A-K Revisited - Part I

A while ago, while checking out some of the poker sites for new information, there was a post on TwoPlusTwo that got my attention. It read:

Caro's advice …

A good player under the gun raises. I'm the small blind, and everybody folds. I have A-K suited or A-K offsuit. What's my action here?

This is a question from Mike Caro's online poker lessons, told to me by a poker player who is a student there. Answer … clear fold, suited or not.

Is he right here? I doubt it, but I like to hear other opinions.

The first couple of responses were from people disagreeing with Caro. Even though I don't post very often, in this case I decided to do so. I wrote:

Mr. Caro is right …

I know most people will think: How can this be good advice? How tight do people expect me to play? But it's not about playing tight or loose; it's about having the best hand or not, and about risk versus reward. For a more detailed analysis of this exact situation, I would refer to my first limit hold'em quiz. First, do the quiz, then you'll get the explanation of why the preferred play is in fact the best play – in my opinion, that is.

When reading this, it's important to keep a few things in mind: I've been known as the "Ace" for years – and for a reason. I was known as a super-rock when I started playing for a living. In fact, a lot of people claimed I was not much of a player, that I was simply lucky to win as often (and as much) as I did. For years, people have said: "How does he do this? When I raise with A-K, the flop comes with rags. When he does, an ace or king flops. And not only that, it's about the only hand he plays – but he always wins. How can this be?" When I stepped up to pot-limit poker about four years ago – more specifically, when I started playing pot-limit Omaha – I heard the same comments, but then it was the aces people were concerned with. Time and time again I've heard: "How can this be? I cannot win with a flush or a full house, but he sits there for hours waiting for aces. Then, he is able to go all in with them before the flop and he always wins – even with just a single pair. How is this possible?"

Well, what most people tend to forget is that there is almost always a right or a wrong way to play a hand. You've got to adjust to the circumstances, the atmosphere at the table, the tendencies of your opponents, and a dozen other things. One of the reasons I still get action nowadays in pot-limit Omaha is that even though I hardly ever play a hand, I "gamble" with my opponents once in a while, especially with loose players. Because I sometimes raise with hands with which they wouldn't raise, they sometimes raise me back before the flop, giving me the chance to get my whole stack in as a big favorite. Because I give them a bit of action occasionally with some funny hands, I get a lot of action in return – sometimes when I hold the nuts. Therefore, it has nothing to do with luck when I win a big pot playing like this. Everything I do or say at the table – the amount of my early raises, all the chatting I do with the gambling type of players, and the overall image I try to create – is done to get me in these kinds of favorable situations. The reason I used to win with A-K so often when I was still playing only limit hold'em was that people saw me as a super-rock, and always assumed I was in there with the nuts when I was in a hand. So, they folded when they should have called, called when they should have raised, gave free cards to me that caused them to lose the pot, and so on. What people forget is that no A-K (in limit hold'em) or A-A (in PLO) is the same. In fact, I don't think there is a single player in Europe who has folded A-K before the flop as much as I have, even though I love the hand. I know there are people who never fold the hand and claim, "If you cannot play A-K, what hands can you play?" However, their thinking is beside the point: It's not a matter of playing tight or loose; it's about having the best hand or getting the right odds. Having said that, what possible reasons could there be to fold such a good hand before the flop?

• The pot has been raised or reraised, and you think there's a decent chance that you are up against aces or kings.

• Even though the raiser or reraiser doesn't necessarily need to have aces or kings, you figure your hand may be rather dead; that is, the kings and aces you need are in some of your opponents' hands, and the way the hand developed, you know you will have to improve your A-K to win.

• Even when your A-K is in fact the best hand before the flop, you believe the situation you are in right now is simply a bad one. If you flat-call or reraise the player or players who raised or reraised, you might get outplayed by them after the flop. This is especially true if even by reraising, you cannot isolate against one person and will have to play your A-K in a fourway pot against aggressive and experienced players. Knowing what type of hand you probably hold, they may put a lot of pressure on you in order to make you lay down the current best hand – for instance, when the flop comes with rags. This is especially likely if you are relatively inexperienced and not really able to make the distinction between someone who truly has a good hand and someone who is merely representing one.

• You are probably going to win a small pot if your hand is good, but lose a big one if it's not (reverse/negative implied odds).

• You are playing in a game with a high rake, which makes playing for small pots unattractive (this is the case in most of the places in Europe that I frequent).

• You are in a 10-handed game. In a 10-handed game, players in first position need a slightly better starting hand to raise than in a ninehanded game, simply because there are seven players behind them yet to act instead of six (once again, this is the case in most of the limit hold'em games I play in).

• You are out of position, not knowing where you're at and whether your A-K is good or not.

Having said all of this, you hardly ever fold A-K before the flop. Most of the time, you have a calling, raising, or reraising hand. You should keep in mind, however, that your A-K is very strong in position when heads up against a loose goose, but not nearly as strong when out of position against a solid, or even good, player who has shown strength – especially if the person you are up against has high raising standards for the position he's in.

Let's get back to the thread. I got an interesting response from someone who said:

Well, I agree with what you say about this not being a too "tight or loose" question, but I still don't like this fold. A solid player will raise with several hands, even from under the gun, that A-K and especially A-K suited dominate. Finally, this is coming from somebody who has folded A-K before the flop plenty of times, and I even folded it out of the big blind once not too long ago, but I just don't think this situation calls for a fold.

Most posters agreed with this reasoning, claiming I was wrong in my recommendation to fold the hand from the small blind for just a single raise, because of the positive expected value (EV) the A-K would have here. They claimed there are lots of hands the under-the-gun (UTG) raiser could hold that would still give you a decent chance to win the pot, and that, in short, you would be getting the right odds to call with your A-K here.

I didn't agree with the people who claimed the A-K would have a positive expectation in the situation mentioned, and that the advice offered by Caro in his online poker lessons (folding) was therefore wrong. I wrote:

OK, suppose you call. Now, how are you going to play your hand? If you are lucky enough that you still have chances (that is, the UTG player doesn't have aces or kings, but a lower pair), you can win – if an ace or king flops. But your opponent sees that, too. So, what does he do? He's not going to give you action: You will win the money in the pot, and that's it. But what are YOU going to do when only low cards flop? Are you going to call him down, hoping he doesn't have a pair? (Playing like this will be VERY expensive in the long run.) Or, are you perhaps going to fold? If your hand WAS good and the under-the-gun player HAD one of the hands you guys claim he might possibly hold (A-10 suited, A-J, whatever), you got bluffed out. Either way, you are in bad shape after the flop, and your preflop call has gotten you into a lot of trouble. In my opinion, the situation is like this: You are out of position, with a hand that might be a dog to begin with, with nothing in the pot, and if you hit, you win nothing, but if you don't hit, you lose a bunch of extra bets. Or, if you hit an ace or king when your opponent HAS aces or kings, you will lose even more bets; in fact, you are going to go broke. Yet, you guys still think Caro is wrong? Try to look BEYOND your own starting hand, because it is just that – a starting hand (nothing more, nothing less).

Things got even more interesting. Mason Malmuth got involved, and wrote:

"In my opinion, the situation is like this: You are out of position, with a hand that might be a dog to begin with."

Rolf:

I don't want you to take this wrong, but I suspect that you are being influenced by your pot-limit play, since this is exactly the argument that a pot-limit player would make. You are overlooking the fact that your hand might also have the under-the-gun player in serious trouble.

Here's how I would usually play it: First, you must realize that the hand is playable. Now, with that being the case, it is important to keep the big blind out, so it becomes imperative to make it three bets. This increases your chances of winning without improving. Now that you have made it three bets (assuming your opponent only calls), you can lead the betting on the flop and turn.

Notice that this strategy is much more dangerous in pot-limit than in limit, since in the pot-limit version, you may look at a giant-size bet or raise from a person who has position on you. So, you must be much more cautious, and folding now may be correct.

I responded:

Well, while it's true that most people know me as a pot-limit player, I still consider limit hold'em to be my main game. (I've been playing limit hold'em almost exclusively – and professionally – for more than three years before moving up to pot-limit poker). Nowadays, I play mostly pot-limit Omaha, but NEVER pot-limit hold'em, so I have no opinion on how to play the A-K in PLH in the situation you mention. In limit hold'em, I am somewhat leery of playing hands with which I might be a big dog, and I think the A-K in this situation qualifies. I don't agree that there are many hands YOU will be dominating with your A-K. In my games (OK, not Vegas, AND 10-handed), under-the-gun raises by solid players are almost always pairs eights and higher or A-K – but in the Vegas middle-limit games, things might be a lot different, so I cannot and should not judge on those games. (Also, keep in mind that Caro offered his advice to a Poker School student, and this student is not likely to be playing in aggressive middle-limit games.) Although I agree that reraising is an option, how are you going to play your hand when your opponent caps it (assuming three raises only), and three small cards flop? Are you going to call all the way, assuming your A-K is good? Or, are you going to fold at any stage, when your opponent might have a worse hand? In my opinion, chances are that you will WIN a small pot when your hand is good, and LOSE a big pot when it's not – and this is not the most enviable position to be in when playing poker. Also, putting lots of bets into a small pot when it's unclear where you're at is something I try to avoid – even though it IS possible that by doing this, I will occasionally fold the best hand preflop.

Malmuth then replied:

Rolf, you need to understand that if you are up against someone who would raise with a pair smaller than kings, you certainly want to play A-K because of the blind money that is already in the pot. Granted, this is only a small profit situation, but it still has positive value. So, being up against someone who would raise with any pair 8-8 or higher should be incentive to play, not fold.

By the way, if you read our books, and this is consistent with the way I usually play, you usually call UTG with J-J, 10-10, 9-9, and 8-8. So, when I think of a tight, solid player raising from under the gun, I am thinking of someone who is less desirable to play against than you are describing.

However, I am also thinking of someone – and again, if you follow our advice, you would do this – who raises UTG with A-Q. You seem to be thinking of someone who would not raise from under the gun with A-Q. While in certain games it might be correct not to raise with this hand from up front, the typical tight, solid player (in my experience) will raise with it virtually every time UTG.

Now, as I have already stated in another post, I do agree that if A-Q is not a possible raising hand, this changes everything. Furthermore, I would also agree that even if you knew he would raise with the additional pairs you mention but not raise with A-Q, the additional pairs would be enough to swing your A-K from a fold to a call.

Anyway, I think we have the answer. If the tight, solid UTG player does raise with A-Q, folding A-K is clearly wrong. If he also raises with some other hands, such as A-J suited, K-Q suited, and some additional pairs, it becomes even more wrong to fold the A-K. However, if the only non-paired hand he will raise with is A-K, you should give it up when you hold A-K in the small blind.

So, the question is whether the tight player who raised UTG plays as you describe or as I describe. In my experience, they almost all play much closer to what I am describing than what you are describing. However, it's not how they play in general, but how this particular person plays. So, I would agree that against a few people, it might be right to fold the A-K. This would be the person against whom, as you say, you might be a big dog. But also notice that this person is virtually never a big dog against you. If he can also be a big dog against you, that changes everything.

Interesting discussions like this one go on and on on the Internet. Most of the time, you will get opinions; it is hardly ever a matter of right or wrong. It's a great thing that some of the best players in the world are willing to share their knowledge for free.

So, was I right in my recommendations regarding A-K for this specific situation, or was I wrong? Make up your own mind. Every game is different, every hand is different, and every situation is different, so it's hard to come up with cut-and-dried answers all the time. I would say this: Take advantage of the fact that good or even excellent players are willing to share their opinions in public, even though they aren't necessarily right all the time – and that includes me. (Even experts or proven champions can be wrong on occasion; however, because they are experts, this will not happen very often, and most of the time when they are wrong, they will be only slightly wrong.) If you are able to make the right play a large percentage of the time and know why you're making that play, you've come a long way; in fact, I would guess you've come a lot further than maybe 90 percent or 95 percent of poker players.

Anyway, in the second part of this series, I will make a final analysis of what has become known as the "A-K in the small blind problem," and I will dig into the matter a little deeper.