The bet from the blind

[peterbirks]

I'm not one usually to criticise other people's play, but here's an interesting quote from Paul Phillips' experience at the WSOP:

I played my second WSOP event yesterday. I won a few small pots to go to about 6000 and then this hand came up. Four limpers to my big blind, I check 4c5c. 250 in the pot. Flop is KcQc3h. I bet 175 for various reasons, information mostly. I am called by two limpers. Turn is 5h. Now I'm in a bit of a pickle.

I see this time and again in NL and in limit. Players bet out on the flop with a drawing hand "for information". What frequently happens is what happened here. You get callers. A tricky card comes on the flop, and it's you to act again, no better off (in fact, worse off) than you were before.

There are frequently times where it is right to put in a raise because you are certain to "know where you stand" as a result of a call, fold or raise from your opponent. But where there is a reasonable chance that your bet "for information" will gain very little information and will actually make things trickier on the turn, I think that discretion is the better part of valour. After all, what is wrong with checking "for information"?

Comments

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

I assume Phillips doesn't want to play guessing games after checking - would the information he gets should his opponent bet at him be "true" information, or purely induced by his decision to check?

betting from the blind

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Simon, I know that you are a fan of "testing the water" fom early in limit (e.g. the famous J4 in the SB on a flop of something like 2-4-Q rainbow), whereas I have stated quite specifically that I am not. But my point is that here you do not eliminate the guessing games by betting. In a way, things are worse. On flops such as the flop mentioned above, I would, in the face of any other evidence, assume that a bet from the blind was a probe bet on a non-made hand. What am I giving away by flat-calling the flop? Very little.

Therefore the bet out from the blind elicits no information. If the check also elicits no information, the only argument I can see in favour of the bet out is the, I think incorrect and outdated, view that aggression is good in itself . Aggression should only be a means to an end, whereas for a lot of players, it appears to be the end.

With the kind of hand mentioned, you are always likely to be playing guessing games, so I reckon it's best to make the price of entry as small as possible. Putting out a blocking bet has arguments in its favour, if it weren't for the fact that everyone and his dog knows about blocking bets these days.

BTW, I am sitting here, physically watching my ceiling collapse before my eyes. It's now being propped up by a combination of a stepladder, some books and a broom, each perched on the other.

Re: betting from the blind

[pb9617.livejournal.com]

I agree whole-heartedly here. "Betting for information" and "betting to see where you are at" are two of the most abused terms in poker now, and this is a perfect example.

Re: betting from the blind

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

Pete,
It would be boring if there was only one way to play of course but here's my take:

I "often" lead out in limit in that scenario for 2 reasons: a) against 1 opponent I am probably winning and against some opponents they won't call when they should and won't play back with nothing either but more importantly b)I like to lead out with a set of queens here also. Almost all typical limit players fell duty-bound to check a monster flop whereas I am happy to take the chance that I might win a small pot in order to have the opportunity that I might take down a whopper against someone else who hit a set or an overpair or something and refuses to believe I have the goods because "I would have checked a set of Q's" or "he led with it, he can't have it"

But the Phillips example isn't limit - this can cost you a big pile of chips rather than a few, and interestingly if I make my play above against you it sounds like you are ready to believe it's a probe bet and could be in a whole lot of trouble.

Phillips doesn't explain his thinking on how he arrived at the call other than he felt able to rule out a better flush, but pressumably the action on the flop contributed to his read whereas if he had checked pressumably he wouldn't have had the same info to make the read?

I agree sometimes you can bet to find out what's going on and get 4 flat callers and although that wasn't in the script, it still tells you SOMETHING about how to proceed?

Cloutier in one of his books reckons you never need to pay for info because you should have everyone at your table banged to rights within 15 minutes of playing if you pay attention. Yeah right!

BTW There was also an interesting hand on Cardplayer video section involving Kiril - first up it looks agreat call and then after a while it looks more straightforward - have you seen it?

Lastly, I've never had a lot of luck with trades people either - which is a pain as I am useless at DIY and 100% reliant on getting someone else to do the work. maybe a semi-retired handyman could be a solution if they have the right experience? It seems (as you say) most trades people are out chasing £10k+ work at the moment - the only other way is you find someone that will do your ceiling as a short notice rainy day alternative? GL with it.

Re: betting from the blind

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the Kiril call, but from the description of the hand, I suspect that he has made the call because (a) he thought that the guy did check and was making an angle play (b) if the guy was beating Kiril's 10, then it was a massive overbet. A "milk" would have been far more likely with the winning hand, and (c) he had some kind of read on the guy. Was he also getting good odds or was the bet far larger than the size of the pot?

Not withstanding all these three things, I doubt that I would have had the confidence in my judgement to make the call!

----

On the "lead out" argument, you make the good point that you like to lead out with the monster hand as well. In this we are in agreement -- do the same with the big hand as with the small hand!

I try to control my betting so that the only "range" of hands people can put me on is very wide indeed. If I can put my opponents on hands better than they can put me on hands, then I have a big advantage.

As you say, most players feel obliged to check their monsters, which tends to give the game away when they lead out.

My current play is actually very fast, but I find that other players are often quite willing to open for me. I rarely lead out when I haven't raised pre-flop, preferring to check-raise the monsters, the monster draws, and the half-and-half hands. Check-call on the flop is a rare choice that I tend only to use heads up against a certain style of player (see later for this analysis).

I agree that it's erroneous to directly compare limit and no-limit, and I wasn't making a particular point about this hand (although I was waiting for someone to say "Nyaah Nyahh, but Phillips doubled up, so what do you know?").

It was this particular quote of Phillips, rather than a reference to the particular hand, which I thought exemplified the flaw in the "betting to find out where you stand" argument.

Hellmuth's "Play Poker like the Pros" (new edition with the sub-title, "and go broke in double-quick time") also recommends putting in raises "to find out where you stand", while Harmsn seems to take a similar line (without actually mentioning the phrase) in SS2.

I'm really waiting for someone to spot the fact that limit (and to a certain extent, no-limit) is very much a matter of scissors-paper-stone. With all these books continually emphasizing aggression, weaker players will start to wonder why all this aggression ends up giving them a big minus on the bankroll.

The answer is the big flaw in the Harman/Hellmuth (and, in a way, Phillips) line -- that being, that when an opponent gets a hand they will raise you back. I think it's part of the American psyche, but a few players in limit have learnt that what I shall call the "limp dick" approach can murder the aggressive player.

It's a bit like the "pat-a-cake" approach in table tennis. When I was younger, I used to play a very agressive style of table tennis, and when people tried to play aggressive back, I killed them. But then one guy sussed me out, and started dead-batting the ball back. This meant that I had no pace to work on, no spin to work on, nothing. And, he beat me.

There are a few poker players using this tactic today, and they are getting it quietly, I think.

Re: betting from the blind

[(Anonymous)]

It's always seemed like common sense to me that if everyone else zigs, I should zag. In poker today, that translates into: 'If everyone else is reading books that tell them to be aggressive, I'll play a passive style.'

I have a more passive style of play and it seems to work for me. It fascinates me that I've never heard anyone else admit to it. Perhaps there is something macho about 'aggression'. I don't know. When I play bridge, I don't consider the people who open with a strong no trump to be tougher than me because I play the weak no trump.

DY

Re: betting from the blind

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

DY, agree with you when you get people that are insistent on firing all 4 bullets at you in vain - soaking that up in passive mode with a bag of bollocks that develops into middle pair with backdoor potential to boot can be very profitable and enjoyable because you can send them over the edge because you "appear" to be playing a weak game.

However, there are tables in cyberspace where simply hammering the raise button can show an automatic profit - why try and swim upstream all the time when you can just bet and win?