PLO weak enough AA question

Daithio

Should I have repopped it pre here? The villain in the hand reraises an awful lot from the button, but am I getting enough of my stack in pre to repop it?

Full Tilt Poker Game #1396073114: Table Glamour (6 max) - $3/$6 - Pot Limit Omaha - 3:35:28 ET - 2006/12/12
Seat 1: rmmckee34 ($712.35)
Seat 2: onkerdonk ($700.80)
Seat 3: THE GENIUS 115 ($890.75)
Seat 4: His Jollyness ($655.95)
Seat 5: KeinLoffel224 ($171.90)
Seat 6: Red_Nuggets ($850.80)
rmmckee34 posts the small blind of $3
onkerdonk posts the big blind of $6
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to His Jollyness [Ah Ac 2d 9h]
THE GENIUS 115 folds
His Jollyness raises to $21
KeinLoffel224 folds
Red_Nuggets raises to $72
rmmckee34 folds
onkerdonk folds
His Jollyness raises to $225
Red_Nuggets calls $153

cardshark202

Yeah standard.

RacingSilver

cardshark202 wrote :
Yeah standard.

What's standard about getting one third of your stack in pre-flop, having shown that you have probably Aces, and being out of position ?

ianmc38

With junkie aces like that and being oop, I prefer to just call the raise preflop.

cardshark202

RacingSilver wrote:

What's standard about getting one third of your stack in pre-flop, having shown that you have probably Aces, and being out of position ?

Anytime you can get one third or more of your stack in preflop against one opponent you should be happy. You should also get it in on any flop now.

eoghan104

ianmc38 wrote:

With junkie aces like that and being oop, I prefer to just call the raise preflop.

.

RacingSilver

Originally Posted by cardshark202
Anytime you can get one third or more of your stack in preflop against one opponent you should be happy. You should also get it in on any flop now.

That's one way to play aces in this position, and I will agree that there is nothing too wrong with using this approach at times (depending on other factors, e.g. your image, opponent's tendencies, etc.). However it's a high variance play and I certainly wouldn't call it standard, nor do I think it's the optimum play. To me, still having 2/3 of my stack left on the flop is too much.
Why not just call the pre-flop raise, and check raise all-in on the flop on a non-scary board?
That is another 'standard' way to play this hand, and is probably my default play.

cardshark202

If stacks were deeper I would just call. Its definately the most optimal way to play AAxx with these stacks. In fact I can't believe its even in doubt. Obv getting in close to half youu stack is better ut one third is fine.

RacingSilver

Originally Posted by cardshark202
It's definitely the most optimal way to play AAxx with these stacks. In fact I can't believe its even in doubt.

Well I'm definitely not as certain about my approach as you are about yours. A lot depends on the type of opponent you're facing.

Why do you think your method is so superior to check-raising all-in on the flop ?
When head to head, most pre-flop raisers will autobet the flop if it is checked to them. In that case, a check-raise by you will effectively be the same as your approach of reraising pre-flop and going all-in on the flop. But now you have the added advantage of seeing the flop also. Admittedly your opponent also has this benefit, but now he has no idea that you have aces whereas in your approach he will be pretty certain that you have. Also, you have the option of folding if the board is really scary e.g. QJ10 of Spades.

I'm not dogmatically trying to prove my point, AAxx hands always generate lots of discussion. I'm interested in hearing why you are so certain that your approach is right. If you can show me that your approach is clearly best, then I'll thank you for educating me.

cardshark202

RacingSilver wrote:

Well I'm definitely not as certain about my approach as you are about yours. A lot depends on the type of opponent you're facing.

Why do you think your method is so superior to check-raising all-in on the flop ?
When head to head, most pre-flop raisers will autobet the flop if it is checked to them. In that case, a check-raise by you will effectively be the same as your approach of reraising pre-flop and going all-in on the flop. But now you have the added advantage of seeing the flop also. Admittedly your opponent also has this benefit, but now he has no idea that you have aces whereas in your approach he will be pretty certain that you have. Also, you have the option of folding if the board is really scary e.g. QJ10 of Spades.

I'm not dogmatically trying to prove my point, AAxx hands always generate lots of discussion. I'm interested in hearing why you are so certain that your approach is right. If you can show me that your approach is clearly best, then I'll thank you for educating me.

Ok well to put it simply, your approach turns AA into a bluff postflop, my approach doesn't. There are times when I would take your line but not here.

RacingSilver

Originally Posted by cardshark202
Ok well to put it simply, your approach turns AA into a bluff postflop, my approach doesn't

And there was I thinking it was the other way around !
I have to say that that reasoning makes no sense.
Anybody else got anything to contribute ?

5starpool

In my more cautious style of play I would prefer not to get 1/3rd of my chips in the pot preflop with a bad AAxx hand. I would prefer to get most or fewer in this way. If I play it the way Cardshark does then you maximise the number of times you win the pot (good), but you also maximise your losses when your opponent outflops you (bad) as you are, as Reggie says, putting the rest of your chips in on pretty much any flop. The call and play a flop approach means that you will be letting the pot go more often than not unless it is a pure raggy flop, but you will lose less when you do lose, but also win less when you win.

This is the paradox of Omaha that I haven't fully decided on. Both approaches are valid I think, it just depends on how aggressive a player you are. I would probably go with the RACING_SILVER approach in this particular hand with these stacks more often than not, but I wouldn't say the reraise approach is terrible either.

cardshark202

RacingSilver wrote:

And there was I thinking it was the other way around !
I have to say that that reasoning makes no sense.
Anybody else got anything to contribute ?

Ok bleh. I like +EV more than you.

EDIT: Sorry I'm just lazy and I can't articulate my thoughts well.

This hand is very standard assuming you pushed the flop.

careca

Daithio is on the button in this hand, therefore I reckon he's better off reraising and getting as much of his stack in as possible, in this position. By flat calling the raise (and its obvious he now has aces), the other player can pot any scary flop (that doesn't contain an ace) and daithio would have to fold. I'd prefer to get the flop decision out of the way, while I'm ahead.

Oh and a check raise wouldnt be an option anyway, because a pot bet by the other player would have him totally committed.

5starpool

careca wrote:

Daithio is on the button in this hand, therefore I reckon he's better off reraising and getting as much of his stack in as possible, in this position. By flat calling the raise (and its obvious he now has aces), the other player can pot any scary flop (that doesn't contain an ace) and daithio would have to fold. I'd prefer to get the flop decision out of the way, while I'm ahead.

Oh and a check raise wouldnt be an option anyway, because a pot bet by the other player would have him totally committed.

Daithio's opponent is on the button.

careca

5starpool wrote:

Daithio's opponent is on the button.

I really need to go to specsavers. I read this the total opposite way, thought Daithio was saying, should he have repopped it again. Disregard all my posts from now on (on any subject !!!!!!).

RacingSilver

cardshark202,
I think I've been reasonably balanced so far in this thread, I've explained the advantages of my approach (or at least what I perceive the advantages to be), and I ask you to explain your reasoning.
You come back with rubbish such as

Ok bleh. I like +EV more than you.

and

Ok well to put it simply, your approach turns AA into a bluff postflop, my approach doesn't.

You've yet to explain your reasons, yet you try and come off as this PLO expert who thinks that if he throws a few crumbs to the masses they will be satisfied and thankful that he gave a few minutes of his valuable time.
I know it sounds cool to say you're too lazy to articulate your thoughts properly, but you must realise that when you grow up you'll see the stupidity of it all.

cardshark202

RacingSilver wrote:

cardshark202,
I think I've been reasonably balanced so far in this thread, I've explained the advantages of my approach (or at least what I perceive the advantages to be), and I ask you to explain your reasoning.
You come back with rubbish such as
and


You've yet to explain your reasons, yet you try and come off as this PLO expert who thinks that if he throws a few crumbs to the masses they will be satisfied and thankful that he gave a few minutes of his valuable time.
I know it sounds cool to say you're too lazy to articulate your thoughts properly, but you must realise that when you grow up you'll see the stupidity of it all.

Ok. Well sorry if I've come across as an expert, cos I certainly am no expert. I play a lot of PLO online so for me there is little to discuss in this hand. Try not to take my off-the-cuff remarks too seriously.
I think the place where we disagree is that you don't think its optimal to get over 30% of your stack in preflop with AAxx whereas I think its the best line in this case.
With this line, the pot is ~450 and we have ~430 left. We are never making a mistake folding the best hand this way.
With your line, we are often check-folding the best hand on the flop.
Sorry I'm just **** at articulating my points.

RoundTower

actually I think it is about whether you like to win money, or whether you want to "avoid high variance situations", "play a more cautious style of play", "depend on how aggressive you are", etc. But if you like money you should reraise the pot preflop.

rogue trader

Just in case....

If there is anyone reading this that dislikes money, please know,
you should still re-raise this hand everytime preflop.

boba_fett3099

Hey dont play much PLO but just wondering is it still correct to repop it here if it was full-ring??

cardshark202

boba_fett3099 wrote:

Hey dont play much PLO but just wondering is it still correct to repop it here if it was full-ring??

yes

RacingSilver

Those comments about disliking money are ludicrous. Please read my comments properly. I'll always choose the play with the greatest EV,and IMO reraising pre-flop, and then going all-in is not it. What is wrong with check-raising all in except on real scary flops which are very much in the minority ?
Too many boys here seem to think they're Gus Hansen. If you can't explain your reasoning, then why bother posting ?

rogue trader

Boba, like chardshark said yes is the answer.
Your objective is to get heads up against the original raiser. Obviously, the strength of your AA is diminished if the flop is viewed by 9 people.

RS, what constitutes a scary board?
.......2 hearts, 789, 2 Queens?
Is everyboard not scary if you check and someone bets 400?

You are advocating check raising all in. This is a terrible play. If the villain bets the pot he is putting you all in. That leaves you with a very difficult decision. Therefore, it's better to pot the flop if we intend getting it all in. It's the same result from your point of view (ie all your money in the middle) but a completely different proposition for the villain, esp if he's missed the flop.

5starpool

rogue trader wrote:

Boba, like chardshark said yes is the answer.
Your objective is to get heads up against the original raiser. Obviously, the strength of your AA is diminished if the flop is viewed by 9 people.

RS, what constitutes a scary board?
.......2 hearts, 789, 2 Queens?
Is everyboard not scary if you check and someone bets 400?

You are advocating check raising all in. This is a terrible play. If the villain bets the pot he is putting you all in. That leaves you with a very difficult decision. Therefore, it's better to pot the flop if we intend getting it all in. It's the same result from your point of view (ie all your money in the middle) but a completely different proposition for the villain, esp if he's missed the flop.

I think you are reading the HH wrong.

The hand is heads up again whether the OP repotted it again or not in this instance. If it was not repotted to 225 preflop (and this repot is the question in the post) then the pot would only be around ~150 on the flop, leaving the OP with ~580. He cannot be put all in by one bet one the flop, and a CRAI by him would leave over 400 more for his opponent to call. Whether this is the correct thing or not is not what I am trying to say here, but it is what RACINGSILVER is advocating, so before you criticise his line it might be best to make sure you understand it first.

Bandana boy

this is not as cut and dried as everybody is making out
1 his reraise has got you heads up so no need to re-raise to get to heads up you have acheived that
2 we have telegraphed our hand
3 putting 2/3rds of your stack in on any flop is allowing our friend to play perfectly against your aces

I think we have a few points to consider before we can state that we always re-raise with raggy AA here

Have you raised a lot of pots
I raise a lot in PLO and will get re-raised by hands that AA really dominates as most PLO players are awful if so ship it in he probably has KK or QQ

Has villain raised a lot is his re-raise possible with 6789 etc if so i think we need to consider we are about 50-50 in the hand and he is not calling without at least a 50-50 chance on the flop and high likelyhood we will ship chips in and be called by a hand that is ahead of us

1/3rd in pre flop is not enough to auto ship the rest our chips post flop but too much too give up to a bet so depending on which of the scenarios above is most likely would determine my actions

ianmc38

Bandana boy wrote:

3 putting 2/3rds of your stack in on any flop is allowing our friend to play perfectly against your aces

I think this is pretty important. Pushing any flop with telegraphed aces doesn't strike me as the play with the highest EV.

cardshark202

Bandana boy wrote:

1/3rd in pre flop is not enough to auto ship the rest our chips post flop

Yes it is. Obviously you should do this with other hands from time to time, like KKQQds or some nice rundown hands, esp against this type of villain.

ianmc38 wrote:

I think this is pretty important. Pushing any flop with telegraphed aces doesn't strike me as the play with the highest EV.

Well it is compared to any other play. With this play, opps will often make the mistake of either calling or folding too light once we push the flop, we can never make a mistake this way.

rogue trader

5starpool wrote:

I think you are reading the HH wrong.

The hand is heads up again whether the OP repotted it again or not in this instance. If it was not repotted to 225 preflop (and this repot is the question in the post) then the pot would only be around ~150 on the flop, leaving the OP with ~580. He cannot be put all in by one bet one the flop, and a CRAI by him would leave over 400 more for his opponent to call. Whether this is the correct thing or not is not what I am trying to say here, but it is what RACINGSILVER is advocating, so before you criticise his line it might be best to make sure you understand it first.

Yes, i see. Point taken.

I still believe that re-potting this was the correct play. No matter what the villain holds, he HAS to connect to win the hand. Getting 1/3 of our stack in pre flop against only one villain is a winning play in the long run.

RacingSilver

Bandana Boy is absolutely right. This is not cut and dried, nor did I ever say it was. I did ask Cardshark to explain why his approach gives a better EV than the way I thought was best but he only gave a vague answer to this question.
I called my PLO buddy who is a winning high-stakes player, and his answer was that he would always reraise pre-flop but he would consider an automatic all-in on the flop very poor play. He is an extremely aggressive player so I wasn't surprised at his answer. And that approach may work well for him because of his very aggressive approach to the game, his opponents would not necessarily credit him with Aces in that hand especially because of the low stakes.
But it wouldn't work as well for me as my reraising range is much smaller than my buddy's.

rogue trader stated

I still believe that re-potting this was the correct play. No matter what the villain holds, he HAS to connect to win the hand. .

I'm assuming that this means that you go all-in on the flop for the full pot amount. If that's your standard approach , then as others have said, I don't think that's the greatest play in the world.

Also

Getting 1/3 of our stack in pre flop against only one villain is a winning play in the long run

It may well be but that wasn't really the point.

Bandana boy

cardshark202 wrote:

Yes it is. Obviously you should do this with other hands from time to time, like KKQQds or some nice rundown hands, esp against this type of villain.


.

I dont agree
If we think his holding is KKXX QQxx or something like then yes we can auto ship if this is the case villain is bad and raise away
If villain is any way tricky I do not think its an auto ship
yet it is too much to give up to a flop bet from villain
so we should call the re-raise pre flop

If we think every time we get AA in plo and get to a heads up situation we are going to ship all our chips into the middle and 2/3rds after villain has seen flop then my friend we will lose long term against any PLo player who has a clue

cardshark202

RS,

Does my latest post not satisfy you? Your friend should be shoving any flop with AA in this spot esp against this type of opponent.
Example:
You have AhAc9h2d and preflop action is as above.

Flop comes 234 all spades and you shove. Villain folds 4678 no spades cos he's afraid of drawing to a running house. This is very good. Villain has made a mistake here.

Your buddy should know better imo, but at least he did agree with the preflop action.

If you are still unsatisfied, I have a feeling it may be because I am talking about this being the best line vs THIS villain (although its generally best vs all villains) and you are thinking about it from a general view and not this specific villain.

cardshark202

Bandana boy wrote:

If we think every time we get AA in plo and get to a heads up situation we are going to ship all our chips into the middle and 2/3rds after villain has seen flop then my friend we will lose long term against any PLo player who has a clue

Nope impossible. He might have a clue and he might know you have AA but theres nothing he can do about it.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I probably will when I say this is very basic omaha here.

Bandana boy

cardshark202 wrote:

Nope impossible. He might have a clue and he might know you have AA but theres nothing he can do about it.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I probably will when I say this is very basic omaha here.

Well we have to agree to disagree then
I hope i dont sound condescending when i say

When i see this kind of play I go yum yum

I personally love playing against guys that overplay AA they make my most of my money
you have to remember that AA in plo especially with 2 rags like ops is not a strong hand at all

RoundTower

Bandana boy wrote:

he is not calling without at least a 50-50 chance on the flop

how can you say this and then say reraising preflop allows villain to play perfectly against our aces? Not calling the flop without a 50-50 chance or better is a HUGE leak, and we will make tons of money against an opponent who plays like this.

cardshark202

Bandana boy wrote:

Well we have to agree to disagree then
I hope i dont sound condescending when i say

When i see this kind of play I go yum yum

I personally love playing against guys that overplay AA they make my most of my money
you have to remember that AA in plo especially with 2 rags like ops is not a strong hand at all

This line is not overplaying AA. Your line is underplaying AA however.

RacingSilver

Cardshark and Roundtower, I wish the players I usually play against played like you guys. You are definitely overplaying aces. Do you realise that going all-in on the flop is giving almost 2/1 to your opponent!! He only needs to have a 35% chance of winning to make it a +EV call. And if he knows you have AA, then quite often flopping a pair and a gutshot straight draw will give him around 50%, way more than enough to make it a mandatory call. Even flopping a pair and a back-door flush draw can make it an auto-call.
I assume this is what Bandana Boy meant about playing perfectly against aces.

Cardshark wrote :

Flop comes 234 all spades and you shove. Villain folds 4678 no spades cos he's afraid of drawing to a running house. This is very good. Villain has made a mistake here.

I don't know what you mean about the running house. I would call instantly with this hand getting 2/1 against somebody who will always auto-bet the pot with Aces. As I said I could have a 50-50 chance of winning. Anyway, with this kind of flop there are other other factors in play here.

cardshark202

RacingSilver wrote:

Cardshark and Roundtower, I wish the players I usually play against played like you guys. You are definitely overplaying aces. Do you realise that going all-in on the flop is giving almost 2/1 to your opponent!! He only needs to have a 35% chance of winning to make it a +EV call. And if he knows you have AA, then quite often flopping a pair and a gutshot straight draw will give him around 50%, way more than enough to make it a mandatory call. Even flopping a pair and a back-door flush draw can make it an auto-call.
I assume this is what Bandana Boy meant about playing perfectly against aces.

Cardshark wrote :

I don't know what you mean about the running house. I would call instantly with this hand getting 2/1 against somebody who will always auto-bet the pot with Aces. As I said I could have a 50-50 chance of winning. Anyway, with this kind of flop there are other other factors in play here.

You might call in the spot I mentioned but every opponent won't. And against someone who plays like me, I won't have AAxx 100% of the time here, it will be a large percentage of the time but I will play other hands like this from time to time for balancing reasons as much as anything. Most opponents won't play perfectly against me, which is the point because in case you haven't noticed, most poker players suck lots.

This hand is so so so so so so standard I can't believe this thread is still running.
Fair play to you though for continuing to post though cos we're all here to learn. (Note: I am not being sarcastic)

PS: Please read all my posts again as some of the points you are making have already been discussed

cardshark202

Another note: We are not overplaying AA in this spot. We are playing them normally.

mewso

RacingSilver wrote:

flopping a pair and a gutshot straight draw will give him around 50%, way more than enough to make it a mandatory call.

How often do you think he will hit a flop that will give him a 50%+ chance of winning against AAxx?

Oh and lets keep this civil. I've seen enough arguements over peoples manner here. Learn to live with it. You're starting to remind me of someone else.

Bandana boy

cardshark202 wrote:

Another note: We are not overplaying AA in this spot. We are playing them normally.

I am sorry if every time there we have AA in raised pot we are committing our stack 2/3rds of which is after the flop has fallen then this is overplaying AA

Also I am not suggesting we never make this move certain villains demand it
and like yourself i am often in re-raised pots without AA so it can be harder for Villain to put me on AA than other players.

Also
Every time villain has a connected hand and hits 1 pair on the flop he is 50-50 if we do not have flush outs
If you add maybe a flush out of his own or some straight outs we are putting 2/3rds of our stack in behind and we will get called 100% of the time

The only flops we really like include an A or a paired board(which misses our friend) and they are not as likely as you might think


If the flop misses our friend then we win nothing extra but we lose it all if he connects hard and at least 50% if he connects at all

cardshark202

Bandana boy wrote:

I am sorry if every time there we have AA in raised pot we are committing our stack 2/3rds of which is after the flop has fallen then this is overplaying AA

Also I am not suggesting we never make this move certain villains demand it
and like yourself i am often in re-raised pots without AA so it can be harder for Villain to put me on AA than other players.

Also
Every time villain has a connected hand and hits 1 pair on the flop he is 50-50 if we do not have flush outs
If you add maybe a flush out of his own or some straight outs we are putting 2/3rds of our stack in behind and we will get called 100% of the time

The only flops we really like include an A or a paired board(which misses our friend) and they are not as likely as you might think


If the flop misses our friend then we win nothing extra but we lose it all if he connects hard and at least 50% if he connects at all

Yeah but we win a lot of the time when he catches a piece and doesn't improve, also we win when he doesn't connect at all. Thats quite a high percentage of the time you know. I could prolly work it out, but you can trust me on this one when I say its by far the best way to play.

rogue trader

Bandana boy wrote:

The only flops we really like include an A or a paired board(which misses our friend) and they are not as likely as you might think

I'm afraid i don't agree with this. I would suggest that there are more flops that our villain doesn't like than the other way round.

Bandana boy wrote:

If the flop misses our friend then we win nothing extra but we lose it all if he connects hard and at least 50% if he connects at all

Is this not the case in every hand of poker?
Of course AAxx can get cracked, but over the long run we will make money if we get our villain heads up with this holding.