Why 3 bet AK?

I am wondering why it seems that most posts point toward 3 betting AK(s or u) in or out of position. Especially in 2nl and 5nl, I have found little to no value with the 3bet. I see these 3 things happening with AK 3 bet
I hit TPTK. Not really looking to have a big pot. Keep pot smaller and try to take it down.
I hit air. Cbetting flop if board is properly textured. C/F if not. Seems to be small profit
I hit TPTK or Top 2 and run into an aggressive player that will stack off with whatever he has. Its very possible that he has similar hand but I'm not stacking off to villian unless I know I have him crushed.

In all these situations, I see little to no profits. Can someone post their success with AK and maybe give some insights to how to play them postflop more effectively.

Thanks

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/j...ntry/3betg.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/j...untry/3bet.jpg

Im pleased you asked this , I found out some things about my AK play.

I did a filter AKo , AKs ,3bet . Not impressed , so I looked at my biggest losses.
Im not sure how to do deeper filters, so I waded through hands individually.

My biggest losses were when Villians shoved pre and I followed like a lamb to the slaughter. They had middle pockets which held up.

Other losses were Post flop , like your talking about , were , Cbetting missed flops , cbetting Axx or Kxx flops and villian having 2 pair. firing all barrels TPGK.

My biggest wins were hitting the flop hard and firing all barrels.

I lost lots of value checking hit flops to try and induce bluffs, giving opponents free cards.

Bad play TBH . Glad you started this thread , I didnt know I was playing AK so badly.

Have you tried to filter your own AK 3bet report ?

How wide does someones continuing range need to be for us to 3bet AK for value?

How many hands that we lose to does he have to fold for us to 3bet as a bluff?

Is either likely when we 3bet? If so, then maybe we should 3bet. If not, then probably not.

I had similar questionings about AK. It seems an overvalued hand in cash games. Of course, in tournaments, its always a good hand to 3 bet or 4 bet shove when you're in the yellow zone.

There is a brazilian training site that recommended to be ultra aggro with AK. Shove PF if necessary. Of course, if you do this with other hands, you're probably be called by worse...but in the end it seems just a high variance way of playing.

In terms of not 3 betting with AK, I partially disagree with you. With AK you want to be the aggressor and you will be flat called by weaker aces in these limits. There is value in 3 betting AK. Besides...if you don't 3 bet AK...with which hands will you 3 bet? (QQ+?).

Flat calling in position is not bad. When there is a nit raise before me, I'm flatting IP and playing fit or fold.

You can't c-bet every time AK in these limits, because you'll be called more often than you think. When playing against calling stations, I check behind the flop and if he checks the turn, I'll bet regardless.

When someone 3 bets OOP, I'm getting used to flat AK (only in position), because I wont stand a shove and 3 bet ranges in micro limits are pretty tight. Depending on your opponent and his stack sizes, you can 4 bet and perhaps call a shove.

But with AK you need to be the aggressor and you need to know when to fold it PF.

This is the way I'm playing but I'm far from being a good player. If there are any pros here willing to share their views on the topic, it would be great for all of us trapped in the limbo of micro stakes.

ok so a few things

1. the OP asks a question that is really vague and cannot be answered because it encompasses so many different situations....as with any other action in poker, how u play AK is dependant on certain variables. These would be your opponents range, your opponents actions(style of play), etc

2. there is never ever ever going to be a right, and by right i mean profitable, way to do anything in poker that can be put into this statement "if i get dealt x then i should do y" or "if the flop comes x i should do y" "or if guy tells me he prefers almond joy over mounds then ships i should fold instantly cause hes got the nuts lol im just being stupid but point is everything is dependant on ranges and opponents.


read number 2 again.................



read number 2 one more time


to expand on number 1 a bit, i am beginning to understand why alot of the "better" players in the BC get frustrated with us microbonks about putting our opponents on ranges. Your opponents range is the single most important piece of information that drives all other decisions that you make at a poker table. you literally cannot do anything right ON PURPOSE playing poker without first putting your opponents on a range

this applies to preflop, flop, turn, river, 3bets, 9bets, c/r, c/c, b/f and any other action or event in a poker hand.

ok i will remove myself from soapbox now and just say to take the time to put your villains on preflop ranges and you will see for yourself why 3betting AK is a good thing in alot of spots, a marginal thing in other spots, and a shitty thing in other spots.

if you havent already download pokerstove ,if you need help learning how to use it do a youtube search for spoonitnow and watch his pokerstove tutorial, and either hem or pt3....even if you dont understand hud stats yet, being able to go through your hh's is like someone handing you a magical money printing machine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

How wide does someones continuing range need to be for us to 3bet AK for value?

---

Im not sure I fully understand what "for value" means here. But Ill take a stab . I played with the Pokerstove slider and trial and error brought me to 6.5%. 88+, ATs+, KQs, AQo+


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 51.789% 44.61% 07.18% 806612940 129833976.00 { AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 48.211% 41.03% 07.18% 741912132 129833976.00 { 88+, ATs+, KQs, AQo+ }

Is this what your trying to thought provoke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

How many hands that we lose to does he have to fold for us to 3bet as a bluff?


Is either likely when we 3bet? If so, then maybe we should 3bet. If not, then probably not.

---

Are we 3betting to get a fold or 3betting to isolate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celtic123

Im not sure I fully understand what "for value" means here

---

.

for value means that hands that we beat are going to call our 3bet, i.e. if villain is only calling our 3bets with aa, kk then our 3bet is not for value because we are dominated, if villain calls with that range u assigned than we are ahead of his calling range and therefore are 3betting for value

OP and celtic should probably understand the reasons they bet before they ever do it again.

para, your questions are bad only because you isolated this specific spot, when in reality you just have a serious misunderstanding of betting in general and proposed questions that can be applied to any situation where we're presumably considering valuebetting. Valuebetting is the most important skill of a poker player and THERE WAS A LENGTHY POST MADE ON IT LAST WEEK THAT'S LIKE 8 LINES BELOW THIS ONE IN THE FORUM.

fwiw celtic

we actually have >50% equity vs JJ+,AQs+,AQo+

also this thread is lol fails...

you want to 3bet AK when you think hes gonna be continuing with worse (especially worse dominated shit like KQ AQ AJ KJ) ...if hes not and hes only calling with JJ+AK then obviously dont 3bet it and let all his dominated shit stay in his range, (and then because hes folding so much you can pick hands like A5s to 3bet)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

fwiw celtic

we actually have >50% equity vs JJ+,AQs+,AQo+

also this thread is lol fails...

you want to 3bet AK when you think hes gonna be continuing with worse (especially worse dominated shit like KQ AQ AJ KJ) ...if hes not and hes only calling with JJ+AK then obviously dont 3bet it and let all his dominated shit stay in his range, (and then because hes folding so much you can pick hands like A5s to 3bet)

---

That's ma boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

you want to 3bet AK when you think hes gonna be continuing with worse (especially worse dominated shit like KQ AQ AJ KJ) ...if hes not and hes only calling with JJ+AK then obviously dont 3bet it and let all his dominated shit stay in his range, (and then because hes folding so much you can pick hands like A5s to 3bet)

---

Nicely put , thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

fwiw celtic

we actually have >50% equity vs JJ+,AQs+,AQo+

---

Did you know this by using the pokerstove slider, or off the top of your head ? because ive memorized it now

Why not? and it's pretty obv AK is > 50% v a range where we dominate 12 combos, flip w/ 12, and is only dominated slightly by 3, and hugely dominated by another 3

Para don't get discouraged about your question. Some have stated the op is a fail but don't worry about that. It is only a fail if you learn nothing from it. The only dumb question is the one you fail to ask. The fact you are asking questions is great keep it up!

off topic: if you're not looking to get 100bb stacks in at microstakes after flopping a pair with AK, you're missing value.

Somebody said you obviously won't 3b if you are dominated by a calling range. So let's have fun with that.
Let's take a more specific situation:
MP3 opens to 3x in a 10 handed game. He opens about 15% of hands in that position.
I'm going to simplify that range a little because I don't have all day.

66+,A9+,KT+,QJ

(normally you would weight more towards suited hands, add some random hands and whatnot)

66+ = 7*6 + 2*3 = 48
seven times 6 combinations of 66-QQ, two times 3 combos of KK, AA

AK KQ QJ
AQ KJ
AJ KT
AT
A9

That's 9 + 4*12 + 3*9 + 16 = 100

100+48 = 148

Note that if you don't hold AK, he has 9*16 + 9*6 = 198 combinations or ~15% of all possible combinations. Behold the power of blockers!

You are in the bb and everyone has folded to you. So there are 4.5bb in the pot. Relative stacks: 100bb

Let's say he folds all but JJ+,AK to a 3b and shoves the rest and you will call.

JJ+ = 2*6 + 2*3 = 18
AK = 9

So (148 - 27) = 121 he'll fold and you win 4.5 and 27 times he'll call and you have ~40% equity against his range.

EV=[121*4.5 + 27(0.4*104.5 + 0.6*(-99))] / 148
EV=[544.5 + 27(41.8 - 59.4)] /148
EV=[544.5 + (-475,2) = 69,3] / 148
EV= 0.47

WOOT! Up half a bb!

^^ I'm not writing this shit up to jerk myself off. If you have questions please ask. This is how you do this shit. If you want to weight this against playing it out on the flop, there is a way to do it, but I won't do it if nobody cares. - and if you don't get that part, it's useless to look at the flop.

I think this is an interesting topic. Can somebody come up with a spot where flatting AK is better than 3-betting and prove it? I would fall in love with the BC all over again if someone can.

And don't worry if you don't know what betting for value vs betting as a bluff means. I don't really know either. I don't think it's important. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

off topic: if you're not looking to get 100bb stacks in at microstakes after flopping a pair with AK, you're missing value.

Somebody said you obviously won't 3b if you are dominated by a calling range. So let's have fun with that.
Let's take a more specific situation:
MP3 opens to 3x in a 10 handed game. He opens about 15% of hands in that position.
I'm going to simplify that range a little because I don't have all day.

66+,A9+,KT+,QJ

(normally you would weight more towards suited hands, add some random hands and whatnot)

66+ = 7*6 + 2*3 = 48
seven times 6 combinations of 66-QQ, two times 3 combos of KK, AA

AK KQ QJ
AQ KJ
AJ KT
AT
A9

That's 9 + 4*12 + 3*9 + 16 = 100

100+48 = 148

Note that if you don't hold AK, he has 9*16 + 9*6 = 198 combinations or ~15% of all possible combinations. Behold the power of blockers!

You are in the bb and everyone has folded to you. So there are 4.5bb in the pot. Relative stacks: 100bb

Let's say he folds all but JJ+,AK to a 3b and shoves the rest and you will call.

JJ+ = 2*6 + 2*3 = 18
AK = 9

......

---

Ive read up to here about 4 times not, i think ive got it. , must goto work now, ill re-read when I get back. thanks for your patience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I think this is an interesting topic. Can somebody come up with a spot where flatting AK is better than 3-betting and prove it? I would fall in love with the BC all over again if someone can.

---

lol how about this

When you 3b/fold (/shutting down if he calls)-

you win 4.5bb 81% of the time and lose 9bb 19% of the time =

3.645-1.71= 1.935

so obviously a lot more profitable than 3b /calling AK vs AK, JJ+

Note this is because the 19% of the time he has his 3b continuing range, you only lose 9bb instead of 17bb (average EV when you win 104.5 40% of the time and lose 99 60%).

Also note- its better to do this with ATC (or actually cards like A5s that have blockers+a lot of equity) than AK for this reason, you can keep all his shit you dominate ie AJ AQ AT, KJ KT KQ by flatting big slick and own the shit out of them when you hit top pair, as opposed to turning a hand with great value into a bluff.

Well i obv disagree with oskar here.

Without being too wordy, ima try to explain it as simply as possible.

Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.

In this example, villain folds 66-TT, and A9-AQ, KT+, and QJ. Clearly he folds out more worse hands than better hands. According to that passage then...we're doing it wrong.

This is why knowing what value betting and bluffing mean is key...because it keeps u within this theorem which is fairly important imo.

Edit: +1 to philly of course

Whether to 3bet pre with AK doesn't have to be this comprehensive, holy hell. Perhaps you should focus on how to actually play in 3bet pots. Learn about SPR and when you can feel comfortable about stacking off with TPTK. Just a thought...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

Also note- its better to do this with ATC (or actually cards like A5s that have blockers+a lot of equity) than AK for this reason, you can keep all his shit you dominate ie AJ AQ AT, KJ KT KQ by flatting big slick and own the shit out of them when you hit top pair, as opposed to turning a hand with great value into a bluff.

---

I've actually written this down. Just wanted to give you some credit for this, I think it's a great point.

I never said it was a good idea. Please don't mistake this for strategy advise. I just didn't want to make it too obvious. You could come up with a hand where he opens the GNP of Usbekistan, but fold everything but JJ+,AK if you raise him a napkin and a toothpick... you see where this is going.

It's more fun with 60bb stacks - then you're 3b-bluffing AK and have to call cuz of pot odds. With 100bb stacks you should actually 3b/fold against the ranges I made up... or not 3b at all lol.

good question op despite what others say..a lot of helpful responses as well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I think this is an interesting topic. Can somebody come up with a spot where flatting AK is better than 3-betting and prove it? I would fall in love with the BC all over again if someone can.

---

Without mathing, because its just too complicated to do when you consider all postflop combinations but:

Tightish reg opens UTG. Fish in the blinds. Im probably flatting AK quite a lot with position on them both. If we 3bet we effectively shut the fish out of the pot, and the reg probably doesnt come along with many dominated hands anyway. Im not really sure how to prove this is a good play without showing a HEM search over a few hundred thousand hands (which I don't have).

Also, there are no stupid questions, though "this thread is lol fails" is a stupid answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelion

Without mathing, because its just too complicated to do when you consider all postflop combinations but:

Tightish reg opens UTG. Fish in the blinds. Im probably flatting AK quite a lot with position on them both. If we 3bet we effectively shut the fish out of the pot, and the reg probably doesnt come along with many dominated hands anyway. Im not really sure how to prove this is a good play without showing a HEM search over a few hundred thousand hands (which I don't have).

Also, there are no stupid questions, though "this thread is lol fails" is a stupid answer.

---

lol sorry for saying this thread is lol fails :(....all my responses were still thought out and (hopefully) educational so its not like i just trolled and dipped, rather i like to balanace my education range with my troll range

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelion

Without mathing, because its just too complicated to do when you consider all postflop combinations but:

Tightish reg opens UTG. Fish in the blinds. Im probably flatting AK quite a lot with position on them both. If we 3bet we effectively shut the fish out of the pot, and the reg probably doesnt come along with many dominated hands anyway. Im not really sure how to prove this is a good play without showing a HEM search over a few hundred thousand hands (which I don't have).

Also, there are no stupid questions, though "this thread is lol fails" is a stupid answer.

---

That's a really good one. To prove it mathematically you just make the fish squeeze shove his 100,000,000bb stack with all offsuit Ax hands, but fold everything but AA if there was a 3b, in which case he'll 4b and we fold. U guys tend to make things more complicated than they need to be.

EV(call): 144/1326*(0.73*(100,000,000 + 4.5) - 0.27*(-100,000,000))
EV(call)= 4995475.47
EV(3b)=less

Job done. Everyone else has a < 20bb stack, so it won't swing the decision.

What I was thinking of was a shortstacked game where the villain plays predictable post flop and you always get it in or fold on the flop. And you just do the EV calculation for the flop as well.
But this works too. Good call!

If you call the fish is likely to call along and you get to play a pot in position with a value hand against a player who is going to have something like ace-crap pretty often. That has a value, but there isnt an easy way to calculate it. I'm generally a big fan of working out the maths of situations, but this isn't really a spot you can do it. If that makes you want to post some sarky response then go ahead. I just mentioned it as a spot you might want to consider in like, a real actual game, or something.

You've got to take into account stack sizes here, where AKo loses a lot of value where TPTK can get you into a ton of trouble post-flop. I occasionally flat AKo 250bb deep in position against very aggressive opponents because nobody should be comfortable playing for 250bbs with a tp type hand. It also disguises your strength very well and people give you a lot less credit for having a good hand post and you can still win a good pot with your tp.

The other side of the coin that lots of people fail to remember is FE. there's equity and there's fold equity which tons of times add up to more than 50% on a flop when you've got intitiative in a 3bet pot. The problem with AK at the micros is that people just overvalue them way too much post flop and wonder why they lost their stack... "but i had AK!!!!"