AA and the Mathematics

Ok, here is a statement that has been proved mathematically.

You will make more money with AA pf against multiple opponents than against a limited number of opponents. You will loose more pots, but make more profit out of it.

Now, this is all nice but how do you feel about this? Do you keep this in mind while making your decision on how to bet pf with AA, do you try to keep a lot of opponents with you ( by making a small raise or not re-raising ) or do you try to reduce the field ( by raising big or re-raising )?

How do you apply this statement to tournament play ( as the statement is of course about cash game ).

I think there is a lot of ego involved in getting AA and that most players rather like to reduce the field and getting more chances to win with AA, even if it means sacrifying profit.

Now, another statement that seems to be accurate is that "big hands are made for big pots" Do you take it as:

a)the more players involved, the bigger the pot.

or is it more something like

b)big raises are limiting the field but are inviting big hands too and this creates a big pot.

By extention, if you have AA, you ll probably stack someone with KK, AK while you put yourself at risk if you leave several players in the pot to outdraw you or flop a monster.

I am pretty clear on this but I wanted to know your feeling.

I think you statement should be..."if everyone goes all in PF, you will win more money with larger fields than smaller fields". But, by slow playing AA, I think you will come out behind in the long run if there are more players in the pot. The reason is darwinism. Only the week hands will be weeded out and the strong survive.

mrdick2u wrote:

But, by slow playing AA, I think you will come out behind in the long run if there are more players in the pot. The reason is darwinism. Only the week hands will be weeded out and the strong survive.

This statement contradicts itself. If you come out behind in the long run with AA it would because the weak are not weeded out.

well, a weak hand preflop may be a strong hand post flop. I am not saying their relative strength in the beggining, but in the end.

mrdick2u wrote:

well, a weak hand preflop may be a strong hand post flop. I am not saying their relative strength in the beggining, but in the end.

Now you are just reaching.

Here is how I see it:

In a cash game if you are dealt aces you want to bet low enough to entice a few players to come with you, but not so high as to have the dealer shove you the blinds. When you make a raise with aces, you are looking to elminate a few players..rather than certain hands. Would you rather be against 3 players holding KK, QQ and JJ or in a family pot with up to 9 players each holding ATC that are just as capable of knocking you out. Against the KK, QQ, JJ you are dodging 6 cards (basically) right? Can you even calculate the odds when you have 9 players with ATC?

I'd rather take my chances with the 3 than the 9..even if the payoff is 6X better.

Hope that was clear and concise.

Quote:

Here is how I see it: In a cash game if you are dealt aces you want to bet low enough to entice a few players to come with you, but not so high as to have the dealer shove you the blinds. When you make a raise with aces, you are looking to elminate a few players..rather than certain hands. Would you rather be against 3 players holding KK, QQ and JJ or in a family pot with up to 9 players each holding ATC that are just as capable of knocking you out. Against the KK, QQ, JJ you are dodging 6 cards (basically) right? Can you even calculate the odds when you have 9 players with ATC? I'd rather take my chances with the 3 than the 9..even if the payoff is 6X better.

I would agree with that, as well, I would add that I don t see a problem in being outdraw once in a while as long as I can profitably have playing drawing ( and not hitting more than what they are suppose to ). After all, this is odds, sometimes you hit your draws. That would be the point, winning a bit less pots but a lot more money ( that s ehat Math shows ). I would think as well that if some drawy flop won t make me happy some might be very good against players holdin KQ for example and that will end up paying me with a pair of K or Q.

Also it would apply differently if you play at the too usual 1/2$ with an average of 7 players in the pot. I would think that it should be ok to play AA with 4-5 opponents on the flop.

mrdanj wrote:

Now you are just reaching.

No, I am saying the same thing as you. Lets say you have 10 players at the table. Everyone goes all in preflop, you have AA, they have whatever. You will win more money this way in the long run versus only two players going all in. Probability tells us this. (hence my first comment above)

Now, instead of everyone going all in, everyone just calls the bb, including you who has AA. The flop comes and you make a bet. The hands that hit something or have a high probability of a draw will call your bets and the weaker hands will fold. As a result, your have less of a chance of winning as much money and a higher chance of losing to hands that "survived" the river. (my second statement)

So, my statements are perfectly legit and not far reaching. (they may not be explained perfectly).

It is just a fact of poker you are going to get your aces busted, just like you bust someone else's aces sometimes. I think I want less than half the table seeing the flop though. But it all has to do with your style I think. It's a balancing act.

In the long term though: I just want aces.

screw that: preflop all in: AA=nuts

minraise preflop and drawy board: AA=busted.

I want to play Aces against 1 or 2 opponents, not more.

Quote:

It is just a fact of poker you are going to get your aces busted, just like you bust someone else's aces sometimes.

Exactly. The reward you get for the risk seems to be ok though.

Let s put it another way, if you are agreat player, you won t put your money in the pot unless you think you have the best hand. So how can you ever loose a hand? Yes, you are right, by getting outdraw and get bad beat.

Actually, the higher your ( badbeat or outdraw / number of lost pot ) is high, the better you are.

mrdick2u,

I agree in theory. I think I understand better what you are saying now. The odds are against the all in with 10 players...but the pot size makes up for it in the long run right?

Yes, if you assume everyone is all in preflop, you will come out ahead. You will lose more often, but the pots will be much larger. However, if you let someone see the flop, you are only get money from the people that have a hand or a good draw so you win less money and you lose about the same amount of the time.

The other thing that is the problem with AA that very few people remember, is that it is harder to fold. Lets say the flop comes 279. You don't have much too worry about. Unless, you let someone with a small hand like 27 into the pot too cheaply. So, the guy who has 27 isn't going to lose much because he folds if the flop doesn't hit him. But, with AA, you rarely fold, which means you have the opportunity to lose more money.

Anyways, that is the mathematical perspective without throwing all the fancy terms in.

Yaa that's the right move with AA mrdick2u,
in my opinion of course :P

Noronhaxin wrote:

Yaa that's the right move with AA mrdick2u, in my opinion of course :P

Don't make a habit of agreeing with me...it hurts your credibility on this site!

mrdick2u wrote:

Noronhaxin wrote: Yaa that's the right move with AA mrdick2u, in my opinion of course :P Don't make a habit of agreeing with me...it hurts your credibility on this site!

Self actualization is a wonderful thing.

The problem with this if if you dont go allin PF against loads off opponents while holding AA, you are bound to get massive reverse implied odds!

thank you flying panda, my entire feeling put into one sentence.