

I attempted to point out your errors, obviously you know better.

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you care to comment on any other point that I made?

Not really, I don't wish to belabor the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You people baffle me. You haven't even acknowledged the point. Belabor it??

[ QUOTE ]
I attempted to point out your errors, obviously you know better.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
See Major Kongs response.

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly will...it looks as if he has given a legitmate response to one of my posts...even though I may disagree with it.

-ropey

[Jezebel]

Ropey,
I am actually rethinking the way I have generally played Axs. I also played primarily for the flush and considered any additional outs as just a bonus. However, this thread has got me thinking and I'll share some of those thoughts in response to your 3 summary points.

[ QUOTE ]
1. If there is a bet to you besides the 1 in 10 times you flop your flush draw (which you will still only make 1/3 of the time) you must fold, as you clearly don't have the best hand. <font color="blue"> Against a large field, I think you are correct in that you will probably have to toss your hand to any significant action, but shorthanded an ace on the flop is likely to be good in an unraised pot. So you can play Axs for the flush in a multiway pot, and for the flush and Ace in a shorthanded pot. </font>

2. If it is checked to you, whether you pair your ace is irrelevant, you will likely be able to steal the pot with any two cards. If you are called by either limper, than your hand is probably no good anyway, even with your ace. A limper without an ace will usually fold when an Ace flops.
<font color="blue"> I don't think this is entirely true. Suppose the flop comes rags with one suit of your hand and the pot is shorthanded. I would be more inclined to semibluff with Axs figuring I had 4 outs if I was called. (3 aces and 1 for the backdoor potential) With small suited connectors I don't think that many steal attempts could be considered a semibluff since you will rarely have any legit outs. </font>

3. 4 6 is easy to get rid of, and will pay you off more when it hits than your lone pair of aces.
<font color="blue"> When playing Axs in a shorthanded pot, I don't think you are worried about getting paid off. You just want to take the pot right there, since your flush draw did not come in. Given that you might catch some secondary outs that you can semibluff with, or an Ace on the flop that has a good chance of being good (remember we're shorthanded) then I think his hand has some merit in being played for slightly more than the flush draw alone, in an uraised pot.</font>


[/ QUOTE ]

[aamitch10]

Yes, I would love to reply to your statements!

You are exactly right!

Ax in this situation should play exactly the same as 4 6 suited. If anyone has an ace, which in low limit any ace is limped with a large percentage of time, you are beaten when the ace flops. Furthermore, you will never be able to determine if your ace is good without going to the river. You most likely will never be raised by a better ace in a low limit passive game. So when your ace is there, you cost yourself multitudes to find out that you were out kicked. If a bet is to you, and an ace is on the board, no raise will help you determine if your ace is good. You will more than likely be called down.

When an ace flops and everyone folds to your bet, they would have also folded when you hold 4 6!!! Your ace has no value in this case either. They were going to fold to a bet when an ace flops period.

If you get lucky, and hit the flush, or pick up a flush draw, it is very likely to be the only one in there, and will be good. I don't believe 4 6 has much less flush value in this case than Ax.

No one is looking at the clearly obvious (to me anyway) reasons why Ax suited has no more value than 4 6 suited in this situation.

Please, someone respond with a real argument as to how they will know when their ace is good!

[Ed Miller]

I'm not going to say anything more on this thread. I will say that I am simply baffled that anyone who has actually played any poker at all (&gt; 200 hours) could come to the conclusion that 64s is better than A3s on the button after two limpers.

Once again, here is the #1 and most important reason A3s is better than 64s:

With A3s, you will often flop the best hand (a pair of aces) and get called down by worse hands. With 64s, you will almost never flop one pair and get called down by worse hands.

This argument is as silly as the people that say JJ is no good because an overcard usually flops. Or the people that say AA is no good in a multiway pot because one pair rarely wins. This argument is EQUALLY silly.

[JTG51]

I'm not sure where the data you posted came from, nor do I care.

Ropey, it would probably do you some good to find out where that date came from and start caring about it. It's a great resource. What Clarkmeister gave you isn't a simulation result, it's the real world results of a zillion hands played by a zillion players at Pokerroom.com.

I find it somewhat amusing that you keep saying no one is listening to your argument, but when Clarkmeister gave you some hard data you said you didn't care.

[ropey]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it somewhat amusing that you keep saying no one is listening to your argument, but when Clarkmeister gave you some hard data you said you didn't care.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find it somewhat amusing that you think you can use this 'hard data' in this situation.

The fact is that I have played much worse hands than a 6 4 from the button because of the opponenent(s) in the hand...and played them successfully...It is merely impossible for any statistic to account for these situations.

-ropey

[bernie]

im on my way down the thread. from your post i agree
folding in this spot preflop is terrible.

flop. id fold, BUT IF i was going to the turn, i wouldnt call. id raise. so in that respect, the poster did fine. i'm not calling the flop.

cheers

b