Slowplaying Kings and Aces

I've been playing 25NL lately and I've found that 3betting with AA and KK usually ends up with a small pot taken down preflop, so I've been experimenting with giving them some rope to hang themselves on. Thoughts on just calling with Aces or Kings preflop and getting the money in on the flop/turn when villain catches tp or worse on a non threatening board?? I guess this is read dependent, but no one puts you on Kings or Aces when you cold call preflop at these stakes. Anyway, thoughts ? I'm gonna try and dig up my hands I've played this way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gordo426

I've been playing 25NL lately and I've found that 3betting with AA and KK usually ends up with a small pot taken down preflop.

---

It happens. It's irritating. But maybe the answer to "fast play" some lesser hands, especially in late position, taking care to show them down (call micro-stack's all-in). There's nothing like catching AA, betting out, and having someone RR all-in trying to teach you a lesson.

I've found that the only frustrated shortstacks will push over a 3bet to teach you a lesson, no one really pushes over a 3-bet without 99+, and I don't feel it happens often enough to 3-bet AA or KK all the time. I will 3-bet these hands oop almost always, but when villain is aggressive I've found you get more of their money by letting them be the aggressor and raising the flop if the board texture isn't good, or calling the flop and raising the turn if the board texture is non-threatening. On a related note, how do you get more than your last 200 hand histories from pokerstars?

i can maybe see a case for this if villain is aggro and only when you are certain that you will go heads up to the flop. most ppl will say to 3bet more often with other hands to disguise your AA/KK. at 25nl the players probably won't notice this but it is good advice nonetheless, and you will need to get used to doing this more often as you move up higher. you are most likely just on an unlucky run where everyone is raising with crap lately when you get AA/KK.

Only slowplay AA/KK at an aggressive table where there is a hig probability that if you limp up front someone behind is going to raise it up.

If you are at a really passive table with 6 limpers it is pure folley to limp and let everyone in. More often than not you will get cracked this way.

In late position a normal raise just gives you cover for when you steal/raise for value with lesser holdings. Every now and then you get lucky and the button or blinds will wake up with someting and play back at you.

I think slowplaying AA/KK is only +EV in very select, specific situations. Even then, playing it straight up will have a comparable EV.

I think I pretty much always 3-bet with AA, KK but also sometimes with other hands like AQ. However if I raise with AA and someone 3 bets me then if I'm in position and am closing the betting I sometimes just think for a while and make a "reluctant" call to conceal my hand, figuring to extract more money via a trap. I don't slowplay once the flop comes though.

the only time you might consider not reraising AA/KK is that if by calling, you are 95+% likely to be playing a heads up pot anyway.

Check the Carnegie Mellon study. AA and KK are the best hands at either a tight or a loose table, and regardless of the number of callers. They should be value raised, not raised to isolate.

The only real issue with limping these because you think you are not going to get any callers is being able to get away from a cracked hand in post-flop play.

i can see why everyone wants monster pots with KK+, but they are only monsters pre-flop. after that, they can become junk just as easily as any other holding...its just not very likely.

why do you think the saying goes: "win lots of small pots with aces, and lose big ones."

i disagree with "value raising" them, unless you are in late position and most of the players have folded off. you do NOT want more than 3 players in the hand with you. your equity drops to near 50% when the fourth comes in, and slightly under if a fifth comes in...not a situation you ever want.

take any pot you can. dont trap and slowplay anything pf at low stakes. you let in too much suited junk and baby pairs.

if you smooth call and wait for the "non-threatening" flop, you may already be virtually dead without knowing it. for example, an 9h 6h 2s flop. when the oop guy pushes into you on the flop, there's no way youre folding AA here to his 22. and, you would only have yourself to blame for being "greedy."

Loosing to a set with AA or KK is only ok if you are able to make up for it with your own sets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lithium

Check the Carnegie Mellon study. AA and KK are the best hands at either a tight or a loose table, and regardless of the number of callers. They should be value raised, not raised to isolate.

The only real issue with limping these because you think you are not going to get any callers is being able to get away from a cracked hand in post-flop play.

---

True, but being the best hand going in doesn't mean it's the best value. If you go from being 80% to win the hand to being 65%, your equity in a 3-way all-in preflop may increase, however your chances of losing the hand also nearly doubled, AND it's much more likely that the only extra money you make the times you win the hand is a the preflop raise (as most that would fold preflop are folding a lot of worse hands postflop, but calling with all hands that beat you).

Let me print it out for you then, so you understand to some extent why you want a bunch of callers with AA and KK. Sorry it is long, but there are tables in the article that don't port here:

Why Raise?

There are 10 hands in these groups, but they are not treated equivalently for purposes of decisions to raise (or not).

Although the S&M rationale for doing so certainly appears to be plausible enough, they do not present any computational rationale or other proof. One must take some of it on faith. As it turns out, however, there have probably been some errors made in these recommendations.

S&M give different reasons for raising (or not), including each of the following.

raise 4 (AA, KK, QQ, AK) in part because "..they lose much of their value in large multi-way pots."
raise 4 (Aks, Aqs, AJs and KQs) only sometimes in part because "..they do play well in multi-way pots."
raise 1 (JJ) in a tight game "..to get out hands like A9." the idea being that this hand also loses value in multi-way pots, or perhaps that it has less value at a loose HE Table .. which is a similar, but not identical idea.
Never raise1 (TT) for reasons that are not stated.
These are key ideas in current hold'em playing strategy. Since S&M assume certain difficult to prove facts that our model encompasses, however, we can put these assumptions to test.

We measure directly the effect of multi-way action. Also, we vary the degree of looseness of the Table in seeing the flop. So, we can separate out the effects of HE Table conditions and number of foes contesting the pot for each starting hold'em hand.

When we look at these facts for the 10 best starting hands, we get the results shown in Table ___ (below).

.

Table 3 - MAD Sensitivity to Playing Conditions


Rank
Hand
Table
nFoes
T x F

1
AA
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
KK
0.1
0.0
0.1

3
QQ
2.3
1.9
2.5

4
JJ
5.7
4.6
6.6

5
AKs
6.1
5.3
7.2

6
TT
7.1
3.7
7.2

7
AQs
5.3
5.4
8.9

8
AJs
9.7
9.0
13.1

9
AK
13.3
20.6
27.9

10
KQs
5.7
4.2
8.4





The mean absolute deviation (MAD) in the rank of a hand among all starting hands is a measure of sensitivity by the hand to playing conditions. Table ___shows MADs for variations in HE Table conditions, variations in number of quasi-realistic foes contesting the pot at the river and in combinations (or interactions) of these two conditions.



Of the 4 hands S&M assume would be most sensitive to multi-way action (AA, KK, QQ, AK) only one (AK) actually is. In fact, it's mean absolute deviation in rank (among all 169 possible hands) due to varying numbers of foes at the river, at 20.6, makes it one of the most sensitive of hands.

By contrast, the very least sensitive hands to multi-way action are AA, KK and QQ.

Of the 4 hands S&M assume "play well" in multi-way pots (AKs, AQs, AJs and KQs), this conclusion can only be correct if by playing well what is meant is that in each case the hand ranks at about the median of all 169 possible hands in sensitivity to multi-way action.

These hands that are presumed to "play well" in multi-way pots do NOT increase in relative value with increasing multi-way action at all, as many current poker players are inclined to believe.

S&M ignore TT and reserve a special status for JJ in terms of multi-way action. Yet, neither of these hands seem particularly sensitive to multi-way action and it is difficult therefore to take those recommendations too seriously.

Table 4 - Mean Rank Order of Hands

Number of Players at River

Rank
2
3
4
5
6

1
AA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

2
KK
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

3
QQ
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

4
JJ
14.4
4.8
4.4
4.3
4.0

5
AKs
5.0
5.4
5.4
7.2
26.6

6
TT
26.4
11.0
8.0
6.0
5.8

7
AQs
9.2
8.6
8.6
11.8
33.0

8
AJs
9.2
8.6
8.6
11.8
33.0

9
AK
7.5
7.8
10.0
26.2
40.0

10
KQs
11.2
12.2
18.2
18.0
20.0

Another way to look at these assumptions is to show the mean rank order of each hand for 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 foes at the river, as shown in Table ___ (above).

S&M ignore TT, but it actually benefits from multi-way action, as does JJ. We would therefore urge you to consider raising these hands for value if the raise is not likely to drive out foes in a loose game

Five of these hands are particularly vulnerable to heavy multi-way action, the kind that increases the liklihood of 6 or more foes playing to a showdown (Aks, AQs, AJs, KQs and AK). With moderately loose showdown action they are neither especially sensitive, one way or the other.

One hand, AK, suffers tremendously with nearly every additional foe who plays to a showdown. This is the only hand in the group that should be raised pre-emptively in an effort to weed out the competition.

With these changes, then, we would recommend a re-write of the pre-flop raising recommendations for Sklansky Group 1 and Group 2 starting hold'em hands.

veeery interesting

question- im guessing J4s on the button doesnt benefit from multiway action-- so raise right??

This isn't me talking, it is the results of a Carnegie Mellon study that ran millions of random hands at different aggression levels. It is not antecdotal.

I'm not debating that they don't play well multiway, or that you don't want multiple callers if you're effectively getting all of the money in preflop. If that's all you have to deal with, then great.

The problem, once again, is that most of the hands that you beat will fold when you start building the pot postflop. You lose the same amount every time you lose, and win roughly the same amount every time you win, because most of the money is going in after people know whether to continue with weaker hands. This translates to you winning less, because you win less often than you would HU.

For instance, let's assume that your opponent(s) will stack off with top pair (which you beat) and with a two pair (which beats you). Further, let's assume that your opponent(s) will fold top pair in a multiway pot against a lot of action (i.e. you and someone with two pair raising each other).

HU, your opp will hit top pair roughly 30% of the time, and two pair less than 5% of the time, so when you get your money in on the flop, you can expect to be doing so profitably 6 times as often as not - a very profitable thing.

Against 4 opponents, each will hit top pair roughly 30% of the time, which means that someone hits top pair 1-(.7*.7*.7*.7) = 75% of the time. Someone hits two pair 1-(.95*.95*.95*.95) = 20% of the time. Now you're making less than 4 times what you're losing. Plus it's going to be harder to get the money in, as the pot is smaller (and/or the stacks are deeper), which makes it less likely that your opp will overplay top pair.

Even though you get a few extra bets preflop, do you really think it adds up to 1/3 the profit you make off of the hand?

I'd have to think about that, although it is probably right in most instances, as I find people will go all in with much worse than a big pair. Sometimes the opposite is true, though. As an example, last night I had KK and limped, got about 6 callers, and the flop rolls out Q 2 3. I move all in and get called by Q 7. Depending on the table and players, you may be able to get a few callers post flop with either top pair or a draw. Of course, that only makes up for the time I was felted by the flopped set of ducks. So, again, that is probably right in most cases.

My citation, however, was directed at the comment that you should not value raise these hands, and try to play at most in a three-way pot. I think the opposite is generally true, value raise, but hope for as many callers as you can get. The empirical data supports that.

That CMU simulation is very very old and has some serious flaws.

40bb+ NLHE is more about playing your opponent's hand anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lithium

This isn't me talking, it is the results of a Carnegie Mellon study that ran millions of random hands at different aggression levels. It is not antecdotal.

---

thats sounds like its for limit. i can see the advice for raising there. JJ is a raise in almost every situation in NL..not just to drive out A9...thats a limit concept. your printout also says HE (Hold-Em) in it, not No-Limit HE.

many beginning limit players notice quickly that AA is only "supposed to be" the power hand of all hands. it gets cracked much more often in limit. so, they start to play it much more passively, waiting for a favorable flop. in a limit game, you cannot worry about the number of players, as pf you want ALL THE MONEY POSSIBLE to go in, as thats where you have all your equity. then, you must evaluate whether to protect your hand or extract value with it as the hand wears on...or if you should just fold to all the aggression.

i think thats what this "study" is referring to.

in NL, however, you should try to force as much of a mistake with KK+ as possible because of the betting structure, you get paid on the bigger mistakes your opponent makes.

maybe 200NL players adjust and get trickier with aces, but the lower/micro guys just need to play them abc 99.9% of the time.

and that means 3bet/push it.

I'll NEVER slowplay KK or AA.

Why? Exact same reason that has been stated in here before me.

They end up getting cracked by straight junk that never should've even been in the pot in the first place. Straights get made, low-mid flushes hit, yadda yadda.

It's been my experience that on the whole, I make more now with AA and KK becuase I actually bet them instead of trying to get extreeemmmmeee value out of them by trapping. I can honestly say, when I sucked, I would simply check or call with KK/AA thinking oh boy I'm about to get paid!!! Then something started to happen quite often, CRACK.

So....I bet them. If everyone folds PF, then everyone folds PF, big deal. Atleast I didn't loose any money.

I'll slowplay aces and kings in only three situations:

1) I'm in a tourney, have the chiplead (of the table, at least), am UTG, and table has been really aggressive for the past 3 or so orbits, i'm already ITM, and there's a full moon.
2)When I got them for the 4th hand in a row in a cash game.
3)If I've been playing 100/0 for a while

*note= there has to be a full moon under 1)

actually, there is only sense in slowplaying [insert any two cards here] if you know villain x will bet.

Otherwise, its a waste of time, etc. I want to win big (200bb) pots. Not 1,5bb pots.

I only like to slowplay AA and KK against one villain, and I'm coming in for raises at the latest on the flop. I don't mind losing chips if I have the roll, so long as I'm getting max value for my hand.

The time it backfires on people is when min raises are being used, or some weird two pair is flopped. Otherwise, it works if raising the right amount on the flop.