Hey there all,

I'm still a new player, playing relatively safe on blinds of $0.25 . Though I notice something on poker shows but more importantly in my own experience. Pocket Aces (or kings for that matter) are often either overrated, or I am judging completely wrong.

I don't have any statistics for you, but often do I see that of course preflop Pocket aces dominate the table. But often after the flop cards come along where pocket Aces are just not any good: Sets come up, two pair, straights, flushes.

So do I have the right conclusion, that going all-in on pocket aces, is not really the best way to go?

Of course I have thought of my own answer, which is the most obvious one perhaps that it matters on the read you have on your opponents. But still, I would like to hear you guys about this. Seeing as you probably got tons of more experience and knowledge then me.

Thanks!

They're a trap hand, the dark truth is you rarely win a big pot with aces, you'll win a few small ones, but the best hand are hands like 67s because they can make a flush AND a straight. Aces rarely win big pots, Doyle Brunson even said so.

You're probably just running bad or remembering the times you lose more than the times you win.

No one in the history of poker loses money with aces.

I don't know the exact percentage but when you do have AA or KK and you don't hit your set how do you proceed to play the hand. Flopping a set is slim so some examples would help

[quote name='Sheiky' date='Thursday, August 28th, 2008, 12:38 PM' post='2766163']
They're a trap hand, the dark truth is you rarely win a big pot with aces, you'll win a few small ones, but the best hand are hands like 67s because they can make a flush AND a straight. Aces rarely win big pots, Doyle Brunson even said so.


lol

Thanks for the quick responces. Well the times i've seen Pocket aces played _and_ going all-in, were usually played by my opponents. And then lose to either me, or other people by 'getting lucky' somewhere after the flop. It just happens so often in my experience (seeing as Pocket Aces are quickly seen as a 'sure thing' that I just had to get some info from you guys ) that I decided to pose this question to you guys.

I myself hardly get any big pots with Pocket Aces, usually only very small pots with no showdown. Unless of course i'd slowplay, but like I implied with my opening post, I find that a bit risky seeing the chance someone else hits bigger then me isn't that small. I always have played my pocket Aces with my openings post in mind. Only once did I hit a big pot on pocket aces because I read my opponent correctly as weaker pocket pair.

Unfortunately, only just now do I notice Fulltilt poker didn't save any of my Hand histories. Didn't know it was off on default, so I can not give you concrete examples.

The glass is half full. Remember that.

Too many people get overly pessimistic that they've been out-flopped with AA/KK, simply because it's happened a few times in the past.

I generally tend to fold aces PF for the reasons Sheiky posted above.

1.) They generally won't win me a big pot, so whats the point of playing them
2.) I think it's pretty donkish to play AA and KK, seriously playing the suited connectors/small PP's and outplaying my opponents is where the real skill lies.

People overvaluate AA imo..

But you really have to adapt your own style, this is me speaking here, some people love to play AA, KK, hands like that. I think it's kinda spewy but whatever works for you.

get as much commited pre as you can so the other guy's mistake is worse.

Just b/c you have aa doesn't mean you have the nuts post flop.

AA is the hand I have one most with in the 36,000 hands of cash games I've played. I have won $313 with AA and the second biggest winner is AKo w/ $187. Is this similar for everyone else?

FWIW in these 36k hands I've made almost exactly $1,000, so almost 1/3 of my winnings comes from AA. LOL that seems weird.

Edit: actually second biggest winner is JJ w/ $217. Wow this is fascinating...

Wow.. does keeping track of all this really help? I mean every hand can potentially beat an opponent if the read and community cards are right enough , why bother keeping track of this all? Or is this really a dumb/beginners question?

It's fun to see what hands you've been winning and losing with, but untill you have a ridiculous amount of hands logged it's really hard to draw any significant conclusions about yout play with certain hands(on my previous DB I was down a buy in over 45 instances of KK). And yeh AA is always going to be miles ahead of any other hand over any decent sample size. One thing that helps me to analyse stuff like this is to go into hold em manager and set the filter to 'position: BB, VPIP: true, Button raise: true' or something simmilar and analyse specific areas of your play.



Heh, nothing's too dumb to ask on the internet. We don't 'keep track' of them per se, we use tracking programs that do it automaticaly for us.

My top 6

AA $4,918.85
KK $2,704.60
QQ $2,227.05
JJ $1,179.90
55 $1,043.85
TT $956.65

total winnings over 149,936 hands 7,237.00

1/3 of ur winnings do not come from AA you have to factor in the hands you lose

You really think that a hand like 52o will win as much money as AA over the long run? Are you serious?

I said I am new, not oblivious. I said 'can win potentially', I did not say 'constantly'. Meaning: ´Situation-dependent´. I made no implication on profits over time with raggier hands, I just meant you could win a hand with any hand: if the situation is right.

so no , didn't mean to say that.

Hmmm I didn't think of that. I knew it didn't seem right.

Anyway, even though it's not valid: I'm showing a profit with every pocket pair except 77, and have made $45 from K3s.

TBH these 36k hands are my entire 6 max career, and my style seems to change very regularly. It's really good to look at all you've achieved in any case. I defo should play around with the filters more though, and try and draw some decent conclusions.

I think part of your perception about aces, is you are not keeping track of the little wins they give you. And you notice your opponents when they showdown aces (and sometimes lose a big pot). What you aren't seeing are all the little pots your oppponents (and yourself) win with them. Where they steal the blinds or where the Aces get a caller preflop and then get called on the flop, only to fold on the turn - so the aces win a small/medium size pot but you never see they were aces. Etc...

I'm not going to pour through this thread. I'm going to say trapping and playing AA postflop is going to be hard work. I'm going to say that playing only premium hands is going to be unprofitable over time. I'm going to say that we need to actually play the game and not wait to see if people routinely pay off our big hands.

You just blew my mind.

I think he chose his words somewhat wrong, perhaps he meant something which would not blow your mind up..

I know. It didn't come out right. But y'all know what I meant.

Actually, I tend to understand OP's post. Texas Dolly once said that with Aces or Kings, you either win small pot or lose a big one.

That's why I like playing suited connectors. Remember, Holdem is a game of outs. With suited connectors, you hope to either make a flush or straight, also the occasional trips or fullhouse, or even a lone pair that beats an unimproved AK.

With a flush draw, you have 9 outs. With a straight draw, you have 8 outs. And since occasionally, you can also win with a single pair or trips/fullhouse, you have another 6 outs. That makes a total of 23 outs with a suited connector.

Aces on the other hand only have 2 outs since you can only improve to a set. That's why I make more money with suited connectors. Recognize the power of outs.

Thanks for sharing, I think these things will definately continue to improve my game.. A game of outs, so true.

Looooooool, nice one.



I'm assuming you're joking, right?

Ummm...if I was joking, why am I winning so much with my suited connectors while losing with my Aces??

You're not?

There's a lot of retardo stuff going on in this thread.

The worst player in the history of poker would be a huge winner with aces. What's happening with you, is called selective memory, where you're only remembering the majority of hands you lose. However, that doesn't mean we can't improve in hands we lose, to the point where we lose the minimum, or have the ability to get away when we only have one pair, and are facing heat. Learning when an overpair is or isn't good postflop, is a big step towards playing better poker.

Read the thread matey , it's not about any hand of mine. This I just noticed with opponents, so much so that I wanted to hear you guys on the matter.. I have no trouble playing overpairs postflop most of the time, so I think anyway.. I just noticed a tendency with players to feel way too comfortable with Pocket Aces postflop, and lose more in a hand like that as a result.

All this is, is of course concerning the all-ins when one has pocket Aces

Instead of being catchy with your responce, it might be beneficial to support your perception by reasoning. Though being an absolute beginning, I definately see truth in what AcesUp says in that post. And notice the same truth in my own play too, which is why I am happy she mentioned it.

Awesome.

Ah, my bad. My advice was general then.
/
However, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it looks like you're saying you want to put less money in pf with AA, so you don't lose more if you get outdrawn on the flop? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but obviously we want to get as much money as we can in pf with AA in 99.999% of all situations.

I have posted my analysis of Aces vs suited connectors in General. More traffic there. I'm confident that a lot of ppl will agree with what I said.

in general? you're probably right

Well, it depends on the read of course.. I didn't mean to imply how I would play the Aces pf or otherwise. Just meant to point out, that the chance of your Aces getting beat after flop seems to me not all that small. So yes, if I'd bet strong on my pocket Aces (when I feel comfortable enough that someone else has a pocket pair) i'd rather do it preflop then after the flop, chances are A) the opponent will have a pocket pair too if he calls, and the chances of the Aces losing to another pocket pair is less then to a hand with (suited) connectors.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd avoid betting too strongly with Pocket Aces on someone who I feel will call with hands besides high pocket pair.

Yeah, but don't be concerned about what you might lose to while we're still preflop. We have the nuts, so we want to get as much money in the pot, while we're ahead, as possible, whether he has KK, or 67s or whatever. With AA, we are WAY ahead of every possible hand. If they suck out on the flop, so be it, charge them to get there. They won't hit that many flops.

I think I figured out what you were saying, at least in the thread title/subtitle. You were saying, more often than not, you see AA losing at showdown, in pots that others play. Certainly, this would make a lot of sense given what others have mentioned in this thread. Lots of times, AA wins without showdown. Get the money in pf, they'll usually miss the flop, and c/f it before showdown. If AA gets to showdown, in a big postflop pot, generally it's gonna be cuz someone wants to put money in knowing they can beat AA, and the guy with AA is too attached to his pf nuts to realize he's beat, or the odds were too good, etc. So, you're right, it may appear, in general, especially in multiway pots, AA will not win at showdown a ton, mostly because when it is ahead, we've generally got the lead, and unless the guy flops top pair or something, and can't get away, AA will just win the pot with a bet.

Well, .. i have nothing more to add, thanks for clearing that one up aswell as explaining my point in a more sensable way!

I'm actually a consistent loser with AK online. I dunno why, but I can't seem to get it in the black.



This is a realistic top hand winning range. It should always be AA, KK, QQ, then random small pairs that you've flopped sets with and gotten stacks, and then other random junk.