Playing low limit online, several times I have had the good fortune to hit an AA against someone going all in with KK or QQ a couple of times. I explain to them they are being silly (it puts them on full tilt), but there it brings up a serious question:

Does going all in on KK pay off in low limit (say <$1) better than playing reasonably and getting money in after the flop?

My theory is that only AA will call and an occasional idiot, and the rest of
the time you buy the blinds, so you end up with small or no gains due to the
occasional AA or bad beat. Plus, by betting aggressively but sensibly, you can still draw in the idiots when it goes well and get out if things turn ugly.

The other theory the all-in people have is that at low limits, idiots will call with anything often enough that going all in with KK is better than actually playing the hand.

Opinions? Your experience with it? Anyone have any actual results for large numbers of hands?

It depends on stack sizes and player skill.

Skill: Average for low limit rooms
Stack sizes: 100X BB for the most part

Test your theory.

When people go all in at these stakes preflop, do you see people calling with less than aces?

If you dont, find better tables. Because they very often do.

That's exactly why I can't dismiss the Always All In on KK theory out of hand... I see people call with A4, K7, anything, against any bet pre-flop. So let me guess: it depends on the room and who's in there, etc. Oh well, just wondering if anyone had actually seen any numbers or facts.

hblask,

thanks for bringing this topic up.
We have not discussed it in length since 3:35am today.

welcome to the forum.

ue
That doesn't really answer the question, but at least now I know who the
biggest prick on this forum is.

It would've been shorter to type "This has been discussed in the thread
<here>." and it would've actually been informative.

you want me to do your search work?


ps. no thanks.

Search "Smasharoo theory", "Smasharoo Method", or "Smash Method"

Guaranteed to be a winner.

nope, Hi, that's me.

If were gonna start a big prick award, I can assure you it will not be that easy to determine the outcome.

Actuary wouldnt stand a chance at taking that title.

so true.

I could step it up though

I think that if you think that you will get called 2 out of 10 times by at least one person without AA, go for it.

the odds are 22 to 1 that someone else at the table(full table) has AA when you have KK. So if you get 5 callers in 22 times with Kings, and 1 of those times they have AA, you are getting correct long term odds to make this play everytime with kings.... In theory.

I think.

Yes.

Do this!

And WIN!





nh 2b

Why in hell would you ever make an all in bet pf? A reraise or something, I guess depending, but an all in bet unless so shortstacked that you wouldnt be able to make reasonable bets on later streets seems ludicrous.

Not quite because you'll be a bigger underdog with KK vs. AA than an overdog with AK vs. KK

because bad players call you with crap.
they want to see a flop with TJs.
if you push preflop they come.
if you wait till after flop, they only come when you have less of an edge.

against strong players, I guess it doesn't make much sense to push preflop, generally.

I won $30 tonight playing cash NL home game 5 handed, $20 buyin, 50 cent BB. Then proceed to take top 2 in the two tourneys (split 1st-2nd, then got 2nd). It was a good night. Thanks to reading the forum helping my NL game.

oh..is this thread not about me?

ok..as you were....

Nice work.

I hate NL cash games.

That is all.

- Zach

If you go all in pre with KK everytime you are minimizing the amount of money you win by a boat load. If you can't play KK after the flop you shouldn't be playing poker.

an FYP tribute to Smash

Nice editing of my post.
Auto all in pre with KK = fish move.