www.flopturnriver.com

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Already Registered? Username: Password: Remember Forgot Password
Tweet

AKo post-flop in Fixed Micro-Limit Texas Hold'em?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display Modes

Pokerella

04-24-2006, 08:16 PM Post subject: AKo post-flop in Fixed Micro-Limit Texas Hold'em?

#1 (permalink)

Join Date: Apr 2006

Posts: 8

Hi everyone! This is my second HH post and I'm looking for some help on playing AKo post-flop. The tree basic scenarios I have encountered so far is:

Hitting TPTK on the flop and it holds up.
Hitting TPTK and the flop, turn or river brings strong draws to the board, which either makes me fold or lose.
Hitting nothing but having overcards to a flop of rags.

My question is how to you generally play AKo post flop? Is it right to raise and 3-bet AKo pre-flop from any position? What did I do wrong/right in the three hand examples I'm posting below?

Thanks in advance! This site seams awesome so far.

HH1 Overcards to board:
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $0.25/$0.5
9 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is UTG with A

Hero raises, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, 2 folds, CO calls, 2 folds, BB calls.

Flop: 9

(8.48SB, 4 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, CO checks.

Turn: 7

(4.24BB, 4 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, MP1 calls, CO calls, BB calls.

River: 8

(8.24BB, 4 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, MP1 checks, CO checks.

Results:
Final pot: 8.24BB
BB shows 8d As
BB mucks 8d As

HH2 TPTK:
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $0.25/$0.5
10 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (10 players) Hero is CO with K

UTG raises, UTG+1 calls, 4 folds, Hero 3-bets, Button calls, SB calls, BB folds, UTG caps, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls, Button calls, SB calls.

Flop: 2

(11SB, 5 players)
SB checks, UTG bets, UTG+1 calls, Hero raises, Button calls, SB folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: Q

(9.5BB, 4 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets, Button calls, UTG+1 calls.

River: 9

(12.5BB, 4 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets, Button calls, UTG+1 calls.

Results:
Final pot: 15.5BB
Hero shows Kd As
Button shows Qd Js
UTG shows Ah Jh
UTG+1 mucks Ah Jh

HH3 fold do draws on board:
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $0.25/$0.5
9 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is MP2 with A

3 folds, Hero raises, 4 folds, BB calls.

Flop: 6

(4.48SB, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB calls.

Turn: 4

(3.24BB, 2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, BB raises, Hero folds.
Uncalled bets: 1BB returned to BB.

Results:
Final pot: 5.24BB

Play for FREE and practice your game at...

Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!

euphoricism

04-24-2006, 08:57 PM

#2 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: Your place or my place

Posts: 3,610

When you raise preflop, especially first in, youve generally gotta bet the flop no matter what it is.

So hand 1, bet the flop. Things'll change from there.

Hand 2: What do you think his preflop cap means? I can't see playing it any differently than you did here.

Hand 3: Perfect.

<Staxalax> Honestly, #flopturnriver is the one thing that has improved my game the most.
Directions to join the #flopturnriver Internet Relay Chat - Come chat with us!

arkitekton

04-29-2006, 06:39 AM

#3 (permalink)

Flush

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: canada

Posts: 269

Hi Pokerella. Interesting post--thanks for putting it up.
Theoretically, then specifically, for whatever it might be worth:
While it (always, always, always!) depends on the specific opponent, I'm generally leery of 3-betting an EP raise with AK offsuit. If we take that raise to be one of AA-TT, AKs, AK, AQs, and AQ, when we happen to hold AK, of 88 cases we're

significantly behind the raiser 12 times,
slightly behind 40 times,
even 12 times, and
ahead (albiet substantially) only 24 times.

It's close, but given the above, and the fact that I'll be giving the last bet in a 3-raise max game to the opponent in this kind of situation, I'll avoid 3 betting unless the I've noticed the raiser is a little loose--then I'm happy to 3-bet since I have position and am a slight favorite (all the edge you need in a limit game, and just enough that I'm will to surrender the element of surprise). I may also 3-bet more liberally if I've noticed players behind me calling pre-flop raises with little more than junk--not a rare occurence in low-stakes games. On the other hand, I'm happy to 3-bet a middle or late position raiser, even from the blinds.

Specifically, with

Hand 1: I bet the flop. My experience is you'll pick up the pot against 3 opponents on this kind of flop around 20% of the time. It's important to bet now and not wait for the turn, on which someone who might have folded to a flop bet picks up a pair or the first half of a runner-runner draw. If I'm raised I'll typically call, then fold on the turn if I don't improve. I'll tend to bet the turn if I get one caller, check if I get two or three, but that's very specific to any read I have on the game and on the players.

Hand 2: There seems to be some confusion about who has what--both utg and utg+1 won't both hold Ah Jh, so I'm not sure how to discuss the hand.

Hand 3: While you surely have to take your opp's tendencies into account, a check raise on the turn will nearly always mean your unimproved big cards are beaten. I'll typically fold too here. My experience in fact has been that even if I have a big pair, if I'm check raised on the turn I'm almost always behind.

Hope some of this is useful, and good luck!

midas06

04-29-2006, 08:10 AM

#4 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: NZ

Posts: 2,196

I love the cold call with the nuts in hand 2

Pokerella

04-29-2006, 02:47 PM

#5 (permalink)

Join Date: Apr 2006

Posts: 8

Thanks for the input. I'll read it again when I'm a Little more clear n the head as I am still having problems with overcards to the board like AK, AQ and AJ when the flop comes with only low cards.

Xanadu

04-29-2006, 08:05 PM

#6 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: May 2005

Location: st. paul, MO

Posts: 966

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitekton

If we take that raise to be one of AA-TT, AKs, AK, AQs, and AQ, when we happen to hold AK, of 88 cases we're

significantly behind the raiser 12 times,
slightly behind 40 times,
even 12 times, and
ahead (albiet substantially) only 24 times.

Here are the correct numbers for the combinations in the hand range TT+, AQ+:

AA, KK: 3 each
QQ-TT: 6 each
AKs: 2
AKo: 7
AQs: 3
AQo: 9
For a total of 45 cases in the hand range.
Dominated: 6 times
slight disadvantage in coin flip (including AKs): 20
dead even: 7
dominate opponent: 12

It is a good thing to understand the statistics behind why certain preflop actions are good or bad. But your work will get you nowhere if you don't know how to do the math properly. You seem to have the wrong #s for the specific hands, and you did not account for there already being an A and a K in your hand.

As for the question of 3-betting AKo preflop, we can see from the above, that if we are correct that TT+, AQ+ is our opponent's raising range, we are roughly even with them. Thus 3-betting would be a mistake purely with respect to the raiser because this allows them to cap the stronger hands and call the weaker. This is, however, a rather tight raising range, and against most opponents you should be able to 3-bet. In addition to having a read on the raiser, knowing your table is probably more important. If you have people that will call 3 cold with very marginal hands like mid SCs and small PPs, 3-bet it every time. Many of your opponents will have a much tighter range, many will have a very strange group of hands they raise. I have run into many tighter opponents who typically raise preflop only with crap and never with a good hand. They lose a lot of money by overvaluing deception and if you recognize this type of player, they should be 3-bet with any hand you would normally raise, and even with weaker hands if you think you can isolate them. Just an example of the fact that with preflop decisions, there simply is no simple cut and dried statistical answer that covers all situations.

pokerfanatic

04-29-2006, 09:07 PM

#7 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: 6max limit tables

Posts: 1,968

hand 1:
i might bet the flop, then see what the action is and the will determain my turn play...

hand 2:
i play it the same

habd 3:
i play it the same

“Dream as if you’ll live forever. Live as if you’ll die today.” ~ James Dean ~

"Poker is a lot like sex, peoples perceived ability usually blinds the truth" ~ me ~

"God bless him. Got to bet big to win big! GAMB00L!!!" ~ Fnord

Fnord

04-30-2006, 10:29 AM

#8 (permalink)

Moderator

Join Date: Dec 2003

Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck

Posts: 19,333

Fnord is an unknown quantity at this point

Sometimes I check the turn behind in hand 3. It depends on where I think my opponent is at and how often he's going to c/r me like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvge-c2_Xg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Xz8aLuD7Y

arkitekton

05-04-2006, 09:16 AM

#9 (permalink)

Flush

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: canada

Posts: 269

Flush,

I otherwise enjoyed your analysis, and found it thorough and well-thought out--perhaps you can tell me, though, why so many folks who analyze scenarios involving cards feel compelled to dismiss unordered variations (as you do) as “wrong,” even though unordered variations, inclusive as they are (including both Ah Kd and Kd Ah), account for sequences as they occur in time, and not simply as final, sorted objects. The former method is more flexible when various object-scenes are considered, and even in hold’em, where your simplification is perfectly adequate to the basic probability scenarios we generally look at, seems simpler to me in that your extra step of eliminating variations doesn’t need to occur.

I’ve also noticed error creeping in to even basic hold’em considerations when holdings are sorted without regard for their appearance in time, such as people applying the sort of math you use to figure the value of drawing hands, when for example they'll often calculate as +EV even flush draws they'd never stay on at the table: as when both the turn and river cards are necessary to completing the flush.

Sorry to say, but to call the method I use "wrong," when your method is simply preference (and seems to me to involve an extra step) is, well, wrong.

Pelion

05-04-2006, 10:32 AM

#10 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Sep 2005

Posts: 3,206

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitekton

what?

gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.

bigspenda73: But how much did you win?

sinky

05-04-2006, 11:37 AM

#11 (permalink)

Flush

Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: SCOTLAND

Posts: 295

Who the fuck is Flush ?

elipsesjeff

05-04-2006, 05:04 PM

#12 (permalink)

Moderator

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: Northern Virginia

Posts: 4,900

elipsesjeff is an unknown quantity at this point

I was impressed with your analysis, until i read this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitektan

I'm generally leery of 3-betting an EP raise with AK offsuit.

A bit weak tight. AKo is an auto 3-bet and Auto Cap for me now in every situation, so much so that I no longer have to think about it. Even the occasional 2% PFRers will have brain farts and do stupid things. Here are the poker stove numbers:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

4,885,486 games 8.500 secs 574,763 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 49.1859 % 38.87% 10.32% { AKo }
Hand 2: 50.8142 % 40.50% 10.32% { TT+, AQs+, AQo+ }

Throw in the fact you have both position and initiative in this thing and you're gold.

Check out my videos at Grinderschool.com

More Full Ring NLHE Cash videos than ANY other poker training site. Training starts at $10/month.

05-04-2006, 06:03 PM

#13 (permalink)

Guest

Posts: n/a

SSH doesn't approve of your PF capping with AKo

thenonsequitur

05-04-2006, 07:35 PM

#14 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Location: Location

Posts: 637

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitekton

perhaps you can tell me, though, why so many folks who analyze scenarios involving cards feel compelled to dismiss unordered variations (as you do) as “wrong,” even though unordered variations, inclusive as they are (including both Ah Kd and Kd Ah), account for sequences as they occur in time, and not simply as final, sorted objects.

arkitekton, if I understand you correctly you are saying that it is a combinatoric simplification to simply say that the odds of getting dealt the sorted hand Ah Kd is 1/1326 instead of considering the two card dealings as separate events and the two orders as separate combinations of events. So the chance of first getting dealt Ah (1/52) and then getting dealt Kd (1/51) is 1/2652. Similarly the chance of first getting dealt Kd (1/52) and then getting dealt Ah (1/51) is 1/2652. The chance of either first getting dealt Ah and then Kd OR first getting dealt Kd and then Ah is (1/2652)+(1/2652)=1/1326.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitekton

The former method is more flexible when various object-scenes are considered and even in hold’em, where your simplification is perfectly adequate to the basic probability scenarios we generally look at, seems simpler to me in that your extra step of eliminating variations doesn’t need to occur.

Given my interpretation of the first part of what you said (correct me if that was an incorrect interpretation), then yes, this is true. The simplification is perfectly adequate for calculating the probability of hold'em starting hands; one method just takes one or two more steps (depending on how much you simplify).

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitekton

Sorry to say, but to call the method I use "wrong," when your method is simply preference (and seems to me to involve an extra step) is, well, wrong.

So I think you must be misinterpreting what Xanadu was saying. He wasn't arguing about what is the correct odds calculations methodology. He wasn't saying that it was wrong to use unordered variations following combinatoric simplification as the basis for calcualtions. And in fact, he only used unordered variations in his calcualtions. I'm not sure where you got the idea he was using ordered variations.

Xanadu was simply stating that the numbers you came up with were incorrect, not that the method you used was incorrect (he used the same method as you did, in fact, using unordered variations only). I did a quick check and it seems that his numbers are correct and yours are off. I think it's probably what Xanadu said--you forgot to account for the fact that you already have an A and a K in your hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkitekton

I’ve also noticed error creeping in to even basic hold’em considerations when holdings are sorted without regard for their appearance in time, such as people applying the sort of math you use to figure the value of drawing hands, when for example they'll often calculate as +EV even flush draws they'd never stay on at the table: as when both the turn and river cards are necessary to completing the flush.

This isn't an error so much as another sort of similfication--taking implied odds into account.

Xanadu

05-05-2006, 04:06 PM

#15 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: May 2005

Location: st. paul, MO

Posts: 966

It appears, after reading arkitekton's subsequent post, that rather than having it all wrong as I initially thought, there was just one minor error, under counting the opponent's AKo as 12 permutations rather than 14.

There is nothing wrong with using permutations in this case rather than combinations. I thought you had it all wrong because I didn't notice you were using permutations and it looked like you were counting AA and KK as if there were 4 aces and 4 kings out, and counting suited cards the same as unsuited to come up with too many combinations. Actually, if you look at both of our lists, arkitekton's is exactly double mine excepting the slight error on AKo. This is what you would expect from one person using permutations (ordered cases) and the other using combinations (unordered cases). I missed this when I made my initial post. Apparently I was wrong that arkitekton didn't know what he was doing and I apologize for saying you didn't know how to do the math.

-Xanadu

KoRnholio

05-05-2006, 04:17 PM

#16 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Jul 2005

Posts: 2,165

KoRnholio will become famous soon enough

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fnord

Sometimes I check the turn behind in hand 3. It depends on where I think my opponent is at and how often he's going to c/r me like that.

I'd almost always check behind there and take a free card, usually calling the river if he bets.

Sometimes the BB will hang around with 2 overs like JT+ and we're giving him a card to catch up with, but I'd say we're beat here a good portion of the time (and even if we the possibility of a check-raise against us will cost us another bet and not be able to show it down). I prefer to check behind and pick off a bet on the river.

Some days it feels like I've been standing forever, waiting for the bank teller to return so I can cash in all these Sklansky Bucks.

arkitekton

05-06-2006, 09:55 AM

#17 (permalink)

Flush

Join Date: Apr 2006

Location: canada

Posts: 269

Interesting posts, all.

Xanadu--thanks for double checking the math. My brain cramp in missing one of the AQ is, in this context, pretty damned embarrassing.

thenonsequitur-- I agree with your "The simplification is perfectly adequate for calculating the probability of hold'em starting hands; one method just takes one or two more steps (depending on how much you simplify). "

As for your mention regarding staying in on runner-runner draws when the implied odds might be there: "This isn't an error so much as another sort of similfication--taking implied odds into account," I agree it's not impossible for implied odds to justify a flop call with that kind of draw, just that under ordinary circumstances, I've seen people include as "wins" (particularly in "no fold'em hold'em simulations) any board that contains three of a suit they hold two of, without regard for those flushes that require runner-runner of their suit to complete and whether, as tends not to happen, a given pot offers sufficient implied odds to warrant calling on a runner-runner draw.

elipsesjeff--in my analysis I did mention I was looking only at a specific range and not making the assumption that every opp conformed to that range. I wrote, "While it (always, always, always!) depends on the specific opponent, I'm generally leery of 3-betting an EP raise with AK offsuit. If we take that raise to be one of AA-TT, AKs, AK, AQs, and AQ, when we happen to hold AK..." etc. At the same time I agree that against the great many opponents whose range is looser than this 3-betting with AKo is the right play. If I'm new to a table, have no reads, and the ep2 open-raises, am I odds on to 3-bet from mp1? Probably yes. That said, I can't quite parse the pokerstove numbers you put out. Can you add some information?

elipsesjeff

05-06-2006, 05:45 PM

#18 (permalink)

Moderator

Join Date: Jul 2004

Location: Northern Virginia

Posts: 4,900

Quote:

Probably yes. That said, I can't quite parse the pokerstove numbers you put out. Can you add some information?

Simply, that it doesn't really matter what you in this situation, cold call or 3 bet, that you're even money either way. IMO, AKo plays better postflop after a raise as you do have position on the guy and you force him to define his range more.

If you were talking about the numbers, First number is your hand equity, second number is how often you outright win and third number is how much you tie. The first number is just a sum of the other two though.

Check out my videos at Grinderschool.com

More Full Ring NLHE Cash videos than ANY other poker training site. Training starts at $10/month.

Latest Poker News
KoRnholio	05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
According to an email sent out by Mark Bryan, a gaming analyst at Merrill Lynch, the Australian government plans to legalize online poker sometime in the next six to 12 months. This move will coincide ... more at Poker Blogs »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.

Play Texas Holdem Online, Online Texas Holdem Strategy, & Poker Forum

This is not a gambling website.

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Poker Forum

All Other (Limit) Poker

AKo post-flop in Fixed Micro-Limit Texas Hold'em?

Play for FREE and practice your game at...