by Aisthesis » Tue May 31, 2005 1:34 am
I'll be most interested to hear what you come up with, ice. Although few of us have achieved it, I'm thinking a well-played AKo should be somewhere around 2 and AKs maybe as much as 3. That's what I think one should really shoot for.
And it also makes AK indeed a very good hand to have, as it should be--significantly worse than AA/KK, obviously, a little worse than QQ, somewhere around JJ, but better on average than the little pairs (which are still really my favorite, although aggravating when you don't hit your set--they're just so much fun when you do!!!).
Here's my feel largely from my current B&M game:
First, I think it's very important to play AK pretty fast (consistent raising, and even to be considered for re-raises in some situations)--obviously much different than the little pairs. I think it also adds value to your big pairs with a consistent raising policy.
The trick, I think, is the "whether or not to follow up with a bet on the flop." A virtual auto-bet is just not good. But I do think it's important as raiser to be looking for an excuse to bet rather than an excuse not to (I'll also post a difficult hand I had tonight--I'm pretty sure my AK is still in the black at my B&M, but it has definitely had some swings).
There's no question about a very serious pot-sized bet when you hit. But I think the profit/loss is really going to be a feel for when you can bet unimproved and when you can't--and it's difficult to define exactly when you can and when you can't. If the table is pretty tight and capable of laying down, then you probably should do it as a rule. If it's loose with a lot of players looking for excuses to call (or worse, raise or checkraise), then you shouldn't. The better you can know your opponents in the hand, the better off you are.
Sorry that's so vague and fairly obvious, but I really do think it's hard to put a finger on it more than just "feel." The only really clear distinction I think one can make is: At tight tables do follow it up if you possibly can, and at loose ones, let it go pretty easily and follow it up unimproved only rarely. But in both cases, a never or an always is not really a good way to play it. And, even improved (as in the hand I'm getting ready to post), there are also some definite problem flops.
I like Stel's and Stoneburg's stats here and would be interested in hearing from them a little more about how they play AK.
Piers' and mine don't look so great. Would be interested to hear from Piers, who actually surprizes me here since I know he's one of the best players on here, why he thinks they look so questionable.
I figure my own results suffer from being a little too routine in betting out unimproved. That's my hypothesis anyway. I still like being pretty routine about raising the thing (oh, ice, one thing that might be interesting to look at on your data, is how the unraised AK looks vs. raised AK--I gather you have some serious doubts about more or less auto-raising on it).
Let's get some more analysis going on this one, because it's definitely a VERY important hand in influencing how one's win-rates look. I think it certainly needs to be at least at 2 BB/hand. (to Stel: are those PTBB or true big blinds in your win rates?)