Everything Has A Limit

I'm playing in the Virgin Bloggers tournament on Thursday, so I suppose I had better put their banner here for a while. Here it is. Followed by a typical Virgin Limit Hand.

Plan the Play.








You are in the Small Blind at $5-$10 (blinds $2.50/$5) and pick up Qs Qh

It's your second hand, but you watched three or four hands before you played, and two of these were passed round until late position and then raised. So, we are not looking at a loose-fest here.



UTG+1 raises to $10. MP1 reraises to $15.

Do you (a) fold? (b) call or (c) cap it?


If you fold, then that's the end of the problem. Suppose you either call or cap it.

UTG+1 goes into the tank, times out and deliberately gets himself all-in.

If you call, the flop comes Kc Td 4c. MP1 bets $5. Do you (d) fold? (e) call? or (f) raise?

If you cap it, MP1 flat-calls (he has an option to five-bet, since it is now heads-up)

Flop comes Kc Td 4c. MP1 bets $5. Do you (g) fold? (h) call? or (i) raise?

What range do you put the all-in player on?

What range do you put the active opponent on?

I've written a macro to convert Virgin hand histories to something more manageable.

Here's a few limit hands from today, with commentaries:

( click here )

I played like a dipshit this morning. Becaise I took a nap Sunday afternoon and went to bed (relatively) early, I woke up about 3.30am/ Instead of doing what I should have done, and turning over in an attempt to go back to sleep, I got up and put in an hour at the table. You know that you are not on form when, while I was typing in my table stake at table two while posting on table one, I got in for free with Kh 7h. Flop came 9d 6h 4s. I pay no attention and clicked check-fold. Then the table beeps at me to make a decision to an opponent’s bet, so I fold. Whoops, card had appeared without me seeing it and I had folded to the turn bet. The turn card was, of course, the six of hearts. That just about gave me odds to call $4 into a $12 pot (15 outs). The river, needless to say, was a three, and I would have won a small pot.

( it got worse... )

Here's a hand I had earlier this morning. It's interesting because it features a river decision (which you don't get very often at NL) and because it's a river decision that crops up relatively often (probably about 1 hand in a hundred, maybe a bit more). As such, it's vital that you make the correct EV move (i.e., the one that maximises your gain in the long run).


GAME $5/$10 TEXAS LIMIT HOLD'EM
Table "Mimosa" (real money) -- Seat 7 is the button
Seat 1: TATERLEGS ($282.00 in chips)
Seat 2: baseballfan ($489.00 in chips)
Seat 3: jungo13 ($183.50 in chips)
Seat 4: pokermon69 ($56.00 in chips)
Seat 5: tdog74 ($188.50 in chips)
Seat 6: gambler2525s ($185.50 in chips)
Seat 7: BIRKS ($381.00 in chips)
Seat 8: KrazyEYKilla ($44.00 in chips)
Seat 9: wph1 ($129.00 in chips)

KrazyEYKilla: Post Small Blind ($2)
wph1 : Post Big Blind ($5)

Dealt to BIRKS (Button) [ Ah ] [ 8h ]
jungo13 : Call ($5)
gambler2525s: Call ($5)
BIRKS : Raise ($10)
jungo13 : Call ($5)
gambler2525s: Call ($5)

Abdulish play here. I’m not folding A8s on the button with two limpers, so I might as well raise.


*** FLOP *** : [ 6c Ad Qs ]

This is a very good flop for me. Opponents might have QK, QJ, QT, or Ax where my kicker beats theirs. With 66 I would have expected at least the first player to have raised rather than limped. In fact, the only hand I can see myself losing to at the moment is A6.

jungo13 : Check
gambler2525s: Check
BIRKS : Bet ($5)
jungo13 : Call ($5)
gambler2525s: Call ($5)


*** TURN *** : [ 6c Ad Qs ] [ 5c ]

Not much change. Someone might have justifiable cause to chase, that’s all.

jungo13 : Check
gambler2525s: Check
BIRKS : Bet ($10)
jungo13 : Call ($10)
gambler2525s: Call ($10)

*** RIVER *** : [ 6c Ad Qs 5c ] [ Ks ]

I have top pair, medium kicker.

jungo13 : Check
gambler2525s: Check

What do I do here? Bet? Or check? There is $79 in the pot.

On the Gutshot forum at the moment there is a spate of the occasionally recurring "online poker is rigged" nonsense. This is usually exemplified by illogical arguments, changing of parameters every time you shoot down a previous argument and, generally, displays of stupidity that make you realize that you don't need to worry about finding fish at poker tables for some time yet.

Anyway, my own version of the "cash-out curse" has tended to be that I nearly always lose when I get to my bonus, be it on Stars or Party or Empire. Now, there are reasons for this. If you are "stuck", then you are more likely to hang around, which makes it more likely that you will be losing when you reach the bonus level. And, of course, it isn't necessarily true. The last time I hit my Stars bonus, I chopped it off for $600 in about an hour and a half. I was on fire.

But not this time. I had crawled to a profit of about $150 in a week (on Stars), and needed a mere 30 points to get my bonus. During that short accumulation I got slaughtered left, right and centre. In the required 52 hands, I got four pairs (Aces, nines, sevens and Queens) and lost with the lot. The Queens came last, just as I was about to reach the required 750 points. Fans of conspiracy theories, enjoy.

( click here for the hand )

I've been reading Dalla's book on Ungar and Greenstein's Ace in the Hole this past week (along with the Iain M Banks SF novel and Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale ... I really must focus, sigh) and I came across a great observation by Greenstein.

Basically, he points out that there are many mid-limit players who are technically as good as the high limit players, but who can't make it at the top level for various other reasons. This is spot on. In a sense, I feel sure that my card-reading and technical abilities at limit are in the, say 15-30 to 80-160 region at the Bellagio (a wide range, I admit!), but many other factors need to be overcome before I can start thinking about beating those games. Only now, on my eighth visit there, do I think that I am mentally prepared for the 15-30.

So, what is it that disqualifies me from the 80-160? A number of things, only one of which is the stake level. I don't quite have the recommended bankroll of $50,000, but, as Greenstein says, if the game is good, such pedantries would not frighten the poker player who has the right stuff. You can always pop a shot with, say, $5,000, and go back to rebuilding your bankroll if you get spanked (as I probably would be).

When I think of playing at these higher stakes, I always remind myself of a couple of youngsters who played in the 4-8 game in the Flamingo three or so years ago. These were the first of the Internet generation. They had read the books, they knew the odds, they understood domination, implied odds, and, the way they talked, they clearly knew how to play.

And they had no chance whatsoever.

1) They didn't have a big enough bankroll (they had a hundred bucks apiece I think)
2) They had too much respect for the value of $100. Losing that hundred bucks each hurt these guys. In other words, they did not have the ability to split money into "spending money" and "poker ammunition".
3) They didn't have the mental strength. They weren't beaten when they started losing. They were beaten the first time an idiot came in and hit them with a two-outer.
4) They didn't know that they were in the wrong game. (it had to be the wrong game - they were playing me).
5) They wanted to show that they were good at the game, that they weren't "out of their class". In poker, as in life, it's usually best to beware the quiet man.


Now, I think of myself hypothetically sitting down in the 80-160 game this December, and I would be like these kids were in the 4-8 game. I would display all the faults and I would be subject to all the dangers. Someone would hit a two-outer, costing me a $2,400 pot, or whatever, and it would prey on my mind. Quite simply, I do not have the ability which Greenstein says is important to great poker players -- not to be worried about playing with a large percentage of your bankroll.

This is why it's taken me five years just to build up to 15-30. I can now take a $2000 loss in an evening (it won't happen but, if it did, it wouldn't worry me), which I couldn't do even 18 months ago. And if I do lose it, I'll come back the following night. I'll know to stand up from bad games, stick with the good ones, and, most importantly, not worry about the volatility inherent to 15-30 at thet madfest that is the Bellagio during tournaments. I won't need to show people that I am not scared of the stakes, because I genuinely am not scared of the stakes.

People write quite a lot about the impact of losing on a player, but I think an equal factor is the impact of winning. If you are two grand up in a 15-30 game, having sat down with your last grand, how tempting must it be to say "what I have I hold" and to turn weak-tight? In other words, the two grand profit needs to be irrelevant. It needs to be a small percentage of your bankroll. That is the only way to stop your style of play altering. (Well, it is in my case. As Greenstein wrote, for the great players, this is not the case. Dalla makes a great comment on the late Jack Straus. Apparently he needed to have 110% of his bankroll in action every day. Let's be honest, you have to have some admiration for the guy.)

I worked from home today, and after managing to restore my Outlook connection to the main server (I don't know what the IT people are up to, and what worries me is that I fear that they don't, either) I finally got the newsletter out of the way.

Being a bit bored with $3-$6 limit, I looked at Betfair to see what the biggest game was that had a full table. When I saw, I gritted my teeth and sat down at, yes, 25p/50p. The grinders have sure destroyed William Hill/Befair.

Anyway, I decided to practise some three-tabling, and also to remind myself of what the $2-$4 games can be like in Vegas.

After an hour, I knew. What about this for stats in 185 hands? Aces, 0 for 3. Kings, 0 for 2, Queens, 0 for 1.

Needless to say, these minor set backs were not enough to stop me winning the grand sum of £2.89, which I make the equivalent of more than 5 big bets an hour. Next stop, 50p-£1; if I can find anyone on Betfair willing to play at such rarefied stakes.

This kind of level really is a different world. For example, I won money 24% of the time I saw a flop, which I would consider abhorrent at any level $3-$6 and above. At this level, it's enough to win money. You also have to seriously reassess your hand rankings.

Playing at this level is good for you. It stops you getting used to a single style of play that you can beat. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the differences amongst the experts on how to play properly at limit revolve not around the higher stakes games, but at these low levels, where the normal laws of physics clearly do not apply. One guy sort of thought that he knew what he was doing. So he raised to get a free card (pointless, the guy in small blind bet pn the turn anyway) and raised to thin the field (pointless, guy on his immediate left cold-called the raise with a flop that gave him no flush draw, a single overcard and a three-card gustshot straight). So, throw away all the following tricks: 1) Stealing blinds, (2) Semi-bluffs. (3) raising to get a free card and (4) raising to thin the field when you face reverse implied odds.

Curiously, one "advanced" trick worked -- the "Harman raise" on the turn.

All this was fun, in a strange kind of way. Mind you, I might have thought it less fun until my AKs in the small blind flopped KKQ and got caught in a raising war from K5 and AQ. £13.90 pot! Wow. That's, er, $280 in a $5-$10 game.

++++++

I made a list of all the things (well, some of the things) that I needed to get done, given that I was at home. I wrote down 20 "must do's' without pausing for breath. So far I've done, er, three of them.

Back when I lived in Turney Road with Gamble, Oakes, Leila and Marie, I used to compile lists of things that I had to do that very day, and I would cunningly insert things like "Play James Bond Game on the Spectrum". That way I could tick off things on the list, feel righteous, and yet not get anything useful done.

I was two-tabling this morning on Party when one of the games suddenly became short-handed. Now, if there are seven or eight players, but at least one of them is very weak, I am happy to stay at the table. The conventional wisdom is that your advantage is now greater, since there are fewer good players to take the weak player's cash. But this game rapidly decreased to just four players, although one of them was a serious fish (71% flops, few raises).

At this point a paradox develops. Although there are now only three of your trying to take the poor player's money, that person's own play automatically becomes less bad. If he carries on playing just as he did before (no alteration of starting standards) his style might even become marginally profitable!

Anyway, I stuck with the game, despite my own lack of experience in the four-handed realm. I did so partly because I want to gain some experience in short-handed (so I might as well do it when I know that there is a fish around). And, happily, I won a few bucks. I think that I did this partly because the other two "good" players were equally inexperienced at short-handed (clearly they were thinking the same as me!), but they over-compensated, playing too aggressively and too loosely. Then again, four-handed is not six-handed. An interesting half-hour.


+++++

I spend so much time recounting hands where it all went tits-up for me (I folded a hand yesterday, last to bet for $10, into a $172 pot, which, as it turned out, I would have won. And I would fold again if the same sequence of betting turned up). But I get so much hindsightitis (people are less willing to venture an opinion when they do not know the result, I notice!) that I am hesitant to reproduce the hand.

So, here's one where I can say "look, it all went right".

$5/$10 Texas Hold'em
Table Money Machine (Real Money)
Seat 3 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: sparkycal ( $171.51 )
Seat 3: PlayMeSoft ( $520.50 )
Seat 4: andysmith33 ( $127.50 )
Seat 6: boatman21111 ( $602.35 )
Seat 8: Pjoker ( $212.50 )
Seat 10: edefect ( $384 )
Seat 5: RBRINK24 ( $114 )
Seat 7: Birks ( $443 )
Seat 9: patty3outer ( $178.57 )
Seat 1: TheOnlyAlex ( $250 )
andysmith33 posts small blind [$2].
RBRINK24 posts big blind [$5].

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to Birks [ Ac Ad ]

UTG+1 is not the greatest spot to get AA, but I'll live with 'em anywhere.

boatman21111 calls [$5].

Birks raises [$10].
PlayMeSoft raises [$15].

boatman21111 calls [$10].
Birks calls [$5].

The crucial play

** Dealing Flop ** [ 8d, 8s, 3d ]

boatman21111 bets [$5].

Unless boatman has an 8, this is not a strong play. I haven't seen any evidence that boatman is capable of thinking two levels up. I reckon him on either a diamond draw or a mediocre pair that is testing the water for AK vs AK.

Birks calls [$5].

However, boatman's bet gives me another opportunity to stitch up PlayMeSoft, a tightish winning player whom I am already putting on KK (he could have QQ or AA, but I know for sure that he isn't beating me at the moment).

PlayMeSoft raises [$10].

Sure enough. He reckons boatman is on a "test" or a draw, and that I have AK, AQ, AJs or something like that.

boatman21111 calls [$5].
Birks raises [$10].

Time to pull the trigger. If boatman had folded I might have just flat-called here.

PlayMeSoft calls [$5].
boatman21111 calls [$5].


** Dealing Turn ** [ 2s ]

I very much like this card.

boatman21111 checks.
Birks bets [$10].
PlayMeSoft calls [$10].

PlayMeSoft probably has an impending sense of doom, but the pot is big enough for him to be willing to call it down for two big bets

boatman21111 calls [$10].

Presumably still on a draw. No way does he have an 8, because he would either have raised on the flop when he had the opportunity or raised here.

** Dealing River ** [ 9c ]

I like this card as well

boatman21111 checks.
Birks bets [$10].
PlayMeSoft calls [$10].
boatman21111 calls [$10].

Birks shows [ Ac, Ad ] two pairs, aces and eights.
PlayMeSoft doesn't show [ Qs, Qh ] two pairs, queens and eights.
boatman21111 doesn't show [ 4d, 4s ] two pairs, eights and fours.

Birks wins $154 from the main pot with two pairs, aces and eights.

I will admit, if a four had come on the river and boated boatman up, I would have been caught for at least three bets on the river!

After a not-very-good run this month, it was obviously a good idea not to blame bad cards and think no more about it. Even if bad cards were partly to blame, a little self-analysis wouldn't do any harm.

I'd fallen back into two bad habits -- one was limping after a couple of callers when I should really either fold or raise, while the other was failing to bet for value often enough on the river.

Richard Gryko made the remarkably perceptive point that limit play improves your ability in deep stack no limit (cash and tournaments) because it forces you to learn how to play better through the turn and river (unless you want to go broke).

Now, if you swivel this line of thought, it follows that a lot of the new limit players who have come up via ESPN and NL tournaments, are likely to be LESS experienced on the turn and river. I have noticed this. The average standard of play is improving pre-flop and on the flop, but on the turn and river the rule tends to be that they bet if they have it and they don't if they don't. The only players who try to check-raise me on the river are experienced players who have met me before (:-))


Anyway, I promised myself to push in bets more often on the river, even if by doing so I risked a check-raise. Within a couple of not-very long sessions this has already put me $30 to the better than I would have been if I had fallen back into the habit of checking the river when I wasn't to sure.

With hindsight, a bet in the following hand on the river is obvious, but you would be surprised at how many players fail to bet in such situations.


$5/$10 Texas Hold'em - Friday, July 22, 05:34:16 EDT 2005
Seat 8 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: dirtup2000 ( $298 )
Seat 2: Princess414 ( $129.50 )
Seat 3: Vrtnar111 ( $245.50 )
Seat 4: DJOHNT ( $192 )
Seat 5: ptpab ( $392.50 )
Seat 10: Birks ( $445 )
Seat 9: swept ( $245 )
Seat 8: DntUknoWhoIM ( $204 )
Seat 7: WalkamoHB ( $48 )
Seat 6: HSL74 ( $245 )
swept posts small blind [$2].
Birks posts big blind [$5].

Dealt to Birks 5d 6h
dirtup2000 folds.
Princess414 folds.
Vrtnar111 folds.
DJOHNT folds.
ptpab folds.
HSL74 raises [$10].
WalkamoHB calls [$10].
DntUknoWhoIM calls [$10].
swept folds.
Birks calls [$5].

pleasing play number 1. Instead of clicking the "check/fold" button, with this kind of hand (which is unlikely to be dominated) it's a good idea to see how many players come in for the raise. In this case, three opponents gives me odds of more than 7-to-1, implied odds of about 12-to-1 (VERY ROUGH ESTIMATE!) and little chance of me getting into deep trouble. One could take a deeper look here at the 750,000 possible flops and actually ask whether there are more than 70,000 flops that make it worthwhile me seeing a turn card, but I'll just stick with the principle that these odds are good enough for me.

** Dealing Flop ** [ 5s, Qc, 6c ]

Bottom two-pair. A difficult hand to play for the novice (and occasionally for the experienced player! But a check is the right play unless you are looking for deception.

Birks checks.
HSL74 bets [$5].
WalkamoHB calls [$5].
DntUknoWhoIM calls [$5].
Birks calls [$5].

One would normally be looking for a check-raise here, but the bet from the player on my immediate left means that if I do raise at this point, I'm not going to knock anyone out and I AM going to give drawing hands pot odds on the turn, even if they are facing a bet of $20 cold. Therefore I call.

** Dealing Turn ** [ 9h ]

this is actually a very nice card for me, for reasons that will soon become apparent.

Birks checks.
HSL74 checks.
WalkamoHB checks.
DntUknoWhoIM bets [$10].
Birks raises [$20].
HSL74 folds.
WalkamoHB folds.
DntUknoWhoIM calls [$10].

This time the bet is from the player on my right, so the check-raise is right, meaning that anyone calling with a gutshot (apart from the initial bettor) is doing so incorrectly.

** Dealing River ** [ 4s ]



Birks bets [$10].

Here the advantage of the 9 on the turn becomes obvious. Even if I am losing here to a very odd Q9, Q5, Q6 or some other such horrific combination (I knew nothing about this opponent), he can't raise me on the river with two-pair, because I have played the hand as if I have 87 and the straight. Contrarily, if he has the more likely holding of QK, QJ or QT, he is unlikely to lay the hand down.

DntUknoWhoIM calls [$10].

and, he doesn't.

Birks shows [ 5d, 6h ] two pairs, sixes and fives.
DntUknoWhoIM doesn't show [ Qs, Kd ] a pair of queens.
Birks wins $119 from the main pot with two pairs, sixes and fives.


As I wrote, in retrospect a bet on the river seems obvious, but it is very easy to check here when you are on auto-pilot.