I haven't posted in a while. I'm not entirely sure why - I've been playing every weekend, I've got a coach now, I'm seeing improvements in my play. Laziness plays a role, I'm sure.
But lately I've been getting very discouraged. The chasm between where I'd like to be and where I am in terms of my play and results is still very wide. I'm not sure if I'm being completely unrealistic in my expectations; I've only been playing online just over a year and a half, and usually only on weekends, so I've playing roughly 1500-1600 tournaments. That's not very many, really.
Still, I keep getting so close, and yet not close enough. I'm not aggressive enough with a big stack deep; I'm not aggressive enough with a medium stack trying to build up. I still play with fear, which is absolutely retarded. I don't like the results I'm getting (far too many min cashes, or larger min cashes), so why do I keep playing the same way - too tight?
I'm playing in a small (ha ha! It's a 1K buy in!) WSOP event in June. Ironically, although I'm sure I'll be nervous when I get there, I'm relatively confident in my live play since a) my only four figure cash is in live play and b) due to my online experience, I'm usually not the nittiest player at the table live. But I really have no right to be confident. As one of my poker friends pointed out, I really still suck.
I don't want to suck. I love playing poker. I want to get better, and I am trying. I have a coach, I study hand histories, I'm reading another book. When am I going to see the results I want to see?
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Fold equity
I played a hand this weekend that I thought illustrated, albeit very simply, the concept of fold equity, and why you shouldn't ignore it.
This is early in the $27.50 25K guaranteed on PS, blinds are 25/50, I have 2575 and villain has 1260. No specific reads. Villain is in the cut off, I'm on the button. Everyone folds around to villain, who minraises to 100. I have AJo, and given the weakness of his raise and his position (a random could easily be raising ATC here), I 3 bet to 450. The blinds fold, and villain calls.
This is villain's first mistake. Flatting my 3 bet forced him to commit over 40% of his stack. Unless he was trapping with a premium hand, his stack was insufficiently deep to flat a raise and see a flop, especially out of position. But he does flat, and we take the flop with a pot of 975 - villain has less than a pot sized bet left behind (810).
Flop is A66 rainbow. Villain checks, and I bet my TPGK for 450, about 40% of the pot. Villain raises all in for 810, meaning I have to call a remaining 360 to win 2235. I call, and villain turns over QJs, and when neither of us improve I take the pot and bust villain.
I started laughing once villain shoved. I was getting better than 5 to 1 on a call; there are literally no two cards I could be holding that I would ever fold here once I made the cbet.
For my part, I was very aware of the stack sizes from the moment I 3 bet villain preflop. Given his stack size, if he wanted to play the hand pre, he should have shoved - at that point I would have had to call 1160 to win 550, and would have to be very confident I was ahead of villain's range in order to make a call (I would have called, as I read his minbet for weakness). Given the odds I would have been getting, villain would have had fold equity.
As played, villain only had some fold equity if he had open shoved the flop; I would then have had to call 810 to win 1785, or a little better than 2 to 1. Since I had flopped top pair with a good kicker, I would have called, but what if I was holding JJ or TT and the flop came AK6, or even the board that did arrive (A66). That ace and the the pressure from villains hypothetical shove may have caused me to lay down a hand like TT. Again, he would have had a decent amount of fold equity, since the odds I would have been getting would have been insufficient to call if I believe villain had hit an A and I was holding an underpair, or pretty much any hand without an A or a 6.
Obviously as it happened I wouldn't have folded pre or on the flop, but the lesson here is that if you are going to commit all your chips, best to do it in either one of two circumstances. One is when you have the nuts, or close to, and which point betting properly to give your opponent proper odds to call is a skill I'm still struggling to develop. Imagine villain had had 66 here - his play would then have been very good, since he allowed me to bet and gave me odds to call his shove with any two cards.
If, however, you don't have the nuts (pre or post), then your best bet is to shove with a significant amount of fold equity. If your opponent is holding the nuts he won't fold, but in all other circumstances, which will be a healthy percentage of the time, you will at least force your opponent to consider folding, and may in fact force him to fold a better hand. If, for example, I had a read that the villain in this hand was a very tight player, then a minraise/shove pre would almost certainly have gotten me to lay down AJ here. He could have made that play with ATC and gotten me to fold, because of his reputation (tight) and the amount of fold equity. If that same player, even knowing he is tight, played the hand this way, there's no way I fold, because reputation or no, the pot odds I am getting eliminate his fold equity.
I probably don't explain this as well as I could, but I found this hand funny and thought it demonstrated fold equity, and that this specific villain had zero idea of how this concept should work.
Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
This is early in the $27.50 25K guaranteed on PS, blinds are 25/50, I have 2575 and villain has 1260. No specific reads. Villain is in the cut off, I'm on the button. Everyone folds around to villain, who minraises to 100. I have AJo, and given the weakness of his raise and his position (a random could easily be raising ATC here), I 3 bet to 450. The blinds fold, and villain calls.
This is villain's first mistake. Flatting my 3 bet forced him to commit over 40% of his stack. Unless he was trapping with a premium hand, his stack was insufficiently deep to flat a raise and see a flop, especially out of position. But he does flat, and we take the flop with a pot of 975 - villain has less than a pot sized bet left behind (810).
Flop is A66 rainbow. Villain checks, and I bet my TPGK for 450, about 40% of the pot. Villain raises all in for 810, meaning I have to call a remaining 360 to win 2235. I call, and villain turns over QJs, and when neither of us improve I take the pot and bust villain.
I started laughing once villain shoved. I was getting better than 5 to 1 on a call; there are literally no two cards I could be holding that I would ever fold here once I made the cbet.
For my part, I was very aware of the stack sizes from the moment I 3 bet villain preflop. Given his stack size, if he wanted to play the hand pre, he should have shoved - at that point I would have had to call 1160 to win 550, and would have to be very confident I was ahead of villain's range in order to make a call (I would have called, as I read his minbet for weakness). Given the odds I would have been getting, villain would have had fold equity.
As played, villain only had some fold equity if he had open shoved the flop; I would then have had to call 810 to win 1785, or a little better than 2 to 1. Since I had flopped top pair with a good kicker, I would have called, but what if I was holding JJ or TT and the flop came AK6, or even the board that did arrive (A66). That ace and the the pressure from villains hypothetical shove may have caused me to lay down a hand like TT. Again, he would have had a decent amount of fold equity, since the odds I would have been getting would have been insufficient to call if I believe villain had hit an A and I was holding an underpair, or pretty much any hand without an A or a 6.
Obviously as it happened I wouldn't have folded pre or on the flop, but the lesson here is that if you are going to commit all your chips, best to do it in either one of two circumstances. One is when you have the nuts, or close to, and which point betting properly to give your opponent proper odds to call is a skill I'm still struggling to develop. Imagine villain had had 66 here - his play would then have been very good, since he allowed me to bet and gave me odds to call his shove with any two cards.
If, however, you don't have the nuts (pre or post), then your best bet is to shove with a significant amount of fold equity. If your opponent is holding the nuts he won't fold, but in all other circumstances, which will be a healthy percentage of the time, you will at least force your opponent to consider folding, and may in fact force him to fold a better hand. If, for example, I had a read that the villain in this hand was a very tight player, then a minraise/shove pre would almost certainly have gotten me to lay down AJ here. He could have made that play with ATC and gotten me to fold, because of his reputation (tight) and the amount of fold equity. If that same player, even knowing he is tight, played the hand this way, there's no way I fold, because reputation or no, the pot odds I am getting eliminate his fold equity.
I probably don't explain this as well as I could, but I found this hand funny and thought it demonstrated fold equity, and that this specific villain had zero idea of how this concept should work.
Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Play vs. a specific villain
Poker players talk about developing the ability to "read" players. While this is particularly valuable in live play, it is still applicable online. Betting/raising patterns, timing patterns, even the way or when people decide to type in the chat box can tell you things if you are paying attention. That can be hard (particularly if you are multitabling), and a read based on a single hand isn't always indicative of a villain's overall play, but it's still an important skill to try to develop.
I played two hands against a specific villain this past weekend, and the way the first hand played out definitely effected the way I played the second hand (and I'm almost positive it effected the way he played it as well). Both hands occurred small blind (villain) vs. big blind (me) when the table folded around to him, and occurred back to back in that context. It's an $11 tournament - blinds are 600/1200/125. Villain has almost 47K (M ~ 16), I have 50.7K (M ~ 17.25) in the first hand.
Table folds around and villain calls the SB; I check back with 64s. Flop is T75, all clubs (not my suit), giving me an OESD. It's also a very dangerous flop, given the obvious flush draw. Villain leads with a minbet of 1200 into a pot of 3525, and I opt to call with my draw. I'm conscious of two things - if he's got a high club he's never going anywhere this early, but if he doesn't there's no way he can like this board with something like top pair or even two pair. I'm calling both because if I hit my draw I'm fairly certain I'll be best, but also because there's a decent chance I can take the pot away later given the dangerousness of the board.
Turn is another 7. Villain again minbets, this time 1200 into 5925. His minbet indicates, to me, that he has a weak or medium strength hand at best - a hand that probably can't stand up to much pressure. I decide to raise at this point. This is an obvious semi-bluff; unless he has a FH, even trip sevens won't be happy to see another club (unless he has 7x where x is a high club) and will potentially still pay off a straight draw if it hits, so even if he calls I still have the potential to either draw to the best hand or represent the best hand on the river. And he does call. I think I probably should have raised more; I raised to 3600 (3x his bet), but given that he underbet the pot, a larger bet (5500-600) would probably be better in terms of scaring him off (which is what I want) or truly repping something like two pair or trips. I didn't think very clearly about what my line here would represent, which is a leak of mine. I like the raise here, but the sizing is poor, IMO.
The river is the J of clubs, putting a four flush on board. Obviously I have nothing except a low busted straight draw; therefore the only way I can win the hand is to induce my opponent to fold. Villain sets this up by checking. If victim had bet, I don't know that, given the dangerousness of the board, I would have been able to pull the trigger and even tried to push him off the hand (and it's likely if he had led it would not have worked; leading on that board would likely indicate a flush). But since villain bet, checking behind would have been a poor play - I can't win the hand unless I bet. So I bet 6000 into a 13125 pot.
Again, I think my bet sizing is a little off, but not as badly as the turn. It's a little on the small side - I'm attempting to find that middle ground bet, one that's large enough to be scary (thereby pushing the villain to hold) but small enough to look like an attempt to extract value. Too large and some villains will make a hero call, refusing to be pushed around and because an overlarge bet looks more bluffy. Too small and villain may make a crying call due to the odds. I think I probably should have bet more like 55-60% of the pot. Regardless, villain folded, and I took down the pot.
While I think this hand illustrates that I still struggle with bet sizing, it also points to some developments in my game. First, my ability to make pure bluff bets and raises is evident here. This is a very small part of my game, but I do have the ability to do it now, and I think I picked a good spot. The dangerousness of the board combined with the fact that my line was plausible in terms of hitting a flush OTR made this a good bluffing spot. It's possible had I bet it properly, I may have even gotten a fold OTT. Still, this is not a play I could have made 8 months ago. I used my position, reading of the board texture, and pressure to win a pot with air. I'm pretty sure people do this to me all the time, and I have to find spots to do it myself to stay in the game.
The very next orbit when I'm again in the BB, the table again folds around to the SB. Stacks are now 31.5K (M ~ 11.25, villain) and just over 56K (M ~ 20, me). Villain again completes his blind, and I check in the BB with JTo. I could potentially raise here, since JT is pretty good heads up, but default play is to just take a flop and hope to either hit or use my position to take the pot away.
Flop is AQ3, again monotone (hearts). I have the T of hearts for a decent flush draw and a gut shot straight draw. Villain continues his previous pattern, minbetting 1200 into 3400, and I call with my draws. I am conscious that my flush draw isn't the best, and obviously my gutshot isn't likely to come in. However, I opt to make a loose call because, based on the previous hand and other observations at the table, I believe he again has a weakish hand that I may be able to force him to fold later. This call is based much more of my read on the villain than on the actual strength of my hand.
The turn is the K of diamonds, filling out my gutshot straight. I now have a very good but vulnerable hand; it's unlikely he already has a flush, but another heart could either give him a flush (although there are only two higher flush cards than mine he could have, the K and the J) or could completely kill any action. Villain again minbets 1200 into 5800. I probably should have raised here. However, I made the conscious decision NOT to raise here because that is the way I had played the previous hand. This seems pretty bad in retrospect. I raised on a semibluff the hand before and failed to raise with what was almost certainly the best hand here. I'd like to say I did it for balance but that's not the case. I did it because I wanted to extract more money on the river, so I resorted to slow playing with a decent percentage of the deck would either kill my hand or kill the action. I should have raised here.
The river was the 8 of spades, which changed nothing. Villain again minbet (1200 into 8200), and I raised to 4800 with my straight, as I did not believe he had a made flush, and there was no other hand other than a flush that could have beat me on that board. Fortunately for me, he called this raise (which I should have made OTT) with K2, holding the K of hearts.
What did I learn from this two hand sequence vs. this villain, and how did hand one effect how I played hand 2? First, I continue to struggle with bet sizing. Second, I allowed the sequence of hand one (monotone board, two minbets from villain followed by a turn raise by me) to influence me into making what I believe was a bad decision in hand 2 (to NOT raise OTT). Third, I have at least a nascent ability to find spots to bluff to take away pots. Fourth, I was at least correct in my general reads on this villain - his min-betting did indicate weak or middle strength hands. Fifth, I sometimes still "freeze" when I hit a good hand and slow play (even though I hate slow playing in general); this is okay in order to balance vs. a villain who knows your play well, but that wasn't the case here. Here I was just missing value.
I think I played hand 1 well in terms of finding a spot to bluff, and poorly in turns of my bet sizing (the turn raise in particular). I think I played hand 2 a little worse (not raising the turn was pretty bad) but I was at least attempting to vary my play in response to a particular villain, which is a worthy goal.
Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
I played two hands against a specific villain this past weekend, and the way the first hand played out definitely effected the way I played the second hand (and I'm almost positive it effected the way he played it as well). Both hands occurred small blind (villain) vs. big blind (me) when the table folded around to him, and occurred back to back in that context. It's an $11 tournament - blinds are 600/1200/125. Villain has almost 47K (M ~ 16), I have 50.7K (M ~ 17.25) in the first hand.
Table folds around and villain calls the SB; I check back with 64s. Flop is T75, all clubs (not my suit), giving me an OESD. It's also a very dangerous flop, given the obvious flush draw. Villain leads with a minbet of 1200 into a pot of 3525, and I opt to call with my draw. I'm conscious of two things - if he's got a high club he's never going anywhere this early, but if he doesn't there's no way he can like this board with something like top pair or even two pair. I'm calling both because if I hit my draw I'm fairly certain I'll be best, but also because there's a decent chance I can take the pot away later given the dangerousness of the board.
Turn is another 7. Villain again minbets, this time 1200 into 5925. His minbet indicates, to me, that he has a weak or medium strength hand at best - a hand that probably can't stand up to much pressure. I decide to raise at this point. This is an obvious semi-bluff; unless he has a FH, even trip sevens won't be happy to see another club (unless he has 7x where x is a high club) and will potentially still pay off a straight draw if it hits, so even if he calls I still have the potential to either draw to the best hand or represent the best hand on the river. And he does call. I think I probably should have raised more; I raised to 3600 (3x his bet), but given that he underbet the pot, a larger bet (5500-600) would probably be better in terms of scaring him off (which is what I want) or truly repping something like two pair or trips. I didn't think very clearly about what my line here would represent, which is a leak of mine. I like the raise here, but the sizing is poor, IMO.
The river is the J of clubs, putting a four flush on board. Obviously I have nothing except a low busted straight draw; therefore the only way I can win the hand is to induce my opponent to fold. Villain sets this up by checking. If victim had bet, I don't know that, given the dangerousness of the board, I would have been able to pull the trigger and even tried to push him off the hand (and it's likely if he had led it would not have worked; leading on that board would likely indicate a flush). But since villain bet, checking behind would have been a poor play - I can't win the hand unless I bet. So I bet 6000 into a 13125 pot.
Again, I think my bet sizing is a little off, but not as badly as the turn. It's a little on the small side - I'm attempting to find that middle ground bet, one that's large enough to be scary (thereby pushing the villain to hold) but small enough to look like an attempt to extract value. Too large and some villains will make a hero call, refusing to be pushed around and because an overlarge bet looks more bluffy. Too small and villain may make a crying call due to the odds. I think I probably should have bet more like 55-60% of the pot. Regardless, villain folded, and I took down the pot.
While I think this hand illustrates that I still struggle with bet sizing, it also points to some developments in my game. First, my ability to make pure bluff bets and raises is evident here. This is a very small part of my game, but I do have the ability to do it now, and I think I picked a good spot. The dangerousness of the board combined with the fact that my line was plausible in terms of hitting a flush OTR made this a good bluffing spot. It's possible had I bet it properly, I may have even gotten a fold OTT. Still, this is not a play I could have made 8 months ago. I used my position, reading of the board texture, and pressure to win a pot with air. I'm pretty sure people do this to me all the time, and I have to find spots to do it myself to stay in the game.
The very next orbit when I'm again in the BB, the table again folds around to the SB. Stacks are now 31.5K (M ~ 11.25, villain) and just over 56K (M ~ 20, me). Villain again completes his blind, and I check in the BB with JTo. I could potentially raise here, since JT is pretty good heads up, but default play is to just take a flop and hope to either hit or use my position to take the pot away.
Flop is AQ3, again monotone (hearts). I have the T of hearts for a decent flush draw and a gut shot straight draw. Villain continues his previous pattern, minbetting 1200 into 3400, and I call with my draws. I am conscious that my flush draw isn't the best, and obviously my gutshot isn't likely to come in. However, I opt to make a loose call because, based on the previous hand and other observations at the table, I believe he again has a weakish hand that I may be able to force him to fold later. This call is based much more of my read on the villain than on the actual strength of my hand.
The turn is the K of diamonds, filling out my gutshot straight. I now have a very good but vulnerable hand; it's unlikely he already has a flush, but another heart could either give him a flush (although there are only two higher flush cards than mine he could have, the K and the J) or could completely kill any action. Villain again minbets 1200 into 5800. I probably should have raised here. However, I made the conscious decision NOT to raise here because that is the way I had played the previous hand. This seems pretty bad in retrospect. I raised on a semibluff the hand before and failed to raise with what was almost certainly the best hand here. I'd like to say I did it for balance but that's not the case. I did it because I wanted to extract more money on the river, so I resorted to slow playing with a decent percentage of the deck would either kill my hand or kill the action. I should have raised here.
The river was the 8 of spades, which changed nothing. Villain again minbet (1200 into 8200), and I raised to 4800 with my straight, as I did not believe he had a made flush, and there was no other hand other than a flush that could have beat me on that board. Fortunately for me, he called this raise (which I should have made OTT) with K2, holding the K of hearts.
What did I learn from this two hand sequence vs. this villain, and how did hand one effect how I played hand 2? First, I continue to struggle with bet sizing. Second, I allowed the sequence of hand one (monotone board, two minbets from villain followed by a turn raise by me) to influence me into making what I believe was a bad decision in hand 2 (to NOT raise OTT). Third, I have at least a nascent ability to find spots to bluff to take away pots. Fourth, I was at least correct in my general reads on this villain - his min-betting did indicate weak or middle strength hands. Fifth, I sometimes still "freeze" when I hit a good hand and slow play (even though I hate slow playing in general); this is okay in order to balance vs. a villain who knows your play well, but that wasn't the case here. Here I was just missing value.
I think I played hand 1 well in terms of finding a spot to bluff, and poorly in turns of my bet sizing (the turn raise in particular). I think I played hand 2 a little worse (not raising the turn was pretty bad) but I was at least attempting to vary my play in response to a particular villain, which is a worthy goal.
Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Monday, January 25, 2010
A time to use bet/fold?
While I get bet/fold as a concept (you bet with the advance intention of folding to a raise), I struggle in using this technique appropriately. This weekend I identified a spot I probably should have used it, and I did think about using it before ultimately deciding against it. But at least I thought about it, and the minimal response I received on 2p2 indicates it may have been a good spot for it. Baby steps.
Anyway, the hand. This is early in a $10 tournament, blinds are 25/50. The table as a whole has been not only allowing limping, but most villains have been actively limping (and calling fairly significant raises pre) and check/folding missed flops. A standard overall weak/loose table. No specific reads on the villain I ended up HU with in the hand. Both of us have stack sizes close to the starting stack of 3000, and I have villain covered.
I decide to limp in MP1 (with two limpers already in the pot) with JTs, a hand I like to try to see a cheap flop with if possible due to the obvious straight and flush possibilities. The BTN also limps and the SB completes, so there are six players in the hand at the flop, pot 300. Flop is AJT with two hearts (the A and J), so I have bottom two pair but an extremely wet board. Four checks to me, and I bet the size of the pot (300). I bet this amount for two reasons. First, I always bet more on wet flops simply because of the likelihood of pairs and draws on the board; I would bet this amount with any reasonable hand I held here, like AJ or a set. Second, I want to protect a hand that is likely best now and extract value from anyone who would like to draw. I don't believe anyone has a set (unless it was with TT, about the only pair I would think someone would limp pre in this situation - AA and JJ most likely raise pre), although AJ or AT are possibilities. Also possible are multiple pair draw combos, especially ones that include the K or Q of hearts. In actuality, this was probably also a b/f spot, although I didn't think that through at the beginning. While I may have continued against a single villain who played back at me (one in particular who I had a decent read on), multiple individuals raising and reraising probably would have been a sign to let the hand go, since a better two pair, a flopped straight, or some sort of monster pair/draw combo were all in range. In any event, I got only a single caller and I went HU to the turn vs. the villain in UTG+1, meaning I had position for the remainder of the hand.
Turn is the 8 of hearts. An obvious scare card, as it puts three to the flush and three to the straight on board, although straight draw being completed is more unlikely (only Q9 and a very unlikely 97 would complete the straight, and I think only the exact 97 of hearts would call the flop). Villain checks.
Here was what should probably have been a textbook b/f spot. If the villain already completed a flush, he would probably raise here to build the pot, and also to protect against a higher flush redraw if he does not have the K of hearts. If he has a straight, he should also raise, since unless I have exactly two hearts he now has the best hand but would be unable to extract any value should another heart fall on the river. So, by the book, either a better made hand than mine should be raising here, and I would be able to assume because of the raise that I was behind, and depending on the size of the bet either fold, or in the case of an extremely small bet, call with direct and/or implied odds to draw to the full house.
On the other hand, it's unlikely a similar strength hand would raise here. If he has a better two pair, he should have raised the flop on such an obviously wet board. If he has a pair draw combo, the size of my bet and the strength of my position may push him out (I could conceivably even scare a hand like AT out, though this is unlikely), either by denying him odds to draw to his straight or flush, or by convincing him I already have the hand he is trying to draw to, and he would be trying to draw to a chop.
I, however, opted to check behind. The third flush card "froze" me, since flush draws were obviously in his calling range. The river was the Q of diamonds, completing a ton of straight draws as well. Villain bet half the pot (450 into 900) and, not seeing a hand I could beat other than a comically insane weak A or a complete bluff. All other draws got there, and any other draw that didn't hit the straight hit a better two pair. So I think the fold was obvious here.
I'm still conflicted as to the turn action, and to when to use b/f in general. I hope to find more spots it should be used in the future so I can get a better grasp on it, and add it as a part of my arsenal. Whether or not using it here would have been the "correct" play is difficult to say, but it certainly would have been a different way to play the hand, and one I should have given sufficient thought to before deciding my action on the turn.
Good luck to one and all, and see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Anyway, the hand. This is early in a $10 tournament, blinds are 25/50. The table as a whole has been not only allowing limping, but most villains have been actively limping (and calling fairly significant raises pre) and check/folding missed flops. A standard overall weak/loose table. No specific reads on the villain I ended up HU with in the hand. Both of us have stack sizes close to the starting stack of 3000, and I have villain covered.
I decide to limp in MP1 (with two limpers already in the pot) with JTs, a hand I like to try to see a cheap flop with if possible due to the obvious straight and flush possibilities. The BTN also limps and the SB completes, so there are six players in the hand at the flop, pot 300. Flop is AJT with two hearts (the A and J), so I have bottom two pair but an extremely wet board. Four checks to me, and I bet the size of the pot (300). I bet this amount for two reasons. First, I always bet more on wet flops simply because of the likelihood of pairs and draws on the board; I would bet this amount with any reasonable hand I held here, like AJ or a set. Second, I want to protect a hand that is likely best now and extract value from anyone who would like to draw. I don't believe anyone has a set (unless it was with TT, about the only pair I would think someone would limp pre in this situation - AA and JJ most likely raise pre), although AJ or AT are possibilities. Also possible are multiple pair draw combos, especially ones that include the K or Q of hearts. In actuality, this was probably also a b/f spot, although I didn't think that through at the beginning. While I may have continued against a single villain who played back at me (one in particular who I had a decent read on), multiple individuals raising and reraising probably would have been a sign to let the hand go, since a better two pair, a flopped straight, or some sort of monster pair/draw combo were all in range. In any event, I got only a single caller and I went HU to the turn vs. the villain in UTG+1, meaning I had position for the remainder of the hand.
Turn is the 8 of hearts. An obvious scare card, as it puts three to the flush and three to the straight on board, although straight draw being completed is more unlikely (only Q9 and a very unlikely 97 would complete the straight, and I think only the exact 97 of hearts would call the flop). Villain checks.
Here was what should probably have been a textbook b/f spot. If the villain already completed a flush, he would probably raise here to build the pot, and also to protect against a higher flush redraw if he does not have the K of hearts. If he has a straight, he should also raise, since unless I have exactly two hearts he now has the best hand but would be unable to extract any value should another heart fall on the river. So, by the book, either a better made hand than mine should be raising here, and I would be able to assume because of the raise that I was behind, and depending on the size of the bet either fold, or in the case of an extremely small bet, call with direct and/or implied odds to draw to the full house.
On the other hand, it's unlikely a similar strength hand would raise here. If he has a better two pair, he should have raised the flop on such an obviously wet board. If he has a pair draw combo, the size of my bet and the strength of my position may push him out (I could conceivably even scare a hand like AT out, though this is unlikely), either by denying him odds to draw to his straight or flush, or by convincing him I already have the hand he is trying to draw to, and he would be trying to draw to a chop.
I, however, opted to check behind. The third flush card "froze" me, since flush draws were obviously in his calling range. The river was the Q of diamonds, completing a ton of straight draws as well. Villain bet half the pot (450 into 900) and, not seeing a hand I could beat other than a comically insane weak A or a complete bluff. All other draws got there, and any other draw that didn't hit the straight hit a better two pair. So I think the fold was obvious here.
I'm still conflicted as to the turn action, and to when to use b/f in general. I hope to find more spots it should be used in the future so I can get a better grasp on it, and add it as a part of my arsenal. Whether or not using it here would have been the "correct" play is difficult to say, but it certainly would have been a different way to play the hand, and one I should have given sufficient thought to before deciding my action on the turn.
Good luck to one and all, and see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Monday, January 18, 2010
How not to play KK
In my continuing attempt to analyze my play, I picked this hand from Sunday's play as an example of an incorrect thought process I used that resulted in my turning KK into a bluff and losing more than I should have on the hand. I don't think I make this mistake as often anymore, but I obviously still make it, I just now use more elaborately LOL processes to convince myself in the moment that the river bet is a good play.
Tournament is the $5.50 2R1A (the five quad), and we are past the rebuy/addon period. I have 8500, villain has almost 10K, blinds are 60/120/15. No specific reads on villain. I pick up KK on the button, action folds to me. I raise to 360, villain in the BB calls for 240. This being a random opponent, I give him a relatively wide range just because my raise came from the button - probably any ace, any decent broadway cards, most high or mid high connectors or gappers, pretty much all pairs to set mine.
Flop is J84 rainbow; other than T9 for the OESD (or 76/65 for a gut shot draw) there are no real draws on the board, so when BB checks to me I put in a relatively small cbet of 420 into a 915 pot. BB calls. I'd probably throw out the very low end of his range with the call; all small pairs except 44, probably connectors that didn't hit very well like 97. He could have called with any card that hit J, 8, or 4, though I would expect him to throw away the four and probably the 8 with another bet OTT unless he hits trips or pairs his kicker. I would also presume he would call with pretty much any J, and would often float with any two high cards that haven't hit (KQ) and some aces, just in case I was cbetting with a missed hand myself. So I can't narrow his range too much, but his hand shouldn't be complete trash.
Turn is the ace of clubs. This not only puts two clubs on the board (putting an off chance backdoor flush draw on board), it also obviously is one of the four overcards to my pair of kings. Villain checks, and I opt to check behind. If he's got an A he won't fold to a bet; if he doesn't, he'll fold. Still no concrete range for villain, pot remains 1875.
River is another J, making the final board AJJ84. Villain checks again, and this is where I made a critical error. My hand has obvious showdown value, as I have two pair (kings and jacks), and can only be beaten if villain is holding an A or a J. If villain has an 8 or a 4 he can't call a river bet. If he has an A or a J, he's certainly not folding to a bet unless he's certainly I'm holding a J, and even then most randoms wouldn't fold an A on this board to the action so far. I therefore have no reason to bet - only in very rare exceptions can I force a better hand (an A) to fold, and a worse hand (an 8, 4, or other random cards) cannot call. However, I talked myself into a bet here, rationalizing that a hand like QJ or KJ would have played the hand the same way (which is true - had I been holding KJ, QJ, JT or something like that, I would bet the flop, check the turn, then bet the river), forgetting that it is a rare villain that, if he floated with an A on the flop, would fail to call a single bet with that ace OTR.
Outcome: I bet 720 into a pot of 1875, villain called with A9. Up until this river bet, I had "won" the hand even though I would lose the pot. When I was ahead, I put money into the pot. When I fell behind, I should have stopped, and I did on the turn but failed to do so on the river.
Lesson: Be aware of the purpose of your bet. This bet clearly wasn't for value - I had every reason to believe I was either way ahead (vs a draw, small pair, or air) or way behind (to a J or an A). While I could argue it was intended to make an ace fold by repping the J, my own experience tells me this play will fail a huge portion of the time. So I should have checked the river and taken the hand to showdown. I still would have lost, but I would have saved the value of the final bet and "won" the hand even though I lost the pot by correctly betting at all points when I was ahead and ceasing to bet when I was behind.
As I said, I do this less than I used to but obviously am still prey to lapses in judgement like this. I have to keep my cool. KK gets cracked. Continuing to bet when you are close to certain that no worse hand will call and no better hand will fold is a good way to lose chips.
Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Tournament is the $5.50 2R1A (the five quad), and we are past the rebuy/addon period. I have 8500, villain has almost 10K, blinds are 60/120/15. No specific reads on villain. I pick up KK on the button, action folds to me. I raise to 360, villain in the BB calls for 240. This being a random opponent, I give him a relatively wide range just because my raise came from the button - probably any ace, any decent broadway cards, most high or mid high connectors or gappers, pretty much all pairs to set mine.
Flop is J84 rainbow; other than T9 for the OESD (or 76/65 for a gut shot draw) there are no real draws on the board, so when BB checks to me I put in a relatively small cbet of 420 into a 915 pot. BB calls. I'd probably throw out the very low end of his range with the call; all small pairs except 44, probably connectors that didn't hit very well like 97. He could have called with any card that hit J, 8, or 4, though I would expect him to throw away the four and probably the 8 with another bet OTT unless he hits trips or pairs his kicker. I would also presume he would call with pretty much any J, and would often float with any two high cards that haven't hit (KQ) and some aces, just in case I was cbetting with a missed hand myself. So I can't narrow his range too much, but his hand shouldn't be complete trash.
Turn is the ace of clubs. This not only puts two clubs on the board (putting an off chance backdoor flush draw on board), it also obviously is one of the four overcards to my pair of kings. Villain checks, and I opt to check behind. If he's got an A he won't fold to a bet; if he doesn't, he'll fold. Still no concrete range for villain, pot remains 1875.
River is another J, making the final board AJJ84. Villain checks again, and this is where I made a critical error. My hand has obvious showdown value, as I have two pair (kings and jacks), and can only be beaten if villain is holding an A or a J. If villain has an 8 or a 4 he can't call a river bet. If he has an A or a J, he's certainly not folding to a bet unless he's certainly I'm holding a J, and even then most randoms wouldn't fold an A on this board to the action so far. I therefore have no reason to bet - only in very rare exceptions can I force a better hand (an A) to fold, and a worse hand (an 8, 4, or other random cards) cannot call. However, I talked myself into a bet here, rationalizing that a hand like QJ or KJ would have played the hand the same way (which is true - had I been holding KJ, QJ, JT or something like that, I would bet the flop, check the turn, then bet the river), forgetting that it is a rare villain that, if he floated with an A on the flop, would fail to call a single bet with that ace OTR.
Outcome: I bet 720 into a pot of 1875, villain called with A9. Up until this river bet, I had "won" the hand even though I would lose the pot. When I was ahead, I put money into the pot. When I fell behind, I should have stopped, and I did on the turn but failed to do so on the river.
Lesson: Be aware of the purpose of your bet. This bet clearly wasn't for value - I had every reason to believe I was either way ahead (vs a draw, small pair, or air) or way behind (to a J or an A). While I could argue it was intended to make an ace fold by repping the J, my own experience tells me this play will fail a huge portion of the time. So I should have checked the river and taken the hand to showdown. I still would have lost, but I would have saved the value of the final bet and "won" the hand even though I lost the pot by correctly betting at all points when I was ahead and ceasing to bet when I was behind.
As I said, I do this less than I used to but obviously am still prey to lapses in judgement like this. I have to keep my cool. KK gets cracked. Continuing to bet when you are close to certain that no worse hand will call and no better hand will fold is a good way to lose chips.
Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Tough decision with JJ in the SB
In keeping with my New Year's resolution, this is the first hand I'm posting here for dissection and analysis. I already posted in on 2p2, and there were of course other hands I could have chosen - busting with TPTK on a paired board to a LAG villain who happened to have an overpair; folding 99 in middle position to an UTG raiser, even though he and I were both deep enough for me to have implied odds if I hit a set, because there were two shorter stacks behind that, if they shoved, would squeeze me between them and the raiser (yes, I actually made a decision based on the stack sizes of players yet to act, a fairly new phenomenon for me). Ultimately I picked this hand because A) I made a completely different decision than I would have 6 months ago and B) there is no way to know for sure if my play was "right" or "wrong" due to the outcome.
Situation: PokerStars Night $70K guarenteed, a $50 + $5 buy in tournament. This is above my normal buy-in and bankroll, but I was bored. Not that this is an excuse.
Blinds are 500/1000/100 at a full table (9 players). I have a stack of 33.6K (M of about 14) in the SB. We are just past the bubble, if memory serves.
UTG makes it 2550, a normal raise for this table, two folds, and MP1 makes it 9000. Both UTG and MP1 have me covered, but neither by very much. It folds to me in the small blind, where I'm holding JJ.
In the past, I would probably would have made one of two plays: flat or shove. Flatting is absolutely inexcusable given stack sizes and tournament situation. Shoving is certainly a viable play, but is pretty high variance - if one of the villains calls, I'm almost always crushed under an overpair or flipping vs AK or AQs. TT might call some fraction of the time, but not often unless villain is pretty loose. If both villains call, I'm almost certainly crushed by one villain, possibly both, or sometimes flipping against both. Again, occassionally there may be a loose call from TT or slightly lower, but not very often.
On the other side, if UTG raised with a "weak" ace like AJs, and if MP1 was raising with something like 88 or 99, I could fold out both villains with a shove and pick up a substantial pot for my stack size.
So what did I know about both villains? UTG seemed standard, for lack of a better term - he had not been particularly aggressive, so I would certainly expect him to have a tight range to raise UTG. Still, if he was the only villain in the hand, I would most likely be playing the hand (most likely with a raise, since I would be OOP for the rest of the hand, and because JJ is difficult to play post flop when overcards hit). MP1, on the other hand, had been playing what I would call a fairly weak/passive game. He had been limping and flatting a lot, but rarely raising pre. So for him to raise an UTG raiser suggests to me a very narrow range - QQ+, AK.
It's possible, of course, that my reads were off. It's possible that UTG had ATs, and MP1 had 99, and that they both either would have folded to a shove, or, if they had called, would have been calling as a substantial underdog to my JJ. However, based on my reads of the villains, I opted to fold JJ here.
This isn't a play I would have made in the past. I both hate JJ and love it. It's a premium pair, but not quite premium enough. Odds are good you have the best hand pre, but often not after the flop or by the river. And it's not a hand you can really justify set mining with, which makes flatting with it pre kind of gross.
Of my three choices in this particular hand (flat, shove, or fold), I eliminated flat (horrible with current stack sizes) and shove (due to specific villain reads), leaving me with a very rare preflop fold with JJ.
Results: The BB and UTG folded, leaving MP1 with the pot. No cards were shown.
I posted this hand because it represents a substantial change from the way I would have played the hand in the past, and in this case I believe it was for the better. Shoving with the hope of generating a fold from two villains showing strength doesn't seem like a good play, although folding JJ with an M of only 14 is certainly not my default move. All in all, I'm comfortable with the way I played it, but I understand the argument for shoving.
Anyway, good luck to one and all, and see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Situation: PokerStars Night $70K guarenteed, a $50 + $5 buy in tournament. This is above my normal buy-in and bankroll, but I was bored. Not that this is an excuse.
Blinds are 500/1000/100 at a full table (9 players). I have a stack of 33.6K (M of about 14) in the SB. We are just past the bubble, if memory serves.
UTG makes it 2550, a normal raise for this table, two folds, and MP1 makes it 9000. Both UTG and MP1 have me covered, but neither by very much. It folds to me in the small blind, where I'm holding JJ.
In the past, I would probably would have made one of two plays: flat or shove. Flatting is absolutely inexcusable given stack sizes and tournament situation. Shoving is certainly a viable play, but is pretty high variance - if one of the villains calls, I'm almost always crushed under an overpair or flipping vs AK or AQs. TT might call some fraction of the time, but not often unless villain is pretty loose. If both villains call, I'm almost certainly crushed by one villain, possibly both, or sometimes flipping against both. Again, occassionally there may be a loose call from TT or slightly lower, but not very often.
On the other side, if UTG raised with a "weak" ace like AJs, and if MP1 was raising with something like 88 or 99, I could fold out both villains with a shove and pick up a substantial pot for my stack size.
So what did I know about both villains? UTG seemed standard, for lack of a better term - he had not been particularly aggressive, so I would certainly expect him to have a tight range to raise UTG. Still, if he was the only villain in the hand, I would most likely be playing the hand (most likely with a raise, since I would be OOP for the rest of the hand, and because JJ is difficult to play post flop when overcards hit). MP1, on the other hand, had been playing what I would call a fairly weak/passive game. He had been limping and flatting a lot, but rarely raising pre. So for him to raise an UTG raiser suggests to me a very narrow range - QQ+, AK.
It's possible, of course, that my reads were off. It's possible that UTG had ATs, and MP1 had 99, and that they both either would have folded to a shove, or, if they had called, would have been calling as a substantial underdog to my JJ. However, based on my reads of the villains, I opted to fold JJ here.
This isn't a play I would have made in the past. I both hate JJ and love it. It's a premium pair, but not quite premium enough. Odds are good you have the best hand pre, but often not after the flop or by the river. And it's not a hand you can really justify set mining with, which makes flatting with it pre kind of gross.
Of my three choices in this particular hand (flat, shove, or fold), I eliminated flat (horrible with current stack sizes) and shove (due to specific villain reads), leaving me with a very rare preflop fold with JJ.
Results: The BB and UTG folded, leaving MP1 with the pot. No cards were shown.
I posted this hand because it represents a substantial change from the way I would have played the hand in the past, and in this case I believe it was for the better. Shoving with the hope of generating a fold from two villains showing strength doesn't seem like a good play, although folding JJ with an M of only 14 is certainly not my default move. All in all, I'm comfortable with the way I played it, but I understand the argument for shoving.
Anyway, good luck to one and all, and see you at the tables.
SGT RJ
Monday, January 4, 2010
The New Year
So, it's 2010. I've officially been playing poker "seriously" for a little over a year now. This seems like as good a time as any to take stock of how I've progressed, what I still need to work on, and set some feasible goals for the upcoming year. But first, the news.
I spent New Year's weekend in Atlantic City with my boyfriend playing poker. Not that there is a hell of a lot else to do in AC in January. Sweet Jesus, it was cold. Just waiting on the jitney was an exercise in patience and stamina.
As far as success at the actual poker tables, not so much. This is partially due to my desire to play mostly tournament poker, which of course carries the inherent risk of losing the entire buy-in if you don't cash. The closest I got was 8th in a tournament that was paying five. In cash play, I had a very rough start early but rebounded after my last tournament bust to recover almost all of my cash game losses. So it was a losing weekend overall, but that's to be expected, right?
While I'm not thrilled with losing money (who is?), I'm less thrilled with my continued difficulty transitioning between cash and tournament play, and with my difficulty adjusting to the type of villains that seem most plentiful at the low limit cash tables - the loose passive preflop players who love to take flops with pretty much any two suited cards, any ace, any two face cards, any remotely connected cards, and sometimes any face card. Also, they think top pair is the nuts and won't lay it down no matter what their kicker, and they like to slow play monsters, including limping with JJ+. Mix in the odd hyperaggressive player and I usually end up so confused as to the optimal way to play that I end up nitting it up then becoming extremely frustrated when I get cracked. So, my cash game play needs a lot of work.
On a good note, I ended up at a table I managed to adjust to late, including taking one tricky villain twice for good sized pots. I also did something I absolutely could not have done last year - made a correct read on a single villain and executed the appropriate play to maximize my value. This occurred twice where I was conscious of it, once in tournament play and once in cash. I was successful in getting my whole stack in against an aggressive villain I knew was drawing, giving myself a chance to double up - the fact that he did catch his flush card on the river is immaterial, I think. I also correctly read a cash villain as having a weak hand on an A high board and bluffed him off his hand on the river, recognizing my own busted ten high flush draw had no chance of winning without a bet (and having already represented the the ace by calling on the flop and betting when the villain checked to me on the turn). Small things, of course, but then I think growth in this game tends to come more by small increments than giant leaps.
I already talked a little about areas I've seen some growth in - I'm particularly proud of my increased ability to bluff, and the ability to recognize when a bluff stands a decent chance of working, something I had zero concept of a year ago, and something which speaks to my still limited but oh so slowly growing skill at playing my opponent rather than my cards. That said, I still have a long way to go, so...
Poker New Year's Resolutions
1. I resolve to play more cash games online, particularly six max. This will hopefully lead to increased skill at two of my weaker areas - post flop play and being too passive.
2. I resolve to stop freezing like a deer in headlights during tournament play, particularly during the middle stages. I am, at the core, a pretty conservative player (hence my own surprise and delight to learn that yes, I can pull off a bluff). Unfortunately, this often leads to being TOO patient in tournaments, I think. I routinely go multiple orbits without playing a hand, which often leads to my decent stack becoming short before I can get deep enough. I know there's a fine balance between patient play and spew, but I think I err to far on the side of caution and ABC poker. And since I'm not happy with my current results, I'm going to try to push my comfort zone and develop my aggression. This will probably mean more busts and fewer min cashes. Hopefully, though, it increases the size of my cashes when I do find the right circumstances to aggress.
3. I resolve to strike a better life balance on the weekends. Since Friday night - Sunday afternoon is about the only time I can put in any serious time, I've been going overboard with this, allowing poker to consume EVERY Friday night, and EVERY Saturday. Probably not healthy, and I think it makes more likely to become bored or distracted. So, balance. I will work out on Saturdays. I will set aside time to work on my dissertation (oh sweet God, I have to write my dissertation). I will not become a weekend poker crackhead.
4. I resolve to post on this blog more frequently. Not that I think I'm letting anyone down by not posting (look at all those followers!), but because it forces me to think about and articulate what I'm doing well and what I'm doing poorly. Here on out, I will study, post and discuss one tournament hand that make me think during the course of a tournament, and I will do this every week where I actively play. That's pretty ambitious for me, but hopefully it will force me to spend as much time thinking critically about my play as I do swearing about the bad beats.
That's all for now, I think. Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables
SGT RJ
I spent New Year's weekend in Atlantic City with my boyfriend playing poker. Not that there is a hell of a lot else to do in AC in January. Sweet Jesus, it was cold. Just waiting on the jitney was an exercise in patience and stamina.
As far as success at the actual poker tables, not so much. This is partially due to my desire to play mostly tournament poker, which of course carries the inherent risk of losing the entire buy-in if you don't cash. The closest I got was 8th in a tournament that was paying five. In cash play, I had a very rough start early but rebounded after my last tournament bust to recover almost all of my cash game losses. So it was a losing weekend overall, but that's to be expected, right?
While I'm not thrilled with losing money (who is?), I'm less thrilled with my continued difficulty transitioning between cash and tournament play, and with my difficulty adjusting to the type of villains that seem most plentiful at the low limit cash tables - the loose passive preflop players who love to take flops with pretty much any two suited cards, any ace, any two face cards, any remotely connected cards, and sometimes any face card. Also, they think top pair is the nuts and won't lay it down no matter what their kicker, and they like to slow play monsters, including limping with JJ+. Mix in the odd hyperaggressive player and I usually end up so confused as to the optimal way to play that I end up nitting it up then becoming extremely frustrated when I get cracked. So, my cash game play needs a lot of work.
On a good note, I ended up at a table I managed to adjust to late, including taking one tricky villain twice for good sized pots. I also did something I absolutely could not have done last year - made a correct read on a single villain and executed the appropriate play to maximize my value. This occurred twice where I was conscious of it, once in tournament play and once in cash. I was successful in getting my whole stack in against an aggressive villain I knew was drawing, giving myself a chance to double up - the fact that he did catch his flush card on the river is immaterial, I think. I also correctly read a cash villain as having a weak hand on an A high board and bluffed him off his hand on the river, recognizing my own busted ten high flush draw had no chance of winning without a bet (and having already represented the the ace by calling on the flop and betting when the villain checked to me on the turn). Small things, of course, but then I think growth in this game tends to come more by small increments than giant leaps.
I already talked a little about areas I've seen some growth in - I'm particularly proud of my increased ability to bluff, and the ability to recognize when a bluff stands a decent chance of working, something I had zero concept of a year ago, and something which speaks to my still limited but oh so slowly growing skill at playing my opponent rather than my cards. That said, I still have a long way to go, so...
Poker New Year's Resolutions
1. I resolve to play more cash games online, particularly six max. This will hopefully lead to increased skill at two of my weaker areas - post flop play and being too passive.
2. I resolve to stop freezing like a deer in headlights during tournament play, particularly during the middle stages. I am, at the core, a pretty conservative player (hence my own surprise and delight to learn that yes, I can pull off a bluff). Unfortunately, this often leads to being TOO patient in tournaments, I think. I routinely go multiple orbits without playing a hand, which often leads to my decent stack becoming short before I can get deep enough. I know there's a fine balance between patient play and spew, but I think I err to far on the side of caution and ABC poker. And since I'm not happy with my current results, I'm going to try to push my comfort zone and develop my aggression. This will probably mean more busts and fewer min cashes. Hopefully, though, it increases the size of my cashes when I do find the right circumstances to aggress.
3. I resolve to strike a better life balance on the weekends. Since Friday night - Sunday afternoon is about the only time I can put in any serious time, I've been going overboard with this, allowing poker to consume EVERY Friday night, and EVERY Saturday. Probably not healthy, and I think it makes more likely to become bored or distracted. So, balance. I will work out on Saturdays. I will set aside time to work on my dissertation (oh sweet God, I have to write my dissertation). I will not become a weekend poker crackhead.
4. I resolve to post on this blog more frequently. Not that I think I'm letting anyone down by not posting (look at all those followers!), but because it forces me to think about and articulate what I'm doing well and what I'm doing poorly. Here on out, I will study, post and discuss one tournament hand that make me think during the course of a tournament, and I will do this every week where I actively play. That's pretty ambitious for me, but hopefully it will force me to spend as much time thinking critically about my play as I do swearing about the bad beats.
That's all for now, I think. Good luck to one and all, and I'll see you at the tables
SGT RJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)