|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 8:48:05 PM PACIFIC |
 AXs and KXs in NLHE, Aisthesis, 17. Dec 2003 01:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Checking the data on various hands I generally play, I discovered that the only ones I'm losing on are AXs and KXs. There are enough hands there to make me think I'm definitely doing something wrong, but I'm not sure exactly what. I ran through quite a few of the hands and, aside from obvious mistakes (which weren't enough to be the real source of the problem), I couldn't figure out exactly what I'm doing wrong--although I know I'm a bit hazy on my real strategy in playing these things. Hence, I'm again seeking advice... Here are my current theories as to possible weaknesses in my approach up to now: 1) I'm more inclined to call a pre-flop raise with these than I am with low pairs or low suited connectors (with either of the above, I'll call a modest raise, sometimes even raise myself, but I try to be quite sure that the pot is going to be multi-way before calling the raise). Perhaps I should be more inclined to fold them to a pre-flop raise (again seeking only multi-way pots where the flush can win some serious money). 2) I've been rather inconsistent about what to do if I get two cards of my suit on the flop. Sometimes I'll semi-bluff, sometimes I won't. With the suited connectors, Brunson's idea of playing a flopped open straight draw pretty much as if you have the made straight (with the obvious qualifications) seems to work quite well for me. So maybe I should more consistently play a flopped 4-flush aggressively. 3) I should probably be more cautious in betting (or calling) when the K or the A makes me high pair. Maybe just fold if I need to call a pot-sized bet to stay in (assuming I don't have the 4-flush). It still seems overly cautious to me to refrain from betting altogether there if it's checked to me. But if there are several tight players left to act on the flop, maybe a check is sometimes in order. In any case, I should no doubt play top pair with bad kicker VERY cautiously, folding in case of doubt and trying not to get very much money involved (e.g., checking the turn if it doesn't bring improvement and folding to any sizeable bet). Any other suggestions or comments? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Aisthesis, 17. Dec 2003 01:44 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Here's a specific hand where I had AXs and lost a fair amount. It doesn't entirely fit into any of the "mistake patterns" of the previous post, but I wonder how it should have been played: I have Ah 6h in LP and limp, together with 3 others plus the blinds. Flop shows Qs 7s 3h. Everyone checks. Turn is Kh. BB bets half the pot. One MP player calls, as do I. The others fold. Should I have raised here even though I just have one last card to draw the flush and BB looks like he has the K?. River is 7h, making my flush. MP goes all-in, much to my surprize. I call, and he turns over 33 for the boat. I guess I really should have been expecting that, but the guy had been moving all-in a few times before on the river (with no callers), so I thought it was a bluff, or at least nothing better than the K--although maybe he had a hand in the other cases as well. I guess I really should have also considered the possibility of his having K7, which would have amounted to the same thing (but he might also have played K3 the same way). And on the river, I did have to call a bet of almost 3 times the pot on my flush--probably objectively really the hand should have been folded on the river. I will say raising the turn would have gained me some information, and if he had gone all-in at that point in response to a pot-sized bet, I could have folded much more easily. Would be interested to know how others would have played this hand. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Flatout_Mainiac, 17. Dec 2003 05:20 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Are you referring to tourney NLHE? I don't play cash games but in tourneys I pretty much muck Axs, and Kxs when it is early or if I'm not in late position. In the later rounds I use it to steal, if i get called I still have an A or a K to fall back on. But I'll play Ax and Kx pretty much the same way. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Richard Martone, 17. Dec 2003 08:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Being new to hold'em, I've had my share of these problems also and I am only learning to throw away A and any low card when the situation calls for it. Last night playing on-line, I was in a somewhat passive game when I was dealt Kd/3d in early position. Normally I usually throws these away, but no one was raising lately and I made around the table without a raise. The flop came Ad 10d 7d and the nut flush was just staring at me. I don't like to slow play but my more aggresive betting would surely drive out the players and I checked to get more higher bets on the turn and river. Fortuantely, some one bet, I called, the turn came it was a rag, I checked, the player bet and I raise, and was able to get other callers. The river was another rag, one caller and I made a sizeable pot. The only way I think about AX and KX now is what kind of game I'm in, position and whose behind me and what are they doing lately, and of course what your opponents think of you(if you can get into their heads, that is). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Snorbolus, 17. Dec 2003 08:57 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Some things that I look for in no-limit when I consider playing AXs are: (1) Opponents with lots of cash in front of them, the more the merrier. If I am going to pay to draw for a flush I want to win lots of money when I hit it. (2) A chance to see the flop cheaply. (3) Late position. This is very important. If there is going to be crazy action on the flop I want to know about it before I decide wether or not to put my money in too. If you only hit your ace and decide to play anyhow, most of the time you are pretty much on a pure bluff. Even top pair, good kicker is a shaky holding. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Aisthesis, 17. Dec 2003 11:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks very much for your help. Comments below... on 17. Dec 2003 08:57 Snorbolus wrote: > Some things that I look for in no-limit when I consider playing AXs are: > > (1) Opponents with lots of cash in front of them, the more the merrier. If I am > going to pay to draw for a flush I want to win lots of money when I hit it. > Well, one of my problems is clearly that no one ever pays for the flush when I hit, hence almost all of my positive results on these hands are wins of small pots. That's why I'm thinking I might be better off going ahead and semi-bluffing the flush draw more often. > (2) A chance to see the flop cheaply. > Yes, I think that's critical. > (3) Late position. This is very important. If there is going to be crazy action on > the flop I want to know about it before I decide wether or not to put my money in > too. Oddly, my low pairs and suited connectors are still winners in EP, whereas my "trouble hands" are not (although they make up the bulk of my winnings in MP and LP). Perhaps I should view AXs and KXs as just significantly worse hands than the suited connectors. (my point of departure on these hands is that Brunson views them "much like" the suited connectors--but he doesn't really go into detail as to how to play them) > > If you only hit your ace and decide to play anyhow, most of the time you are pretty > much on a pure bluff. Even top pair, good kicker is a shaky holding. > Yeah, you're really right about that--although a bluff with certain benefits. I guess it should probably be viewed more like betting second pair (hence, for me, betting it in general only in LP to a bunch of checks). > Snorbolus I'll have to see what happens mucking them consistently in EP, at least, and playing the flops differently. With Brunson recommending that they be played, I hate to scrap them entirely, but they're definitely a sizeable leak at the moment. The thing is, a flop with two cards to one's suit is going to happen something like 1 in 9 hands. So, in order to hold up at all, they're going to have to do quite well on all of those flops. And hopefully, with cautious play, I can pick up enough scraps (and never lose much) when I hit the A or K in order to make them profitable. Or maybe they should just be viewed as good hands to bluff with at overly tight tables but, over the long haul, not truly playable. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Snorbolus, 17. Dec 2003 20:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| A couple more comments added: on 17. Dec 2003 11:54 Aisthesis wrote: > Thanks very much for your help. Comments below... > Well, one of my problems is clearly that no one ever pays for the flush when I hit, hence > almost all of my positive results on these hands are wins of small pots....... If I did not believe that I would get payed when I made my flush (and payed big at that) then I would never play Axs. A pared ace with no kicker is an awful holding. > Oddly, my low pairs and suited connectors are still winners in EP, whereas my "trouble > hands" are not (although they make up the bulk of my winnings in MP and LP). .... I think that low pairs are usually OK to play up front because a small set is much easier to play out of position than a straight or flush draw. Drawing hands are tricky to play on the flop in big bet hold'em (for me at least), so I want as much information as possible before its my turn to act. The trouble with going after small pots with weak holdings is that as soon as somebody plays back at you then you have to fold. What happens if you bet your second pair into a straight draw board on the flop, get smooth called by a set and then hit your kicker on the turn? This type of situation gives you lots of excellent opportunitys to loose your entire stack. Snorbolus | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Aisthesis, 18. Dec 2003 21:49 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually, just one note there, which did surprize me when looking at my stats: the suited connectors and one-gappers are actually working for me from any position--so that is one drawing hand that seems to be working even in EP (by contrast, the "trouble hands" are losers in EP but pretty sizeable winners for me everywhere else). I'll pick up this post again in a few weeks and see if I can turn things around on AXs and KXs just by much greater caution on anything but flush draw and mucking them in EP. Maybe I'll have to pretty much give them up altogether, as it appears you do, but I'm not quite ready to do that just yet. Oh, by the way, I agree fully with you on betting second pair in the situation you describe. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, shorn, 17. Dec 2003 13:13 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sounds like you have hit all of the relevant points. The one that I would disagree with is playing Kxs strongly into a four flush flop. You aren't drawing to the nuts, so I don't like to bet this hand until made. Frankly, I dump Kxs if the x is below 9 as I want str8 potential with it too. Otherwise, I think you have answered your own question. I would venture to bet too that most of your money lost on these hands is when you flop top pair with your weak kicker. That is a situation where you need the discipline (in multi0way at least) to fold it when someone shows some strength. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, mroban, 17. Dec 2003 14:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I never call a preflop raise with Axs or Kxs unless there are at least 3 other callers. And if the raise is bigger than a typical 4x or 3x blind raise I would usually much that hand. You only have a 4% chance of flopping a flush. Even if you get a 4 flush, a raise preflop (followed by a few callers) indicates that you may be up against at least one large pair. Its likely that the first raiser will make another large raise (perhaps another pot sized raise on the flop) thus destroying your odds (unless everyone called again). In general, I dont want to play either of these hands unless I can sneak in on a limp in late position. Anybody disagree. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Snorbolus, 18. Dec 2003 07:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Mroban, I want to ask about your at least 3 callers guideline. In no-limit I tend to be more concerned with how much money the callers have in front of them than by how many of them there are. If there was only one other player but he and I both had massive stacks then I would be very willing to call a small (relative to the size of our stacks) bet with Axs, provided that I thought he would pay me off if I hit my flush. I am still learning this game though and could be missing something. What do you think? Snorbolus on 17. Dec 2003 14:47 mroban wrote: > I never call a preflop raise with Axs or Kxs unless there are at least 3 other > callers. And if the raise is bigger than a typical 4x or 3x blind raise I would > usually much that hand. You only have a 4% chance of flopping a flush. Even if you > get a 4 flush, a raise preflop (followed by a few callers) indicates that you may be > up against at least one large pair. Its likely that the first raiser will make > another large raise (perhaps another pot sized raise on the flop) thus destroying > your odds (unless everyone called again). > > In general, I dont want to play either of these hands unless I can sneak in on a > limp in late position. Anybody disagree. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, noiseboy, 18. Dec 2003 09:54 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| One of the things that Brunson focuses in on when he talks about the low connectors is that he'd rather make the str8 or str8 draw than the flush or flush draw, because you get paid off more, and semi-bluffs are more likely to work with a str8 draw than a flush draw. Therefore, when Brunson says that he "plays Axs and Kxs a lot like the suited connectors" I assume he means that he plays them much like the flush draw flops to suited connectors. With Axs, you can obviously be more aggressive than with any other flush draw. I wish he'd put in a separate chapter on Axs and Kxs, because there are significant differences in how you can play them based on the flop. For example, when the flop comes 259 with two to your suit is a MUCH different situation than if the flop comes 9TJ with two to your suit. You won't be semibluffing much against a board that you KNOW would hit almost any playable hand. Also, there is a pretty big difference between nut flush draws and non nut flush draws (although he covers the non-nut variety under suited connectors). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Aisthesis, 18. Dec 2003 22:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yes exactly!! I wish he had put in a chapter on those as well. But I do interpret him differently on "playing them much like the suited connectors." For one thing, on the connectors, the flush draw is going to be weak, hence risky even if you make it. With AXs it isn't. But I basically never get paid off on the flush if I wait to bet until I actually have it. So I'm reading him as meaning playing the flush draw with AXs or KXs like the open straight draw with 76s. Otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense to me at all. There's absolutely no way for the hands to be profitable if you can't make money off the flush draw. I also do think KXs can be played pretty much just like AXs and interestingly, my loss rate on both groups is almost identical. I would say you do have to watch with KXs if you flop the complete flush because the A of the appropriate suit may easily be out there. But only about one in four pockets is going to be suited at all, of those, very few containing the A of your suit. I think one can pretty much discount someone else having AXs against your KXs of the same suit--but that one does need to worry about the lone ace in the appropriate suit. I'll post some results again in a few weeks if I can get enough games together to see how this is working. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: AXs and KXs in NLHE, Snorbolus, 19. Dec 2003 09:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Somebody playing suited connectors from EP might make their small flush and put in a big bet at the same time that you make the nuts with your Axs in late position. This also shows why Axs is so very much better than Kxs. Snorbolus > ......But I basically never get paid off on the flush if I wait to bet until I actually have it. on 18. Dec 2003 22:05 Aisthesis wrote: > Yes exactly!! I wish he had put in a chapter on those as well. > But I do interpret him differently on "playing them much like the suited connectors." For > one thing, on the connectors, the flush draw is going to be weak, hence risky even if you > make it. With AXs it isn't. But I basically never get paid off on the flush if I wait to > bet until I actually have it. So I'm reading him as meaning playing the flush draw with > AXs or KXs like the open straight draw with 76s. Otherwise, it just doesn't make any sense > to me at all. There's absolutely no way for the hands to be profitable if you can't make > money off the flush draw. > I also do think KXs can be played pretty much just like AXs and interestingly, my loss > rate on both groups is almost identical. I would say you do have to watch with KXs if you > flop the complete flush because the A of the appropriate suit may easily be out there. But > only about one in four pockets is going to be suited at all, of those, very few containing > the A of your suit. I think one can pretty much discount someone else having AXs against > your KXs of the same suit--but that one does need to worry about the lone ace in the > appropriate suit. > I'll post some results again in a few weeks if I can get enough games together to see how > this is working. | ||
| 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 |
|