The Debate Over AK in No-Limit Hold'em
I wrote in a post about 7 months ago about the dangers in playing AK, and today over at Bet-the-Pot, I got quite the surprise in that quite a few experienced NL players prefer to either limp with AK, or to muck the hand pre-flop to a raise.
This stunned me.
I mean, yes, I'm a limit specialist, and the hand is far more valuable in limit than it is in NL (or is it?), but isn't this one of the Sklansky "raise and re-raise" hands? The hand in question had a player in the SB with 2 previous limpers (one of whom--EP--is considered to be a rock, and calling only 9% of PFRs, the other is the button). The poster completed his blind, then the BB raised to 5BB. The EP player called the raise, the button folded, and the SB, the poster, also folded. The flop was A-6-3, with the 6 and 3 being diamonds. It was checked around.
My response to him was as follows:
I got an argument. Also a stunner. The original argument was:
Again, stunned. I didn't know how to react, so I kinda dove into reading. I came across this article in CardPlayer:
...and I saw the argument for letting go of AK. Then, I saw this article:
...and I saw the article for leaving it alone. I've always played AK with only slightly less enthusiasm pre-flop than AA and KK. Think about it: With you holding AK, you are clearly dominated against AA. You are reasonably dominated against KK. Against everything else, you are hardly worse than a coin flip against a random hand. That is a double-edged sword, mind you. That also means that you're also only slightly better than a coin flip against the majority of hands that people would be playing for a raise. However, I can't understand the idea of mucking the hand to a raise from an LP player or from the BB in what smells like a blatant steal.
Think about it. If in our original example, the player simply called, he has no more information than he had before. He has essentially wasted his call. He was getting > 4-to-1 odds on his call in the situation, which clearly shows that you must at least call unless you suspect AA or KK. How does one discover where one stands? Raise. Raise for information AND for value. In this case, RE-RAISE. If the poster comes over the top with a pot-sized raise (about 17BB) and the BB flat calls, he should be cautious. A raise here is an attempt to win the pot RIGHT NOW. Of course, if he flat calls and you outflop the caller, it becomes a value raise as well.
In this situation (as easy as it is to be results-oriented), the flop brought an ace (and a 6 and a 3), meaning that the only things that you're behind here are AA, A6, A3, 33, or 66. He could potentially have those hands, and if he does, good for him.
What a re-raise does here is either a) win you the pot here, not allowing you to risk not outflopping your opponent, or b) builds the pot in the event you do outflop your opponent and win you a larger pot. He's as likely to have AQ here as he is to have 66 or 33.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to another point. In an effort to avoid (or is it perpetuate) the dreaded affliction FPS--Fancy Play Syndrome--I've thought of an interesting theorem. Raise big with your premium hands. Your AA, KK, QQ, JJ, etc. Now here comes the tricky part: Raise BIGGER with your drawing and speculative hands.
It's just a thought, but if you're on the button with ATs, and 2 people limp from MP, and you crank out a garden-variety positional 4BB raise and get two callers, you've built the pot, granted, but when the flop comes K-8-6, with none of your suit, all you've done is give yourself reason to fold, especially if one of the limpers lead out.
If you have AA there, you want those limpers to call, but you have to raise here. Toss out the 4-5BB raise and watch them call. You've built a pot where you are a clear favorite. Nice, eh? However, in the first example, you really DON'T want callers. How do you avoid callers? Raise bigger. Chuck out a 6-7BB raise. You're making players who are limping with "limp-quality hands" pay a SIGNIFICANT premium to continue on. Of course, the bigger raise could be read as an overbet, but you're not raising with crap here, you're raising with quality cards--only quality cards that need a little help--AND you're giving yourself odds later on.
The important thing to remember if you foolishly take my advice is to vary your strategy regardless, because it makes you harder to read.
This is just something I'm posting out in the blogosphere--I don't believe it to be gospel or anything like that, and I don't personally play that way--but it is an interesting thought, no?
This stunned me.
I mean, yes, I'm a limit specialist, and the hand is far more valuable in limit than it is in NL (or is it?), but isn't this one of the Sklansky "raise and re-raise" hands? The hand in question had a player in the SB with 2 previous limpers (one of whom--EP--is considered to be a rock, and calling only 9% of PFRs, the other is the button). The poster completed his blind, then the BB raised to 5BB. The EP player called the raise, the button folded, and the SB, the poster, also folded. The flop was A-6-3, with the 6 and 3 being diamonds. It was checked around.
My response to him was as follows:
Let me get this straight...You folded AK from the SB to a 5x BB open raise from the BB?
WHY???
I would've re-raised him to isolate.
AK, even though it is not a made hand, is a true premium hand, one that should be raised and re-raised with pre-flop, pretty much regardless of position. Only time you let the hand go is if the opponent pushes full stack. Even then, you think about it, because against anything but AA or KK, you're no worse than a coin flip.
So, no, not weak tight, just weak. Sorry, chief, but it takes a lot for me to dump AK pre-flop.
I got an argument. Also a stunner. The original argument was:
In cash games AK is nowhere near as good as in tourneys. You simply don't make as much money with AK as for example 99 and there is a reason.
Again, stunned. I didn't know how to react, so I kinda dove into reading. I came across this article in CardPlayer:
What’s the best starting hand in no-limit hold’em? The quick and popular answer is pocket aces. The next most popular answers are pocket kings, pocket queens and A-K (aka “big slickâ€ï¿½). But I think it’s time to devalue A-K.
You make money with a hand when an opponent puts money in the pot when you are the favorite. Bluffing is not a factor in determining the value of a starting hand. You can bluff with any two cards. The way you play a hand determines the efficacy of the bluff (along with your image and the relative sizes of chip stacks). The value of a hand is a function of the number and power of the situations in which it is profitable.
Pocket aces are profitable because they are a big favorite over every other hand before the flop. The known danger is that most people can’t get away from them when they catch a bad flop. This is even more true of pocket kings, because too many people will call bets on the flop even with an ace out there.
But I am using this column to argue that A-K is the hand that has become much more dangerous and less profitable in the past few years. Years ago, it was much more common for people to play all sorts of ace-rag and Broadway hands, even for a raise. That situation massively favors the A-K, which is why big slick used to be correctly valued very highly. Back then, if you raised with A-K, you could count on regularly being called by A-Q, A-J, A-10, K-Q, K-J, and even A-9.
Even better, when you were lucky enough to flop an ace or king (about a third of the time), you had the best kicker and your opponent was drawing to only three outs (to hit his kicker). You could bet big on the flop and even get raised by someone you had dominated. You could get all of your money in on the flop as a substantial favorite. That’s even better than the popular wish of getting it all in preflop with aces over an opponent’s deuces. Years ago with A-K, even when you missed the flop, you often could make a continuation bet and take the pot. What a glorious time. Those were the “good old days.â€ï¿½ Don’t count on that now.
Sure, it still happens now, especially at the lower limits, but the competition changed as players became more educated. Sklansky, Caro, and the rest of the poker experts effectively warned the public about playing weak kickers, especially for a raise. Nowadays, if you raise with big slick preflop, get called by A-J, and then check-raise an ace-high flop, most players won’t pay you off. Big slick just doesn’t earn what it used to.
What is worse, players will call you with a medium pair preflop and raise you even when there’s an overcard on the flop. So, if the flop comes J-6-2, many opponents will put you on A-K and happily go all in with 9-9, knowing you can’t profitably call.
Another problem with A-K was caused by poker on television (I accept my share of the blame). Wacky hands played by tricky pros get a lot of airtime. More and more players are emulating that strategy, so they can flop stealth two pairs and straights. Consequently, if you’re really deep-stacked, A-K becomes tremendously precarious. Your A-K can get an apparently attractive flop of K-8-6, and you can go broke when an opponent shows you an 8-6.
As is the case with everything in poker, it depends on the situation and the players. But because the competition has changed strategy, it’s time to counter effectively. Don’t play A-K like it’s the nuts unless you’re short-stacked.
If you’re deep-stacked, you’ve got to be aware that the competition is increasingly playing for implied odds, and your big slick rarely flops the nuts inconspicuously. A-K is too often easily read, and simply doesn’t profit like it used to. It’s time to devalue A-K and make more money on other hands. Good luck.
More important than knowing most everything is knowing when you don’t. I don’t know everything. Tell me when I’m wrong.
...and I saw the argument for letting go of AK. Then, I saw this article:
A friend of mine recently wrote an article in "CardPlayer" about devaluing Ace/King. He asked me what I thought about it. If you have yet to read his article, check it out at Cardplayer.com
Either way, this is what I wrote to him.
"Good to hear from you Dan. I've read your article and it is well written. In a no-limit cash game, you are, in my humble opinion, 80% correct. A/J and A/Q are trouble hands in a no-limit game...but Ace/King can be profitable...you just have to play it right. It is only a drawing hand and too many people get married to it.
I've seen this scenario a million times...A/K limps in, flops an ace and loses their entire stack. Mama always said, "don't go broke in an unraised pot" - these same players go on to say how awful A/K is. Of course the next time they get it, they become even more passive and just limp. They allow their opponents to get free shots at them.
A/K is best played in a raised pot. And unless it is suited, you don't want many opponents. You must charge your opponent(the one with 8/6) a hefty price to try and outdraw you.
Yes...A/K is transparent, but is it really? Hmm, I raised pre-flop...flop is all rags and now I'm still betting. Do I have Ace/ King or do I have pocket jacks? How do you know? And more importantly, are you willing to risk a substantial portion of your stack to find out?
Out of position - A/K can be hard to play...but so is everything, except for the Nuts.
Most good players can get away from Ace/rag or Ace/jack even when an Ace falls....but how many times is the game filled with only good players? Just the other day, I had a guy call off his entire stack with ace/nine. In the end, good players get away from losing hands - Bad players don't. Is it hard to get away from A/K? of course it is, but if you've been paying attention to the players at your table and taking mental notes, you should have a "read" on what they might have in any difficult situation.
Not to pat myself on the back, but the other day I folded A/K on the flop. The board read A/K/Q. No big deal really - Any player who was remotely focused on his opponents had to know he was beat. ( my opponent had J/10).
Another play I like to do with Ace/King is to just call a raise in position...it sometimes conceals the strength of my hand. If I flop an ace or a king and my opponent has ace/queen or king/queen - I might get paid off. Just like any situation, you must always be aware of who you are playing against.
Yes, in no-limit hold'em, you will almost always make more money with small sets, suited connectors and the like. But if played well, A/K can be very profitable.
...and I saw the article for leaving it alone. I've always played AK with only slightly less enthusiasm pre-flop than AA and KK. Think about it: With you holding AK, you are clearly dominated against AA. You are reasonably dominated against KK. Against everything else, you are hardly worse than a coin flip against a random hand. That is a double-edged sword, mind you. That also means that you're also only slightly better than a coin flip against the majority of hands that people would be playing for a raise. However, I can't understand the idea of mucking the hand to a raise from an LP player or from the BB in what smells like a blatant steal.
Think about it. If in our original example, the player simply called, he has no more information than he had before. He has essentially wasted his call. He was getting > 4-to-1 odds on his call in the situation, which clearly shows that you must at least call unless you suspect AA or KK. How does one discover where one stands? Raise. Raise for information AND for value. In this case, RE-RAISE. If the poster comes over the top with a pot-sized raise (about 17BB) and the BB flat calls, he should be cautious. A raise here is an attempt to win the pot RIGHT NOW. Of course, if he flat calls and you outflop the caller, it becomes a value raise as well.
In this situation (as easy as it is to be results-oriented), the flop brought an ace (and a 6 and a 3), meaning that the only things that you're behind here are AA, A6, A3, 33, or 66. He could potentially have those hands, and if he does, good for him.
What a re-raise does here is either a) win you the pot here, not allowing you to risk not outflopping your opponent, or b) builds the pot in the event you do outflop your opponent and win you a larger pot. He's as likely to have AQ here as he is to have 66 or 33.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to another point. In an effort to avoid (or is it perpetuate) the dreaded affliction FPS--Fancy Play Syndrome--I've thought of an interesting theorem. Raise big with your premium hands. Your AA, KK, QQ, JJ, etc. Now here comes the tricky part: Raise BIGGER with your drawing and speculative hands.
It's just a thought, but if you're on the button with ATs, and 2 people limp from MP, and you crank out a garden-variety positional 4BB raise and get two callers, you've built the pot, granted, but when the flop comes K-8-6, with none of your suit, all you've done is give yourself reason to fold, especially if one of the limpers lead out.
If you have AA there, you want those limpers to call, but you have to raise here. Toss out the 4-5BB raise and watch them call. You've built a pot where you are a clear favorite. Nice, eh? However, in the first example, you really DON'T want callers. How do you avoid callers? Raise bigger. Chuck out a 6-7BB raise. You're making players who are limping with "limp-quality hands" pay a SIGNIFICANT premium to continue on. Of course, the bigger raise could be read as an overbet, but you're not raising with crap here, you're raising with quality cards--only quality cards that need a little help--AND you're giving yourself odds later on.
The important thing to remember if you foolishly take my advice is to vary your strategy regardless, because it makes you harder to read.
This is just something I'm posting out in the blogosphere--I don't believe it to be gospel or anything like that, and I don't personally play that way--but it is an interesting thought, no?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home