Is "Overplaying Aces" A Myth

[fishyak]

I left my last O/8 game after two orbits stating that since the paint was now dry, I could get up and leave. However, the session before was like this:

AKK6 (K6s) UTG in a 6/12 full kill hand. I call, raised pot - 7 to the flop. AT5 with the A5 in my suit. 7 bets, no folds. Turn K. Now I have KKK and backup nut flush draw. I bet out. 7 calls. River T. I bet out, 2 calls and one of our resident nut balls (a mute guy) raises. Pocket aces? Another guy makes a move to call and pulls back - mute guy goes nuts and gets the floor. The way the mute guy is acting it is looking more and more like AA. Floor rules the other player had not bet. I call. Mute guy is 777TT. Ship the $200+ 3/6 pot killed and scooped to ME!!!

That's why you play O/8 with its rake at Commerce!

[1MoreFish4U]

All kinds of good comments made above, and I think the most important one to keep tucked away in most player's minds is that you can 'overplay' any hand. In other words, always be aware of where you are in the hand and willing to release likely losers -whether you wnat to take a stab with them or not.

A few comments - although I play a lot of h/l from heads up to full ring, I stand by my statement that I make more money per hand with AA than any other 2 card combo - by far.

That may be because I ahved gotten better at laying them down when I should, and continuing with them when others would give up.

I do mix up my play with them much more than I used to - and have broadened my open raising hands considerably, as well as 3 betting various combos much more often.

Two things that work well in online h/l are 1. aggression, and 2. varying your play/disguising your hand.

As Tex stated about his play, I too have learned to be able to lay down ugly AA hands OOP facing multiple bets, or even OOP knowing that I ahve aggressive players following me in the hand.

I also realize my original post may have made it seem as though I see AA as a hand on it's own - which I dont, and of course I'd rather have at least one A suited, and at least 1 wheel card when going to battle - I just mean that there are many ways that various AA hands can win some or all of a pot, and the pots can be substantial.

Buzz - you know the game, and you know the math, but I would sooner take my chances with AA65 with a suited A, than with A49Q with a suited A - in a full ring game.

Is any A4 suited combo much ahead of an AA5 suited A combo? - or just fractional?

Also, one point I intended to make was that by being able to play so many AA hands very aggressively you can take down pots without showing down, which also adds to the win total per hand average because of this scoop potential.

Aside to Fishyak - in the hand above, am I reading the cards wrong, or did you lose to quad tens?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I would sooner take my chances with AA65 with a suited A, than with A49Q with a suited A - in a full ring game.

[/ QUOTE ]1MoreFish4U - Me too.

[ QUOTE ]
Is any A4 suited combo much ahead of an AA5 suited A combo? - or just fractional?

[/ QUOTE ]No. Probably not at all.

But you're adding a suited ace to AA.

My comparison was between two aces and an ace-suited-to-a-four. And before any action in the hand. And before the flop.

Things change after action, and then certainly after the flop.

It's admittedly difficult (if not impossible) to separate two cards from the four cards within a hand. All the cards play together.

It's a moot point with me, because I'm going to want to see the flop with either of those holdings within a hand (AnAnXY or As4sXnYn). And I have them pretty close.

If the ace in the AAXY hand is suited, that adds another dimension to the hand and it becomes even better. Add a wheel card (like the five you added) and it's even better.

I fully realize you cannot separate two cards from the four within a starting hand. In truth, all four of the cards affect the probability of the outcome of a hand.

It's just that people talk about a pair of aces. (Indeed, this very thread is about a pair of aces). And if you're going to do that, comparing other two card holdings within a hand to the pair of aces suggests itself, at least to me.

And anyway, I do, rightly or wrongly, tend to think about the various two card combinations within a hand. And when I do that, before the flop I think of ace-four suited as being just a tiny bit better than ace-ace without the suits and without an extra wheel card. (And a lot depends on how particular individuals within the group and also on the group as a whole is playing and also on position. It's pretty hard to isolate two cards within a hand and compare them to two other cards within a hand without taking many various factors into consideration. I was innocently trying to simplify).

Would I prefer AA5-suited plus a random card to A4-suited plus two random cards? Of course I would! It's no contest.

Here's maybe a better comparison, from my data base for nine non-folding hands:
AA55s 561 567 812 1940
A455s 338 775 657 1770

AA5Ts 521 531 769 1821
A45Ts 336 775 629 1740

AA5Ks 532 534 744 1810
A45Ks 334 806 671 1811

Focus on the right hand column. As the fourth card in the hand becomes higher, comparing AA5Xs to A45Xs, the gap between AA4Xs and A45Xs narrows. (1810 and 1811 are virtually the same. If I re-ran the same simulations, AA5Ks and A45Ks might exchange places. Indeed, because of the higher scoop potential, I think AA5Ks is a slightly better starting hand than A45Ks. But it's a moot point. If I can't see the flop with both of those fine but non-premium hands, I need to find another table.)

Buzz

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with AAxx in a loose game, where opponents frequently cold call is that you cannot, move them off hands like 23xx. In a tight game, opponents don't like to cold call, so will be more cautious with hands like A4xx and other poor Lo's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so you adjust. Proper play of aces in one context is overplaying them in another. This is true of all hands, but it carries special importance when you pick up AA or A2. I have a hell of a time adjusting to online PLO8 after 4/8 donkey limit because what is optimal is so different.

I'm glad that we are kicking this around. Optimizing AA play is probably the difference between making a little bit of money and a whole lot of money.

[Buzz]

Truthiness - I didn't write what you quoted in your reply posted as a response to me. Rob wrote that. While I don't disagree with what Rob wrote regarding the difficulty of pushing opponents off hands in a loose game, I don't think of that as the problem with "overplaying aces."

Let me explain what I think the problem is:

Things change going from one betting round to the next when you play in a full loose game. A hand containing a pair of aces may start out as the favorite before the flop. And if you can manage to get into a heads-up confrontation, the pair of aces has a good chance to remain the favorite.

But as Rob implies, it's rare when you manage to get heads-up before the flop in a full loose game. And when you don't get heads-up, (or maybe even when you do), the lead often changes depending on how well various particular two-card combinations within everyone's hands fit with the flop, then the flop+turn and finally the flop+turn+river. Unless you specifically see an ace on the flop (and maybe even if you do), your pair of aces is simply probably not the best possible two card holding after the flop.

Does an opponent actually have a two card combination that fits with an ace-less flop better than your pair of aces? That's hard to know. The likelihood depends on the actual flop cards and the range of hands everybody is playing.

Aces fit well with more cards than any other rank. If there is no ace on the flop, do the other two cards in your hand fit well with the flop? Or does one of the other cards plus an ace fit well with the flop? If so, then you're not continuing because of the pair of aces, but rather because of some other two card combination within your hand.

However, if nothing else fits well with the flop, if all you have is that pair of aces - and if you continue, then you're probably "overplaying aces."

[ QUOTE ]
Optimizing AA play is probably the difference between making a little bit of money and a whole lot of money.

[/ QUOTE ]You only get dealt a hand with a pair of aces about once every forty deals!

I think the main thing is not to fall in love with your starting hand.

Buzz

(Now that damned song "It's So Easy To Fall In Love" has started rattling around in my brain).

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
RobNottsUK Wrote: The problem with AAxx in a loose game, where opponents frequently cold call is that you cannot, move them off hands like 23xx...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz Wrote: Rob wrote that. While I don't disagree with what Rob wrote regarding the difficulty of pushing opponents off hands in a loose game, I don't think of that as the problem with "overplaying aces."

Let me explain what I think the problem is:

Things change going from one betting round to the next when you play in a full loose game. A hand containing a pair of aces may start out as the favorite before the flop. And if you can manage to get into a heads-up confrontation, the pair of aces has a good chance to remain the favorite.

But as Rob implies, it's rare when you manage to get heads-up before the flop in a full loose game. And when you don't get heads-up, (or maybe even when you do), the lead often changes depending on how well various particular two-card combinations within everyone's hands fit with the flop, then the flop+turn and finally the flop+turn+river. Unless you specifically see an ace on the flop (and maybe even if you do), your pair of aces is simply probably not the best possible two card holding after the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for expanding on this, Buzz. I feel it'd still be good to emphasise a keypoint that probably ought to have been clearer, relating to the importance of scoop potential. It's probably "obvious" to many, but it's probably worth making it explicit.

[ QUOTE ]
RobNottsUK Wrote: So, when you catch your Ace for Hi, you generally split the pot... Due to loose nature of opponents, you may easily fail to fold correctly, or fold incorrectly as you'll find it hard to know when you're beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a Tight game, AAxx has a good chance of isolating the blinds, or 1 other player, and in a HU pot AA has scoop potential, through forcing an opponent to fold.

In a very loose-passive game, going for Hi, or Lo only may be profitable, if you can see the flop cheap.

But in a only somewhat loose game, 3-4 players see flop against an early pos raiser say....

Now, with a bare AAxx what do you want to hit?

When you catch your Ace, you're hoping top set holds up and noone makes a flush on you, or a str8.

If you don't, all you have is a pair of Aces, and opponents who are not afraid of drawing to poor Lo's. Furthermore you might fold the winning Hi hand, due to Nut Lo raising a loose-aggressive opponent (or a good player trying to promote the 3rd Nut Lo or try to avoid splitting with you on 2nd Nut Lo A3xx for example).

So whilst in a weak-tight or a super loose game the sidecards may not seem as important, in some kinds of games, you're going to just put money in the pot to split (defending your previous investment), but risk being outdrawn by Lo's on a free roll.


Now when I read, some of the early response posts, the good experience of playing AAxx a certain way might very well be related to game type.

I observe opponents, over-playing AAxx, pushing very marginal advantage early in the hand, and then being in a reverse-implied odds situation, where they can only win small, but will lose the maximum when they're outdrawn. Because loose players won't fold poor lows, the value of flopping top set is severely compromised.

At least with KKhh or KK23 making top set you have more chance of scooping, with no Lo possible on the river (or "valid" Lo hands being counterfeited).

[RobNottsUk]

Just adding a related hand thread where AA27 rivers a set and consensus is that it's a fold, due to str8's and Lo's.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...=1#Post12045916