Some poker thoughts
Aug. 18th, 2006 09:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI made a misjudgement in the baby NL game tonight. Already I appear to have got into a mode of "well, that's obvious", when to my opponent it may not be obvious.
In this case, MP3 raised to 1.50 (blinds 25-50) with 70 in front of him (these are dollars, btw) and I called with QJS. I have 51 in front of me. Then the CO (40 in front of him) raises to 3. Original raiser flat calls and I call.
So, what ranges do we have for our opponents? I don't like the mini-raise from my LHO, whereas the flat call of the mini-reraise from RHO would seem to indicate AK or maybe a mediumish pair like 99 or TT. 9.50 in pot
Flop comes J54 one spade, so I have top pair, bad kicker. RHO bets 2, which looks like a bet to control the size of the pot. I'm tempted to raise here to see what LHO is all about, but these guys are passive and AA might be worried (although he shouldn't be).
I flat call. LHO flat calls. $15 in pot
Next card is the 4 of spades, giving my QJs top pair, mediocre (well, bad) kicker, and a flush draw. Now, RHO bets $2.
Well, this HAS to be an attempt to control the size of the pot with something like AK or (more likely) TT/99. If I raise here a modest amount I might be able to get to see the rest of the hand for free. So, I raise to $7, which LHO promptly calls. Bollocks, that would appear to have him nailed on for AA. And RHO calls as well. $36 in pot.
At this point, I am simply praying for a spade or a Jack or a Queen. It doesn't come. Instead we have some poxy red deuce. RHO checks, I check and LHO now springs to life with a $10 bet. RHO calls after some thought and I chuck my hand away.
LHO shows the expected AA and RHO shows KK.
Well, the whole thing had me kind of puzzled. The $2 bet from RHO on the turn into a $15 pot prices me in virtually no matter what I have, which was why I decided he could not have KK. But, well, he did have KK, which made my $5 raise a mistake. I could probably have got away with flat-calling and saved myself $5.
Then again, I get 2-1 for that $5, and I do have 12 outs, so it's not THAT enormously negative EV. But, an irritating misjudgement nevertheless, because it was my old bugbear of giving the opposition too much credit.
++++++++++
I'm still working on how to play this frequently seen hand of you (having raised in middle position) vs a defending blind and a raggy flop of (say) 953 rainbow. He checks, you continuation bet and he raises. You have AK. A rag comes on the turn. He bets and you fold. He might well have bluffed you out here.
There's a number of counter-measures to this. One is that you check the AK on the flop and just fold when he bets the turn. Another is that you bet the flop and then three-bet his check-raise. And a third that I am tinkering with is this. You check behind, and he bets the turn, at which point you raise him, because this time you checked behind with KK.
As soon as opponents know that there is a possibility that you will check behind with the overpair as well as with AK/AQ, their bet on the turn begins to look a lot dodgier.
I'm still thinking about the numbers on this (what percentage of times you check behind with the overpair, what percentage of times you continuation bet with the AK/AQ on a rag board) and what type of players you could try this against. But it's a third string to the bow apart from the "three-bet" and "check/fold". There is a fourth string, the check-call all the way to the end just with AK, but I'm not happy about that one, apart from the fact that it would at least give you a proper violin.
++++++
Played a few rounds of HORSE. Lost $40. Conclusion. I suck at new games. But then, I knew that anyway, so why in heaven's name do I play them? I have no instinct for what is a good hand, no instinct for when I should raise, when i should fold and when I should call. Sure, the completely good hands and the completely bad hands are obvious, but with anything marginal, I am lost. Razz is OK, but the Seven Stud 8ob and the omaha are impossible. Still, nowhere near the $350 Royal Hold'em disaster.
Give me three years, and I'll be pissing the $10-$20 Mixed Game.
Except that it probably won't exist by then.
In this case, MP3 raised to 1.50 (blinds 25-50) with 70 in front of him (these are dollars, btw) and I called with QJS. I have 51 in front of me. Then the CO (40 in front of him) raises to 3. Original raiser flat calls and I call.
So, what ranges do we have for our opponents? I don't like the mini-raise from my LHO, whereas the flat call of the mini-reraise from RHO would seem to indicate AK or maybe a mediumish pair like 99 or TT. 9.50 in pot
Flop comes J54 one spade, so I have top pair, bad kicker. RHO bets 2, which looks like a bet to control the size of the pot. I'm tempted to raise here to see what LHO is all about, but these guys are passive and AA might be worried (although he shouldn't be).
I flat call. LHO flat calls. $15 in pot
Next card is the 4 of spades, giving my QJs top pair, mediocre (well, bad) kicker, and a flush draw. Now, RHO bets $2.
Well, this HAS to be an attempt to control the size of the pot with something like AK or (more likely) TT/99. If I raise here a modest amount I might be able to get to see the rest of the hand for free. So, I raise to $7, which LHO promptly calls. Bollocks, that would appear to have him nailed on for AA. And RHO calls as well. $36 in pot.
At this point, I am simply praying for a spade or a Jack or a Queen. It doesn't come. Instead we have some poxy red deuce. RHO checks, I check and LHO now springs to life with a $10 bet. RHO calls after some thought and I chuck my hand away.
LHO shows the expected AA and RHO shows KK.
Well, the whole thing had me kind of puzzled. The $2 bet from RHO on the turn into a $15 pot prices me in virtually no matter what I have, which was why I decided he could not have KK. But, well, he did have KK, which made my $5 raise a mistake. I could probably have got away with flat-calling and saved myself $5.
Then again, I get 2-1 for that $5, and I do have 12 outs, so it's not THAT enormously negative EV. But, an irritating misjudgement nevertheless, because it was my old bugbear of giving the opposition too much credit.
++++++++++
I'm still working on how to play this frequently seen hand of you (having raised in middle position) vs a defending blind and a raggy flop of (say) 953 rainbow. He checks, you continuation bet and he raises. You have AK. A rag comes on the turn. He bets and you fold. He might well have bluffed you out here.
There's a number of counter-measures to this. One is that you check the AK on the flop and just fold when he bets the turn. Another is that you bet the flop and then three-bet his check-raise. And a third that I am tinkering with is this. You check behind, and he bets the turn, at which point you raise him, because this time you checked behind with KK.
As soon as opponents know that there is a possibility that you will check behind with the overpair as well as with AK/AQ, their bet on the turn begins to look a lot dodgier.
I'm still thinking about the numbers on this (what percentage of times you check behind with the overpair, what percentage of times you continuation bet with the AK/AQ on a rag board) and what type of players you could try this against. But it's a third string to the bow apart from the "three-bet" and "check/fold". There is a fourth string, the check-call all the way to the end just with AK, but I'm not happy about that one, apart from the fact that it would at least give you a proper violin.
++++++
Played a few rounds of HORSE. Lost $40. Conclusion. I suck at new games. But then, I knew that anyway, so why in heaven's name do I play them? I have no instinct for what is a good hand, no instinct for when I should raise, when i should fold and when I should call. Sure, the completely good hands and the completely bad hands are obvious, but with anything marginal, I am lost. Razz is OK, but the Seven Stud 8ob and the omaha are impossible. Still, nowhere near the $350 Royal Hold'em disaster.
Give me three years, and I'll be pissing the $10-$20 Mixed Game.
Except that it probably won't exist by then.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-18 11:54 pm (UTC)gl
dd
no limit
Date: 2006-08-19 12:41 am (UTC)I am going to comment on your first hand with QJs. In the first place you should not call 2 raises with this hand as usually, as was actually the case, there are large pairs out, and your call didn't close the action. Also, that is an implied odds type of hand, and the stacks need to be much deeper to play with that against even one raise often, and especially against two, because the pot will be so big that the only real committal raise you can make with any type of fold equity, will be one that sets you in. However looking to make overpairs laydown with one pair hands or even draws isn't wise without deeper stacks where you can put a bigger decision to them. Note that these comments would also apply to medium and small pocket pairs regarding calling 2 raises. Also, a little trick I use when evaluating hands is when facing a raise to turn the suited hand into an offsuit one and ask myself how I like it. Usually I don't.
As you played it, knowing that they are trying to exercise pot control often won't help you at the lower levels. That is because although they are trying to keep the pot smaller, they are still actually willing to go to the felt with one pair. Obviously a great spot when you have a set though. So when he makes a post oak bet, you should just take the cheap card on the turn, or make the real ballsy move of pushing and praying (for a fold or to hit).
I would suggest to you yet another book for your library if you don't already own it, which is Sklansky and Miller's No Limit Holdem. It won't help you beat the big games, but does provide a solid foundation for someone inexperienced in nl. Also near the end of the year the first of 2 volumes will come out on another nl work from 2+2 for the lower/medium stakes by Miller and a couple good HSNL posters.
BluffThIS!
Re: no limit
Date: 2006-08-19 12:59 am (UTC)I wouldn't have called the reraise with QJs if it hadn't been the mini-reraise. That meant I was paying 1.50 into a 7.50 pot, which I thought (and still think) was good enough. And my pre-flop call DID close the action.
Now, since I've already stated that I should have taken a cheap card on the turn and that this was a misjudgement, we aren't disagreeing there!
Not sure what you mean by "post-oak".
As I think I mentioned before, the odd things about these games is that they are willing to fold with just one pair, (some of them, even an overpair). They are strangely weak-tight for such small stakes (probably to do with the time of day). However, whether I would have got two of them to lay down, I'm not sure. But the stacks were fairly deep for the five dollar raise. Both players had plenty behind (as far as they were concerned). Miller makes the good point that at this level people seem to think in terms of absolute amounts of money.
I don't think that I did anything wrong this hand apart from the raise on the turn (which was why I recounted the hand in the first place). I'm still not quite sure how much these guys even understand pot control. I see some fairly awful plays. I mean, the $2 bet here on the turn is one of them.
The major thing that I have discovered is that you might as well forget implied odds, because I've yet to see someone who hits their flush/dtraight be called down for a sizeable bet. Opponent just folds.
This seems to offer a marvellous opportunity for one of the simpler Hansen style plays - a flat call in position with nothing when the board is something like T95 with two of a suit (and usually the call is relatively cheap). If a "scare" card appears, you get checked to, and you can bet as little as half the pot and take it down.
Unfortunately, I haven't been in a hand where this situation has arisen. :-)
PJ
Re: no limit
Date: 2006-08-19 02:20 am (UTC)It's a sort of weak-means-strong-but-is-trying-to-look-weak type of bet.
The AA min-raise is a common low-stakes meme and exponents should be castrated. It's an invitation to crack them, and I'd probably call as you did with the knowledge that I can stack the idiot if I hit. I think you might need another Spade to call, though. I dunno, it's tricky without having any feel for the players involved. Trouble is, given what they had, how the hell are you going to define your hand without a raise? Since they're donkeys, they could do anything here. And there being two of them also makes the situation difficult.
At the end of the day, you didn't lose much. As for implied odds, I suspect you're right - you need to be up against people who will give you the action to realise those odds. You probably can't factor in the other guy's stack, but with a chanc of being ahead with outs if you're not then you should be able to run with slightly worst than pot odds, given the chance that you can find a bet that will get you paid off if you get there.
I ought to get back into some NLHE, I suspect it'll take a while to get back into the swing of it, though.
Implied odds and draws
Date: 2006-08-19 06:16 am (UTC)Where you really make money off flushes is having the nut flush versus a smaller one, or where you make it on the turn and not the river and someone with a set or a big pair with the flush card is willing to redraw with bad odds to do so. At higher stakes you can use draws to make moves, usually on the turn (after mimicing a slowplay with a set and assuming stacks are deep enough to put a move on), and have outs to hit if you get called and are behind.
Bluff
Re: Implied odds and draws
Date: 2006-08-19 07:48 am (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-08-19 03:08 am (UTC)Interesting though all your analysis is. It is completely pointless in a 50c-$1 no limit game. 90% of your opponents have precisely no clue what they are doing. They are either drunk, having fun or wasting time. So, how can you put someone on a thought when it's about 100-1 they have any logical thought worth mentioning.
You are clearly a talented poker player, move up to a level where all this analysis can be of some use. Namely $5-$10 or higher.
Cheers,
Keith
no subject
Date: 2006-08-19 02:25 pm (UTC)I think you don't quite have the low-NL players right. In the games that I play I seem to have the "I've read a book and I'm trying to build a stake" types, rather than the "let's have a laugh" types.
However, there is a point here that some players mini-raise with Aces, while others mini-raise with ordinary hands. Others (the majority of my weak-tight European opponents) NEVER raise pre-flop, some not even with Aces. They all want to make sure they have the nuts on the flop before anything more than 50 cents goes in.
For this reason, there isn't actually much point getting involved in battles with these people, because I can rob them blind piece by piece with a judicial use of position, almost without looking at my cards at all (in fact, I might ty that as an experiment).
Miller makes the most important point here -- these people are looking at the money as an absolute amount, and they are loath to put any money in above a 50 cents call unless they think they are 80% or so to win it back. The "saddlepoint" of a tentative call appears to be a mini-raise. A raise to three times the big blind generates folds all round.
There are various reasons for me not playing at higher stakes, on which I have expounded at some length. My time will come, I think. I read an interesting cha[pter in Mauboussin on this topic, which touched on a point made by Mr Galloway (referring to "lots of different small pots" rather than looking at my bankroll/wealth overall).
If I put 5% of my bankroll in play/at risk (as recommended by Scott Gallant) everytime I sat down, then I would be playing $600 buy-ins at NL and $15-$30 limit. If I put 5% of my poker winnings in play (some of which has "left the game" but which is easily accessible) then we are talking about $1000 buy in NL and $30-$60 limit. If wwe talk about liquid wealth, then it more than doubles again, and if we are talking about illiquid wealth, I could be playing Chan heads-up. Then again, so could quite a few of the people who read this.
The drawback is, of course, that we would probably get slaughtered.
I have to get some kind of mental "single pot" bankroll concept into play somehow. The logical way to do this is to close down a lot of my accounts and to focus on one. But this would mean giving up my staple bonus/rakeback income (which massively reduces my variance.
I'm slowly building up the Party bankroll (which was my plan at the start of the year, but which has taken longer to come to fruition than intended!) which should enable me to shift up in stakes sooner rather than later. And the cash holding makes the $200/$500 buy-ins Vegas a possibility at NL. This, in fact, is the major reason for my practising online!
PJ