Is Kx better than Ax when short-stacked?

[superleeds]

Whilst reading the ‘Why I think Raymer's suckouts were perfectly fine’ post and in particular the Raymer quote ‘Mattias Andersson would make a raise with any ace there’ I started thinking about the value of an Ax all-in raise when you are short-stacked.

I’ve done it myself many times and off course their are many other factors to take into account - position, relative stacks, payouts etc - but my initial thoughts are that maybe Kx and even Qx (I’m not sure about this) maybe better cards. Here’s my rationale, small stacks are often put on a little Ace, at least as part of the range of hands they may have, when they go all-in (I’m assuming not so short that any 2 will do but it’s an all or nothing situation) and are therefore called by big stacks with an ok Ace themselves.

Here are some hypothetical situations. Y = You, small stack. B = Caller, big stack

1. Y has Ax, B has A smaller x

2. Y has Ax, B has A bigger xWorst scenario (excepting the times you run into AA). A more likely situation than 1 because big stacks are more likely to go with this against you if there are still people to act but are more likely to drop an Ace you have dominated and hope someone else plays Sherrif.

3. Y has Ax, B has big cards

4. Y has Ax, B has a pair (I’m ignoring big pairs which are obviously gonna at least call)

5. Y has Ax, B has suited/connected.

6. Y has Ax, B has any 2

Ok my thoughts again.

1. Ideal situation but how likely? In my experience, admittedly small, not very. If the caller will call here he will call with Kx just as often.

2. Worst scenario (excepting the times you run into AA). A more likely situation than 1 because big stacks are more likely to go with this against you if there are still people to act but are more likely to drop an Ace you have dominated and hope someone else plays Sherrif. Here, I think, is the clear example of Kx being the better bet, very simply more outs.

3. It all depends on what the Big Cards are. obviously you want Ax and not Kx against KQ but either will be the same favorite (or as near as dammit) against QJ. I agree you are more likely to run into KQ and KJ more often than QJ but if you can add the T into the mix do your odds improve? Do the times your Kx run into KQ, KJ cancel out the advantage you get in Situation 2 by playing Kx?

4, 5 and 6. Again, as near as dammit Ax and Kx are even.

Is any of this valid? Will it happen often enough to have any value? Or should I just use the tried and trusted method of always being the chip leader [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Your comments appreciated.

[sprmario]

No.

[JayKon]

My initial response is also No. However, you put some serious thought into the post and I want to read it more carefully (but don't have the time right now).

[fnurt]

Remember, it's not like you automatically lose when you're dominated. You are a 3-1 underdog, but to me, the times when you are a big dog are compensated for in the large number of instances where you are actually a favorite.

I think if someone will call with a crappy Ace, they will also call with a number of other reasonable hands, such as KQ, suited connectors, and the like. You want to be favored if you get called by such a hand.

If you raise with A2o, do you think A3-A7 will call? If so, then they'll call when you have A8o too.

Some people would have you believe that 72o is a better hand than A4o in these situations because at least you have "two live cards." While you don't go that far, you do focus on playing hands like Kx or Qx with high-card value, which suggests to me that you acknowledge you will get a number of calls from hands even worse than yours. So take advantage of this, and play the best cards you can.

[jwvdcw]

I agree. If I'm in EP(meaning the blind are about to run me over) and I'm shortstacked, I'd much rather push with a hand like 10-Js that A-x.

[Instinct]

Well put.
I agree here that having a hand that will often dominate outways the "advantage" of probably having live cards.

[betgo]

I would rather push with Kx, because you are more likely to get called by a higher ace than a higher king. JTs or the like are probably better.

In another thread, we talked about how my push UTG with AJo for 9xBB was a mistake. AJ is not Ax, and it would have probably been a good move in later poisition or if the ratio of my chips to the BB was lower.

There are not many situations where Ax is a good hand, except for Axs with deep money and a multiway pot.

Doyle Brunson in his book talks about how dangerous AQ is (in deep money cash NL), so what does that make A6?

[SossMan]

did any of you guys even read Fnurt's post....

thread over.