1c/2c AK 4-bet, nut flush draw flop push - line check

[Ghaleon]

to call a 1/2 stack re-raise I'll expect to see QQ, and with a nut flush and 2 overs, I don't mind getting it all-in, especially at 1c/2c where people have called similar 3-bets with AJ, AQ, AK and even KQs.

So you put him on exactly QQ when he called your half stack re-raise?  If that is the case, why make the raise?  You didn't know you were going to flop the nut flush draw, and QQ has you beat here.

Well, if you're against QQ, you have to play and might as well get it in once you have already put in quite a few chips.  You have the overlay, and you obviously still do on the flop with the FD and two overs.  You'd be insane to fold.  If you reraise AI pf, then at least you'll see all five cards w/o being blown off your hand...if you know it's a race, you would be making an error to not get it in pf.
On the flop, you must push.  If you draw a fold from a small pair, that's great.  You WILL HAVE TO CALL if he shoves, given your price, and you may lose the chance to win what he has left if you improve, as four clubs (or potentially an ace or king) could very well kill your action (yet if you don't hit the turn, you'll still be priced in to call the river vs. only one pair).  Again, variance shouldn't matter, since you should be bankrolled to only worry if it's +EV or not.

Again, forget the fact that we flopped the nut flush draw and have two overcards.  We hit that flop, great, but when we originally made the $2 raise, it was more likely that we would MISS the flop.

By raising the $2 we put ourselves in a position where we have to get our chips in on the flop regardless of what the cards are.  And if our opponent does hold a pair (very likely), and we didn't hit the flop (also very likely), we are WAY behind.  Unfortunately, our pre-flop raise committed us to the pot.3

You don't "have to play" against QQ.  Yes you should see a flop with AK, but you should also be able to get away from it.

Let's say you you did put your opponent on QQ, and the flop is QT7.  Are you folding?  No, you can't at this point.  With $5 in the pot and $2.50 behind, you pretty much have to pay off anything your opponent has.

If we had just called the $.50 raise, we would be holding a strong hand, in a controlled pot, in position, with chips to work with.  That way, if we did get a flop like QT7 we could lay down our AK if we feel we should.

[luckystraights]

I didn't necessarily put him on QQ pre-flop, you can get 3-bet with AJ here, but against an average opponent at 1c/2c the hand that is mostly likely to call here is JJ or QQ.

The original idea I had for the thread seems to have been totally lost, however, from the responses it looks like the answer is clear anyway. What I was really looking for here, was if I'm representing aces how often am I getting QQ, or KK to fold to a large pre-flop raise.

As I've said, this is a line I seldom take with AK, but it is a line I'll take with AA, KK, if I can occassionally get QQ to fold to my large 4-bet with AK, I win, if I get called I'm not in terrible shape. If I 4-bet with AK, next time JJ may stack off against my AK.

The whole thread changed to a different debate though, though that has lessons for me to, so I didn't mind. I guess the lesson here is that if called, I have zero fold equity.

FYI, I've 4-bet AK maybe 4 times in 22k hands

[Ghaleon]

I didn't necessarily put him on QQ pre-flop, you can get 3-bet with AJ here, but against an average opponent at 1c/2c the hand that is mostly likely to call here is JJ or QQ.  You do realize that JJ and QQ are favorites against AK?  You're both committed to the pot, so you will see all five cards.  So basically you've committed your entire stack to a play that is garaunteed to be -EV over time.

The original idea I had for the thread seems to have been totally lost, however, from the responses it looks like the answer is clear anyway. What I was really looking for here, was if I'm representing aces how often am I getting QQ, or KK to fold to a large pre-flop raise. The answer is either never, or almost never.  KK is never folding, and even if the guy does hold QQ he'll probably still call.  I mean, we're all sitting here saying "It's 1c/2c, the other guy could have anything!".  Our opponent could say the exact same thing about us.

As I've said, this is a line I seldom take with AK, but it is a line I'll take with AA, KK, Those hands are MUCH stronger than AK. if I can occassionally get QQ to fold to my large 4-bet with AK, I win, if I get called I'm not in terrible shape.  QQ will very seldom fold.  He would have to have a killer read on you to fold QQ here.  And if you do get called, you're not far behind, but you are behind, and that small edge that your opponent has will add up to a loss over time. If I 4-bet with AK, next time JJ may stack off against my AK. How is that any better than QQ stacking off?  You're still behind, and you're going to lose a small percentage of your money over time.

The whole thread changed to a different debate though, though that has lessons for me to, so I didn't mind. I guess the lesson here is that if called, I have zero fold equity.  You HAD fold equity, but you threw it out the window when you committed your entire stack with just an ace high hand.

FYI, I've 4-bet AK maybe 4 times in 22k hands  That's 4 too many.

[luckystraights]

I didn't necessarily put him on QQ pre-flop, you can get 3-bet with AJ here, but against an average opponent at 1c/2c the hand that is mostly likely to call here is JJ or QQ.  You do realize that JJ and QQ are favorites against AK?  You're both committed to the pot, so you will see all five cards.  So basically you've committed your entire stack to a play that is garaunteed to be -EV over time.

bull sh%t, I ain't playing hot and cold.

[luckystraights]

How is that any better than QQ stacking off?  You're still behind, and you're going to lose a small percentage of your money over time.[/b][/color]

Naturally, a typo, I mean AA not AK.

[Ghaleon]

I didn't necessarily put him on QQ pre-flop, you can get 3-bet with AJ here, but against an average opponent at 1c/2c the hand that is mostly likely to call here is JJ or QQ.  You do realize that JJ and QQ are favorites against AK?  You're both committed to the pot, so you will see all five cards.  So basically you've committed your entire stack to a play that is garaunteed to be -EV over time.

bull sh%t, I ain't playing hot and cold.

What are you talking about? 

This is the odds calculator I used http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Poker-Odds-Calculator.php

AK Suited vs QQ

AK wins 46.02% of the time
QQ wins 53.52 % of the time
0.39% of the time, the hands tie.

The only hands that call your 4-bet are hands that beat you.  At this point, you have to believe that he has a real hand.  In order to make this a profitable play, your opponent has to fold often enough to make up for the money you lose when you clash with a pair. 

I don't care how low the stakes are, I simply don't believe that our opponent isn't calling this bet without a real hand.  That means that the the value you gain from getting called by AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ is just too small to factor into our consideration.

So you're either getting called (and pot committed) by a hand that beats you

or

Your opponent folds, AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ, and some smaller pairs.  So you lose your opporunity to extract more value from your stronger hand.  (And yes, I know I just contradicted myself.  Small pairs have AK beat too, but they are out of position and are likely to fold to a bet after the flop unless they hit a set.)

[luckystraights]

FYI, I've 4-bet AK maybe 4 times in 22k hands  That's 4 too many.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Why? some people 3-bet light, some people fold TT, JJ, QQ to a 4-bet, lots of people 3-bet AK? How can you correctly judge the performance of a 4 bet with AK, based on the frequency you win the pot when your called, clearly your missing a huge part of the equation, all the times you pick up the pot when your opponent folds pre-flop.

If your saying its wrong to 4-bet with AK, you presumably only expect to see JJ+ in a 4-bet pot, and far more likely is QQ, KK, AA, if that is the case, how likely is it your calling with the range of hands your 3-betting with... depends on your 3-bet range obviously, but also obvious is that if your 3-bet range is very tight, I'll pick another person to 4-bet with AK, and you'll win less with your big pairs, as I'll fold to your 3-bet the vast majority of the time.

I may not have explained my case very well, regardless I think deep stack NL is a more complex game then you give credit for. Even Sklansky has said that the perfect game in a game theory sense is unlikely to be the best game, though one close to it is likely optimal. If 4-betting AK isn't perfect game theory wise, I think its close enough for me to do it at sporadic intervals for it to be optimal, or at least profitable.

[Ghaleon]

This thread is contradicing itself.  First the raise was a "value bet", but now you're talking about how the profit gained from when your opponent folds has to factor into the equation.

You want weaker hands to call you so you can extract maximum value from your better hand on subsequent betting rounds.  If you're making a bet that is only going to be called by a BETTER hand, then you're losing that value.

If you wanted your opponent to fold, then why not just go all-in?

Why wouldn't your 4 bet be to something like $1.00 or $1.25.  That allows you to be called by AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, etc.  Then you have enough chips to make good value bets when an A or K flops.  You'll also have enough chips to push someone off of something like pocket 8's on a JT4 flop.  And finally, you'll have some fold equity if you get re-raised and really believe that you're beat.

The $2 bet is simply too much.  When you get called, you will most likely lose, and lose big.  And when your opponent folds, you will win, but you will win much much less than you could have.

[luckystraights]

This thread is contradicing itself.  First the raise was a "value bet", but now you're talking about how the profit gained from when your opponent folds has to factor into the equation.

You want weaker hands to call you so you can extract maximum value from your better hand on subsequent betting rounds.  If you're making a bet that is only going to be called by a BETTER hand, then you're losing that value.

If you wanted your opponent to fold, then why not just go all-in?

Why wouldn't your 4 bet be to something like $1.00 or $1.25.  That allows you to be called by AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, etc.  Then you have enough chips to make good value bets when an A or K flops.  You'll also have enough chips to push someone off of something like pocket 8's on a JT4 flop.  And finally, you'll have some fold equity if you get re-raised and really believe that you're beat.

The $2 bet is simply too much.  When you get called, you will most likely lose, and lose big.  And when your opponent folds, you will win, but you will win much much less than you could have.

Point of fact, I never said such a 4-bet was for value never, though it is commonly accepted that any raise at this level should be for value. I simply ain't that good, ABC ain't me, I get above my station and get creative, right or wrongly, in the posted case my 4-bet was not for value.

My 4-bet was an attempt to take the pot by representing aces, it was also a deceptive, balancing line. Though as I said, I did it at the wrong opponent, an unknown where any benefit of raising for any reason other then pure value is likely lost.

As for your point my 4-bet was too large, I can't fault your argument here. My bets are generally on the large side of my possible bet sizing range. In fact, by the same stroke, by raising large with aces I'm likely loosing value by forcing dominated hands out.

[NotFadeAway]

AK is easily ahead of the range of the caller (I know this has been said, but still), even though you will get stacked at times.  Also, I don't honestly like your chances of forcing eights to fold on JT4 flop at a $5 table.  Players there will often not be able to fold a pocket pair no matter what.  Besides, if this is one of the times that AK loses, just rebuy and keep playing.  Losing races really shouldn't be that big of a deal at a cash table.  This isn't one of those 60/50 games after all; you can easily rebuy when you get stacked.

[Ghaleon]

First of all, NFA, losing races is a big deal when it's extremely likely that you're only going to win 46% of them.

And if you do run into a calling station who will call you down with 88 on a JT4 flop, then so be it.  How is that any worse than committing yourself pre-flop with AK against 88.  It's actually better since you have the opporutnity to slow down.  You're opponent may check his 8's on the turn and/or river and save you some chips. 

I don't think you're giving enough credit to our opponent.  Not every player at 1c/2c is a brain-dead, moaning, drooling retard who is giddy over getting dealt any ace.

And Lucky - by your own admission, the 4-bet was a move to pick up the pot without a flop.  Fine.  I still don't think it's a profitable play.  The vast majority of the times you get called, it will be a race.  54% of which, you will lose.  The times you don't get called, you pick up a small pot, and don't get maximum value from your dominating hand.  Is that enough to make up for the extra 4% of the races that you will lose?  Maybe, but I dont' think so.  And even if it was close, you have to factor in some of the time you will run into AA or KK.  You're gonna lose a lot more than 54% of those races.

[pathand]

I'm the furthest thing from a moderator, but I think you should throttle back from the "retard" references. Just a friendly suggestion.               

[FSL009]

Nothing like a heated post huh. 

I am over it.  Moving to a new forum....

Only kidding, where else am I going to get so many responses to my poorly played over lucked out hands...lol.

[Gobbs]

This is my first post on this thread.  I have nothing to add to it.  I just wanted it noted that the thread lasted for over three pages without any input from me at all.

Gobbs

[Detroitdad]

This is my first post on this thread.  I have nothing to add to it.  I just wanted it noted that the thread lasted for over three pages without any input from me at all.

Gobbs

Whats new 

[Gobbs]

This is my first post on this thread.  I have nothing to add to it.  I just wanted it noted that the thread lasted for over three pages without any input from me at all.

Gobbs

Whats new 

Just making a note that there is a strategy discussion that is being perpetuated to the point of somebody being a bit defensive and I have nothing to do with it.

Gobbs

[TwoToGo-Grave]

This is my first post on this thread.  I have nothing to add to it.  I just wanted it noted that the thread lasted for over three pages without any input from me at all.

Gobbs

Whats new 

Just making a note that there is a strategy discussion that is being perpetuated to the point of somebody being a bit defensive and I have nothing to do with it.

Gobbs

It's because Gobbs is very shy and timid about his opinions.

[FSL009]

Just making a note that there is a strategy discussion that is being perpetuated to the point of somebody being a bit defensive and I have nothing to do with it.

Gobbs

Love it.....lol.

[Gobbs]

This is my first post on this thread.  I have nothing to add to it.  I just wanted it noted that the thread lasted for over three pages without any input from me at all.

Gobbs

Whats new 

Just making a note that there is a strategy discussion that is being perpetuated to the point of somebody being a bit defensive and I have nothing to do with it.

Gobbs

It's because Gobbs is very shy and timid about his opinions.

True, but sometimes I do over-compensate for my shyness.

Gobbs