Heads up against AA

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

you are at least a 4-1 dog PF

And what do you think the Implied odds I'm being offered are? They DWARF 4-1!!!!

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

if folks are going to disagree and say that it is right to call just because you know he has aces is a poor explanation and a very poor justification for calling - its about making MONEY, so someone explain to me how to make money and get the aces to fold when the board starts to play

Well the AA has to act first - lets say the flop comes K94 rainbow - What do YOU do with your AA? (then I'll give you my response)

[PAULM03]

Re: Heads up against AA

actually it is you that has hugely over estimated the value of any 2 and underestimated how far you are behind and how much money this play will cost you in the long run.

Who's talking about the long run? It's 1 hand in a specific situation, you have to see the flop and take it from there. Given the info in the OP its likely to be costing you less than 5% of your stack.

[robilaruk]

Re: Heads up against AA wel in that case you need you need to shove PF every hand and gamble because that is what you are doing by working with implied odds there you go - simple explanation and a simple way to play poker - no need for any more theoretical discussion :ok Damo

And what do you think the Implied odds I'm being offered are? They DWARF 4-1!!!!

[robilaruk]

Re: Heads up against AA excellent, someone who only plays individual hands this is great and why I make a steady profit despite the bad beats Damo

Who's talking about the long run? It's 1 hand in a specific situation' date=' you have to see the flop and take it from there. Given the info in the OP its likely to be costing you less than 5% of your stack.[/quote']

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

wel in that case you need you need to shove PF every hand and gamble

If you shove then your implied odds are zero :unsure

[guesswest]

Re: Heads up against AA

wel in that case you need you need to shove PF every hand and gamble because that is what you are doing by working with implied odds

That's not what implied odds are at all! Implied odds are future looking pot odds. So if you knew for example that the aces would shove post-flop you'd have implied odds to call with any 2 (or any 1 for that matter) - it would be a profitable and mathematically justified play.

[robilaruk]

Re: Heads up against AA you are using implied odds as a reason to call when you know you are behind - so if you are prepared to call for 2 blinds or 4 blinds or 10 blinds, then you are a womble and might as well shove to 'maximise' your implied odds and attempt to double up by gambling Damo

If you shove then your implied odds are zero :unsure

[PAULM03]

Re: Heads up against AA

excellent, someone who only plays individual hands this is great and why I make a steady profit despite the bad beats Damo

I play each hand on its merits, thats why I make a steady profit - despite bad beats. The stack sizes and blinds here are key IMO. In a situation where I'm going to be putting a sizable proportion of my stack on the table it's a fold every time.

[PAULM03]

Re: Heads up against AA

you are using implied odds as a reason to call when you know you are behind - so if you are prepared to call for 2 blinds or 4 blinds or 10 blinds, then you are a womble and might as well shove to 'maximise' your implied odds and attempt to double up by gambling Damo

eh? You don't maximise your implied odds by shoving pre-flop:unsure If you know that the AA is putting all his chips on the table post-flop then you're putting 30 in to see a flop where all the chips are on the table and you have the choice to turn them down knowing your opponents hand. That's big implied odds.

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

you are using implied odds as a reason to call when you know you are behind - so if you are prepared to call for 2 blinds or 4 blinds or 10 blinds, then you are a womble and might as well shove to 'maximise' your implied odds and attempt to double up by gambling Damo

I am prepared to bet 10 blinds now if I can win 10,000 blinds if I hit on the flop. If I bet my entire stack (say 10,000 blinds now), then I cannot win any extra blinds if I hit on the flop!!! So it is CORRECT to call if my opponent will lose a lot of chips if I hit, but it is WRONG to call if my opponent is all in.......

[robilaruk]

Re: Heads up against AA a-ha the LAAG way of playing hoping to hit a monster despite your cards so Aces shove the flop - and you call and you have 2 cards to dodge hoping that Aces don't improve to beat you - and the range of cards that makes aces the winning hand on the river could be potentially huge its a circular arguement that doesn't go anywhere IMHO Damo

That's not what implied odds are at all! Implied odds are future looking pot odds. So if you knew for example that the aces would shove post-flop you'd have implied odds to call with any 2 (or any 1 for that matter) - it would be a profitable and mathematically justified play.

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

so Aces shove the flop - and you call and you have 2 cards to dodge hoping that Aces don't improve to beat you - and the range of cards that makes aces the winning hand on the river could be potentially huge

So you're saying that you should fold if you're ahead too? Because your opponent has Aces and Might hit? :loon

[robilaruk]

Re: Heads up against AA excellent am looking forward to playing you HU then ;) anyhoo I gave my explanation, am going to be quiet now and let others discuss Damo

I am prepared to bet 10 blinds now if I can win 10,000 blinds if I hit on the flop. If I bet my entire stack (say 10,000 blinds now), then I cannot win any extra blinds if I hit on the flop!!! So it is CORRECT to call if my opponent will lose a lot of chips if I hit, but it is WRONG to call if my opponent is all in.......

[PAULM03]

Re: Heads up against AA

a-ha the LAAG way of playing hoping to hit a monster despite your cards

So you're saying if you were the guy holding AA you'd shove every time? Right, let's go back to the the OP.

We're playing a heads-up cash game with 10/20 blinds and we both have enormous stacks, far bigger than the blinds. raise to 50 as small blind, and accidentally show you my hand

Right, you have to add 30 to a pot of 70 so pot odds are: 7/3=2.333 If you know the guy with AA is shoving after the flop then implied odds (assuming stack of 10000) 1000/3=333.3333 That has to be a call with any 2 cards. Assuming the guy with AA knows this and so won't shove regardless of the flop then you have an opportunity to buy the pot. You have to call.

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

excellent am looking forward to playing you HU then ;)

Which bit of what I said do you disagree with?

[guesswest]

Re: Heads up against AA

a-ha the LAAG way of playing hoping to hit a monster despite your cards so Aces shove the flop - and you call and you have 2 cards to dodge hoping that Aces don't improve to beat you - and the range of cards that makes aces the winning hand on the river could be potentially huge its a circular arguement that doesn't go anywhere IMHO Damo

It's nothing of the kind. Implied odds are the single most central concept to NL play - its why there's chapters devoted to it in pretty much every book on NL ever written. If you pick up two pair on the flop and the aces shove then you're correct to call, yes you only have x% chance of winning (I can't be bothered to work it out), but you easily have odds to call - the call is long-term profitable. It's true that people use implied odds as justification for loose calls, but even the tightest player should be making calls based on implied odds when the situation is right, and when behind, if they want to win in NL. Edit: And the post-flop call isn't even about implied odds, it's just a pot odds call. It's the pre-flop call thats made based on implied odds.

[happyhornet]

Re: Heads up against AA Wow, this seems to have evoked some fairly vociferous opinions! My humble thought is that you have to see the flop as the cost (as a percentage of your stack) is minimal. What we do from there depends on what cards come up.

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA Didn't expect it to generate this much heat! Must be a good question. It's not a trick question. I've read an answer that convinces me, but it's not a rigorous proof, so I'm prepared to be unconvinced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapdash We're playing a heads-up cash game with 10/20 blinds and we both have enormous stacks, far bigger than the blinds.

Is this the info you're after Damo? If you want a specific figure for stacks, lets say we both have equal stacks of $10,000.Is this the info you're after Damo? If you want a specific figure for stacks, lets say we both have equal stacks of $10,000.

Let's make it $10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, just to make sure the precise stack sizes are irrelevant. :D

Well the AA has to act first

Actually, he acts second after the flop, doesn't he? Heads up, remember. An observation: It is never right for the AA to make a really big bet (tens of thousands of times the pot) post-flop unless his hand is guaranteed to be favourite against any two cards. If he does, and if you only call when you have the two cards that beat him, then he's giving you positive EV. Another observation: There are some flops (e.g., A75 rainbow) where he's guaranteed to be ahead, so obviously you can't go all-in if the flop is like this. Even if you go all-in post-flop only if you could be ahead, the odds are that you're not ahead, so if he knows this is your strategy, then he'll call and he'll have positive EV. A question: Suppose you called with any two cards, and just suppose that you knew both players would be forced to check until after the river. What's your optimal strategy on the river? And how well would you do on average? [i know this is an artificial restriction, but there is a point to it.] A final observation: The place I read about this referred to it as "the Ferguson Question".

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA

It's not a trick question. I've read an answer that convinces me, but it's not a rigorous proof, so I'm prepared to be unconvinced.

Another observation: A very good (won two WSOP bracelets this year) and very mathematically sophisticated player (Bill Chen), apparently thought the (wrong) answer was obviously correct when he first heard this problem. So there's no shame in being wrong. Don't be afraid to post your thoughts.

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

Another observation: A very good (won two WSOP bracelets this year) and very mathematically sophisticated player (Bill Chen), apparently thought the (wrong) answer was obviously correct when he first heard this problem. So there's no shame in being wrong. Don't be afraid to post your thoughts.

Now you have me worried :sad

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA One more observation: Some of those advocating calling have mentioned that the amount you have to pay to call is tiny compared to the size of your stack. But this is a bit of a red herring. The AA hand has a simple strategy to limit his losses to 50 chips ... he can just fold if you bet. So whatever strategy you use, your expected win can't be greater than 50 chips if he uses his optimal strategy.

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA Well, nothing in this thread has convinced me any different to my original answer, but it's looking increasingly like there is a "sting in the tail"!!!!! If the AA can limit his loss to 50 chips, that can only be by check/folding - so long as AA does not have the nuts therefore, any bet by the player without AA should be answered by a fold. So far as "what happens if both players are forced to fold" - well, in general, the more cards there are on the board, the more holdings there are that can be beating AA - so the less confidence AA has - the only alternative solution I can see then is to check and call all the way to the river, then, assuming the AA is not the nuts, make a big bet on the river, which the AA has great difficulty in calling...... However I still believe that the optimal play is to bet the flop and get the fold from AA.

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA

If the AA can limit his loss to 50 chips, that can only be by check/folding - so long as AA does not have the nuts therefore, any bet by the player without AA should be answered by a fold.

Why "only"? There might be an even better strategy for the AA, at least as far as expected profit/loss is concerned.

However I still believe that the optimal play is to bet the flop and get the fold from AA.

If your strategy is always to bet the flop (unless I have the nuts), then what if my strategy as AA is always to call? I think I win.

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA

So far as "what happens if both players are forced to fold" - well, in general, the more cards there are on the board, the more holdings there are that can be beating AA - so the less confidence AA has - the only alternative solution I can see then is to check and call all the way to the river, then, assuming the AA is not the nuts, make a big bet on the river, which the AA has great difficulty in calling......

An average hand has about a 15% chance of beating AA. So if you call with all hands and we're forced to check to the river, you have about a 15% chance of being ahead then. If your strategy is always to make a big bet at that stage, then I have large positive EV by calling. But what is your optimal ("Nash equilibrium") strategy at that stage?

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

An average hand has about a 15% chance of beating AA.

Agreed ....... but..... A lot of the hands that beat AA will be flush or Straight for example, which won't have a far better chance of hitting with 7 cards than 5...... if you want to outdraw Aces, then the more cards you draw, the more chance there is of hitting your draw ...... whilst after the flop you may have a 15% chance of winning the hand, there is a smaller chance of actually having hit abd being ahead at that point than with more cards ......

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA Ok - Nash Equilibrium guess........ You call pre flop...... post flop - if the AA is the nuts, then you check fold..... otherwise put in a large bet (say ... pot size) and AA can do nothing but fold...... THis strategy is not dependent on my cards at all - so the AA can have no way of knowing whether I've hit. Sure he'll know that 75% or so of the time I will have missed and am betting anyway, however he cannot be certain enough I have missed to risk his entire stack and push me out.

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA

Agreed ....... but..... A lot of the hands that beat AA will be flush or Straight for example, which won't have a far better chance of hitting with 7 cards than 5...... if you want to outdraw Aces, then the more cards you draw, the more chance there is of hitting your draw ...... whilst after the flop you may have a 15% chance of winning the hand, there is a smaller chance of actually having hit abd being ahead at that point than with more cards ......

OK. But you're still a big underdog. If you always go all in on the river and I always call on the river, you lose a lot. Again ... what is your best strategy on the river (assuming I know your strategy)?

[GaF]

Re: Heads up against AA

(assuming I know your strategy)?

AH - that's the key isn't it (wheres the scratch head smiley)

[slapdash]

Re: Heads up against AA

Ok - Nash Equilibrium guess........ You call pre flop...... post flop - if the AA is the nuts, then you check fold..... otherwise put in a large bet (say ... pot size) and AA can do nothing but fold......

Why not? If he knows that is your strategy, then he has positive EV by calling, as he knows there is a rather small probability that you're ahead.