The Value of Suited Aces in NL Hold 'Em

[Radio Babylon]

--------------
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?

[Mathemagician]

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

M

[Scottery]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you get suited aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

i like it hehe

[Radio Babylon]

----------------
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...

[BradleyT]

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.

[hitMySet]

[ 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.

[twoakers]

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.

[dd323]

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.

[Aytumious]

[ 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.

[dmks]

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?