A few AK scenarios for review (I'm still getting back into the swing here, so please correct me, someone, if I'm wrong):

I'll assume that we're at a .50/1 table with $100 stacks (any comments on variations with stack-size also appreciated).

In a cash game is AK pretty much always an obligatory raise with no raise before you? I tend to play it this way, although in tournaments with an extremely aggressive table, I'll often limp to avoid getting raised off the hand in the early stages (cf. Cloutier's suggestions). In a cash game, though, I'm not sure this really applies, although the exception might be a read that your opponent DEFINITELY has some kind of pair AND will call an all-in, where you're a minimal underdog even to an all-in so that you'll see the cards all the way to the river. But I figure for the most part that at a table with several re-raisers on 88, they'll probably also go with AQ, so the dominated hand in the bunch should give you some equity--although maybe not, since you're also still dominated by AA and KK. So, maybe the exception does apply if the table is overly maniacal (?).

Well, blast, tournament just started, so I better finish this later...

Very interesting. I'll try to comment along with some of the further issues I wanted to address.

First of all is raising quantity. I figure you really would like to have 2 callers ideally pretty much on all of your raises, but AK actually is a bluff raise, or more accurately semi-bluff, I think. So, UTG, that might mean as low as just minimum raise or it might, at looser tables, mean more like $8 (again, I'm just calling this a $100 table--i.e., .50/1). I don't really like raising more than that myself, and I like to keep the whole thing pretty uniform for all the raising hands.

Ok, so the next issue is what to do on a re-raise, as you pointed out. Again, quantity is definitely an issue. For me, anyway, "by the book" re-raise needs to be at least 3 times the raise and preferably 4 times. I'd say a minimum re-raise is a fairly obvious call for AK--or all-in would also seem to be an option. If you think someone's capable of re-raising TT-AA as well as AK, one question would then be when are they calling your all-in?

Let's just play one of these through in theory: You raise AK to $4 UTG. MP re-raises something to $16 (range: TT-AA and AK). You move in.

Scenario 1: Re-raiser calls all-in with any of the above. Ok, you're a coinflip now to TT-QQ (6 of each), obviously to AK, and a big dog to AA and to KK. There's $21.50 in the pot. There are now 18 instances of TT-QQ altogether, 9 instances of AK, and 3 each of AA and KK. So, in 27 instances you split the $21.50. In 3 instances (I'll just say you lose 90% of the time to AA, although it may actually be even worse), you've lost 90% of $84 or $75.60 while winning 10% of $21.50 or $2.15. So, the total for AA is -$73.

Against KK, you should win more like 25% of the time. So, you're down $63 on your investment, over and against winnings of $5.38. So the net loss there is around $58.

So, you win roughly $10.75 on the splits (actually slightly worse) 27 times: Total there is $290. Against AA you lose $219. Against KK you lose $174. Clearly -EV here (to make it correct, we need to divide by 33, which is the number of instances, but bad is bad, so I'll leave that one. It's just not horrible).

Scenario 2: They'll call the all-in only with AA or KK. In that case, I think it's clear that the all-in is profitable. Now you win the full $21.50 27 times for a total of $580.50, which is more than the $393 that you lose against AA/KK (again, total result to be divided by 33).

So, I guess the moral of the story is that laying back with AK is a good idea against loose re-raisers prepared to go all the way--specifically, if you can put them on at least decent pairs or AK (if AQ is in the range, that's getting close to making the all-in profitable, particularly if they're prepared to call with AQ). Honestly, though, I haven't run into so many of those in cash games, although they abound in tournaments. And it's obviously a very "high swing" move (not advisable for those inclined to go on tilt when they lose their stacks).

Also to consider is whether the re-raise quantity might allow you to sniff out some specifics as to opponents' holdings (like a JJ that doesn't want to go all the way would probably be inclined to re-raise less, etc.)

More in yet another post in this thread.

Ok, this aspect is what I was really interested in since we discussed it a while back on UPF: What to do with a raise in front of you.

My general attitude is call, then play TPTK hard if I hit, lay down otherwise. But one person suggested re-raising AK here (playing it pretty much like AA) with the proviso that the raiser is capable of laying down (by contrast, you DON'T want to re-raise QQ). The way I worked it out back then was that it's a good move only at a very tight and serious table simply due to the reduced frequency of AA and KK in the raising range. Basically, AA/KK then move in, and you fold. All other raisers just lay down. Then the move does turn out to be +EV, again assuming the "normal" raising range of 99-AA and AK, as well as the "correct" laydown. But it's not a very good idea at looser tables where you don't have much of an idea how they're going to respond.

Also, with raise and re-raise in front of you, I think it's a clear laydown, probably regardless of quantity. I guess one might consider it with minimum raise and minimum re-raise, but you don't want to get into one of these situations where you call, then initial raiser raises yet again, etc. I guess, though, at a $2 raise, then re-raise to $4, I'd probably just go ahead and call once with AK in LP.

I think I need to start playing more cash games again, as in thinking about all this, I realize that tournament situations have me thinking more (at least after the midway point) of moving in on it rather than playing it with a deep stack and reload possibility (my general tournament strategy has been ultra-tight but ultra-aggressive, and the latter is probably a serious leak in my tournament game--it's just if you're playing very few hands, you HAVE to make those that you play count in order to keep up).

Calling a minimum reraise with AK preflop can be very dangerous if you play for your stack with TPTK or top two. Not that every minimum reraise is AA-KK but it often is.

I limp early, i raise late if unraised.....Trouble is calling down moderate bets once the underflop occurs....situation specific, if i have disguised my hand enough to feel i can play him for his stack if i hit, i'll call...If he is a bull in a china shop off the underflop, i get out....

I almost never limp with AK from any position. Yes, AK is not a 'made' hand, but you are not bluffing when you raise with it as it is the most premium of the unpaired hands. By limping you give the late position players a chance to play their suited connectors against you and you also let the blinds see the flop for cheap/free and if they dont have a pair they have a 40% chance to outdraw you. Also, when you hit your A or K you want to be heads up. People babble on about not losing a stack with TPTK but I think when you are heads up and flop TPTK you have a very strong hand, especially against one opponent. You just have to know how to play it right! Raising also adds some flop-strength to your hand. Meaning, if the flop comes J Q 7 and you bet the flop (I do almost every time if heads up) you can get your opponent to lay down pairs 22-10.

GL

YD

Proviso: I'm still playing the $20 tables, so grain of salt required perhaps. But AKo and AKs are among my most profitable hands.

I always raise AK, and I try to raise it the same amount I raise AA. I don't want my opponents to know the difference between the two preflop. Assuming I'm not re-raised preflop, I bet the flop with it pretty much 100% of the time, just like I would with AA. Most the time I only get 1-2 opponents, and most of the time they fold. When they don't fold, I'll sometimes check the turn if I still don't have TPTK, but if there is some obvious draw on the flop (like 2 flush cards) that didn't hit on the turn, I may feel like a small continuation bet is better, just to charge them something to see the river.

In any case, I'm not losing my stack with it. Anybody brave enough to raise me all-in on a K-high board, say, they can take it. They're saying they can beat AA, so they can definitely beat AK. (Identified showdown muppets excluded -- I'll call them every time.)

Back to preflop questions. In general, I would rather raise and get re-raised so that I know I'm probably behind, instead of limping and calling a smallish raise where I have no clue if I'm ahead or behind. I raise with AQ preflop for the same reason: if someone has AA or KK or QQ, I'm hoping they will re-raise me so I can drop it before I lose any serious money with it hitting TPTK.

I typically make estimates regarding the math when playing, particularly online since I 4 table. I do have a question with respect to Aisthesis post about AK vs. 10 10 to AA and AK. If we are looking at the averages over the long haul I'm wondering how much of a differecne the math would work out to if the exact %'s were factored in with respect to AK vs. pocket pairs 10's-Q's. While it's generally accepted that it is a 'coin flip' we all know that AK is actually a slight dog.

In any one hand the % difference isn't that much, but what is the cumulative difference when you add up the small edge that the 18 instances of those pocket pairs have?

As to my own play of AK I used to like it a lot more when I was more of a beginner, particularly in sit n go's. I played it very strong looking to exploit folding equity with the back up plan of hoping to catch and hoping I"m not up agaist AA or KK.

I used to always raise with it now it's more like 80% of the time or so. I don't like AK on the flop with no A or K when I have more than one opponent.

Thanks for the feedback on this! Very helpful.

bk, you're absolutely right that the coinflip goes slightly in favor of the pairs and that this would influence the results. But if they'll CALL, even putting it at 50/50, what I come up with is that re-raising all-in is unprofitable. In order to make it worth considering, you MUST assume that only AA/KK will call your all-in. So, I don't think one would be much worse off just saying: fold to re-raise always.

Anyhow, I think the ABC way to play AK (for me, by the way, "ABC" is not pejorative--actually, what I discovered a while back is that just playing ABC ruthlessly is actually a very good winning strategy) is raise and fold to re-raise--for the reasons pointed out by several of you guys and exceptions for what I'd call "strange tables" notwithstanding.

By the way, I would also really appreciate it if some of you ring players would check in on some of my hand analyses in the MTT section (which I'm getting ready to post and plan to continue). I'd really like to get a "cash game" perspective on some of these, as I'm beginning to wonder whether some exceptions I've been making due to tournament situation aren't hurting my game more than they're helping it.

Remember something, folks:

Even though AK is the highest ranked drawing hand, it is still a drawing hand. You can't expect to win with it unimproved very often:

Take this for example:
AKs (48%) vs. 99 (52%)--AKs is an underdog.
AKo (44%) vs. 99 (55%)--AKo is an underdog.
AKo is only a 1.46-to-1 favorite over 54s, and is barely 2-to-1 over 72o, certainly not dominated...

It's a strong hand, but one that you shouldn't be afraid to let go of if you don't hit.