clyde's poker

Speaking of Doyle Brunson, he said in his book that he'd rather have AK than AA. He said this because he claims that you can win much larger pots with AK and can get your money out faster and lose only small pots if you don't catch. He also said that with AA you will either only win a small pot or lose a huge one. This may have been true back in his time when most people played tightly. Ironically, however, because of his book, getting something like AA will double you up a good percentage of the time, and it'll be rare that you get all your money in the pot having the worst hand.

If you read back to my last post, you'll see that the Doyle Brunson involves betting after the flop no matter what if you raised before the flop. And, what it also talked about is how people are looking for this and check-raising all the time. So, here's my point. People are going to check-raise if they catch something such as top pair, but that's not going to be good enough against AA, and you can just raise back all in and probably be called.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Lets say you have AA, raise a decent size preflop, but a guy with KQ calls you. The flop comes up Q 5 8 all different suits. The guy expects you to bet no matter what even if you have nothing, and therefore he thinks he's got you beat. He's probably going to check, let you bet, then check raise you to get the most money out of you. All you do is bet like you're supposed to, when he raises you, you raise him all in. At this point, he's probably stuck, and he'll call you. No bad beats and you doubled up. It happens all the time at these sit and go's.

So, I'm gonna have to disagree with Doyle on this one. Although you may lose to some huge pots with AA, you're gonna win a lot of huge ones at these sit and go's, believe me.