100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

Very common spot. It seems this is the way you are "supposed" to play AKs. It seems every time they either fold, or flip over AA (about 50/50 each). So is this really the best way to play AK? Do they not either get away from their hand, or stack me? (villain 20/16/2)

Full Tilt Poker, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

SB: $137.55
BB: $101.80
UTG: $112.25
MP: $23.35
CO: $209.45
Hero (BTN): $100

Pre-Flop: A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] dealt to Hero (BTN)
2 folds, <font color="red">CO raises to $3.50</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $12</font>, 2 folds, <font color="red">CO raises to $36</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises to $100 and is All-In</font>, CO calls $64

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

You'll get many calls here from jacks and up, from what I've seen at .50/1 (which is what I play at). It's not a terrible strategy. It's clearly a high volatility play, but I doubt you're losing very much doing this.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

yes. this is the best way

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

This really depends alot on your image, villain's image, reads and history. At $100 especially, preflop play is generally very passive with 4-bets often being restricted to AA/KK/AK.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

Yeah, this is standard. I guess some gameflow/image dynamics might make this a fold at 100nl, but generally this is the way to play it.

Edit: I want to say I don't play 100nl, so if the 4-betting ranges of a seemingly decent TAG is as tight as you guys say folding preflop should def be considered. In my games the way this hand was played out is standard...

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

Nothing is standard, it all depends on villains.
1) Someone provide math or I'll do it after work for the case that CO will only call with AA/KK and the blinds do not act at all
2) For the sake of argument discuss calling the 4bet, calling the raise and folding to the 4bet.

I'll start and provide the following on "calling the raise" to get a discussion going:
With agressive, thinking players in the blinds, tend to call the initial raise and shove over a squeeze.
Reasoning: We can assume that CO opens somewhat wide, blinds can figure this out, too. Blinds can also assume we call somewhat wide here. If the BB squeezes this is of course a less strong hand on average than if the SB squeezes.
If there is no squeeze we still get to play a hand that plays well in position, with multiple callers we have good IOs for the flush and HU we have a strong HU hand.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is standard, it all depends on villains.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said this way to play the hand is standard imo given the information you've provided on your opponents, meaning this is the way you should play the hand the majority of the time but not always as you need to mix up your game sometimes vs thinking players.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, this is what we mean when we use the words "standard" on the forum.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

With just stat (not donkeystats) and no history, I find a fold here.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
With agressive, thinking players in the blinds, tend to call the initial raise and shove over a squeeze.
Reasoning: We can assume that CO opens somewhat wide, blinds can figure this out, too. Blinds can also assume we call somewhat wide here. If the BB squeezes this is of course a less strong hand on average than if the SB squeezes.


[/ QUOTE ]
I generally really like this line, but it's not often correct at 100nl. With specific reads that the blinds like to squeeze it's nice though.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is standard, it all depends on villains.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said this way to play the hand is standard imo given the information you've provided on your opponents, meaning this is the way you should play the hand the majority of the time but not always as you need to mix up your game sometimes vs thinking players.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, this is what we mean when we use the words "standard" on the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree.
I just happen to teach poker to some friends at the time and they alway like to ask for "standard" plays and I get the feeling that they are likely to prefer the standard line over thinking situational ("going on autopilot"). Happens to me all the time so I just felt like pointing it out. The intention was not to mock anyone so sorry if it sounded like that.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Someone provide math or I'll do it after work for the case that CO will only call with AA/KK and the blinds do not act at all

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is a good assumption. IF his 4-bet range is AK/JJ+/air, he will fold air 100% but not AK/QQ/JJ. Just don't think he'll 4-bet/fold strong hands in steal situations that often, even though he'll fold these hands some portion.


[ QUOTE ]
2) For the sake of argument discuss calling the 4bet, calling the raise and folding to the 4bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Calling the raise is ok during the right circumstances, but not often at 100nl. I just can't ever see calling the 4-bet being correct, our implied odds when we hit is not good, eg if we hit a flop of Kxx QQ/JJ might be able to get away while AA/KK always will stack us. And we like to see 5 cards. If we think his 4-betting range is wide enough we should just get it in, otherwise we fold.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

Yeah the assumption was just made to show if the raise is profitable vs a given range if he'll only call with a certain %age of that range.
It sounded like OP "complained" that "they only call when i'm beat" and thus I'd like to point out that this is not neccessaryly a bad thing.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is standard, it all depends on villains.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said this way to play the hand is standard imo given the information you've provided on your opponents, meaning this is the way you should play the hand the majority of the time but not always as you need to mix up your game sometimes vs thinking players.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, this is what we mean when we use the words "standard" on the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree.
I just happen to teach poker to some friends at the time and they alway like to ask for "standard" plays and I get the feeling that they are likely to prefer the standard line over thinking situational ("going on autopilot"). Happens to me all the time so I just felt like pointing it out. The intention was not to mock anyone so sorry if it sounded like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. But I've seen alot of people going off at people saying something is standard thinking it's an insult, but imo it's just like saying you played the hand correct given the info you had.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

I think the word 'standard' is kind of confusing here. If by standard you mean readless, then I think folding to the 4-bet is proper at stakes &lt; $400 and maybe even at $400. Most people are just nits or fish, both of whom are basically never 4-betting remotely light. And even if villain is a good player who can have more than KK/AA/AK in his range here, against an unknown (hero) he probably will still just be 4-betting monsters for the most part.

By the other meaning of standard, a common situation against a reasonable, but not outstanding, opponent - I completely agree with shoving preflop here assuming your own image is decent / not nitty. Just a matter of semantics I suppose.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

I think that this is fine. If you are pulling this move though - you will want to stay at the table as long as you can afterwards. I play AK suited here like this often and will get called down with even 10-10, AQ type hands and I am playing $100NL or $200NL at poker stars.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

TT/AQ are rarely 4-betting at $100 or $200 at Stars.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

If my AK gets 3bet, I've been 4bet shoving for the FE. If my 3bet with AK gets 4bet, given no read I've been folding simply to reduce variance because I am tilt-prone. Don't know if this strategy is a leak.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
TT/AQ are rarely 4-betting at $100 or $200 at Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they were - I said people have definitely called 4 bets vs me with those marginal hands. Not every day - but if you throw in AK and QQ, with KK and AA, this is a good play.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TT/AQ are rarely 4-betting at $100 or $200 at Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they were - I said people have definitely called 4 bets vs me with those marginal hands. Not every day - but if you throw in AK and QQ, with KK and AA, this is a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread the hand (I think many people are misreading it). Hero is the one getting 4-bet.

Re: 100 NL: Is this really the best way to play AKs?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TT/AQ are rarely 4-betting at $100 or $200 at Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they were - I said people have definitely called 4 bets vs me with those marginal hands. Not every day - but if you throw in AK and QQ, with KK and AA, this is a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread the hand (I think many people are misreading it). Hero is the one getting 4-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on - my b - but I still push :-). AQ is a huge stretch as is 10-10, but people are calling with QQ, KK, AA, and AK in an equal frequency, IMO.