In a live game I recently found myself in an interesting position that caused me to limp fold AK off, I feel my reasoning was sound based on something I can only call "Negative Implied Odds"...

I'm curious if this makes sense to anyone else or if I'm just an idiot.


Here is the Situation

1/2 Live game, Friday night, soft table, lots of limped pots. 200 max buy in

Straddler $45: Straddles, after 20 minutes of audible tilt and talking about being ready to go home

Hero $340: UTG AK off - Calls 5


Villian $220: Raises to 17 one off the button


Hero: Everyone fold. Hero facing 12 to win 30 with AK off out of position, tanks a minute than folds flipping over AK to show.


Reasoning for Limp

* To begin with I limped preflop expecting the all too common Straddle all in by the short stack with pretty much any two cards, that I would re-raise to isolate, while picking up 20 or so in limped currency.

* Obviously things didn't go as planned as everyone folded so no extra cash in the pot.

* I fully recognize this mistake as it should be a standard raise to 15 in this spot, and consider it just getting caught trying to make a play.

Reasoning for the Fold

This is where, IMO, my reasoning is either interesting or really stupid.

The raise to 17 at a 1-2 live game often means medium pocket pair. The Villian was a pretty tight player so his range seemed to be

AQ, AK, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 1010


I first thought about reraising to about 45-50 but if he flat calls, then he is on strong pockets and the only way I'm getting him off his hand is if I pair my A or K so I'm likely still behind 66% of the time on the flop.

If he reraises then I'm facing the decision to play for stacks with at best a coin toss, more than likely I'm behind to AA, or KK


I don't like either of those situations so that leaves me with flat calling the 12 to win 30 and this is where my idea of "Negative Implied Odds" comes into play.


If I call 12, odds are the Maximum I can win is the 30 in the pot, if I pair my A or K, he is likely folding his pocket pair to a raise, and I'm not wanting to check that flop against a pocket pair.

So I'm thinking in most situations the max I'm going to win is 30, but there are a ton of situations where I lose a lot more than 30

* I blank the flop but fire at it, to be called down then I'm chasing 6 outs to be profitable.

* I pair my A or K and they trip up their under pocket pair, costing me money on the flop, and turn, be lucky to get away on the river without doubling them up. (most painfully being if I paired with the case A or K that they tripped up)


So while the basic math says a call pre-flop has a positive EV, IMO if you mix in the concept of "Negative Implied Odds", it becomes a negative EV as I will be losing more money in the long run than I will be winning


So in my opinion, calling the 12 preflop would just be me compounding on my earlier mistake of limping and should just fold and wait for a better position

Thoughts?

well played

No, you should call 12 more. 17 is not a large raise after a straddle and a limp. The straddle effectively makes it a 2 5 hand rather than a 1 2 hand. Also, the raiser does not know you have AK. You could have JTs, you could have a small pocket pair, etc and he could easily pay you at least one street of value if you pair the K... Also, he could have AQ or AJ and in fact be dominated by you.
Also, raise the first time around.
Finally, never show folding AK to 1 raise and stuff like that. Based on your play, I presume you are a tight player and showing big folds like that only makes it harder for you to be paid in the future.

I meant to cover why I showed in OP....As the table was so tight in general I wanted people to start betting into me and was going to open up my range


As for the raiser, part of my quandary was the 17 raise would be standard large raise for him, I honestly didn't think he knew the straddle was on. This is a nuanced thing but felt like he would have made it 15 or 20 had he seen the straddle. The 17 raise comes from just adding 15 to the blind

Standard raises at the table were 7, 12 and 17 outside the straddle

Though I do understand what you are saying, my problem was, because I gave up my opening raise, I was now in a much more difficult position and only had 5 dollars invested, why compound on my mistake

I'd raise preflop 100% of the time.

Well yea that makes sense but the question is more along the lines of is it a good idea to look at implied odds or "negative implied odds" when calculating your EV.

If your profits are small when you win and your losses can be very big when you lose, isn't it in your best interest to fold and move wait for a better position?

because they are scared.
I dont think 30 is maximum as you only limped in so he could conbet on lot's of flops (K-x-x for example). Or he can check a flop and call your turn bet in disbelief.
Nobody obliges you to play for stacks if you have such reads.

"Negative implied odds" is a thing. The term that for years has been generally understood has been "reverse implied odds".

However, this hand is not an example of such. Your hand was likely better than the opponent's range. What reversed implied odds did you have? The worst hand you would have flopped would have been top pair top kicker.

You probably should have raised pre yourself first. I only say probably because I'll give credit to your read where you thought someone else was guaranteed to raise and you could re-raise. [EDIT: Only thing is, is that someone did and then you folded, so wtf; it wasn't the shortstacked person you were guessing would raise; the person who did raise had more money; so you're scared to lose your stack, no?]

But after that, your fold is ridiculous.

You could probably just go all-in there without it being exploitable.

99% of the time I raise pre their to 15 or 20 depending on how the table is playing, I try to blend into the typical raises so as not to stand out, find it does a better job of disguising my hand (if for some reason I'm at a 1-2 raising to 7 instead of the more typical 11-12 preflop I will follow suite)

This particular night was a lot of limp fold play going on with people calling down with weak top pairs, so with proper position sneaking in cheap for two pair was profitable on or one off the button.

One part of my game that is likely flawed, is that I often play out the hand in my head before it each move. I put my opponent on a range, and try to determine how they will act to various flops and what I will do in return.

When the action plays out like it does in my head I feel confident, and am usually right. (but clearly not always as I'm playing 1/2 for spending cash not paying all my bills with it)

However when the action doesn't pan out as I expect it too, I tend to slow down, turn to the math, reevaluate the whole thing and often fold or slow to a very conservative play.

If I don't feel I'm in control of the hand it is a lot easier for me to just fold and walk away, especially if I've only invested a small amount.


The preflop raise I did get, was not typical from that player, I'd say if half the table made that raise I'd flat call (or re-raise depending on them) without really thinking about it. But it was a rare raise from him and seemed over what he would typically raise if he did.

Made me uncomfortable which is why I did my 30 second tank job that led to all the over thinking.

So what would be a good example of "reverse implied odds"...this particular hand was the first time my mind ever went in this direction. It was a combination of the weird situation I put myself in limping with AK UTG and the read/range I had on the player opening.


the logic of the hand really resonates with me but have found few people to agree with me, but thus far don't really like their explanations of "the math says"...

For me the line is too thin here even if it does calculate out to a positive EV (admittedly I'm still grasping EV in general), I just see me losing more often and with bigger pots than I am winning, which will more often than not be smaller pots.


As for the Short stack vs the opener...the read was that he was going to open with any ace or King that would put me way ahead, and a good shot he does this with most any two cards putting me ahead. Plus I wanted to pick up the limped money. (but no one limped)

I don't mind playing for my stacks but I'm not a big one for pushing with AK, If I'm in a coin flip I want to have the made pair even if the odds are basically the same. Generally I prefer to fade than chase for my stack.

Anyway sorry for the rant, just thinking out loud

Do you mean raise or bet? It seems like you plan to donk bet whenever you hit the flop, which just seems like a bad idea and one of the main reasons your math of your EV is not optimistic (that and your read that villain has a very strong range pre). Giving your opponent the 5% chance of drawing out on you is worth the chance of getting one more bet.

Reverse implied odds is a vague concept, but it is a legit one ;-)
It's just that here it can be debated, because the two main assumptions that get you to say that you have strong reverse implied odds are debatable:
- Your read on villain's range after this action preflop. But you were the only one who was there, so you should probably trust your reads there.
- Your plan to donk flops where you hit tptk, which probably lowers your ev.

It's $12 into a pot of $14 after rake. You'll flop TPTK almost 1/3 the time.

Reverse implied odds would be if he had 88 and the flop was A8x, or if he had AA and the flop was Kxx. Yeah those are possibilities, but you also have positive implied odds. You should make more than $0 on average if you hit a hand (otherwise that means he can be bluffed like crazy whenever the board is a little unpleasant for him). As someone mentioned, you don't have to donk-bet into him just because you flopped something.

So you have positive and negative implied odds (which is usually the case), and the question is which is bigger (are your net implied odds positive or negative)? How often will each scenario happen, and what's your average win/loss in each of them?

Oh and if $17 is a bigger than normal raise from him, it could just be because he's aware that there was a straddle and that he should increase his size accordingly.

you want a pair, he wonts a million.... Who cares? You must try to play right.
If a smart guy recommends you to go all in next time, put it down on a piece of paper to memorize.

I forgot to +1 this, and I don't want OP to think I was implying this situation requires a thorough analysis to determine if the fold was correct. Of the three options 3bet/call/fold, folding was by far the worst. The only real question is 3bet or flat.

Also OP, if you flat, even if Villain has a pair (which isn't an automatic), he won't bet all flops, so you'll get to see some free turns.

I think you play AK in a small stakes game for the purpose of drawing to a huge hand and getting called all in by just a range. So, it is that from a psychological point of view you are folding because you call to much and need show that you really can use a range theory, which your opponent may not understand. You call hit a monster or fold, or as you did show a super read this is very good. If he did have AA or something.

You think checking a missed flop out of position with AK should be done more often than not?

A preflop raise, followed by a continuation bet on the flop is going to take down the pot more often than not at a 1/2 live game.

My preflop limp is donkish all day but I don't see how a continuation bet is a donk move

Is this a real post? If, like you suggest, he has 88-JJ you have 48% of the pot at worst. If you hit on the flop you're good, if not slow down. Folding pre-flop to 1 raise with AK should be a crime


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was talking about the fact that you seemed to plan a bet when you hit, not that you bet when you miss.
But if we are on that subject, as you are not the preflop aggressor, you are not c-betting, villain is. When you start the betting on the flop, it is commonly called a "donk-bet" or just a "lead" if you don't like that term.

A widely used strategy is to just check 100% of flops with 100% of your range and wait for the cbet from villain to happen.
Specifically, given the range you're putting villain on, it is an even more valid strategy. Just eat his cbet whenever you hit and fold whenever you miss (well, it should be a bit more nuanced than that, but you get the jist) It is a much easier strategy and most probably a better EV one in this spot.

Probably shouldn't be playing 1/2.

How are there 18 posts in a poker theory thread that begins with a hand where OP limpfolds AK?

If you folded this face up, I would say good fold - I had Aces every single time and buy you a beer.

maybe because it's cashgame hand (not tournament gambling)

It's equally terrible in both cash games and tournaments and any other format you can come up with. There is not a single good player on earth that takes this line ever in this spot.

OP,
I was just watching a youtube video that talked about this strange phenomenon. Basically, the less you know about a thing the less you think there is to know and, therefore, the larger a "piece of the overall knowledge pie" you believe you have. And the more you know, the more you realize how little you know and how much more there is to know and so the more likely you are to underestimate your knowledge on a subject.

You seem like an intelligent guy. My recommendation is to make sure you grow some super thick skin, and stick with this forum for a while. Maybe start out posting on the beginners forum where people tend to be much more forgiving. You prob won't get trolled there and won't have to worry about "levels". If you don't know what a level joke is yet, well, pay attention and you will figure it out. It's like taking sarcasm to a level where it's actually meant to trick the person who you are being sarcastic with into believing you were actually serious. Like if someone had said, "Brilliant play, anyone who thinks limping AK and folding to a raise is bad has never played $1-$2 live cash" or something like that. You may well have taken it seriously but the intent would've been kind of a needle. I can say from personal experience, realizing you are on the business end of a level is embarrassing.

You ought to read these threads, maybe post some in beginners, watch videos, read a book or two, maybe ask someone for some personal help or even hire a coach.

You caught the first lucky break in taking your game to the next level, you found a wicked smart community of players willing to help you out. Now you just have to not get run off by trolling or mean spirited level jokes. If this had been three or four years ago I think there would have been a lot more mean replies directed at you but two plus two seems to have calmed down a lot in the last few years (or maybe I just stopped sucking so bad?)

Good luck to you. And don't limp AK pre-flop and DEF don't limp AK pre-flop and fold it to a raise.

Peace

alright, what the hell, I'll bite.

OK, so it's been established you ought to have opened AK, and I think AKo is the very worst hand to open limp in small stakes cash games because; a) it's not that good against hands that will over limp like JTs, 22, QJ, etc. b) it's great against hands that will call you like KQ, KJ, KTs, Axs, AT, AJ, AQ. c) it plays best against fewer opponents because most of the value of the hand comes from the frequent strength of flopping top pair top kicker 1/3 of the time on the flop alone and having another player dominated. d) it plays best with a smaller not larger stack to pot ratio.

So, yeah, open raise it.

As played, IF you are going to limp some hands pre-flop then you ought to have some hands that limp and call, some that limp and fold, and some that limp and raise. What hands should you limp and fold as part of a balanced open limp strategy (not that I am condoning an open limp range, btw)? You should fold the WORST hands that you limp in with. Is AK the WORST hand you limp? I'd imagine not. So IF you are going to limp in with some hands you will prob have some worse hands and you may even have some better hands?? IDK, maybe you like to limp-raise KK and AA?? If you have a lot of hands that are better and worse than AK in your limping range then you should prob call with your AK, if you are at the top or near the top of your limping range then you should prob be thinking "limp-raise" with AK (and AK should be consider higher up than small pairs because it's not about what hand is best RIGHT NOW it's about which hand plays best post flop and makes the most money. AK is gonna be one of your most profitable hands.) AK dominates a LOT of hands that players will open and iso raise and it blocks the only two hands that crush it (AA/KK) they are less likely because you hold one A and one K. And your AK will AT LEAST be drawing live against most hands even when you miss the flop so you have a good 12 or 13% chance of hitting the turn if you raise it yourself, miss the flop, c-bet, and get called.

Now, if you do decide to limp and call, you DO NOT want to lead on flops with an ace or a king on them. If your opponent has a hand like KQs or a hand like JJ and is bad at poker, and the flop brings your A then your opponent will likely bet your flop if you check to him but may fold if you lead into him. If you check and your opponent checks his JJ or so back on Axx then you can lead the turn and your opponent will either have to call at least one bet or become SUPER exploitable whereas you can play A LOT of hands against him just to bluff him off turns when he checks flops back timidly as pre-flop raiser.

IF you want to have AK in your limp-call range pre-flop one of the pay offs of that is that players will often c-bet and barrel YOUR improvement cards. Say you have the AsKc and the flop comes 2s3s4c (you have the best no pair hand with a back door nut flush draw and gut shot) you check and villain bets and you call. If he has air he may very well bluff again when the A or K, maybe even the 5 hits the turn and you can check and call again and decide between donking (just means leading into the last street's aggressor) and going for another check on the river, mainly check-call with TPTK and check raise with the wheel or nut flush.

Your question about "Negative implied odds" is kind of vallid, but you are looking at it all wrong. First it's called reverse implied odds, second the main reason that AK is such a profitable hand is exactly because of implied/reverse implied odds not in spite of them. The idea of implied odds or RIO is that one player is bound to lose some money when he makes a good but SECOND BEST hand.

When you have KTo you are often the guy who THINKS he has the best hand. When you have AK you will have a lot of good flops where you make TPTK and have someone unluckily drawing at his dominated kicker when at least a couple of bets go into the pot.

Hope that helps.

thx, good explanation