Queen High Straight

Queen High Straight has moved to Pokersift.com

2008-01-07T13:58:00.001-08:00

About a month ago, I joined a collective blog on the new site Pokersift.com. This is an offshoot of Bigpoker, the excellent site run by Vancouver poker pro Adam Schwartz. He's best known for Rounders: the Poker Show, which was sufficiently successful to become The 2+2 Pokercast (iTunes link).

Here's what the new site looks like:

And here's the RSS feed for Pokersift. Look for my posts under "Verstehen" at Pokersift.

Nat Arem's AP reports continue

2007-12-12T18:51:00.001-08:00

Nat Arem has posted the latest installment of his Absolute Poker investigation online. Read it if, like me, you're morbidly fascinated with corruption in online poker:

Absolute Poker Costa Rica Trip: Part 4:

(Via N 82 50 24 / Nat Arem Blog.)

Technorati Tags:
Absolute Poker, Online poker

Medium Flush on the River - Do you Raise?

2007-12-11T17:54:00.001-08:00

Just today I had an interesting hand come up. As usual, I've posted it on the Low Limit Forum. I had 9 ♣ 8 ♣ and raised in the hijack, with only the blind calling. This isn't a usual play for me, but I'm trying to be more active with suited connectors.

The flop was:

T♣ 6♣ K♦

He check-called me, I checked behind when an ace came on the turn, and the river was the A♣, making my flush but putting a possible full house on the board.

He led out for a pot sized bet and I ... ?

Read it on the forum.

Queen High Straight is Moving

2007-12-11T17:05:00.001-08:00

Queen High Straight will be moving to the Bigpoker website some time very soon.

If you've never checked out BigPoker, they host a wonderful radio show that I recommend to all my poker friends. Here's the link:

Rounders: The Poker Show with Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz

Making the Switch, Part V: Checking to Be Sure

2007-12-11T17:03:00.001-08:00

I've had the best success of my (short) career so far playing low-stakes no-limit. But I wasn't completely sure no-limit was my game. To make sure, I got out Ed Miller's "Small Stakes Hold 'Em." I brushed up on the limit skills, learned a few new ideas, and hit the .25/.50 tables. I played full-ring, 6-max and shorthanded.

I got killed. I lost over 120 big bets in just over a day. That's not just variance - that's a long-term losing streak. Some of it was bad play and tilt. Some of it was the sick, insane beats we all associate with limit poker. Here's my favorite:

I hold AA. I raise in early position, and get re-raised (!) by one of the blinds. I cap and the flop is:

4♠ 3♣ 3♥

I consider that a great flop to aces. If he has an overpair, he's trapped with almost no outs. I don't see him re-raising with 44 or 33. I check-raise and he 3-bets me! Perfect.

The turn is:

K ♣

There's a small chance he has KK and hit a set, but I can't really slow down now. We go at it again on this street.

River:

K♦

Are you kidding me? He turns over AK and rakes the pot. According to Ed Miller's Equity Calculator, I was an 82:1 favorite on the flop. And yet I got called on every street and lost. His only outs were running kings, and he stayed in to hit them.

Of course, beats happen in NL. But you'd have to think hard about calling a big bet with AK on a 443 board. There was no thinking here, and that's why it's frustrating.

It seems I'm just a better player at NL. I can win long-term at low-stakes NL, and I can't at limit.

This is good news, since I started in limit cash games and it took a long time to grind up a bankroll (not sure how I did it, actually). It turns out I'm just not that good at limit. I've won more than 1000 big blinds playing NL in the past month, and I clearly can't match that at the limit tables.

I'm glad I checked. You have to know your game, and some people are savants at one or the other (limit or big-bet). I'm no savant, but I'm pretty sure NL is where my edge is.

Making the Switch, Part IV: Thriving in 6-Max?

2007-12-04T09:49:00.001-08:00

If you play low-stakes no-limit online, you're probably playing in a six-max game. When I used to play on Absolute Poker, before the absurd scandals there (read all about it here, or follow Nat Arem's investigation (part 1) (part 2) (part 3), or listen to reportage here), six-max games were almost all that was available for no-limit. Now that I'm playing at Full Tilt, there's perhaps a fifty-fifty balance between 9-handed and 6-max.

I always struggled in 6-max games, at both limit and NL, because I had learned to play "the right way" from authors like T.J. Cloutier, Dan Harrington and David Sklansky. The right way, of course, meant waiting for cards and then value betting them. The problem is, at least one-third of your time in six-max games is spent in the blinds, and you simply don't get a hand frequently enough to make up for that disadvantage. When you do get a hand, it's more likely that you'll be out of position, since you're more likely to be UTG or in the blinds - these positions are half of the six-max game, compared to one-third of the available seats in a full ring.

I was frustrated, because I knew my opponents were playing "too loose" but I still wasn't winning. However, I've been able to gradually turn that around. The book that's been most helpful has been "Killer Poker Shorthanded" by John Vorhaus and Tony Guerrara:

I'd been pretty skeptical of the "Killer Poker" series. These books generally constitute a whole shelf in the poker section of the chain bookstore of your choice, and I was afraid they were the pulp fiction of the poker world: cranked out quickly, amusing, but insubstantial.

I was wrong, mostly. They are amusing, and they may be cranked out quickly, but there is some good information here. Not at the level of detail of the Ed Miller/David Sklansky/Mason Malmuth applied mathematics books from two-plus-two, but very useful nonetheless. The authors focus more on the mindset and adjustments necessary for six-max play, and advocate a "play-the-player" approach.

Killer Poker Shorthanded is new and I'd recommend it. While it may be unhelpful for better players in $100NL and up, for people like me at $10 NL it's invaluable.

I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good read, check out Tim Peters' review in Card Player here.

Pocket Jacks in Position on a Q-x-x flop

2007-11-28T08:34:00.001-08:00

As everyone knows, JJ is one of the most difficult hands to play correctly in hold 'em. Unlike the other premium pairs, there is a greater than 50% chance that an overcard will come on the flop.

I've posted this hand for discussion on the Low Limit Forum. I was dealt JJ and flat-called a standard raise from the first position player. Everyone else folded and the flop came:

Q 7 8 unsuited

The UTG player bet half the pot and I ...?

(I raised. But not everyone likes that play, as I quickly learned.)

Turbo Sit-and-Go Tournaments - Bankroll Builder or Idiotic Exercise

2007-11-26T09:37:00.001-08:00

Inspired by this post at Ed Miller's site, I decided to try turbo sit-and-go tournaments. If you've never tried these, the blinds go up every three minutes, meaning you get to the push-or-fold stage very quickly.

I'd usually heard nothing but scorn for these tournaments. "Shove-fests" or "donkaments" with no opportunity for post-flop play or bluffing because everybody is effectively short-stacked.

Miller poses the following question:

You’re playing a series of 6-handed winner-takes-all no-limit tournaments. The blinds start at $50-$100, and all your opponents start with $10,000 in chips each time. They all play fairly well, but none of them is a real standout. You play fairly well too, perhaps a bit better than them. You’ve been boning up on your short stack strategies lately, so you can be counted on to play fairly well with stacks of all sizes. The tournament structure is slow and doesn’t include antes at any level.

Which of these scenarios would be worth the most money to you?

One entry into this tournament series with a starting stack of $10,000
Five entries into this tournament series with starting stacks of $2,000 each time
Twenty entries into this tournament series with starting stacks of $500 each time
One hundred entries into this tournament series with starting stacks of $100 each time

The answer, according to him and many of the respondents, is 100 entries of $100. Because short-stacks have an advantage, high blinds actually give an advantage to short-stacked players since they can get in quickly and cannot be bluffed or check-raised out of a pot.

Although turbos aren't quite analogous - everyone is short-stacked, not just you, so you lose that advantage - they can offer some great opportunities to perfect short-stack play.

The dirty secret is that turbos are kind of fun and much less of a grind than MTTs and cash games. If you hate getting all-in with KJs and A9o (and I do), you have to make some adjustments in turbos, but they can be pretty profitable.

I'm not sure if a different/worse caliber of players is attracted to turbos, but it certainly seems possible given the limited skill set required.

Making the Switch, Part III: Letting Go of Value Betting

2007-11-21T10:45:00.001-08:00

When I learned to play low-stakes limit, the formula was pretty simple:

Value bet

Draw to the nuts

Forget check-raising or bluffing anyone off a hand

This all came from The Bible, also known as "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em":

So when I switched to NL, I followed the same sort of rules: play tight. Don't fall in love with AK, suited or otherwise. Show down quality hands.

However, there's a lot more to winning NL than showing down quality hands. Here's a recent hand that illustrated the power of the out-of-position check-raise in no-limit:

I hold 99 on the button. It's folded to me and I raise to 3x the big blind. The small blind, a good winning player, flat calls me.

The flop is:

3♣ 4♦ 5♠

He checks, I make a decent sized bet, and he makes a big raise. I asked for time and thought about this, then called. The turn was a king, he bet out, and I folded.

Later I found out he held 22 for a pair-plus-straight-draw combination. I was way ahead and got bluffed out.

In low-stakes limit, it's an automatic call on the check-raise. He could easily have A5 or even some ridiculous trash hand that flopped a draw (J6o comes to mind). Even if he has two pair with a hand like 54 (which would be a weak but possible call in the blinds), you can still catch a running pair or a third nine. And plenty of players would check raise just because they think you probably have AT and missed the flop completely.

In no-limit, you might not want to get involved with this hand too deeply. The caller's range is smaller. It's probably a small pair, 22 through 88, or else two big cards that aren't strong enough to be raising (AJ, KQ). Anything bigger is worth a re-raise in this situation. So there's a 3/7 chance he flopped a set.

If he doesn't have the set, there's a 2/7 chance he has a pair plus an open-ended straight draw.

If he has two overcards, it's very hard to read the board on the turn. The king was a bad card; an ace would be worse, for completing the straight or making a higher pair. A queen or jack wouldn't bother me nearly as much.

In fixed-limit, there's no way I could let this hand go. I might even re-raise the flop, depending on the player. But I certainly wouldn't fold the turn.

In no-limit, we were quickly reaching the commitment threshold for this pot. If I re-raised the flop, or called the turn bet, we were probably getting all in. Even if I had got all in ahead here, my opponent had a number of outs: any ace, any six or any deuce.

The roundabout point I'm making: in low-stakes fixed limit games, the check-raise there would never win you the pot. It might slow down an opponent. But because hand reading is more difficult in limit (I think), you wouldn't be able to put your opponent on a small pair here, and you'd stick with your nines to the showdown and probably win the pot.

I'm still trying to incorporate these tricks into my play. Adjusting from fixed-limit, I'm too used to straight-ahead value-betting: check-raising with top-pair, betting two pair on the river, betting hard with big hands like flushes. No-limit takes more finesse than that, and also more aggression with less-than-premium hands.

Making the Switch, Part II: Letting go of T.J.

2007-11-21T10:28:00.001-08:00

My introduction to big-bet poker came from an odd source: Harper's, the highbrow east-coast literature and politics magazine. Somewhere in the early 2000s, I read a fantastic article where a middle-aged reporter went insanely deep in the main event of the World Series of Poker. Like most of the U.S. circa 2000, I had never heard of the World Series of Poker, but the electric prose, and the bizarrely vivid color photographs of Chris "Jesus" Ferguson and T.J. Cloutier, captivated me. For a few weeks, anyway, and then I forgot all about it.

Then my delayed education continued with an even more unlikely source: books on tape. It was deep in the Wisconsin winter of 2006, and I looked around the public library for a good book on tape to help during those frigid waits at the bus-stop each morning. I ran across an odd-looking volume, "Positively Fifth Street" by Jim McManus. I vaguely remembered him as the author of the Harper's article, and thought I'd try his book. It's a wonderful read, and I'd recommend it to any appreciator of good writing - McManus ranges over sociobiology, the medieval origins of playing cards, the diversification of poker, and the role of the printed word in changing the game. Moreover, it's the Chris Moneymaker story - win a satellite to the main event and crush the competition - three years before Chris Moneymaker.

McManus succeeds in the World Series (he finished fifth overall, busted out on a bad beat from Hasan Habib at the final table) by following one poker advice book to the letter. "Positively Fifth Street" steered me towards my first (and certainly not last) poker book: T.J. Cloutier's Championship No Limit & Pot Limit Hold 'Em (Amazon link):

In this book, you'll find terse prose suggesting extremely tight play. Here's a favorite passage:

There are situations where you won't call a raise before the flop. Suppose that player C raises on the button and one of the blinds pops it again. Unless you have a pair of aces, you probably shouldn't call; you should throw away your kings. You don't have much invested in this pot and even if he doesn't have aces, it's not a bad play to fold the kings. Where I was schooled in Dallas, the second raise probably would have been aces, and the third raise was like Ivory snow: 99.9 percent pure aces. It's not A-K in this situation - it's aces.(pp. 53-54)

(Nice post on PartTimePoker dealing with the "third raise is always aces" rule)

In tournaments, this is excellent advice. I once was in a hand late in a sit-and-go where, after a long dead streak, I picked up AK in the small blind. The button made a standard raise and I came back over the top.

Then the BB re-raised.

I folded my AK. The BB had aces, just like TJ said. The button had kings. I would have been almost drawing dead here.

However, if there's one piece of advice that has caused me trouble in cash games, it's this one:

You have Big Slick. The flop comes three baby cards. Player A bets. What do you do? You throw your hand away. Why? Because you have nothing. In no-limit hold 'em, you never chase. (p. 205)

Reading the twoplustwo forums, I've found that the very best cash game players disagree with this advice. Many of them would say: RAISE!

My introduction to no-limit was playing free live tournaments in the basement of the student union. What I didn't realize at the time was that we played preposterously short-stacked: everyone started with 54 chips and blinds at 1-2. In other words, you started the tournaments with less than 30BB. Continuation betting a flop isn't a very good idea when you only have 54 chips, and I developed an incredibly rock-like style that focused ONLY on value-betting. I was able to make the final table several times, usually just by insanely tight play (e.g. never playing suited connectors for an entire tournament).

When I started playing normal online tournaments - 1,500 starting chips with 10/20 blinds - this style was acceptable but certainly not optimal.

The sage advice of T.J. Cloutier - don't risk your tournament life when you're only a slight favorite - is death in cash games. You need to push the small advantages where your equity is big enough to merit a loose call or raise. T.J. warns that the tournament can't be won on the first day; but in a cash game, there's only one day, and waiting (for higher blinds, for other players to go after each other) has far less value.

Making the Switch, Part I

2007-11-14T15:22:00.001-08:00

Since leaving absolute poker and switching to full tilt, I've made two changes in how my time is spent at poker. The first is playing some sit-and-goes, which weren't available on the absolute java client (only cash games and MTTs for some reason). Sit and goes are fun, and can be fairly lucrative: I quite like the heads-up winner-take-all 4 player tournaments: a $2.15 buy-in can become $8 pretty easily.

However, the bigger switch is to play no-limit instead of limit. I've tried that switch before, very unsuccessfully. However, after reading more of Ed Miller's, I became convinced that low-stakes NL is very beatable.

So far the results are good but not great. Here are the big differences I notice:

Multi-tabling is harder. In limit, multi-tabling is easier because the options are fixed to check, bet, call and raise. Because you need to specify the size of your bet in NL, it takes more keystrokes or mouse-movements. I've found 4-tabling is almost impossible with any accuracy because of this. 3 tables is about the maximum for acceptable concentration and mistake-free play.
Getting raised is a much bigger problem. Suppose you're playing low-limit and you're in the blinds with Q♥ T♥. Someone raises and you call. The flop is:

Q ♠ 7♣ 3♠

I would probably check-raise here; a pair of queens is likely good, and he will probably bluff with a hand like AT or KJ.

In no-limit, this is a totally different situation. First off, I'd think much harder about calling the raise in the first place. If it was a minimum raise, I would certainly call. A raise to 4 times the big blind, and I would probably fold. Anything bigger and I definitely fold.

Then there's a flop. Depending on where the raiser was sitting, he could have a worse hand than me, something dominated like JT or even T8s. However, finding out what he has is going to be expensive most of the time.

With top pair here, a check raise is a bit risky. You're letting the pot get pretty big with a check raise: you check, he bets 6x the big blind, and you need to raise to at least 15-20x the big blind to give him bad odds and convince him you have a hand. If it works, you've won a pretty good-sized pot with a marginal hand (top pair, 4th kicker).

But suppose he's a decent player holding A♠ 9♠. He figures that you have top pair, but he has a draw to the nuts (not to mention an overcard that's probably good here). He re-raises you, making this a very big pot in the area of 50-60 big blinds.

How do you read the re-raise? It could be the hands that are crushing you, namely:

AA

KK

QQ if you're really unlucky

77

33

KQ

QJ

You're almost drawing dead to all of these hands; with KQ and QJ you'll lose unless you hit your kicker (3 outs); against higher pairs you have 5 outs, and against a set you're pretty much hopeless (you could hit quad queens or running QT against the sets of 7s and 3s). Add in the semi-bluffing hands - all Ax and Kx of spades - and this is a very tough call to make. One of the basic rules of no-limit is "big pots for big hands, small pots for small hands." Top pair/fourth kicker is about as small a hand as you'll ever consider playing.

In limit, this just isn't a huge problem. I'm probably going to check-raise and call him down even if I get re-raised on the flop. He might be getting cute with AK or JJ; I may be behind, but unless there's a 4-flush on the board or two overcards, I'm sticking with this.

That would be a bad way to play low-stakes NL. This is actually a poor flop for QT because you're either going to win a small pot (i.e. he has some hopeless hand like JTo and just folds) or be forced to play a big one out of position with a marginal hand. I wouldn't stand much of a re-raise here, although I'd call the minimum. I would much prefer a flop like:

J ♣ 9♥ 5♥

This leads to the next point...
Draws have much more value as bluffing hands
. Playing low-stakes fixed-limit games, I learned basic tricks like raising draws for free cards and betting straights draws in position to induce a bunch of callers. But draws can be far more valuable in NL, because you can actually make someone fold a better hand with just a straight draw. Combo draws are even more dangerous.

Again, if you hold Q♥ T♥ and the flop is:

J ♣ 9♥ 5♥

This is a great situation, even out of position. You have an overcard and draws to high straights and flushes. This could be a great situation to check-raise with a draw, maybe even all-in.

If he has AJ, J9, 55, QQ or any number of hands, it's going to be hard to fold here. But you're going to stack him more often than not even with those hands, since you have a monster 30-outer (9 hearts plus 3 kings plus 3 eights, the majority of the remaining deck).

Even better, this strong bet will get some leading hands to fold. After all, you just have queen high; a guy with AK or J7 is winning this hand right now. But you just can't call an all-in raise with two overcards or a "riverdancer" (low-kicker hands, ha-ha).

In low-limit, this isn't as strong a hand. You're not going to make a ton on it because the draws aren't well hidden, and any decent player will fold top pair if the next card is a king or a heart.

It's fun so far, I hope to post more on this transition.

Why Poker is good for your mind

2007-11-04T18:13:00.001-08:00

Like many games, poker teaches some beneficial mental habits.

Rapid decision making: Online poker requires a decision to be made within 30 seconds. This involves factoring in your cards, how much money you and your opponent have, the texture of the board, the implications of the next cards, the chances a raise will result in your opponent folding (usually minimal, but sometimes significant on the turn), and the chance of making a second best hand.
Accepting losing: everyone loses in poker, even the greatest players. That's actually quite a contrast to other competitive activities. Consider tennis: Roger Federer wins the vast majority of his matches. He's won some of the world's elite tournaments four times running; he's currently been ranked first in the world for 196 straight weeks. That sort of dominance isn't possible in poker; the great players have to accept far more losing sessions, even in cash games, than pros in other sports (let's leave aside the debate over whether poker is a sport - it's not). Ed Miller has a nice post on poker as a perpetual learning activity, not just a moneymaking opportunity. He argues, and I would agree, that a learning mindset will help you control tilt and self-recrimination far better.
Self-discipline: With so much information available on how to play poker, it's no secret how you should be playing. Play tight, don't stand raises with weak hands, use position, focus on hand-reading and betting patterns. With all of that good information, anyone should be able to beat low-stakes games (even with a high rake). But most players can't. Because they get excited when they see A8 suited, call raises with that hand, and get in trouble. I speak from experience: the first time I tried to transition from limit to no-limit, I played terribly, because hand values are different, and because I got excited about marginal hands. I'm doing better now because of discipline, partly learned in tougher limit games, partly from the experience of losing.

What I Look for in a Table

2007-10-25T14:44:00.001-07:00

What are the ideal low-limit table conditions? The answer from the books is simple: "calling stations," or loose-passive tables. But what do you really want if you consider yourself the more skilled player:

People who will fold pre-flop. I know that Ed Miller and other writers I respect say that bad callers pre-flop are good for you because of the concept of pot equity. But with a ton of bad callers, it becomes like an unraised pot - it's very difficult to believe the flop missed everyone, and even harder to read hands. People have any two suited cards, any ace, 87o, K5o, 22, you name it. If you raised with KQs in early position, there is no way you're winning this hand. All that happened is you lost two small bets instead of one.
Do you want maniacs? I'd argue you don't. Maniacs make it very difficult to slip into pots, and very difficult to pound strong-but-vulnerable hands like AQo. If he calls any raise with J3s against your pocket tens, it really hurts when he rivers that one jack against all your bets. I'd prefer a somewhat reasonably player who will fold to a continuation bet on a dry board. Of course, if everyone were like that, there would be no money to be made in online poker.
I'd like one reliably over-aggressive player. That way I can use a check-raise effectively. With loose-passive players, they'll check if you check, call if you bet. But they won't bet their own hands. I've seen players check all the way with a four flush and a pair.

Game Holes

2007-10-11T13:59:00.001-07:00

I've played a lot lately and here's what I've come up with. Common to many low-limit players, I'm sure:

Completing with weak hands in the blinds. I'm talking really weak, like 92s and J6o. While you have to defend against maniacs, even huge implied odds don't justify these calls multiway.
Sticking with medium pairs with an overcard. If you have TT and the flop is KJ3, there is just very little chance you still have the best hand. You'd like to believe the maniac is going wild with A3, or even better A6, but it's not worth calling every street to find out you're wrong and he has K2. Even with a K94 flop it's questionable.
Playing trash hands because the odds dictate it at a wild table. Enough said.
Drawing to the non-nut flush. While I think it's OK to occasionally draw with a singleton ace and a 3-flush on the board, other draws just don't make sense. Drawing to a jack high flush is idiotic, since even if you make it you're probably against a bigger one.
Calling early position raises with ace hands. Likely that raiser has a bigger ace, so you'll just get in trouble if one falls; even if you pair your kicker, you could lose when they pair a higher one.

Now, I have also amazingly picked up a few good habits, of the sort that Sklansky and other gurus would approve of (I think):

Betting middle pair with an ace kicker as a semi-bluff. If you hold A9 on a J96 board, that's a good time to try a semi-bluff. The guy with QJ won't fold, but you're ahead of someone with QT and the guy calling with AK really only has a 3-outer, since his ace is no good if it hits.
Leaving alone draws to the non-nuts, or draws when you have no overcards. An inside straight draw is not one and the same thing; what you want is KQ with a board of T94. Compare that to T9 with a board of J7K. Even if you make your draw, you may lose to a higher straight it a queen or ace falls; and if you miss your draw, you're behind to some pretty pathetic hands. If you "accidentally" pair one of your cards, it's almost surely no good and you're drawing to a 5 outer or less, because you may be drawing dead to someone else's straight. One-overcard draws are ok but can similarly cause trouble: if you hold J8 with a flop of T72, a jack may be a good card for you, but it may make 2 pair for someone else.
Folding offsuit connectors unless on the button or the SB. You're just not giving up much by folding 76, 98, even JT if there aren't at least three callers in front. Often you'll flush a weak gutshot draw without overcards, and the only thing to do is hope it's checked to you and check behind.
Avoiding low cards. While I think hands like 64s have tremendous value in no-limit for deception and to catch overpairs with an unfavorable flop, you'll face too many tough decisions in limit with suited one-gappers below J9. Mostly you'll completely miss and fold, because you can't even beat 72o. If you catch a flush draw, you stay in but have nothing if you miss it - no high card that you may pair up by accident. If you flop two pair, it will usually be counterfeited, e.g. with 53s and a flop of Q53, another queen or a running pair kills you. A guy holds on with Q2 and either hits trips or gets running sixes to kill you. You're only ahead on the flop and rarely by much, especially without a four flush.
Never playing king-rag, even in the small blind. What possible good can come from playing K6o? I used to agonize over pseudo-good hands like K8; but they're rarely good even with two pair. Best you can hope for is 883, but that doesn't come around often.

The Higher Levels (relatively speaking)

2007-10-10T16:39:00.001-07:00

Other differences at the higher levels:

People will call you down with nothing. This leads to a large number of really painful split pots. Just now I raised in the blinds with AQo. The flop came A45 with two hearts. I bet out, one player folded, and the other called all the way with pocket 7s. Great except the board hit running 2-3 to give a straight to both of us. Ouch. I'd almost mind hitting the two-outer less.

A similar problem is when you hit an inside straight on a board like T62; you hold 98 and the 7 comes on the turn. But the guy holding T9 hangs in there, and the river is an 8. Suddenly it's a split pot, and a loss after the rake.

If you limp, the person right behind you will raise just to be an asshole and get it heads up. Then when the board is Q22, there's not much you can do.

You face more difficult decisions on the turn, with a draw to a good hand but unfavorable odds. You often need to call $1 into a $3.50 pot to see the last card that may give you your straight; if it doesn't you have nothing, and someone else might river you anyway. Many folds that are regretted, I think I need to call more here.

People abuse the button shorthanded. You'll see button raises with 37 suited, J7 offsuit, all manner of trash, even 23.

Leveling Up and Leveling Down

2007-10-10T16:25:00.001-07:00

I've had some brutal up-and-down swings lately, and so I stepped back down to .10/.20 games this afternoon. No question, they are a lot easier than .25/.50; I tripled my money in almost no time, while I was holding steady at the .25/.50 table at the same time.

The main difference with the lower limit is the extreme passivity of the players and the willingness to give free cards. If you hold:

J ♣ 8♦

And the flop is:

T ♠ 7♣ 2♦

You can almost always get a free card here if you want it, where calling a bet or two wouldn't be worth it. If you make your hand, you will get paid off by people holding any pair, ace high, a smaller draw, or maybe even two overcards. The calling inclination is so strong that draws are almost the only hands worth playing at that level, and I've found extremely marginal hands like 96s, 74s, and J8o are worth a call.

At the .25/.50 level, almost no flops are checked all the way around; in fact, almost no flops have only one bet. Drawing gets tricky, even with a draw to the nuts, when you're calling two bets cold in a small pot. It gets even worse if you're drawing to a straight and there's a two-flush on the board; it's likely that either the bet or the raise came from two suited cards, so you're wondering if your straight will be good even if you make it.

This is probably wrong, but I swear I see more paired boards at the higher levels; possibly because people are playing higher quality cards (more face cards) you see way more 992 flops. When you've raised with KQ, that's uncomfortable; someone is liable to call you down with A high, or else they already have T9 or something like that. Also more incredibly uncoordinated boards that can't possibly make a draw, like Q73 unsuited. Perhaps it's because people are playing suited cards more that the board appears "drier."

Commandments of the Offseason

2007-10-09T17:53:00.001-07:00

Nice post on BlazersEdge about the 10 commandments of the offseason. Excerpt:

THOU SHALT NOT pass judgment on the current year's draft picks until at least an entire season has passed, preferably two or three. Pre-season is too soon!

Wise words.

Full Houses - Not All They Seem to Be

2007-10-06T13:00:00.001-07:00

A full house is a pretty monstrous hand, but it's rarely a very well disguised one. While it's nice to hit a full house while someone else is drawing dead to a flush, the "low" full house is vulnerable to extremely painful beats.

Even with a set, flopping a full house can be dangerous. Consider this example:

You hold 4 ♣ 4♠. The flop comes:

4 ♥ 7 ♦7 ♠

This is the best you could have hoped for - you've flopped a full house, which happens about 1 in 1000 hands. But you're extremely vulnerable. If you get action with this hand, it's likely that someone else is holding the other 7. Although they are drawing to a 3-outers, it's hard to see what the safe card is. Unless they have 72 or 73, any card that comes next could make them a higher full house. An 8 or 6 might be cause for concern, since they're mostly likely to be holding a seven in a connectors hand; an ace might also be a problem. Something like a jack is probably safe, but they're going to draw twice with trips, so you have to grit your teeth and take your chances.

Another painful situation is when your opponent holds a premium pocket pair and simply doesn't want to believe you have a seven. In this case it's only a two-outer, but if he hits it you're in trouble. If the final board reads:

4 ♥ 7 ♦7 ♠ K ♥ A♣

and you're raised on the river, there's a possibility that they just hit aces or kings full. Hopefully they had AK and were drawing dead the whole time; but if there was a lot of action pre-flop, aces or kings certainly isn't out of the question.

This isn't even considering the possibility that you're drawing dead to pocket 7s, but one can't worry about that during the course of everyday play.

Small pairs are sticky. The best you can hope for here is an uncoordinated flop with an ace or king, something like:

2♣ 4♦ K♠

To get someone with KQ or AK interested. They are almost drawing dead, and if another king falls they will ram and jam. It's better to make your full house on the turn or river, since there is a smaller chance of being outdrawn in that case.

Even the best hands can go bad, and it really hurts when the set loses to a runner-runner flush. The benefit of small pair sets is that people don't fear them; the associated problem is that you get drawn out on far more because they don't give you credit even if you raise.

River Betting

2007-10-04T16:41:00.001-07:00

I've had an up-and-down but generally productive couple of days at the tables. My bankroll, such as it is, is at the highest level ever, 280% of my original buy-in at the site.

I think river betting is my main problem, and the source of many many bad bets. In a multi-way pot on the river, which is not at all uncommon even at the shorthanded tables, you have to give credit to the draws. I just bet on a river reading 5-6-7-9-T with second pair, fourth kicker. That may sound idiotic but the hand went like this:

No raise pre-flop, I hold J9s. Flop is 5-6-7, one bet, everyone calls. I turn top pair, check from the blinds, and... no one bets. The ten comes, I bet, two players fold, and the third one calls with the nut straight.

It only cost me one bet, but it could have been zero. If for some reason he checked down a straight, I'd be surprised but lose nothing. If I checked, and the last player bet, I'd almost certainly fold.

Mike Caro says "your opponents have a calling reflex." They want to call. Betting out on the river is giving them a chance to do that.

Now, I've been thinking a lot about Lederer's suggested style - check-raise the flop almost every time heads up - and while I think it's of limited usefulness in my games, the core of the argument is solid. If you bet, they have an easy decision: fold with nothing and leave you a small pot, raise with the good stuff to put you back on your heels, and call if you're just not certain.

By checking, they have to make that same decision.

Another great quote from Super/System 2 (source of the Caro quote, as I remember) is "betting for value is what it's all about." Doyle Brunson says it in his no limit chapter, and I'm convinced it's even more true in fixed-limit games. If you hold A9 and the board is A 6 3, you have to bet. If you don't, your tight

Now, I just had a situation where betting the river made sense, even though I could lose. The board read:

A ♠ J ♠ 8♠ T ♦ Q ♠

There was no pre-flop raise and the flop and turn were checked around.

I was in the big blind with:

9 ♦ T ♠

Despite this very weak hand, I had the second nut flush on the river. But there's more to it. The only possible hand I could lose to was K♠-x. I didn't think that was out there for the following reasons:

There were some aggressive players who would have bet a draw to the nuts earlier, especially with a passive table.

Anyone holding a king just rivered a straight, and may see my bet as a steal at the pot from early position.

It's entirely possible that someone has another flush card in their hand and just can't beat to not call me, even though they know they probably have the worst of it; after all it's only one river bet with some chance I'm bluffing at a small pot.

I believe Sklansky said that if you bet the river when you have a 50/50 chance of winning, you're in trouble. Because of the positional disadvantage here, I'll get raised (and need to call) only by the cinch hand. I need to be above 50% when called to make this play. But I was in this case. However, the 2nd pair, 4th kicker situation is terrible, and I'm lucky I didn't get raised on the end. Only an extreme timid opponent saved me there, but I still felt silly.

When to Bluff

2007-10-04T16:39:00.001-07:00

There isn't much effective bluffing in the .25/.50 games I play. Heads up with minimum bets in the pot, it becomes more essential. I just checked in the blind with:

As 8d.

The flop came 2h - Td- 2d. Heads up, out of position, I'm betting or check-raising this hand most of the time. But this was four-handed; if I bet out, I'm getting called by any T, any 2, any two diamonds, and maybe even any ace. In other words, there is no possible worse hand that can call me, except maybe KQ.

I think the bet-out bluff is better than the check-raise. It's simply easier for the other player to lay down. There are 2 bets in the pot and he's getting 3:1 to call. If you check raise, there are 4 bets in and he's getting 5:1 to call. Then the bottom pair, or speculative hands, start getting calls. I don't want them to call, unless I'm value betting. If I'm value betting, I don't want to accidentally give a free card. Lederer overestimates the aggressiveness of opponents in limit games, and the frequency of heads up post-flop play. When you're three-way with top pair and a decent kicker, you're taking a huge chance checking on a dry board. They will almost surely pick up a draw

Remember, they want to call. Use it against them and bet. If you get the egotistic maniac who is guaranteed to bet, use that against him and check-raise regularly.

I've Never Seen a Weirder Hand...

2007-09-27T00:10:00.001-07:00

How about aces versus kings versus queens versus sevens versus fives pre-flop?

YouTube Link - Australian or European tournament

Kings raises, queens re-raises, aces hollywoods it for a long time and then pushes all-in, and kings makes the most amazing laydown I've ever seen. It's an amazing play that becomes truly painful when the flop brings a king.

Craziest pre-flop hand I've ever seen.

Middle Pair on the Flop

2007-09-26T15:47:00.001-07:00

This is one of the trickiest spots in multi-way pots. You hold

8 ♣ 7 ♣

And the flop is a dry:

4 ♦ 8 ♥ J ♠

You're on the button and it's checked all the way around to you.

Do you bet? If you do, most of them will call. They'll call with AK, J6, 76, T9. They're calling with outs, and it's hard to tell what the next card does for them.

I ended up betting this, and going to the river with another player. He showed 89o and took down the pot. Should I have checked? I'm not sure. Then someone would have bet at me, and I'd be stuck with a decision: are they betting K9 on a bluff, or semi-bluffing w AQ? Were they looking to check-raise on the flop and missing?

Just happened again with a similar set up:

I hold: Td 8c

Flop is:

Ad 8s 6c

I'm OOP so I check and it's checked around. If someone had ace, they'd let me know, so I feel good. Even better than the turn is Td. I've got 2 pair and someone will call me. I bet and get two customers. But the river is: 6c. I bet and get raised. He turns over 36d for the busted draw that hit the river. Again, a probable check-the-river situation that I missed. It's easy to get excited when you have nowhere near the nuts on the river...

Flops You Want - Part I: 96 suited

2007-09-19T10:57:00.001-07:00

In Sklansky's original 1976 book Hold 'Em Poker (FlopTurnRiver reviews), he has a short series of charts on "flops you want." For example, if you're holding JJ, you'd like a flop like AJ4 because it delivers some action from players with aces, while offering almost no possibility of losing to a draw. Occasionally the flops you want are a bit less obvious; it you're holding pocket aces, you may not want a flop like AJ4 since there's little chance of getting action except maybe from AJ or AK.

After playing quite a bit recently, I'm trying to think through the details of "flops you want" with the medium hands. I'm starting, for no particular reason, with 96 suited, a hand I like for some reason.

Best case scenario: flopped full house. There are of course two possible full houses you can flop, 966 or 996. The first form, with two sixes, is much more desirable than the second. Of course, a flopped full house is great no matter what, but you have to consider what the other players could be holding.

Suppose the turn card is an ace. If the flop was 996, you have to consider the possibility that your opponent holds A9. In fact, any overcard is dangerous when you have the lower end of the full house. Consider the hands with a nine that your opponents may play. Assuming they're not total maniacs, it's probably 98s, T9s, J9, A9, and possibly Q9, K9 and 97s depending on their tightness. The point is, they will not be holding 95, 94, 93, or 92. That means any card above six that comes on the turn, with the possible exception of a queen or king, is dangerous.

However, if the flop is 996, you are way ahead. Even if your opponent holds the other six, what is he likely to hold with it? The usual hands: 76s, 65s, and maybe 64s or 86s (he can't be holding pocket 6s, obviously). It's very unlikely he holds a higher kicker that could pair: T6, J6, Q6 etc are just not playable hands in limit unless you're a real maniac. The only possible threat is a pocket pair; if he holds 77 and the turn is a 7, he has sevens full of sixes beating your sixes full of nines. It can happen, but remember he's 23:1 against hitting that 7 on the turn, and you'll make him pay for it.

Flopped trips: again, you would prefer a flop of 662 to a flop of 99K. You hold one of the highest feasible kickers with trip sixes, but probably the lowest kicker for trip nines. With the second flop, you'll either win a small pot on the flop when people figure out you have trips, or lose a big one on the river when your opponent shows J9 (or worse, K9).

Open ended draw: this is usually what you're shooting for with suited two gappers. If the flop comes:

7 8 K

You're in position to call bets, or even raise depending on how many people are in the pot. Your hand is pretty well disguised; if the turn is a 5, most players won't really fear that you're holding the cinch hand.

If the T comes, there is a chance you lose to J9, but it's less likely J9 is calling bets here with just an inside straight draw and no overcards.

Double inside draw: If the flop comes all odds, like this:

3 5 7

Or all "evens" (counting queens as a 12):

8 T Q

You have a double inside draw. In the first case, you're more likely to make the nuts. If an 8 comes you're holding the absolute best hand (assuming there are not three suited cards on the board). If a 4 comes, it's likely you have the best hand since the only better one is 86.

Another subtle difference is that there's a small chance of winning the first flop just by hitting your weak over card. If there isn't much action and the turn is a 9, it's possible you have the best hand with just a pair of nines (perhaps your opponent has a smaller draw like 64, or pocket 8s).

If a nine comes on the second flop, it's bad news. You're drawing dead to any jack or anyone holding 76, and almost dead to anyone holding T9 or Q9. You're behind to anyone with a T or a Q. Even if the 7 comes it's still quite possible to lose this plot or split it several ways.

Inside straight draw: Worse than the double inside but still valuable is the inside straight draw. If the flop is:

5 7 T

It's usually worth calling one bet if you're getting at least 7:1. If the turn is an eight, you'll probably get plenty of action from second-best hands. There's a small chance of being outdrawn or splitting here, but I think it's worth chasing.

Most limit players don't read the board as well as they think, and someone holding AT or T8 may ram and jam on this one and lose big.

The other advantage of inside straight draws is there are not hard decisions. If you make your hand, bet it; if you don't, drop it immediately since you have nothing. This is easier with medium hands like 96s, since there's no way 9 high is the best hand; it gets trickier with KQs.

Flush draws: While the appeal of suited connectors is the possibility of a flush draw, you have to be careful. Suppose you limp, there is a raise behind you, and the flop comes:

A ♠ Q ♣ 2 ♣

If you're holding the 9 ♣ 6 ♣, this isn't a great situation for you. Although you have a four-flush, you have no other outs; you cannot make a straight, and a pair will likely do you no good. Even two pair might not be good. And there is the additional possibility that someone holds higher clubs.

Suppose the turn is:

5 ♣

You should certainly bet, but if you're raised it's a difficult situation. Clearly no one is raising with a straight; three-of-a-kind is possible.

But you can lose big if you cap the betting and the turn is:

T ♣

Your opponent turns over something like:

K ♣ Q ♦

And you lose a big pot.

You can get yourself into trouble when you are only ahead for one street. In this case, I was behind pre-flop (2 overcards to 2 undercards), behind on the flop (a pair of queens versus a flush draw), ahead on the turn (a pair and four-flush versus a made flush) and behind on the river (king high flush beats my queen high flush). A medium flush is very vulnerable to big-card hands like that, and your brief lead is not secure.

And I didn't forget: Of course, you can make a straight flush with 96s. If that happens, you don't need to worry about anything except trying to suck in players who are drawing dead.

Back tomorrow to discuss a favorite "trouble hand," AJo.

Playing with the Rocks

2007-09-14T18:35:00.001-07:00

I've noticed a player in my low-limit room who exemplifies the "rock" prototype in limit poker. We'll call him Frodo for now.

I used to think of Frodo as a pretty tough player. I didn't call his raises much because I knew he has premium hands. I checked it to him if I called his pre-flop raise, and usually laid it down.

However, I've lately come to feel differently. These sorts of rocks can be tamed, even if you can't make much money off of them. The truth is, they don't make much money for themselves. I played a two-hour session with Frodo and while he never went negative, he was never up more than about 5 or 10 big bets. He would win a big hand with aces, the let it all get blinded away.

Here's a hand that came up between us:

Five handed and I'm in the big blind. The first two players fold and Frodo raises on the button. Now this guy does not raise just because he is in position; I'm almost sure he folds playable hands like T9s on the button, and he almost never limps. He only raises with big cards and pocket pairs (which really isn't a bad strategy at low-limit). The SB folds and I look down at:

J ♣ 2 ♦

Pathetic. I'm only getting 3:1 and I like to get at least 7:1 before I even consider playing a trash hand like this.

But I call. Here's my reasoning: I am 99% sure Frodo has AA, KK, AK, or QQ. If he has the big pocket pairs, I'll know it in a hurry. However, AK is the likeliest thing here.

The flop comes:

7 ♦ 3♥ 2 ♣

I have nothing at all - a pair of deuces. But I bet out. If he raises me, I'm done. But hand reading is so straightforward with players like this, I'm almost sure he has AK. Unless an A or K comes, I think I'm all right. And if I check it, he'll probably bet anyway (he's not that much of a rock).

I bet and he calls. I consider this good news. If he had a pocket pair he would definitely raise. There's absolutely no way he has something like 87 or 45, we would never get involved with that.

Turn:

10 ♠

Not too great, not too bad. I bet again (this is questionable in retrospect) and Frodo calls again.

River:

Q ♣

Hmm. AQ is possible, I suppose. I'll check and probably fold if he bets it. But I check, he checks, he shows A ♠ K ♠ and I take down the pot with a pair of deuces.

Obviously folding J2o preflop would have been a fine play here. But I want to take advantage of the ease of hand-reading against rocks. When I'm heads up against a raise from Frodo, I know pretty well where I stand. In some ways, I would rather hold trash than something like A9, because then I'll just get outkicked if I hit my high card.

Frodo also folds an amazing amount, if he's in the big blind, with a raise and two cold-callers, he'll almost always fold. Now you're getting 7:1 on a call here, so I feel almost any hand is worth it; certainly any two suited, any two connected, any ace and maybe even some straight up junk like Q7o. But he'll fold or re-raise every time - he never calls. It's not a terrible strategy, but I think it's giving up some good opportunities in the long run.

Addendum: even the rocks can surprise you. I saw frodo bluff at the river with 86o on a board reading something like AKJ3T. He got called and lost the hand. But this really doesn't change much, he was in the hand for free in the big blind and knew he's lose if it was checked down.

Sometimes It Just Doesn't Flow

2007-09-14T16:56:00.001-07:00

After about 10 straight winning sessions, I'm having a terrible go of it. I've lost two pair to a runner-runner straight, multiple AK vs QQ scenarios, and several where I've been outkicked by one pip (KQ vs KJ, A8 vs A9). I'm being a good boy and folding the trash, but I haven't had a hand in 20 minutes and people at my table are raising with stuff like A8o. I'd really like to have a good hand to go after them with, but I just can't call with Q4 and that junk.

My usual strategy at low-stakes games is to limp in UTG with an playable hand down to 54o, T8o or Q9o,

Things are really going poorly. I just flopped my first full house of the day, and everyone folded to a minimum bet on the flop. I made 40c. I'm sitting to the left of a maniac, which is supposedly where you want to be located. Problem is, it gets boring to never play hands, especially when he's raising pretty light even in the blinds. This table is ridiculously live, but I just can't crack it for some reason. I know that against these players, value betting is the only possible strategy. They won't fold to a reasonable bluff or continuation bet unless:

You raise pre-flop
An ace flops
They missed the flop completely
They don't have an kind of hand to begin with
They haven't seen you bluff ever

I never realized how dependent my game is on multi-way draws, but when you're missing it's really noticable. When I limped with terrible hands like 53s, I'd get a nice flop like J42 and then stay in to the end, getting odds, only to miss completely. I've had AK cracked by J4o, nut straights chopped because of ridiculous river cards, and had a flopped two pair beat by a rivered A4o two pair.

The problem is hand selection; after a couple of hours of 92o, Q8 starts looking like a hand to call raises with.