Standard opening raise... and AA PT stats

[VorShot]

I'm just wondering about the 4Xbb standard raise in NL.
(That i picked up from here)

When i open the pot UTG for 4Xbb, if i get one caller, the rest of them seem to want to join in too. It seems to make more sense to raise more from UTG then only 4Xbb and keep the 4Xbb (+limpers) raise for late position.

This also could be because i play 10NL.

Maybe this just depends on the table?

Also, betting 4Xbb UTG with a hand like AA, isn't that just setting someone up good odds if i have 100BB to try and catch a set? I feel like doyle brunson's lose a lot or gain a little is so very true, and i feel lost with AA these days.

I mentioned this in another thread not to long ago, and i am at least making a little money with AA now, but AA should be my number one money maker on PT (at least that's what i thought)

I'm also just thinking i might not have a big enough sample size. I just got PT not to long ago, and only up to 7K hands now.

The reason that i feel like i'm playing it bad is;
(PT stats)

KK (28 times/ Win 75%) +4.88bb/hand
QQ (31 times/ Win 80%) +4.15bb/hand
JJ (36 times/ Win 64%) +1.44bb/hand

But with AA;

AA (32 times/ Win 81%) +1.52bb/hand


I shouldn't be making JJ money with AA. I should be making KK and QQ money.

Is it just the sample size?

[Freelancer]

About the raise preflop:
Its all relative, 4xBB+1 per limper is great for the general tables. If you noticed everyone calls your raise its fine to raise more UTG. Just make sure you don't change your raising size based on your hand strength.

About the winrate:
Its possible you get stacked to often with AA when your obviously beat. Much more likely its just your sample size, 7k is way to low to say anything about winrate/per hand. You need to think more in the range of 50k hands if you want a meaningfull hand sample.

[hummusx]

What do you raise to with KK? Why do you think it should be different with AA? Seems like you should probably just pretend your AA is a KK and get over it.

[VorShot]

[ QUOTE ]
About the raise preflop:
Its all relative, 4xBB+1 per limper is great for the general tables. If you noticed everyone calls your raise its fine to raise more UTG. Just make sure you don't change your raising size based on your hand strength.

About the winrate:
Its possible you get stacked to often with AA when your obviously beat. Much more likely its just your sample size, 7k is way to low to say anything about winrate/per hand. You need to think more in the range of 50k hands if you want a meaningfull hand sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the comments...i figured it was just to small of a sample size.


[ QUOTE ]
What do you raise to with KK? Why do you think it should be different with AA? Seems like you should probably just pretend your AA is a KK and get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play AA the same as KK (short of KK on an A high flop)

I also raise JTs the same as AA...and 53s, and 99.

Pretend AA is KK. Well since i play it very simular on every street, i don't think this changes anything.

But i'll try to "get over it."

[matrix]

yes it's sample size - look again when you have 50K hands and get back to us.

re raise sizes - if an UTG raise gets lots of callers then start raising more - but understand that you need to raise more with ALL the hands you raise to compensate.

Getting lots of callers with AA isn't a disaster you are still the favourite preflop no matter how many callers you get, tho for every person that calls you lose ~10% equity.

If you raise preflop at a FR table and everyone calls you still win 35% of the time.

[kabouter]

I play every hand I raise with the same preflop, that is if I am the first one too bet. at 10nl I'm raising it too 4xbb + 1 for every limper.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]

Getting lots of callers with AA isn't a disaster you are still the favourite preflop no matter how many callers you get, tho for every person that calls you lose ~10% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems inconsistent to me - why are you talking about getting a ton of callers with AA like it's a bad thing? Sure our equity decreases with each caller, but the EV of the hand also increases.

Hypothetically, wouldn't we rather raise 4xBBs and get 6 callers than raise 6xBBs and get 1?

[VorShot]

[ QUOTE ]
I play every hand I raise with the same preflop, that is if I am the first one too bet. at 10nl I'm raising it too 4xbb + 1 for every limper.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do the same. A5s, 76s, 99, and AA all look the same preflop from me.

[hummusx]

[ QUOTE ]
I play AA the same as KK (short of KK on an A high flop)
...
Pretend AA is KK. Well since i play it very simular on every street, i don't think this changes anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was my point exactly. Your question was "Should I play AA differently?" Then your next statement is that you are winning 4BB with KK but only 1.5BB with AA. Ergo, if you are playing AA exactly the same as KK, it HAS to be sample size causing the difference and you should not change your play.

[VorShot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Getting lots of callers with AA isn't a disaster you are still the favourite preflop no matter how many callers you get, tho for every person that calls you lose ~10% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems inconsistent to me - why are you talking about getting a ton of callers with AA like it's a bad thing? Sure our equity decreases with each caller, but the EV of the hand also increases.

Hypothetically, wouldn't we rather raise 4xBBs and get 6 callers than raise 6xBBs and get 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't the answer be no?

Shouldn't my raise preflop be looking to limit the field to heads up if possible because a hand like AA plays stronger heads up (percentage wise)?

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Getting lots of callers with AA isn't a disaster you are still the favourite preflop no matter how many callers you get, tho for every person that calls you lose ~10% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems inconsistent to me - why are you talking about getting a ton of callers with AA like it's a bad thing? Sure our equity decreases with each caller, but the EV of the hand also increases.

Hypothetically, wouldn't we rather raise 4xBBs and get 6 callers than raise 6xBBs and get 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying getting lots of callers is a bad thing /images/graemlins/smile.gif

hypothetically if those 6 callers (or more than 1 of them at least) see the hand to SD then it's good, but having that many callers is begging to be outflopped. If 6 people call your pfr and only one continues after the flop you are much more likely to be beaten if all you have at SD is 1 pair, if only 1 person calls you are much more likely to win.

[eigenvalue]

I had similar problems with AA and changed my startegy with lots of success. Try this:

(1) If You play at a table with some agressive players who raise a lot, then call with AA UTG. Hope, that someone will raise You and then reraise all in. In lower limits, this move works a lot. If You don't get reraised, so be it. Play the hand with caution in that case.

(2) If people limp a lot at Your table and don't raise that much, then simply call an all-in from UTG. It is unbelievable, with what kind of crap people will call You. In $10 NLH, I was called with all pairs and with hands like A-4-s, 7-6-s, J-T-o. Really unbelievable.

Of course these plays will not work every time, only most of the time. Sometimes, You won't get raised or Your all-in want't get called. But it will work most the time at these limits to increase Your results.

You shouldn't expect to win most of Your money with Your big pairs. It's nice to have them, but usually You make more money in other situations. For example with any pair in position, if You call a weak preflop raiser with a huge stack and You hit a set.


Best regards



eigenvalue

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Getting lots of callers with AA isn't a disaster you are still the favourite preflop no matter how many callers you get, tho for every person that calls you lose ~10% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems inconsistent to me - why are you talking about getting a ton of callers with AA like it's a bad thing? Sure our equity decreases with each caller, but the EV of the hand also increases.

Hypothetically, wouldn't we rather raise 4xBBs and get 6 callers than raise 6xBBs and get 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't the answer be no?

Shouldn't my raise preflop be looking to limit the field to heads up if possible because a hand like AA plays stronger heads up (percentage wise)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have thought the answer is yes (although this is may be a question for a new thread). Basically AA has an edge over every other hand, so every dollar that goes into the pot PF is instant +EV for you.

The additional players are going to win the pot from us sometimes, so our equity does go down, but we also win bigger pots when we do hold up. With more callers we're essentially winning pots slightly less often but we're winning much bigger pots, so each caller should make things +EV.

Now I'm very confident in this reasoning for limit play for any position, but I'm still not positive if it's valid in NL because of the increased implied odds for every caller. Generally more callers lead us to play big pots with one-pair hands, which might outweigh the advantages when we're OOP. I still can't imagine getting 10 people to call a huge bet with AA OTB is ever worse than getting 1 caller though.