One of the habits I brought with me when I moved here from the CardsChat blog was to make strategy posts: instructional posts about poker. I made a lot of those on the CC blog, because that's what the readers requested. I'm going to stop that habit, because quite frankly I don't feel up for the job. I could rehash basic principles of poker but I'd feel kinda dumb about it because what I love about poker is its complexity and beginning strategies of play are always extremely oversimplified and take away that beauty, in my opinion. They're necessary to keep from drowning in the beginning, but they're not poker.
Poker is valuebetting second pair on a really scary river because your hand reading skills deduce that your opponent is unlikely to have top pair or a flush. That extra $40 of value that you get out of that river that a lesser player wouldn't.
Poker is adjusting your bet sizing to different opponents and board textures.
Poker is exploring all the options you have to play a hand and then making the most profitable decision.
So in the future when I make strategy related posts, they're going to be personal reflections rather than instructional articles, if you will. And I'm starting today, with the concept of "big hands, big pots." I'm not 100% sure about the origin of the phrase, but I think I saw Ed Miller use it first. The idea, in case you're not familiar with it, is this:
A very strong hand should play in a way that enables it to win a big pot.
A mediocre (but "showdownable," which is now a word, thankyouverymuch) hand should try to keep the pot size down and aim for winning a small pot.
The basic reasoning behind this is pretty simple: When all the money goes in postflop, it's unlikely that AJ on a J-8-6 board is going to show a profit simply because there are few hands that any opponents are willing to get their whole stack in with that you can beat. So you try to avoid getting yourself in a situation where you have to make a decision for your whole stack with a vulnerable hand.
Conversely, a hand like 88 on the same board cannot check back the flop because you should work on building as big a pot as possible, shooting for your opponent's stack. Big hands, big pots.
So what am I getting at? I'm not crazy about this principle. I don't think it's flawed per se, I just think it falls into a very common trap of simplification: hiding the difficult part. Because poker didn't get trivial when I started thinking of "big hands, big pots." It's a good thing to think about but it doesn't make the decisions automatic. Before this catch-phrase, we used to have people answering the question "should I valuebet AK on a K-high river?" with "it depends." Then came "big hands, big pots" but "it depends" is still the answer; it's just the answer to a different question: "is AK on this K-high river a big hand?"
By introducing "big hands, big pots" we didn't eliminate the problem, we shifted it. It reminds me of linear algebra where you can change the base of calculation and hope that the answer becomes easier to calculate. Sometimes - often - that's true, but you still need to do the calculation, easier or not. A different perspective can make a decision easier but it doesn't solve it.
Because, really, whether or not AK on a K-high river is a big hand depends on the texture of the board and what you know about your opponent. It's a "big hand" if he's likely to call a big bet with a weaker hand. And while "big hands, big pots" may work for some people, it never quite did the trick for me, but now I've found a way of addressing these situations that I find easier: I ask myself the question "how many bets can I win with this hand vs. this opponent?"
Example: $200NL, I open KQo to $6 in the cut-off and only the small blind - a fairly typical regular in these games - calls. We see a flop of Q-7-7. How may bets can I win off of my opponent if my hand is best?
My best guess: Two. My opponent is not going to put in three streets of action with an underpair, and he's fairly unlikely to have coldcalled preflop with a weaker queen than mine except (maybe) QJs. And what I need to figure out is how to extract those two bets in a way that maximizes my chances of winning. Perhaps checking back the flop and seeing if he bets the turn (which increases the chance of him bluffing), or perhaps betting the flop and hoping he takes one off with a medium pair and then I can check back the turn and hope he bluffs the river or calls a value bet.
And once I have that part of it thought through, I can start to think about how I want to size a potential bet to maximize value. Perhaps the turn brings a third flushcard to the table and I have to flush my plan of checking back the turn to induce a river bluff in favor of betting the turn and checking back the river since there are now more hands he could call a second bet with that wouldn't call the same bet on the river unimproved. Etc.
And while this opponent might have "two bets" stapled to his virtual forehead, another opponent with exactly the same hand could make me think "three bets, easily, and I'm happy to get it all-in at any point" or "one, tops."
No, this perspective didn't "solve" poker, either. It can't; it only shifted the calculation. Because, in the end, it still depends.
And that's the beauty of it.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Don't Settle.
Regarding win-rates, I've heard that 1-2ptbb/100 at $.50/$1 no-limit and up is a very strong result over the long run. I agree, it is. Any win-rate above 0ptbb/100 is of course good.
But don't settle on 1-2pt/bb. Don't fall in the trap of thinking that just because you've achieved that win-rate over the past 50k hands that your focus should be on logging more hands and not working on your game. Thinking that you're "good enough" at poker is probably the best way to ensure that you soon won't be.
You think 5ptbb/100 longterm isn't achievable at the games you play? Do you table select? Do you actively leave tables that have less than two bad players sitting at them? Do you notice when your table becomes a tagfest of regulars?
And do you make mistakes? Small mistakes add up in an alarming rate in this game of ours. Do you adjust your opening raise size depending on the stacks of the people who are left to act? Do you sometimes accidently 3-bet someone and only after the fact notice that he only has 30BB left and is committed?
Do you make a standard call and notice too late - or not at all - that your opponent is the nittiest player ever?
Do you take extensive notes on players? Even on hands that you're not involved in? Do you notice when the weak player gets up and a strong player sits in? Do you know who the weakest players are at all the tables you're playing?
Do you know who the strong players are at all the tables you're playing, or do you just assume you can beat them all?
Do you know what range a specific opponent 3-bets with, not just with what frequency?
And, pertaining to specifically multitabling, do you ever time out on a table? Like, ever?
You can get better. And as I've stated in the past, win-rates aren't origo-based and linear. The implication in that post was that your win-rate may well drop by quite a bit more than half if you double the number of tables you play. But the flipside of the coin is that you may well increase your win-rate by more than a factor of two if you pay fewer tables.
I've scaled back down to playing only four tables, and while I can't speak for you, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I'm making more than twice as much as I was when I was playing 8-9 tables. Table selection is difficult when I'm playing 8 tables because I have so few spare seconds to look for the fish. Note taking is extremely cumbersome. And always noticing immediately when someone leaves and someone else sits down is borderline impossible.
Don't be content with a 1.5ptbb/100 win-rate. The $100NL and $200NL games can be beaten for much more than that, of this I'm certain. And active table selection - and de-selection - is the biggest key by far in achieving a monster win-rate.
Don't settle.
But don't settle on 1-2pt/bb. Don't fall in the trap of thinking that just because you've achieved that win-rate over the past 50k hands that your focus should be on logging more hands and not working on your game. Thinking that you're "good enough" at poker is probably the best way to ensure that you soon won't be.
You think 5ptbb/100 longterm isn't achievable at the games you play? Do you table select? Do you actively leave tables that have less than two bad players sitting at them? Do you notice when your table becomes a tagfest of regulars?
And do you make mistakes? Small mistakes add up in an alarming rate in this game of ours. Do you adjust your opening raise size depending on the stacks of the people who are left to act? Do you sometimes accidently 3-bet someone and only after the fact notice that he only has 30BB left and is committed?
Do you make a standard call and notice too late - or not at all - that your opponent is the nittiest player ever?
Do you take extensive notes on players? Even on hands that you're not involved in? Do you notice when the weak player gets up and a strong player sits in? Do you know who the weakest players are at all the tables you're playing?
Do you know who the strong players are at all the tables you're playing, or do you just assume you can beat them all?
Do you know what range a specific opponent 3-bets with, not just with what frequency?
And, pertaining to specifically multitabling, do you ever time out on a table? Like, ever?
You can get better. And as I've stated in the past, win-rates aren't origo-based and linear. The implication in that post was that your win-rate may well drop by quite a bit more than half if you double the number of tables you play. But the flipside of the coin is that you may well increase your win-rate by more than a factor of two if you pay fewer tables.
I've scaled back down to playing only four tables, and while I can't speak for you, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that I'm making more than twice as much as I was when I was playing 8-9 tables. Table selection is difficult when I'm playing 8 tables because I have so few spare seconds to look for the fish. Note taking is extremely cumbersome. And always noticing immediately when someone leaves and someone else sits down is borderline impossible.
Don't be content with a 1.5ptbb/100 win-rate. The $100NL and $200NL games can be beaten for much more than that, of this I'm certain. And active table selection - and de-selection - is the biggest key by far in achieving a monster win-rate.
Don't settle.
Monday, September 1, 2008
4-bet bluffing in no-limit hold 'em
I did sort of promise this post, so here it is. It's inspired by a recent thread on CC, and a lot of what I'm saying here is what I said there, but I feel I can perhaps expand on a few points.
What Jagsti asked is "when, why and how" one 4-bet bluffs, and also with what hands. I think this is a pretty good starting point for the reasoning, so I'll use a similar format, albeit in a different order:
Why:
The obvious answer is that it's extra money in our bankroll. 4-bet bluffing is often profitable in a vacuum against aggressive regulars in the online games; just by occasionally 4-bet bluffing we can show an immediate profit. As an added benefit we also add some deception and make sure that our opponents can't squarely put us on QQ or better when we 4-bet preflop, thus allowing us to get more action on our big hands. Trust me, if your opponent shoves after you 4-bet and you fold, you can be certain that he just made a note on you. You should probably make a note back saying that he has seen you do this and avoid making your next 4-bet against him a bluff.
How:
Here, I'm itching to actually answer the "when" first because a lot of what I want to say about "how" depends on the "when," but I think there's pedagogical value in doing this in reverse so I'll try it. When I 4-bet bluff preflop, I do it with hands that I can't profitably call the 3-bet with, and I do it to an amount that lets me get away from the hand if my opponent shoves.
The second part of that sentence is key. I need to be able to raise a large enough amount that my opponent doesn't just call because he's in position with good pot odds, but a small enough amount that I don't get pot odds myself to call a shove with any-two. A min-4-bet, in other words, is out of the question. A 4-bet that puts considerably more than a third of my stack in is also a bad idea.
After doing some simulations and a tiny bit of math, it seems that 4-betting to about a third of my stack (or rather, the effective stack) does the trick and is about as high as I can go without being committed. Perhaps needless to say, I use the same raise size with my big hands as well. This brings us very quickly into the "when."
When:
Now, since I want to 4-bet with (at most) a third of my stack, I need my opponent's 3-bet to be small enough that my 4-bet allows this without being a pesky min-raise. If my opponent 3-bets to 25BB (with 100BB stacks), for instance, 4-bet bluffing is not an option for me. But the standard open-raise is typically between 3 and 4 big blinds, and the standard 3-bet for most regulars in the games I play seems to be between 12 and 15 big blinds. A 4-bet to 35 big blinds, then, achieves what I want to achieve, and is what I aim for in these cases.
It's imperative, then, that the effective stacks are at least 100BB. Otherwise, I'll have put in more than a third of my stack and will be very close to break-even on calling with any two cards when/if my opponent shoves, which I certainly don't want.
Furthermore, the whole point in 4-bet bluffing is that we think there's a decent chance that our opponents will fold whatever they have, so we want some history between us that shows that he's capable of 3-betting light. If you use stats, the "3bet preflop" number should typically show at least 7% for me to start considering 4-bet bluffing, and it's of course also a given that our opponent must be "smart" enough to fold the worst part of his hands when we bluff. Don't bluff a calling station - and definitely not preflop.
I also said that I want to do it with hands that I can't profitably call the 3-bet with, which adds to the when; I'm more often out of position than in position when I 4-bet bluff. In position I can often take a flop and play a big pot in position with some of my weaker hands, albeit certainly not all of them.
With what hands?
I'll cut to the chase: I (almost always) 4-bet these hands before the flop: QQ, KK, AA, AKo and AKs. Out of position, I also 4-bet all suited connectors from 76s up to JTs. In position, I 4-bet bluff with JTo.
It might seem like I'm being predictable if I always use the same hands, but I don't think that that's true. The way the combinations of these hands work out, I will "have it" about 75% of the time when I 4-bet. That's decidedly enough not to make shoving over the top immediately profitable for my opponents, and it's also enough that I still add a little bit of profit. So why have I picked these precise hands?
Because I want to be able to make the decision to 4-bet bluff automatic. I have two reasons for this:
First, it frees up time in my decision making when I'm multi-tabling (which I typically always am). A few seconds saved on making a decision on one table means a few more seconds to make a better decision on another table. This is pretty important and why I'm a big fan of having default ranges on reflex. That doesn't mean that I can't adjust, but some decisions I really just prefer to have made for me.
Secondly, it takes away the risk that I'm overdoing it. I think a lot of aggressive regulars seriously overdo the LAG style of their play and simply go nuts too often. They might "know" that they should be bluffing with a certain small frequency, but simply guessing how often they've been doing it lately is borderline impossible. By using a set of pre-determined ranges, I know for a fact that I'm bluffing with a frequency that I've decided on. No guessing. No 4-betting because I'm tilting.
So I pick JTo when I'm in position and suited connectors when I'm out of position, and you may already have guessed why, but it's simply because these are hands that I typically can't play profitably when I get 3-bet. In position, I can opt to call with JTs on the button when the small blind 3-bets. But I can't play that hand out of position for 14 big blinds with effective stacks of 100BB. And I typically can't play JTo profitably even in position when I get 3-bet.
An argument could perhaps be made to pick the weakest part of my range instead of these hands that are sort of in the middle. But I don't think it matters that much since these hands were all going in the muck otherwise anyway. There is an upside to choosing hands that are no better than J-high though, and that is that in the rare cases when the other person cold-calls the 4-bet (a move that I seriously question is legitimate for any hand but AA, and probably not even then), I don't have to be in the sticky situation of flopping nothing and wondering if I'm best.
This is not a hugely important point, but it matters at least a little bit, because if I see a flop with the bluffing part of my range and my opponent open-shoves out of position, I don't want to have a difficult decision to make. Of course, sometimes this is going to happen anyway. I might flop top pair with JT, but that's a much better situation to be in than to flop nothing with A7o and be worried that I might be laying down the best hand with ace-high. Since you're bound to ask, yes, I've had opponents stop-and-go a 4-bet on me with KQs unimproved and similar from the SB. Fortunately I wasn't bluffing at the times that this has happened, so I didn't make the mistake of folding, but I mention it as a reason for why I'm unhappy 4-bet bluffing with hands that have some chance of being the best hand. "Typically don't bluff with the best hand" is a valuable lesson I learned while grinding limit hold 'em, and it applies here, too.
So: 4-bet bluff because it adds profit and deception, do it in a way that lets you get away from your hand if your opponent shoves, do it versus opponents that you have reason to believe are 3-betting light often, do it with hands that you can't otherwise profitably continue with and do it with a range of hands that you've decided on before you are even dealt the cards.
And do it because, frankly, big bluffs are fun.
What Jagsti asked is "when, why and how" one 4-bet bluffs, and also with what hands. I think this is a pretty good starting point for the reasoning, so I'll use a similar format, albeit in a different order:
Why:
The obvious answer is that it's extra money in our bankroll. 4-bet bluffing is often profitable in a vacuum against aggressive regulars in the online games; just by occasionally 4-bet bluffing we can show an immediate profit. As an added benefit we also add some deception and make sure that our opponents can't squarely put us on QQ or better when we 4-bet preflop, thus allowing us to get more action on our big hands. Trust me, if your opponent shoves after you 4-bet and you fold, you can be certain that he just made a note on you. You should probably make a note back saying that he has seen you do this and avoid making your next 4-bet against him a bluff.
How:
Here, I'm itching to actually answer the "when" first because a lot of what I want to say about "how" depends on the "when," but I think there's pedagogical value in doing this in reverse so I'll try it. When I 4-bet bluff preflop, I do it with hands that I can't profitably call the 3-bet with, and I do it to an amount that lets me get away from the hand if my opponent shoves.
The second part of that sentence is key. I need to be able to raise a large enough amount that my opponent doesn't just call because he's in position with good pot odds, but a small enough amount that I don't get pot odds myself to call a shove with any-two. A min-4-bet, in other words, is out of the question. A 4-bet that puts considerably more than a third of my stack in is also a bad idea.
After doing some simulations and a tiny bit of math, it seems that 4-betting to about a third of my stack (or rather, the effective stack) does the trick and is about as high as I can go without being committed. Perhaps needless to say, I use the same raise size with my big hands as well. This brings us very quickly into the "when."
When:
Now, since I want to 4-bet with (at most) a third of my stack, I need my opponent's 3-bet to be small enough that my 4-bet allows this without being a pesky min-raise. If my opponent 3-bets to 25BB (with 100BB stacks), for instance, 4-bet bluffing is not an option for me. But the standard open-raise is typically between 3 and 4 big blinds, and the standard 3-bet for most regulars in the games I play seems to be between 12 and 15 big blinds. A 4-bet to 35 big blinds, then, achieves what I want to achieve, and is what I aim for in these cases.
It's imperative, then, that the effective stacks are at least 100BB. Otherwise, I'll have put in more than a third of my stack and will be very close to break-even on calling with any two cards when/if my opponent shoves, which I certainly don't want.
Furthermore, the whole point in 4-bet bluffing is that we think there's a decent chance that our opponents will fold whatever they have, so we want some history between us that shows that he's capable of 3-betting light. If you use stats, the "3bet preflop" number should typically show at least 7% for me to start considering 4-bet bluffing, and it's of course also a given that our opponent must be "smart" enough to fold the worst part of his hands when we bluff. Don't bluff a calling station - and definitely not preflop.
I also said that I want to do it with hands that I can't profitably call the 3-bet with, which adds to the when; I'm more often out of position than in position when I 4-bet bluff. In position I can often take a flop and play a big pot in position with some of my weaker hands, albeit certainly not all of them.
With what hands?
I'll cut to the chase: I (almost always) 4-bet these hands before the flop: QQ, KK, AA, AKo and AKs. Out of position, I also 4-bet all suited connectors from 76s up to JTs. In position, I 4-bet bluff with JTo.
It might seem like I'm being predictable if I always use the same hands, but I don't think that that's true. The way the combinations of these hands work out, I will "have it" about 75% of the time when I 4-bet. That's decidedly enough not to make shoving over the top immediately profitable for my opponents, and it's also enough that I still add a little bit of profit. So why have I picked these precise hands?
Because I want to be able to make the decision to 4-bet bluff automatic. I have two reasons for this:
First, it frees up time in my decision making when I'm multi-tabling (which I typically always am). A few seconds saved on making a decision on one table means a few more seconds to make a better decision on another table. This is pretty important and why I'm a big fan of having default ranges on reflex. That doesn't mean that I can't adjust, but some decisions I really just prefer to have made for me.
Secondly, it takes away the risk that I'm overdoing it. I think a lot of aggressive regulars seriously overdo the LAG style of their play and simply go nuts too often. They might "know" that they should be bluffing with a certain small frequency, but simply guessing how often they've been doing it lately is borderline impossible. By using a set of pre-determined ranges, I know for a fact that I'm bluffing with a frequency that I've decided on. No guessing. No 4-betting because I'm tilting.
So I pick JTo when I'm in position and suited connectors when I'm out of position, and you may already have guessed why, but it's simply because these are hands that I typically can't play profitably when I get 3-bet. In position, I can opt to call with JTs on the button when the small blind 3-bets. But I can't play that hand out of position for 14 big blinds with effective stacks of 100BB. And I typically can't play JTo profitably even in position when I get 3-bet.
An argument could perhaps be made to pick the weakest part of my range instead of these hands that are sort of in the middle. But I don't think it matters that much since these hands were all going in the muck otherwise anyway. There is an upside to choosing hands that are no better than J-high though, and that is that in the rare cases when the other person cold-calls the 4-bet (a move that I seriously question is legitimate for any hand but AA, and probably not even then), I don't have to be in the sticky situation of flopping nothing and wondering if I'm best.
This is not a hugely important point, but it matters at least a little bit, because if I see a flop with the bluffing part of my range and my opponent open-shoves out of position, I don't want to have a difficult decision to make. Of course, sometimes this is going to happen anyway. I might flop top pair with JT, but that's a much better situation to be in than to flop nothing with A7o and be worried that I might be laying down the best hand with ace-high. Since you're bound to ask, yes, I've had opponents stop-and-go a 4-bet on me with KQs unimproved and similar from the SB. Fortunately I wasn't bluffing at the times that this has happened, so I didn't make the mistake of folding, but I mention it as a reason for why I'm unhappy 4-bet bluffing with hands that have some chance of being the best hand. "Typically don't bluff with the best hand" is a valuable lesson I learned while grinding limit hold 'em, and it applies here, too.
So: 4-bet bluff because it adds profit and deception, do it in a way that lets you get away from your hand if your opponent shoves, do it versus opponents that you have reason to believe are 3-betting light often, do it with hands that you can't otherwise profitably continue with and do it with a range of hands that you've decided on before you are even dealt the cards.
And do it because, frankly, big bluffs are fun.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Metagame: Betting the river in no-limit hold 'em
All streets in hold 'em have properties that make them different from the others. Preflop is a matter of setting up a range that you can profitably play versus your opponents and to start setting up the size of the pot you want to play. The flop will define 70% of your final hand and draws are still strong hands. The turn is where the bets get big. And the river is where it's all settled and semibluffs are no more; now it's only a matter of either betting for value or bluffing the other guy out.
Before I get to the meat of this post, I want to make an initial statement: Those of you who know me know that I'm not happy about settling for catch phrases or "conventional wisdom" as guidelines for how to play, and while I've had to concede many of the conventional-wisdom points that I may at one point or another have argued against, I also do occasionally run into a little golden nugget where I find myself able to go against the crowd and inch out a few extra nickles here and there. Being that I'm not exactly a genius, I often find, after doing the work, that some of these strategies and plays that I come up with are employed by very strong players already. Today, I want to bring up one of these plays that, used correctly, might boost your win-rate just a tad.
Betting mediocre hands in position on the river.
I'm not talking about situations where you have QJ and the board reads Q-T-6-2-2 and the pot is small. If you have no reason to believe your opponent is strong (and if the pot is small, there clearly has not been a lot of betting going on) you should of course bet in this situation. No, I'm talking about making a value bet in a big pot, where most people would advice you to check behind to see a showdown. Let me first explain how that works:
$100NL, 100BB stacks. It's folded to you in the cut-off and you raise to $4 with JJ. A solid regular calls in the small blind and the big blind folds. The flop comes T-9-4, twotone. Your opponent leads out with $6. His range is pretty wide here, ranging from small unimproved pocket pairs to various draws, and of course two pair and sets. Calling is an option, but there are quite a few cards that would make the turn very difficult to play (overs and cards that complete the draws) so making a "cheap" raise to, say $15, is not a bad idea, hoping to either end the hand now or at least make him define his hand a bit better. He calls.
The turn is an offsuit queen, which is a bad card for you. If he has KQ, QJ, KJ or J8 (the latter being a fairly unlikely holding for him to coldcall preflop) he just drew out. He checks, and now it may be a good idea to check yourself. Another bet will push you over the commitment threshold and you'd hate it if he checkraised you all-in since folding means that your forfeiting a lot of equity with your second pair and open-ended straight draw. So you check.
The river bricks off with a deuce. Your opponent thinks for awhile and then checks. Here is where many would check behind to get a showdown, with the thinking that he's not very likely to call with a worse hand and he's also definitely not folding a better hand. That's what conventional wisdom tells you.
Now, I often - mostly - check behind here. But there's a case to be made for occasionally betting your jacks here, and that's the case I'm making today:
If the only hands you bet on the river are very strong hands or complete bluffs, then your range is polarized. Your opponent can look at his own hand, decide if it can beat a bluff and then look at the pot odds to determine if he should call. When people have polarized ranges, playing the river is actually fairly simple. If a monster is unlikely, then by power of deduction, a bluff must be likely, and I can make a bluff-catching call on the river. Let's look at that board again, and see how many different monsters I can have:
T-9-4-Q-2.
I can have KJ. I can have 22, 44, 99, TT and QQ. I could also have KK and AA. Together, these hands (combinatorically) make up 27 hands. My opening range in the cut-off is about 25% of my hands, and it's not difficult to come up with more than 27 combinations of those hands that I might try to take it down with on this river, like 87, J8, 55-88, K7s, etc. If my opponents can fold a hand like JT to a bet, then I'm in good shape to bluff. However, a strong player will know if my range is polarized, and is actually quite likely to snap my bluff off with a hand like JT.
This is why occasionally betting with JJ (and QJ and KQ) and similar hands in this spot is good, because it makes your hand much, much harder to read. And when you're harder to read, they will more often make mistakes. Sure, sometimes they will call you with QJ and you will feel like you flushed that final bet down the drain. But this is also a meta-game strategy, meaning that if you can get away with a few more bluffs because they're no longer super-excited to snap off a river bet with fourth pair, then this will more than make up for it. Even if your hand is only 40% to win the times that your opponent calls, there's still a fairly good shot that you can make up for that in future hands if your range is wider and he's more liable to make mistakes.
Remember, your target audience for this play consists of solid regulars. These are players who take notes and who you will presumably play against often. Don't do this versus weak players (although in many of those cases you should bet entirely for value, but that's another story).
An argument against betting is that an aggressive opponent, which solid regulars tend to be, may check/raise bluff you. While this is true, there are some factors in this setting that lessens the likelyhood of that. Specifically, if he thinks your range is polarized then he must not think there are many perks to raising. You can have a monster, in which case he just got trapped, or you can have a complete bluff, which he will often beat even by just calling. Furthermore, since the pot is already big, it's protected. You and I know that it isn't (and that you will almost certainly fold if he check/raise shoves) but he doesn't know that we feel that way.
Another consideration is that when he calls and it goes to showdown, he will often note that you're value betting thin on the river. A really strong player will use this information to make check/raise bluffs a more prominent river weapon against you. This is why you should not do this often; most of the time when you bet on the river, it should be a bluff or a monster. Just occasionally, throw in a half-pot-sized bet with a hand that has showdown value but can still be considered thin.
All things in moderation.
Before I get to the meat of this post, I want to make an initial statement: Those of you who know me know that I'm not happy about settling for catch phrases or "conventional wisdom" as guidelines for how to play, and while I've had to concede many of the conventional-wisdom points that I may at one point or another have argued against, I also do occasionally run into a little golden nugget where I find myself able to go against the crowd and inch out a few extra nickles here and there. Being that I'm not exactly a genius, I often find, after doing the work, that some of these strategies and plays that I come up with are employed by very strong players already. Today, I want to bring up one of these plays that, used correctly, might boost your win-rate just a tad.
Betting mediocre hands in position on the river.
I'm not talking about situations where you have QJ and the board reads Q-T-6-2-2 and the pot is small. If you have no reason to believe your opponent is strong (and if the pot is small, there clearly has not been a lot of betting going on) you should of course bet in this situation. No, I'm talking about making a value bet in a big pot, where most people would advice you to check behind to see a showdown. Let me first explain how that works:
$100NL, 100BB stacks. It's folded to you in the cut-off and you raise to $4 with JJ. A solid regular calls in the small blind and the big blind folds. The flop comes T-9-4, twotone. Your opponent leads out with $6. His range is pretty wide here, ranging from small unimproved pocket pairs to various draws, and of course two pair and sets. Calling is an option, but there are quite a few cards that would make the turn very difficult to play (overs and cards that complete the draws) so making a "cheap" raise to, say $15, is not a bad idea, hoping to either end the hand now or at least make him define his hand a bit better. He calls.
The turn is an offsuit queen, which is a bad card for you. If he has KQ, QJ, KJ or J8 (the latter being a fairly unlikely holding for him to coldcall preflop) he just drew out. He checks, and now it may be a good idea to check yourself. Another bet will push you over the commitment threshold and you'd hate it if he checkraised you all-in since folding means that your forfeiting a lot of equity with your second pair and open-ended straight draw. So you check.
The river bricks off with a deuce. Your opponent thinks for awhile and then checks. Here is where many would check behind to get a showdown, with the thinking that he's not very likely to call with a worse hand and he's also definitely not folding a better hand. That's what conventional wisdom tells you.
Now, I often - mostly - check behind here. But there's a case to be made for occasionally betting your jacks here, and that's the case I'm making today:
If the only hands you bet on the river are very strong hands or complete bluffs, then your range is polarized. Your opponent can look at his own hand, decide if it can beat a bluff and then look at the pot odds to determine if he should call. When people have polarized ranges, playing the river is actually fairly simple. If a monster is unlikely, then by power of deduction, a bluff must be likely, and I can make a bluff-catching call on the river. Let's look at that board again, and see how many different monsters I can have:
T-9-4-Q-2.
I can have KJ. I can have 22, 44, 99, TT and QQ. I could also have KK and AA. Together, these hands (combinatorically) make up 27 hands. My opening range in the cut-off is about 25% of my hands, and it's not difficult to come up with more than 27 combinations of those hands that I might try to take it down with on this river, like 87, J8, 55-88, K7s, etc. If my opponents can fold a hand like JT to a bet, then I'm in good shape to bluff. However, a strong player will know if my range is polarized, and is actually quite likely to snap my bluff off with a hand like JT.
This is why occasionally betting with JJ (and QJ and KQ) and similar hands in this spot is good, because it makes your hand much, much harder to read. And when you're harder to read, they will more often make mistakes. Sure, sometimes they will call you with QJ and you will feel like you flushed that final bet down the drain. But this is also a meta-game strategy, meaning that if you can get away with a few more bluffs because they're no longer super-excited to snap off a river bet with fourth pair, then this will more than make up for it. Even if your hand is only 40% to win the times that your opponent calls, there's still a fairly good shot that you can make up for that in future hands if your range is wider and he's more liable to make mistakes.
Remember, your target audience for this play consists of solid regulars. These are players who take notes and who you will presumably play against often. Don't do this versus weak players (although in many of those cases you should bet entirely for value, but that's another story).
An argument against betting is that an aggressive opponent, which solid regulars tend to be, may check/raise bluff you. While this is true, there are some factors in this setting that lessens the likelyhood of that. Specifically, if he thinks your range is polarized then he must not think there are many perks to raising. You can have a monster, in which case he just got trapped, or you can have a complete bluff, which he will often beat even by just calling. Furthermore, since the pot is already big, it's protected. You and I know that it isn't (and that you will almost certainly fold if he check/raise shoves) but he doesn't know that we feel that way.
Another consideration is that when he calls and it goes to showdown, he will often note that you're value betting thin on the river. A really strong player will use this information to make check/raise bluffs a more prominent river weapon against you. This is why you should not do this often; most of the time when you bet on the river, it should be a bluff or a monster. Just occasionally, throw in a half-pot-sized bet with a hand that has showdown value but can still be considered thin.
All things in moderation.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Bet/folding versus check/calling
Getting better at poker is often - mostly - a slow and gradual process. Some steps are small and some are big. I was recently reminded of one of my big steps; a very "aha!" moment I had: When I realized why sometimes bet/folding the river was better than check/calling.
On the surface, it's counterintuitive. Let's say that I can either put in $20 myself on the river, but fold if my opponent raises, or I can check and call $20 if he bets. "Either way," I told myself, "I've put in $20, but in the second case I get to see a showdown. How could the first option possibly be better?"
It can be, and it often is. It all comes down to ranges. I expertly made a little illustration to help, well, illustrate the point (click on it to see a larger version):
The bar represents, from left to right, our opponent's range. The farther to the right, the stronger his hand. On a A64-K-J board, for instance, QT (the nuts) would be all the way to the right, and 75 would be all the way to the left. The nuts vs. absolute trash. Let's keep the A64-K-J example and run with it for awhile. And let's give ourselves A-K.
The colors represent what the player is likely to do and the respective outcome for us. In the first bar, we bet out. If we ignore our opponent's trash in the beginning, we see that there's a pretty wide green bar in the middle. That green is the range that he's willing to call with that we beat. It includes hands like AQ, perhaps KJ and probably other top-pair type hands. Farther to the right, we have the red hands - the ones that beat us. This consists of sets and straights. He will most likely raise any hand that beats us.
If you notice the small red part in the beginning, it's because I'm allowing for my opponent to sometimes bluff raise us, and for all intents and purposes, we can say that he will do that with the very worst of his hands. Maybe 5-7, that missed its open-ended straight draw, will take a stab on the river.
Here's what to take home from this illustration: The green parts are where we make a bet. The red parts are where we lose a bet. The idea is to maximize the size of GREEN minus RED.
... and that brings us to the second bar, where we instead of betting out decide to check and call. This time, our opponent's bluffs (at the very left of his range) will be called and are therefore no longer red; they're green. We make money when he bluffs. But then comes an alarmingly long stretch of black; black meaning that we didn't make anything. He just checked behind and we won the pot with the best hand. Most players are careful on the river; they don't want to risk more money with a marginal hand. They might call to see if you're bluffing or just to see if their hand was good enough, but if they could choose, they'd prefer not to put money in. That's where the black stretch comes from.
Then there's some green stretch farther to the right; his stronger hands that you can still beat. Ace-jack comes to mind. And of course, all the way to the right are the same monsters as in the first bar, that he will surely bet for value when you check to him. Again, they're red, and again, you lost $20 to them.
But, and here's the whole point, note how much bigger the GREEN minus RED is in the top bar.
This is why bet/folding is such a powerful weapon. It forces opponents to pay to see a showdown when they'd rather not, and it's a hugely profitable strategy as long as this particular player isn't prone to bluffing too much - thus making the red stretch on the left bigger - compared to how much he's calling - thus shrinking his green stretch in the middle.
Like I said, this was one of my greatest "aha!"-moments.
On the surface, it's counterintuitive. Let's say that I can either put in $20 myself on the river, but fold if my opponent raises, or I can check and call $20 if he bets. "Either way," I told myself, "I've put in $20, but in the second case I get to see a showdown. How could the first option possibly be better?"
It can be, and it often is. It all comes down to ranges. I expertly made a little illustration to help, well, illustrate the point (click on it to see a larger version):
The bar represents, from left to right, our opponent's range. The farther to the right, the stronger his hand. On a A64-K-J board, for instance, QT (the nuts) would be all the way to the right, and 75 would be all the way to the left. The nuts vs. absolute trash. Let's keep the A64-K-J example and run with it for awhile. And let's give ourselves A-K.The colors represent what the player is likely to do and the respective outcome for us. In the first bar, we bet out. If we ignore our opponent's trash in the beginning, we see that there's a pretty wide green bar in the middle. That green is the range that he's willing to call with that we beat. It includes hands like AQ, perhaps KJ and probably other top-pair type hands. Farther to the right, we have the red hands - the ones that beat us. This consists of sets and straights. He will most likely raise any hand that beats us.
If you notice the small red part in the beginning, it's because I'm allowing for my opponent to sometimes bluff raise us, and for all intents and purposes, we can say that he will do that with the very worst of his hands. Maybe 5-7, that missed its open-ended straight draw, will take a stab on the river.
Here's what to take home from this illustration: The green parts are where we make a bet. The red parts are where we lose a bet. The idea is to maximize the size of GREEN minus RED.
... and that brings us to the second bar, where we instead of betting out decide to check and call. This time, our opponent's bluffs (at the very left of his range) will be called and are therefore no longer red; they're green. We make money when he bluffs. But then comes an alarmingly long stretch of black; black meaning that we didn't make anything. He just checked behind and we won the pot with the best hand. Most players are careful on the river; they don't want to risk more money with a marginal hand. They might call to see if you're bluffing or just to see if their hand was good enough, but if they could choose, they'd prefer not to put money in. That's where the black stretch comes from.
Then there's some green stretch farther to the right; his stronger hands that you can still beat. Ace-jack comes to mind. And of course, all the way to the right are the same monsters as in the first bar, that he will surely bet for value when you check to him. Again, they're red, and again, you lost $20 to them.
But, and here's the whole point, note how much bigger the GREEN minus RED is in the top bar.
This is why bet/folding is such a powerful weapon. It forces opponents to pay to see a showdown when they'd rather not, and it's a hugely profitable strategy as long as this particular player isn't prone to bluffing too much - thus making the red stretch on the left bigger - compared to how much he's calling - thus shrinking his green stretch in the middle.
Like I said, this was one of my greatest "aha!"-moments.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Bluffing with weak hands
ChuckTs made a post on the private Stoxpoker forums a few days back where he asked about bluffing for stacks with an ace-high type hand and if this was a good time to try it. This is what the hand looked like (I hope he doesn't mind me writing about it here):
Poker Stars, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: $99.20
MP: $101.50
CO: $132.55
BTN: $138.35
SB: $99
Hero (BB): $149.95
UTG: $122.10
Pre-Flop: A
8
dealt to Hero (BB)
5 folds, SB raises to $4, Hero calls $3
Flop: ($8) T T
9 (2 Players)
SB bets $6, Hero calls $6
Turn: ($20) 2
(2 Players)
SB bets $12, Hero raises to $27, SB calls $15
River: ($74) 5 (2 Players)
SB checks, Hero bets $63
Now, my reply in the thread got no responses. I'm going to guess it was for one of three reasons:
Which is it? Well, who knows. But #3 seems unlikely, so instead of just reposting my reply I'll try to rephrase it a bit and make the logic a bit easier to follow. I'm also going to use a much simpler example to illustrate the reasoning. In fact, I'm going to invent a game just for this purpose.
The game works like this: Both players ante up (let's say $.50 for an initial pot of $1), and then both players draw a card from their own 13-card (deuce to ace) deck. Since they have individual decks, both players can have the same card. Once the deal is done, the person starting (let's call him the "button") can either bet or check. If the button bets, his opponent may fold. If the button bets and his opponent calls, they go to showdown. If the button checks, they go to showdown. Whoever has the highest card will take the money in the pot. No raising is allowed.
So in an example deal, your opponent draws a trey, you - with the blind - draw a card, you bet and he will almost certainly fold. The only card he can beat is if you drew a deuce and bluffed, so he doesn't stand much of a chance of winning. Easy, right?
So how should you attack this game? Clearly you should always bet your aces. They're the nuts and you can't lose. Which other cards should you bet? There's a game theory optimal answer to that, but instead of taking the long way to get there, let's instead stipulate that our opponent will only call a bet with a nine or better. Which hands should you bet?
Clearly you should bet your aces. There's no question about betting the nuts.
But should you bet your eights?
No, most certainly not! You stand nothing to gain from this. Any better hand will call, and any worse hand will fold. When you have the best hand, you will win the exact same amount of money as if you had checked, but half the time you will instead lose an extra bet instead of saving it.
Should you bet a deuce? Yes!
It comes down to this: Your opponent will fold more than half of his possible hands when you bet, so regardless of what you have, you will take the pot a little more than half of the times that you bet. A deuce can never win, so if you check it you've lost. If you bet it, more than 50% of the time he will fold and you will win back your blind. If you check it, you will always lose. The key here is that you gain from making this bet because he will fold the winning hand more than half the time and you're about even money on the bet.
You shouldn't bet the best of your bad hands, but you should bet the worst of your bad hands. This is because the value of the bluff comes from your opponent folding the best hand. This doesn't happen if you bet an eight, but it can certainly happen if you bet the deuce.
Now we return to the original hand, and hopefully you can see that the same reasoning applies. Here, Chuck has an ace-high hand. We can separate his opponent's hands into these three categories:
1. Busted draws,
2. Trips-or-better,
3. Mediocre hands who floated the turn.
Since he's getting about even money on the river bet (a little better, but play along) he needs his opponent to fold a better hand about half the time. His opponent is probably never folding trips-or-better. He's certainly folding his busted draws, but we could already beat the busted draws. And he would fold his mediocre hands if he's somewhat tight.
We can beat each hand in group #1 (the busted draws). So for Chuck's bluff to be profitable, we need group #3 (mediocre hands) to be bigger than group #2 (monsters). It's a somewhat simple exercise with PokerStove to find out if this is the case. But what I tried to explain in the original thread, and that which is the point of this post, is that if our hand had been weaker - say 87o - then a river bet would have gone from probably -EV, to definitely +EV, because suddenly we no longer beat a busted draw! Instead of needing just group #3 to be bigger than group #2, we make money if the total sum of both group #1 and #3 is greater than his monsters.
So, perhaps counterintuitively, betting A8 is a losing play, but betting 87 isn't. Weird, huh.
Did I make sense this time? I hope so. Comment, please.
/FP
Oh, and an addendum: Playing limit, this is a lesson that is learned pretty early on. Against everyone but the worst of calling stations (who might show down king-high) good limit players will check this river every time. Raising the turn and then checking the river with a mediocre hand (but one that has some chance of winning) is sometimes called a "free showdown play" and is pretty common in limit.
Poker Stars, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 7 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
UTG+1: $99.20
MP: $101.50
CO: $132.55
BTN: $138.35
SB: $99
Hero (BB): $149.95
UTG: $122.10
Pre-Flop: A
8 dealt to Hero (BB)5 folds, SB raises to $4, Hero calls $3
Flop: ($8) T
T 9 (2 Players)SB bets $6, Hero calls $6
Turn: ($20) 2
(2 Players)SB bets $12, Hero raises to $27, SB calls $15
River: ($74) 5
(2 Players)SB checks, Hero bets $63
Now, my reply in the thread got no responses. I'm going to guess it was for one of three reasons:
- Nobody understood what I tried to say.
- I'm completely wrong and everybody wants to save me the embarrassment by ignoring the post.
- I'm so completely right that no more posts are needed.
Which is it? Well, who knows. But #3 seems unlikely, so instead of just reposting my reply I'll try to rephrase it a bit and make the logic a bit easier to follow. I'm also going to use a much simpler example to illustrate the reasoning. In fact, I'm going to invent a game just for this purpose.
The game works like this: Both players ante up (let's say $.50 for an initial pot of $1), and then both players draw a card from their own 13-card (deuce to ace) deck. Since they have individual decks, both players can have the same card. Once the deal is done, the person starting (let's call him the "button") can either bet or check. If the button bets, his opponent may fold. If the button bets and his opponent calls, they go to showdown. If the button checks, they go to showdown. Whoever has the highest card will take the money in the pot. No raising is allowed.
So in an example deal, your opponent draws a trey, you - with the blind - draw a card, you bet and he will almost certainly fold. The only card he can beat is if you drew a deuce and bluffed, so he doesn't stand much of a chance of winning. Easy, right?
So how should you attack this game? Clearly you should always bet your aces. They're the nuts and you can't lose. Which other cards should you bet? There's a game theory optimal answer to that, but instead of taking the long way to get there, let's instead stipulate that our opponent will only call a bet with a nine or better. Which hands should you bet?
Clearly you should bet your aces. There's no question about betting the nuts.
But should you bet your eights?
No, most certainly not! You stand nothing to gain from this. Any better hand will call, and any worse hand will fold. When you have the best hand, you will win the exact same amount of money as if you had checked, but half the time you will instead lose an extra bet instead of saving it.
Should you bet a deuce? Yes!
It comes down to this: Your opponent will fold more than half of his possible hands when you bet, so regardless of what you have, you will take the pot a little more than half of the times that you bet. A deuce can never win, so if you check it you've lost. If you bet it, more than 50% of the time he will fold and you will win back your blind. If you check it, you will always lose. The key here is that you gain from making this bet because he will fold the winning hand more than half the time and you're about even money on the bet.
You shouldn't bet the best of your bad hands, but you should bet the worst of your bad hands. This is because the value of the bluff comes from your opponent folding the best hand. This doesn't happen if you bet an eight, but it can certainly happen if you bet the deuce.
Now we return to the original hand, and hopefully you can see that the same reasoning applies. Here, Chuck has an ace-high hand. We can separate his opponent's hands into these three categories:
1. Busted draws,
2. Trips-or-better,
3. Mediocre hands who floated the turn.
Since he's getting about even money on the river bet (a little better, but play along) he needs his opponent to fold a better hand about half the time. His opponent is probably never folding trips-or-better. He's certainly folding his busted draws, but we could already beat the busted draws. And he would fold his mediocre hands if he's somewhat tight.
We can beat each hand in group #1 (the busted draws). So for Chuck's bluff to be profitable, we need group #3 (mediocre hands) to be bigger than group #2 (monsters). It's a somewhat simple exercise with PokerStove to find out if this is the case. But what I tried to explain in the original thread, and that which is the point of this post, is that if our hand had been weaker - say 87o - then a river bet would have gone from probably -EV, to definitely +EV, because suddenly we no longer beat a busted draw! Instead of needing just group #3 to be bigger than group #2, we make money if the total sum of both group #1 and #3 is greater than his monsters.
So, perhaps counterintuitively, betting A8 is a losing play, but betting 87 isn't. Weird, huh.
Did I make sense this time? I hope so. Comment, please.
/FP
Oh, and an addendum: Playing limit, this is a lesson that is learned pretty early on. Against everyone but the worst of calling stations (who might show down king-high) good limit players will check this river every time. Raising the turn and then checking the river with a mediocre hand (but one that has some chance of winning) is sometimes called a "free showdown play" and is pretty common in limit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
