Game is 2/5/100 Spread limit.

UTG raises 25. UTG + 1 raises to 50. There is a caller in late position.

I am on the button and have AKo.

I am not sure of any reads here, but it is possible that everybody ahead of me probably has blockers against me, if not a pair that crushes me.

I am a wuss and strongly consider a fold.

Am I too nitty?

Also: is the answer different for AQ suited, and it so, why? We are going to flop a draw too rarely to make this useful, right?

Oh yeah, reads: UTG is a spazztard who I got three streets of value a few hands earlier with A9 suited on a 9 high board. UTG+1 is a MAWG who I have never played with before. I have never seen him spazz or be a rock or anything.

A little info on the players would be nice before giving advice. Readless I’d let it go pretty quickly unless someone is getting out of line. Many will think it’s too nitty but honestly you’re never in amazing shape with AK in 3! pots v. a UTG open and UTG+1 3! plus you don’t close the action.

Multi-way you can get into a lot of trouble on all but the cleanest boards for AK like A22. E.g., A-J-9 where any of the callers can have a set. I don’t mind a fold at all. You’re not exactly losing lots of value if you fold and it could very well save you a lot too. Remember, most of the time you will miss the flop, even more likely if you are sharing cards.

fold pre

Updated as much as possible.

With reads leaning towards a 4! for info now. $125 fold to a jam. UTG+1 could have picked up on spazztard and be playing back at him.

Readless AQs is even more of a fold than AK.

Oh also stack sizes... ?

It's spread limit, so a 4bet probably caps the betting. If we 4bet, we will likely go multiway to the flop, the pot will be very bloated, and play like LHE postflop with the $100 max bet/raise size.

Given our probable lack of ability to force out the players in for $50, I am favoring a call more than a 4bet. UTG+1 could be trying to isolate the crazy UTG player, so I'm not solely placing him on monster hands.

A fold isn't disastrous, but I think I like calling most.

Ok.. if I'm calling, what kind of flop am I looking for given that a lot of aces and kings are blocked?

This is an easy fold.

The MAWG has definitely noticed that UTG is a spazztard, and has three-bet from early-position with a strong hand in order to knock-out the rest of the field and isolate. The fact that he's gotten a caller before it gets to you means that, unless the caller is also a spazztard, you are up against some long odds to even flop a pair, let alone beat the other three... and remember, it's also possible for the spazztard to have a good hand here.

This isn't worth three full seconds of thought -- AK in the muck and break out the popcorn to watch the hand.

Oh sorry I have no idea what spread limit is or how the betting works.

OK.. I mostly agree, but if Villain2 knows that Villain1 is a spazz, doesn't that open his range up to where AKo might be a raise? Or does the caller in the middle make the difference, or does that make it an opportunity for a super-squeeze?
Or is this already so complex that we sip our beer and wait for a better opportunity?

If this were an unopened pot, and if spazztard were in the hijack and MAWG were in the cutoff, then the answer to your question is "yes." However, for the same reason that Villain #2 has noticed that Villain #1 is a spazztard, Villain #2 is keenly aware that he is sitting in very early position, and must get through the rest of the field in order to be heads-up with Villain #1 as they head to the flop. In other words, the positioning here, when coupled with your description of Villain #2, requires that Villain #2 narrow his range before committing money to a three-bet in this spot. Not incidentally, this also is why the overcall before you act makes it even less likely that your AK is in a good place here.

My response is the same -- easy fold. Now watch the action.


P.S.: I believe that the betting structure of this game makes a super-squeeze here ineffective at doing anything except sending you four-ways to the flop with a hand that, in this spot, is highly suspect.

so much backwards logic itt
easy 4b
you want to play in big pots ip with a stronger range

I just don't agree with this statement -- here's why:

My understanding is that in spread-limit, the betting is capped at the highest number in the title of the game. Therefore, in a 2/5/100, the best we can do with a 4-bet is to make it $150. If we do that, spazztard calls, MAWG calls (unless he is holding something much weaker than his position would indicate), and late-position calls because it's a day ending in y.

That sends us four-ways to the flop with either $200 in the pot if we just call, or $600 in the pot if we raise for the maximum amount; after that, the betting on each street is capped at $100 unless it is raised.

I ran AKo through a simulator against three opponents using three different types of opponents:

1. Very tight;
2. Average;
3. Very loose.

I ran the simulator for one million hands for each assumption.

The results are:

1. Against three very tight opponents, AKo is 20% to win at showdown.
2. Against three average opponents, AKo is 35% to win at showdown.
3. Against three very loose opponents, AKo is 38% to win at showdown.

From the description of the opponents and the positions of the players, it seems to me that MAWG is probably closer to the tighter end of the spectrum, and it is highly likely that the late-position-caller is going to be holding something that is better-than-average. This means that without knowing what spazztard is holding, we probably are between 24% and 28% preflop to win the hand against three opponents. This means that by entering this pot, we are creating a pot that is giving us exactly the right odds at the preflop stage if we don't take into account the fact that our opponents are not machines. The problem we face is that with live opponents making the decisions, it is very likely that our percentages are even more towards the low end, which means that IF (and that's a big if) our aces and kings are not blocked, we are forced to raise to at least $100 (assuming nobody is folding here at the preflop stage) if we want to have the correct odds to continue on the flop. (The reason we are forced to raise to create these odds is because if we just call preflop, the pot is giving us only 2:1 postflop as a 3:1 dog; but if we raise the maximum, we are getting 6:1 postflop as a 3:1 dog.)

To me, being forced to raise preflop just to create the correct theoretical odds to continue postflop is not a play for value -- it's more gambling than I believe is necessary in this spot.

My conclusion has not changed -- I still think this is a fold preflop.

This is really confusing to me. Can you explain why raising pf might give us better odds on a later street? What does it even mean to hold 2:1 odds postflop? Who is betting for what amount? Also, note our equity will change dramatically on different board textures. We won't be a 3:1 dog on any boards -- we'll often find ourselves with less than 20% equity OTF, but on an A-hi or K-hi board we'll have >50% equity. .

At aisrael01:

I did explain it rather thoroughly... go back and reread my post.

I read your post carefully the first time, and now again. I still don't understand what you're saying.

If we call preflop and spazztard completes, the pot will be $200. If PFR max bets the flop for $100 we will be getting 3:1 odds, not 2:1. I assume this is a small typo.

Still, the fundamentals of your argument are confusing to me. AKo is an implied odds type of hand in what is essentially now a high stakes limit game. We continue with the hand when we flop an Ace or a King, and we fold when we don't. It's similar to a small PP in NLH, except the odds of flopping an A or K with AK are much higher than the odds of flopping a set with pocket deuces. As with any implied odds hand, we want to enter the pot as cheaply as possible. We can earn at most 3 max bets postflop, for just $300 in extra profit. I think I would rather pay $50 preflop for the opportunity to make $300 + $150 (size of pot on flop discounting our $50 pf bet) by the river, than pay $150 preflop for the opportunity to make $300 + $450 (size of pot on flop discounting our $150 pf bet) by the river. 450:50 is 9:1 on our money, whereas 750:150 is just 5:1.

Obviously we won't always get 3 streets of value when we flop an Ace high board, since often other players will not hit the flop. But for the purpose of comparing the call vs raise preflop, we just need to evaluate which option will give us a better price to have the opportunity to cooler Ax on an Ace high board. That's where most of our value comes from, anyway.

At aisrael01:

My calculation of postflop odds being 2:1 is based upon the pot being $200 heading to the flop (with just calling).

The reason I advocate folding this hand in this spot is because, with three opponents all committing a lot of money preflop, the chances are high that several of those aces and kings are already sitting in the hands of the other players who are taking a flop here. If spazztard has Ax or even KQo and MAWG has (as I believe is likely) any good pair or AK or AQ, and if middle-position-caller has (as I believe is likely) any good pair or AK or AQ, then I believe that most of the time, the flop will look something like 5 7 J. And assuming that my analysis is correct, then doing anything other than folding AKo preflop in this particular spot is committing yourself to playing completeley blind against three opponents for a bloated pot. (While having position helps, it does not compensate for having to wonder if ace-high is best on a board that, even if we see all five cards, is virtually bound to hit someone besides you.)

And given my analysis of what cards are likely being blocked, when coupled with the results of the simulator, it should be clearer why I am not excited about the prospect of having to four-bet to create the odds necessary to even continue with the hand... especially with the very high likelihood that the AKo will not scoop the pot at the end.

Simply put -- I believe that playing AKo in this spot is negative EV... and for me, it's not a right-on-the-edge type of decision.

I would feel differently if the other players had opened from much later position. But this setup just looks like it has "Danger" written all over it.

I think Call > Fold.

Normally the odds of flopping a pair is 32%... we can round down to 20% given that many of our cards are probably out in other hands.

Suppose that 10% of the time we will cooler Ax or Kx on a A-hi or K-hi flop, and win $200 + 3 max bets= $500

Also assume 10% of the time we hit TPTK on a A-hi or K-hi flop, and the rest of the field will fold to our flop bet, and we win just $200.

The remaining 80% of the time we simply fold and win nothing.

We win .10*500+.10*200=$70.

Our preflop bet cost us $50. So our rough estimate for the EV of a call is $20.

Of course, even if we flop TPTK we will sometimes lose the pot to a set or 2 pair. But I don't think this will have enough of an effect to push our EV below zero.

A half PSB ($100 bet into a $200 pot) is offering us 3:1 pot odds. A PSB offers us 2:1 -- but a PSB isn't allowed due to the spread limit.


Middle position player could have 88 if he isn't a nit. This is really where the OP needs to weigh in on ranges. Most low limit players in my game are calling the 50 here with any pocket pair hoping to hit a set. He could also have a hand like KJs or QJs.


You would think this, but it just isn't true. Most of the value of AK comes from cooler spots where we hit a pair against a worse Ax or Kx. It happens in NLH all the time. Even if it's just 10% chance, it's significant.


You still haven't explained this very foreign concept of "raising preflop in order to give ourselves better odds on a later street". I've read quite a bit of NLH theory, and have never heard of this concept before. Maybe it comes from Limit Hold 'Em? Do you have a reference to an article or a book where I might read about it?

I did some back of the napkin analysis in the post just above, and it seems to me like a call is fairly +EV here.

I think raise < call (probably), but I haven't done the work to justify it.

We don't have to wonder anything. If any player bets into 3 others on J72r board, our A-high is never good. We're protected from being bluffed off the best hand by the multiway nature of the pot. Therefore, we nearly always can get to realize the equity of our hand. Furthermore, with position we can ensure that a max bet is always put out on every street when we do flop a pair. This is really the ideal spot to just flat call with AK -- we have basically no fold equity on any street, due to the max bet limit, so raising makes little sense IMO.

oldernotwiser, your analysis basically mirrors my thoughts on the hand. Raising is getting zero folds, and I am just bloating a pot where several of the cards I need are probably not available.

Your analysis goes way deeper than my though process, but it is nice to know there is some math backing up my 'this spot really sucks'. Thanks.

Results: I made a crying call and the BB called too. The flop was some J high garbage with two diamonds, BB bet 100 and everyone folded.

This post is a response to two different people:

At IcallHimGamblor:

You're welcome -- it was fun to analyze the hand, and a bonus to learn that my prediction of a J-high flop was accurate.

At aisrael01:

You still haven't explained this very foreign concept of "raising preflop in order to give ourselves better odds on a later street". I've read quite a bit of NLH theory, and have never heard of this concept before. Maybe it comes from Limit Hold 'Em? Do you have a reference to an article or a book where I might read about it?

I know of neither a book nor an article that you can read regarding my (admittedly) unusual way of calculating "pot odds." However, I am happy to explain it.

Many years ago, one of the regulars in our game was an older fellow from El Paso, Texas. It was always fun to listen to his stories from the early days of the WSOP and playing big cash games in vegas, but every now and then he would say something that, in my opinion, was a worthwhile nugget.

On one particular hand, he was in the big blind, and very tight player (not me) opened from middle position to just three-times the big blind. It was folded to him, and he mucked JJ face up. We all asked him why he didn't defend the blind because he already had one-third of the bet in the pot. His answer was:

"No, I have to match the full bet because once I post my blind, that money belongs to the pot -- it's no longer mine. And he is so tight that I am not getting correct odds to call -- I'm getting just over one-to-one, and he's so tight that he probably has jacks beat."

While he is technically wrong, the comment made enough of an impression upon me so that when I calculate "pot odds," I do so by assuming that any money I commit is part of what the pot is offering me as odds. I can justify this for myself by recognizing that unless I have the stone-cold nuts on the river, there is no guarantee that that money will return to my stack, and so at that point, it might as well have come from somewhere else.

The result of my unusual way of thinking about it is that I count my own bets as being part of what creates the odds for me to continue, which means that to me, it makes sense that I have some control over the odds I am creating for myself.

If you need another way to look at it -- remember that when we bet, we are creating odds for others only if they are placing money into the pot voluntarily... thus, the reverse must be true. Accordingly, it does not matter who bets -- every dollar being placed into the pot is creating odds for everyone in the hand.

I am not expecting anyone to necessarily agree with the way I calculate this, but you asked for an explanation.

oldernotwiser: Not sure I understand your notation regarding pot odds. If an opponent makes a half PSB on the river and bets $100 into $200 then the pot is $300 and $100 for you to call, and you need to be good one in four times to justify the call. In this case standard dictionary definition of the term "pot odds" would be to say that we are being offered pot odds of 3:1 when our opponent makes this half PSB. If you think your opponent is bluffing 1 time for every 3 times they have a value hand then you're supposed to call.


In case OP is interested in hearing opinions which don't mirror his thoughts, I'll just say: A preflop call here is mathematically guaranteed to be +EV. Sorry you happened to hit a Jack high flop this one time, but try not to be results oriented. Remember that you probably wouldn't have made this post if the flop came A52 and you stacked the spazztard's A9o.

I ran PokerCruncher to compare AKo against ranges for 3 opponents.

-- spazztard gets the top 24% of hands
-- 3bettor gets the top 4% of hands, i.e., {KQs,AQs+,AKo, TT+}
-- LP caller gets top 8% of hands minus QQ+, i.e., {AQo+,KQo+,any suited broadway, 88+}

I simulated 50 million flops and found the following: Against these ranges, AK will flop either an Ace or a King 23.7% of the time, it will flop an Ace and a King for two pair 1.3% of the time, and it will flop trip Aces or trip Kings 0.8% of the time. Therefore it will hit the flop at least 25% of the time. If we're committing 50 dollars into an eventual 200 dollar pot, then we are getting 3:1 pot odds -- i.e., we need to have at least 25% equity. Therefore we are justified in calling the 50 dollar bet just because we'll hit the flop at least 25% of the time. When you factor in the implied odds due to the fact we'll win additional money after the flop some of the time when another player hits an Ace or King with a worse kicker, we're in very good shape.

At aisrael01:

We both get the same mathematical odds (around 25%) for AKo to win this hand. The only real difference is our judgment of how to play it -- you would call based upon a strict EV analysis, and I would fold based upon a wider range of factors that I believe affect how the hand will actually progress.

I guess if we all would do the exact same things every time, there would be no need for a forum in which to discuss the hands.

This just makes no sense. If we have 2 overs and a gutter or better, we continue. If we have raw 2 overs, we fold. The hand progresses in an extremely simple way in every single line especially in a capped game like this. If you really want to be a nit you could even fold on JT2 here and you'd still be massively +ev seeing flops overall.

Because the spot is multiway we never really have to worry about folding the best hand with our A hi...it's just not a consideration.