Raise AJo, fold AKo. Debate solved

Finally this thread provides some practical insight!

They always put you on AK. Watch the heads explode when you hit the jack.

If you only had one occurrence in the database (instead of 3) we could draw a more clear yes/no conclusion. Shame on you

Skillgambler once again proving the old stereotype is right. When you need a tense situation defused with humor you can always count on the Germans

I was referring to the specifics of the UTG AJ discussion, where it appears like the only thing that can be said is: look at a big enough database of several good online player(s) filtering for UTG, look at adjacent hands or stdev to get a feel for statistical significance, speculate about how the database applies to your games.

IMO, no player without an extensive online database (that knows what games it came from) can speak with authority about close spots for one or two hands UTG in a full ring game. Btw, i don't mean to imply we can trust the information given by a person claiming to have done the analysis.

If you go by the definition that a nit is someone who plays "overly tight", then it makes sense that he doesn't think he's a nit.

Or, if you were a crazy, murderous SOB in jail who had killed a dozen people, you wouldn't think you were a crazy, murderous SOB. Someone would ask you, and you would say "no, that dude in the cell next to me is a crazy, murderous SOB. He's killed 50 f'in people!!!"

In almost all forms of ring game limit poker you run into a counterintuitive situation when you are first to act on the first round of betting. That is that your opening requirements against players who play the first round properly are a little looser than they would be against players who call your open a bit too much.

Actually that should be common sense. Good players will fold hands that lose to your overall range but that includes them folding hands that will make money against the bottom of your range. Thus the bottom of your range against good players becomes a loser when in a game where people play hands that you don't want them to in that specific situation, even though you are glad they play them in general.

Of course if the players behind you play a lot looser than they should, those bottom of your range against good players again make money. In fact against them you would play more hands still. But not against those only somewhat too loose.

My point is that certain hands under the gun that have online evidence that they are slightly profitable against a tough field need not show a profit against a not so tough field.

just when i thought this thread couldnt get any better, Sklansky himself shows up!

Mason/ David
to heck with the angels on the head of a pin distinction of AJo to raise or fold UTG.
put your energies into a modern limit book please

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that one should open-raise AT offsuit UTG in virtually any live nine-handed 20/40 game and it isn't close. That's how I interpret "lol." Is that right?

Usually the poker topics that generate the most discussion are the ones that everyone agrees are the closest decisions. This is kind of exciting because it's the rare exception.

Yeah, that's the epistemological problem. Post-online boom we now realize that almost everything empirical we used to "know" about poker was based on small samples. The theory is obviously still as sound as its assumptions but close decisions on specific hands don't always have a clear theoretical basis.

So I agree that huge online databases and intelligent adaptations are as good as we can do. Gotta have the second part of that though.

When I first started, simulation software like Wilson was fairly well-respected to make up for lack of sample size. I haven't heard a lot about this approach nowadays. Are online pros or anybody using more sophisticated simulation tools I'm not familiar with?

So, you're saying that good players will fold hands that lose to {AJo+, 88+} but win against {AJo}?

I know you're somewhat joking and I'd agree if it was just the pennies per hour you make playing AJ correctly, but David brings up a good principle I don't think enough about.

I'd love this. I can understand why it might not be worth the time, though, given the fairly marginal nature of LHE in most markets.

Going to keep a running total of all my AJo UTG 9 handed decisions for pure entertainment. Currently losing $40,000/100 hands (1 point for mason). I opened UTG and sb cold called J4o (1 point for Jon)

Pretend its a preflop move in.

Fwiw I agree that my point doesn't work for all hands here and I wouldn't apply it to 55 (not that I think that wins UTG). AJ is a specific case because it's basically impossible to not win more money with worse players.


If we open 55, good players fold hands that dominate us (66+) while action players don't. With AJ good players play the entire range of hands that dominate us (AQ+, JJ+) and folds all hands we dominate (J-10+, A-10 and worse). Action players play exact same range of hands that dominate us at the exact same ratio and then play hands we dominate at a higher frequency.

its just impossible to now win more money when his occurs.

I don't think you understand my point.


This is my point:

AJo absolutely does better in weak games than tough games. If AJo shows even a small profit online, it should be snap raised live.

It depends on how you define "good." A tight player who is going to robotically fold 88 and be oblivious to the fact that we're raising 55 UTG isn't that good IMO. A good player's going to notice we raise >15% UTG and then start 3-betting light to take our money.

I think the point is a game where they always fold 88 here is much tougher than a game where they always play 66.

is it tougher or merely tighter? therefore exploitable in spots for those that change speeds

Why can't it be both?

You are saying that AJ UTG with money behind in limit holdem is an exception to the general rule that you tighten up when the players behind you are a bit too loose. Presumably this would be because your smaller chances of winning the blinds immediately or playing head up with position against a blind is made up for by the fact that they will call with dominated hands. Could be. My post was meant only to refute the argument that it must be true that a hand that wins in tough games must automatically win in easier ones.

It's more than "could be." It's quite predictable which hands do and which do not, and the defining criterion is whether people actually fold better hands and whether they actually call worse hands.

But we're not talking about any hand, we're talking specifically about AJo. And we're not talking about any raiser, we're talking about someone who is viewed as a good player raising from UTG.

In this context, AJo is the rule rather than the exception. I've never really analyzed whether raising 96s UTG is more profitable in a tight or loose or tough or weak game. And if you subtract the 85-90% of hands that are no brainer folds and the 5-10% of hands that are no brainer raises, among the remaining single digit percent hands where there may be a non******ed debate about whether to raise or not, it's the rule rather than the exception that they fare better in loose games.

In two round draw poker and no limit holdem move ins, slightly looser than good players will turn slightly profitable opens into unprofitable ones in virtually all cases. That's just logic. The syndrome obviously weakens or reverses as stacks get deeper and there is more money to be bet later on in the hand.