ACKACK

[peterbirks]

A disappointing 19th out of 48 in last night Stan James tournament. Although I went out with KK vs AQ, the damage was done earlier. And once again my nemesis was AKs.

I've come to the conclusion that I have no idea how to play this hand, particularly in late position.

Scenario is thus. I have 4,600 (avge stack about the same) and the blinds are 75/150, about 25 of the original 48 players left.

UTG+1 (with a similar stack to me, perhaps slightly out-chipping me) raises to 300.

Question 1: How much do I bet here? I chose to raise to 800. Original raiser calls, making a pot of 1850.

Flop comes Q 7 2 with none of my suit. UTG+1 checks.

Question 2: Do I bet here? If I do, then how much? I chose to bet 1,050. This is about the standard size of my continuation bet these days -- around 55% to 60% of the pot. Opponent flat calls.

Turn is some rag kind of card (a nine, I think). UTG +1 checks.

Question 3: Do I bet here? If so, how much? There is 3950 in the pot. I have about 2800 left and opponent has just about the same.

I think that I will leave it there for the moment. Because I'd really like to know why I always seem to get into some kind of trouble with AKs. The only time that I don't is when I bash the whole lot in pre-flop, which is hardly a skill recommendation for NLHE.

Comments

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Quickly (I might come back to this later) :

"The only time that I don't is when I bash the whole lot in pre-flop, which is hardly a skill recommendation for NLHE."

Nonetheless this is often the right thing to do with AK. AK wants it all-in pre flop. QQ/JJ doesn't.

In this particular case I might call pre-flop. I know this gives the blinds a cheap look, but you're only going any further if you hit your hand, with more than one opponent. Think about how unlikely it is for someone to be beating you on the flop _when you hit_. Says me, who did all his chips yesterday on Stars with AQ v A9 on a flop of AK9. But honestly that doesn't happen very often :-)

On the turn in the actual case, I would definitely check. There's no draw he could have called you with. He's either in front or (quite unlikely) a million behind with AJ/AT.

Andy.

The all-in

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

When I am in one of the blinds with this kind of hand against that kind of raise, the money goes in without hesitation. Once in a blue moon I'm facing Aces, but it's nearly always the right thing to do.

As I pointed out, my problem arises in late position, because I guess I feel that I ought to be exploiting the advantage of my position, which the act of bashing in all the chips immediately negates.

Of course, if you do bash it in (from late position), and the guy turns over AA, everyone says "ahh, the minimum raise... how could you have not read that for Aces?"

Re: The all-in

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of the call here. Mostly because of the relative stack sizes to blinds, I don't see a neat way of you getting the last meaningful raise in here whereas when you make it 800 if he springs to life and moves in you have given yourself some thinking to do. You may deduce that you are still going to call, and in that particular tourny you may be right, but all of a sudden it seems that you are laying the wrong kind of price that your AK is good. If you just call you can get away cheaply from a 789 suited flop if you don't want to fight and you can get action from a worse ace that doesn't think his AQ can be dominated on an Axx flop because you smooth called.

This probably means that you get rogered by the big blind who hits bottom 2, but there you have it. And perhaps that's why I haven't won a MTT for a while... :(

Re: The all-in

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I think that the call could well be right here, much though I hate the option of giving the BB the chance to utterly fuck me (or the raiser).

Curiously (and whisper it quietly), one of my plays early on (say, levels 1 and 2) in some tournaments is to do just this - flat-call a moderate raise when I am on the button and then either bet a checked-round flop (a frequent occurrence) or raise the continuation bet. And I do this with any old crap. Perhaps it might be an idea to try the tactic with a genuine hand!.

In this case it has the added advantage of letting me know where I am much more accurately, and for about the same amount of money.

Say I flat call, BB can't resist the extra 150 to see a flop. Flop comes as it is and BB checks. UTG might even check here if he misses (because he has two opponents rather than one), in which case I might try a steal for 800. But let's suppose he plays properly and continues. I can walk away happily or I can raise him with a probe bet.

As the hand went, I felt in my bones that the guy had AQ off, but we all know that pinpointing reads like this is a mug's game. Whatever range I want to put him on, I can't bet again on the turn. So I didn't.

I missed the river. He bet 1500 or thereabouts, and I folded.


It was a remarkably irritating tournament because I hit some whopping cards in the first hour and, despite my valiant attempts, I couldn't generate any action. a raise to 125 (blinds 25-50) with Aces got no callers. Then the same happened with Kings. Then, at the next level (I raised to 270) it happened again with Aces. The final kick in the balls was when I limped in the small blind against three callers and the big blind. I had A-7 and the flop came A77. Checked round on the flop, checked round on the turn. I bet 100 into the pot (size, 250, I think) on the river, and no-one calls.

What are the odds, eh?

And, relax.....

Re: The all-in

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Sorry, flop came A-A-7, not A-7-7.

[787style.livejournal.com]

I like calling here almost as equally as I like reraising. The perk of calling is when you have a frisky BB/SB who feel the need to try to pull a squeeze play because they just read Harrington's book last week.

As far as playing the hand, I fire another bullet. Checking behind is disasterous I think, and forces you to fold the river unimproved when he (correctly) leads out.

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

"The perk of calling is when you have a frisky BB/SB who feel the need to try to pull a squeeze play because they just read Harrington's book last week."

This is a monster perk of flat calling with QQ or KK. I like it better with those hands because you mind having two opponents much less than you do with AK.

I think this would work even better live in the current "must be aggressive" climate.

Andy.

[787style.livejournal.com]

"I like it better with those hands because you mind having two opponents much less than you do with AK."

True, however people are quite willing to gift you their stack with AQ/AJ/AT/KQ when you cold call behind with AK in LP. The problem is how badly you need to see all five cards.