I'm a big fan of reraising a wide range of hands preflop in position: my suited connectors gain value because they can win the dead money in the pot, and my premium hands are more likely to get called when my opponents know I could have low cards.
Several training sites advocate this kind of preflop strategy, but pro player Samoleus recently repeated his claim that it's inherently flawed.
"If someone raises and you have a hand like King-Jack suited on the button or 87 suited on the button, that's not a reraising hand. That's a hand that plays so much better when you have more of a stack to pot ratio," Samoleus said on the Cash Plays podcast. "The CardRunners style ... I know they teach this rampant aggression and this 3-betting with suited connectors and stuff, which I really think is such a flawed technique. ... The whole philosophy, the approach to this, is completely wrong."
While it's true that speculative hands gain value when they can see flops for cheap, Samoleus failed to explain why cold calling is a better play in this era of poker in which the blinds are likely to run a squeeze play when they see a raiser and a button caller.
Sure, cold calling would work well in passive games with very little 3-betting.
But the reality of today's games is that you're going to get squeezed frequently, and the best way to defend against the squeeze is for you to raise in the first place. Most of the time, a preflop 3-bet with suited connectors will either pick up the blinds or allow you to see a flop in position.
Samoleus sounds like he's upset at how the games have evolved rather than adjusting to them.
Other pros take a more measured, constructive approach.
In the new DeucesCracked series "Parallels," Krantz addresses a similar situation when he holds KQs from the button.
He says that you should call more and 3-bet less with hands like KQs when your opponents fold too frequently to raises.
I can infer several pieces of information from his statement:
1) 3-betting with KQs and similar hands is better when your opponents are more likely to call a raise with lesser hands. KQs has enough value postflop to call a raise rather than attempt to steal. That's probably why Leatherass called from the button with AQs in my recent hand with him.
2) Suited connectors gain value from a 3-bet in games with opponents who are likely to fold to a raise.
3) If there's a caller in the middle, a 3-bet with many different hand types makes more sense because there's more dead money in the pot.
What Samoleus should have said is that he's disenchanted with the mindless 3-betting that occurs so often these days.
He shouldn't have made the sweeping statement that this kind of 3-betting is frequently wrong and bad for the game. There are many situations where a preflop reraise is the best play with hands like KJs and suited connectors, despite how much Samoleus wishes it weren't so.
Showing posts with label cardrunners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cardrunners. Show all posts
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
CTS knows
A recent CardRunners video by CTS shows why poker training sites are so valuable. I sometimes learn more from a single training video than I would from reading an entire book.
CTS is one of the best because his thinking about the game is on a much higher level than most other pros, and he does a pretty good job of explaining his reasoning.
For example, he writes out this equation for calculating the expected value of a stone-cold bluff:
I hadn't ever seen that specific math anywhere else, and it's a practical way to analyze whether you made a profitable bluff. This reminds me of a similar example CTS gave in a previous video about calculating the EV of a semibluff, which I wrote about here.
Another strong point of this video is when CTS folds his big blind with 55 against Taylor Caby's button open raise.
He says that a call or a raise could be defensible against a weaker player, but against a strong player out of position, low pocket pairs won't flop a set often enough or get paid off often enough to turn a profit.
---
At the tables, I've been working hard on my heads-up game.
Heads-up hold'em is such a thrill because you play so many hands and have to work through so many difficult situations. I can see where I have an edge (or lack thereof) more clearly when playing a single opponent.
I find that there are so many situations where I need to do a better job of balancing my range:
_ I have a hard time playing paired flops with Ace-high or low pocket pair hands. I find myself often checking the flop and trying to keep the pot small with these kinds of hands that are either way ahead or way behind. But this strategy makes it more difficult to get value when I do hit these paired flops because it's harder to represent anything but a strong hand type.
_ When I fail to continuation bet, I need to mix in more check-raises for value and as bluffs in order to mask the weakness a failed c-bet usually reveals.
_ My donkbets represent a tremendously limited range because I often prefer to check-raise the flop. That tendancy fails miserably against opponents who check behind the flop and raise the turn, both with strong and weak holdings. I need to do a better job of recognizing what flop textures I need to bet out on both for value and as bluffs. I'm guessing that it's better to bet out on the most extreme flop types: either very dry or very coordinated.
CTS is one of the best because his thinking about the game is on a much higher level than most other pros, and he does a pretty good job of explaining his reasoning.
For example, he writes out this equation for calculating the expected value of a stone-cold bluff:
I hadn't ever seen that specific math anywhere else, and it's a practical way to analyze whether you made a profitable bluff. This reminds me of a similar example CTS gave in a previous video about calculating the EV of a semibluff, which I wrote about here.
Another strong point of this video is when CTS folds his big blind with 55 against Taylor Caby's button open raise.
He says that a call or a raise could be defensible against a weaker player, but against a strong player out of position, low pocket pairs won't flop a set often enough or get paid off often enough to turn a profit.
---
At the tables, I've been working hard on my heads-up game.
Heads-up hold'em is such a thrill because you play so many hands and have to work through so many difficult situations. I can see where I have an edge (or lack thereof) more clearly when playing a single opponent.
I find that there are so many situations where I need to do a better job of balancing my range:
_ I have a hard time playing paired flops with Ace-high or low pocket pair hands. I find myself often checking the flop and trying to keep the pot small with these kinds of hands that are either way ahead or way behind. But this strategy makes it more difficult to get value when I do hit these paired flops because it's harder to represent anything but a strong hand type.
_ When I fail to continuation bet, I need to mix in more check-raises for value and as bluffs in order to mask the weakness a failed c-bet usually reveals.
_ My donkbets represent a tremendously limited range because I often prefer to check-raise the flop. That tendancy fails miserably against opponents who check behind the flop and raise the turn, both with strong and weak holdings. I need to do a better job of recognizing what flop textures I need to bet out on both for value and as bluffs. I'm guessing that it's better to bet out on the most extreme flop types: either very dry or very coordinated.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Button reraising...or not
I keep thinking about two seemingly competing strategies, both of which are preached by solid pros. One strategy would have you cold call in position with many playable hands, and the other advocates frequent 3-betting.
I remember Samoleus arguing for making more calls in position with hands that have implied odds. He differed with some CardRunners pros who reraise many playable hand types in position.
Dan Harrington writes in his cash game books about calling with a wide range of hands for cheap in position. The deeper-stacked you are, the more hands you want to play from the button, he says.
Finally, I stumbled upon a column by BalugaWhale that lays out a reasonable compromise: 3-bet with strong and weak hands, while call with high implied odds hands. This line of thought makes sense. If you're going to call preflop with low pocket pairs in position, why not do the same with JTs? Sure, you can 3-bet these hands when the circumstances call for it, like when you're up against a player who folds to raises too much or never 4-bets. But seeing flops with drawing hands while not spending too much money seems reasonable.
One big problem with this style comes when you're up against frequent squeezers from the blinds. To balance your range against these types of players, you need to occasionally cold call with premium hands from late position in hopes of 4-betting a squeezer all-in.
I remember Samoleus arguing for making more calls in position with hands that have implied odds. He differed with some CardRunners pros who reraise many playable hand types in position.
Dan Harrington writes in his cash game books about calling with a wide range of hands for cheap in position. The deeper-stacked you are, the more hands you want to play from the button, he says.
Finally, I stumbled upon a column by BalugaWhale that lays out a reasonable compromise: 3-bet with strong and weak hands, while call with high implied odds hands. This line of thought makes sense. If you're going to call preflop with low pocket pairs in position, why not do the same with JTs? Sure, you can 3-bet these hands when the circumstances call for it, like when you're up against a player who folds to raises too much or never 4-bets. But seeing flops with drawing hands while not spending too much money seems reasonable.
One big problem with this style comes when you're up against frequent squeezers from the blinds. To balance your range against these types of players, you need to occasionally cold call with premium hands from late position in hopes of 4-betting a squeezer all-in.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Check-raising
There's no doubt that check-raising is fun.
It puts pressure on your opponents and can signal a broad range of hands. It can be used to build a pot or end it immediately. It can be used as a bluff or with the nuts. It can be a draw or an overpair.
With so many options and potential outcomes, you have to wonder: What exactly am I trying to accomplish with this check-raise again? Do I want a call or a fold? Is it for value or a bluff?
Spritpot wrote a couple of recent posts on the check-raise, in which he argued that the check-raise is often a bad play. If your opponent folds to your check-raise, that means he usually had a worse hand and you missed out on some value. If he raises or calls, he probably has the best hand and position. In these cases, it's often better to bet out rather than risk a potentially awkward situation later.
For example, I'm reminded of a hand I played skidoo's house over Christmas. In a multway limped pot, I completed from the small blind with A4o. I flopped top pair on an Axx board. It checked around to skidoo, who bet in position. I check-raised and took down the pot. While my check-raise "worked," I may have been able to get more money in with the best hand if I had bet out instead. I could have taken down the pot just as easily with any two cards in that spot.
"If you ARE going to check-raise, should it be done as a bluff or for value (?)," he asks. "I think there the answer is pretty obvious, it has to be both to balance your range."
There's a lot more discussion in those posts about when check-raises may be appropriate and when they're overvalued, so give them a look. I don't think there are many absolutes about when a check-raise is better than betting out.
I'm convinced that check-raising is a powerful move, if only because you don't have many weapons out of position. You can either bet or check-raise (calling and folding can't really be called "weapons"). The check-raise is the riskier move because it costs more, but it's also more likely to get your opponent to fold or gain accurate information about where you stand in the hand.
Absent many solid answers, I'd like to make a few more points:
_ Bets don't always have to be clearly defined as being for value or a bluff. They can be a mixture of both. That said, you should know what you hope to accomplish -- gain information, get a fold, stack your opponent, set up a turn push -- with the check-raise rather than using the move arbitrarily.
_ Check-raising or donkbetting at some point in the hand is almost always better than calling down three streets. Simply calling down out of position allows your opponent to accurately value bet and bluff. Throwing in a check-raise is more likely to end the hand while you're still ahead, although it turns your hand into a bluff with all but strong holdings with which you want to see a showdown.
_ A lot of posters in this thread seem to think Taylor Caby's flop check-raise "for value" with 2nd pair is a poor move, but it worked for him when he tripped up on the river. The discussion is very interesting, and I'll have to spend more time going through the whole thread.
It puts pressure on your opponents and can signal a broad range of hands. It can be used to build a pot or end it immediately. It can be used as a bluff or with the nuts. It can be a draw or an overpair.
With so many options and potential outcomes, you have to wonder: What exactly am I trying to accomplish with this check-raise again? Do I want a call or a fold? Is it for value or a bluff?
Spritpot wrote a couple of recent posts on the check-raise, in which he argued that the check-raise is often a bad play. If your opponent folds to your check-raise, that means he usually had a worse hand and you missed out on some value. If he raises or calls, he probably has the best hand and position. In these cases, it's often better to bet out rather than risk a potentially awkward situation later.
For example, I'm reminded of a hand I played skidoo's house over Christmas. In a multway limped pot, I completed from the small blind with A4o. I flopped top pair on an Axx board. It checked around to skidoo, who bet in position. I check-raised and took down the pot. While my check-raise "worked," I may have been able to get more money in with the best hand if I had bet out instead. I could have taken down the pot just as easily with any two cards in that spot.
"If you ARE going to check-raise, should it be done as a bluff or for value (?)," he asks. "I think there the answer is pretty obvious, it has to be both to balance your range."
There's a lot more discussion in those posts about when check-raises may be appropriate and when they're overvalued, so give them a look. I don't think there are many absolutes about when a check-raise is better than betting out.
I'm convinced that check-raising is a powerful move, if only because you don't have many weapons out of position. You can either bet or check-raise (calling and folding can't really be called "weapons"). The check-raise is the riskier move because it costs more, but it's also more likely to get your opponent to fold or gain accurate information about where you stand in the hand.
Absent many solid answers, I'd like to make a few more points:
_ Bets don't always have to be clearly defined as being for value or a bluff. They can be a mixture of both. That said, you should know what you hope to accomplish -- gain information, get a fold, stack your opponent, set up a turn push -- with the check-raise rather than using the move arbitrarily.
_ Check-raising or donkbetting at some point in the hand is almost always better than calling down three streets. Simply calling down out of position allows your opponent to accurately value bet and bluff. Throwing in a check-raise is more likely to end the hand while you're still ahead, although it turns your hand into a bluff with all but strong holdings with which you want to see a showdown.
_ A lot of posters in this thread seem to think Taylor Caby's flop check-raise "for value" with 2nd pair is a poor move, but it worked for him when he tripped up on the river. The discussion is very interesting, and I'll have to spend more time going through the whole thread.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
In the news: Skill vs. Luck, and FT amends CardRunners deal
Ryverrat linked to this study that purports to show that poker is a game of skill rather than a game of luck.
While it's obvious to me that poker is a game of skill, this study's premise is inherently flawed.
The study incorrectly presumes that poker is a game of skill because players' results improve after you teach them some of the strategy of the game. In a game of luck, no amount of instruction would make a player better.
There's one big problem with the study: blackjack.
Blackjack is another game in which instruction can improve your chances of winning, but I don't believe that makes it a game of skill because it's very hard to win in the long run when playing at a disadvantage to the house.
Can a game in which you can't win be considered a game of skill? I don't think so.
Studies need to do a better job of defining what constitutes a "game of skill." I would argue that games of skill must not give an inherent advantage to any of the players.
---
It appears the mini-controversy over CardRunners pros being given temporary screennames while making videos has blown over after Full Tilt made some adjustments to its plan.
Many players were concerned that pros were being given an unfair exemption to the "one screenname per player" rule that could help them take advantage of opponents who didn't know they were up against a pro.
From Full Tilt's 2+2 update:
While it's obvious to me that poker is a game of skill, this study's premise is inherently flawed.
The study incorrectly presumes that poker is a game of skill because players' results improve after you teach them some of the strategy of the game. In a game of luck, no amount of instruction would make a player better.
There's one big problem with the study: blackjack.
Blackjack is another game in which instruction can improve your chances of winning, but I don't believe that makes it a game of skill because it's very hard to win in the long run when playing at a disadvantage to the house.
Can a game in which you can't win be considered a game of skill? I don't think so.
Studies need to do a better job of defining what constitutes a "game of skill." I would argue that games of skill must not give an inherent advantage to any of the players.
---
It appears the mini-controversy over CardRunners pros being given temporary screennames while making videos has blown over after Full Tilt made some adjustments to its plan.
Many players were concerned that pros were being given an unfair exemption to the "one screenname per player" rule that could help them take advantage of opponents who didn't know they were up against a pro.
From Full Tilt's 2+2 update:
1. You recently signed a deal with CR that has been the point of some debate.
- That's a very kind way of phrasing the situation, thanks.
After reviewing the volumes of feedback in threads, in person, and via email on our proposed solution, and a number of high level meetings on the subject, we have revised our plan with regards to CardRunners. Before getting to the details, I'd like to thank everyone who gave their input (especially those that gave it a lot of thought themselves and didn't just post knee-jerk reactions) and let you know that we take all of the issues raised very seriously. For the record, I still believe our original plan was ethically sound, and I know we were (and still are) just trying to do the right thing for both our customers and our business relationships.
With that in mind, here is the new and hopefully improved plan for how certain educational videos will be created on Full Tilt:We feel that the above will enable instructional content to be recorded in a realistic playing environment, and offer players the choice to participate in these educational videos.
- The next big software update (still over a month away) will include a backend feature that allows us to create "Educational" ("EDU") tables. When a player sits down at the table, they will see a popup explaining that at any time they could be playing against an instructor and might be recorded for the purposes of educational videos. They will need to accept these terms before sitting and playing. These tables will be marked in the lobby with the "EDU" tag in the table name.
- Instructors (with the express consent of Full Tilt) will be able to request a screen name and red status change for the duration of a video. This change of status and "temporary screen name" will only last for the duration of their educational session, and immediately after the session the instructor's account will be changed back to the "true" screen name and status. The modification of account name and status can only be done by our security department, and instructor play will be carefully monitored during the session.
- When using a name other than their normal "red" name, they will only be allowed to play at these new Educational tables.
- All players at the Educational tables who participate in a session with the instructor (whether or not the video is eventually used) will receive a bonus. The bonus will scale based on the stakes they are playing, and be offered to any player who plays at least one hand during the session. The amounts are still being finalized, and will be detailed from the popup in the screen when a player sits down. Examples might look something like a $50 bonus at $1/$2 and a $250 bonus at $5/$10. This will be the only form of compensation given to players at these tables.
- There will not be Educational tables at limits higher than $5/$10 NL.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Busted by Taylor Caby
Man, I suck.
FullTiltPoker Game #5555052733: Table Burdell (6 max) - $5/$10 - No Limit Hold'em - 17:19:17 ET - 2008/03/08
Seat 4: tay ($1,006)
Seat 6: smizmiatch ($1,261)
dwbrown2560 posts the small blind of $5
smizmiatch posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to smizmiatch [Qd Jd]
3 folds
tay has 15 seconds left to act
tay raises to $35
dwbrown2560 calls $30
smizmiatch has 15 seconds left to act
smizmiatch raises to $155 (Standard squeeze)
tay has 15 seconds left to act
tay raises to $275 (Minraise. This totally threw me off. I'm used to seeing small 4-bets from Taylor in his videos, but I'm not accustomed to them being straight-up minraises. It felt suspicious, but I was just being lured into a trap.)
dwbrown2560 folds
smizmiatch has 15 seconds left to act
smizmiatch has requested TIME
smizmiatch calls $120
*** FLOP *** [5c Jc 3h]
smizmiatch checks
tay has 15 seconds left to act
tay bets $325 (This continuation bet felt small to me. The pot was over $500, and it seemed like a feeler bet. I should have known better.)
smizmiatch has 15 seconds left to act
smizmiatch has requested TIME
smizmiatch raises to $986, and is all in (At least I took a lot of time before deciding. I figured Taylor for AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ or air. So that's 28 combos that are behind me and 15 that are ahead. Or, if he's only min-4-betting preflop with AA-QQ and AK, then that's 16 hands that are behind me and 15 that are ahead.)
tay calls $406, and is all in
smizmiatch shows [Qd Jd]
tay shows [Qc Qh] (I'm going to puke.)
Uncalled bet of $255 returned to smizmiatch
*** TURN *** [5c Jc 3h] [Ts]
*** RIVER *** [5c Jc 3h Ts] [7s]
smizmiatch shows a pair of Jacks
smizmiatch: nh
tay shows a pair of Queens
tay wins the pot ($2,044) with a pair of Queens
dwbrown2560: wiw
I wish I had folded preflop.
FullTiltPoker Game #5555052733: Table Burdell (6 max) - $5/$10 - No Limit Hold'em - 17:19:17 ET - 2008/03/08
Seat 4: tay ($1,006)
Seat 6: smizmiatch ($1,261)
dwbrown2560 posts the small blind of $5
smizmiatch posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to smizmiatch [Qd Jd]
3 folds
tay has 15 seconds left to act
tay raises to $35
dwbrown2560 calls $30
smizmiatch has 15 seconds left to act
smizmiatch raises to $155 (Standard squeeze)
tay has 15 seconds left to act
tay raises to $275 (Minraise. This totally threw me off. I'm used to seeing small 4-bets from Taylor in his videos, but I'm not accustomed to them being straight-up minraises. It felt suspicious, but I was just being lured into a trap.)
dwbrown2560 folds
smizmiatch has 15 seconds left to act
smizmiatch has requested TIME
smizmiatch calls $120
*** FLOP *** [5c Jc 3h]
smizmiatch checks
tay has 15 seconds left to act
tay bets $325 (This continuation bet felt small to me. The pot was over $500, and it seemed like a feeler bet. I should have known better.)
smizmiatch has 15 seconds left to act
smizmiatch has requested TIME
smizmiatch raises to $986, and is all in (At least I took a lot of time before deciding. I figured Taylor for AA, KK, QQ, AK, AQ or air. So that's 28 combos that are behind me and 15 that are ahead. Or, if he's only min-4-betting preflop with AA-QQ and AK, then that's 16 hands that are behind me and 15 that are ahead.)
tay calls $406, and is all in
smizmiatch shows [Qd Jd]
tay shows [Qc Qh] (I'm going to puke.)
Uncalled bet of $255 returned to smizmiatch
*** TURN *** [5c Jc 3h] [Ts]
*** RIVER *** [5c Jc 3h Ts] [7s]
smizmiatch shows a pair of Jacks
smizmiatch: nh
tay shows a pair of Queens
tay wins the pot ($2,044) with a pair of Queens
dwbrown2560: wiw
I wish I had folded preflop.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Stupid Betting Tricks
I've picked up several small adjustments over the last couple of days that I've already incorporated into my game. They've all resulted in profits.
1. In heads-up games, you can start to narrow your opponent's range because you know the button is opening looser than he's calling. This topic was brought up in a Two Plus Two Magazine article titled "Responding to frequent continuation bets in heads up play."
The essence of the article can be summed up from this paragraph:
"There's a fairly easy way to think about this. When a flop comes with two or more cards above eight, you, the caller, are more likely to have hit a pair or good draw than the raiser is. When the flop comes two or more cards below eight, the raiser is more likely to have hit a pair or good draw than you are."
This general guideline makes it easy to evaluate flop textures and incorporate more check-raise bluffs and value plays.
2. CardRunners' pro CTS points out in his latest 10/20 6-max video that he's returned to 3X raises preflop rather than 3.5X on PokerStars. He says it gives him more room to fold against short stacks while also allowing a little more postflop play. It's a small thing, but I'm finding that I also like 3X raises preflop.
3. Mixing up bet sizing can be an effective way to encourage your opponents to make mistakes. I've seen pros use strange bet sizes, like $147 or $52 or whatever, but I never knew when to use those odd-looking bets.
A recent CardRunners article titled "Advancing Past Fundamental Poker: Manipulation Theory," explains the benefit of marketing your bet sizes to look like you're either trying to extract value or push your opponent out of a hand.
While each opponent will react differently to bet sizes, I find that I often benefit when my bet sizes cause my opponents to make moves they wouldn't make against a normal bet. It's amazing how quickly I've been able to pick on player reactions to varying sizes and then later take advantage of them.
1. In heads-up games, you can start to narrow your opponent's range because you know the button is opening looser than he's calling. This topic was brought up in a Two Plus Two Magazine article titled "Responding to frequent continuation bets in heads up play."
The essence of the article can be summed up from this paragraph:
"There's a fairly easy way to think about this. When a flop comes with two or more cards above eight, you, the caller, are more likely to have hit a pair or good draw than the raiser is. When the flop comes two or more cards below eight, the raiser is more likely to have hit a pair or good draw than you are."
This general guideline makes it easy to evaluate flop textures and incorporate more check-raise bluffs and value plays.
2. CardRunners' pro CTS points out in his latest 10/20 6-max video that he's returned to 3X raises preflop rather than 3.5X on PokerStars. He says it gives him more room to fold against short stacks while also allowing a little more postflop play. It's a small thing, but I'm finding that I also like 3X raises preflop.
3. Mixing up bet sizing can be an effective way to encourage your opponents to make mistakes. I've seen pros use strange bet sizes, like $147 or $52 or whatever, but I never knew when to use those odd-looking bets.
A recent CardRunners article titled "Advancing Past Fundamental Poker: Manipulation Theory," explains the benefit of marketing your bet sizes to look like you're either trying to extract value or push your opponent out of a hand.
While each opponent will react differently to bet sizes, I find that I often benefit when my bet sizes cause my opponents to make moves they wouldn't make against a normal bet. It's amazing how quickly I've been able to pick on player reactions to varying sizes and then later take advantage of them.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
More Heads-up Basics
The quest to improve my heads-up game is slowly progressing, as I continue to make mistakes and learn from them. I've been watching videos, reading forums and practicing as I try to get better.
I wanted to write down a few points about better heads-up play while they're still fresh and I won't forget them.
Above all, it's important to remember that heads-up poker is still poker, and the same guidelines apply despite the necessary additional aggression. Solid play beats fishy play every time. Analysis and logic trumps formulaic play. Observation is essential.
I jotted down a few simple phrases on my laptop's notepad so I won't forget them as I play:
Take your time -- The pace of heads-up games is faster than other forms of poker because you see and play many more hands per hour. Smart opponents will take advantage of you if you fall into a pattern.
Read hands -- People often ask, "How do you accurately narrow hand ranges down so you can figure out how to play correctly?" That's an important question; unfortunately, it's also difficult to answer. A better approach is to attempt to make reads every time rather than fear the unknown. In my experience, there's no secret about how to make accurate reads. It's more a matter of using deductive reasoning to go step-by-step through an opponent's likely holdings, consider which of those cards are most probable, and decide on the best action given what you think you know.
Use pot control -- Strong opponents make frequent bets with a wide range of hands. There's nothing wrong with calling down a weak top pair or middle pair, or folding in a small pot when a scare card comes. Trying to take a stand at the wrong time with few outs has cost me a lot of money. Instead, it's often less costly to give a free card than to raise for information.
I'm still getting used to assigning values to various hands relative to the board. All hands go up in value compared to shorthanded or full-ring games, meaning there are times when top pair is a good hand to go broke with or slowplay. I'm not used to slowplaying top pair, but it becomes a powerful hand against a wide range.
I'm also working on my continuation bet frequency. Different opponents show varying responses, from frequent check-raises to folds to cold calls. I've run into people who will drain my stack by calling my bets down with bottom pair, while against others I've been able to catch their bluff-raises. I want to keep making strong continuation bets, but I've spewed a lot of money away when I keep making them but never seem to get any folds. The key is to play the player and adjust appropriately for the circumstances at hand.
I wanted to write down a few points about better heads-up play while they're still fresh and I won't forget them.
Above all, it's important to remember that heads-up poker is still poker, and the same guidelines apply despite the necessary additional aggression. Solid play beats fishy play every time. Analysis and logic trumps formulaic play. Observation is essential.
I jotted down a few simple phrases on my laptop's notepad so I won't forget them as I play:
Take your time -- The pace of heads-up games is faster than other forms of poker because you see and play many more hands per hour. Smart opponents will take advantage of you if you fall into a pattern.
Read hands -- People often ask, "How do you accurately narrow hand ranges down so you can figure out how to play correctly?" That's an important question; unfortunately, it's also difficult to answer. A better approach is to attempt to make reads every time rather than fear the unknown. In my experience, there's no secret about how to make accurate reads. It's more a matter of using deductive reasoning to go step-by-step through an opponent's likely holdings, consider which of those cards are most probable, and decide on the best action given what you think you know.
Use pot control -- Strong opponents make frequent bets with a wide range of hands. There's nothing wrong with calling down a weak top pair or middle pair, or folding in a small pot when a scare card comes. Trying to take a stand at the wrong time with few outs has cost me a lot of money. Instead, it's often less costly to give a free card than to raise for information.
I'm still getting used to assigning values to various hands relative to the board. All hands go up in value compared to shorthanded or full-ring games, meaning there are times when top pair is a good hand to go broke with or slowplay. I'm not used to slowplaying top pair, but it becomes a powerful hand against a wide range.
I'm also working on my continuation bet frequency. Different opponents show varying responses, from frequent check-raises to folds to cold calls. I've run into people who will drain my stack by calling my bets down with bottom pair, while against others I've been able to catch their bluff-raises. I want to keep making strong continuation bets, but I've spewed a lot of money away when I keep making them but never seem to get any folds. The key is to play the player and adjust appropriately for the circumstances at hand.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Expanding games
Wow, the 3/6 and 2/4 NL games on Full Tilt have been incredibly loose over the last few weeks.
I can't explain it. Maybe it's the holiday season, the cold weather keeping people inside or the ease of making deposits. Whatever the reason, I'm not complaining. I've said this many times before: anyone who tells you the online games are filled with rocks is wrong or lying.
Now is the time to play and make the most of this opportunity. I know the games won't be this good forever.
On a separate topic, I'm impressed with a CardRunners video by CTS that I watched last night. In the vid, he plays three guys in heads-up 5/10 NL games and just demolishes them for 3.5 buy-ins over 225 hands. Sure, he runs pretty good. But he also makes ballsy plays based on reads and experience that are almost always correct.
I like the math he uses to find that a bluff he makes with an open-ended straight draw into a large pot needs to only be successful 17 percent of the time to show a profit:
What really stood out to me was his commentary on the importance of learning to play heads-up. It reminded me a lot of when I heard similar suggestions years ago about switching from full ring to shorthanded games. I struggled with 6-max games for a long time, but now they're my most consistent moneymakers.
The skills acquired from playing shorthanded directly result in higher profits, better hourly winrates and practice playing in tough situations.
I've had mixed results in heads-up cash games and backed off them entirely since I lost several buy-ins last month. I now realize I was playing too tightly preflop and I failed to properly identify and respond to my opponents weaknesses. Most actions can be countered by varying your play appropriately. I need to improve HU to bring my game to where it needs to be.
Specifically, I want to learn more about narrowing my opponents' hand ranges, correctly playing middling hands that gain value in HU situations and effectively increasing my bluffing frequency. I'm excited about the challenge.
I can't explain it. Maybe it's the holiday season, the cold weather keeping people inside or the ease of making deposits. Whatever the reason, I'm not complaining. I've said this many times before: anyone who tells you the online games are filled with rocks is wrong or lying.
Now is the time to play and make the most of this opportunity. I know the games won't be this good forever.
On a separate topic, I'm impressed with a CardRunners video by CTS that I watched last night. In the vid, he plays three guys in heads-up 5/10 NL games and just demolishes them for 3.5 buy-ins over 225 hands. Sure, he runs pretty good. But he also makes ballsy plays based on reads and experience that are almost always correct.
I like the math he uses to find that a bluff he makes with an open-ended straight draw into a large pot needs to only be successful 17 percent of the time to show a profit:
What really stood out to me was his commentary on the importance of learning to play heads-up. It reminded me a lot of when I heard similar suggestions years ago about switching from full ring to shorthanded games. I struggled with 6-max games for a long time, but now they're my most consistent moneymakers.
The skills acquired from playing shorthanded directly result in higher profits, better hourly winrates and practice playing in tough situations.
I've had mixed results in heads-up cash games and backed off them entirely since I lost several buy-ins last month. I now realize I was playing too tightly preflop and I failed to properly identify and respond to my opponents weaknesses. Most actions can be countered by varying your play appropriately. I need to improve HU to bring my game to where it needs to be.
Specifically, I want to learn more about narrowing my opponents' hand ranges, correctly playing middling hands that gain value in HU situations and effectively increasing my bluffing frequency. I'm excited about the challenge.
Monday, November 12, 2007
True or False?
A couple of recent Cardrunners videos bring up some counterintuitive tactics that I'm not sure I agree with. I'm not saying that Cole South and Brian Townsend are wrong, but a couple of their suggestions raise questions in my mind.
1) CTS 2 $1-2 NL: On the last hand of the video, CTS raises to $7 from the cutoff with AK, and the tight-aggressive button reraises to $24. CTS 4-bets to $61, the button raises all-in, and CTS calls the rest of his 125 BB stack -- another $218. The button naturally turns over AA, dominating CTS completely and costing him a buy-in.
CTS claims he played the hand correctly. "One hundred big blind stack, cutoff vs. the button, I'm certainly not going to play that any different," he says.
True or false? Is this really a good play? Why?
A commenter in the video thread asks the same question:
1) CTS 2 $1-2 NL: On the last hand of the video, CTS raises to $7 from the cutoff with AK, and the tight-aggressive button reraises to $24. CTS 4-bets to $61, the button raises all-in, and CTS calls the rest of his 125 BB stack -- another $218. The button naturally turns over AA, dominating CTS completely and costing him a buy-in.
CTS claims he played the hand correctly. "One hundred big blind stack, cutoff vs. the button, I'm certainly not going to play that any different," he says.
True or false? Is this really a good play? Why?
A commenter in the video thread asks the same question:
I dont understand the comment at that AK vs AA hand against the tightest player at the table. You said thats a cooler but I dont agree with that. The guy raised you just 2 or 3 times, he could have big hands, and that last hand he shoved after a 4-bet !! You still think that was a good play and a cooler ?Someone else responds:
You have to understand that CTS was taking his image and their positions into consideration. Scarecrow was playing tight at first, but near the end he was beginning to 3bet CTS more, plus his stats were leveling off to raising 15%. This, combined with CTSs 4440 stats and the fact that they were CO vs button means AK is a favourite over scarecrows range.2) Sbrugby 21 $5-10 NL: Sbrugby is the BB with JTs. The button raises, and the small blind calls. Sbrugby says calling from the big blind with a hand like JTs is wrong. True or false?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
