OMG RANDOM STRAT POST (long: Some insight on playing AQ in low buy ins

[AMT]

I’m writing this in a word processor first so no guarantees on how clear this will turn out….I’m kind of randomly
writing this because I feel like I should come out with a strategy post of some kind nowadays, especially given the
deteriorating quality of posts in a lot of areas of the forum. I Figured this was just as good a time as any.

I have been around this forum for a while now (perhaps a year and a half or more), and I’ve seen many strategy posts archived and in passing, specifically regarding low buy in SNGs (I’d love to write up on mid buy in games up through the 60s but I don’t consider myself the best source nor can I think of a worthy topic to write up on). In all of these posts and through random threads I’ve seen so many arguments that advocate *overly* nitty play in the early levels of STTs. I know, it’s pretty difficult to play too tight in L1 and L2 of a sit and go, but I’ve seen it done so many times both by regular low buy in posters in this forum and throughout my time playing SNGs on full tilt, party poker, and mainly Pokerstars. Specifically, I’m referring to the arguments for how to play (or if to play at all) AQ in the early levels of a sit and go. Since I haven’t seen much of a post about it directly, I figured I’d touch on the aspects of playing AQ early but more specifically, playing AQ out of the blinds early, and what I’ve found in the way of a strategy that works in the low buy in games over time.
Quick index in order of topics covered in the post (FAQ style):
-Why does the buy in even matter regarding how to play AQ?
-Is it different if it’s suited?
-So how would you play AQ when not in the blinds?
-What about while in the blinds then?
-Final considerations?



-Why does the buy in even matter regarding how to play AQ?

-Just as with other hands, frequency of plays are often altered according to the buy in/quality of play at the games you’re in. In mid-high buy in games, the way I play AQ changes regarding how often I’ll raise vs. limp with it in the early levels. Typically I’ll err on the side of aggression even early with AQ in a low buy in SNG, whereas in the mid to high buy ins my limping and folding frequencies are increased in many situations. In low buy in games, raising AQ is great because AJ (and much worse) type hands love to call. Conversely, In a higher buy in, limping AQ in many situations invites hands like AT/AJ to come along where they would have folded to a preflop raise.

The same holds true for the opposite. A lot of spots where I can limp in with AQ in a low buy in SNG and still potentially play a big pot, I may want to raise in a higher buy in game and might not be able to put my money in against better players in seemingly more marginal spots. Because hand ranges can be narrowed more, so can your actions. These are just some of the broad considerations that go into the buy in and playing a hand like AQ. Of course, in the end, your hand reading, stats and table dynamics should govern how you play your hand.

¬-Is it different when its sooooted?

-Its useful to know that a suited AQ has about 2.5% more equity than AQo against a random hand, but in the low buy in sit and gos, the short answer is no, in the early game it just doesn’t matter enough that would base my frequencies on it being suited or not.

-So how would you play AQ when not in the blinds?

-Bearing in mind that there are no absolutes, I would quite often raise AQ in the early levels of a low buy in sng (and forgive me for not mentioning this earlier, but I’d say in terms of pokerstars buy ins this applies up to through the 27s). Some posters on this forum advocate a lot more limping in the early levels with AQ, but I find that in the low buy ins, not raising in the early levels, both to open the pot and over limpers, is simply giving up value. If you take nothing else away from this post, take this: PEOPLE SUCK AT POKER. A2-AJ is in every unknowns range at an average 16 dollar sng in a raised pot, so take advantage of it. Position is obviously very important, so I would adjust my limping frequency with AQ in the CO/btn to be very very slim, if at all, but even when limping is a part of a balanced early-game strategy, more often than not you should be playing AQ aggressively for the first raise of the hand in the early levels when not in the blinds.

Though not all AQ hands will be played like this (this could be quite thin against a lot of reasonable opponents given the way the hand played out), this is a good example of why everyone sucks, and why you would be missing out on value to not let idiots stack off against you in raised pots:

POKERSTARS GAME #10383183382: TOURNAMENT #52607358, $15+$1 HOLD'EM NO LIMIT - LEVEL II
Table '52607358 1' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: KPETEH (1475 in chips)
Seat 2: Aart13 (1545 in chips)
Seat 3: papa61 (1460 in chips)
Seat 4: otrebor34 (2425 in chips)
Seat 5: Hypotron (2080 in chips)
Seat 6: TheWhiteLake (1630 in chips)
Seat 7: omega3399 (1350 in chips)
Seat 8: skeeting101 (1535 in chips)
TheWhiteLake: posts small blind 15
omega3399: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hypotron [Ac Qs]
skeeting101: folds
KPETEH: folds
Aart13: folds
papa61: calls 30
otrebor34: calls 30
Hypotron: raises 120 to 150
TheWhiteLake: folds
omega3399: folds
papa61: calls 120
otrebor34: calls 120
*** FLOP *** [6c Ah 9h]
papa61: checks
otrebor34: bets 120
Hypotron: raises 240 to 360
papa61: raises 950 to 1310 and is all-in
otrebor34: folds
Hypotron: calls 950
*** TURN *** [6c Ah 9h] [6h]
*** RIVER *** [6c Ah 9h 6h] [5c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
papa61: shows [Ad Js] (two pair, Aces and Sixes)
Hypotron: shows [Ac Qs] (two pair, Aces and Sixes - Queen kicker)
Hypotron collected 3235 from pot

With a very strong line, villain shows down AJ. I can’t stress enough how often I see plays like this happen with worse aces in low buy in games. Certainly with reads and different tables, hands like this will quickly become folds, but take a look at how bad people play before deciding to fold a hand as strong as AQ early in a low buy in game where the caliber of play may warrant playing a big pot.

-What about when in the blinds then?

-Playing AQ in the blinds becomes a bit of a different situation than the pure standard aggressive approach I may advocate when in position. A few considerations when in the blinds apply that don’t when not in the blinds, and therefore the way I approach AQ does as well.
One fact remains unchanged in any position you play in: you’re odds of flopping a pair or better do not change whether you’re in the blind, on the button or under the gun. Everywhere, you’re approximately 3:1 against to flop a pair or better with 2 unpaired cards. With this constant comes the application of position: flopping a pair in position would be more preferable than flopping a pair out of position. Because everyone flops a pair or better the same amount of the time, it is much more difficult to approach missed flops out of position in the early levels of a sit and go. There won’t be the same profitable continuation-betting situations as there would be in position. Not wanting to build the pot out of position vs. the inevitable loose limping/calling style played by many unknowns in the low buy in games, I will often check (BB) or complete (SB) AQ in the blinds. By increasing my completing/checking/calling frequency in the blinds, I am able to control the pot size out of position in multi way pots. Keeping your chips is important in the early levels, and being out of position, this is a good spot to keep your stack size steady with what could be a difficult spot/hand to play. Here is an example of a hand that I played in a 16 dollar SNG on PokerStars some time ago:

PokerStars Game #10154304141: Tournament #51469598, $15+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) -
Table '51469598 1' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: theASHMAN103 (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: Hypotron (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: Hannoes (1500 in chips)
Seat 4: dnd47 (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: AliStatus33 (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: fujiman99 (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: gvonah (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: club34 (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: slicksmith (1500 in chips)
Hypotron: posts small blind 10
Hannoes: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hypotron [Ad Qs]
dnd47: calls 20
AliStatus33: folds
fujiman99: folds
gvonah: folds
club34: folds
slicksmith has timed out
slicksmith: folds
slicksmith is sitting out
theASHMAN103: folds
Hypotron: calls 10
Hannoes: checks

****OK, this isn’t a multi way raised pot which might create a more interesting situation for an ‘AQ out of the blinds’ discussion, but this still illustrates how ill often play AQ in the blind. Being in the SB this hand, my completing (as opposed to raising) will be even higher than in the BB in a similar situation because I am out of position vs both players in the pot. Being out of position vs just one player *could* shift my decision to opening the pot with a raise, depending.

*** FLOP *** [5h 4d Qh]
Hypotron: bets 60
Hannoes: raises 60 to 120
dnd47: calls 120

****OK, pretty good flop for my hand. I’m definitely going to lead here because of the draw-heavy board, the multi way pot, and my hand strength COMBINED with my hand image (because I did not raise a hand like AQ PF, a lot of players cannot put you on a hand as strong as TopTop here. The concealment value of AQ out of the blinds in a spot like this, while not as prevalent in a low buy in SNG as in a high buy in, allows you to play big pots in certain spots where you wouldn’t if you could narrow your opponents hand range/they could narrow yours.

When I get minraised by the BB here, in a low buy in readless given the way the hand has played thus far, he could have any number of Qx hands or some kind of primary draw like 76 or xxhh. He could certainly also show up with a hand like 2 pair or a low set, but this board leaves his range too open readless for me to not want to play a big pot with TPTK at this buy in. When the other villain cold calls behind, this might be scary to me in a higher buy in game, but in a low buy in it just leaves more money in the pot for me to shove on with what seems to be FE and what is usually the best hand (again, the drawiness of this board really takes away the fright of the line that I’m looking at readless with such mediocre/bad fields at the low buy in games). I would also expect him to play his 2 pair and set hands UTG more aggressively on this type of flop.

Hypotron: raises 1360 to 1480 and is all-in
Hannoes: calls 1360 and is all-in
dnd47: folds

***Not surprisingly, I got called by the min raiser and the cold caller folded. I still don’t necessarily expect to be behind, though obviously the lowest min-raising hands in his range are now out.

*** TURN *** [5h 4d Qh] [7h]
*** RIVER *** [5h 4d Qh 7h] [2c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Hypotron: shows [Ad Qs] (a pair of Queens)
Hannoes: shows [Ts Qd] (a pair of Queens - lower kicker)
Hypotron collected 3140 from pot

***Booya. What a sucker…I wonder why he overrated his top pair, zomg….but seriously, in summation of the blinds argument:

With better pot control out of position against what is more likely to be a multi way pot, you can maximize your wins and minimize your losses better with a whiffed AQ early in a sng out of the blinds. The arguments of implied odds, concealing hand (to some extent), and pot control will drive my completing/checking/calling frequencies out of the blinds with AQ way up in the low buy in games.

-Final considerations? What about AJ?
-Screw AJ [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But seriously, AJ sucks. With AQ, you know you can play big pots against hands like A9/AT/AJ in low buy in games. With AJ early, where the same spots would allow you to play big pots with AQ, there are now 2 Ax hands (AK, AQ) that have you dominated and less hands that are going to pay you in big pots. As you move up in buy in, it will become worse to play hands like AJ in those spots. In late position at weak tables I will open AJ in the early levels, but as a general rule you’re AJ playing frequencies in the early levels should be quite low, and the hand should just be folded most of the time.

-Overall, AQ is a very strong hand even in the early levels of a low buy in sit and go. The low buy in games attract huge donkeys that have a lot of Ax hands in their ranges. Take advantage of this both in position and out for the reasons stated above. Raising will usually not lose you value in a readless situation with AQ early just as limping out of the blinds with AQ in the right spots will also not lose you value against the worse hands that you want to play big pots against.

-Finally, understand that despite the strategy aspects, this is still an opinion post. I do not claim to be the end all be all of anything in SNGs, and this is no exception. These are ways of playing AQ that I have found to be profitable on the whole in the low buy in games. As stated (and I cannot stress this enough), hand reading/stats/table/stacks will determine the frequencies in which you use moves like this, and when you may take a completely different line of action. I won’t be around the forum a ton the upcoming month due to VEGAS BABY, but I wish all of you good luck at the tables, and thanks for continuing to host a great community, STTF.

[blackize]

Nice post

Edit: I would disagree about suitedness changing how you play AQ. While in a hot/cold preflop equity analysis AQs is only about 2.5% better than AQo, in practice there are more streets to play. Suitedness makes the hand much easier to play postflop.

[Cixelsyd23]

very nice, maybe worth a try

[Kevin8423]

Nice post. The idea of limping to play a multiway pot where you can easily get off a missed flop vs. raising to have less players in the hand where you can c-bet and take down larger pots should definitley be considered. I think I limp AQ in a lot of spots where it could be played more profitably if I raised, especially in lower buyin games.

[AMT]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post

Edit: I would disagree about suitedness changing how you play AQ. While in a hot/cold preflop equity analysis AQs is only about 2.5% better than AQo, in practice there are more streets to play. Suitedness makes the hand much easier to play postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont disagree with this, but since I was dealing mostly with determining for preflop considerations only and because of how poor low buy in play can be, I don't think it makes a ton of difference in your opening frequency. If I went more in depth post flop (and on calling ranges in the late game), I think I would have touched on the significance of being suited doing it more justice/more in depth.

[ADLinden]

Nice post.

[BHokie1]

Who are you? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Nice post. Now go win some money playing live poker!

[AMT]

ALSO: I am a huge [censored] and a huge [censored]. The following people need to be thanked for their feedback and input to this post---

Pudge
THE HIPPO
*DevinLake
slim pickens
kevin8423 (or variation of those numbers)
probably bhokie somehow [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[relativity_x]

You've got the nutz. Nice post.

pwn in LV.

[The Yugoslavian]

I remember playing it similarly to how I played AK in MP and LP.

Yugoslav