The mammoth 100th Post

For whatever reason, I like to do something special (read "even more pointless and annoying that most posts, full of hot air, pointless asides, and dubious information) on my milestone posts. My 1000th on my main blog was a pretty good example. This is my 100th gaming post so I will compare and contrast a couple hands with trips or a set and probably keep on rambling from there.



As a general rule, I don't particularly like getting involved in big hands early. Then again, if I have a good hand, what difference should it make if it is the first hand of the tournament or deep into it? If I am going to be at risk, I will be at risk.



The set-up: 3000 starting chips. 7 handed. To my left is a tight-aggressive, to his left a loose-aggressive, to his left a loose-aggressive, to his left a rookie, to her left a maniac, to his left a tricky, somewhat maniacal player, to his left a rock and immediately to my right a guy I have only played with once. In the first three hands everyone that plays limps and then there is some serious betting. I fold those hands. On the 4th hand I am in the big blind and they have already raised from the start of 25-50 to 50-100. Several players limp into the pot. I know nobody has a pocket pair over about a 6 because if they did, this group would have raised them. The same goes for A/K which gets treated as a pair. So with nothing but limpers in front of me I put them on marginal hands, with maybe someone with a weak ace and someone with paint. There are probably a couple connectors and probably something like King-rag.


The Pre-Flop:
With 4 or 5 callers, there is already 5 - 600 in the pot. With pocket 8s I raised it another 400. That cleared out most of them, but Taz calls.

Taz is a tricky player but an ego player as well. He seldom believes he is beat and thinks he can take any pot he is in because he is Taz. But he is also a good player and I was not crediting him with being one of the connectors...I figured maybe paint, maybe an Ace, maybe something suited, those hands would make sense for him.

The Flop:
Taz has position on me and, at the end of the day, all I have is snowmen. The flop comes Qd, 8D, and rag. I have flopped a set but there is a chance he has flopped a flush draw. I want to bet him off the flush draw. I doubled my initial raise, making it 800 to go. He ponders, then calls. Let's take a look at the action:

I don't like my bet here...but not for the reason most people would not like it. I am a person who WILL bet trips, especially if they are vulnerable. With a flush draw, I need to bet him off it. I frankly discounted a set of queens so at the moment I had the best hand and needed to protect it.

Of course, I also had the redraw to a full house. Even if he had something like a pair of queens and nice kicker or even a flush draw, any pairing of the board would give me essentially the nuts. And the best scenario for me would be him tripping his queens (if he had them) giving me the hidden boat.

In short, I needed to raise the pot to make his call incorrect. I had raised 400, he had called, so there was 800...good...BUT...we already had about 500 in the pot previously. So I ACTUALLY needed to raise it 1300 to make the flush draw call incorrect. However, we only started with 3000 chips, I had already committed 500 pre-flop. So I only had 2500 left, betting 1300 would absolutely commit me to the hand and if a flush hit I needed to be able to get away from it. This is one issue that short starting stack/fast blinds poker leads to; Standard raises could legitimately commit me to an all-in on the first hand I played. That does not make for good poker. 25/50 blinds, m=75 , start with 3000, 40 times the blinds is not good...but with a 10 minute blind, not even enough to make a circuit of the table, by the time I played this hand my m was 300 and I started the hand with 10 times the blind. I can make a legitimate case for all-in or fold on the first hand I played. That is bad poker.

So with those considerations, making a "standard" raise is a bad idea...and anything less than a standard raise prices in a flush draw. Actually, in retrospect, I think I do like my raise here, though in a properly run game I would not.

The turn:
Another blank falls, a small, non-diamond that does not advance any straight possibilities. Unless he was calling with a backdoor gut shot, which of Taz I would not believe. All-in Dee? In a heartbeat. Taz? Not so much. If I had the better hand pre-flop and on the flop, nothing has changed. I still have the better hand. Raise. But 800 is not big enough. So I bump it 1000. He calls, a bit quicker.

So again, what is happening here? Now I have committed so many chips I only have 700 left. Again, probably should have just shoved all in because with just 7 times the blinds and an m of 2, I am in deep, deep trouble if I lose this hand. At this point I cannot price him out of a flush draw...though if he folds here, he still has over 2000 chips. So a raise of 1700 would have made it a tougher call for him. Still, with 500 + 500 + 500 + 800 + 800 means there is a pot of 3100 in there so he is calling either 1000 to win 4100, better than 4-1 and therefore a correct call if he has a flush, or calling 1700 to win 4800 or 2.8 - 1 and still really close to correct for a flush; from his standpoint, 9 outs (he has no way of knowing 2 of them are counterfeited and I hold a third) = about 18%, or about 4 -1...okay, so not real close. Another mistake by me. Again I price him in even though I am pot committed at this point. This should have been my all-in moment as I was positive I had the best hand and a good re-draw.

But let's not get locked in to believing he has the flush draw. What could he have? Well...he could have hit top pair on the flop. With the time he took, if her were a more advanced player I would say he was trying to look weak with his slow call. That is a pretty common ploy. But it looked more to me like if he did not have a flush draw then he had 3 possible hands: Queen with a big kicker, Queen with a small kicker, or middle pair with a good kicker. So let's flip around and see how things look from his perspective.

I don't know how much attention he has paid to my play. I am a little more...uhm...aggressive in studying my opponents than about anyone I see there. He once took a whupping from me when I flopped a boat, checked, he came over the top of someones raise and I called with my 2/7 (I had been big blind). That type of trash hand taking you out can stick in memory...as could the fact is was a trash hand. If he doesn't remember I was big blind in that hand, he would think I am a terrible player. So I may not need a huge hand to bet on the flop. If he has Q/good kicker, he just has to decide if I raised with something like A/Q or if I have something lower, maybe pocket 10s or jacks. Or if I am on a stone cold bluff, making a continuation bet. So if he caught part of the flop, even middle pair, he might stick around.

The quicker call on the turn could mean he hit a second pair. So he might have been playing something like Q/4, hit top pair on the flop and 2 pair on the turn. A quick call sometimes means a strong hand. He might react quickly thinking he is ahead and he will let me bet myself out. Or he might want me to check the river so he can raise me all-in. Or he could even still be drawing to the flush and know if he was priced in on the flop he is getting still better odds here. So really at this point I am narrowing the field of his hands to flush draw, top pair with good kicker, or 2 pair.

The upshot is, I don't know what he has but I KNOW my hand is better. You will note that at no point did I put him on pocket queens because I know his playing style. As an aside, that is one reason limping occasionally is not as bad as I make it out to be because it will add deception to my game. With most people, if they raise I can put them on a relatively narrow range of hands and if they limp it could be any 2 cards EXCEPT that narrow range of hands.

Look at Eric "Gypsy" by contrast. If he limps he might have anything from Aces to 5/6 suited. If he raises, he might have anything from Aces to 5/6 suited. I saw him limp with Aces and raise Kings during this same game. He is very difficult to put on a hand. The one thing you do know is if he is calling a raise he does not have trash. I fear Gypsy's play a lot more than I fear most of them because of that deception. I used to fear Jeff's play until I figured it out. Now he is not overly deceptive to me and I can generally put him on a pretty narrow range of hands.

The River:
The Ace of Hearts rolled off. This could be a good card for me if he hit it or a bad card if he just had 1 pair. On the bright side, since for the reasons previously discussed, I had discounted the possibility of him having pockets, this meant I had the nuts. No straight, no flush possibility. I was raising here for sure. And with only 700 left that meant all in. He went into the tank for a long time. I was positive I had him beat every step of the way so of course I wanted a call. I did subtle things...held my breath to make it look like I was nervous, peeked at him from the corner of my eyes, even held a short conversation with Roman saying, "He can't call, he only has a busted flush draw" which I partially believed and partially didn't...I actually thought there was a chance he had something like A/Q in which case I would get my call. In fact, unless all he had was a busted flush draw or a medium pair I expected a call. He finally folded.

I wanted to establish an image that they should not call me without really strong hands so I flashed the set. He claimed he had 2 pair and that was what he was afraid of. Well, maybe. But if so then why did you call to the river and then fold to what was a weak bet, the smallest bet since the flop? That fold makes no sense if you had 2 pair. I think he is too good a player to have had nothing.

Now, compare that hand with the following: By now I am the chip leader or close to it. From the small blind I limp with A/3.

Pre-flop:
Lots of limping ahead of me. Again, this connotes weakness. It shows people with hands that want to see a flop cheap...say, A/3 off hoping for that miracle flop. So instead of raising I meekly limp and Roman checks.

The flop:
This is a dream flop. A/7/A. I flopped trips. I was first to act. Previously with a strong but vulnerable hand I raised. That is the correct play here. Nobody will believe they Ace, but they can't call, either, and I take down the pot more than likely...though the guy 2 to my left thinks I suck and might call. I decide to be an actor. I slump a bit, sigh, and check. It backfires. So does everyone else.

The turn:
A blank rag falls, though it gives a second Spade to the board. I don't worry much about that. "Okay, I'll buy it" I state and throw out some chips. Folds to Jeff who calls.

Oops. There was now, with his call, 900 in the pot. I under bet and priced him in on a draw. Knowing Jeff, he will call on a draw, re-raise on a good hand of bluff. So I knew he was on a draw.

The river:
Another small card falls...a spade. I bet 1000, just over the pot, and Jeff calls. As soon as he did, I said something along the lines of "just trips. You have the flush?"

He nodded, relieved, and said, "Yep, but I was afraid of the higher flush."

So in both cases I flopped the same hand, once a set and once trips. The first time I played it strongly, the second time I played it weakly. The first time I essentially doubled up, the second time I gave away 1800 chips. Both times I priced in draws. Worse, this time with a vulnerable hand I bet it and not strongly. I should have put him all in if I were going to bet. He still might have called, but it would not have been an easy one for him. He probably folds there. Conversely, I could have check-raised him on the river to represent a better flush. Either way I chose I would have put pressure on him instead of giving him an easy call.

Betting trips on the flop is something everyone there seems to concur is a bad idea. But it can work to your advantage, too. Which is better; taking down a 5 or 600 chip pot or losing a 3600? Win lots of small ones to pay for the occasional terrible hand.

Some hands really need to be bet. For example, back to the early part of the night. After I won my first hand, I played a hand weakly and lost a few chips. Then I started playing weak poker that played really well, but only because after weak starts to the hand I played vulnerable hands strongly.

Example 1:
Pre-flop:
With multiple limpers I limp from the button with 5/7 hearts. And here was my reasoning: "Ooh, flush and straight possibilities, I want to see a cheap flop." Hmm. That sounds familiar. Oh, yeah...like someone with a marginal hand they don't want to pay to take any further. Like most of the table, I am folding it to a strong raise.

The Flop
The flop comes 7 high with 1 heart. Check to me, I bet into it. 1 caller, the guy who dislikes me called, everyone else folded. My thought on the flop is I have the best hand at the moment. It is unlikely he has pockets since any pocket he would have raised. I have the better hand, he most likely has overs. In fact, without seeing his cards, I am positive that is what he had.

The Turn:
A king. Uh-oh. Of Hearts. I like. Now I am 4-flushing with 2nd pair. He checks. I do not put him on the king. I raise. Even if he has the king I might raise and believe I am correct to do so. Let's analyze that thought:

Let's give him paint, say...K/Q. Now he has me beat. So let's check outs. I have a few; I have 9 Hearts for the flush, 2 7s for trips, and 2 5s for 2 pair that do not also give him 2 pair. Since I have the 5/7 Hearts I don't need to take them off my outs list so that gives me 13 outs, or about 26%. So I am a hair better than 3-1 against to improve. So let's check the money situation and see if I would be right to raise or re-raise if I am beat:

There was about 600 in the pot pre-flop. I raised a weak 300 and had one caller so now the pot is 1200. Let's say I raise 300 as I did. He is calling 300 to win 1500 or getting 5 -1 on his money. If he were to re-raise, traditionally his raise is double mine so he would raise to 600. Now I am calling 300 to win 2100 (1200 + 300 + 600) or 7 - 1. I am only a 3 - 1 dog so that is a no-brainer call.

But what if he bets coming out of the gate? Let's say he matches my bet and goes 300. Now I am calling 300 to win 1500 (300 bet plus a pot of 1200), or getting 5 -1. Again, I am only a 3 - 1 dog here so a call is correct. And a re-raise might represent a stronger hand and win it from a better hand.

But what if he is more aggressive and bets, say, 5 or 600? (He regularly laid out "convenience bets" of 500 because it was an easy chip to throw so I know he does not understand or consider pot odds.) Let's say he was not lazy and rolls out the 600 bet. Now I am calling 600 to win 1800 (1200 pot, 600 bet) and it is again correct to call since I am getting 3 - 1 or exactly my odds. If he bets more than 600 a fold is correct and if he bets less it is an automatic call.

For improving, by the way, this is an easy and obvious step in my evolution of poker. I definitely subscribe to the David Sklansky Fundamental Theorem of Poker:

Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.

So my first step is to put them on a range of hands, then figure out my odds of beating them. If I can win more money in the long run then it behooves me to make the call. If I will lose more in the long run, then it is always a mistake to call EVEN IF I HIT THE HAND THAT ONE TIME.

Example: When I went all in with A/2 diamonds and Eric had Kings, it should be obvious he will call if we were heads up. And you would think (as I did) that in a multi-way pot I would be a prohibitive dog and it was a stupid call. However, if the hands were as I remember, not so much: with the multi-player pot, Eric was 39.03% to win...and I was 30.28. Oddly, had everyone stayed out, then he was a prohibitive 67.24 - 32.33% favorite...so the multiple callers HURT him even though he had the same hand.

Since my intent on that hand was to deliberately violate the Fundamental Theorum of Poker and get in with a worse hand, had everyone else correctly folded then I would have had an incorrect raise even though it hit; however, their calls gave me more than 4 - 1 pot odds on a 3-1 dog situation...believe it or not, by them calling, it was NOT the donkey move I tried to make! Had everyone played with their hands face up, if I knew they were going to call I would be making a mistake to NOT call even though I would lose nearly 70% of the time.

Back on point, to make my play better, I need to manipulate my opponent's pot odds. I need to make it too expensive for them to draw on draws that will beat me and when I have the nuts I need to bet so their draws look good and they call.

So a strong night would look like this:
Pre-flop:
I raise or fold; I raise premium hands from early position, fold everything else. This allows me to develop information on potential holdings my opponents might have and keeps me from playing weak hands that can get me in trouble.
When I fold I pay attention to what the others are doing; what they raise with, what they fold, what they limp in with and, in advanced circles, what they re-raise with.

The Flop;
I watch their reactions to the flop. If it fits my hand, I bet it. If not, I check it. If I flop the nuts then I bet to draw them in. If my hand is vulnerable I bet to price them out. But I mix it up so my methodology does not tell them that "every time he bets the pot he has top pair, medium kicker." I work to narrow the range of hands they could have.

The turn:
Again, I check out their reactions to the flop to read strength or weakness. Then I check, bet, or re-raise in such a way as to price them out of risky situations for me or fold if I am behind. I use their actions to further narrow the range of possible holdings.

The river:
Before I act, I reverse engineer the hand to see what the story is. I compare it to what I know of their playing style. Will they bet draws or just made hands? Do they bluff? With what? Based on their betting and reactions, what hands are possible? How likely is each hand?

Then I can choose whether to bluff, value-bet, call, check, or fold with a fairly accurate assesment of where I stand. I will still get hurt when I guess incorrectly, but by proper betting and play it will be less frequent and will more often be a result of someone else playing incorrectly which, in the long run, is still a win for me.

And whether I am in the hand or not, I need to pick a player or two and put them on a range of hands, follow it down to the river, and when I see their hands, reconstruct them so I know a little piece of information on what type of player they are.