AK and other NL questions
I have a few no limit holdem tourney questions, so I thought I'd put them in one thread. One involves a specific hand that I was involved in.
1. Freezeout, blinds are 10/20, we started with 1000 chips which is about what I have. I'm not sure how much everyone else had, but the tournament hadn't been going for very long and no one was out so I think most people had somewhere around 1000. Anyway, 2nd or 3rd guy after the big blind raises to 120 and two people call. I am in the small blind and find AK. What do you do here? What do you do on the flop? I'll reveal what I did later.
2. The other day I was watching that Poker at the Plaza tournament and there was a somewhat interesting hand. I hope I remember it correctly. Anyway, this guy on the button raised (or maybe just called) with T7 (I think). Daniel Negreanu was in the big blind and called (or maybe just checked) with QJ. The flop came Axx and completely missed both guys. They both checked. The turn card was a Q. Daniel checked and called when the other guy bet. The river was a blank and they both checked and Daniel won. Now, when Daniel checked on the turn, the one commentator said that he wanted the other guy to bet. I think Howard Lederer somewhat disagreed with this. He pointed out that even though Daniel played the hand passively, he basically maximized what he could win if he was ahead, and minimized what he could lose if he was behind (assuming he didn't want to fold). If someone else saw this, please correct me on any details. Anyway, is there something to this? Are there times when you should just play a hand passively, and if so, when are those times?
3. Is it always a bad idea to play A-small offsuit or K-small offsuit? I'm trying to play more hands when the blinds are small so I will often play A-small suited or K-small suited if it is cheap. I know people often say that there is not much difference between a suited hand and an unsuited hand, so should I be playing these unsuited hands more often or the suited ones less often or does the implied odds from the flush make it correct to play these hands suited but not unsuited. The one thing I was thinking about is that if you hit two pair with A-small you can win a big pot from someone with an ace and a higher kicker. Is this just too rare to really consider?
1. Freezeout, blinds are 10/20, we started with 1000 chips which is about what I have. I'm not sure how much everyone else had, but the tournament hadn't been going for very long and no one was out so I think most people had somewhere around 1000. Anyway, 2nd or 3rd guy after the big blind raises to 120 and two people call. I am in the small blind and find AK. What do you do here? What do you do on the flop? I'll reveal what I did later.
2. The other day I was watching that Poker at the Plaza tournament and there was a somewhat interesting hand. I hope I remember it correctly. Anyway, this guy on the button raised (or maybe just called) with T7 (I think). Daniel Negreanu was in the big blind and called (or maybe just checked) with QJ. The flop came Axx and completely missed both guys. They both checked. The turn card was a Q. Daniel checked and called when the other guy bet. The river was a blank and they both checked and Daniel won. Now, when Daniel checked on the turn, the one commentator said that he wanted the other guy to bet. I think Howard Lederer somewhat disagreed with this. He pointed out that even though Daniel played the hand passively, he basically maximized what he could win if he was ahead, and minimized what he could lose if he was behind (assuming he didn't want to fold). If someone else saw this, please correct me on any details. Anyway, is there something to this? Are there times when you should just play a hand passively, and if so, when are those times?
3. Is it always a bad idea to play A-small offsuit or K-small offsuit? I'm trying to play more hands when the blinds are small so I will often play A-small suited or K-small suited if it is cheap. I know people often say that there is not much difference between a suited hand and an unsuited hand, so should I be playing these unsuited hands more often or the suited ones less often or does the implied odds from the flush make it correct to play these hands suited but not unsuited. The one thing I was thinking about is that if you hit two pair with A-small you can win a big pot from someone with an ace and a higher kicker. Is this just too rare to really consider?
Comments
I will take a stab at this one. Of course, I will use a recent example hand that I was involved in. Im on the button with Q9 one limper in front of me and the BB calls. 3 players all with relatively equal stacks. Flop 9 9 5. Everyone checks the flop. Turn is a J, BB bets out 50 (min) limper raises to 150 and I just call. I'm thinking I'll take what I can get if I win this pot, not confident in my kicker. BB calls the extra 100. Now the river is a 10. BB checks and limper bets out 200, I call as does the BB. Limper has J10, BB has K9. I could have lost my whole stack there but noticed that there was some significant strength showings after the turn card was shown. In Daniel's situation QJ is not a strong hand, especially when he does not have top pair. I am also assuming he has some respect for his opponent. Hands like QJ, T7, Q9, KJ, KQ, etc are hands that I wouldnt expect to be that aggressive with, they are suspect hands for me. If I can win ALOT with them I'm lucky. If I can win at all with them I am satisified. Earlier today I limped with KQ, flop came down AKQ, three other players who all limped. I face a raise after the flop of 40% of my stack, I fold. Why bother risking it all with such a suspect hand. Raiser has AK. Not sure if I answered you Q but those are my thoughts Pete.
stp
I agree with shannon's examples here, but I want to add one thing -
the affects of checking down the winning hand when your opponent bets;
1- tells the other players your a calling station, or that player in particular that you think he is full of bs
2- gives strengths to your 'perceived hands' when you bet, or when you raise its more then top pair
3- this will buy you alot of free cards when you check and the other guy has mid or third button
part of it is fear of having the best card, but when Im looking to also set this up for later, so I dont mind winning a checked down hand with top pair
- I don't know, does he have a pair, is he stealing the blinds? ( What was the outcome? )
I probably make it 500 to go and fold to an all-in move from the original raiser. A-K craves fold equity.
If he calls and there is no ace or king on the flop then I check. My gambit has failed and I want to survive the hand with minimum damage. If there is an ace or a king on the flop I jam.
Calling and folding are both OK. Calling presents the danger of hitting an ace or king on the flop and getting creamed by A-A or K-K which probably would have re-raised you before the flop when you made it 500. Also, calling and then betting out will not make you many chips against a hand like J-J when an ace or king hits because the J-J will escape for the minimum of 120. Folding isn’t the end of the world either since you, in essence, have a drawing hand out of position.
There are lots of time where playing a hand passively is desirable, or at least no a bad option. In particular, if you find yourself in a situation in which someone is a long way ahead but it’s not clear who then passive play isn’t the end of the world. So, on a board of A-Q-x-x where there is not flush draw then Daniel’s Q-J is looking pretty strong. But, If he is behind then he is WAY behind. By checking he is hoping that one of two things will happen: (1) He will induce a bluff from a losing hand, or (2) A super strong hand will make a small bet that he hopes will get called. In other words, an induced bluff looks the same as a "I hope I get called" bet. So… he wins a few chips when he has the best hand or he takes a minimum loss when he is beat.
I am slowly adding a lot more passivity to my play. In particular, I am trying to add a few more wrinkles to my game and passive play allows from some options that otherwise are not available.
What are you hoping to flop? Two pair against an ace with a bigger kicker looks like your best hope. But, if you are against such a hand then the big ace probably raises you off your hand pre-flop. So, you are risking a series of limp-folds that will eat away at your chips. Only try it if you are in late position.
The other problem is that your two pair on the flop isn’t all that strong. Suppose you have A-4 against A-K on a flop of A-7-4. You have a 73% chance of winning. With the same flop A-K and A-Q the A-K is 87%. The two pair redraws available to the A-K are stronger than the three out draw available to the A-Q.
The big advantage to playing A-x suited is that it will present the occasional awesome draw/semi-bluffing opportunity. It will give you a lot more option on the flop.
Interestingly, I played it exactly as you would have. I made it 500 and was called by the original raiser. The two callers folded. The flop came Qxx. I checked. He bet a measly 250, and I folded. He turned over JJ.
This was a tricky situation that I was not very comfortable with. I was almost disappointed to find AK in this spot. Calling didn't feel like a great option. AK isn't the type of hand I feel very comfortable seeing a flop with when there are 3 other players in the hand. Even if I hit my Ace or my King, I'll feel like I have to be careful. On the other hand, if I raise in this spot, I really do not want to be called. I'm out of position and basically dead unless I hit an Ace or a King. This makes me wonder, if I'm going to raise, maybe I should just go ahead and move all-in. I guess there is a good chance that the only hands that will call will have me beat, but there is already a lot of chips in the pot, and I think I would happily take it down right there. It seems like too good of a hand to fold, but based on my lack of comfort with the situation, it may have been the best option.
Would anyone have moved in on the flop? Would this have been a bad play? Given what he had, I think there is some chance he would have folded. Or, do I have to assume that since he called so much before the flop, he will probably call on the flop?
One follow-up question: when would it be mandatory not to play a hand passively?
Well, there aren't too many "mandatory" plays in poker. But if you have the nuts (or the nuts all ways in a split pot game) with all the cards out, and would be closing the betting with a passive action, a non-passive action would almost be mandatory.
I like Daniel's passive play as in Example 2. This kind of play is not only effective within the small universe of this single hand, but this kind of play should sometimes be a part of your overall tournament play.
Every once in a while in a tournament (and possibly to a lesser extent in a cash game), you've got to send a message that you are occassionally willing to check or call with a hand that is on the borderline or warranting a bet or raise.
This is primarily to send the message that a check or call from you does not indicate weakness.
Obviously it's also common practice to passively play monster hands (partially) in an attempt to establish this same message.
Mixing the two techniques, as well as getting carried away with neither, is vital. If you are always slowplaying monsters and jamming marginal hands, you're giving away too much information. Play passively sometimes and aggressively sometimes with both kinds of hands.
ScottyZ