|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 3/19/2010 4:42:17 PM PACIFIC |
 Ax suited, iceman5, 30. Oct 2003 12:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Would anyone like to share their opinion on playing Ax suited? How low of a kicker will you play? And from what position (escpecially if the first one in the pot)? I have been having trouble with this hand. My personal preference is to not play anything below A8s from MP. And I sometimes raise with A8s or higher if the first one in from at least MP (escpecially on a tight table). In LP I might play A5s if there are 3 or more limpers already. But this may be a mistake as I never seem to hit the flush. Can anyone shed some light? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, guinnessman, 30. Oct 2003 13:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I will play Ax suited from late positon when there are no raises almost all the time and may call 1 raise if I think the raiser is weak. I will fold Ax suited in early position unless the x is a K or Q....sometimes a J if there has not been much raising in the game. Guinnessman | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Blade, 30. Oct 2003 13:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I am currently flirting with playing with a kicker equal to an value that I would play a pocket pair from. So, low kicker, PP from late position, mid kicker, pp from mid position and 10 and higher from early position. Although playing A10 & AJs from early position maybe questionable. The safest way to go is to play only from late when there are already 3 callers ahead of you. To make it even a safer play change seats so that aggressive maniacs (likely to raise) are acting ahead of you. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, shorn, 30. Oct 2003 13:15 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Mostly MP and LP only will I play these hands (only at a really passive table will I play it from EP). I also want at least three callers in the hand to make the price right. One thing to point out to you though is that A2s-A5s is better than A6s-A9s simply because you have an extra way of winning the pot with a str8 where both your cards can play. As far as kicker issues go, any kicker 9 or below is pretty much garbage for your pair anyway, so until you hit ATs I wouldn't value the kicker as part of your decision to play. Some might think this is not correct, but only with a kicker of T or higher will you be able to play your top pair with any level of confidence that your kicker is good (and a T is stretching it too). Good luck (what am I telling you that for?? In your other post you are killing the 2/4 game at a 4.5 BB/hr clip, so maybe I need to watch out!). Steve | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, iceman5, 30. Oct 2003 13:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 30. Oct 2003 13:15 shorn wrote: > Mostly MP and LP only will I play these hands (only at a really passive table will I > play it from EP). I also want at least three callers in the hand to make the price > right. One thing to point out to you though is that A2s-A5s is better than A6s-A9s > simply because you have an extra way of winning the pot with a str8 where both your > cards can play. > > As far as kicker issues go, any kicker 9 or below is pretty much garbage for your > pair anyway, so until you hit ATs I wouldn't value the kicker as part of your > decision to play. Some might think this is not correct, but only with a kicker of T > or higher will you be able to play your top pair with any level of confidence that > your kicker is good (and a T is stretching it too). > > Good luck (what am I telling you that for?? In your other post you are killing the > 2/4 game at a 4.5 BB/hr clip, so maybe I need to watch out!). > > Steve Yeah, right Im sure I have you worried....:) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, mroban, 30. Oct 2003 13:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Steve: Against a typical table, I think the A9 is good in LP when nobody raised. In most low limit games, mediocre to poor plays will raise with AT or above. Not always I know, but if there are no raises I like the A9 in late position under these ideal circumstances. I realize the table has to be perfectly in this model for A9 to work that way, but I have had success in those rare instances making that assumption and have found my pair on the flop to hold up. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Boftx, 30. Oct 2003 13:18 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In a 2/4 or lower game that Is *very* loose and passive, I will open/play any Axs from any position in an unraised pot. If I open from EP and get raised I will call only if I know the raiser's playing style and probable holdings. It would amaze you just how many players will raise with KQ, KQs, KJs etc. Implied odds come into play heavily as well. If I am in LP in an unraised family pot I have no qualms in playing any Axs. Needless to say I drop the hand like a hot rock if the flop doesn't hit me hard. Also, in a more normal game, I find it is worthwhile to make a steal raise with this hand when the chance presents itself. The full reasoning behind this can be found on lowlimitholdem.com | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Flatout_Mainiac, 30. Oct 2003 13:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| About 3 weeks ago I came to the same observation in that I felt I limped in with too many Axs hands and it was a good size leak in my game (I mostly play 2/4). I've currently been playing Axs about the same as shorn and it seems to have plugged up that leak for now. Congrats by the way on that nice win rate!!!! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Blade, 30. Oct 2003 14:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm not sure the best play is too tighten up. While it is true that playing it too often is a leak, not playing whenever you have the correct pot odds is also a leak and could cost you alot more money. I think it is fine to play the Axs from an earlier position with a weak kicker however you must have the correct odds for the flush draw (discounting chances to win with A) and you must be able to throw away the hand when an A hits if you do not atleast have a backdoor draw. I think very important aspect here that hasn't been mentioned is TABLE SELECTION. If you want to play AXs more often than it is imperative you select a loose passive table. In those circumstances you can play this hand more often. In a tight or Maniac filled table you should rarely play it and stick to AJs and above. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Flatout_Mainiac, 30. Oct 2003 16:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Oh yes....I agree. But I was way too loose with them I got into a bad habit of playing them from any position. I would play them correctly, I felt, after the flop. But I was just not getting enough good flops or not enough callers when I was overplaying them. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Aisthesis, 30. Oct 2003 17:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I wonder if all this doesn't have something to do with one's playing style, since there are definitely very good players on both sides of this issue. As for me, I'll play A9s from anywhere. Rather aggravating today was a hand where I folded A4s in LP to see to two of my suit on the flop, a "would have had" flush at the end, and a very big pot that I could have won. I wonder if the correct answer isn't just, "Sometimes play them, sometimes fold them." Raised, I'd say pretty much always fold them (even with just a little raise, there I'd like at least AT). For limping in LP, I think it's a question of how many players are in, who they are, etc. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Blade, 30. Oct 2003 17:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would think the absolute worst way would to be "sometimes play them sometimes fold them." I think whatever ones plan is it is important have one and to why you are using it, when would want to stray from it, and what information would you need to see to cause you to abandon it all together. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Piers Majestyk, 30. Oct 2003 19:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I play these hands pretty much as Shorn, with many players already in the pot and that dictates that I am in late MP or LP otherwise they hit the muck without a thought. In my opinion you are not gaining anything by playing these hands in EP and most likely they are long term losers. I will give you my shortcut to making money that has worked online for 3 years, only play AJ or better and in EP and perhaps KQsuited, some games that AJ goes in the muck, for a raise that AJ goes in the muck, play pairs below 9 if 3 players have entered the pot before you otherwise throw them toward the muck, Pairs 10 or higher I'm seeing the flop and perhaps raising depending on the pair and position and the table. All other hands find their way to the muck unless there are some circumstances which warrant me to play otherwise and these are generally rare. That said I play 3 to 4 tables virtually all the time so these good hands come around more often than you might think and when they do I play them strongly. I generally play from 2-4//510 online and it just doesn't seem to matter to most people if I have not played a hand for an hour they are going to some after me with their K10 suited and I make them pay. My point is to stay away from trouble hands and you have a tremedous part of the battle won, it makes your post flop decisions much easier to handle. Good luck. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Blade, 30. Oct 2003 20:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| hmmm, What if you took that one step further and only played AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, & AQs, but you played 8 tables at once. Would these highly profitable hands played at many tables be so profitable that they made up for the smaller profit you are giving up? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Schuster, 30. Oct 2003 23:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| What if you took it one step further and decided to play the correct amount of hands to maximize "Shania" as Sredni called it, at 8 different tables? You have to draw the line somewhere. Myself, I think I'd get burnt out in about 15 minutes playing 8 tables and folding almost every hand. Also, some (not all heh) of my opponents would eventually catch on. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, modestmice, 31. Oct 2003 00:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| lee, your reference to "Shania" reminded me i havent heard from the hindu poker swami for a while, where the heck did he go? kool guy... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Aisthesis, 31. Oct 2003 01:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I disagree with qualifications. You're certainly right that awareness of the factors influencing the decision one way or the other is obviously the most important thing. The two big factors mentioned here appear to be position and passivity of table--to which one might add things like one's own image at the table (definitely also an influence on your chances of buying the pot in LP) and no doubt many others. But I really don't think there's a poker Bible of right and wrong or some kind of clear "decision-making tree" so that given factors X, Y and Z, you MUST always do this or that. Playing like that in my opinion would lead to such predictability that it would be a weakness in one's game. There are lots of grey areas where I think it's good mix things up a little bit. But I certainly apologize if my original response sounded too much like, "Just do it randomly regardless of circumstances." I didn't mean to imply that at all. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, 4 POKER, 30. Oct 2003 21:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| (This is pertaining to limping in pre-flop in a full game): The problem with Ax suited ("x" meaning baby/crappy/troublesome kickers!) is that so many players fall in love with this holding because it's "suited" and it looks pretty - while not taking their position and the table texture into consideration, first. Playing these hands in an upfront position (even in passive type games), will often have trouble because you're basically trying to flop a flush or a draw to one, so for all the times that you do limp in with it from a poor position, think to yourself as to how many times you even flopped a flush, or got there on the river with one, (because flushes don't hit that often, let's face it), OR.... you flop the Ace but you're in a poor position to take control over the betting. Sure, you can bet out with it, but unless you flop two pair to go along with that Ace (baby kicker), too many times, your hand will not be good enough, and against a full field of passive players, who may be kinda loose, too...will chase you all the way to the river - and it's pretty darn hard for that lone Ace to hold up! Flopping an Ace will play better if the pot is heads up or three callers. Any more than that......you are asking for trouble with that hand. That's why they are money-losers in the long run when they're played too many times from an early position. So where do you draw the line when you do decide to enter the pot with Ax suited? Well, for me, alot will depend on: if the game is shorthanded - what's my position with the hand - and are there players behind me who are aggresive. Being able to "outplay" your opponents is huge, but if you're talking about low limit hold-em with multiple players seeing all the flops on average.....those Ax suited hands should go in the muck from EP and even in MP sometimes, too. In passive games I think you can be a little bit more liberal when deciding "how high should my kicker be", but you should never disregard your position when contemplating that decision - because, again.....you're looking to connect to a flush when there are multiple players who have limped in already. Players will limp in with these hands from all positions just to see if they can flop that flush, and because they are positive that it won't get raised pre-flop.....but like I said, (and you guys know this)......flushes are hard to make - they do not hit as often as you may think. And all those small bets(even if it's one small bet) that you put into the pot from EP's add up...ALOT! And no need to even think about the pot that you coulda won if only you limped in with that Ace/crappy kicker from a bad position!! It will cut into your earn and it will show at the end of the year. Save those holdings for LP, (sometimes MP, depending on the game at hand).......and for a cheap price. Your holdings need to be very strong when in EP, and you can be a little bit more liberal the closer you are to the button when the situation is right and correct for you to be a part of the pot. Just my opinion. 4P- | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Blade, 30. Oct 2003 22:07 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think practically you are correct most times but in theory you are incorrect for example what if you had A4s from UTG and it was a given (in theory remember) that 7 there would be 7 callers ahead of you and 0 raises would you still fold? If so do you think you would be correct? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, 4 POKER, 30. Oct 2003 22:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You are giving the perfect hypothetical situation in where Ax suited can be played from an EP. When in poker, there are no guaranteed situations like that, and you just don't have the information yet from EP that would allow you to get a better idea as to just how many players are going to be a part of the pot and/or with or without raises. I understand what you're saying. ........So I guess you would play A4 suited from any position in a passive game, correct? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Blade, 30. Oct 2003 23:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| No not necesssarily. I am only illustrating that there are situations that Axs should be played from early position. The only question, and it is a very hard one, is to define when this can be done. I think it is important though for good players to recognize those situations when deviating from the standard play or accepted theory becomes profitable. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ax suited, Mark Barnett II, 31. Oct 2003 09:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| boy this question seems to get asked alot *THIS IS NOT A BAD THING!!* the hardest thing to keep in mind with any suited cards is your only going to flop a 4 flush less than 12% of the time thats 1 in 9ish and your only going to make the flush half of that *if you stay to river* so 6% of the time or 1 in 16. thats a BIG hill to climb with any regularity | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|