If you're up against an opponent who 3-bets too frequently preflop, it stands to reason that you could profitably 4-bet shove against him because a large portion of his range would be forced to fold.
I don't know exactly how high an opponent's 3-bet percentage needs to be to make a 4-bet shove profitable, but math and PokerStove indicate to me that it's somewhere between 15 percent and 20 percent, according to a couple of scenarios I wrote out. I think it's fairly safe to say that you can 4-bet shove profitably against someone who's 3-betting more than 20 percent of their hands preflop over the long run. CTS also mentions the possibility of 4-bet shoving in his famous 3-bet post.
For a week or two, I tried 4-bet shoving against opponents who reraised too often. I put my 4-bet shoving range around 88+ and AQ+. My relatively small sample showed negative results.
There are a few problems with 4-bet shoving in shorthanded NL cash games:
_ If you 4-bet shove all the time instead of making smaller 4-bets, you can't ever 4-bet bluff. 4-bet shoving limits your range and your options. jcl touches on this point in his excellent CardRunners series, "Making the Jump."
_ It only really works when you're out of position. A 4-bet in position narrows your range too much, especially if you ever want to be able to call a 3-bet. However, out of position 4-bets may be more reasonable than in position 4-bets because you should pretty much never be calling a 3-bet out of position. It's a raise or fold situation.
4-bet shoving has its place, especially in some players' heads-up strategies. But it's applications are limited in shorthanded and full ring games, and it detracts from a well-rounded overall strategy.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Extreme Discipline
Because poker is such a long-run game, the best players are able to continue making accurate folds even when it seems like it's impossible for their opponents to be running so good.
I'm inspired by players who are able to sit down at the table for countless hours, days, weeks and months while making endless impartial judgments on bad rivers. They resist the temptation to call down just once, to sate their curiosity with a showdown, to think that their opponent is trying to run them over with another big bet.
This discipline can be seen by Durrrr vs. Antonius in the Aussie Millions cash game, where Tom Dwan manages to make repeatedly correct laydowns and lose much less than he could have lost.
Or you can see it when Haseeb Qureshi folds flushes and full houses to river raises.
Or when Tommy Angelo discusses folding Aces preflop.
Or when Doyle Brunson talks on High Stakes Poker about how easy it is to lay down Aces when he's playing well.
This is what separates the great players from the rest of us. Relative hand strength means everything, and absolute hand strength means nothing. They're not attached to their premium hands, and they can throw them away even though look so good.
I'm inspired by players who are able to sit down at the table for countless hours, days, weeks and months while making endless impartial judgments on bad rivers. They resist the temptation to call down just once, to sate their curiosity with a showdown, to think that their opponent is trying to run them over with another big bet.
This discipline can be seen by Durrrr vs. Antonius in the Aussie Millions cash game, where Tom Dwan manages to make repeatedly correct laydowns and lose much less than he could have lost.
Or you can see it when Haseeb Qureshi folds flushes and full houses to river raises.
Or when Tommy Angelo discusses folding Aces preflop.
Or when Doyle Brunson talks on High Stakes Poker about how easy it is to lay down Aces when he's playing well.
This is what separates the great players from the rest of us. Relative hand strength means everything, and absolute hand strength means nothing. They're not attached to their premium hands, and they can throw them away even though look so good.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Dealing with losses
Things to do when losing:
1. Step down in stakes.
2. Buckle down, review hands and study harder.
3. Tighten up.
4. Refocus on hand reading and hand ranges.
1. Step down in stakes.
2. Buckle down, review hands and study harder.
3. Tighten up.
4. Refocus on hand reading and hand ranges.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Again with the 3-betting?
Here are some links that offer fantastic strategy discussion for NL cash games:
Deuce Plays Episode 11: BalugaWhale (Part 2): BalugaWhale talks about the merits of 3-betting vs. flatting preflop. He expands on Samoleus' claims that poker players 3-bet too frequently, which I had critiqued.
A Bad Habit of 3-betting and Range Choice: This 2+2 thread offers insight into play from the blinds, with critical comments from BalugaWhale and BobboFitos.
Duel: RiverBoatKing (#3) - 25/50 HUNL: Continuation bet more on dry boards; float less on wet boards.
Deuce Plays Episode 11: BalugaWhale (Part 2): BalugaWhale talks about the merits of 3-betting vs. flatting preflop. He expands on Samoleus' claims that poker players 3-bet too frequently, which I had critiqued.
A Bad Habit of 3-betting and Range Choice: This 2+2 thread offers insight into play from the blinds, with critical comments from BalugaWhale and BobboFitos.
Duel: RiverBoatKing (#3) - 25/50 HUNL: Continuation bet more on dry boards; float less on wet boards.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Loss Leaders
I haven't been playing much poker the last couple of weeks, mostly because a friend is visiting. While away from the tables, I've been asking myself a question:
Is it ever a good idea to make a -EV play?
My general answer is "no." I've always subscribed to the philosophy that I should be willing to gamble on a coin flip so that I don't look like a nit, but I won't take the worst of it like a sucker.
However, there may be times when making a play as a "loss leader" could be acceptable for metagame reasons. Here are a few possibilities:
1) Playing low pocket pairs from early position in a full ring game for deception. I accept that low pocket pairs from utg and utg+1 are probably break-even at best, but it's possible that they pay off in less obvious ways. For example, they raise your EP VP$IP, which makes it slightly more likely you'll get paid off with other premium hands from the same position. Also, I would think low pockets are more effective in lower-stakes games where opponents are more likely to stack off with overpairs. Folding these hands makes more sense in games with a lot of 3-betting.
2) Shoving all-in on the flop with a high flush draw early in a heads-up match. I don't like making this move, but it's been effective for my opponents because they tilt me easily when the flush card hits. The result of pushing a flush draw early in a match is that an opponent will read it as a fishy, overagressive play. If that kind of move is done within a broader gameplan, it could pay off later on.
3) Defending the big blind liberally. It's difficult to play out of position, but playing back at aggressive players from the blinds makes it more likely that observant stealers will make mistakes in the future. For example, they may stop stealing so much, or they may 4-bet too lightly.
I don't like making -EV plays, and I usually win by making the best decisions possible. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kinds of maniacal tendencies pay off by misleading opponents in their future actions.
Is it ever a good idea to make a -EV play?
My general answer is "no." I've always subscribed to the philosophy that I should be willing to gamble on a coin flip so that I don't look like a nit, but I won't take the worst of it like a sucker.
However, there may be times when making a play as a "loss leader" could be acceptable for metagame reasons. Here are a few possibilities:
1) Playing low pocket pairs from early position in a full ring game for deception. I accept that low pocket pairs from utg and utg+1 are probably break-even at best, but it's possible that they pay off in less obvious ways. For example, they raise your EP VP$IP, which makes it slightly more likely you'll get paid off with other premium hands from the same position. Also, I would think low pockets are more effective in lower-stakes games where opponents are more likely to stack off with overpairs. Folding these hands makes more sense in games with a lot of 3-betting.
2) Shoving all-in on the flop with a high flush draw early in a heads-up match. I don't like making this move, but it's been effective for my opponents because they tilt me easily when the flush card hits. The result of pushing a flush draw early in a match is that an opponent will read it as a fishy, overagressive play. If that kind of move is done within a broader gameplan, it could pay off later on.
3) Defending the big blind liberally. It's difficult to play out of position, but playing back at aggressive players from the blinds makes it more likely that observant stealers will make mistakes in the future. For example, they may stop stealing so much, or they may 4-bet too lightly.
I don't like making -EV plays, and I usually win by making the best decisions possible. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kinds of maniacal tendencies pay off by misleading opponents in their future actions.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Calling Shenanigans
So-called poker experts do a great job of tilting me when they spread misinformation. I'm here to call them out.
1. Deuce Plays, Episode 5:
If you start calling or folding AK preflop out of position, you're probably losing money against most opponents. You should fold AK against a range of AA and KK, but realistically, even most nits are shoving and calling shoves with QQ and AK too.
As an aside, I have to give Nolan credit for another point he made about six minutes later into the podcast. He challenged anyone to show him that they're making money by playing 66-22 from early position in a full ring game over a large sample. I filtered my stats and found that he's right: in my case, I'm a slight loser in that situation.
2. Two Plus Two Publishing: Mason Malmuth rips Tommy Angelo's book, "Elements of Poker," in the most recent Two Plus Two Magazine. Then he locks a thread in the Two Plus Two forums ending discussion of his critique. Hard-Boiled Poker covered it Wednesday.
First of all, I loved reading "Elements of Poker." It gave new, refreshing insight into the game from a perspective that Two Plus Two's books fail to offer. The book may not be for everyone, but the job of a critic is to evaluate a work on its merits. Just because a poker book isn't grounded in statistics doesn't mean it has little value.
Secondly, I got more out of "Elements of Poker" than any Two Plus Two book I've read in recent memory. Honestly, Two Plus Two's offerings have mostly sucked over the last couple of years. "Harrington on Cash Games," "Heads-up No-limit Hold'em" and "Professional No-limit Hold'em" all fell far short of expectations and didn't do much to improve my game.
On top of those subpar offerings, Two Plus Two is coming out with Harrington books on shorthanded games. Harrington should stick to tournaments because his cash advice is piss poor. Applying it to today's 6-max online games would be a disaster.
Finally, Malmuth's thread lock seems to show a lack of openness toward other opinions.
3. Pope Ciaffone has a problem with the advice that "You've got to give action to get action":
1. Deuce Plays, Episode 5:
"If you do have Ace-King, four betting I don't think is going to show a profit, because it's very unlikely you're going to get it in against a range of honestly, Kings or Aces, and maybe Queens, so obviously that's a horrible range to get it in against." --Sean NolanThe reality is that in today's games, many players' preflop all-in range includes AA, KK, QQ and AK from any position. You can feel safe shoving or 4-betting AK preflop against that range for 100BB.
If you start calling or folding AK preflop out of position, you're probably losing money against most opponents. You should fold AK against a range of AA and KK, but realistically, even most nits are shoving and calling shoves with QQ and AK too.
As an aside, I have to give Nolan credit for another point he made about six minutes later into the podcast. He challenged anyone to show him that they're making money by playing 66-22 from early position in a full ring game over a large sample. I filtered my stats and found that he's right: in my case, I'm a slight loser in that situation.
2. Two Plus Two Publishing: Mason Malmuth rips Tommy Angelo's book, "Elements of Poker," in the most recent Two Plus Two Magazine. Then he locks a thread in the Two Plus Two forums ending discussion of his critique. Hard-Boiled Poker covered it Wednesday.
First of all, I loved reading "Elements of Poker." It gave new, refreshing insight into the game from a perspective that Two Plus Two's books fail to offer. The book may not be for everyone, but the job of a critic is to evaluate a work on its merits. Just because a poker book isn't grounded in statistics doesn't mean it has little value.
Secondly, I got more out of "Elements of Poker" than any Two Plus Two book I've read in recent memory. Honestly, Two Plus Two's offerings have mostly sucked over the last couple of years. "Harrington on Cash Games," "Heads-up No-limit Hold'em" and "Professional No-limit Hold'em" all fell far short of expectations and didn't do much to improve my game.
On top of those subpar offerings, Two Plus Two is coming out with Harrington books on shorthanded games. Harrington should stick to tournaments because his cash advice is piss poor. Applying it to today's 6-max online games would be a disaster.
Finally, Malmuth's thread lock seems to show a lack of openness toward other opinions.
3. Pope Ciaffone has a problem with the advice that "You've got to give action to get action":
"Now let's look at what many of the players are actually doing who use the expression, 'You have to give action to get action.' They raise up front with the 9Ciaffone doesn't seem to understand what the phrase means. It's not that difficult. What it means is that if you play like a nit, no one will ever pay you off when you do hit a hand. His examples don't reflect that concept at all.7
, then bet the flop into four callers when it comes A-J-3. They call a raise out of the small blind when holding the J
8
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Poker Nugs
Let's have a reporter's notebook style post, with a bunch of unrelated tidbits:
_ Bart Hanson is back on the podcast scene with his new show, Deuce Plays, which replaces Cash Plays. The third episode just came out Tuesday.
_ When in doubt, usually choose an aggressive line rather than a passive line, Krantz says in the first episode of Deuce Plays. It's simple yet solid advice.
_ Listening to Phil Galfond in this week's episode of the 2+2 Pokercast reminded me to refocus on hand ranges. It's too easy to make assumptions about opponents' hand ranges rather than slowing down and thinking hard about them. Galfond also recommends pondering how you would represent the opposite hand of what you have when deciding how deceptive you want to be.
_ When you want to bluff with a naked Ace of a flush draw's suit on a twotone flop, you need to be raising a bettor rather than being the initial bettor yourself, says Vanessa Selbst in Ms. PLO. If you keep betting out, it's too likely you'll be called down.
_ Selbst also suggests playing your opponent's hand first, before playing your own hand. This advice works for both no limit hold'em and PLO.
_ If you open under the gun and get 3-bet by an aggressive button, you can 4-bet lightly because your position represents so much strength, says Whitelime in the second episode of Deuce Plays.
_ Bart Hanson is back on the podcast scene with his new show, Deuce Plays, which replaces Cash Plays. The third episode just came out Tuesday.
_ When in doubt, usually choose an aggressive line rather than a passive line, Krantz says in the first episode of Deuce Plays. It's simple yet solid advice.
_ Listening to Phil Galfond in this week's episode of the 2+2 Pokercast reminded me to refocus on hand ranges. It's too easy to make assumptions about opponents' hand ranges rather than slowing down and thinking hard about them. Galfond also recommends pondering how you would represent the opposite hand of what you have when deciding how deceptive you want to be.
_ When you want to bluff with a naked Ace of a flush draw's suit on a twotone flop, you need to be raising a bettor rather than being the initial bettor yourself, says Vanessa Selbst in Ms. PLO. If you keep betting out, it's too likely you'll be called down.
_ Selbst also suggests playing your opponent's hand first, before playing your own hand. This advice works for both no limit hold'em and PLO.
_ If you open under the gun and get 3-bet by an aggressive button, you can 4-bet lightly because your position represents so much strength, says Whitelime in the second episode of Deuce Plays.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Heist
During those short-lived months in 2005 when I was unemployed and playing 15/30 limit, I obsessed over how to make decisions from the blinds.
If the button is stealing most of the time, how often should I be defending? When should I call? What hands should I 3-bet?
It took a long time, but those questions eventually drove me to better learn how to play from the button and blinds.
Fast forward one year, to the time when I first tried to make the jump from 2/4 NL to 5/10 NL. One of the first resolutions I made was that I would play extremely tightly when out of position. I decided I wouldn't care if I got run over by aggressive blind stealers; I didn't want to see many flops unless I had position.
This simple, tight strategy was far more successful than I thought it would be, but it got me thinking. If it's somewhat correct to play this rocky from the blinds, maybe I should start stealing more from the button as well.
Suddenly, suited hands and one gappers seemed almost as good as Aces against opponents who would fold their blinds anyway. And increasing my steal attempts came with a fruitful unintended consequence: my VP$IP rose, giving my opponents the impression that I was a LAG.
That was a while ago, and I still frequently run heists when I see that circular D in front of my name.
All this thievery made me wonder: with all the big pots moving back and forth across the felt, those predetermined preflop all-ins with AK vs. QQ and flop combo draws vs. sets, it's entirely possible that a large part of my winrate doesn't come from this crazy variance.
Maybe I'm simply stacking piles of blinds, one steal at a time, and adding to my bankroll in those multitude of pots in between the thrilling all-ins and devastating suckouts.
If the button is stealing most of the time, how often should I be defending? When should I call? What hands should I 3-bet?
It took a long time, but those questions eventually drove me to better learn how to play from the button and blinds.
Fast forward one year, to the time when I first tried to make the jump from 2/4 NL to 5/10 NL. One of the first resolutions I made was that I would play extremely tightly when out of position. I decided I wouldn't care if I got run over by aggressive blind stealers; I didn't want to see many flops unless I had position.
This simple, tight strategy was far more successful than I thought it would be, but it got me thinking. If it's somewhat correct to play this rocky from the blinds, maybe I should start stealing more from the button as well.
Suddenly, suited hands and one gappers seemed almost as good as Aces against opponents who would fold their blinds anyway. And increasing my steal attempts came with a fruitful unintended consequence: my VP$IP rose, giving my opponents the impression that I was a LAG.
That was a while ago, and I still frequently run heists when I see that circular D in front of my name.
All this thievery made me wonder: with all the big pots moving back and forth across the felt, those predetermined preflop all-ins with AK vs. QQ and flop combo draws vs. sets, it's entirely possible that a large part of my winrate doesn't come from this crazy variance.
Maybe I'm simply stacking piles of blinds, one steal at a time, and adding to my bankroll in those multitude of pots in between the thrilling all-ins and devastating suckouts.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Face-up on the river
When your opponent's hand is face-up on the river, you often can make an easy bluff to take down the pot.
By "face-up," I mean situations in which your opponent has shown that he has a made hand but has also shown weakness. This combination gives you the advantage because any river bet you make looks like a value bet, usually forcing your opponent to fold.
Here are some examples:
Full Tilt Poker, $3/$6 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (CO): $689.85
UTG+1: $600
Pre-Flop: 9
9
dealt to Hero (CO)
UTG folds, UTG+1 raises to $18, MP folds, Hero calls $18
Flop: ($45) 4
A 7 (2 Players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $30, UTG+1 calls $30
Turn: ($105) 7
(2 Players)
UTG+1 bets $72, Hero calls $72
River: ($249) 4 (2 Players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $249, UTG+1 folds
Results: $249 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero mucked 9 9 and WON $246 (+$126 NET)
Villain gives away his hand when he fails to continuation bet the flop. That action says that he has a high pocket pair that's afraid of the Ace. I know I'm beaten, but I also feel confident I can effectively bluff later on.
The turn is an easy call when he donkbets because I already don't believe he has the Ace. In addition, a call is consistent with what I'm representing: Ax plus.
Then when he checks the river, this bet is automatic. Betting here is simply following through with my plan.
Full Tilt Poker, $2/$4 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: $911.50
Hero (SB): $1,161
Pre-Flop: 8 5 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $12, BB calls $8
Flop: ($24) A 2 K (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $16, BB raises to $48, Hero calls $32
Turn: ($120) 7 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $80, BB calls $80
River: ($280) 7 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets $250, BB folds
Results: $280 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero mucked 8 5 and WON $279.50 (+$139.50 NET)
I can represent an incredibly strong range of hands on AKx flops that are cold-called preflop. For all villain knows, I could have AA, KK and AK. Especially against this check-raise happy opponent, I was happy to build a pot for my bluff, even though I had very low equity with my actual holding.
The key here is to play consistently on each street, and to not give up on the river. It's also important to make a sizeable bet on these rivers both when you have a hand and when you're bluffing because both you and your opponent know how much strength you've each shown, and you need your opponent to have to pay up when he's forced to play a guessing game as he decides whether to call.
Another point is that these are great situations for overbets for value. Opponents will call overbets at about the same frequency as they would a pot-sized bet, meaning you get more value when you do have a solid holding.
Full Tilt Poker, $3/$6 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (BB): $1,306.05
SB: $1,012.90
Pre-Flop: Q T dealt to Hero (BB)
3 folds, SB calls $3, Hero raises to $24, SB calls $18
Flop: ($48) 8 6 4 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $30, SB calls $30
Turn: ($108) 7 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $75, SB calls $75
River: ($258) 3 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $258, SB calls $258
Results: $774 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed Q T (Queen Ten high) and LOST (-$387 NET)
SB showed 7 8 (two pair, Eights and Sevens) and WON $771 (+$384 NET)
This one didn't work out as well, mostly because my opponent was a fish. He even typed into the chat, "Such a value bet," and then he timed down and hit call.
Most competent players are afraid of getting owned by the hand you're obviously representing, meaning they're more likely to fold to your bluff. Worse players are more likely to call because they can't lay down made hands, they're curious or they want to gamble.
By "face-up," I mean situations in which your opponent has shown that he has a made hand but has also shown weakness. This combination gives you the advantage because any river bet you make looks like a value bet, usually forcing your opponent to fold.
Here are some examples:
Full Tilt Poker, $3/$6 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (CO): $689.85
UTG+1: $600
Pre-Flop: 9
9 dealt to Hero (CO)UTG folds, UTG+1 raises to $18, MP folds, Hero calls $18
Flop: ($45) 4
A 7 (2 Players)UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $30, UTG+1 calls $30
Turn: ($105) 7
(2 Players)UTG+1 bets $72, Hero calls $72
River: ($249) 4
(2 Players)UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $249, UTG+1 folds
Results: $249 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero mucked 9
9 and WON $246 (+$126 NET)Villain gives away his hand when he fails to continuation bet the flop. That action says that he has a high pocket pair that's afraid of the Ace. I know I'm beaten, but I also feel confident I can effectively bluff later on.
The turn is an easy call when he donkbets because I already don't believe he has the Ace. In addition, a call is consistent with what I'm representing: Ax plus.
Then when he checks the river, this bet is automatic. Betting here is simply following through with my plan.
Full Tilt Poker, $2/$4 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: $911.50
Hero (SB): $1,161
Pre-Flop: 8
5 dealt to Hero (SB)Hero raises to $12, BB calls $8
Flop: ($24) A
2 K (2 Players)BB checks, Hero bets $16, BB raises to $48, Hero calls $32
Turn: ($120) 7
(2 Players)BB checks, Hero bets $80, BB calls $80
River: ($280) 7
(2 Players)BB checks, Hero bets $250, BB folds
Results: $280 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero mucked 8
5 and WON $279.50 (+$139.50 NET)I can represent an incredibly strong range of hands on AKx flops that are cold-called preflop. For all villain knows, I could have AA, KK and AK. Especially against this check-raise happy opponent, I was happy to build a pot for my bluff, even though I had very low equity with my actual holding.
The key here is to play consistently on each street, and to not give up on the river. It's also important to make a sizeable bet on these rivers both when you have a hand and when you're bluffing because both you and your opponent know how much strength you've each shown, and you need your opponent to have to pay up when he's forced to play a guessing game as he decides whether to call.
Another point is that these are great situations for overbets for value. Opponents will call overbets at about the same frequency as they would a pot-sized bet, meaning you get more value when you do have a solid holding.
Full Tilt Poker, $3/$6 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (BB): $1,306.05
SB: $1,012.90
Pre-Flop: Q
T dealt to Hero (BB)3 folds, SB calls $3, Hero raises to $24, SB calls $18
Flop: ($48) 8
6 4 (2 Players)SB checks, Hero bets $30, SB calls $30
Turn: ($108) 7
(2 Players)SB checks, Hero bets $75, SB calls $75
River: ($258) 3
(2 Players)SB checks, Hero bets $258, SB calls $258
Results: $774 Pot ($3 Rake)
Hero showed Q
T (Queen Ten high) and LOST (-$387 NET)SB showed 7
8 (two pair, Eights and Sevens) and WON $771 (+$384 NET)This one didn't work out as well, mostly because my opponent was a fish. He even typed into the chat, "Such a value bet," and then he timed down and hit call.
Most competent players are afraid of getting owned by the hand you're obviously representing, meaning they're more likely to fold to your bluff. Worse players are more likely to call because they can't lay down made hands, they're curious or they want to gamble.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Attempting to plug a serious leak
No matter how many times I tell myself I won't check-call down anymore, I still find myself making this weak-passive move sometimes and losing money.
There are many reasons not to check-call down: it allows my opponent to extract more value with a better hand, it turns my hand face-up, it often extracts the minimum when I do actually have the best hand and it exacerbates my positional disadvantage.
Cally-cally don't fly in Vegas, nor does it fly at almost any poker table.
I know this, but I still try to justify situations where I want to call down.
Earlier today, I called a small 3-bet out of position with AQ, check-called an Axy flop, check-called an 8 on the turn, and check-called an all-in when a 9 fell on the river. The small 3-bet preflop indicated to me my opponent didn't have AK, but I had little information beyond that. I told myself that my opponent was so aggressive he would bluff off with any two cards, but that wasn't even true. And if it were true, I would probably be better off leading at some point to try and get the money in sooner. Of course, my opponent hit his set on the turn and had easy value bets the whole way.
Be it hereby resolved:
I will not check-call down unless I have the nuts and I'm inducing bluffs.
I know the problem, and I'm putting a stop to it right here and now.
There are many reasons not to check-call down: it allows my opponent to extract more value with a better hand, it turns my hand face-up, it often extracts the minimum when I do actually have the best hand and it exacerbates my positional disadvantage.
Cally-cally don't fly in Vegas, nor does it fly at almost any poker table.
I know this, but I still try to justify situations where I want to call down.
Earlier today, I called a small 3-bet out of position with AQ, check-called an Axy flop, check-called an 8 on the turn, and check-called an all-in when a 9 fell on the river. The small 3-bet preflop indicated to me my opponent didn't have AK, but I had little information beyond that. I told myself that my opponent was so aggressive he would bluff off with any two cards, but that wasn't even true. And if it were true, I would probably be better off leading at some point to try and get the money in sooner. Of course, my opponent hit his set on the turn and had easy value bets the whole way.
Be it hereby resolved:
I will not check-call down unless I have the nuts and I'm inducing bluffs.
I know the problem, and I'm putting a stop to it right here and now.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
More Clarity on Ranges
A new DeucesCracked series, "Hand Readers," gave me a few more ideas on how to develop ranges. The gist of it is that analytical thinking and deductive reasoning are your primary tools in narrowing down an opponent's likely holding.
This is nothing groundbreaking, but it does reinforce the thought processes you should be going through as you develop a read.
The video recommends going through six steps: identify opponent, construct preflop hand range, note actions so far, determine what action we desire given our holding, evaluate how opponent will respond to our actions, and construct a multi-street plan.
Of course I'm not ready to go through each of these steps in every hand, but they create a framework for starting with a wide preflop range and eliminating potential hands from that range as the hand progresses. The video's coaches also correctly point out that you shouldn't second-guess yourself: as the hand moves forward, an opponent's range can only get smaller.
I picture a flow chart in my mind, like the one shown in the first Dogisheads UP video. Each of an opponent's actions from preflop onward characterize his holding until you arrive at a small enough selection of hand combinations that you can use to make correct folds, calls or raises when bigger bets go in.
As for my struggles with evaluating hand ranges heads-up against loose opponents, I plan to focus more on creating accurate ranges rather than abandoning the process and trying to play based on feel.
Against an opponent who never folds to continuation bets, I know his range isn't narrowed at all by my bet on the flop. Against an opponent who will raise any top pair or draw, I can eliminate his lower-pair hands and call more often. Against an opponent who bets the river whenever it's checked to him, I can induce more bluffs or consider price-setting blocking bets.
This is nothing groundbreaking, but it does reinforce the thought processes you should be going through as you develop a read.
The video recommends going through six steps: identify opponent, construct preflop hand range, note actions so far, determine what action we desire given our holding, evaluate how opponent will respond to our actions, and construct a multi-street plan.
Of course I'm not ready to go through each of these steps in every hand, but they create a framework for starting with a wide preflop range and eliminating potential hands from that range as the hand progresses. The video's coaches also correctly point out that you shouldn't second-guess yourself: as the hand moves forward, an opponent's range can only get smaller.
I picture a flow chart in my mind, like the one shown in the first Dogisheads UP video. Each of an opponent's actions from preflop onward characterize his holding until you arrive at a small enough selection of hand combinations that you can use to make correct folds, calls or raises when bigger bets go in.
As for my struggles with evaluating hand ranges heads-up against loose opponents, I plan to focus more on creating accurate ranges rather than abandoning the process and trying to play based on feel.
Against an opponent who never folds to continuation bets, I know his range isn't narrowed at all by my bet on the flop. Against an opponent who will raise any top pair or draw, I can eliminate his lower-pair hands and call more often. Against an opponent who bets the river whenever it's checked to him, I can induce more bluffs or consider price-setting blocking bets.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
I'll keep 3-betting preflop, thank you very much
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.
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.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
All-in Preflop
The basics of evaluating hand ranges start preflop. Some of the easiest money comes from fish who don't understand what hands they should be getting all-in with preflop in full ring and six-max cash games with 100-blind stacks.
Let's start with pocket Aces. Obviously they're the best hand preflop. I'm sure there are players out there who refuse to get all-in preflop with anything but Aces, but I usually assume that even my tightest opponents will happily bet it all with Kings as well.
It's much more common to find players who will go all-in with a range of AA and KK. These premium hands make up just under 1 percent of all potential starting hands, and they crush any lesser hands. As a general guideline, I look at the 4-bet range statistic in Holdem Manager to identify players who are only rereraising with AA or KK: If their 4-bet range is less than 1 percent, I can pretty safely fold to a third raise preflop with anything less than KK.
A third tier of players are those who will commit with AA-QQ or AK preflop. I give QQ and AK roughly equal value, and when I'm against a player who I know will risk all their chips preflop with AK, I can be pretty certain their range also includes QQ. These hands account for 2.6 percent of potential starting hands, and you should be willing to go to war preflop with an identical range of hands. Otherwise, your opponent is making you fold too much and winning big preflop pots uncontested.
Finally, you have your flexible players and maniacs. These opponents can 4-bet preflop with a wider range as a resteal, or they may be going in with as little as 88 or AJ (if they suck). Against wilder players like this, you absolutely want to get all the money in with QQ or better and AK, and maybe even consider AQ or TT+ against some truly crazy opponents. However, it's rare to find fish big enough to justify widening your all-in preflop range beyond AK.
Most players know this already, but it's incredible when you see an otherwise good player going all-in preflop with QQ against the tightest nits who can't have anything but AA-KK.
Let's start with pocket Aces. Obviously they're the best hand preflop. I'm sure there are players out there who refuse to get all-in preflop with anything but Aces, but I usually assume that even my tightest opponents will happily bet it all with Kings as well.
It's much more common to find players who will go all-in with a range of AA and KK. These premium hands make up just under 1 percent of all potential starting hands, and they crush any lesser hands. As a general guideline, I look at the 4-bet range statistic in Holdem Manager to identify players who are only rereraising with AA or KK: If their 4-bet range is less than 1 percent, I can pretty safely fold to a third raise preflop with anything less than KK.
A third tier of players are those who will commit with AA-QQ or AK preflop. I give QQ and AK roughly equal value, and when I'm against a player who I know will risk all their chips preflop with AK, I can be pretty certain their range also includes QQ. These hands account for 2.6 percent of potential starting hands, and you should be willing to go to war preflop with an identical range of hands. Otherwise, your opponent is making you fold too much and winning big preflop pots uncontested.
Finally, you have your flexible players and maniacs. These opponents can 4-bet preflop with a wider range as a resteal, or they may be going in with as little as 88 or AJ (if they suck). Against wilder players like this, you absolutely want to get all the money in with QQ or better and AK, and maybe even consider AQ or TT+ against some truly crazy opponents. However, it's rare to find fish big enough to justify widening your all-in preflop range beyond AK.
Most players know this already, but it's incredible when you see an otherwise good player going all-in preflop with QQ against the tightest nits who can't have anything but AA-KK.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Formula for Success
The Formula for Success is: Amount risked/ (Current Pot + Amount Risked)
Like many poker concepts, the Formula for Success is really just common sense given a name. But the naming of it helps solidify the idea, making it easier to understand much like "semibluffing," "stack to pot ratio" and a thousand other terms.
One of the most practical uses of the Formula for Success is to determine the percentage of the time a bluff needs to work to show a profit, as discussed in CardRunners' "Heads Up: Zero to Sixty in 15,5650 Seconds, Part 1 of 6."
For example, you can figure how often a continuation bet needs to get a fold to be successful, assuming you have 0 equity otherwise.
A pot-sized continuation bet needs to work: 50 percent of the time
3/4 pot c-bet: 42.86 percent
2/3 pot c-bet: 40 percent
1/2 pot c-bet: 33.33 percent
The formula works equally well when figuring how often a 4-bet needs to work, as discussed in DeucesCracked's Spaceman in a Cowboy Suit: Ep. 6.
In the DC example, a $93 raise/4-bet needs to get a fold about 64 percent of the time if there's $53 already in the pot.
Another way to use the formula is to figure out whether how often a call in an all-in pot needs to be profitable, which I referenced in my last post.
In that usage, calculating the amount of a call relative to the total pot size will determine how often you need to win the pot when you call. From there, you can do additional math to account for hand ranges, outs or other factors.
Warning: I make math mistakes sometimes. Please point out any errors if you see them.
Like many poker concepts, the Formula for Success is really just common sense given a name. But the naming of it helps solidify the idea, making it easier to understand much like "semibluffing," "stack to pot ratio" and a thousand other terms.
One of the most practical uses of the Formula for Success is to determine the percentage of the time a bluff needs to work to show a profit, as discussed in CardRunners' "Heads Up: Zero to Sixty in 15,5650 Seconds, Part 1 of 6."
For example, you can figure how often a continuation bet needs to get a fold to be successful, assuming you have 0 equity otherwise.
A pot-sized continuation bet needs to work: 50 percent of the time
3/4 pot c-bet: 42.86 percent
2/3 pot c-bet: 40 percent
1/2 pot c-bet: 33.33 percent
The formula works equally well when figuring how often a 4-bet needs to work, as discussed in DeucesCracked's Spaceman in a Cowboy Suit: Ep. 6.
In the DC example, a $93 raise/4-bet needs to get a fold about 64 percent of the time if there's $53 already in the pot.
Another way to use the formula is to figure out whether how often a call in an all-in pot needs to be profitable, which I referenced in my last post.
In that usage, calculating the amount of a call relative to the total pot size will determine how often you need to win the pot when you call. From there, you can do additional math to account for hand ranges, outs or other factors.
Warning: I make math mistakes sometimes. Please point out any errors if you see them.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Beating on shorty
Edits to correct. See comments for details. Apologies for errors. Thanks spritpot.
Short stackers are annoying, but they don't have to be unprofitable.
You can beat them if you fold and call their 20 BB 3-bet all-ins accurately. You can pin down their range using the 3-bet percentage statistic in either Holdem Manager or PokerTracker3.
1) Against a shortstacker who 3-bets all-in 13 percent of the time, for a range of 55+,A8+,KQ, and I raise to 3 BB preflop and my shortstacking villain 3-bets all-in for 20 BB:
I have to call 17 BB to win 24.5 BB (including the blinds). That means I need to win the hand 41 percent of the time when I call [bet/(bet + pot)=17/(17+24.5)=.41].
So using PokerStove to find hands that wins more than 41 percent of the time, I would call with only:
44+, A9s+, ATo+, KQs
*Checking my work: (.41)(24.5) + (.59)(-17)=~0
2) Against a shortstacker who 3-bets all in 10 percent of the time, for a range of 99+,A9+,KQ:
I should call with 22+, ATs+,AJo+
3) Against a shortstacker who 3-bets all in only 8 percent of the time, for a range of 88+,AJ+,KQ:
I should call with 88+, AJs+, AQo+.
In general, the cutoff for calling is around AT and mid-pocket pairs.
Please read the comments and follow-up spritpot post on this topic.
Short stackers are annoying, but they don't have to be unprofitable.
You can beat them if you fold and call their 20 BB 3-bet all-ins accurately. You can pin down their range using the 3-bet percentage statistic in either Holdem Manager or PokerTracker3.
1) Against a shortstacker who 3-bets all-in 13 percent of the time, for a range of 55+,A8+,KQ, and I raise to 3 BB preflop and my shortstacking villain 3-bets all-in for 20 BB:
I have to call 17 BB to win 24.5 BB (including the blinds). That means I need to win the hand 41 percent of the time when I call [bet/(bet + pot)=17/(17+24.5)=.41].
So using PokerStove to find hands that wins more than 41 percent of the time, I would call with only:
44+, A9s+, ATo+, KQs
*Checking my work: (.41)(24.5) + (.59)(-17)=~0
2) Against a shortstacker who 3-bets all in 10 percent of the time, for a range of 99+,A9+,KQ:
I should call with 22+, ATs+,AJo+
3) Against a shortstacker who 3-bets all in only 8 percent of the time, for a range of 88+,AJ+,KQ:
I should call with 88+, AJs+, AQo+.
In general, the cutoff for calling is around AT and mid-pocket pairs.
Please read the comments and follow-up spritpot post on this topic.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Shortstack Fail
I believe that while a strong shortstacker can achieve consistent winrates playing a tight, mostly formulaic style, a skilled deeper-stacked player can make even more money.
There's no doubt that shortstacks can win in no limit cash games. As long as they accurately evaluate how their ranges fare against their opponents' range for calling 3bets and folding to 3bets, they'll profit. This evaluation is pretty easy to do using programs like PokerStove.
The most profitable situations for shortstackers come when they can collect pots from players who make an initial raise but can't call a 20 BB shove. They also make money if they can target a player who calls or folds to their preflop shoves too frequently.
These situations create advantages for the shortstacker that a deeper-stacked player doesn't have. In heads-up situations, however, a deeper-stacked player can adjust his raising and calling range to mostly negate the shorty's stack advantage.
The problem for shortstackers is that they must play a tighter range than their deeper-stacked opponents. If a shorty plays too loose, he'll bleed equity that's essential to his profitability.
The deeper-stacked player gains from many situations that the shorty misses out on. Deep stacks can play a much wider range of hands, creating more stealing opportunities. They get more play postflop, which provides more chances to get larger amounts of money in with a bigger equity advantage. In essence, deeper stacks are in a better position to take advantage of other, less-skilled deep-stacked players.
In a world of shortstacks, the deep-stacked player loses because he's forced to play their game. But in tables with several deep stacks, you want to maximize your earnings when you have an edge against the other deep stacks.
I'm biased against shortstacks because they prevent me from playing the style of poker I want to play. I'll concede that their brand of poker is valid, but it's far from ideal.
Plus, it must suck to sit around and play a tight, push-or-fold strategy all day.
There's no doubt that shortstacks can win in no limit cash games. As long as they accurately evaluate how their ranges fare against their opponents' range for calling 3bets and folding to 3bets, they'll profit. This evaluation is pretty easy to do using programs like PokerStove.
The most profitable situations for shortstackers come when they can collect pots from players who make an initial raise but can't call a 20 BB shove. They also make money if they can target a player who calls or folds to their preflop shoves too frequently.
These situations create advantages for the shortstacker that a deeper-stacked player doesn't have. In heads-up situations, however, a deeper-stacked player can adjust his raising and calling range to mostly negate the shorty's stack advantage.
The problem for shortstackers is that they must play a tighter range than their deeper-stacked opponents. If a shorty plays too loose, he'll bleed equity that's essential to his profitability.
The deeper-stacked player gains from many situations that the shorty misses out on. Deep stacks can play a much wider range of hands, creating more stealing opportunities. They get more play postflop, which provides more chances to get larger amounts of money in with a bigger equity advantage. In essence, deeper stacks are in a better position to take advantage of other, less-skilled deep-stacked players.
In a world of shortstacks, the deep-stacked player loses because he's forced to play their game. But in tables with several deep stacks, you want to maximize your earnings when you have an edge against the other deep stacks.
I'm biased against shortstacks because they prevent me from playing the style of poker I want to play. I'll concede that their brand of poker is valid, but it's far from ideal.
Plus, it must suck to sit around and play a tight, push-or-fold strategy all day.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Protecting your hand
I almost always 3-bet with TT+ and AQ+ regardless of position because these hands figure to be the best hand preflop.
My reraise is for value, yes. But it also defines and protects my hand, which is sometimes a difficult concept for me to understand because it isn't strictly a value bet or a bluff.
What I mean to say is that if JJ figures to be best against a cutoff raiser and I'm on the button, why not cold call preflop and extract value on later streets?
One reason is that I want to get worse hands to call, like drawing hands or high cards.
Another reason is that I want to know when I'm beat. JJ is the nuts preflop until I have reason to believe it's not. There's value in 3-betting preflop until a 4-bet tells me there isn't. Many players won't 4-bet with less than the very best hands, and against those types of players I should fold my JJ preflop.
The same goes for check-raising with hands like K9o on a K86 rainbow board. I most likely have the best hand, and many times I'll want to go ahead and take control, win the hand right then or get draws to call at a bad price.
There's also merit in check-calling a continuation bet and playing the turn from there. But calling instead of raising simply because I believe I have the best hand on average isn't necessarily the best play.
My reraise is for value, yes. But it also defines and protects my hand, which is sometimes a difficult concept for me to understand because it isn't strictly a value bet or a bluff.
What I mean to say is that if JJ figures to be best against a cutoff raiser and I'm on the button, why not cold call preflop and extract value on later streets?
One reason is that I want to get worse hands to call, like drawing hands or high cards.
Another reason is that I want to know when I'm beat. JJ is the nuts preflop until I have reason to believe it's not. There's value in 3-betting preflop until a 4-bet tells me there isn't. Many players won't 4-bet with less than the very best hands, and against those types of players I should fold my JJ preflop.
The same goes for check-raising with hands like K9o on a K86 rainbow board. I most likely have the best hand, and many times I'll want to go ahead and take control, win the hand right then or get draws to call at a bad price.
There's also merit in check-calling a continuation bet and playing the turn from there. But calling instead of raising simply because I believe I have the best hand on average isn't necessarily the best play.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Building Blocks
I've picked up some strategic gems from a couple of recent shows. I'll put them down here in hopes that they stick.
Cash Plays: Limit Hold'em with Death Donkey
1) Death Donkey mentions that when the pot is larger, the purpose of your value bets is more to protect the pot. When the pot is smaller, the purpose of your value bets is more to get paid by a worse hand.
2) In limit hold'em, Death Donkey discusses his style of never 4-betting/capping when out of position against an in-position 3-bettor. The reason is that he'll extract that extra small bet on the flop anyway when his opponent continuation bets, and his check-raise on the flop represents a wider range than a 4-bet preflop would.
In position, Death Donkey goes ahead and 4-bets his premium hands preflop.
He says something like, "If you could choose to only play large pots in position and smaller pots out of position, you'd make a lot of money."
Spaceman in a Cowboy Hat: Episode 4
1) The theme of this heads-up NL powerpoint video is that you should try to see how much you can get away with as you adjust to your opponents.
If your opponent will fold as much out of the BB to a minraise as he does to a 3X raise, you risk less to make the same amount with the minraise. If your opponent doesn't distinguish between a 5X and 3X raise preflop, it makes sense to raise bigger with premium hands for value and smaller with lesser hands. Of course, many opponents will catch on if you do this all the time, so you have to pick your spots.
2) The purpose of making larger than 3X 3bets preflop is to reduce your opponent's implied odds. You can raise bigger -- to 10 or 11 BB preflop -- against someone who calls 3bets too frequently, while raising smaller -- like 3X/9BB preflop -- against someone who folds to 3bets too much.
---
On an unrelated note, I have to mention the shenanigans in PokerStars Triple Draw games.
PokerStars has changed the rules of the game without previously informing the players.
Read the 2+2 thread, Ed Miller's take on it and Random Shuffle's reaction.
Cash Plays: Limit Hold'em with Death Donkey
1) Death Donkey mentions that when the pot is larger, the purpose of your value bets is more to protect the pot. When the pot is smaller, the purpose of your value bets is more to get paid by a worse hand.
2) In limit hold'em, Death Donkey discusses his style of never 4-betting/capping when out of position against an in-position 3-bettor. The reason is that he'll extract that extra small bet on the flop anyway when his opponent continuation bets, and his check-raise on the flop represents a wider range than a 4-bet preflop would.
In position, Death Donkey goes ahead and 4-bets his premium hands preflop.
He says something like, "If you could choose to only play large pots in position and smaller pots out of position, you'd make a lot of money."
Spaceman in a Cowboy Hat: Episode 4
1) The theme of this heads-up NL powerpoint video is that you should try to see how much you can get away with as you adjust to your opponents.
If your opponent will fold as much out of the BB to a minraise as he does to a 3X raise, you risk less to make the same amount with the minraise. If your opponent doesn't distinguish between a 5X and 3X raise preflop, it makes sense to raise bigger with premium hands for value and smaller with lesser hands. Of course, many opponents will catch on if you do this all the time, so you have to pick your spots.
2) The purpose of making larger than 3X 3bets preflop is to reduce your opponent's implied odds. You can raise bigger -- to 10 or 11 BB preflop -- against someone who calls 3bets too frequently, while raising smaller -- like 3X/9BB preflop -- against someone who folds to 3bets too much.
---
On an unrelated note, I have to mention the shenanigans in PokerStars Triple Draw games.
PokerStars has changed the rules of the game without previously informing the players.
Read the 2+2 thread, Ed Miller's take on it and Random Shuffle's reaction.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Picking good games
Game selection is so critical in online poker because it allows you to choose the skill level of your opponents. If you're in it to make money, you want to be playing against opponents who are worse than you.
There are several ways to evaluate what constitutes a good game.
One way is to look for games with a high percentage of players per flop, a stat that's available in the lobbies of many sites for anyone to see. Another way is to check out TableRatings.com. Both of these methods are OK, but they rely on data available to everyone, which means that you often end up on waiting lists for the best games rather than sitting in them.
A better way is to use a program like SpadeEye, which I recently wrote a review of for the recently launched site, Poker Tech Reviews. I'll leave it to my review to explain how SpadeEye works.
I've found that seat selection is more important than table selection. By that I mean a tight table doesn't matter as much as long as you're sitting directly to the left of the fish.
You also want the big stacks to your right, passive players to your left and tight players in the big blind when you're on the button.
There are several ways to evaluate what constitutes a good game.
One way is to look for games with a high percentage of players per flop, a stat that's available in the lobbies of many sites for anyone to see. Another way is to check out TableRatings.com. Both of these methods are OK, but they rely on data available to everyone, which means that you often end up on waiting lists for the best games rather than sitting in them.
A better way is to use a program like SpadeEye, which I recently wrote a review of for the recently launched site, Poker Tech Reviews. I'll leave it to my review to explain how SpadeEye works.
I've found that seat selection is more important than table selection. By that I mean a tight table doesn't matter as much as long as you're sitting directly to the left of the fish.
You also want the big stacks to your right, passive players to your left and tight players in the big blind when you're on the button.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Riverboat Gambling
That was a fantastic weekend vacation. I saw the Braves and Cardinals win one game each on Friday and Saturday, and then I drove to Kansas City to witness the home team beat the Tigers.
And I played in live casinos every day.
I met up with Kuro at Harrahs in St. Louis immediately after I arrived. It was cool to see signs at Harrahs supporting Dennis Phillips, who started his journey toward the World Series of Poker November Nine there in a $200 satellite.
I only had a little money on me, and I was looking to sit at a $1/2 NL table, but my name came up for a $2/5 table first. When I found my seat, it didn't take long to remember how juicy live poker can be: five players saw most flops, reraises were rare and people missed many obvious value bets on later streets.
I feel like it takes a little investment to beat these games sometimes. That's because you should be seeing many flops in position, and if you miss all the time, your stack is going to bleed away. The rake and jackpot fee don't help either. But I'm certain this kind of live game is overwhelmingly profitable over time. (I wish I could be dealt more than 30 hands an hour!)
Eventually, my stack dwindled to about $150, and I limp-raised all-in from under the gun with 77 after an MP player raised to $50 and four people called, putting more than $200 in the pot. I got called by the raiser, who wouldn't reveal his pocket 8s until after the river was dealt even after I turned over my hand immediately. Jackass grayhair.
I ended up losing more money at blackjack, but the real story of the trip is my roulette winnings at Casino Queen in Illinois and Isle of Capri in Kansas City.
I played a Martingale strategy, in which I placed near-break-even wagers on the outside, pocketing my winnings on small bets and doubling my bets when I lost.
In four sessions of roulette over four days this weekend, I walked away a solid winner every time.
The Martingale system isn't profitable over the long run, but it gives you the opportunity to book small wins and have fun at the table for several hours at a time. I'll play roulette this way all the time.
And I played in live casinos every day.
I met up with Kuro at Harrahs in St. Louis immediately after I arrived. It was cool to see signs at Harrahs supporting Dennis Phillips, who started his journey toward the World Series of Poker November Nine there in a $200 satellite.
I only had a little money on me, and I was looking to sit at a $1/2 NL table, but my name came up for a $2/5 table first. When I found my seat, it didn't take long to remember how juicy live poker can be: five players saw most flops, reraises were rare and people missed many obvious value bets on later streets.
I feel like it takes a little investment to beat these games sometimes. That's because you should be seeing many flops in position, and if you miss all the time, your stack is going to bleed away. The rake and jackpot fee don't help either. But I'm certain this kind of live game is overwhelmingly profitable over time. (I wish I could be dealt more than 30 hands an hour!)
Eventually, my stack dwindled to about $150, and I limp-raised all-in from under the gun with 77 after an MP player raised to $50 and four people called, putting more than $200 in the pot. I got called by the raiser, who wouldn't reveal his pocket 8s until after the river was dealt even after I turned over my hand immediately. Jackass grayhair.
I ended up losing more money at blackjack, but the real story of the trip is my roulette winnings at Casino Queen in Illinois and Isle of Capri in Kansas City.
I played a Martingale strategy, in which I placed near-break-even wagers on the outside, pocketing my winnings on small bets and doubling my bets when I lost.
In four sessions of roulette over four days this weekend, I walked away a solid winner every time.
The Martingale system isn't profitable over the long run, but it gives you the opportunity to book small wins and have fun at the table for several hours at a time. I'll play roulette this way all the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
