TBH, I didn't give his stack more than a quick glance. I knew I had him covered, and I was going to put him in on the flop.

I could think of dozens of counter arguments against this. If poker were this simple, you could play like a simple bot and crush every game. If you are too predictable, your opponents will be able to make simple reads against you.

A) Mixing it up for deception. Flop is K 8 3 and he didn't raise pre-flop so he NEVER has AK, KK, AA or KQ here so my KJ is good. You want to occasionally limp these top hands so that your regular opponents can't complete rule them out.

B) Avoiding the trap If you are 3-betting AK pre-flop with the plans to fold to a 4-bet (because of how deep stacked you are), a tricky opponent can take advantage of you by 4-betting anything other than AA/KK and cause you to incorrectly fold. Thus you should occasionally flat-call with AK to avoid being bluffed out of the pot.

C) You are an underdog. Contrary to popular belief, AK is an underdog heads-up against any pocket pair. You are doubly the underdog if your opponent specifically puts you on AK (which is very common at these stakes). If you do not get all-in pre-flop, your opponent can now safely call / bet any flop without an ace or a king while folding when an ace or a king flop.

D) Reverse implied odds If you deep stacked, you can lose a lot more than your initial raise if your opponent flops two-pair / a set when you flop top pair.

E) Your opponents are probably soft Taking advantage of small pre-flop edges is when you have the least +EV (river edges have the most). If taking advantage of pre-flop edges means giving up flop/turn/river edges (or pre-flop edges when you have AA), you may want to be patient.

Some other points

Let's say you have limited funds (You go to the casino with only $500) and you want to maximize your +EV for the session. You buy-in for $200. Your opponents are very poor and will call when they shouldn't for large bets on every street. You have AK pre-flop and range your opponent where you have a 55% to 45% equity edge and if you 3-bet, your opponent will go all-in with the top half of his range (and you'll call) and fold the bottom half of his range for a net +EV of $10. It could be +EV for the session (and even the hand) if you flat-call the bet to avoid risking your first buy-in for such a small edge.

By passing up on the small +EV opportunity, you save your stack for a call with the nuts later on.

Now the counter-argument is that you are underrolled for your game, etc., etc. But the reality is that many recreational players just aren't willing to risk a lot of buy-ins in any one session. I know that I have a tendency to go on tilt and try to quickly win back multiple buy-ins so one way I minimize the harm of a losing session is by limiting how much cash I bring to the game.

Nothing wrong with asking for a count before making your raise.

A: Deception (balance). In 1/2 is not necessary. And hurts your winrate, 1/2 players just don't hand read well enough. They arnt good enough to exploit you on regular bases. Never flatting QQ+, AK here ever!!!!!

B: If you are 3-betting AK you are rarely ever folding to 4 bet in live poker. Preflop raises are generally very large and effective stack sizes very small. In +1000 hrs of 1/2 I can think of maybe 2 spots where folding AK to a 4 bet was correct. Yes there are lots of spots where flatting AK is hugely +EV. (This hand was not 1 of them)

C: There is dead money in pot. Getting 2:1 I will gladly take the bad side of a flip. And show a huge profit. Plus if they flat our 3 bet with small pocket. We have FE on a ton of flops besides just A and K flops

D:RIO with AK. Ah, we got the good end of that. Plus in 3bet pots SPR are very small. Yes, we get outflopped. All hands due. But rarely is AK dominated.

E: if my opponents are soft. I would rather play big pots where they can make big mistakes. Not flatting with AA, KK, AK. When they will pay me 3 streets with 9-9. If you want to play fit fold to river. Go ahead. You can still beat 1/2. But for 1/2 your expected winrate.

I'm really enjoying the discussion between dgiharris & paperboy.

I have struggled with these concept as well (AKs in SB/BB), and I have seen the variance - just in the last two weeks alone, with AKs in EP/SB/BB I have:

1. Doubled up a short stack who had JJ on a A-J-x flop.

2. Doubled up a short stack who had 55 in a 3-way pot on a A-5-x flop.

3. Doubled up a short stack who had A4s in a 4-way pot on a A-4-x flop (GII on flop and my AK couldn't improve).

In those three hands alone, I lost about $450 total in $1/$3, and I was the aggressor each hand PRF & OTF.


But also, same time period,

4. I stacked a small stack with AQ on an A-x-x flop.

5. I took about $125 off a big stack w/ KQ on a K-x-x flop.

6. I took a $250 stack off a maniac ramming QJo on a A-K-2 flop - GII on the turn.

Hands 7. thru 20. ... Won several smaller pots where I raised to $15 or $18 or $22 or whatever & just folded out the limpers without a flop, or got it HU and won a modest pot with a c-bet whether it was an A, K, or dry flop.


Remember, in reality most of our hands are small pot hands where the hand is over pre-flop after a sizeable raise or on a flop c-bet ... raise your AKs and accumulate a lot of small profit when everyone folds. When you check the AK PRF, you forfeit all of these small profits.


So, yeah, variance sucks and I got out flopped a few times and lost some big pots - but in the long run it is obvious that raising AK from the SB/BB is very +EV played over hundreds of hands.

I play in a "home" game where 2-3 "professional" poker players play every session. By professional I mean college kids who make their spending money solely by playing poker, but have their tuition / housing / food covered by their parents. A lot of the other players are regulars.

Some of the real amateur passive players will only 3-bet pre-flop with AA and KK and if they raise a limped pot pre-flop with AA or KK they raise to $20 or more from the $2 blind.

Two things they accomplish by doing this:

1) I know exactly when they have KK or AA and if I play a hand against them, I know what I need to beat. I also know that they are pot committed.

2) When they don't do this, I know they never have KK or AA.

If you are playing at a casino with completely different players every session, than balance arguable makes little difference (though deception still helps). You still don't want your opponents to be able to say with any certainty that you can't hand a certain hand..

If you are playing with regular opponents and you practice no balance/deception, you are scorching your winrate, not helping it.

You are misunderstanding the complexity of poker.
What I said is simple and true, when we have an equity advantage we are NEVER wrong getting more money into the pot. Period.

The "how" part of getting more money into the pot is where the complexity lies.

In this example it appears you are trying to say that we shouldn't bet because our opponent likely missed the board, so you advocate not betting so that our opponent will bluff later? Or perhaps you feel that we want to let our opponent hit something so he can then bet?

So in this case, the way we get more money into the pot is by checking. That still falls under what I'm saying. Notice I didn't say "betting" i said "get more money into the pot". ANd I also listed examples of checking to induce. So you aren't disagreeing with me.

Wrong again. If you look at my post did I ever advocate 3-bet/folding AK? No, no I didn't. In this example you give, you mention an opponent "tricky enough" to 4-bet us with a range wider than AA/KK and thus we would have to fold???

You are making the classic LLSNL thinking player mistake of MUBS and what I call, "the Donk-Durrr Dichotomy"

One of the biggest levels on 2+2 for bad play is simultaneously beleiving that our villains are idiot donks and Savant Poker Durrr geniuses at the same time. The logic often goes like, "Well, we can't raise AK because then our villain will play perfectly against us and shove ATC knowing it will fold us out."

But conversely, if we limp AK and we get a A or K on the board, this same genius villain will stack off to us.

Thus, under the Donk-Durr dichotomy we can justify our bad passive play because if we raise our villains become geniuses that can soul read us, but if we don't raise then our villains become donks that stack off against us...

No. This is not reality, this is MUBSy thinking.

Again, the Donk-Durr dichotomy. Yes, there are some players that absolutely put us on AK and will call down as long as no A or K hit the board. Sure, however, you are making the erroneous assumption that the only hands they call a pre flop raise with are pocket pairs, and you are 100% incorrect in that assumption.

The calling range of our typical rec-fish villain is easily 30% to 40% of the deck. 22-QQ, any two suited cards, and often time 64o - AQo that is just trying to get lucky and flop gin. heads up Against this calling range, our villains are going to miss the flop 65% of the time meaning a c-bet by us is still correct and profitable.

Not to mention there is 24% chance that we catch an A or K by the river. The above is why preflop raises followed by a c-bet are so profitable... This is a staple of winning poker and for you to argue against it because of MUBS and the Donk-Durr Dichotomy says a lot about your game.

This is just MUBS thinking. I will address why this is wrong in my conclusion, but seriously, not raising AKs when you are deep stacked is just ******ed. Actually, I will address why you are wrong right now.

The mistake that passive players make is that they try to achieve balance by playing their strong hands weak.

this is incorrect.

The proper way to achieve balance is by widening your range and playing more weak hands strongly!!!

For 1/2nl and 1/3nl I've found that the best ratio is about 90/10. 90% of the time that I raise I have a hand I consider strong, KJs+, AT+, KQ, 99+ and 10% of the time I raise I do so with a relatively weak hand: 53s - J9s, 54s - T9s. If I have a seriously strong image and the table is face up weak players I may increase my ratio to 70/30 and of course when in position I may increase a little further.

For 2/5nl I've found the best ratio is about 80/20. I also will defend 3-bets a lot more in 2/5nl vs thinking players than 1/2nl and 1/3nl rec-fish. A 3-bet in 1/2nl and 1/3nl by a rec fish is almost always AA/KK...

By balancing correctly and having a much wider raising range than my typical rec fish villains, it makes it harder to play correctly against me. I'm getting my villains to often fold better hands or to fold hands that have great equity against my hand. Conversely, post flop I'm able to take advantage of the "I put you on AK" phenomena of live poker. I raise with Q9s, flop comes 9 4 2 and I own villain with 88 who puts me on AK and calls me down. Conversely I raise with Q9s and flop comes A 7 2 I bet he folds that same 88.

So my point is that you are doing this all wrong. You are balancing in the wrong direction. The best way to achieve deception is NOT by playing your strong hands weak, but by increasing the number of hands you play strong.

Lastly, yes, the occasional deception of limping a monster "can" be correct against the right aggros and right situations. But this is definitely "the exception to the rule" and should not be our standard means of deception. If I had to propose a ratio of playing weak with our strong hands, I'd say 10% of the time would be more or less in the ball park of correct. Obviously depends on table dynamics. If we have a maniac that is open shoving when action limps to him then it would be correct 100% of the time...

Incorrect. When we raise the pot preflop, it allows us to get more money in post flop at a geometric rate. Failing to raise the pot preflop when we have an equity advantage will result in a serious reduction of our winrate, by an easy 30% if not more if not more.

There is a lot of wrong in the above. Yes, the counter argument is to not be underrolled. And it is the correct argument.

WHen we FAIL to raise preflop with premium hands (and AK is a premium hand!) what we actually are doing is we our giving our villains odds to mine us.

What is the logic behind set mining? The logic is simple, we think our villain has a big hand, if we hit our set we get paid. We need 15:1 odds to profitable set mine.

Well, what about when we limp AKs, what odds are we giving our villains?

We are giving our villains 100:1 odds to mine against us.

They can flop two pair, straights, pair + straight draws... but not only that, when they flop their pair or gut shot and we bet the flop, villains actually have correct odds to call us for that gut shot!!!!

Eff stacks 100bb, we limp, 3 limpers.

Flop(3bb) Ks 8h 4c r
We bet 2bb, V1 calls with 65o, V2 calls with Q4ss hoping for the back door or a Q or a 4.

rather than continue with various ways of this playing out, notice Hero has put himself in a position where he can get stacked. The board looks safe, however villains are only going to continue to the river if they bink. And they have great odds to bink. V1 is drawing to 4 outs and is 8% to hit. In order for him to be correct in calling for the gutter ball he needs to get abotu 11:1 on his money if he binks. So he needs to make 22bb and he will EASILY make that against hero.

V2 is drawing to 2 pair or trips. He has 5 outs and is roughly 10% to hit, so he needs about 9:1 on his money and he will EASILY milk Hero for 18bb if he binks a Q or 4 on turn..

SO by hero playing passively, he has put himself in a position where he can make HUGE mistakes, conversely, his villains are in a position where it is impossible for them to make a big mistake. At best, they lose 2bb on the flop and maybe 6bb on the turn if they continue to chase. At absolute worst, they lose a total of 8bb each.

However, if they bink against Hero, Hero is going to lose 40bb - 100bb easy.

We can go down the rabbit hole of "what ifs" forever because yes poker is complex. But I'm telling you, you are wrong in your thinking here. Limping AKs in this spot is just bad for all the reasons I've stated. And your rebuttal reasons really aren't rebuttals. Either you aren't understanding what I'm trying to say, or your just flat out wrong.

I did my best to outline my thought process. Specifically, you are balancing in the wrong direction. You achieve better balance by playing more hands strong than you do by playing strong hands weak. Are there times and situations where we can slowplay a big hand? Sure, a SMALL percentage of the time. But this is definitely not even close to one of those times...

I agree that the main way you balance your play is by raising with some speculative hands pre-flop. But since there are hands that you will flat-call with in the SB / check in the BB you should consider occasionally doing that with your strong hands as well for balancing, especially when there are numerous aggressive players left to act that might 3-bet.

A lot of players that are scared to stack off with AK will bet small on the turn and then fold to any aggression with just one pair and not get stacked. Conversely, let's say the hand is like this:

Hero is BB with AK
Flop QJT
Hero bets, V1 raises with 65, V2 goes all-in with K9

Now we have a chance to stack both Villains. with both of them drawing dead.

If we go broke in our first 5 hands by calling pre-flop with AK, we never get the opportunity to get all of our money in here.

The answer is not so simple to say "Don't play poker under rolled". That is an easy cop-out to avoiding any strategy advice of how to minimize variance and maximize long-term +EV for the majority of players that are playing under rolled. And yes, I have been playing under rolled for a few years now. When I go bust I have to wait 6 months to save up my bankroll again so it's very important for me to not go bust. (I gave up my poker fund to buy a house and my wife and I agreed that I can only take a limited amount of my income for gambling).

This is about the only thing you have said that is +EV

Open up your mind, read what people have suggested to you over last few days (in multiple threads).

my 2 cents

F.y.i

You don't need a bankroll to play poker. You can play recreational with disposable income.

Only need a bankroll if you want to play regularly.

Not having a bankroll isn't a free ticket to giving bad advice to people trying to learn game.

Here is tried and true method of building live roll.

-Scrape together $200 of entertainment money. (Doesn't affect your life)

-study poker
-buy in 1/2 game
-play tight, position, aggressive
-run good win!!! (Say 200)
-cash out

-come back another day now with $400

-Repeat

If you bust. Live a happy life!!! Scrape together $200 dollars and try again. Sooner or later it will stick (if your a winner).

Better chance of building a roll playing good and taking your beats. Than playing scared and trying to lose the minimum.

I was a winning player at $5/5 and $5/10 NL as well as $20/40 and $40/80 limit. I am playing $1/2 NL now because I'm married with kids and very under rolled.

I do have an open mind, but not to things that are mathematically flawed. Several things have been said in multiple threads that are flat out wrong:

- It's always +EV to get more money in the pot on any street when you have an equity edge, regardless of anything else

- There can never be a tradeoff between +EV and variance because increasing your winrate always reduced variance

And now you are treating me like I'm a newbie kid because I am pointing out that these statements are flat out wrong. At least the individual that claimed a higher winrate reduced variance was man enough to admit he was wrong. I don't see any such admission about the first statement.

Here's an extreme example to prove the point that getting money in with any edge does not maximize EV when you don't have an infinite bankroll.

You are playing heads-up against a computer that will put you all-in every hand regardless of it's own cards. The first hand, it puts you all-in pre-flop, second hand on the flop, third on the turn, fourth on the river and cycles.

You starting with $1,000 while the computer starts with $1,000,000 and it's a freeze-out (winner takes all - no re-buying).

Blinds start at $1/$2 and double every 20 hands. What strategy is the most +EV? If you are dealt AK the very first hand, do you call all-in because you have an equity edge?

-------------------------

While the example is extreme, it is actually not too different from an under-rolled player playing $1/2 who is down to his last buy-in of the night and would rather try to get all-in when his opponent is drawing dead (or close to it) rather than putting all of his money in the pot with a 52% to 48% equity edge pre-flop.

Being under rolled is not the only reason not to get money in the pot any time you perceive that you have any equity edge.

Agreed that you can't play scared. But one of the worst things about this forum is that certain regulars believe that there is only one correct way to play poker (TAG) and that you must follow the pre-hand chart 100% of the time and you must bet the exact same correct amount of the flop 100% of the time and any deviation from this play is -EV.

The reality cannot be any more different. The most +EV play is going to be different for every game, every opponent, every player and sometimes a play that is -EV on its own is +EV because it sets up later hands. It's like the NFL team that occasionally runs the ball up the middle for 1yd when they've been gaining 10+ yds when they pass. They still run just to keep the defense honest (for balance / deception).

I would make it $95/call----ship all flops. I want his AQ KQs AJs to stay in the pot. This would be my first choice.

For fun, you could shipit also. Great for image and not a bad spot for it as DGI stated already.

Grunch

Meh, I'd rather throw out a big raise from the SB ($50-$60 instead of just calling the $6) and then go from there. I doubt you'll get 3 or more callers. If someone calls, plan on making a c-bet on the flop which usually will take it down.

Edit: Do this and you won't even be in the position with the BTN raising you. Also just realized the BTN is pretty short. Super easy 3-bet then.

If you think everyone will fold to a $50 PF raise, then raising to a smaller amount is okay too. It depends on the table.

One reason a raise to $25-$35 is likely to get so many callers is its a much smaller raise than you think. In a pot that's straddled to $6 with 4 callers in front of you, a $25 raise is not a big raise at all. It's not the same as raising to $25 after a few people called for $2 (because nobody straddled).

And who says you can't raise more than $35?

That seems to be the root of the debate. DGI is talking about maximizing EV in all situations. Papaerboy is talking about passing up high variance/+EV situations because he's not properly bankrolled.

If you're underrolled, limping with AK from the SB is fine. It's not the most +EV play, but it is the play with the least variance.

^^^This tilts me^^^^

I know the OP. Have talked this hand out with him. Think he gets it now.

Someone who knows how to use computer (I am technological challenged)

Run equities AK vs 5 random limped hands. Prolly 6 after BB calls too.
You will never reach your full equity in this spot out of position. As you are very likely to be folding on flop.

Raising pre
-Allows you to win $32 in dead money
A 15% increase to your bankroll if you have 1 $200 bullet. In nit speak. It gives you 10 orbits of folding to try to get AA

-If your raise is called. You have lead and can cbet profitably on at least 50% of flops.

-You get money in pot with what is surely an equity advatage.

- RIO odds are hugely in you favor

-your forcing your opponents to make mistakes

I beleive Jamming pre is more +EV, than limping. May even take the time and run some numbers later tonight.

I am not advocating Jamming here. As I actually want 1 or 2 callers to my $40 preflop raise. As I can shove most flops for huge +EV spot.

Ran AKS vs 5 random hands

Ranges I gave where

35% for 3 V. Limping ranges in this particular game are way wider)
100% to button
70% to a random guy (is standard for this game)

16% Equity. Out of position, it will tough to reach that.

You're right Steve. I realized that was another flaw in my thinking. Probably just as bad as limping if not worse. It was the size of the raise that I had in my head that was the root of the way(weak passive) I started to play the hand.

It didn't even cross my mind at the time to raise to $40-$50 or even a bit more. I can't explain why, other than my inexperience at live cash. (4 serious sessions)

37% vs 2 callers

With tight ranges. Unrealistic because I left AA, KK, QQ in them. Even though they would have raised or 3bet them pre.


@40% for a realistic range. Add in folding equity and this is a no brainer!!!

It's not so much being inexperienced at live cash, it's more so a function of regimented play and a rigid mindset.

A lot of players have a very rigid and static view of poker. Only do this, only do that, only call with these hands, only raise with these hands...

It takes a certain amount of Maverick-ness to think outside the box, to not be confined to the various dogmas that infest live poker group think. THat sounds like a thinly veiled brag but I don't know how else to say it.

Let me give you a perfect example. Yesterday I'm playing 2/5nl eff stacks range from $100 to $1.1k, I'm at around $700 and I'm in the SB.

There is a straddle to $10 by the short stack who has exactly $100. 7 limpers to me, I limp, BB limps so family pot, Straddler raises to $40, 5 callers when it gets to me, I have T9 what should I do?

Well, I squeeze and raise to $240. The BB folds, straddler goes all-in for remaining $60, and now the entire table is like, "What could you have? 99, 88, you can't have a good hand because you didn't raise initially..."

However, I knew that THEY didn't have good hands, so it doesn't matter what I have. So they hem and haw and give me their awesome poker stares and then they all fold one by one.

Board($500+) 8 9 Q 3 Q
I show T9
V shows AK

entire table is just "shocked" I raised with such a weak hand.

For the next 20 minutes I had everyone at the table giving me poker lessons about how stupid my raise was and how lucky I got. One villain that folded had KQ and he kept going on and on about how he knew he had me beat but was worried about villains behind him yet to call , the same villains that had limp/called limp/called twice, as if they had a real hand LOL. I just accepted all the advice and replied with "Well, sometimes you just have to get lucky..."

The more you think out of the box, the more you take a step back and adjust to the situation you find yourself in, the easier it gets.

And it works both ways.

I had KJ in the HJ, eff stacks $600, I cover. I raise to $25, 3 callers including a fairly tight ABC player on the BTN.

Flop($100) K T K
chks to me, I bet $45, BTN calls, Donk from EP calls rest fold.

When ABC from the BTN calls warning bells go off in my head.

Turn(235) 5
chks to me, I bet $100, BTN raises to $300, donk calls, hero???
I fold.

Now, most players would autopilot call because "I haz trips good kicker and maybe villain is on flush draw..." and then they would just call because they can't bring themselves to ever fold trips. However, because I'm not locked into rigid group think, I can take a step back and play Level 2 poker and think "What the hell does villain have such that he would raise me here?"

Based on how he plays, he is just never making a move here, he doesn't have that in his DNA. He didn't 3-bet preflop so that rules out AA/QQ and those hands would never raise here. Now, most players would 3-bet AK but he wouldn't, he's weak tight and weak tight players usually don't think AK is a real hand, so he would flat my preflop raise with AK or KQ. The only Kings he would play would be KTs+ And if KTs+ is his preflop calling range then he has KT for the boat, KJ that ties me, or KQ or AK that dominate me. So against this range I am crushed and I have to fold.

So I fold.

River bricks, V shows AK

Basically, the more you take a step back and adjust, the easier it gets to take non standard lines that your villains will be incapable of taking. This includes bet sizing, raises, folds, etc.

GL

Sometimes it's hard to really understand dgi's point until you experience several very different types of games. My usual room is high action, juiced pots almost always. On vacation this week I'm playing at a much smaller room full of omc's. Because their play is SO much more basic, I can raise pretty much anything pre, and about half the time take a small pot with a c bet (if I miss) or slowly build the pot (if I bit) because V's are overlimping as strong as AA!

It also let's me call a huge raise in position because I know KNOW I'm getting stacks when I hit, and can just fold when I miss.

Long story short, we can't control the wind, we can only adjust our sails.

I get what dgi is saying. My thought process is just not there yet.

dgiharris' post was gold. Just so you know going forward, the word "right" means "profitable". The word "wrong" means "unprofitable".

You can safely assume that everyone translated your post like this: I will just say that when I play poker, and specifically this time, profitable or unprofitable had zero to do with my thought process.

There's not two ways to look at: feel or math.

Once you do get there. You can see how profitable this hobby can become.

Only time on table and experience gets you thinking at a higher level.

You asked the most important question. "Why", once you understand the "Why", decisions become much more easier. Lines become much more natural.

Keep posting hands. Keep an open mind. Taking critism and evaluating your thought process, will get you to where you want to be.

As you can see from many posts on this site. If you can understand the "why". You will be head and shoulders above many button clicking vilains. Your game is filled with button clickers. Who raise/call for reasons they don't understand.