annoying preflop spot with AQo

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
p.85 "If the pot has been raised and reraised in front of you, you must play extremely tightly, even if you do not respect the raisers. Against typical opponents play only AA-QQ and AKs. You may add JJ-TT and AK against looser raisers..."

Most of that quote was out of context in that thread and this one,

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that quote is exactly in context with that thread(33), and the one it was originally in. Do you remember the context? Maniac games. Read the 1st line. It's about raisers who's raises you don't necesarily respect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly in context? No, that thread started with a straddle and (dead) restraddle. The SSHE quote was not about straddles. It was talking about real, meaningful, informative raises and reraises, which indicate stronger than random hands. A straddle indicates nothing, since it is made before the player sees his hand.

From the "You may add JJ-TT and AK against looser raisers," the lack of respect appears to mean you don't respect their play, not that you don't respect their hand ranges. Otherwise it would contradict itself.

You are reacting the same way, folding AQo, that you would if the raises signified strong hands. Why do you treat them the same way?

Do you play AKo against maniacs? Against 5 random hands. AKo wins 27% of the time hot and cold instead of the par of 17%. Each extra dollar you invest preflop returns about $1.60. You said you don't play AQo against maniacs. AQo wins 25% in that situations, for a return of about $1.45. That is not as good as AKo, but it is a huge advantage, and potential reverse implied odds are insignificant in comparison, particularly when the pot is bloated. You won't lose that equity advantage back even if good players take over the random hands, which won't happen.

You aren't up against random hands, but AQo still has a significant equity advantage against reasonable ranges from your loose opponents (it was 20% over par against one set including calls behind), and 3-betting will probably give you the initiative, too.

[JJH3984]

I don't get it... either everyone is calling with inferior hand values, in which case you'll have a small but significant edge against their ranges; or everyone is folding all but premiums, in which case you have a large enough edge to 3bet against the raiser and cold caller.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly in context? No, that thread started with a straddle and (dead) restraddle. The SSHE quote was not about straddles. It was talking about real, meaningful, informative raises and reraises, which indicate stronger than random hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is in context.

The quote directly relates to maniac/wild games where people could be playing anything.

[ QUOTE ]
From the "You may add JJ-TT and AK against looser raisers," the lack of respect appears to mean you don't respect their play, not that you don't respect their hand ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a far cry from the range of hands you're advocating playing in these types of pots.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
SSHE and the PokerRoom stats say that even weaker offsuit hands like AJo and KQo do better in looser games. SSHE says that the borderline is ATo and KJo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet again, you completely ignore that this is for loose tables. Not loose aggro/wild tables where you're putting in alot of money up front. Not sure why you can't grasp that. It's pretty clear. Does getting to the flop for 1 bet really equate to being the same as seeing the flop for 3-4 bets to you?

[ QUOTE ]
but I say he is still wrong on this, and you should believe SSHE instead of him

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about SSHE being wrong about AQo. I just said I don't play it. It's really not that big a deal.

A bigger deal: I DID say you were wrong in saying SSHE advocates playing hands like KJo into a capped preflop/wild games. Even AJo and KQo for that matter. Nowhere in that text does he say that.

b

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]
Does getting to the flop for 1 bet really equate to being the same as seeing the flop for 3-4 bets to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that if the action is so crazy that AK/QQ+ doesn't figure to be out there, then I'm all for going 4 bets here pre-flop because I figure to be getting the best of that money.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does getting to the flop for 1 bet really equate to being the same as seeing the flop for 3-4 bets to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that if the action is so crazy that AK/QQ+ doesn't figure to be out there, then I'm all for going 4 bets here pre-flop because I figure to be getting the best of that money.

[/ QUOTE ]


That statement was in reference to more speculative hands that he advocates playing in these games.

b

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does getting to the flop for 1 bet really equate to being the same as seeing the flop for 3-4 bets to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that if the action is so crazy that AK/QQ+ doesn't figure to be out there, then I'm all for going 4 bets here pre-flop because I figure to be getting the best of that money.

[/ QUOTE ]


That statement was in reference to more speculative hands that he advocates playing in these games.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

he recommends playing "speculative" hands in wild games? like what...87s?

so b, is this a purely variance-avoiding fold, or an EV fold? in your estimation, how much EV do we lose to our bad position relative to the field?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly in context? No, that thread started with a straddle and (dead) restraddle. The SSHE quote was not about straddles. It was talking about real, meaningful, informative raises and reraises, which indicate stronger than random hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is in context.

The quote directly relates to maniac/wild games where people could be playing anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is absurd. You think the authors of SSHE meant to treat a blind raise and blind reraise, with random hands, the same way as a raise and reraise from loose players? That's not my reading of SSHE. You are the only one I have encountered who thinks SSHE says that.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] In a loose, passive game, raises still show a lot of strength. After a raise from someone who raises 10% of his hands, it doesn't matter whether he limps with 5% or 50% of the other hands.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] In a loose, aggressive game, raises don't show as much strength, but they still show some. If someone raises 30% of the time UTG, they are too aggressive, but you still have to beat a top 30% hand to expect to be ahead.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Blind raises do not show strength. They show stupidity. If you like money, get in there and gamble when you have a hand like KQo which has a huge equity edge over the random hands people are playing, and the barely-better-than-random hands the others are playing because they want to win a monster pot.

SSHE gave such a tight range because it was talking about loose, passive games, where your opponents are contributing a lot of dead money, but somone is indicating that he has a strong hand. Against an opponent whose raising range is looser, SSHE says to loosen up. Just as you shouldn't treat a late position raise the same way as an early position raise, it is ridiculous to interpret a blind raise the same way as a raise from a loose passive player. You have a mental block on this, and it is costing you money. It means your advice here is terrible, and should not be followed by people who like money.

When players are so bad that they are taking the same hand ranges to battle for 4 bets that very loose players normally do for 1, why are you running away? That a lot of money has gone in with weak hands should make the pot more attractive to an advantage gambler, not less. Do you think you are going to get outplayed so much in the monster pots that your preflop equity edge is reversed?

Hot and cold against 6 random hands, AKo wins 23.5%, AQo wins 21.6%, KQo wins 21.0%, and AJo wins 20.1%. Par is 14.3%, so these all have a greater edge than AKo heads up against a random hand. Just as SSHE says, these big pair hands gain value when you add opponents playing trash, though not as much as big pairs or big suited hands do. So, if you would play them in a tight game, you should normally be happier playing them when people play loosely. Instead, you want to play AQo in tight games, and fold it against trash.

Well, I'm getting tired of this. James asked me to post more in this forum, but so far it looks like a waste. I expect to see more people siding with me on something this obvious.

I'm willing to wager $1,000 that a simulation (of real poker, not hot and cold showdown) would show that AQo, KQo, and AJo are all clearly profitable in UTG+2 against 6 random hands in a capped pot, even if you don't give the player with a good hand a postflop skill advantage over the bad players. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? If not, I win. Good-bye.

[somapopper]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to wager $1,000 that a simulation (of real poker, not hot and cold showdown) would show that AQo, KQo, and AJo are all clearly profitable in UTG+2 against 6 random hands in a capped pot, even if you don't give the player with a good hand a postflop skill advantage over the bad players. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? If not, I win. Good-bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue against this, and I'm sorta losing the thread of the argument, but I don't see how it's relevant either.

If the players behind are sufficiently loose then obviously AQ has an equity advantage...

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to wager $1,000 that a simulation (of real poker, not hot and cold showdown) would show that AQo, KQo, and AJo are all clearly profitable in UTG+2 against 6 random hands in a capped pot, even if you don't give the player with a good hand a postflop skill advantage over the bad players. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? If not, I win. Good-bye.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anybody would argue against this, and I'm sorta losing the thread of the argument, but I don't see how it's relevant either.

If the players behind are sufficiently loose then obviously AQ has an equity advantage...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's relevant because the argument for folding is "OMG people might come in behind us" when that really isn't a disaster at all.