HPFAP - Playing AQ early

[tvdad]

On page 2 of HPFAP, Sklansky & Malmuth say that you should beware of playing AQo in EP in a loose game if there has already been a raise, but that you should definitely play AQs in the same situation. Being suited only adds, what, 2% to the value of the hand? Why should that turn a "beware" hand into a "definite" play?

I normally dump AQ (suited or otherwise) in this spot, but I might change my mind if being suited is that much of an advantage here.

T

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi tvdad:

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, and I don't think it is on page 2 since that's part of the introduction, but AQ suited is much better than AQ offsuit in these spots. Part of the reason for this is when you flop a flush draw, which happens approximately 10 percent of the time, you will often win the pot by catching an ace or a queen. With the AQ offsuit, there's a good chance you would have already folded.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tvdad]

Thanks for the response, and I'm sorry about the page number typo. It's actually on page 21, in the section "The first two cards: early position."

So the main reason being suited here is so much better is that 10% chance that you'll flop the flush draw, and the 35% chance from there that you'll make it? I think that makes being suited closer to a 3% edge than the 2% I mentioned in my previous post.

Still, 3% sounds kinda low to risk calling behind a raiser in this spot. By calling (instead of reraising) are you hoping to get more people into the pot to pay you off if you hit? Or would you occasionally mix it up and reraise to thin the field?

T

[Ed Miller]

Still, 3% sounds kinda low to risk calling behind a raiser in this spot.

Being suited is worth a lot more than "3%" (whatever that means). First of all, you make a flush 6% of the time that you start with two suited cards (including backdoor flushes).

Say your hand is offsuit, you are in a five-handed pot, and you win 20% of your hands. If your hand were suited, you might win 24% of your hands because you win such a large percentage of the pots where you do make a flush (the 6% to 4% reduction comes from the times you lose with your flush plus the times when you would have won without a flush).

Your "3% advantage" now translates into winning 20% more pots. It turns a roughly break-even hand into a big winner.

[blackaces13]

In a loose game I'd ALWAYS call a raise in EP with AQ and sometimes I may even re-raise it. Is this a mistake? If it is I guess all you're really fearing is AK because I don't think anyone would recommend folding AK to an early raise, yet AK is the only hand that dominates AQ aside from hands that dominate AK as well, namely AA or KK.

It seems to me that AQ is almost almost as good as AK unless you are up against AK. Is the risk of running into Big Slick enough to make AQ not even worth calling with?

[blackaces13]

That would also burry AQ while AK stands up well enough. Oh well, I'll be over here in the $.5/$1 games on Party if anybody needs me.

[tvdad]

What I meant by a 3% edge is that you add 3% to the winning percentage with that hand. If your calculations are correct, it's more like 4% (20% winners unsuited vs. 24% winners when suited.) Just another way of looking at the same numbers.

So how much does being suited add to the winning percentage for AJ or AT or any AX? I realize the winning percentage goes down as the kicker gets smaller, but do you get that same 4% "bonus" all the way down to A2?

You also said AQo is a roughly break-even hand in this case. HPFAP seems to indicate otherwise by saying it doesn't play well here. If it's break-even, shouldn't you play it more often?

T

[Ed Miller]

What I meant by a 3% edge is that you add 3% to the winning percentage with that hand. If your calculations are correct, it's more like 4% (20% winners unsuited vs. 24% winners when suited.) Just another way of looking at the same numbers.

I understand it's "just another way of looking at the same numbers." I'm trying to give you a way to look at the numbers to demonstrate that your small "3% edge" is actually a huge edge.

So how much does being suited add to the winning percentage for AJ or AT or any AX? I realize the winning percentage goes down as the kicker gets smaller, but do you get that same 4% "bonus" all the way down to A2?

You can get an idea for this effect by reviewing results of Monte Carlo sims:

http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm

Hot-and-cold Monte Carlo sims do not capture all the value of a suited hand, but they will at least give you an idea about what kind of numbers we are talking about.

You also said AQo is a roughly break-even hand in this case.

No I didn't. I just said, "Say your hand is offsuit, you are in a five-handed pot, and you win 20% of your hands." I'm not talking about AQo vs. AQs... just giving you a hypothetical.

If it's break-even, shouldn't you play it more often?

Why would you play a break-even hand?

[Ed Miller]

AKo is a much better hand against a raise than AQo for two reasons.

1. AQo is dominated by the raiser much more often than AKo is
2. AKo wins much more often in a multiway pot than AQo does even when you aren't dominated

[lunchmeat]

If the raiser has loose raising standards, then you definitely want to raise AQ because it figures to be the best hand. Against a tight player, AQ is a clear fold because you can easily be up against AA, AK, or QQ