One More Thought on A-Q: Phil Gordon Making Me Say Huh?

In Phil's Little Green Book, he summarizes a hand he played online (Phil Gordon, Little Green Book, p. 115) and I think it's worth examining because the logic behind Phil's play is not immediately apparent to me. Phil was in middle position with A-Q suited diamonds. He was first in and raised to $150, three times the big blind. The button called.

Ok, so there's $375 in the pot before the flop ($50 big blind, $25 small blind, Phil's $150 raise, the button's $150 call). The flop comes Q (spades), 9 (clubs), 2 (clubs). Phil bets $150, which makes some sense. He's got an excellent chance of having the best hand and he's offering the button 3.5 to 1 odds to call ($150 call to win $525 pot). The button called. So far so good.

The turn is K (diamonds). Worried about the straight draw, Phil checks. So does his opponent. At this point, Phil put the button on a flush draw or A-9. Let's take a break here and ask if Phil's check makes a lot of sense. Granted, if he bets and his opponent has a straight or a straight draw, then Phil will likely be called or raised. One might think that it is worth it to bet something here to find out what the button has. The problem is that there is now $675 in the pot. Phil has got to bet enough to: 1) make calling and playing a draw a bad bet; or 2) show that his opponent's hand is good enough now to justify a call. Figure the button is holding any one of a number of hands which will likely win if they get the right draw (such as J-J, 10-10, 10-9, A-J, A-9, or A-Q), or he's holding J-10 or A-k in which case Phil's likely already beat. The chance of holding any of these hands is roughly 25% (each of these hands has about a 1/11 X 1/11 chance of popping up, call this 1% x 8 of these hands = 8%). We'll raise the 8% up a bit since the button has shown some strength and let's call it 20%. This is 4 to 1, so all Phil has to do from a mathematical expectation standpoint is make a bet which makes this a losing proposition. With $675 in the pot, a $300 bet will do it ($300 to possibly win a $975 pot = roughly 3.3 to 1 pot odds). If the button calls this bet, he's either made a bad play or he's got Phil beat. Instead, Phil checks, the button checks, and the guy gets a free card. I don't think this makes sense. With a so-so hand, don't you want to know where you stand, force your opponent to take the worst of it, or, preferably, win the pot right there.

But Phil checked and the river is the 9 (diamonds). Phil checks and his opponent bets $300. Phil calls and wins the showdown when the button turns J-8 (both clubs). This was the right play for Phil because he was facing pot odds of 3.3 to 1 (see preceding paragraph) and he had to figure that he had a better chance than that to win the pot based on probabilities. Phil says that by checking, he made more money because the button would have folded if he'd bet.

Hold 'Em Scholar Wrap-Up: Playing A-Q Pre-Flop

So this is where I take all the advice I've written about in previous posts regarding playing A-Q pre-flop and synthesize it. The majority on this issue says that you should generally play A-Q pre-flop from all seats at a 10 person table. The only exception is T.J. Cloutier, who says that you should not play A-Q in a tournament from seats 1 through 5. So, the real question is whether T.J.'s advice is sound.

So let's break down how good or bad a hand A-Q really is. Now, for starters, A-Q is an underdog to any pair ( ). What are the chances that someone else is holding a pocket pair at a 10 seat table? About 16.4% (math below if you're interested). So you're not likely to be facing a pair pre-flop. Even if you are facing one, you can beat most pairs by drawing an ace on the flop.

Now, in terms of overcards, only A-K is a better non-pair hand. At a 10 seat table, there is a roughly 1.3% chance that one of your opponents is holding A-K. So, combine the odds on pairs and this and there is about an 82% chance that you have the best hand when holding A-Q pre-flop. This would seem to support a bet from any position at the table, absent better information.

T.J. Cloutier's argument, however, is that what do you do when an A comes up on the flop? How do you know that one of your opponents isn't holding A-K? Obviously, you don't. The chances that someone is holding A-K, however, are quite small, as I just discussed.

Ok, so you generally want to play A-Q based on straight probabilities without knowing anything else about what your opponents are holding. But sometimes you do know more about what they are holding. What do you do with A-Q then? Let's say you're in middle or late position and there is an early position call -- a limper. Could be the limper is slowplaying a better hand than you but the odds are long against it. So the limper is probably playing a worse hand and hoping to see three more cards cheap. When you're holding A-Q, you want to raise the limper so he either folds or puts more money into the pot (at which point you can better assess whether he's slowplaying).

Now what if you're in the same position but there is an early position raise. Do you call, reraise, or fold? Obviously, the permutations here are endless (size of raise, what you know about player, etc.) but let's explore them a bit. A raise indicates some strength, so you now have to lower that 82% chance that you're holding the best hand. Indeed, it is somewhat likely that the early raiser is holding a pair, face cards, or A-x at least. Let's say you're now 50-50 to be holding the best hand and 50-50 to have the best chance of winning a showdown. Based on these odds alone, a conservative tournament player should probably fold here, particularly in the early rounds where blinds are low. The larger the raise, the worse your odds become, all else being equal, and calling such a raise is not something that a tournament survivor wants to do.

What about when you're in early position with A-Q. As I see it, it doesn't make much sense to limp in with this hand. If you do, you'll likely find yourself in a multi-way pot with a hand that could easily be second-best or worse. So, you want to put in a decent raise when you open the betting with A-Q, to discourage others from playing their hands.

So that' s the wrap. Whose advice does this sound like: a lot like Harrington's and Phil Gordon's to the extent we can tell. Now, the exception from Harrington is that he has you calling early position raises when you have A-Q suited and folding if you don't. Harrington has you raising early position limpers with A-Q suited, simply calling when you don't. So, I've essentially reasoned my way back to Harrington here.

Playing Ace-Queen Pre-Flop: Hellmuth

Phil Hellmuth's book, Play Poker Like the Pros, doesn't have a great deal of detail on NLH but it does have some interesting things to say. He talks about playing A-Q pre-flop in some detail (Hellmuth, Play Poker Like the Pros, 141-143). Specifically, Phil lays out 3 ways of playing this hand.

First, Phil's basic approach is that A-Q is a good enough hand to take a flop with. He says you can call a small raise or raise with it about the size of the pot. Phil doesn't advise calling a reraise or even a large raise, however. The basic principle is that you want to win the pot outright or see the flop fairly cheaply. Although the advice for post-flop play is not specific, Phil seems to be looking for a set on the flop to continue with this hand. He implies that flopping another ace alone can get you into trouble, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere (Q kicker may give you second best hand).

Phil also discusses Frank Henderson's approach to playing A-Q. According to Phil, Henderson likes to limp with A-Q in the hope of flopping a set. As Phil points out, Henderson won't win any pots pre-flop this way but does build the pot in the event he hits a set. Presumably, Henderson folds if he doesn't hit a set.

The last approach Phil discusses to A-Q pre-flop is what he calls the megalomaniac theory. Simply put, a megalomaniac will raise and reraise pre-flop with A-Q in the hope of winning the pot before the flop. Hellmuth says this approach is effective in tourneys because it steals a lot of antes. Of course, when you play it and someone else is holding A-K or A-A, you can lose a lot of money.

Playing Ace-Queen Pre-Flop: Phil Gordon

In his Little Green Book, Phil Gordon advocates playing Ace-Queen from all positions, unless you've decided to play tight in which case he does not advocate playing from the first two positions (Gordon, pp. 262-67). Phil doesn't give a lot of explanation as to how to play A-Q in the face of action but does specify that his recommendations as to A-Q are based on the premise that you are first into the pot and raising, you don't know much about your opponents, all stacks are average size, and the blinds are small in reference to the stacks. Phil doesn't provide much more guidance than this on playing AQ pre-flop in his Little Green Book. I'll update if necessary after reading his little blue book.

Playing Ace-Queen from Middle Position Pre-Flop: Cloutier/McEvoy v. Harrington

What do Cloutier/McEvoy and Harrington say about playing Ace-Queen before the flop from middle position?

First, what is middle position? According to Harrington, it's seats three through six at a 10-seat table.

Cloutier/McEvoy advise folding A-Q in seats 3 through 5 before the flop in the early part of a tournament (C/M 128). There is no specific advice as to later levels of a tournament. As for seat six, Cloutier/McEvoy advise playing A-Q if there are no raises in front of you. If there is a raise(s), fold (132).

Ok. What about Harrington? Dan has you playing A-Q from middle position by raising 85% of the time and calling the other 15%. And what about if you get raised or called? Harrington provides some examples to guide you:

Harrington (190-191): You're in fifth position and the player in third position opens for 3 times the big blind. According to Dan, you call with A-Q suited and fold with A-Q unsuited.

Harrington (191-192) You're in fifth position and the player in third position calls. Raise with A-Q suited, call otherwise.

Playing Ace-Queen From Early Position Pre-Flop: Cloutier/McEvoy v. Harrington

Just to be perfectly clear, this analysis compares T.J. Cloutier and Tom McEvoy's Championship No-Limit and Pot-Limit Hold 'Em to Dan Harrington's, Harrington on Hold 'em, Vol. 1. Specifically, this entry refers to the part of Cloutier/McEvoy's book that applies to No-Limit tournaments. Harrington's book is soley devoted to N0-Limit tournaments, so no clarification needed for him.

Ace-Queen is a tricky starting hand because you can be in a bind if you flop an A or a Q. Why? If an A, then your Q kicker is beat by someone who started with A-A or A-K. If you flop a Q, you've still got to worry about overcards on the flop and later rounds. So what do these two sets of experts say to do when you're holding A-Q in early position (which Harrington defines as the first two seats at a 10-seat table--a definition I'll adopt here)?

Cloutier/McEvoy advise you to fold, or at best, limp in and fold if you get raised when you're holding A-Q in the first two seats (C/M, pp. 128-129).

Harrington, who is generally considered a conservative player, advises playing the A-Q in early position (Harrington, pp. 182-83). He advocates raising with the hand before the flop, 75% of the time and calling 25% of the time (calls are just to vary your play). As for amount of raise, Harrington says 3-5 times the big blind. Harrington' s advice is apparently based on his belief that A-Q is a pretty good hand when there aren't a lot of players in the pot but not so good otherwise. Thus, an early position raise is intended to narrow the field.