Izmet Fekali

You will not find the following advice in any book, including S&M. Is it any good? Judge for yourself.

Izmet

---

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 99 20:32:58 MET
From: izmet@siol.net (Izmet Fekali)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Jamming with AQs

Connie writes on 2+2:

Dear Izmet, 6-12 hold'em

I'm in the big blind last night at the Normandie, where they have no small blind. About 5 callers and a regular 10-20 thru 20-40 player(whose regular game broke)raises on the button. I have A-Q both diamonds, I called. Would 3 betting have been best, in regards to what you refer to as the EV(estimated value?).

Everybody but the raiser could have been holding almost any two touching cards(unsuited). And all the limpers would have called my re-raise, and then certainly a cap at that point from the button.

I think the main reason I didn't re-raise was due to my horrible position, and then to a lessor extent, that I was somewhat intimidated by the higher limit player.

Thanks for any help, Connie

PS: I like the super-simplified explination for implied odds you provide at your site.

There are good arguments for calling only (as Jim suggests in his reply). You have bad position for all betting rounds, but a good chance to check-raise the button if the flop hits you, thus, narrowing the field easily. This is the standard play "by the book," which increases chances to win the pot and enables you to get out cheaply if the flop doesn't hit.

It's a good, bulletproof, profitable strategy.

See, if you make the pot too big, postflop play turns into a crap shoot and anything can happen. Most poker players hate that, they hate getting sucked out by freak draws that would have folded on the flop, hadn't the pot been so big. And that's exactly what happens often when a multiway pot gets blown up out of proportions. There are no guaranties, you can flop good and still lose big. You have little control of the play on the flop and beyond, and whatever your edge in postflop play was, it's gone through the window. Swelled pots are a source of frustration. For a drunken, Rolex-wearing German tourist with a miniskirt chick hanging on his shoulder, this is fun. For a pro with a modest bankroll, big pots are toying with death. You can see traces of sweat on his forehead and upper lip. It's a nightmare.

But so what. If you have a bankroll, you should ram 'n jam on the flop. Yes, the skill factor goes way down postflop, but you are having way best of it now. Jamming is profitable.

I assume Connie is talking about a typical California-stye game where players are loose and trigger-happy. The limpers would surely raise with AQ/QQ or better, so we are safe to assume our only concern is the raiser on the button.

This guy can have a wide range of cards, if he is a good player (and even a wider one if he is a maniac). There are many hands that show profit with a raise against multiple limpers. The only hands you that can give you trouble are AA, KK, QQ and AK. Against these hands, reraise with AQs is not such a good idea, as you are either dominated (against KK, QQ and AK) or destroyed (against AA). But even here, the five dupes in are covering for you with their contributions (as a good chunk of their money is dead, since they have a relatively small chance of winning the pot). You are not in bad shape even when dominated.

But against other possible hands the button could have (Axs/K9s/98s/77/KJo or better), you are a happy camper. You will make a load of money even when against a better hand like JJ. But remember, you are increasing EV (drastically, I might add) here at the expense of higher variance. Reraise is a most profitable play, yet you still might not want to do it. Profitability is not the only factor when judging a certain poker play. For some pros living in the van by the river, variance is baaaaaaad. They prefer calling.

How profitable is the reraise (and a subsequent cap if rereraised, Nevada style) with AQs?

I ran a $10-20 Turbo sim for Connie with a player on the button holding JJ and a player in the big blind with AQ (I did not bother to set up the sim with a single blind like Connie's game, because if the game is loose, the blind structure is not that important). The lineup was loose, with players that tend to go a bit too far postflop. To put it simply, it was a fishy table, except for the two test players. I used the same profile (optimized for playing in loose games) for both the button (JJ) and the big blind (AQs). The results after 500000 runs with 5 or more opponents (at least 4 limpers + the button raiser):

AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents: 
---------------------------------------------
JJ, win rate: 28.0%, $ net per hand: $39.27
AQs, win rate: 26.1%, $ net per hand: $20.78

AQs jamming preflop in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
JJ, win rate: 30.0%, $ net per hand: $61.61
AQs, win rate: 27.2%, $ net per hand: $36.81

Against JJ and four other opponents, AQs just flat called, tried to keep the pot small and went for a check raise with top pair on the flop. With no hit, AQ called for one bet on the flop with two overcards (which is a pretty much correct play, given the size of the pot). It did quite ok, earning a big bet per hand.

But, when AQs capped it preflop, it earned almost twice as much! The difference between calling and jamming was more than one and a half small bet. And that's a lot, baby! Note also the difference your jamming made to JJ's profits. The button should buy you a drink for making him $20 with your aggressive preflop play. You both profited, but the fish should think twice before entering a pot with trash again…

Here's the same sim, but with QQ on the button. The situation seems hopeless, but the fish covered the losses. Jamming with AQs against QQ boosted profit per hand from $3.74 to $09.91. It's not that much, considering the increased variance, but hey, I can use every dollar…

AQs calling a raise in the big blind, min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
QQ, win rate: 31.5%, $ net per hand: $40.76
AQs, win rate: 19.6%, $ net per hand: $03.74

AQs jamming preflop in the big blind min. 5 opponents:
---------------------------------------------
QQ, win rate: 33.7%, $ net per hand: $69.93
AQs, win rate: 20.7%, $ net per hand: $09.91

The interesting thing here is that you are still making money jamming preflop even when against dominating hand. The fish in the pot took care of that. With enough callers (10-way family pots), you could safely reraise even if you strongly suspected aces.

Of course, Turbo sims are perceived as unreliable by most posters here, maybe they are indeed… but then again, they make you think anyway, don't they?

Izmet

---

Subject: Re: Jamming with AQs
From: garycarson@mindspring.com ("Gary Carson")
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:01:21 -0600
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker

Connie writes on 2+2:

Dear Izmet, 6-12 hold'em

-snip-

(really long post about AQS on blind after a bunch of limpers and a raise by an unknown, but probably loose aggresive button.)

-snip-

Izmet's analysis did a good job of showing how it's not that important to have the best hand preflop, it's important to have the best of it. And, the two aren't the same thing.

With AQs against 5-6 hands of mostly loose players, AQs has the best of it and a raise is usually right.

Gary Carson

---

Subject: Re: Jamming with AQs
From: stevebadger58NOSPAM@hotmail.com ("Badger")
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:26:11 -0800
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker

Izmet's analysis did a good job of showing how it's not that important to have the best hand preflop, it's important to have the best of it. And,the two aren't the same thing.

With AQs against 5-6 hands of mostly loose players, AQs has the best of it and a raise is usually right.

And that's assuming AQs isn't the best hand, which from the description of the raiser may well be a poor conclusion to jump to. The raiser very well could have a hand weaker than the AQs. I don't read all these silly AQ threads on 2+2, but keeping the pot small in this situation with this hand is the philosophy of a player afraid of their own shadow who doesn't want to work to win.

What I find interesting is that anybody could the small philosophy, with a hand like this in a situation like this. Even Gary manages to be right on this. :)

Badger

"I don't know what the hell I was talking about." — Gary Carson

---

Subject: Holy $hit Izmet ! Thank You
Posted By: Connie
Date: Wednesday, 29 December 1999, at 8:32 p.m. 
In Response To: Re: Izmet, help me out. (Izmet Fekali)

I can't believe the trouble you went to!!

Thanks again,

Conni

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker

Comments(0)

I refer to the raises that are contrary to the popular wisdom (often because they do not significantly improve EV but sometimes uncomfortably increase variance) as "thin". However, with an adequate bankroll they are a good way to terrorize the fish and take some more money. They are +EV plays with other benefits as confusing the opposition and forcing them to make more mistakes against you. The following is from a 2+2 Forum debate on playing A4s after many limpers.

Izmet

---

Thin Preflop Raising Against the Fish
Posted By: Izmet Fekali
Date: Sunday, 26 December 1999, at 10:47 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Beginnerish Type Question (SammyB)

Sammy seyz:

With Axs, if you're going to play it at all, you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. So, raising and voluntarily putting more money i the pot would be wasteful.

This is false.

Raising with Axs becomes profitable when there are enough loose limpers in play. For example, A4s will win more than 14.3% (which is about fair share of the 7-way pots) against 6+ opponents and will therefore profit from the six+ limping opponents putting more money in the pot preflop.

I set up three 100000-run Turbo sims to at least try to back up the claims. Here are the results, disregard at will:

1. In no fold'em simulation (no betting, no folding to the river), A4s won 20.8% of the pots against exactly 6 opponents. This is way above it's fair share, which means if you are about to go all in, it is profitable to raise the blinds and 4+ limpers with A4s. If there is betting on the flop and beyond, your chances are even better as some competitors will get knocked out while you are drawing to gutshots and whatnot for free.

2. I ran a $10-20 simulation with a bunch of loose players and a good player on the button with A4s. The player with A4s on the button folded to a raise in front, but raised himself when there were 4 or more limpers in (aside from the blinds). In this situation, A4s won 19.1% of the pots (which is way more than fair share) and earned $15.40 per hand.

3. The third sim was same as no. 2 (same flops, same cards in opponent's hands), except A4s tried to see the flop cheaply (no raise). As before, A4s on the button folded to a raise in front and only limped behind the fish. Here, A4s won 18.9% of the pots and earned $12.72 per hand.

According to Turbo, limping behind loose limpers with A4s is about $3 mistake in a $10-20 game. The situation is similar (to a lesser extent) with even Q5s (which is as low as I go, suited jacks with no kicker are unplayable), although I'd prefer seven or more loose opponents to raise with suited no-kickered queens. With a suited ace, king or queen, the best ROI (return on investment) against multiple limpers is obtainable by putting as much money as possible in preflop and then going all-in to avoid being pushed off the hand or risking more money when outkicked. This is useful information for all the cheaters out there playing hold'em online. There are many opportunities to profitably disconnect yourself at the right moment, forcing the profitable all-in play.

And of course, keep in mind that raises with suited aces, kings and queens no kicker increase your variance and establishes you as a maniac in the eyes of your opponents. You might not wish to do that. Or you just might, do whatever works for you. Also, good play on the flop is mandatory, which includes much folding when you strongly suspect you are outkicked with the ace on the flop. As Turbo profiles cannot be as smart as you can, I believe the above numbers can even be improved against the fish.

For all the infidels out there in habit of distrusting computer sims, I urge you to give some thin preflop raising a try when in California-type loose fishy games. I have a feeling you could be pleasantly surprised.

Izmet

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)

(by David Sklansky & Izmet Fekali)

There's been some hot debating in Internet poker community about the proper way to play big cards preflop in loose games. In Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, 21st Century Edition, Sklansky and Malmuth advocate their tactics of keeping pot small with hands like AQo to give opponents a chance to make big mistakes postflop when chasing. On the other hand, Abdul Jalib was first to point out that big cards (if best) should raise preflop to destroy implied odds of the fish. Serious students of the game are urged to take a look at his study on raising after loose limpers here. It appears to be a close call between raising and calling when holding best non-pair offsuit hand preflop against a ton of opponents, however, my own position on this matter is simply - RAISE!

The following is a reprint of private email exchange between Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky and myself, spawned out of a few rec.gambling.poker posts on the subject of comparisons between Lee Jones's and Sklansky/Malmuth books. As I did not get explicit permission to publish Mason Malmuth's private writings, they are left to the reader's imagination. David Sklansky's email comments are published with permission.

You might want to look first at the original rgp post by Mason Malmuth on merits of the new edition of HPfAP, my somewhat teasing reply and more detailed new HPfAP loose section critique. For the sake of completeness, here are also my first and second short errata posts.

The above rgp posts spawned the following email exchange.

Izmet Fekali

P.S. David Sklansky relented a bit on his position on playing AQo preflop in his recent 2+2 post. But only a bit.

---

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:06:43 EDT
Subject: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

I will be addressing this debate shortly. For now notice you err when you say that we hope to win with an unimproved AQ. The fact that we do not, is why 87 offsuit is not that important to get out. In the first case we would worry that it has five cards to make one pair or better. In case 2 we only have to worry that it makes TWO pair or better with four cards. As to your other points, you are correct that we are not talking about ridiculously loose games with complete morons. Certainly A10 should be played in those games. However the "horse race paradox" comes into play more than you think. I will have more to say about this on 2+2 when I get around to it. Feel free to reprint.

DS

---

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:35:16 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

I will be addressing this debate shortly. For now notice you err when you say that we hope to win with an unimproved AQ.

I was a little too quick with that statement, you are right.

The fact that we do not, is why 87 offsuit is not that important to get out. In the first case we would worry that it has five cards to make one pair or better. In case 2 we only have to worry that it makes TWO pair or better with four cards.

Your point was clear to me. My point is you make the most money from dominated hands. These are the ones you want in.

As to your other points, you are correct that we are not talking about ridiculously loose games with complete morons. Certainly A10 should be played in those games. However the "horse race paradox" comes into play more than you think. I will have more to say about this on 2+2 when I get around to it.

Maybe I'll post there :)))

Feel free to reprint. DS

I appreciate it.

Izmet Fekali

---

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:55:39 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

I will be addressing this debate shortly. For now notice you err when you say that we hope to win with an unimproved AQ. The fact that we do not, is why 87 offsuit is not that important to get out. In the first case we would worry that it has five cards to make one pair or better.

BTW, in the first case, when AQ and 87 both don't improve on the flop, 87 has six available outs (not five) to make one pair or better.

In case 2 we only have to worry that it makes TWO pair or better with four cards.

When AQ hits on the flop, 87 needs two cards out of six (not four) available outs to make two pair or better.

Or am I really missing something here…

Izmet Fekali

---

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:16:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

four other cards on board that aren't the ace or queen that paired you.

DS

---

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:37:05 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

four other cards on board that aren't the ace or queen that paired you.

Ah, that's what you meant! Gee, this one was NOT easy to figure out :)))))

I mean, it was obvious to me what your point was, - as you need to catch an ace to queen in these games, 87 needs to catch twice to beat that pair (when you also catch). I did not get your point about 87 having a fewer number of tries available to do so (boy is this difficult to word properly, especially for a non-English speaking person).

But here's a question I forgot to ask you the last time:

Is it your position then you'd rather see hands like 87 calling your raise cold than dominated hands like AJ or KQ? My experience is that having dominated hands still in play is a big moneymaking situation, as they have tough time folding even on the river, let alone the fact that they are apt to raise you on the flop, when you both hit your common card. Remember, we're talking idiots here. As a side benefit, this kind of a raise can be a nice help in knocking some passengers out.

For holdings like 87, I dunno, they seldom get past the flop, see? If they do, they have a gutshot (which I don't like that much), or they flopped a pair also. So we are talking 4 or 5 outs here for them. On the other hand, with a flop of, say, 25Q, I'll get action even from hands like AT, Ax or KJ as the fish tries to hit that overcard. And these are the type of hands most likely to call the preflop raise cold.

To look from the other perspective - I have stated elsewhere in my post that I'd rather call two cold with a hand like 98s than QJ. Do you feel I have to reconsider?

Maybe I'll do some sims to get a better feel for this (but they are soooooo boring to set up…)

David, I appreciate your comments anytime, as I am quick to reconsider my positions if faced with solid arguments. I learned long ago it's not wise to blindly follow any beliefs as strong as they may be.

Thanks for your time.

Izmet Fekali

---

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:56:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

Yes you would rather call with 98s. My only point was in multi-way pots where a hand like AQ needs to pair to win it should feel no particular need to knock out 87.

DS

---

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:47:29 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

Yes you would rather call with 98s. My only point was in multi-way pots where a hand like AQ needs to pair to win it should feel no particular need to knock out 87.

OK. I concur your point is valid.

But then again, if I'm happy to have 87 in, then which hands would I rather have out (other than AA, KK, QQ, AK, of course)? Probably the hands with a king only.

Is it then safe to conclude that AQ doesn't mind lots of opponents if best preflop?

I feel that AQ is quite robust here (if best preflop) and should definitely raise. But not to knock out. To cut idiots' implied odds. But because of the other factors you mention, like tying people to a big pot (which I agree is bad), it might be a not so clear cut decision. I'll have to munch on it some more.

A case could be made for limping in early position to conceal your strength with AQ, wait for a good flop and then go for a check raise. This usually knocks out a few gamb00lers. If our premise is an ace or queen on the flop is mandatory, the idea of seeing cheaply has merits.

But then again, I'd regard a JTx flop as quite OK, see, and in this case I'd be sorry for not raising preflop. A bloated pot is what I'd want.

My God, it's always like this, back and forth, pro et contra, give and take. This hold'em business is complicated as hell… you did a good job years back, this is probably not said often enough.

And I do appreciate your responses.

Izmet Fekali

---

• From: Dsklansky@aol.com
• Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:22:49 EDT
• Subject: Re: Loose games
• To: izmet@siol.net

Once AQ gives up on winning without a pair it really doesn't want to get others out, at least up to a point. And if it was all in, it definitely should raise. On the other hand, with even semi rational opponents, that raise for value doesn't gain too much and may be overshadowed by the fact that keeping the pot smaller not only avoids draw-outs by players less willing to accept lesser pot odds, but makes it more likely that you can get a raise in later to shorten the field. Again these concepts do not apply against total live ones so you and Gary Carson are right there. On the other hand, even in games like that, using these ideas will certainly make you a winning player.

DS

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker, texas holdem

Comments(0)