STT - AA first hand

[Chewie2000]

Re: STT - AA first hand I think your all right.. lower limit I would definately push all-in early into the STT structure (hands 1-10) if I get callers great, If i dont Im setting my table image exactly how i want it (maniac aggresive) which will play into my hands later Higher stakes.. limp early position looking for a raise or raise (aggresively) from a late position and wait for the fireworks,... and if your on Stars cross your fingers :hope coz u know those Aces are going to get cracked :wall slaters taters

[Valiant23]

Re: STT - AA first hand :ok - 6 here...:eyes

[The Rivers]

Re: STT - AA first hand On low limits i think i would go all-in because i have often seen lunatics doing this with any cards at the start of a tourney. And with nobody knowing who i am or what kind of player i am then hopefully they will mistake me for one of these. There could quite possibly be someone holding something like pocket 10's, AJ or even kings, (would anyone fold kings in this situation?) and they might think they have the best hand. And if everyone folds i would be disapointed, but there's been plenty of times i've had aces and everyone has folded to me on the BB, or i've made a raise and got no action. So i think i'd get over it and just try and win some chips with lesser hands as usual.:eyes MTT's (especially freerolls) are probably the best time to do it on the first hand. But that's just stating the obvious.

[philossify]

Re: STT - AA first hand Me - depends on position - early on, especiailly as first better I'd put in a small raise - just double the blind - and hope that someone raises my bet or goes all in - at that point II'd go all-in when it got back round to me. In late position, especially for $10 STTs or less then its all-in, unless theres no other callers of BB so far and I know (from notes of previous encounters) that theres an aggressive SB/BB player in which case I'd consider just limping in and hoping they raise it. Middle position its a coin toss between the two above.

[Doddsy]

Re: STT - AA first hand It depends on the position and if I have any history/notes with any of the players at the table. In early position, I would raise maybe twice the big blind but if I was in late position or on the button and there was a lot of callers or no raises, I would go all in.

[jeffers]

Re: STT - AA first hand :rollin :rollin 2nd hand of an STT just now... ** Dealing card to jeffers_81: King of Spades, King of Hearts 240204 folded VanBam folded gernasha folded BossKief called - $20.00 BisseBert raised - $80.00 Tank2006 called - $80.00 johan_haren folded jeffers_81 raised - $140.00 Sale70 folded jerannjay folded BossKief folded BisseBert raised - $200.00 Tank2006 folded jeffers_81 went all-in - $830.00 BisseBert went all-in - $640.00 BisseBert shows: Ace of Diamonds, Ace of Hearts Guess I could never have gota way from that :D

[guesswest]

Re: STT - AA first hand The EV is the same heads up vs 5 way, to whoever said that - though obviously your chances of winning the hand aren't the same. Think more or less everyone agrees that if there's a way to get all your chips in and get called pre-flop that you want to. So it's just a question of how best to achieve that. To answer that you'd need to know what stakes it is, how many people are sat down, if anyones sat out, any notes you have on players, blind structure etc - not enough info to answer. But my gut instinct here is to side with V's suggesting, limp hoping to come over the top of a subsequent raise. To whoever said they see an all-in first hand of a STT about 50% of the time - I dunno where you play, but I hardly ever see this, 1 in 100 maybe? Where are you playing??

[mrmuzeman]

Re: STT - AA first hand Stick in a healthy raise, any other option is just poor play imo. Despite what some people are saying, its a lot more likely than not you wont get called if you just go all in straight off the bat like that. I can see why some are saying all in cos you do see some muppet play for sure. I mean if somebodys already put in a healthy raise before you its a more viable option.

[mrmuzeman]

Re: STT - AA first hand I dont agree with the limp. Youd have to have information on a crazy player to your left to do that, and you dont have this information 1st hand in a tournament.

[AJ]

Re: STT - AA first hand

To whoever said they see an all-in first hand of a STT about 50% of the time - I dunno where you play, but I hardly ever see this, 1 in 100 maybe? Where are you playing??

That was me, I mostly play on the lower limit stt's on prima, the lower the table limit the more likey you are to see it. I once played a $1 5 players turbo, 4 players went all in first hand (I wasn't one of them), 2 of them spilt the pot with AK

[slapdash]

Re: STT - AA first hand

The EV is the same heads up vs 5 way' date=' to whoever said that - though obviously your chances of winning the hand aren't the same.[/quote'] I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't think the EV is the same heads up as 5-way, is it? If you're all-in with AA, then I'm pretty sure your EV is higher against more players. That's certainly true against random hands. The figures will change for the kinds of hands that might decide to go all-in or call your all-in, but I'd be surprised if that overturned the EV advantage of having more players.

[stereoman]

Re: STT - AA first hand LOL! Am playing a low-limit Dirty Dozen SNG over at Betfred and I get dealt AA 1st hand! :lol Raise it to 120, 2 callers. Bet 240 on the flop, both fold. Dangerous flop an' all, that. :eek ;lol

[guesswest]

Re: STT - AA first hand

I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, but I don't think the EV is the same heads up as 5-way, is it? If you're all-in with AA, then I'm pretty sure your EV is higher against more players. That's certainly true against random hands. The figures will change for the kinds of hands that might decide to go all-in or call your all-in, but I'd be surprised if that overturned the EV advantage of having more players.

Sorry yes you're right, quick typing mixed with slow brain. It's the all-in bit that's significant here I think. I meant that your EV remains constant if you were in for (say) 1000 against 5 players, or 5000 against 1. You have more +EV in this situation against multiple players only because it means the pot is bigger and you're spreading your existing positive expectation over a bigger bet. I think that's right - am I wrong? Would appreciate clarification if so, I'm not very mathematically minded :\

[slapdash]

Re: STT - AA first hand

It's the all-in bit that's significant here I think. I meant that your EV remains constant if you were in for (say) 1000 against 5 players, or 5000 against 1. You have more +EV in this situation against multiple players only because it means the pot is bigger and you're spreading your existing positive expectation over a bigger bet. I think that's right - am I wrong? Would appreciate clarification if so, I'm not very mathematically minded :\

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Against random hands, you have about an 85% chance of winning against one opponent and about a 49% chance of winning against five opponents. So in the first case, if you both have 5000 chips in the pot, then you have an EV of about 8500 chips (or an expected profit of 3500 chips). In the second case, if all six players have 1000 chips in the pot, then you have an EV of about 2940 chips (or an expected profit of 1940 chips). About whether it's the all-in bit that's important, I'm a bit confused myself. I've been meaning to sit down and think through carefully WHY "aces play better heads-up". I don't doubt it's true, and I have a vague idea why, but I can't say I REALLY understand it. Certainly the arguments I've seen in books have seemed very unconvincing to me.

[guesswest]

Re: STT - AA first hand I stand corrected on the multi-way EV thing - I'd always assumed it remained (proportionally) the same. Big error on my part! As far as aces heads up go though, I was thinking about this recently. My theory is something like this: If you're not playing them heads up it's generally because you're not putting in a significant pre-flop raise. That means you're getting calls from suited connectors/medium pocket pairs etc. They're only going to continue to call you if they hit (and thus normally have you beat) - but they're easily thrown away when they miss. The maxim is something like 'you win less often but you win more' when people talk about playing aces multi-way, but I think you just win less often because in terms of the real dynamics of the game people aren't paying you when you're ahead. And even in situations where you are ahead and have some muppet calling you with an underpair or for the hell of it, unless you've hit a set or some such you can't really bet with enough confidence to get paid in such a way that it'd show the same kind of profitability as heads-up play.