Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

This is a lengthy post of analysis which seems to indicate that playing Ax-suited (where x is less than Ten) is not profitable in loose limit games. For ease of calculations, $1/$2 limit is assumed.

Say that you play Ax-suited 1000 times unraised. You flop a flush draw about 120 times.

The cost of seeing the 880 flops with no draws = $880.

The 120 times you flop a flush draw, you will make a flush by the River about 40 times.

The cost of the 80 times you see the River with no flush = $320 ($1 preflop + $1 flop + $2 turn = $4 * 80 = $320)

Your total cost of missing the flush = 880 + 320 = $1200.

Just to break even, the 40 times you make a flush, you must make $1200, or $30 of other people's money per pot -- on *average*.

It is very hard to get $30 into a pot even once. If 6 people besides you limp preflop, that is $6. If the flop is raised and 4 people stay, that is $8. If all 4 call the Turn, that is $8 more. If 2 call the River, that is $4, for a total of $26. If you can check-raise the River, which you will not always be in position to do, you can get another $4 and win the required $30, but this is close to a maximum, not an average.

A more reasonable, but still somewhat optimistic average would be $20. Six callers preflop, 4 callers on the flop, 3 on the Turn, and 2 on the River totals $20. But $20 times 40 flushes made is only $800 versus a total cost of $1200 for a $400 loss.

Another source of income are hands which miss the flush but make top pair, two pair, trips or better.

Based on poker odds charts:
Of the 880 times you do not flop a flush draw, you flop:
two Aces about 170 times (with bad kicker - often loses)
two pair about 18 times (may win about half the time)
trips about 1.2 times
a boat about .8 times
a made flush 8 times

When you get two Aces, you will have top pair, but that does not hold up very often in a large, multi-way pot, especially with a bad kicker.

Let's say that you win about 50 pots total with just Aces. The pots for just a pair of Aces will usually not be very large, so say $10/pot for a total of $500. The cost of playing Aces to the River 120 times and losing is, at a minimum, $4 * 120 = $480, for only a $20 gain.

Two pair fair better, maybe winning about half the time in a multi-pot. Again, you won't win very big pots because people are not going to be betting and raising a lot with hands weaker than trips. But say you average $15 for the 9 times your two pair hold up, for $135 and lose $4 on the other 9 for a net gain of about $100.

Trips and a boat may get you another $30 on average, though you will sometimes bet and raise trips strongly and get rivered.

The 8 times you flop a flush, you will almost always win, but you won't get much action. If 6 people limp preflop, 2 may call the flop and 1 the turn for a total of $10. Sometimes someone may call the River, other times they will fold the turn. So say 8*10 for $80.

So we have:
20 gain on a pair of aces
100 gain on 2 pair
30 gain on trips & boats
80 gain on a flopped flush
----
$230 total gain on other hands versus a loss of $400 on flushes
for a net loss of $170.

So we're back to the flushes: to win more than $20 of other people's money per pot requires a lot of raising.

Any raises preflop have a negative expectation because you are at best 16:1 to make a flush (and some of those would be runner-runner which you won't see) and are, at most, getting only 6-7 callers for every $1 you put in.

Raises on the Turn also usually have a negative expectation (assuming you are still on a draw) because you are usually up against only 1-3 players with less than 20% chance of hitting on the river. And if there is a pair on board when all this action is taking place, you may already be drawing dead to a boat or you may get boated on the river.

With three (or four) to a flush on the board, you are unlikely to get a lot of action on the river. You may get 1 player to make a crying calll with a worst hand, but that's about it.

Your best shot at making more money is (re)raising on the flop, but you are not always in position to do that. If the bettor is on your right and you raise, you are likely to knock out the other players rather than build a bigger pot.

Say that out of 120 flush draws, you can raise 60 of them and get 4 callers. That gets another $240 into the pots, but you are only going to win about a third (20) of those pots, or $80 to go against the $170 loss we already calculated. And the 40 of those 60 pots you raise and lose add another $40 to your loss.

If my calculations are anywhere close to accurate, it's hard to see how to make money playing Ax-suited.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

In limit, to make flush and straight draws profitable, you have to extract value in cases where you don't hit much ie. bluff and semibluff successfully and play pair of aces sans kicker and medium pairs for more profit than you suggest.

That said, you're not going to make much, and you're going to need some advanced poker skills in the cases where you make something other than the flush (draw), because everything exlse you can make except for trip x or the boat is problematic.

Some things missing from your analysis:
semi-bluffing the flush draw
combo draws
wheels and wheel draws
semi-bluffing with middle pair
pure bluffs (especially on the river)
blind stealing with Ax suited
image payback from playing more hands

Just food for thought - you're not too far off - Axs is not great, and isn't profitable under a great many preflop scenarios.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

I would never open limp with Ax-suited but would raise it once and while from late position and definitely play it after a few limpers in the loose/passive type LHE live games I play in.

If there aren't many raisers behind you can get into and win a big pot in the following scenarios.
1) You flop two pair with your A and win a big pot from the guy with AQ or AJ who calls you down.
2) You can hit a wheel with A - 2,3,4 or 5(that is why I prefer A3 suited to A7 suited)
3) You can make the nut flush.

It can be profitable if you will be in a large multiway pot and know how to get away from it if you just get an A on the flop with heavy to moderate action.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

It is definately a profitable hand if played correctly. It is very difficult to play though, because your kicker is worth nothing and you'd have to judge if someone has a better ace a lot of the time. You want to catch two pair most of the time before you take any action.

A wheel is ok, but very hard to win big with if you are holding the A yourself. There are only low cards and mostly you are in there with other people drawing. If you hold 45s for example you can hit a wheel against someone that paired his aces and you possibly win a lot more.

What you should be playing it for is the nut flush preferably against someone feels he should slowplay when he hits with big cards.

Your calculations assume big losses, but if you can see a cheap flop, preferably multiway, you catch a flushdraw around one time in 7.5. You have 35% equity on a flushdraw, so as long as it doesn't get headsup you gain directly. Implied odds imply an even bigger gain. So even if you play it only for the flushdraw in multiway pots it's a break even hand in the long run. Of course you have more ways to win than catch a flushdraw.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Ax- suited is much better in NL where you can stack someone when you pick up pair and a double draw or two pair.

I don't like it in Limit unless I'm on the button or in the blind.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Good analysis as far as it goes. Thanks for posting it.

I've attempted a similar analysis a couple of times and came to similar, but slightly more positive conclusions. My actual experience shows that I've made money playing A9s-A2s in limit games from 30/60 to 1/2. It's very close though.

In positions 7 and 6 these hands are clear losers because you're more likely to get pumped by someone with a better ace in which case you are mostly dominated. These are position sensitive hands more so than many others.

Uh...where are these "loose limit games"?

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Canterbury Park MN
Please come and see for yourself.
Happy Hunting!

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Great state. Maybe I'll move there, just as soon as you can do something about the weather.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

If you can't make money with Axs in a loose game(4+ to the flop), chances are you're not playing it right.

b

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is definately a profitable hand if played correctly. It is very difficult to play though, because your kicker is worth nothing and you'd have to judge if someone has a better ace a lot of the time. You want to catch two pair most of the time before you take any action.

A wheel is ok, but very hard to win big with if you are holding the A yourself. There are only low cards and mostly you are in there with other people drawing. If you hold 45s for example you can hit a wheel against someone that paired his aces and you possibly win a lot more.

What you should be playing it for is the nut flush preferably against someone feels he should slowplay when he hits with big cards.

Your calculations assume big losses, but if you can see a cheap flop, preferably multiway, you catch a flushdraw around one time in 7.5. You have 35% equity on a flushdraw, so as long as it doesn't get headsup you gain directly. Implied odds imply an even bigger gain. So even if you play it only for the flushdraw in multiway pots it's a break even hand in the long run. Of course you have more ways to win than catch a flushdraw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops, misunderstood... Thought this was NL. Most advice still goes only you get a lot less implied odds on your wheel and flush draws, but you don't get shut out with them that often either. Still profitable as long as you don't go too far with them.

Oh, one more thing... Playing break even or very slight loss hands is a great EV booster for your big hands, since you have a looser image. Especially in NL this helps a lot, but in limit it does too. Sessions where I played the breakeven hands I got payed off better with sets and broadway hands.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

good analysis. the bottom line is that you must play well post flop to make ace little suited profitable for you. you need to know when an ace flops whether your hand is good or not. you need to be able to steal pots when necessary. you need to be able to get free cards when necessary, etc.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

[ QUOTE ]
good analysis. the bottom line is that you must play well post flop to make ace little suited profitable for you. you need to know when an ace flops whether your hand is good or not. you need to be able to steal pots when necessary. you need to be able to get free cards when necessary, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

...need to be able to raise on the come...need to flop trips, flop two pair...need to get 6 people to the flop for a raise...need to have loose callers who are clearly beaten around...need to turn the flush when some donk turned the straight or a set.

I think your example gives way too much credit to the people I play B&M 3/6 & 4/8 with. You make a good point though about Axs lack of profitability in tighter than super-loose games.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Axs hands in limit can be great hands to play IMO. I don't go crazy with hand like A7s etc in EPs, but they obv have great value if you are good at Post flop play.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good analysis as far as it goes. Thanks for posting it.

I've attempted a similar analysis a couple of times and came to similar, but slightly more positive conclusions.


[/ QUOTE ]

My assumptions were actually overly optimistic, IMO. For example, I assumed flopping a flush draw 120 times in 1000 while in <u>Odds And Probabilities</u>, Hilger says it's only 110 times. I also think that a flopped pair of Aces are going to hold up a lot less often then I assumed (at least in my game they don't hold up).

[ QUOTE ]

My actual experience shows that I've made money playing A9s-A2s in limit games from 30/60 to 1/2. It's very close though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always felt that I was winning long-term with Ax-suited, but without very complete records, feelings can be misleading. That's why I did the analysis.

Some people made comments here about how profitable Ax-suited should be if played correctly, but couldn't provide any specific suggestions in how they should be played better than outlined in the original post, nor did they point out errors in the analysis.

[ QUOTE ]

In positions 7 and 6 these hands are clear losers because you're more likely to get pumped by someone with a better ace in which case you are mostly dominated. These are position sensitive hands more so than many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

In <u>Small Stakes Hold'em</u>, Sklansky recommends playing Ax-suited in ALL positions, which is another reason I did the analysis.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

In a loose passive limit game, I'll play every suited ace I'm dealt (not for a raise cold or anything, though). I'll also raise the limpers with it if I'm in position.

But the real value of Axs comes from being able to read the board and read hands. You have to know when your aces will be good. And be able to lay down top pair no kicker when it's not good. You also have to know when to semibluff. Don't just pump the pot every time you have a draw, but know when to pump the pot for value, and when to push people around.

Small pocket pairs play themselves in loose games. Axs does not. They both rely heavily on implied odds, on facing opponents that go too far with their hands. But they don't play the same way.

Loose aggressive games, btw, Axs is much harder to get value from. Small pocket pairs are the [censored] there, though.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

I agree that in loose/passive games you have to open up your starting hand requirements and play more hands like this preflop. Now I'm not usually advocating playing these from early position or even opening with these (unless you are almost 100% sure it won't be raised after you) but if even one player limps you should be limping with hands like A3s, 78s, Q,Ts and low pocket pairs for several reasons.
1) People behind you are passive and will rarely raise unless they have a huge hand
2) When you are the second limper you encourage others to limp and you will have a multiway pot with quite a bit in there.
3) In these types of games big hands(AA,KK,AK) don't hold up as much because it's likely that someone else in the multiway pot will hit their two pair, trips, flush so you can't just wait to play these hands.
4) If you do hit big you will win a big pot when you bet and are called down by 2 or 3 opponents.

Now if the table changes and gets more aggressive you should definitely change and dump more of these hands. It may be 2 or 3 bet behind you and you don't want to be in a three way pot with A3s where you have to hit huge to win.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

I took a closer look at my stats for A9s-A2s. (BTW, get PokerTracker and you won't have to guess at your results.) There is an apparent anomaly in that the worst performing hands are A9s, A8s and A7s losing respectively 0.09, 0.17 and 0.09 BB per hand. The best performing hand is A5s at +0.12. A5s-A2s outperform A9s-A6s. Overall A9s-A2s is a wash.

However, if I just take the hands that were not blinds, A9s-A2s is a clear winner at +0.03 BB per hand. (n = 5,345 or about 668 each hand. Distribution theory would yield 5,400 hands or 675 each from a sampling of 223,914 hands played.)

Of course it may be that I play A5s-A2s better than I play A9s-A6s. And it may also be that the results will smooth out as my database grows. Incidentally, A9s-A2s VP$IP = 74.50. Better results would probably come from a smaller VP$IP! I play a lot looser than your average winning player. But that's another story.

Part of the anomaly probably results from playing multiple tables. If I only played one table at a time A9s would probably be the best hand, not to mention I would probably have better results!

My conclusion is the same as before: A9s-A2s are winners if you take into consideration what the other posters have said, namely that you have to play them well. A good point made (by mvdgaag) is that playing marginal hands makes you look looser and gets you more action on your solid hands. Clearly in any game in which you sometimes get free cards (that are really free), most marginal hands are winners. Alas I see a free card that's really free about once every 50 hands or so, if that.

I don't have Sklansky's book on small stakes limit hold'em in front of me. I lent it to my son-in-law. :-( But remember Axs is a Group 5 hand for Sklansky. The "loose" games that he would recommend playing Axs in upfront would have to be very loose with lots of yummie free cards.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people made comments here about how profitable Ax-suited should be if played correctly, but couldn't provide any specific suggestions in how they should be played better than outlined in the original post

[/ QUOTE ]

Many times people don't dump the hand when they should. That's a big one. I didn't see anything about how much you save when you actually dump TPnK instead of going to showdown. Sometimes a simple raise on a flop can save you 2 bets on later streets.

Nor do they extract max value when they should. Whether by playing draws wrong, or flopped monsters wrong.

For better examples, look for hand posts that involve Axs.

b

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

A5s-A2s make the wheel and also make unlikely trips; no shocker that they've got more value than A6s-A9s.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

The value of loose limit games is in the size of the pot compared to the size of the bet, along with bad players that are willing to pay you off, but never charge you when they hit. Ax-suited is a perfect example of a hand that can take down big pots when you catch, and can be easy to get away from early. It also makes the type of hands that can hold up to a field of players.

Your analysis assumes that your Ace is beaten by a better kicker too often, and not considering that people will pay off enough with middle or bottom pair, as is very commom in the games you describe. It also assumes a smaller pot than a normal loose game.

You should rethink this and reread small stakes hold em.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Every one is forgetting position, a-x plays very well when you act last, if you play ah- 7h and the flop is qs - 10h -7c no one bets and you act last you can take it right there with a small feeler bet. I would never play it early but late I really like it. But that is me

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A5s-A2s make the wheel and also make unlikely trips; no shocker that they've got more value than A6s-A9s.

[/ QUOTE ]

In <u>Small Stakes Hold'em</u> (page 70), Sklansky says:

"Some players mistakenly conclude that A5s-A2s are better than A9s-A6s because they can make a wheel. While the wheel possibility is useful, it generally does not overcome the high card strength of the latter hands."

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Axs can be profitable from any position in a loose game. To me the key to extracting value when you make aces is:

1) Know who will call you down with middle and bottom pair; value bet them mercilessly
2) Know who will limp with a big ace; don't give these players excess action
3) Know who will bet a draw or any pair on the flop and raise them (in position), bet the turn and check behind on the river. Out of position, I'll often check/call these players to let them bluff off their chips.
4) Know when you're beat or
5) Identify spots where you'll chop with hands as good as AJ or AQ: when the flop comes AKx, if x pairs or a running pair comes, you're choping any other ace. Very important.
6) Know the difference between A9 and A2. A2 is a one card hand. A9 beats A8. That's a lot of added value when you're getting calls on your bets.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

Also, don't forget your straight draws:

1) Identify your double belly busters: A4 on a 357 board, etc.
2) Play your gutshots when you're getting the right odds.
3) A gutshot and an overcard may make your hand playable. It also may not. This depends largely on your opponent's strength and the way the hand is played.
4) Don't overvalue your one card straight draws. A8 on a 79T board is not a monster. Some people play it like it is. You have no implied odds and you may be chopping if you get there. That doesn't mean always fold, but be more cautious.
5) A gutshot, backdoor flushdraw, and an overcard is a lot of outs. Everything but the ace will probably get paid off handsomely, too, especially in a loose game.

Re: Ax-suited a loser in loose limit games?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A5s-A2s make the wheel and also make unlikely trips; no shocker that they've got more value than A6s-A9s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have thought so too, but according to pokerstars database of hands EV's are as follows

A9s .16
A8s .15
A5s .14
A4s .14
A7s .12
A2s .08
A3s .04
A6s .02