Which hand do you prefer?

RoundTower

You are playing hold'em. You raise it up before the flop and get one or more callers. Which do you prefer:

- You have AA and there is no A on the flop.
- You have AK and there is an A or K (not both) on the flop.

If you say "it depends", explain what it depends on.

StraddleFor6

Think it depends whether the board is uncoordinated or not, but in general AK. I find it a lot easier to get away from than AA.

ArmaniJeanss

I marginally prefer the first. I'd consider it a 'safer flop'. I play $15STTs on Tribeca and a flop of say QT9r will get paid off by KQ, KT etc on a regular basis. They gleefully raise you all in thinking they are murdering your middle pair. OK sometimes they'll have a set/2 pair, but not often enough to hurt.

Nothing hugely wrong with the 2nd either, it hard to predict just how low people will go with their kickers etc, but generally at $15STT level, AK on a Axx board will get paid off by people who think they have 1 of only 2 Aces in the deck. Sometimes you'll be stunned to be beaten by A2o but hey, just start another game.

ocallagh

I prefer the second. More chance of getting paid.

fuzzbox

ocallagh wrote:

I prefer the second. More chance of getting paid.

How do you work that out?

fuzzbox

AA of course.

ocallagh

fuzzbox wrote:

How do you work that out?

Obviously pre-flop I prefer AA.

In most of the games I play (MTTs etc) most players cannot drop their Ace rag hands. They also cannot drop TP on the flop. This combination is great for AK with an ace on the flop.

With AA you rely on the other punter having KK/QQ/JJ/TP which is not as likely IMO.

Hectorjelly

AA is better because its hidden and people pay off overpairs, AK is better on a A/K hi board because AA has 2 less outs going against it. Still AA is far better

Hectorjelly

ocallagh wrote:

With AA you rely on the other punter having KK/QQ/JJ/TP which is not as likely IMO.

Actually the exact opposite is true, with AA someone else is more likely to have top pair. The chance of someone having an overpair to the board (that you beat) is also greater.

shoutman

Hectorjelly wrote:

Actually the exact opposite is true, with AA someone else is more likely to have top pair. The chance of someone having an overpair to the board (that you beat) is also greater.

Agreed,

I would go for aa every time.

RoundTower

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

I marginally prefer the first. I'd consider it a 'safer flop'. I play $15STTs on Tribeca and a flop of say QT9r will get paid off by KQ, KT etc on a regular basis.

Is this really a "safer flop" for AA? Assume you are not playing against morons.

And let's say you have this specific board. OK AA isn't a bad hand to have here, but wouldn't you be better off holding AQ, if you're up against the hand range you mentioned?

ocallagh

Hectorjelly wrote:

Actually the exact opposite is true, with AA someone else is more likely to have top pair. The chance of someone having an overpair to the board (that you beat) is also greater.

Sorry, I wasn't very accurate in my last post. My logic is totally skewed based on the amount of MTTs that I have played. I would certainly agree with you in a 2/4 or 3/6 game.

My main point was:

In a lot of small buy in MTTs it is quite common for Ax to call pre-flop and call off their entire stack when the ace hits. So many terible players get into the MTTs... and there are a lot of Ax combinations out there... It just seems more likely to me.

I actually think it is quite rare that I get paid off by smaller overpairs on the flop, reason being KK/QQ/JJ seem to get it all in pre-flop in a lot of the MTTs I play. If there is a flop, you can normally rule out KK:D

So to summarise, in an MTT on Tribeca I'd definitely prefer the AK on an Ace flop.

I'd love if PT could generate stats on Tribeca MTTs.

Hectorjelly

ocallagh wrote:

I would certainly agree with you in a 2/4 or 3/6 game.

makes no difference what game you are playing, if the flop is Axx and you have AK there are only two more aces out there that someone can use to make top pair, if you have AA on Jxx board there are 3 jacks


another benefit is ifyou raise preflop 88-TT will often be happy to get all in as long as there is no Ace, King or Queen

ocallagh

Hectorjelly wrote:

makes no difference what game you are playing, if the flop is Axx and you have AK there are only two more aces out there that someone can use to make top pair, if you have AA on Jxx board there are 3 jacks

I disagree. I am only talking about cards that are in play, and for that reason the type of game does come into consideration. If people are more likely to play A2 than J2 it makes a difference.

Hectorjelly

Bad players tend to play badly at all games, not just tournaments. I dont think that the tendancy of players in tournaments to overplay Ax is much greater than in cash games, and I dont think its enough to fade the 33% decrease in likelyhood of top pair that having the ace in your hand means.

ocallagh

Hectorjelly wrote:

Bad players tend to play badly at all games, not just tournaments. I dont think that the tendancy of players in tournaments to overplay Ax is much greater than in cash games, and I dont think its enough to fade the 33% decrease in likelyhood of top pair that having the ace in your hand means.

Ok, point taken.. but I'm such a stubborn bollocks i'm gonna have to review my MTT stats to prove it to myself:D

RoundTower

I expect people to play worse in tournaments than in cash games at comparable stakes. Also, in any hold'em game, it is more likely someone is holding top pair on an A high flop than on a J high flop, simply because people play aces a lot more than jacks. This should balance out the decreased chance someone has top pair because you are killing one of the aces.

cardshark202

I choose AA.

Hitman Actual

I prefer AA.

If you raise it up preflop, your opponent is more likely to get away from a second best hand when you hold AK (and hit one of the pairs on the flop).

kincsem

I feel happier with AK.

With AA you have to try to get paid early. Or else you must give free cards and hope you are still ahead.

With AK you will often be sharing the board cards with another player / you are probably ahead / you will get paid.

You are giving us a choice of AA or AA with a K kicker. I think a king kicker is good. KK with an A kicker will also beat most.

pok3rplaya

fuzzbox wrote:

AA of course.

and its not even close.

1) More hidden hand
2) Better implied odds. You raise preflop with AK and flop comes A high there goes your action (assumng half decent opponent)
3) More straight up equity.
4) Post flop gets action off lower overpairs. Consider an opponent with QQ on an A high flop while you have AK. You get little action compared to a T high flop when you have AA
5) Stronger preflop (its the nuts)
6) Gets action off floaters.
7) Opponent is more likely to have top pair under your AA (and your AA is hidden).

I'm sure there's more I can't think of.

AmarilloFats

AA and it ain't close.

Of course we're stacked more with AA than any other hand.... and I reckon that's gonna continue, hopefully.

Bandana boy

AA and i cant believe there is a discussion
range of hands that call you for all there stack beaten(or reallky far behind) is a lot bigger than range of hands that call you beaten on Axx with AK

pok3rplaya

AmarilloFats wrote:

AA and it ain't close.

Of course we're stacked more with AA than any other hand.... and I reckon that's gonna continue.

It's still everyones highest EV hand. As long as everyone isn't totally stupid.

AmarilloFats

Post edited playa.

pok3rplaya

AmarilloFats wrote:

Post edited playa.

Sorry I actually misunderstood your first post. I thought you were saying that we get stacked more often than not when we hold AA. My bad.

jacQues

RoundTower wrote:

You are playing hold'em. You raise it up before the flop and get one or more callers. Which do you prefer:
- You have AA and there is no A on the flop.
- You have AK and there is an A or K (not both) on the flop.
If you say "it depends", explain what it depends on.

It depends.

In a cash game: AA every time.
In a tournament: AK every time.

jacQues

cardshark202

jacQues wrote:

It depends.

In a cash game: AA every time.
In a tournament: AK every time.

jacQues

Care to elaborate on this unique logic?

Mr. Flibble

For me, the deeper stacked we are the less I prefer AA.
The more callers there are the more I'd perfer AK.


Overall I'd prefer AA especially if there is a K or Q as the only high card on the flop.

jacQues

cardshark202 wrote:

Care to elaborate on this unique logic?

Basically, in a cash game your strategy is based on making the most money possible. If you encounter a bad beat, you simply top-up and continue. As this 'happens'. If you play well you should be up overall.

Tournaments have a very different strategy. You need to stay in it and gain chips. A big loss can mean an early exit. For the same reason, a good win at the start can help you halfway through the tournament.

AA has the best odds. Therefore in a cash game you want that hand. If you get a bad beat so what?

AK (especially if suited) is the best hand in a tournament. On the flop you should know what the story is. Therefore, its much safer. Not to meantion easier to get away from.

jacQues

pok3rplaya

jacQues wrote:

Basically, in a cash game your strategy is based on making the most money possible. If you encounter a bad beat, you simply top-up and continue. As this 'happens'. If you play well you should be up overall.

Tournaments have a very different strategy. You need to stay in it and gain chips. A big loss can mean an early exit. For the same reason, a good win at the start can help you halfway through the tournament.

AA has the best odds. Therefore in a cash game you want that hand. If you get a bad beat so what?

AK (especially if suited) is the best hand in a tournament. On the flop you should know what the story is. Therefore, its much safer. Not to meantion easier to get away from.

jacQues

This way of thinking about decisions in poker is horrible. Think long term.

Hitman Actual

jacQues wrote:

AK (especially if suited) is the best hand in a tournament.

jacQues

Man, that's one controversial statement, and makes no sense whatsover.

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

Man, that's one controversial statement, and makes no sense whatsover.

in other words totally wrong!

Tar.Aldarion

AA every time.
I don't see any reason to favour the other one.

jacQues

pok3rplaya wrote:

This way of thinking about decisions in poker is horrible. Think long term.

LOL
You could say that short term / long term exactly catches the essense.

Cash games are short term. Every hand is a new hand. You can start/leave/top-up after each hand. One hand has no consequenses for the next hand (bar your bankroll, but one should never play above ones limit). Every single hand is like a full tournament.

Tournaments are long term. Every hand has a reflection on your next hand. Your chips stack is as important as your hand. Sure, some people like to double up early in a tournament with a higher risk. I rather sit, wait and take less chips with less risk knowing I'm going to make the money and when up against a gambler will be able to outplay him/her. Even when lower stacked.

It depends on how wild the players are, granted. In a pub game I would want AA instead of AK. The tighter the players, the less usefull AA becomes. In general, AK is the better hand for tournaments.

Above is my opinion. Feel free to disagree with the hamster.

jacQues

BigDragon

In the regular tournaments that I play in there are no deep stacks and hour-long levels so there is an inordinate amount of preflop action. Here I want AA everytime. If I get get re-popped (cause I rarely slow play them) bang...Im going put the raiser to the test. When the stacks, and players, get better AK can come into play but needs to be handled carefully.

AA.

Remebering also that AA gets cracked 4/1 against lower pairs so one in five times youre gonna have a story to tell about how AK would have made a str8/flush etc.

Still AA

DeVore

Depends on the stack sizes though mostly I prefer AA.

The stack sizes matter because like Mr Fibble I tend to decrease the value of AA when the stacks are very big. Generally in a tournament (and to a lesser extent cash) AA needs to be played in a manner that usually screams "I HAVE A BIG PAIR". You can get all tricksy with it if you want but if you do, please dont come tell me your bad beat story of how your aces got cracked.

So, you've invested a lot with AA pre and post flop but if you are a decent player (and playing against decent players) you seriously run the risk of being pushed off the pot by a canny player who reads the situation correctly.

In the case given, where we have hit AK after the flop (and I'd like to King please, to avoid running into an A-rag thats also hit his rag.... there arent as many King-rag merchants out there!).

Its an interesting question though, I wouldnt be at all dogmatic about this but I prefer AA.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

You seem to be saying Jaques, that preflop AK is better than AA in tournaments. This is clearly wrong.

Lafortezza

If you have 10,000 big blind stacks, why would you prefer AKo/AKs to AA? I still don't get people saying that in certain circumstances AKs would be the preferable hand. Small words plz.

pok3rplaya

Sorry for going a bit OT here but this

jacQues wrote:

LOL

means I cant help myself.

jacQues wrote:

Cash games are short term. Every hand is a new hand. You can start/leave/top-up after each hand. One hand has no consequenses for the next hand (bar your bankroll, but one should never play above ones limit). Every single hand is like a full tournament.

Again you are thinking about this all wrong. Yes one cash game session is a short term experience but thats not what I mean. If cash games were short term then the goal of a player would be to win each and every hand he is dealt. This is not how things work. You goal is to make the largest ammount of +EV decisions based you can depending on the situation you are in presently based on the information given to you. Does doing this nesecarily mean you will win the current hand? No. Does it mean that over 1 million repetitions of this situation you will come out ahead of your opponent by an ammount proportional to the expected value of your hand. Yes it does.

Consider a hand against an opponent who is drawing to a flush.
Our hand is KK. The flop is 2c 6c Qd. Our opponent has Jc Tc.
On the flop, the pot is 20 and we bet 20. The opponent check/calls.
The turn is the 2s. Again we bet the pot (60) and our opponent calls.
The river completes our opponents flush and he bets into us. We fold.

In this hand (short term) have we won? No, we have lost. In the long term, let us say 100 repetitions, have we won. Yes. Here's why.

The opponents flush will complete 1/3 of the time.
So, 1/3 of the time (33.3 repetitions), he will win 90x33.3 = 2997.
2/3 of the time, he will miss his flush and we will win, 90x66.6 = 5994.

So, in the long term, have we won? Yes, we have.
We lost the specific hand in question (short term) yet we made decisions which gave us a positive expected value over an infinite number of repetitions of the situation in question.

See where I'm going with this?


The same - think about the long term - concept applies in MTTs. You seem to be assuming that your goal in each hand you play of a specific tournament is to avoid elimination. You are wrong.

Again, your goal is to maximise your expected return, given the situation (hand) you are presented with, over an infinite number of repetitions of that situation. Be each of those repetitions in the same tournament you are playing now or not.

For example, first hand of a 2000 player MTT. You are dealt AA. 4 players before you go all in.

POKERSTOVE wrote:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

23,335,524,576 games 141.141 secs 165,334,839 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 08.0677 % 07.89% 00.17% { random }
Hand 2: 11.0234 % 10.75% 00.28% { random }
Hand 3: 15.2980 % 14.92% 00.38% { random }
Hand 4: 12.3107 % 11.57% 00.74% { random }
Hand 5: 53.3003 % 53.17% 00.13% { AA }

Should you call? Theres almost a 50% chance of going out of the tournament! If you think this is ever a fold, you are wrong. The call is +EV and correct for my reasons explained above.

I believe I have explained my opinion (and David Sklansky's) to the best of my ability here. AK is never better than AA.

pok3rplaya

lafortezza wrote:

If you have 10,000 big blind stacks, why would you prefer AKo/AKs to AA? I still don't get people saying that in certain circumstances AKs would be the preferable hand. Small words plz.

they find folding difficult and are suffering from a bad case of reverse implied odds.

jacQues

Hectorjelly wrote:

You seem to be saying Jaques, that preflop AK is better than AA in tournaments. This is clearly wrong.

That is correct. Although AA is the better hand statisticly I rate AK suited higher than AA in tournaments. In cash games, however, I want AA every time.

A phrase I hear a lot lately is "AK looks nice but always loses." When someone says that its usually because (s)he doesn't know how to play it correctly. Or worse, gets married to the pre-flop hand. The last casino tournament I played, I actually got knocked out by AK by someone who had nothing but couldn't let go despite me betting and got a K on the river. My losing was my mistake, mind you, but it showed once again that some players seem to forget that the value of any hand changes on every street. AK may be harder to play than AA but its more rewarding (to me anyhow). I'm not saying that I prefer one or another, just give me the winning hand.

I am saying that AK suited is the better hand pre-flop. Not because it is so, but because just like with AA you will see a flop. Unless you fold on a re-raise.

Hope you understand this argument. Unless half the table goes all-in, which with better players will never ever happen, you will (call a) decent raise and see a flop. Therefore, the pre-flop odds are the same as post-flop odds. (Hope this makes sense, my wording isn't everything.)

Based on a decent pre-flop raise:

With AK, if there is an A on the flop, what are the odds that someone has AA?

With AA, if there is a K on the flop, what are the odds that someone has KK?

If AK misses, it may have a good nut flush draw (if suited) with a strait draw as well. With AA, you miss 99% of the time. Sure, you have the top pair; cannot be touched; and usually wins since all that should be left are Ax and pocket pairs. But if you follow all above logic you may see what I am trying to...uhm...prove? An added bonus if you will is the fact that AK is ten times easier to fold if you totally miss the flop.

It is my opinion that AK is better pre-flop than AA in tournaments. And I understand the raised eyebrows about this. But to my experience and logic this is the case.

jacQues

jacQues

jacQues wrote:

If AK misses, it may have a good nut flush draw (if suited) with a strait draw as well. With AA, you miss 99% of the time. Sure, you have the top pair; cannot be touched; and usually wins since all that should be left are Ax and pocket pairs.

I better reply because I feel people are going to ask this anyway:

On the flop, if you're first to act, is gonna be a continuation bet. Two ways then to win: by the other player folding or by hitting on the turn. In the latter case (s)he will usually call another bet, even if (s)he half suspects you have the nuts. If the other player bets first, calculate your pot odds whether or not to pay for the draw.

Also, when I said "fold if half the table goes all-in" I meant AK. With AA you still call. So in that situation AA is (much) better.

jacQues

Mr. Flibble

lafortezza wrote:

If you have 10,000 big blind stacks, why would you prefer AKo/AKs to AA? I still don't get people saying that in certain circumstances AKs would be the preferable hand. Small words plz.

There is no flop with out an A on it that you can safely call a 10000BB reraise after the flop with AA. There are some that you can with AK...

Hectorjelly

This argument is akin to someone saying they would prefer to have a €20 note over a €200 one because if it gets stolen they have lost less.

AK 1/3 of the times improves to a hand that isnt as good as AA already is, added to that is the fact that the other players can see the ace or king as well, and are likely to fold a lot of losing hands where they would of paid AA off. Yes AK can flop a flush or a straight, but they dont happen often. Just less than 2/3 of the time you end up on the flop with no pair and no draw. Fantastic!

BigDragon

Hectorjelly wrote:

This argument is akin to someone saying they would prefer to have a €20 note over a €200 one because if it gets stolen they have lost less.

AK 1/3 of the times improves to a hand that isnt as good as AA already is, added to that is the fact that the other players can see the ace or king as well, and are likely to fold a lot of losing hands where they would of paid AA off. Yes AK can flop a flush or a straight, but they dont happen often. Just less than 2/3 of the time you end up on the flop with no pair and no draw. Fantastic!

Gets the T-Shirt

jacQues

Hectorjelly wrote:

This argument is akin to someone saying they would prefer to have a €20 note over a €200 one because if it gets stolen they have lost less.

"they would prefer" So you're saying its all about personal preferation? You may be right...

Half the time you miss totally yes. But the real question would be whether or not the other player knows this and what hand (s)he puts you on. Even so, at least you have better/easier ways to find out.

With AA you have less information, since if a K hits the flop, you may be hopelessly behind. With AK the odds for this are so small you can almost (but not 100%) ignore them.

For statistics, judgeing that with the chances of AA/KK out are smaller, AK does well against any other hand. For statistics, judgeing that the other player has either a lower pocket pair or suited connectors, AA does well also. Maybe someone can do a real calculation about the fact that I put up here that AK does 'better well' than AA. (I.e. both win way more than lose, both are very +EV, but which one wins more? That is what this thread is about.)

Maybe some maths genious here can (dis)prove this? AFAIK these calculations have never been made. Only straightforward ones, like hand A versus hand B and hand A % on flop BCD. But not one facturing in both AK / AA vs. expected hands post-flop vs. all random flops. It would surprise me if AA has more +EV than AK.

jacQues

RoundTower

JaCques, wasn't there someone not that long ago saying you were wasting your talent at the $5 SNGs and should move up to the $20s ASAP? Have you done that yet?

All - I wasn't asking if AA is a better hand than AK, some of you seem to be answering that question. I was asking if the nut overpair is better than the best possible top pair top kicker hand.

I made the post because I felt AK was better. I figured you are more likely to get paid off by other players with Ax/Kx than by smaller overpairs/top pair etc. on a more raggedy flop. Also if you do get it all in against top pair, you are better shape with AK as they generally have 3 outs instead of 5. Also it is about 30% less likely someone else has flopped a set, which is one of the most likely ways you can lose a big pot with AA or AK.

I'm slowly being convinced I was wrong, though, particularly because AA is so well hidden. But how many people really go nuts with T9 on a 934 flop when you raised preflop? With TT on a 853 flop when you raised preflop? Are you going to stack these people a lot? Even if you raise preflop with a lot of hands people still should expect you to have a big pair when you keep putting money into the pot with these hands. Am I totally misguided here?

RoundTower

jacQues wrote:

Maybe someone can do a real calculation about the fact that I put up here that AK does 'better well' than AA. (I.e. both win way more than lose, both are very +EV, but which one wins more? That is what this thread is about.)

Maybe some maths genious here can (dis)prove this? AFAIK these calculations have never been made. Only straightforward ones, like hand A versus hand B and hand A % on flop BCD. But not one facturing in both AK / AA vs. expected hands post-flop vs. all random flops. It would surprise me if AA has more +EV than AK.

Disregarding the fact that you're still answering the wrong question, maybe you can use this site to analyse which hand you lose less with.

cardshark202

jacQues wrote:

"they would prefer" So you're saying its all about personal preferation? You may be right...

Half the time you miss totally yes. But the real question would be whether or not the other player knows this and what hand (s)he puts you on. Even so, at least you have better/easier ways to find out.

With AA you have less information, since if a K hits the flop, you may be hopelessly behind. With AK the odds for this are so small you can almost (but not 100%) ignore them.

For statistics, judgeing that with the chances of AA/KK out are smaller, AK does well against any other hand. For statistics, judgeing that the other player has either a lower pocket pair or suited connectors, AA does well also. Maybe someone can do a real calculation about the fact that I put up here that AK does 'better well' than AA. (I.e. both win way more than lose, both are very +EV, but which one wins more? That is what this thread is about.)

Maybe some maths genious here can (dis)prove this? AFAIK these calculations have never been made. Only straightforward ones, like hand A versus hand B and hand A % on flop BCD. But not one facturing in both AK / AA vs. expected hands post-flop vs. all random flops. It would surprise me if AA has more +EV than AK.

jacQues

Keep digging....:rolleyes:

cardshark202

RoundTower wrote:

I made the post because I felt AK was better.

You must have subconciously felt this was a controversial, maybe wrong thought so.

So far I've yet to hear any clear-cut logical reasons why AK is better than AA in the situations you mentioned