The perils of pocket Aces

Recently I ended up in a hand I've always worried about. Instincts always tell me to raise on pocket aces, but here's an example of a 4-8 limit cash game where it's not as easy a raise as it seems.

I'm on the button, and look down to see the two black beauties. Seems obvious when the action gets to me, I'm raising those aces.  Except, at this nine player table, all six players in front of me call, meaning in theory there is $30 in the pot already (I say in theory because I'm not subtracting any rakes). If I raise that ups it to $38. And the purpose of a raise like this is to get rid of players and hopefully develop a potential heads up. But if I make it 38, the small blind is looking at $6 to a $38 pot. Unless he's holding 7-2, 8-3 or the like, logic says you put in the six, since it's better than 6 to 1 pot odds. Either way, the big blind then just has $4 to put into a pot of either $38 or possibly $44. 9 to 1 or 11 to 1 pot odds is an another easy move.
And as the action moves around a second time, there's no reason for anyone who called initially to now fold as the pot builds.
By the end of the first round betting, the pot can be at $72. That's real nice if your pocket aces hold up. But odds are really going against you now. Six initial callers indicate that no one feels real strong about their hands to raise, so you have a wide variety of hands, likely a couple of suited connectors, a K-J, and more importantly, very likely at least one, if not two, players with A-medium/low, a typical 4-8 starting hand that is worth sticking around cheap for, but not raising. What does this mean? It means with nine players, pocket Aces is least likely to improve. And it's very likely someone flops trips, a flush or connects the straight.

But is just a call any better? You wouldn't think so, but in a hand like this, I think it can be the proper play. No one is going to leave the hand, and it's unlikely you improve, but who is going to throw away Aces at any point on a hand? The pot will be nice enough by the end in the unlikely case the aces hold, but your bankroll takes less of a hit in the more likely case you lose.

At best, if everyone is in the hand, Aces hold about a 47 percent chance of winning. And that is based only on completely random hands held by others (in other words, no real legitimate starting hand, such as pocket pair, connectors, suited, etc...). But few players just play two random cards. Most have a reason to play, thus the realistic odds give the aces just a 15-25% chance of holding up.

The best scenario would be if you raised on the button and then either the small or big blind re-raised. $4 into a $40 pot may be no issue, but when you raise and the big blind re-raises, now everyone before you has to decide if $8 into the pot is worth it. The lead position is looking at $8 into a $52 pot.
Even though at this point pot odds suggest everyone would stick around, a few may fold just because psychologically 3-bets preflop is a lot tougher than 2, especially knowing that I can still reraise. So the big blind helps you out here.
Let's suppose it got back to me and everyone stayed. The pot has now grown to $92 and I can cap the betting with another raise if I want. It hard to say if capping makes sense then or not. If everyone stayed, a cap builds the pot, won't get rid of anybody and really makes the aces vulnerable.  But if the aces hold, then that $144 preflop pot is nice.

In the real hand I just called. And the SB and BB just called. The flop came 7-2-Q rainbow. Three players check before a player bets. Two stay, two fold. I call. SB, BB fold, final guy calls.
Turn J. Now I know I'm dead. Same lead better leads out again. One caller, one folder. I call and one exits, leaving three of us. River is a 5, and I know I have no business staying after the leader leads out again. He gets called, and at this point even though I know I'm beat, pot odds say it makes no sense to lay down.
Indeed, first player had Q-7 suited for two pair and the other guy mucks, as do I.
It left me wondering if a raise might have chased him out, but still I think I made the right play.

Online gambling

I'm not as upset to see online gambling be done in the United States as a lot of other people are.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the government over regulating our lives and having the states turn into a true big brother type society. And the ease of a game almost anytime is great. As is the fact that you don't need a lot of money to play, and can in fact play for free some spots.

But if the Absolute Poker scandal from a few years back taught us anything, it's that these sites should be monitored and have some accountability to its players. I do eventually see the US starting online poker again, after all demand is too high for the government to just keep sites, but when they come back they will have policies in place to make sure everything is on the up and up.

But for me the internet also takes away a big element of the game in sitting around a poker table and chatting with your buddies, or complete strangers, not to mention learning how to read players and understand thoughts and strategy. Yes there are internet stars who have made millions just online, but not a lot translate to the real game. Tom Dwan comes to mind. But it is also well known Dwan was playing underage on poker sites as he learned the game and started raising his bankroll. The underage gambling is one of the big concerns of the government, and I completely understand that.
Dwan made the transition because he didn't change his style much but also doesn't change expressions much. Internet players often have a hard time realizing that although their style may be the same in a real game, their body language is different.That all-in bluff you make at a crucial point of an online tournament may go well because that player on his computer doesn't see your small grin, etc.

But back to the point, poker is a game to be experienced, not just played. In a way it's kind of like the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles deciding to play a football game on an XBOX instead of the field.
To play it at the casino is the way to experience that. The problem of course is that not all casinos have real low limit games or small buy in tournaments you find online, and you don't find a tournament starting every minute. But that's not always a bad thing. That by itself forces gamblers to follow a rule every pro from Doyle Brunson to Dwan reiterate...follow a schedule or plan. "I will play for two hours before taking off 8, etc." and never gamble more than you can afford to lose. Going to a casino pulling out a $100 and losing it makes that seem a lot bigger reality than sitting online and losing it, and pressing rebuy.

Internet poker will be back, and a few people who finally decide to step into a real casino in the meantime, may be better off in the long run when it does.

Taking him down

A lot of times with wild or aggressive players, if you are tight, you want to give them the opportunity to burn themselves.

Usually they are going to notice a tight player and try to attack them, a perfectly solid strategy, especially if the tight player is in the blind.

So letting the aggressive player trap themselves becomes a solid defense for the tight player. And again, you have to pay attention to betting patterns.

From the same tournament as the previous post, the table is down to five players, and I have 1,658 chips in the big blind, putting me in for $40.

I'm dealt 3 of diamond, 6 of spades. Ugh. Wild Man calls and everyone else folds.

Flop: 6d Qs 6c

He bets 100. This tells me he hit a queen. Most of his bets have been about 3x size of the pot when he's trying to steal with nothing, about 2x pot when he hit a medium pair but there's an over card (say the flop was 6, Q, A and he had a Q) to his hand, and pot sized when he hits top pair and slightly less when he hits the nuts (not that that's happened a lot).

So I call my trips encouraging him to bet again.

Turn: 8h

That eliminates any flush draw he might have had, and likely didn't help him any more. But since he saw me call, he has to figure I too have a Q and that didn't help me either.

He bets 340. At this point I could have just called, but it seems obvious he's convinced his queen is good so he'll play whatever I bet. What I don't want is to call and then see a A or K on the river which might discourage him from a final bet, so I go all-in.

He calls and turns over a Q and 8 for 2 pair.

The river is As and I take down the pot.

But four hands later Wild Man has rebuilt his stack and is over 5,000 chips again because the rest of the table hasn't been paying attention to his patterns. (For example, after almost every time he loses a decent pot on the showdown, he bets strong preflop the next hand....this time was no exception as he raised to 100 and everyone folded to him)

Wild Man's downfall was that he got arrogant. He started raising and showing when people folded. His ultimate plan was to set someone up.

He raised his stack to over 6,000 but chased an all-in with a j/10 off suit and fell to pocket queens. When he battled me on this hand I had 4,112 chips and he had 1,516 and there were still three other players.

I was dealt A 10 off suit in the small blind. He was under the gun and moved all in. Most of the time I would respect an early all in. But his reputation said he simply was trying to steal. And if he had a legit hand I would still be ahead of him chip wise and would still be in second place. So I had no problem calling with my hand. He showed J 10 off, and after two pair on the board, my ace took the hand and the lead in the tournament.