The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

The most tempting hand for me to play in MP to LP is a suited Ace (for this discussion I'm talking about when my other card is 10 or lower). I know that Ace-rag is a horrible trap hand and that the probability of making the flush is somewhere in the neighborhood of 6% but it is such a tempting hand and can make such a monstrous pot. I typically limp with my suited Ace and fold to an appreciable raise.

How frequently and in what position should I play the suited Ace? Always limp pre-flop? Any general guidance for pre-flop strategy would be appreciated.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Suited Ace-rag can be played from any position but obviously your goal with is to see the flop for as cheap as possible. The problem with limping with the Ace-rag is that you're inviting someone to raise behind you or from the blinds in which case you're gonna have to fold. I like to mix it up by sometimes minraising in hopes that I will discourage those behind me from raising since nobody has shown any aggression. Of course if someone open raises in front of you or reraises behind you then you muck.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

If your opponents call big bets far more often than they should you can play Ax/s but play it for the minimum.

If your opponents fold to big bets far more often than they should you can play (obviously your approach to the hand will be opposite of above).

If your opponents play reasonably well these hands have little value anywhere other than on or near the button.

If you play extremely well relative to the opponents at any particular table you will give up almost nothing if you play alot of hands preflop for the minimum; it's post-flop where these [questionable] hands get expensive.

- Others can give you much more detailed advice; this was an "in case nobody else responds" answer.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I would play the small suited ace only when it is cheap to see the flop in comparison to my stack and when i am in late position in an unraised pot. If you limp in from early position you frequently face a raise from the button or cut off point and then have to fold. Also, remember, you don't really want to hit the ace, you will get into trouble. Remember why you entered the pot in the first place.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

"The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold 'Em"

You rang?

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Lets just say that you play Ax suited from any postion and that you are willing to call small raises (min or 2 time the BB). At that point you have to think your A is no good if it hits and now the goal is to essentially hit a 3-outer to make 2 pair. If its the flush you are after then like you said before it doesnt hit enough to make it worth it.

I like playing Ax suited in late position for cheap or when in a 10 max table with a raise and a few callers in front of me, other than that throw it away.

The times you do fold, pay attention to the hand and see how many times you think you would have won with best hand or taken it down with a large bet.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

suited aces are GOOD hands. i always here people say that you shouldn't play them, or if you do then you have to always fear a better ace. i disagree on both points.

a brief quiz from the EV charts...which hand has more EV preflop?

A9s or 99?
A4s or 44?
ATs 0r QJs?
ATs or T9s?
A5s or 66?
ATs or AQo?
A4s or 87s?


i hope you picked the suited ace everytime. suited aces are the 3rd best type of starting hand behind big pairs and big broadway cards. they're better hands than almost all small to medium pairs and almost all suited connectors.

if you are going to play any style other than an absolute rock 'i only raise with AA and KK' type of poker you need to play suited Aces.

i say play and occasionally raise with them from MP and LP, and call a decent raise if you limp. if an ace comes on the flop don't be afraid to bet out with no kicker.... aces don't grow on trees, so if you weren't reraised before the flop there is no reason to think you're beat.

the dailt pursuit of LAG mastery.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I prefer A5-A2 suited to A6-A9 in earlier positions. The "bet-ability" of A5-A2 suited is better - ie flopping a flush draw + overcard or gutshot + overcard + backdoor flush draw or gutshot + flush draw, etc.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Axs is a very good hand. Lets say flop comes AT5. two of your suits. Youre only a small underdog to AK here and can theredore bet hard on that flop. Turn card is the third of your flush. Many opponents have a hard time to put you on a flush here, since it looked like you tried to protect against it on the flop.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

you can limp or raise in late position, but playing the hand before then more often than not result in a raise or reraise that u can not ever comfortably call, if other people play poorly preflop and postflop as well u might be able to play them early, but my experience is that attempting to play them from early position is just leaking money

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

At a full table:

Fold in ep, call in mp, raise on button or cut off. Don't call raises with it, especially out of position. Remember that 80% of the time you will totally miss the flop. 15% of the time you will be left with a tough decision...an ace hits or you get a flush draw. But that the best it usually gets. Fish love this hand...but it is costly.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

position is very important with ace rag suited.

You don't want to play these out of position for a lot of money...

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
suited aces are GOOD hands. i always here people say that you shouldn't play them, or if you do then you have to always fear a better ace. i disagree on both points.

a brief quiz from the EV charts...which hand has more EV preflop?

A9s or 99? 99
A4s or 44? 44
ATs 0r QJs? ATs
ATs or T9s? ATs
A5s or 66? 66
ATs or AQo? AQo
A4s or 87s? A4s


i hope you picked the suited ace everytime. suited aces are the 3rd best type of starting hand behind big pairs and big broadway cards. they're better hands than almost all small to medium pairs and almost all suited connectors.

if you are going to play any style other than an absolute rock 'i only raise with AA and KK' type of poker you need to play suited Aces.

i say play and occasionally raise with them from MP and LP, and call a decent raise if you limp. if an ace comes on the flop don't be afraid to bet out with no kicker.... aces don't grow on trees, so if you weren't reraised before the flop there is no reason to think you're beat.

the dailt pursuit of LAG mastery.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It is pretty obvious you are confused.

Jimbo

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suited aces are GOOD hands. i always here people say that you shouldn't play them, or if you do then you have to always fear a better ace. i disagree on both points.

a brief quiz from the EV charts...which hand has more EV preflop?

A9s or 99? 99
A4s or 44? 44
ATs 0r QJs? ATs
ATs or T9s? ATs
A5s or 66? 66
ATs or AQo? AQo
A4s or 87s? A4s


i hope you picked the suited ace everytime. suited aces are the 3rd best type of starting hand behind big pairs and big broadway cards. they're better hands than almost all small to medium pairs and almost all suited connectors.

if you are going to play any style other than an absolute rock 'i only raise with AA and KK' type of poker you need to play suited Aces.

i say play and occasionally raise with them from MP and LP, and call a decent raise if you limp. if an ace comes on the flop don't be afraid to bet out with no kicker.... aces don't grow on trees, so if you weren't reraised before the flop there is no reason to think you're beat.

the dailt pursuit of LAG mastery.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It is pretty obvious you are confused.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's beat this one up a little? Elmitchbo seems to be saying he has mathematical evidence they are decent hands. Jimbo seems to be saying the opposite?

My self I've done some "No Foldem" sims from heads up to 6 opponents at a point when I was considering propping. Hence I foresaw lots of short handed games in my future.

It seemed to me people were playing "Any Ace, Any King, Any Pair, and Any Suited Connector" which I modeled. Actually I'd swear it's any two suited, but OK a minor point.

My goal was to identify which hands won more than thier fair share against X opponents. The thought being that since each opponent has to put in a bet for every bet I put in, winning more than your fair share is a good starting place to select starting hands.

I found the following ranges won more than thier fair share:

Heads Up AKs-A4s
3 Handed AKs-A5s
4 Handed AKs-A6s
5 Handed AKs-A7s
6 Handed AKs-A8s
7 Handed AKs-A9s

Interestingly the range gets tighter with more opponents. Exactly the opposite of Kxs and Qxs etc. Not sure what accounts for that. I didn't store the breakdown of winning hands, but probably should have in retrospect, so we could see what accounts for most of the EV.

However, seems to me the assumption here is that you are going to the river every time, as are your opponents. So perhaps a middle of the road range might me AKs-A6s?


Another set of observations. AKs actually loses EV against more opponents. But AQs-AJs gains EV against more opponents. ATs seems to have a small sweet spot at about 3-4 opponents and A9s and below seem to lose EV with more opponents. Strangely suggesting that we want to play the smaller Axs heads up?

Not sure what to make of that. This is the first time I've seriously looked at those values in this spreadsheet in some time.

Perhaps my math or simulation softare is FUBAR?

In any event, seems more info is required to decide what the best line of play is for each case.

Comment?

P.S. Elmitchbo, where are your numbers coming from? I just spot checked my work and found 44 had greater EV than A4s and same for 55/A5s.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

AXs is a great hand to paly at any position. I try to play everytime. Degree of raising and calling a raise depends on the image you have been portraying to the opponents, players doing the raise, and your position. Someone replied "playing AXs in early position is leaking moeny". It could very well be if you don't know how to play it. Any number of minor leaks will more than make up against AK or AQ whenever AXs flops two pair. Make a killing. If you don't play AXs or KXs, what do you paly??? What about 76s, 54s, T9s, JTs, ... ??????? Hello????

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Um, yeah, if it is cheap to play. Otherwise, you ARE leaking money.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I'm not opposed to raising with them either. Certainly they're tempting in an unraised pot, or for the price of calling a small raise, but I find them most troublesome when my limped A/5 suited runs into a limped A/9 off, etc.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
AXs is a great hand to paly at any position. I try to play everytime. Degree of raising and calling a raise depends on the image you have been portraying to the opponents, players doing the raise, and your position. Someone replied "playing AXs in early position is leaking moeny". It could very well be if you don't know how to play it. Any number of minor leaks will more than make up against AK or AQ whenever AXs flops two pair. Make a killing. If you don't play AXs or KXs, what do you paly??? What about 76s, 54s, T9s, JTs, ... ??????? Hello????


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this for real?

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

As you say, if "I can limp in...". However, the trouble seems to come when I miss the flush draw and hit the split Ace on the board. I know it's hard, but I generally refuse to play for more than one bet with the missed flush draw. This may be a terrible way to look at it, but with A5s, and another Ace on the board, you're just gonna get your butt kicked too often to make it worthwhile.
That's my opinion... and I'm stickin' to it!

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

i actually did blow the first one. that was supposed to be A9s vs. 77. as for the rest, go to the chart and look.
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value

i'll give you a head start on my examples:

hand/ev vs. hand /ev
A9s/.18 vs. 99/.38
A9s/.18 vs. 77/.16
A4s/.06 vs. 44/-.03
ATs/.33 vs. QJs/.23
A5s/.08 vs. 66/.07
ATs/.33 vs. AQ/.31
A4s/.06 vs. 87s/-.02

i'm not confused, just made one typo. with that one correction, and the addition of the 77 example, you can see that the suited aces do have more EV preflop.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

EDIT: this was for 12AX7. he asked about source info.

poker room ev charts. they're frequently referenced around here.

http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...php?order=card

http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

You can't have suited aces.
They are: A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] or A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
duh

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I'm fairly certain that the Poker Room stats are for LHE, not NLHE. You really can not correlate the two.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
i actually did blow the first one. that was supposed to be A9s vs. 77. as for the rest, go to the chart and look.
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value

i'll give you a head start on my examples:

hand/ev vs. hand /ev
A9s/.18 vs. 99/.38
A9s/.18 vs. 77/.16
A4s/.06 vs. 44/-.03
ATs/.33 vs. QJs/.23
A5s/.08 vs. 66/.07
ATs/.33 vs. AQ/.31
A4s/.06 vs. 87s/-.02

i'm not confused, just made one typo. with that one correction, and the addition of the 77 example, you can see that the suited aces do have more EV preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I do not understand your underlying premise.

See Gocee Poker for a correct EV analysis.

I see now that a made I very slight miscalculation on the AQo vs the ATs but it is so slight that the hand is a true coinflip.

Jimbo

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Isn't it pretty clear the OP means Ace-Little suited?

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Yes, but do these charts not represent actual play?

That means that the human component is involved here. And further the human component of all players at that site.

Why's that significant?

Well, we all know 72o is the worst hand. But your chart shows 32o as the worst EV.

Point is, some hands that have a mathematically lower EV may have a "practical" EV that's better because people play they better. 72o is a perfect example. Since it's commonly know to be the worst hand, folks don't misplay it too often.

All of which points up an interesting idea. I'll steal a phrase from the Blackjack folks, and further mis-use it. LOL!


"Playing Efficiency" (of a hand). How easy is it to tell what to do with it after the flop, is how I'll use the term in this context.

AT seems to be a hand with poor playing efficiency by this definition. You hit the A, and your kicker is poor. Hit your T and it's vulnerable to lots of overcards. So no matter what happens, (short of hitting two pair or better) you have a dilemma. One that's tough to resolve, even if you are a decent hand reader.

So it seems one study that would be of value, especially for multi-tablers, is "Which hands have clear lines of play post flop, and what are those lines of play".

It seems clear to me, especially after having tried playing as many as 8 tables at a time (on a single laptop screen no less) that choosing hands that have easy "yes/no" decision points could be a useful concept.

I for one would very much like to develop a mechanical strategy that could simply be replicated with as much "playing efficiency" as possible to as many tables as I can stand to grind. I.e. to become a human slot machine.

Ideally they strategy would minimize drawdowns as well.

Not sure how to approach building such a strategy though.

Much like the poster quoted in the Forward to this month's magazine, I don't want to play cards per se. I want to make money. The last thing I want to do is "play cards".

Therefore, playing efficiency improvements and drawdown reduction are of clear interest. We want a methodology that that reduces mistakes, reduceds drawdown, and ensures profit.

As a side thought, that seems to be what things like Kill Phil and DS's tournament strategy for beginners are about right? So now we need the same for ring games and other work a day grinders (or wannbes like me). It would also seem the EM's Short Stack NL strategy has a similar idea at it's heart.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i actually did blow the first one. that was supposed to be A9s vs. 77. as for the rest, go to the chart and look.
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value

i'll give you a head start on my examples:

hand/ev vs. hand /ev
A9s/.18 vs. 99/.38
A9s/.18 vs. 77/.16
A4s/.06 vs. 44/-.03
ATs/.33 vs. QJs/.23
A5s/.08 vs. 66/.07
ATs/.33 vs. AQ/.31
A4s/.06 vs. 87s/-.02

i'm not confused, just made one typo. with that one correction, and the addition of the 77 example, you can see that the suited aces do have more EV preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I do not understand your underlying premise.

See Gocee Poker for a correct EV analysis.

I see now that a made I very slight miscalculation on the AQo vs the ATs but it is so slight that the hand is a true coinflip.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm afraid i must disagree again. (i'm not trying to beat a dead horse but..)

the EV numbers at poker room are more accurate/valuable than the gocee link you gave.

first of all, they aren't measuring the same type of EV as far as i can tell. poker room measures EV as average return in BB's recorded from real poker hands.

all i find at gocee is a mathmatical measure of pot equity and winning percentage against a random hand heads up. pot equity and winning percentage aren't the same as true EV.

pokerroom shows actual return on your money across all levels and all positions. that's valuable info.

my underlying premise is simply that suited aces are good/playable hands. they have more EV than other speculative hands that people frequently play like suited connectors. if you're limping into pots with suited connectors you should also be playing some suited aces.

as a side note... i was playing around with the simulator plugging in suited aces in different table positions. they were far more profitable in late position, which is what you would expect. but several hands actually showed negative EV in MP, but positive EV in early position. i'll keep working on it.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

How do you get suited aces?

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i actually did blow the first one. that was supposed to be A9s vs. 77. as for the rest, go to the chart and look.
http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...hp?order=value

i'll give you a head start on my examples:

hand/ev vs. hand /ev
A9s/.18 vs. 99/.38
A9s/.18 vs. 77/.16
A4s/.06 vs. 44/-.03
ATs/.33 vs. QJs/.23
A5s/.08 vs. 66/.07
ATs/.33 vs. AQ/.31
A4s/.06 vs. 87s/-.02

i'm not confused, just made one typo. with that one correction, and the addition of the 77 example, you can see that the suited aces do have more EV preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I do not understand your underlying premise.

See Gocee Poker for a correct EV analysis.

I see now that a made I very slight miscalculation on the AQo vs the ATs but it is so slight that the hand is a true coinflip.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm afraid i must disagree again. (i'm not trying to beat a dead horse but..)

the EV numbers at poker room are more accurate/valuable than the gocee link you gave.

first of all, they aren't measuring the same type of EV as far as i can tell. poker room measures EV as average return in BB's recorded from real poker hands.

all i find at gocee is a mathmatical measure of pot equity and winning percentage against a random hand heads up. pot equity and winning percentage aren't the same as true EV.

pokerroom shows actual return on your money across all levels and all positions. that's valuable info.

my underlying premise is simply that suited aces are good/playable hands. they have more EV than other speculative hands that people frequently play like suited connectors. if you're limping into pots with suited connectors you should also be playing some suited aces.

as a side note... i was playing around with the simulator plugging in suited aces in different table positions. they were far more profitable in late position, which is what you would expect. but several hands actually showed negative EV in MP, but positive EV in early position. i'll keep working on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my last effort to show you your error. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
a brief quiz from the EV charts...which hand has more EV preflop ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your PokerRoom stats show hands going to the river. No more clues, no more advice and heh, good luck with your theory.

Jimbo

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you get suited aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

slip an extra card in the deck [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

--------------
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

19,225,749,312 games 44.125 secs 435,711,032 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 50.1420 % 47.57% 02.58% { A2s+ }
Hand 2: 49.8580 % 47.28% 02.58% { 66+, A4s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
--------------

it would seem to me that a suited ace is pretty much dead even with the top 20% of hands in a heads up situation... or am i understanding the results incorrectly?

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I would say this is very likely skewed by the inclusion of AKs, AQs and AJs in the A2s+ part.

M

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you get suited aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

i like it hehe

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

----------------
14,650,473,024 games 32.000 secs 457,827,282 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 46.8944 % 44.39% 02.51% { ATs-A2s }
Hand 2: 53.1056 % 50.60% 02.51% { 66+, A4s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
-------------

youre right, AKs-AJs do have some effect on the results, but only about 3% it looks like...

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

Ya but you're going to lose more with A4s than you will with 66. 66 only likes to see the flop and rarely continues from there. A4s is going to see the turn and river a lot more often. A 2pair hand like A4 will end up being 2nd best much more often than 666 will.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suited Ace-rag can be played from any position

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. It is much more profitable to play them in late position only. If you hit your draw, you can call rather than check-call, and if you hit an A, there is less of a chance of a bigger kicker acting behind you.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I try to limp with all suited aces from any position, if the game is not one where I know there's going to be a pre-flop raise. If I suspect a raise behind me, I might lead in with the minimum raise, just to keep someone else from raising me later, probably for more. If I'm in LP with no raises before me, I might raise this type of hand, as the chances are that my ace might be the only on out. A raise could also very well cause another Ax, with the x being better than my lame kicker, to fold. I do know that it seems that I flop 2 of the suit I need towards the flush, and then get sucked into calling all the way to the river only to lose a few more bets chasing. Finally, oftentimes if 3 cards to the flush are on the board, the other players won't build the pot very large, meaning the payoff isn't worth the losses from all the times it misses.

Honestly, I hope someone who knows what they are doing responds to this post so I can find out how to correctly play this.

By the way, I suck, so don't listen to me.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

FWIW here is my opinion on A-x suited.

I think this completely depends on the type of NL table you are at. If you at one of those glorious tables in which everyone calls every raise pre-flop and lots of people make it to the river, this becomes a premium hand from any position because it can make the nut flush (this is also true in low-limit llimit games as well), and flush over flush pays a huge pot. At the other extreme if it is tight game, i would play it after several limers (in late positon) or open raise from late position and muck it otherwise. You can get away with limping in early in a really passive game, but if someone with position raises you and it will limit the # of callers, its good to throw it away.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is my last effort to show you your error. You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
a brief quiz from the EV charts...which hand has more EV preflop ?


[/ QUOTE ]

Your PokerRoom stats show hands going to the river. No more clues, no more advice and heh, good luck with your theory.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus, the OP was talking strictly about NL.

Re: The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold \'Em
 

I do not understand people that are saying to limp because you will only get that good flop a small percentage of the time. If you are playing only for that good flop, you need to limp many times to hit it in such a way that you feel comfortable playing like this. It might be that the costs of the limps are too great to overcome. Limping multi-way is much more debateable, but my belief is that there is another way. Many loose aggressive players use this style in one way or another. However, what are the problems with the way I have seen playing the hand described?

First of all, flushes are the hardest strong hand to get paid off. It is very obvious to almost any player that you could have the flush. It is not disguised like straights. Bad players miss straights, but many less miss flushes. It sounds like most people are aiming for the nut flush here. Do not bother with the lesser flush payoff argument - you say you hit this hand very rarely, how rarely does somebody else have the lower flush on those occassions you have your flush?

Second of all, you are talking about playing the hand in such a way that it only has one way to win the pot. Then, you state that your hand will not do this very often. Does not sound right to me. Factor in point one and all starts to look a bit gloomy.

I do not like calling a raise or limping out of position with these hands. They make so few hands that you can know are good that you will have a real tough time. You are set up to fold when you have the best hand (pairing the flop) and to play when you do not (nut flush draw). Maybe you are different to me, but I feel that one of my aims in NLHE is to not give myself tough decisions - that's what I want my opponent to make.

I prefer to open raise with them with a decent table position. This gives you more ways to win the pot. You might take it down preflop, you might chose to bet a missed flop and take it down or you might make the best hand. Sounds much better to me. With the fewer players in the hand and position, you can play a flopped Ace much more strongly as well. You have more information and your decisions are easier.

Every player knows that most Hold'Em flops miss most players. The preflop initiative is often enough to take down the preflop pot on the flop. When I am considering entering a pot, I think about how likely I am to make money with this play. In order to do this, I have to minimise my mistakes and maximise my opponents'. I feel the best way to achieve this is to be the aggressor, preferably in position. I almost pretty much never call a raise with these hands - even in position. If I do, I put myself to too many tough or bad decisions.

One point I must agree with is the poster who stated that preflop-to-river expected values do not help at all. This is basically what I am stating in decisions combined with the likelihood that your opponent plays their hand reasonably. You are not going all-in preflop, hands play out differently when played street-by-street. For instance, you hold A7s, your opponent holds KK. You can't know this. He makes a small raise and a few players call, including you. The flop comes fairly raggedy with an Ace on the top end. He bets out, are you going to call him here? Probably not - but, you had the best hand and it is a long shot that KK would have won this hand.

Maybe I am not articulate enough to explain fully what I mean. I think that NLHE rewards aggression and smart play, more than small percentage plays in tough spots. I think the key point to highlight from my post for the limpers, is that you need a second-best hand to pay you off - how often do you have that on a 3-flush board?