![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That was a bad card
Mar. 4th, 2010 12:29 pmI played a 750-hand session last night on Party without winning a showdown, which was a bit dispiriting. In fact I only lost just half a buy-in, which shows how tight the games were. They were equally tight on Stars, and I dropped about $260 on the evening, playing a ridiculously high 1,700 hands. I lost a similar amount on Monday, but that bothered me far less, because one hand was set under set and another was a flopped set against a flopped straight. In both cases the money goes in on the flop and, well, that's that.
Last night was more disturbing, partly because I spotted myself getting bored. My pre-flop-raise percentage crawled up to 15%, and all of a sudden I was the "Action Jack" of the game. If there are a couple of loosies floating around you can get away with this, but in last-night's tale of woe, I stood out like a sore thumb, and it was no surprise that I was quickly getting three-betted significantly more often.
The "running bad" part of this was that, of course, I was only getting three-betted when I had a hand that I had to give up, whereas when I had Aces or Kings I picked up the blinds and nothing else.
In fact, I'm not sure that my 16%/15% style is that bad -- I just need to get action on the right hands! The one hand where I really got it going was when I managed to drag opponent all-in for $130 with QQ vs ATo on a board of 7894 where my Queen flush draw blocked his Ten flush draw. That still gave him 11 outs and an Ace predictably appeared on the river. In about five other cases I called small-stack re-shoves rather light (probably with an average EV of 28% to 30%) and failed to hit any of them. The smallness off my loss indicates the large number of hands I was winning without showdown.
+++++++++++++
Which kind of brings me onto my thoughts on "that was a bad card" when the turn totally screws your game plan.
How do you define a "bad card"? I remember a recent post from Hugo Langton about a live young whiz-kid who got caught out in the Vic. The kid had KK and the telling phrase from Hugo was "the Ace on the turn slowed him down".
This betrays a common fault among poker players in seeing a "bad card" as one that is bad for them. That's just not the right way to look at it. As I recall reading at least a decade ago, and probably more than two, "if a scare card comes, it probably scares your opponent as much as it scares you".
IOTW, a scare card is no reason on its own to slow down. Let's take some examples: In all cases you are in MP3 in a $1-$2 game and have raised, and opponent, a reasonable TAG, has flat-called from the button, with no other players in action.
You: TT
Board: 762 Double-suited
Pot = $15. Effective stacks $194.
You bet $8. Opponent calls. (sometimes termed "an aggressive call" -- which I think merits a LOL)
Turn: Ace, not completing the flush draw.
So many players will check here, but this is plain wrong. Sure, if opponent has an Ace, he isn't folding, and if opponent has flopped a set, he isn't folding. but that is not sufficient reason to "slow down". Because AK is a far more likely holding in your hand than is Ax in opponent's hand. So:
You bet $31 (pot). Opponent folds.
What if opponent flat-calls? Well, I'd put in a pot bet on the river (any river) about 15% of the time, and check-fold the rest.
example 2
You: AKo
Board: Q94 two hearts
You CB half the pot, opponent flat calls.
Turn: 8 of hearts.
You: All of the above applies, but more so. This is a great turn card for you, not a bad one. If you bet pot here opponent is in a horribly sticky position no matter what he holds (unless its the nut flush). This is a better situation than the one above because you are far more likely to get opponent to fold a hand that's ahead. And, if he calls, you are likely not in a way ahead way behind situation, probably with six outs to win. Opponent's only "correct" play with top pair-medium kicker is to raise, but their aren't many players who can find this line.
((By way of an aside, I am adopting a frequent raise/fold strategy on the flop with top pair-any kicker to defend against this kind of situation from competent Tag continuation-bettors. I haven't yet summoned up the courage or the player analysis to start using it on the turn)).
example 3
Now, this is a real example of a bad turn card.
You: KK
Board, 762 rainbow
You bet half pot, opponent calls.
Turn, Ace, completing the rainbow.
Ugh. Now, why "ugh"? Because opponent now will find it very hard to make a mistake. And this is the key point. A bad turn card for you, the aggressor, is a card that makes it less likely that your opponent will make a mistake, no matter what you now do. In this example, opponent cannot call you with a hand that a pair of kings beats, and can't really fold a hand that a pair of kings loses to. Similarly, if you check, he is likely to check behind with a hand that you beat, and to bet with a hand that you don't. In addition, you have only two cards to draw to.
So (and this appears counterintuitive), you prefer to have 88 to KK when the board goes 7 -6 - 2 - A. You want the KK rather than the 88 when the board goes 7 - 6 - 2 - J.
These are the subtle parts of the game which make up "running good" and "running bad" that do not show up in any stats.
Now, you can see how all of these points actually apply far less in 6-max -- it's "wasted knowledge" as it were. The difference between your 88 and your KK diminishes, because opponent will be more likely to make a mistake when an Ace comes on the turn in 6-max (because he needs to gamble more) and less likely to make a mistake when you bet the turn on a scare card (because, once again, he needs to gamble more). In full ring against Tags, a major strength is to exploit their aversion to big gambles -- they know that getting just one of those wrong can wipe out their bread-and-butter small-gamble wins for the day. So they tend to walk away from them. In 6-max against Tags, opponent cannot afford to have such an aversion to a big gamble (because he pays blinds much more frequently and because more opponents will be trying to take down the pot on the turn). This makes a call much more likely, thus making the Bet on the turn on the strength of the card scaring your opponent is not so valid. In simple terms is "sure, that card scares me, but I can't afford to fold if I want to be a long-term winner". In full ruing it's "that card scares me, and I can afford to fold if I want to remain a long-term winner".
___________________
Last night was more disturbing, partly because I spotted myself getting bored. My pre-flop-raise percentage crawled up to 15%, and all of a sudden I was the "Action Jack" of the game. If there are a couple of loosies floating around you can get away with this, but in last-night's tale of woe, I stood out like a sore thumb, and it was no surprise that I was quickly getting three-betted significantly more often.
The "running bad" part of this was that, of course, I was only getting three-betted when I had a hand that I had to give up, whereas when I had Aces or Kings I picked up the blinds and nothing else.
In fact, I'm not sure that my 16%/15% style is that bad -- I just need to get action on the right hands! The one hand where I really got it going was when I managed to drag opponent all-in for $130 with QQ vs ATo on a board of 7894 where my Queen flush draw blocked his Ten flush draw. That still gave him 11 outs and an Ace predictably appeared on the river. In about five other cases I called small-stack re-shoves rather light (probably with an average EV of 28% to 30%) and failed to hit any of them. The smallness off my loss indicates the large number of hands I was winning without showdown.
+++++++++++++
Which kind of brings me onto my thoughts on "that was a bad card" when the turn totally screws your game plan.
How do you define a "bad card"? I remember a recent post from Hugo Langton about a live young whiz-kid who got caught out in the Vic. The kid had KK and the telling phrase from Hugo was "the Ace on the turn slowed him down".
This betrays a common fault among poker players in seeing a "bad card" as one that is bad for them. That's just not the right way to look at it. As I recall reading at least a decade ago, and probably more than two, "if a scare card comes, it probably scares your opponent as much as it scares you".
IOTW, a scare card is no reason on its own to slow down. Let's take some examples: In all cases you are in MP3 in a $1-$2 game and have raised, and opponent, a reasonable TAG, has flat-called from the button, with no other players in action.
You: TT
Board: 762 Double-suited
Pot = $15. Effective stacks $194.
You bet $8. Opponent calls. (sometimes termed "an aggressive call" -- which I think merits a LOL)
Turn: Ace, not completing the flush draw.
So many players will check here, but this is plain wrong. Sure, if opponent has an Ace, he isn't folding, and if opponent has flopped a set, he isn't folding. but that is not sufficient reason to "slow down". Because AK is a far more likely holding in your hand than is Ax in opponent's hand. So:
You bet $31 (pot). Opponent folds.
What if opponent flat-calls? Well, I'd put in a pot bet on the river (any river) about 15% of the time, and check-fold the rest.
example 2
You: AKo
Board: Q94 two hearts
You CB half the pot, opponent flat calls.
Turn: 8 of hearts.
You: All of the above applies, but more so. This is a great turn card for you, not a bad one. If you bet pot here opponent is in a horribly sticky position no matter what he holds (unless its the nut flush). This is a better situation than the one above because you are far more likely to get opponent to fold a hand that's ahead. And, if he calls, you are likely not in a way ahead way behind situation, probably with six outs to win. Opponent's only "correct" play with top pair-medium kicker is to raise, but their aren't many players who can find this line.
((By way of an aside, I am adopting a frequent raise/fold strategy on the flop with top pair-any kicker to defend against this kind of situation from competent Tag continuation-bettors. I haven't yet summoned up the courage or the player analysis to start using it on the turn)).
example 3
Now, this is a real example of a bad turn card.
You: KK
Board, 762 rainbow
You bet half pot, opponent calls.
Turn, Ace, completing the rainbow.
Ugh. Now, why "ugh"? Because opponent now will find it very hard to make a mistake. And this is the key point. A bad turn card for you, the aggressor, is a card that makes it less likely that your opponent will make a mistake, no matter what you now do. In this example, opponent cannot call you with a hand that a pair of kings beats, and can't really fold a hand that a pair of kings loses to. Similarly, if you check, he is likely to check behind with a hand that you beat, and to bet with a hand that you don't. In addition, you have only two cards to draw to.
So (and this appears counterintuitive), you prefer to have 88 to KK when the board goes 7 -6 - 2 - A. You want the KK rather than the 88 when the board goes 7 - 6 - 2 - J.
These are the subtle parts of the game which make up "running good" and "running bad" that do not show up in any stats.
Now, you can see how all of these points actually apply far less in 6-max -- it's "wasted knowledge" as it were. The difference between your 88 and your KK diminishes, because opponent will be more likely to make a mistake when an Ace comes on the turn in 6-max (because he needs to gamble more) and less likely to make a mistake when you bet the turn on a scare card (because, once again, he needs to gamble more). In full ring against Tags, a major strength is to exploit their aversion to big gambles -- they know that getting just one of those wrong can wipe out their bread-and-butter small-gamble wins for the day. So they tend to walk away from them. In 6-max against Tags, opponent cannot afford to have such an aversion to a big gamble (because he pays blinds much more frequently and because more opponents will be trying to take down the pot on the turn). This makes a call much more likely, thus making the Bet on the turn on the strength of the card scaring your opponent is not so valid. In simple terms is "sure, that card scares me, but I can't afford to fold if I want to be a long-term winner". In full ruing it's "that card scares me, and I can afford to fold if I want to remain a long-term winner".
___________________
