AA vs. Random hands - how many before unprofitable?

[jackdaniels]

I was playing at a live 4-8 game with, as expected, about 6 people seing a flop, regardless of how many raises were put in. One guy, who kept seeing his big pairs cracked, decided big pocket pairs were simply unprofitable in a game where multiple people see the flop/turn/river.

I'd like to offer a prop bet on this with (off the top of my head) AA vs. 6 random hands (run hot/cold). Can AA overcome 6 random hands? how about 7? How about 5? What's the magic number 2p2?

Thx for your help.

[deucethree]

It's profitable vs any number of random hands if they're all putting in the same amount of money.

If you're offering 1-1 on Aces vs the field it's a favorite against four random hands and a slight dog (about 49-51) against five.

edited - btw, if you'd have made the bet against six you'd be taking the worst of it by quite a bit, about 43-57 or worse than most of the pit games.

[questions]

Pocket aces - over the long-term - win 90% of the time against any other single hand, so even though statistically you'll lose the pot to another person (even someone playing Q2 offsuit) about one time in 10, it's the best pre-flop hand and you'll lose even more frequently with any other hand. I never fold aces pre-flop. If I have A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and six people see the flop with me, and the flop is three cards all of [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (no ace), I'll probably fold them to any big bets.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
It's profitable vs any number of random hands if they're all putting in the same amount of money.

If you're offering 1-1 on Aces vs the field it's a favorite against four random hands and a slight dog (about 49-51) against five.

edited - btw, if you'd have made the bet against six you'd be taking the worst of it by quite a bit, about 43-57 or worse than most of the pit games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect. Thats exactly the information I was looking for.

Thx!

[rufus]

AA is the best possible holding. As long as the other hands are putting in similar amounts of money it's at a big advantage against any number of other random hands, although you might get eaten by variance.

In fact, most premium hands should give positive returns in this sort of scenario.

[jackdaniels]

Well, the idea is to run it hot/cold, so every hand will be putting in the same amount of money on each street - zero.

Without the opportunity to "knock out" hands from the running, AA will still be the favourite against 4 hands and slight dog against 5 (according to deucethree).

Is there something that I am missing here/not understanding?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the idea is to run it hot/cold, so every hand will be putting in the same amount of money on each street - zero.

Without the opportunity to "knock out" hands from the running, AA will still be the favourite against 4 hands and slight dog against 5 (according to deucethree).

Is there something that I am missing here/not understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because AA is a dog vs x number of hands doesn't make it unprofitable. It just adds variance.

[rufus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the idea is to run it hot/cold, so every hand will be putting in the same amount of money on each street - zero.

Without the opportunity to "knock out" hands from the running, AA will still be the favourite against 4 hands and slight dog against 5 (according to deucethree).

Is there something that I am missing here/not understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

What deucethree is saying is that if you bet $1 to win $1 that AA will beat a field of 4 hands, you are at an advantage.

If each hand is putting in the same amount of money, that means your EV against a field of 4 is going to be approximately +3.5 bets. Against a field of 5 hands, at equal money per hand, you're looking at an EV of (roughly) +4 bets.

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the idea is to run it hot/cold, so every hand will be putting in the same amount of money on each street - zero.

Without the opportunity to "knock out" hands from the running, AA will still be the favourite against 4 hands and slight dog against 5 (according to deucethree).

Is there something that I am missing here/not understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be asking two separate questions. Here are the questions with their answers:

- How many random hands does AA need to be up against before it has a less than a 50% chance of winning? Answer (from deucethree): 5

- How many random hands does AA need to be up against before it is unprofitable? Answer (from deucethree + everyone else): AA is profitable against any number of random hands (tested up to 9 opponents in a full ring game, although I'm sure this holds for even more players). Remember, when AA loses, you only lose whatever you put in the pot. When it wins against 'x' opponents, it wins x * whatever you put in the pot. A bigger payout when you win more than makes up for a lesser chance of winning.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
- How many random hands does AA need to be up against before it is unprofitable? Answer (from deucethree + everyone else): AA is profitable against any number of random hands (tested up to 9 opponents in a full ring game, although I'm sure this holds for even more players). Remember, when AA loses, you only lose whatever you put in the pot. When it wins against 'x' opponents, it wins x * whatever you put in the pot. A bigger payout when you win more than makes up for a lesser chance of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. In other words, will your aces lose in a pot against six players? Yes, sometimes. But if you are playing within your limits, and you continue getting all your money in with AA against six players, over time, you will end WAY ahead of anyone else. In other words, aces is a winning hand. If your friend's big pocket pairs are getting cracked a lot, he's probably just on an unlucky streak.