I'd love to date Anna Kournikova, but I sure don't want to marry her.
Everyone's heard the joke; the new nickname for AK is Anna Kournikova; looks good, but never wins.
Every time I hear it, I laugh along with everyone else, but I don't agree. AK (and JJ) are probably the most complained about hands in poker, but, I believe the problem isn't the cards, it's the way people play them. You wait and wait to get AK, folding and folding lesser hands. When you finally get it, you're SUPPOSED to win, for Christ's sake! And therein lies the problem.
With AK (or any other two unsuited cards), the odds are 2.08:1 AGAINST your pairing up on the flop. Think about that for a minute. That means 2 times out of 3, you aren't going to catch anything on the flop with your "monster" AK. That sucks. Here's something else that sucks. Your AKs is the best unpaired hand in poker. It's the 4th-best (or 5th, depending on who you believe) hand overall. 72 offsuit is the worst opening hand in poker. Of the 169 possible starting hands, it is dead last, number 169. In a heads-up, all-in confrontation, however, AKs is only a 1.5:1 favorite over 72 offsuit. That means 72 offsuit will beat AKs 2 times out of 5!
So, the flop has missed your AKs, and the player on your right bets into you; what to do now? The answer is simple; fold, or raise. Many players will call here because, if the flop misses them, they have 2 overcards; if they catch one, they'll have top pair.
There are a few problems with that, though. First, with two overcards, you have 6 outs; three Aces and 3 Kings left in the deck. The odds of your catching an Ace or a King on the turn are 7:1 against; you're going to catch that overcard 1 time in 8. Not very good odds. You'll sometimes be getting pot odds of 7:1 in a limit game, but very seldom in a no limit game.
But wait, there's another problem. You can catch one of your overcards and still lose the hand. In a number of incidences where you draw to that overcard, you're going to find you're drawing against 2 pair or a set. In other incidences, you'll be up against straight and/or flush draws where your overcard will make their hand as well, and yet more incidences where you'll hit your card on one of the two remaining cards, but they'll hit their draw on the other. Because of this, even when you are getting the correct pot odds of 7:1, the EV (Expected Value; your earnings in occurrences of this situation, over time, after you factor in the losses when you've made your hand, but still lose) just isn't there.
"Hold on there, Cowboy", some will say, "I saw on the World Poker Tour where hitting an Ace or a King after the flop was 26%. 26% is 3:1, not 7:1.
Right! You've just hit on one of the most expensive misconceptions in poker. From the flop, the odds are 7:1 against your catching a card on the turn, but they're only 3:1 against your catching one (or more) on the turn OR on the river. Here's the problem with that. Let's say you're in a hand with AK, and the flop misses you. There's 100.00 in the pot, and the player in front of you bets 40.00. The pot is now laying you 140.00 to your 40.00 call (3.5:1). Now, you know the odds of pairing one of your cards on the turn or on the river are 3:1 against, and the pot is laying you slightly better than 3:1, so you make the call.
Here's the catch. The turn misses you, and the player in front of you bets 100.00. The pot is now laying you 240.00 (you can't count your 40.00 call on the turn as part of the prize when you gave yourself odds over two cards from the flop, another common error) to your 100.00 call. that's 2.4:1, and your odds of catching your Ace or King on the river are 7:1 against. Clearly, you don't have odds to call here, but, the truth is, you didn't have odds to call on the turn, either. Giving yourself odds over two cards when you may be facing further bets on the river is a sucker play; with YOU being the sucker.
From the flop, the ONLY way you can use the odds over two cards is if you can be ABSOLUTELY sure there will be no additional betting on the next round. The ONLY way you can be that sure of that is if either you or the other player will be all-in on the flop. If there's no all-in, you MUST use the odds over 1 card, not 2.
Ok, so you're probably not getting odds to call, and, even when you are, you may not be drawing to a winner, so the best move is to fold, right? Possibly. As I said earlier, you should either fold, or raise; never call.
"Raise?"
Listen, sizzlechest, we're playing poker here, not "To Tell The Truth". If you only bet or raise when you have the nuts, you're not going to lose too many hands, but you're not going to win many, either. The math is an absolutely fundamental, inescapable element of this game, but, when you cut to the chase, you're playing a game of chicken with the other players at the table. Unless you call every single bet or raise to you, you can be absolutely sure you're REGULARLY folding the best hand. If you don't do the same to your opponents every now and then, you'll never make any money at this game.
In this case, by raising, you've at least got a "Plan B"; maybe you'll catch an Ace or a King, and maybe that'll beat what they're holding. Raising, though, is something you should do only in very special circumstances, when you either think the bettor may be bluffing himself (or herself) or may be able to be scared off the hand. Otherwise, you should fold. The 178th Rule of Aquisition clearly states "IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO CUT YOUR LOSSES".
Sometimes, though, you can hit with your AK on the flop and still be clobbered. Here's an example of how I misplayed the hell out of AK.
I'm playing in a 50.00, 180 player SNG on Pokerstars. It's early in the tournament and I have yet to play a hand. I'm under-the-gun and am dealt:
Ad Kd
Great hand, crummy position, but this is one of the four hands I recommend even the most conservative players play from early position. I don't get cute; I make my standard raise of 3x the big blind.
The player immediately to the right of me makes a minimum raise back at me. It folds around to me. Now, one of the reasons players hate AK so much, in my opinion, is that they overplay the hand preflop; re-raising in this situation, possibly going all-in. If it doesn't pair up or make a flush or straight, however, a pair of deuces beats AK. I'm not short-stacked, and neither is my opponent, so I just call the raise and take a flop, which comes:
Ah Js Jc
Now, my opponent re-raised me from early position, so I have to put him on a legitimate hand, but, I've got top pair/top kicker and, unless he re-raised me with AJ (something I don't think is very likely), JJ (possible, but not likely), or AA (very possible), I'm ahead in this hand. The only way to find out is to bet at him. If I check, KK (a likely hand for him to have), QQ (another likely hand) , or AQ (less likely) will probably bet and put me to a difficult decision. I always prefer to take the initiative in a hand, so I bet the pot. He immediately raises me, but again, only the minimum.
I stop and think for a minute. If he had JJ and I was betting into him, why would he raise me? I'd think he'd want to walk the dog on me and see if I'd bet into him on the turn. Same thing if he had AA. If he held that, he'd flopped a full house; and the best full house at that! The only hand that could beat him here would be JJ, why not slow-play it a bit and hope I'd either keep betting into him or catch up a bit? I decided he was either playing KK or QQ very aggressively, or he and I both had AK. I re-raised him, going all-in. Of course, he had AA and busted me.
Now, I hear bad beat stories like this in the casino all the time. People universally attribute them to bad luck, saying things like: "How could you possibly lay AK down there?" The truth is, more often than not, it's not luck, and laying AK down in that situation should be difficult, but far from impossible. In this case, for example, there were several warning signs that should have allowed me to get away from the hand. By betting the pot after the flop (versus just going all-in), I was asking a question: "Can you beat me?" He gave me the answer, I just stupidly decided to ignore it. The tournament had been going on only a few minutes, so I had no read on the player I was in the hand with. In the absence of that, however, there are some "more often than not" rules which apply.
For example, there's the 129th Rule of Aquisition: MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE EARLIER THE RAISE, THE BIGGER THE HAND. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you have to give an opponent credit for understanding position. I was under-the-gun, he was right next to me, in terrible position himself. I had to put him on a pretty strong hand.
Here's another one; the 138th Rule of Aquisition: MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, SMALL RAISES MEAN A BIG HAND. He made a minimum re-raise back at me before the flop. The re-raise itself indicated strength, the range of hands I could put him on was pretty small; AA, KK, QQ, AK, maybe JJ or AQ with a weaker player. The fact that it was a MINIMUM re-raise should have narrowed that range of hands even further, At least eliminating AQ, and probably JJ as well.
After the flop, he raised me AGAIN! That flop either helped him, or he had no fear of it. Since he couldn't have an overpair to the flop, the only choice left was that it hit him. If that flop hit him, the only way I wasn't screwed was if he had AQ, where I'd beat him, or AK, where we'd split. Any other way the flop could have hit him left me WAY behind; in most cases, drawing dead. The fact that he made a SECOND minimum raise should have instantly made me think that he WANTED a call. Yes, he could have been a weak player misplaying an underpair or a weaker Ace, but, in the absence of information to the contrary, the smart way to look at your opponents is always to give them more credit than they deserve, not less.
Yes, he actually did misplay the hand. Raising on that flop was dumb, he should have laid in the weeds with it, flat calling me all the way down. Fortunately for him (and unfortunately for me), he was dumb, but I was dumber, and that's why I found myself drawing dead with a top 5 opening hand on the first hand I played in the tournament.
And there lies the most important lesson. The tournament had just started. I had a ton of chips in front of me, the blinds were low and I had lots of time to play good poker. Early in a tournament, the most important thing to do is SURVIVE! I'd avoided the mistake of overplaying my AK before the flop, but after the flop, AA, JJ, or ANY Jack had me beat. The SMART move was to cut my losses when he raised my postflop bet and fold; to SURVIVE.
I dated Anna Kournikova before the flop, but I married her after, and she broke my heart.
That's the difference between a GREAT poker player and an average one; the ability to make the BIG laydown. As Phil Helmuth said recently: "I can dodge bullets, baby".
Too bad I can't.
(yet)
Every time I hear it, I laugh along with everyone else, but I don't agree. AK (and JJ) are probably the most complained about hands in poker, but, I believe the problem isn't the cards, it's the way people play them. You wait and wait to get AK, folding and folding lesser hands. When you finally get it, you're SUPPOSED to win, for Christ's sake! And therein lies the problem.
With AK (or any other two unsuited cards), the odds are 2.08:1 AGAINST your pairing up on the flop. Think about that for a minute. That means 2 times out of 3, you aren't going to catch anything on the flop with your "monster" AK. That sucks. Here's something else that sucks. Your AKs is the best unpaired hand in poker. It's the 4th-best (or 5th, depending on who you believe) hand overall. 72 offsuit is the worst opening hand in poker. Of the 169 possible starting hands, it is dead last, number 169. In a heads-up, all-in confrontation, however, AKs is only a 1.5:1 favorite over 72 offsuit. That means 72 offsuit will beat AKs 2 times out of 5!
So, the flop has missed your AKs, and the player on your right bets into you; what to do now? The answer is simple; fold, or raise. Many players will call here because, if the flop misses them, they have 2 overcards; if they catch one, they'll have top pair.
There are a few problems with that, though. First, with two overcards, you have 6 outs; three Aces and 3 Kings left in the deck. The odds of your catching an Ace or a King on the turn are 7:1 against; you're going to catch that overcard 1 time in 8. Not very good odds. You'll sometimes be getting pot odds of 7:1 in a limit game, but very seldom in a no limit game.
But wait, there's another problem. You can catch one of your overcards and still lose the hand. In a number of incidences where you draw to that overcard, you're going to find you're drawing against 2 pair or a set. In other incidences, you'll be up against straight and/or flush draws where your overcard will make their hand as well, and yet more incidences where you'll hit your card on one of the two remaining cards, but they'll hit their draw on the other. Because of this, even when you are getting the correct pot odds of 7:1, the EV (Expected Value; your earnings in occurrences of this situation, over time, after you factor in the losses when you've made your hand, but still lose) just isn't there.
"Hold on there, Cowboy", some will say, "I saw on the World Poker Tour where hitting an Ace or a King after the flop was 26%. 26% is 3:1, not 7:1.
Right! You've just hit on one of the most expensive misconceptions in poker. From the flop, the odds are 7:1 against your catching a card on the turn, but they're only 3:1 against your catching one (or more) on the turn OR on the river. Here's the problem with that. Let's say you're in a hand with AK, and the flop misses you. There's 100.00 in the pot, and the player in front of you bets 40.00. The pot is now laying you 140.00 to your 40.00 call (3.5:1). Now, you know the odds of pairing one of your cards on the turn or on the river are 3:1 against, and the pot is laying you slightly better than 3:1, so you make the call.
Here's the catch. The turn misses you, and the player in front of you bets 100.00. The pot is now laying you 240.00 (you can't count your 40.00 call on the turn as part of the prize when you gave yourself odds over two cards from the flop, another common error) to your 100.00 call. that's 2.4:1, and your odds of catching your Ace or King on the river are 7:1 against. Clearly, you don't have odds to call here, but, the truth is, you didn't have odds to call on the turn, either. Giving yourself odds over two cards when you may be facing further bets on the river is a sucker play; with YOU being the sucker.
From the flop, the ONLY way you can use the odds over two cards is if you can be ABSOLUTELY sure there will be no additional betting on the next round. The ONLY way you can be that sure of that is if either you or the other player will be all-in on the flop. If there's no all-in, you MUST use the odds over 1 card, not 2.
Ok, so you're probably not getting odds to call, and, even when you are, you may not be drawing to a winner, so the best move is to fold, right? Possibly. As I said earlier, you should either fold, or raise; never call.
"Raise?"
Listen, sizzlechest, we're playing poker here, not "To Tell The Truth". If you only bet or raise when you have the nuts, you're not going to lose too many hands, but you're not going to win many, either. The math is an absolutely fundamental, inescapable element of this game, but, when you cut to the chase, you're playing a game of chicken with the other players at the table. Unless you call every single bet or raise to you, you can be absolutely sure you're REGULARLY folding the best hand. If you don't do the same to your opponents every now and then, you'll never make any money at this game.
In this case, by raising, you've at least got a "Plan B"; maybe you'll catch an Ace or a King, and maybe that'll beat what they're holding. Raising, though, is something you should do only in very special circumstances, when you either think the bettor may be bluffing himself (or herself) or may be able to be scared off the hand. Otherwise, you should fold. The 178th Rule of Aquisition clearly states "IT'S NEVER TOO LATE TO CUT YOUR LOSSES".
Sometimes, though, you can hit with your AK on the flop and still be clobbered. Here's an example of how I misplayed the hell out of AK.
I'm playing in a 50.00, 180 player SNG on Pokerstars. It's early in the tournament and I have yet to play a hand. I'm under-the-gun and am dealt:
Ad Kd
Great hand, crummy position, but this is one of the four hands I recommend even the most conservative players play from early position. I don't get cute; I make my standard raise of 3x the big blind.
The player immediately to the right of me makes a minimum raise back at me. It folds around to me. Now, one of the reasons players hate AK so much, in my opinion, is that they overplay the hand preflop; re-raising in this situation, possibly going all-in. If it doesn't pair up or make a flush or straight, however, a pair of deuces beats AK. I'm not short-stacked, and neither is my opponent, so I just call the raise and take a flop, which comes:
Ah Js Jc
Now, my opponent re-raised me from early position, so I have to put him on a legitimate hand, but, I've got top pair/top kicker and, unless he re-raised me with AJ (something I don't think is very likely), JJ (possible, but not likely), or AA (very possible), I'm ahead in this hand. The only way to find out is to bet at him. If I check, KK (a likely hand for him to have), QQ (another likely hand) , or AQ (less likely) will probably bet and put me to a difficult decision. I always prefer to take the initiative in a hand, so I bet the pot. He immediately raises me, but again, only the minimum.
I stop and think for a minute. If he had JJ and I was betting into him, why would he raise me? I'd think he'd want to walk the dog on me and see if I'd bet into him on the turn. Same thing if he had AA. If he held that, he'd flopped a full house; and the best full house at that! The only hand that could beat him here would be JJ, why not slow-play it a bit and hope I'd either keep betting into him or catch up a bit? I decided he was either playing KK or QQ very aggressively, or he and I both had AK. I re-raised him, going all-in. Of course, he had AA and busted me.
Now, I hear bad beat stories like this in the casino all the time. People universally attribute them to bad luck, saying things like: "How could you possibly lay AK down there?" The truth is, more often than not, it's not luck, and laying AK down in that situation should be difficult, but far from impossible. In this case, for example, there were several warning signs that should have allowed me to get away from the hand. By betting the pot after the flop (versus just going all-in), I was asking a question: "Can you beat me?" He gave me the answer, I just stupidly decided to ignore it. The tournament had been going on only a few minutes, so I had no read on the player I was in the hand with. In the absence of that, however, there are some "more often than not" rules which apply.
For example, there's the 129th Rule of Aquisition: MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE EARLIER THE RAISE, THE BIGGER THE HAND. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, you have to give an opponent credit for understanding position. I was under-the-gun, he was right next to me, in terrible position himself. I had to put him on a pretty strong hand.
Here's another one; the 138th Rule of Aquisition: MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, SMALL RAISES MEAN A BIG HAND. He made a minimum re-raise back at me before the flop. The re-raise itself indicated strength, the range of hands I could put him on was pretty small; AA, KK, QQ, AK, maybe JJ or AQ with a weaker player. The fact that it was a MINIMUM re-raise should have narrowed that range of hands even further, At least eliminating AQ, and probably JJ as well.
After the flop, he raised me AGAIN! That flop either helped him, or he had no fear of it. Since he couldn't have an overpair to the flop, the only choice left was that it hit him. If that flop hit him, the only way I wasn't screwed was if he had AQ, where I'd beat him, or AK, where we'd split. Any other way the flop could have hit him left me WAY behind; in most cases, drawing dead. The fact that he made a SECOND minimum raise should have instantly made me think that he WANTED a call. Yes, he could have been a weak player misplaying an underpair or a weaker Ace, but, in the absence of information to the contrary, the smart way to look at your opponents is always to give them more credit than they deserve, not less.
Yes, he actually did misplay the hand. Raising on that flop was dumb, he should have laid in the weeds with it, flat calling me all the way down. Fortunately for him (and unfortunately for me), he was dumb, but I was dumber, and that's why I found myself drawing dead with a top 5 opening hand on the first hand I played in the tournament.
And there lies the most important lesson. The tournament had just started. I had a ton of chips in front of me, the blinds were low and I had lots of time to play good poker. Early in a tournament, the most important thing to do is SURVIVE! I'd avoided the mistake of overplaying my AK before the flop, but after the flop, AA, JJ, or ANY Jack had me beat. The SMART move was to cut my losses when he raised my postflop bet and fold; to SURVIVE.
I dated Anna Kournikova before the flop, but I married her after, and she broke my heart.
That's the difference between a GREAT poker player and an average one; the ability to make the BIG laydown. As Phil Helmuth said recently: "I can dodge bullets, baby".
Too bad I can't.
(yet)
posted by Sean at 4:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home