|
|
#61
11-13-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Confusion
I never said I'd call preflop with AQ in that spot. It's all an assumption that the person would call there with AQ.
If we're assuming that we should also assume that in order to make that call you must put your opponent on hands other than AK and AA. 
|
|
#63
11-13-2005, 01:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
Jacks are better, of course.
The implied odds are greater with AQs than with JJ, though. With position, AQs should call this re-raise. Out of position the AQs is a must fold to a re-raise. I think that these two hands are so close in long term value that it is almost a coin flip (no pun intended) as to which won will be the better hand. Being NL, obviously the jacks have a tremendous advantage here with position. However, I think that a very agressive NL player will take this pot down PF when he reads his opponent for >QQ and re-raises with the AQs. It's too close to call, and largely position dependant, so I feel that what makes one hand stronger than the other is position and stack size. Tex
|
|
#64
11-13-2005, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Jacks are better, of course. The implied odds are greater with AQs than with JJ, though. With position, AQs should call this re-raise. Out of position the AQs is a must fold to a re-raise. I think that these two hands are so close in long term value that it is almost a coin flip (no pun intended) as to which won will be the better hand. Being NL, obviously the jacks have a tremendous advantage here with position. However, I think that a very agressive NL player will take this pot down PF when he reads his opponent for >QQ and re-raises with the AQs. It's too close to call, and largely position dependant, so I feel that what makes one hand stronger than the other is position and stack size. Tex [/ QUOTE ] Implied odds are NOT greater with AQs. This is what we have been saying all along. In all instances of NL cash games, I would rather have JJ than AQs given no other information. Why don't people recognize the "golden" rule of NL cash games. Sets are money. This is why every good NL player knows pocket pairs are the best hands in NL. I take any pocket pair over any other hand in full ring game.
|
|
#65
11-13-2005, 02:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
Exactly. Just like my earlier post... JJ has the implied odds, not AQs. I would love someone to give me an example of a hand between AQs and JJ where AQs has immense implied odds.
It's easy to think of one the other way around - Flop = AQJ, or just AJ4. The point is, JJ won't pay off AQs when AQs hits his flop... where are the implied odds?
|
|
#67
11-13-2005, 03:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
Well the one guy says AQs has higher implied odds, other's say NO. SO lets see. JJ has 2 outs to make it 3 J's , while As,Qs has 4 outs to beat JJ, not including the possible straight and flush draws.
If flop were , Ks,9s,Jc now there are 3 J's ,with 7 outs. As,Qs now has 12 outs, so still it has more implied odds. So then the question is , does implied odds equal reality ? Seems it doesnt always, cause 2 J's or 3 J's has the hand won already, whereas As, Qs has to hit good to win. I would have to agree with POSITION POSITION POSITION. It would be hard to call or raise a Re-raise from a good player with JJ i think. Where as As,Qs I would prolly call to see the flop neways because of the higher implied odds. But I am such a noob, have only played one for real money tourney and have only gotten to page 38 in your book SSH. So take it easy on me, besides I took a bad beat tonite in the tourney [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#68
11-13-2005, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Confusion
This is an obvious postitional advantage. Next on priority list is player style. But if I had to chose a hand it would be JJ. AQ getting reraised is a terrible feeling. Typically I'd put villan on AA, KK, QQ, AK. Too many combinations here. Playing after flop would be too tricky. AQ would be a comfortable check fold here, but a very difficult check raise. Spades won't fall enough to make this profitable.
|
|
#69
11-13-2005, 05:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
I've been trying to play some no limit hold 'em since it has become so popular and we are publishing books on this subject [/ QUOTE ] i hate to pile on, esp since just about every respected voice on this forum has already chimed in and pointed out how ludicrous it would be to prefer holding AQs in this situation. however, given the fact that mason prefaces his post by noting that 2+2 is publishing books on nlhe (i think he's referring specifically to the forthcoming sklansky/miller book on nl cash games, in addition to the harrington volumes), i feel it's important that he return to this thread, and either retract his contention, or back up his argument with some kinda revolutionary theory that they've come up with. not only is he wrong here, but the concept is such a basic, elementary one, that by extrapolation it gives readers little confidence the new book will be any good.
|
|
#70
11-13-2005, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Player Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason, [ QUOTE ] My answer was that if someone was all-in, the jacks would be better, but if they each had chips left, which was the case here, the ace-queen suited was better. Well, no one understood what I was talking about. No wonder the games are good. [/ QUOTE ] Uh, slow down on the condescension, Boss--you're almost certainly wrong. In limit, your answer is correct. In NL, the Jacks are definitely better in deep stacked situations, and probably in all situations where both players have substantial chips left. Yours is a limit player's mistake: you are overvaluing the top pair-type hands that AQs can make; AQs will rarely be able to win a big pot, or stand up to much heat post-flop, while JJ will often be able to. I'll let others elaborate, but just realize that the set-flopping potential of JJ, and the frequency with which it'll be an overpair on the flop makes it much stronger than the top pair or combo draw AQs will sometimes flop. [/ QUOTE ] I completely agree. Here's an example from a hand I played in the MGM's 5-10 NL, $500 min, no cap cap game last night. I raise AQo UTG to $40. I've been playing unusually TAG, for anyone at the table observant enought to notice. Player third to act calls. Whale who plays slightly better than abysmally raises to $250. Youngish dude who plays okay but calls way too much, especially preflop but also on earlier streets postflop as well calls in the SB. I fold, as does the limper. Flop comes Qxx, rainbow. SB checks, raiser bets $300, SB folds, whale shows JJ. Now the problem here is, I had about $4K behind, and the whale had about $3K, and I have veeeeeeery little doubt that he would have put me to the test on all three streets. So Mason, what flops are we looking for with AQ? Granted, mine was offsuit, and I was out of positiion, so if they had been suited and I had had position, things might have been different, but I'm not sure where you're coming from with this. So long as villain's reraising range isn't (transparently) too broad, I think playing AQ in a reraised pot sucks pretty hard pretty much always. Unless you and the reraiser are both super deep, I just think the hand sucks in situations like this. But what the [censored] do I know.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
