|
A while
ago, while checking out some of the poker sites for new
information, there was a post on TwoPlusTwo that got my
attention. It read:
Caro's advice …
A
good player under the gun raises. I'm the small blind,
and everybody folds. I have A-K suited or A-K offsuit.
What's my action here?
This
is a question from Mike Caro's online poker lessons,
told to me by a poker player who is a student there.
Answer … clear fold, suited or not.
Is
he right here? I doubt it, but I like to hear other
opinions.
The
first couple of responses were from people disagreeing
with Caro. Even though I don't post very often, in this
case I decided to do so. I wrote:
Mr. Caro is right …
I
know most people will think: How can this be good
advice? How tight do people expect me to play? But it's
not about playing tight or loose; it's about having the
best hand or not, and about risk versus reward. For a
more detailed analysis of this exact situation, I would
refer to my first limit Texas holdem quiz. First, do the
quiz, then you'll get the explanation of why the
preferred play is in fact the best play — in my opinion,
that is.
When
reading this, it's important to keep a few things in
mind: I've been known as the "Ace" for years — and for a
reason. I was known as a super-rock when I started
playing for a living. In fact, a lot of people claimed I
was not much of a player, that I was simply lucky to win
as often (and as much) as I did. For years, people have
said: "How does he do this? When I raise with
A-K, the flop comes with rags. When he does, an
ace or king flops. And not only that, it's about the
only hand he plays — but he always wins. How can this
be?" When I stepped up to pot-limit poker about four
years ago — more specifically, when I started playing
pot-limit Omaha — I heard the same comments, but then it
was the aces people were concerned with. Time and time
again I've heard: "How can this be? I cannot win with a
flush or a full house, but he sits there for hours
waiting for aces. Then, he is able to go all in with
them before the flop and he always wins — even with just
a single pair. How is this possible?"
Well, what most people tend to forget is that there is
almost always a right or a wrong way to play a hand.
You've got to adjust to the circumstances, the
atmosphere at the table, the tendencies of your
opponents, and a dozen other things. One of the reasons
I still get action nowadays in pot-limit Omaha is that
even though I hardly ever play a hand, I "gamble" with
my opponents once in a while, especially with loose
players. Because I sometimes raise with hands with which
they wouldn't raise, they sometimes raise me back
before the flop, giving me the chance to get my whole
stack in as a big favorite. Because I give them a
bit of action occasionally with some funny hands, I get
a lot of action in return — sometimes when I hold the
nuts. Therefore, it has nothing to do with luck when I
win a big pot playing like this. Everything I do or say
at the table — the amount of my early raises, all the
chatting I do with the gambling type of players, and the
overall image I try to create — is done to get me
in these kinds of favorable situations. The reason I
used to win with A-K so often when I was still playing
only limit Texas holdem was that people saw me as a
super-rock, and always assumed I was in there with the
nuts when I was in a hand. So, they folded when they
should have called, called when they should have raised,
gave free cards to me that caused them to lose the pot,
and so on. What people forget is that no A-K (in limit
Texas holdem) or A-A (in PLO) is the same. In fact, I
don't think there is a single player in Europe who has
folded A-K before the flop as much as I have, even
though I love the hand. I know there are people who
never fold the hand and claim, "If you cannot play
A-K, what hands can you play?" However, their
thinking is beside the point: It's not a matter of
playing tight or loose; it's about having the best hand
or getting the right odds. Having said that, what
possible reasons could there be to fold such a good hand
before the flop?
•
The pot has been raised or reraised, and you think
there's a decent chance that you are up against aces or
kings.
•
Even though the raiser or reraiser doesn't necessarily
need to have aces or kings, you figure your hand may be
rather dead; that is, the kings and aces you need are in
some of your opponents' hands, and the way the hand
developed, you know you will have to improve your
A-K to win.
•
Even when your A-K is in fact the best hand before the
flop, you believe the situation you are in right now is
simply a bad one. If you flat-call or reraise the player
or players who raised or reraised, you might get
outplayed by them after the flop. This is especially
true if even by reraising, you cannot isolate against
one person and will have to play your A-K in a fourway
pot against aggressive and experienced players. Knowing
what type of hand you probably hold, they may put a lot
of pressure on you in order to make you lay down the
current best hand — for instance, when the flop comes
with rags. This is especially likely if you are
relatively inexperienced and not really able to make the
distinction between someone who truly has a good hand
and someone who is merely representing one.
•
You are probably going to win a small pot if your hand
is good, but lose a big one if it's not
(reverse/negative implied odds).
•
You are playing in a game with a high rake, which makes
playing for small pots unattractive (this is the case in
most of the places in Europe that I frequent).
•
You are in a 10-handed game. In a 10-handed game,
players in first position need a slightly better
starting hand to raise than in a ninehanded game, simply
because there are seven players behind them yet to act
instead of six (once again, this is the case in most of
the limit Texas holdem games I play in).
•
You are out of position, not knowing where you're at and
whether your A-K is good or not.
Having said all of this, you hardly ever fold A-K before
the flop. Most of the time, you have a calling, raising,
or reraising hand. You should keep in mind, however,
that your A-K is very strong in position when
heads up against a loose goose, but not nearly as strong
when out of position against a solid, or even good,
player who has shown strength — especially if the person
you are up against has high raising standards for the
position he's in.
Let's get back to the thread. I got an interesting
response from someone who said:
Well, I agree with what you say about this not being a
too "tight or loose" question, but I still don't like
this fold. A solid player will raise with several hands,
even from under the gun, that A-K and especially A-K
suited dominate. Finally, this is coming from somebody
who has folded A-K before the flop plenty of times, and
I even folded it out of the big blind once not too long
ago, but I just don't think this situation calls for a
fold.
Most
posters agreed with this reasoning, claiming I was wrong
in my recommendation to fold the hand from the small
blind for just a single raise, because of the positive
expected value (EV) the A-K would have here. They
claimed there are lots of hands the under-the-gun (UTG)
raiser could hold that would still give you a decent
chance to win the pot, and that, in short, you would be
getting the right odds to call with your A-K here.
I
didn't agree with the people who claimed the A-K would
have a positive expectation in the situation mentioned,
and that the advice offered by Caro in his online poker
lessons (folding) was therefore wrong. I wrote:
OK, suppose you call. Now, how are you going to play
your hand? If you are lucky enough that you still have
chances (that is, the UTG player doesn't have aces or
kings, but a lower pair), you can win — if an ace or
king flops. But your opponent sees that, too. So, what
does he do? He's not going to give you action: You will
win the money in the pot, and that's it. But what are
YOU going to do when only low cards flop? Are you going
to call him down, hoping he doesn't have a pair?
(Playing like this will be VERY expensive in the long
run.) Or, are you perhaps going to fold? If your hand
WAS good and the under-the-gun player HAD one of the
hands you guys claim he might possibly hold (A-10
suited, A-J, whatever), you got bluffed out. Either way,
you are in bad shape after the flop, and your preflop
call has gotten you into a lot of trouble. In my
opinion, the situation is like this: You are out of
position, with a hand that might be a dog to begin with,
with nothing in the pot, and if you hit, you win
nothing, but if you don't hit, you lose a bunch of extra
bets. Or, if you hit an ace or king when your opponent
HAS aces or kings, you will lose even more bets; in
fact, you are going to go broke. Yet, you guys still
think Caro is wrong? Try to look BEYOND your own
starting hand, because it is just that — a starting hand
(nothing more, nothing less).
Things got even more interesting. Mason Malmuth got
involved, and wrote:
"In my opinion, the situation is like this: You are out
of position, with a hand that might be a dog to begin
with."
Rolf:
I
don't want you to take this wrong, but I suspect that
you are being influenced by your pot-limit play, since
this is exactly the argument that a pot-limit player
would make. You are overlooking the fact that your hand
might also have the under-the-gun player in serious
trouble.
Here's how I would usually play it: First, you must
realize that the hand is playable. Now, with that being
the case, it is important to keep the big blind out, so
it becomes imperative to make it three bets. This
increases your chances of winning without improving. Now
that you have made it three bets (assuming your opponent
only calls), you can lead the betting on the flop and
turn.
Notice that this strategy is much more dangerous in
pot-limit than in limit, since in the pot-limit version,
you may look at a giant-size bet or raise from a person
who has position on you. So, you must be much more
cautious, and folding now may be correct.
I
responded:
Well, while it's true that most people know me as a
pot-limit player, I still consider limit Texas holdem to
be my main game. (I've been playing limit Texas holdem
almost exclusively — and professionally — for more than
three years before moving up to pot-limit poker).
Nowadays, I play mostly pot-limit Omaha, but NEVER
pot-limit Texas holdem, so I have no opinion on how to
play the A-K in PLH in the situation you mention. In
limit
Texas
holdem, I
am somewhat leery of playing hands with which I might be
a big dog, and I think the A-K in this situation
qualifies. I don't agree that there are many hands YOU
will be dominating with your A-K. In my games (OK, not
Vegas, AND 10-handed), under-the-gun raises by solid
players are almost always pairs eights and higher or A-K
— but in the Vegas middle-limit games, things might be a
lot different, so I cannot and should not judge on those
games. (Also, keep in mind that Caro offered his advice
to a Poker School student, and this student is not
likely to be playing in aggressive middle-limit games.)
Although I agree that reraising is an option, how are
you going to play your hand when your opponent caps it
(assuming three raises only), and three small cards
flop? Are you going to call all the way, assuming your
A-K is good? Or, are you going to fold at any stage,
when your opponent might have a worse hand? In my
opinion, chances are that you will WIN a small pot when
your hand is good, and LOSE a big pot when it's not —
and this is not the most enviable position to be in when
playing poker. Also, putting lots of bets into a small
pot when it's unclear where you're at is something I try
to avoid — even though it IS possible that by doing
this, I will occasionally fold the best hand preflop.
Malmuth then replied:
Rolf, you need to understand that if you are up against
someone who would raise with a pair smaller than kings,
you certainly want to play A-K because of the blind
money that is already in the pot. Granted, this is only
a small profit situation, but it still has positive
value. So, being up against someone who would raise with
any pair 8-8 or higher should be incentive to play, not
fold.
By
the way, if you read our books, and this is consistent
with the way I usually play, you usually call UTG with
J-J, 10-10, 9-9, and 8-8. So, when I think of a tight,
solid player raising from under the gun, I am thinking
of someone who is less desirable to play against than
you are describing.
However, I am also thinking of someone — and again, if
you follow our advice, you would do this — who raises
UTG with A-Q. You seem to be thinking of someone who
would not raise from under the gun with A-Q. While in
certain games it might be correct not to raise with this
hand from up front, the typical tight, solid player (in
my experience) will raise with it virtually every time
UTG.
Now,
as I have already stated in another post, I do agree
that if A-Q is not a possible raising hand, this changes
everything. Furthermore, I would also agree that even if
you knew he would raise with the additional pairs you
mention but not raise with A-Q, the additional pairs
would be enough to swing your A-K from a fold to a call.
Anyway, I think we have the answer. If the tight, solid
UTG player does raise with A-Q, folding A-K is clearly
wrong. If he also raises with some other hands, such as
A-J suited, K-Q suited, and some additional pairs, it
becomes even more wrong to fold the A-K. However, if the
only non-paired hand he will raise with is A-K, you
should give it up when you hold A-K in the small blind.
So,
the question is whether the tight player who raised UTG
plays as you describe or as I describe. In my
experience, they almost all play much closer to what I
am describing than what you are describing. However,
it's not how they play in general, but how this
particular person plays. So, I would agree that against
a few people, it might be right to fold the A-K. This
would be the person against whom, as you say, you might
be a big dog. But also notice that this person is
virtually never a big dog against you. If he can also be
a big dog against you, that changes everything.
Some
Final Words
Interesting discussions like this one go on and on on
the Internet. Most of the time, you will get opinions;
it is hardly ever a matter of right or wrong. It's a
great thing that some of the best players in the world
are willing to share their knowledge for free.
So,
was I right in my recommendations regarding A-K for this
specific situation, or was I wrong? Make up your own
mind. Every game is different, every hand is different,
and every situation is different, so it's hard to come
up with cut-and-dried answers all the time. I would say
this: Take advantage of the fact that good or even
excellent players are willing to share their opinions in
public, even though they aren't necessarily right all
the time — and that includes me. (Even experts or proven
champions can be wrong on occasion; however, because
they are experts, this will not happen very
often, and most of the time when they are wrong,
they will be only slightly wrong.) If you are
able to make the right play a large percentage of the
time and know why you're making that play, you've
come a long way; in fact, I would guess you've come a
lot further than maybe 90 percent or 95 percent of poker
players.
Anyway, in the second part of this series, I will make a
final analysis of what has become known as the "A-K in
the small blind problem," and I will dig into the matter
a little deeper. |
