NL50 | AA on gross board

[flo]

I usually just shove pf and get called by AK/KK/QQ. Despite some posts in this thread I seriously think it's v +ev, probably best, depending on image and table.
I see no need to be tricky if ai gets called so frequently in these limits; most villains, even when tight, don't fold AK/KK/QQ here.
Am i way off?

[Hank Scorpio]

Standard

[Xanta]

Flo I think that you're right at this limit, and it very well might be the best line and a close second if it isn't. I just think that it's not the most +EV at higher levels and I don't want to play NL50 forever, so I'd like to learn how to play hands like these.

[marvin_1935]

really? this guy has 3bet 5 times out of 500 (so he's got kk/qq) and you're NOT 4betting? save smooth calling for the guys who are 3betting AJ. pound this guy pf.

[marvin_1935]

[ QUOTE ]
Flo I think that you're right at this limit, and it very well might be the best line and a close second if it isn't. I just think that it's not the most +EV at higher levels and I don't want to play NL50 forever, so I'd like to learn how to play hands like these.

[/ QUOTE ] to maximize EV you should be playing 50NL as you would against 50NL opponents. playing this hand to maximize EV at NL200 won't work.

[SCBielski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I generally 4-bet my AA preflop particularly against a tight villain to really narrow their hand range; if they hold KK then you will get them to commit all in preflop, if not I think they might fold out with anything less than JJ or QQ. You might get a smooth call from KK or QQ, but at least you can but them on a very tight range.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK this is a very wrong way of thinking about the problem, and it's probably one that's results oriented after getting you aces cracked one too many times.

You're correct about 4betting narrowing the TAGs range significantly. This villain in particular would fold anything but AA, KK, and maybe QQ and AK here. Here's the problem: That is the exact opposite of what we want to do! We have the best starting hand in the game, and the more hands villain is willing to play, the better. Wanting the villain to fold most of his hands so that the hand is simple postflop is not the most optimal line here all the time, it's just the easiest.

Right now the villain has a relatively undefined range, but it is certainly significantly larger than the one I mentioned above. If I smoothcall and check the flop, most (not all) villains will C-bet with whatever they 3bet preflop with. This is where the value in smoothcalling comes from; trapping money in the pot when he tries to push us off.

If he has KK, I'm stacking him on most flops anyways. If he has QQ, he might felt it as an overpair as well. If AK hits we are getting a good chunk of his stack, and even if it misses he cbets a lot here. We are getting almost all the value we would have from his 4bet calling range, and then some from whatever junk he would fold to a 4bet.

Sometimes he calls and flops a set and we go broke, but that's only one in 8.5 times, which I'm pretty happy to take. One other argument for a 4bet is that the amount of extra money that goes in on a 4bet is greater than a continuation bet in a 3bet pot, but I think against a TAG the frequency of him cbetting trumps the greater magnitude of a 4bet call or push.

Mind you, against and idiot who thinks that AT is a pretty great hand, I'm 4betting here all day. But I had played with this villain enough to know that he wasn't doing that, so I think that smoothcalling is best here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing a big point here; our villain is tight and has not been out of line, therefore we can assume a range of TT+ and maybe AK. If we simply smooth call this 3-bet and any paint hits on the flop, we have no idea if we're good or not. This sounds a bit nitty, but it's actually not because of the fact that we WILL see a flop with a T,J,Q, or K more than 30% of the time. This means that on 30% of the flops we could see, we could likely be seeing a set. On the other hand, if we do not see a flop with a T,J,Q, or K, we will likely only get our villain to commit with the upper end of their range, QQ and KK. Rather than playing this guessing game on the flop, a 4-bet preflop will fold out JJ and TT preflop against a tight player but likely get them to felt QQ+. I understand what you are saying, that you should be trying to get max EV, but with a villain who plays relatively tight you will not get them to shove their lower 3-bet range without a set, thus making this hardly as EV as you might think.

[Xanta]

I think I'm understanding what you're saying here in that we're never going to see villains stack in the middle unless he has AA-QQ as an overpair or a set, but there are a lot of situations where he can put in a good chunk of his stack without a set. Just an example, what if he has 99-TT and the flop comes 426r and we donk or something like that. I know this is just one example, so I'll try a more complete EV analysis and post it if anything interesting comes up. I think this requires a pretty full EV analysis which I'll give a shot tonight, see what comes out more +EV. Thanks for making me think about this a bit more.

Also as an aside I think that his range has a lot of AQ-AK here, which makes calling more attractive I think.

This spot really depends on the villain I think, so here are some factors that should influence our decision with different villains:

We should be more inclined to 4bet if:
Villain has an extremely tight 3bet range:

If he's only 3betting AA-QQ, AK, then we should push while he still has no reason to fold (ie He has QQ on 25K flop)

Villain rarely cbets:

We gain little when he misses the flop and lose a lot when he hits it hard, and the only hands we're ahead of if he calls a push are the hands he would have called a pf push with anyways


We should be more inclined to call if:
Villain has a loose 3bet range:

Most players will cbet when checked to in 3bet pots regardless of holding, so the more hands he's doing this with the better for us.

Villain is aggro or maniac:

This is pretty much the opposite of the last one, but if he's trying to push people around let him hang himself. Maniacs don't like calling all ins, they like pushing, so let him spew on the flop instead of folding his 83o preflop.


Pretty simple, but sound?

[jskinn04]

Playing OOP makes all the difference to me. I'd want to make it $20 preflop so I could open shove the flop. The easiest way is likely to be the most +EV here because you'll never make a mistake. Most hands that would be willing to go broke on the flop (that aren't sets) will be willing to go broke preflop.

If you think this guy is folding QQ,KK, and AK to a 4-bet then start 4-betting with SC's, AA, and AK.

One other important consideration I haven't yet heard mentioned is that 4-betting boosts metagame and prevents other people at the table from reraising you light.

[SCBielski]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm understanding what you're saying here in that we're never going to see villains stack in the middle unless he has AA-QQ as an overpair or a set, but there are a lot of situations where he can put in a good chunk of his stack without a set. Just an example, what if he has 99-TT and the flop comes 426r and we donk or something like that. I know this is just one example, so I'll try a more complete EV analysis and post it if anything interesting comes up. I think this requires a pretty full EV analysis which I'll give a shot tonight, see what comes out more +EV. Thanks for making me think about this a bit more.

Also as an aside I think that his range has a lot of AQ-AK here, which makes calling more attractive I think.

This spot really depends on the villain I think, so here are some factors that should influence our decision with different villains:

We should be more inclined to 4bet if:
Villain has an extremely tight 3bet range:

If he's only 3betting AA-QQ, AK, then we should push while he still has no reason to fold (ie He has QQ on 25K flop)

Villain rarely cbets:

We gain little when he misses the flop and lose a lot when he hits it hard, and the only hands we're ahead of if he calls a push are the hands he would have called a pf push with anyways


We should be more inclined to call if:
Villain has a loose 3bet range:

Most players will cbet when checked to in 3bet pots regardless of holding, so the more hands he's doing this with the better for us.

Villain is aggro or maniac:

This is pretty much the opposite of the last one, but if he's trying to push people around let him hang himself. Maniacs don't like calling all ins, they like pushing, so let him spew on the flop instead of folding his 83o preflop.


Pretty simple, but sound?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly my thinking behind 4-betting vs calling, well stated.