How bad is it? O/8 preflop

[random]

10/20. I was on the button. There was one limper and the cutoff raised. I folded AAQ9r.

[AKQJ10]

How bad was the fold? Not bad at all, I don't think, because AAxx isn't that great a hand in O8 and your Q and especially your 9 don't seem to coordinate that well with your aces. I'll share this link even though i get the sense that it's probably beneath your level if you're a winning 10/20 player: Annie Duke: Overestimating the Value of AA

That said, I'm used to ultra-loose micro-limit O8, and in a tight game like this AA is clearly a lot stronger holding. I look forward to the opinion of the high-powered O8 folks in this forum. Really i'm just posting my reaction to test my answer against theirs. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Nick709]

In a tight game I am mucking in a flash, even with 1 flush draw. Your hand may do well heads up but 3-way or 4 you need to improve drasticly and the likelehood of your aces being live is slim and you have no low. Take away the limper and barring a read on the PFR as extremely tight then I 3-bet to isolate.
Good fold.

[chaos]

I would lay it down also.

You have no shot at a low. So if the raiser or the limper have any low at all you will only be playing for half the pot when a low is possible. You high is not very strong and it is likely that at least one of the unseen Aces is in an opponents hand. If it is a flop with 2 or 3 high cards without an Ace you may be up against a set, two pair or a straight or a straight draw. There just aren't many flops without an Ace that you will like.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
10/20. I was on the button. There was one limper and the cutoff raised. I folded AAQ9r.

[/ QUOTE ]

Random - This is one of those situations where you might suspect Cutoff raised to intimidate you into folding. However, it doesn't matter that you can see through Cutoff's move. AAQ9r isn't strong enough to call the double bet.

I think you'll generally like somewhere in the neighborhood of 3344/17296 flops well enough to continue. That's a bit less than 20% of the flops.

For the other 80% of possible flops, you'll be tempted to overplay your pair of aces. But in truth, there simply won't be enough of a pay-off to justify rising to the challenge and sticking it out with the aces on flops you don't like.

Here's my tally for flops you'll like:
AAQ........3
AA9........3
AAX.......40....(X not A,Q,9)*
AQQ........6
AQ9.......18
A99........6
AQX......240....(X not A,Q,9)*
A9X......240....(X not A,Q,9)*
AXX.....1560....(X not A,Q,9)*
QQQ........1
QQ9........9
QQX......120....(X not A,Q,9)*
Q99........9
Q9X......360....(X not A,Q,9)*
999........1
99X......120....(X not A,Q,9)*
JTX......608....(X not A,J,T)**
total...3344

*(X not A,Q,9 because these are already counted)
**(X not A because that one is already counted. X not J or T because you don't really want to get stuck playing an over pair when the board is paired. You could ask, "Why not?" and argue that against only two opponents, neither of them is favored to have a jack, and I would agree. But if you feel like playing a pair of aces against somebody who might have three of a kind for very little pay-off, then add another 48 to the tally. It's no big deal one way or the other - and the percentage of flops you like is still less than 20%).

If Cutoff does this to you very often, I suggest you avoid sitting to Cutoff's immediate left. On the other hand, you probably don't want Cutoff on your left either..... On the basis of this hand alone, sounds like you're describing a tough opponent in a tight, aggressive game.

I can see enduring a tight, aggressive table with tough opponents in a tournament, but why would you want to play in a ring game like that?

Buzz

[Smasharoo]

This is a clear fold.

As an aside. Why in the world would you tally AAQx and AA9x independant of AAxx?? I'm pretty sure Quad Aces are probably good regardless of the other card on the flop, no? Also you're not nessicarily happy with many Axxx flops, particularly if they put a low out there. I agree with your result that folding is best, but your reasoning seems all kinds of screwy. No offense.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smasharoo - None taken.

[ QUOTE ]
Why in the world would you tally AAQx and AA9x independant of AAxx??

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't tally any of those. But I see what you mean. Looking at what I wrote, it was not necessary to tally AAQ and AA9 independently of AAX. No harm done, however.

The answer to your question has to do with the way I think to count. But it's very difficult for me to verbalize. Let me just explain that I used a systematic method, listing all possible combinations for A, Q, 9, and X, then dropping QXX and 9XX from the list, along with XXX. Finally, I added back JTX (which had been dropped along with all the other XXXs).

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me just explain that I used a systematic method, listing all possible combinations for A, Q, 9, and X, then dropping QXX and 9XX from the list, along with XXX. Finally, I added back JTX (which had been dropped along with all the other XXXs).

[/ QUOTE ]

Should read:

Let me just explain that I used a systematic method, listing all possible three card combinations for A, Q, 9, and X (counting available aces as equivalent, available queens as equivalent, available nines as equivalen and available X cards as equivalent, then dropping QXX and 9XX from the list, along with XXX. Finally, I added back JTX (which had been dropped along with all the other XXXs).

[Yads]

Hmm, I maybe crazy, but I like reraising here to get it heads up with the CO. You have position on him and a decent heads up hand.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I like reraising here to get it heads up with the CO. You have position on him and a decent heads up hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yads - Interesting idea.

But does raising to get one-on-one with the cut-off work for you when there is a limper and the blinds are yet to act? (I wouldn’t think it would work well for me in my usual games).

And even if you could get one-on-one with the raiser... I haven't run sims on the hand, and it will be a while before I can, but off the top of my head, the hand doesn't seem like a great one-on-one hand in spite of the pair of aces. I think you're probably about even-money or may even be an under-dog to most coordinated hands with at least two ranks of low cards with which Cut-off might raise.

You have to like a pair of aces for one-on-one play. I agree the hand is decent, but the king and the nine don’t add much value, relatively. I’d much rather have at least one low card to go with the aces (and preferably a wheel card).

I’d defend my big blind with AA9Kn, and I might try to steal with it, but after Cut-off has already gone on the attack, unless I already had Cut-off pegged as a maniac, re-raising seems rash. Even if I did have Cut-off pegged as a maniac, raising here seems unduly risky.

Rewards should be commensurate with risks. You risk just as much one-on-one as when you have more opponents, but you don’t win as much when you win.

But raising is an interesting idea. Food for thought.

Just my opinion.

Buzz