PezRez on the 13th February 2012
Hello All,
It’s been quite a while since I’ve posted a hand... I have recently gone back to University to do a Masters, and between coaching and the course I haven’t had much spare time to play, let alone post hands. I’ll try to pull my socks up and post a bit more regularly...
Anyway, I played a session recently and had an interesting hand against a solid regular. He raised from UTG, a raise which I gave a lot of credit, and finding myself in a multiway pot with a tricky board found a nonstandard way of playing the hand, taking advantage of the squeeze my opponent would find himself in.
PokerStars Hand No Limit - Level II (15/30)
Seat 1: Player 1 (1710 in chips)
Seat 2: Player 2 (1245 in chips)
Seat 3: Player 3 (2086 in chips)
Seat 4: Hero (1170 in chips)
Seat 5: Villain (1094 in chips)
Seat 6: Player 6 (1695 in chips)
Player 3: posts small blind 15
Hero: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [9c 9d]
Villain: raises 60 to 90
Player 6: calls 90
Player 1: folds
Player 2: folds
Player 3: calls 75
Hero: calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8h Jh Ts]
Player 3: checks
Hero: bets 165
Villain: calls 165
Player 6: folds
Player 3: folds
*** TURN *** [8h Jh Ts] [2d]
Hero: bets 240
Villain: folds
Uncalled bet (240) returned to Hero
Hero collected 690 from pot
First of all, some of you may be tempted to 3-bet preflop, but I don’t like it much. As I mentioned above, I give a lot of respect to the UTG raise from this player, and give him a range of AQ+, 99+ (with maybe 88 and AJs thrown in, but maybe not). In any case, against this range - a) my hand doesn’t do so well and b) my opponent won’t fold much. With a medium pair generally you want to find yourself in a heads-up situation (relying on the strength of your pair) or a multiway pot (looking to flop a strong set). Here I’m already in a multiway pot with good pot odds, so I thought it most prudent to go down the latter route.
The flop is a tough one. I still have my pair, plus a straight draw, but the board is a very dangerous one in a four-way pot. The normal line would probably be to check-fold, except to a tiny bet that prices in our straight draw (which is particularly weak being a non-nut one-card draw - therefore obvious when you hit and not guaranteed to win the whole pot - not to mention the flush draw which cuts down your outs and could still hit the river when you hit on the turn). Looking back at my estimate of my opponent’s hand range -which also hits this flop quite nicely - maybe that would have been the best thing to do! But I knew that if I led into this opponent, he would feel himself in a really tough squeeze with two players behind on a board like that. I felt guaranteed that he would never make a play in that situation, not least because my lead on that board into the UTG raiser looks very strong. So I thought a lead here would be a great way of finding out where I am on this flop. I also felt guaranteed he would almost never slowplay, given a four-way pot and a board like that. As for the other two players, Player 6 who called in position appeared very weak/tight (with a VPIP/PFR of 16/0) so I thought it was very likely he would fold too. As for Player 3 in the small blind - he was a massive fish with a VPIP of 57%! He was the most likely player to call me by far, being so loose and closing the action, and I actually thought if he called I would likely have the best of it, especially considering that I had position on him in later streets. So I took the plunge and led 165 into 360 - a small bet to be sure, but one that would clarify my situation immensely.
And Villain flat calls. Well, he definitely had to have something there - but he definitely wasn’t happy about it. I was confident that if he had a set, he would have raised to protect it, and if he had a big pair which he was willing to commit with he would have done so immediately on the flop. I reckoned he was on a pair which he wasn’t happy about, or possibly an AQ double-gutshot and just maybe an AK.
The blank on the turn changed nothing, and I was sure that he would fold any AQ/AK type hand to another bet. As for the pairs, I didn’t count on it, but I considered it possible, given that I know my opponent is solid, capable of making a good fold and bound to read a lot of strength into my bets in this spot and with this board. I bet 240 into 690, another small bet - but around 30% of my opponent’s stack, making it look a lot like I was setting it up for a river all-in and trying to price him in. To my opponent, these two small bets must have reeked of strength - and after only a brief pause on the turn, he folded, to reveal immediately after that he had in fact laid down Aces:
Villain: aa obv
Villain: nice to have u back :/
Hero: :)
Although with retrospect my bet on the flop was a little dangerous given my estimate of my opponent’s range, it was a very cheap bet which I knew would appear very strong and make the situation much easier for me. As for the turn, when you can smell your solid opponent is uncomfortable, a ‘threaten-your-stack-bet’ of around 30-35% of his stack on the turn, even if it is a small proportion of the pot, will succeed in winning the pot more often than you’d think.
PezRez
Monday, 13 February 2012
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
A Ridiculous Fold
PezRez on the 17th August 2011
**WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS MATHS**
A situation came up for me recently that left me with a ridiculous choice to make. It’s the bubble and on the button with 4bb I‘ve got to shove any two. I found T2o and shoved it - or meant to, but I didn’t quite slide the bar all the way up and so raised to 700, leaving myself with 100 behind.
Then something incredible happened: the middle stack shoved and then the big stack shoved over the top! I watch in glee (“They’ve got it all in!”) - and then realise the action is back on me. Oh yeah, I opened this hand. And I have 100 left. All the chips are in the middle, and I have 23-1 pot odds to call all-in here with T2o. It seems like a no-brainer, but I just clicked fold and coasted into the money. Here’s the HH:
PokerStars Game $93.25+$6.75 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200)
Seat 3: MidStack (1515 in chips)
Seat 5: BigStack (6685 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero (800 in chips)
MidStack: posts small blind 100
BigStack: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Tc 2d]
Hero: raises 500 to 700
MidStack: raises 815 to 1515 and is all-in
BigStack: calls 1315
Hero: folds
*** FLOP *** [Jd 4h 5h]
*** TURN *** [Jd 4h 5h] [Qs]
*** RIVER *** [Jd 4h 5h Qs] [Kd]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
MidStack: shows [Ad 5c] (a pair of Fives)
BigStack: shows [7s 7d] (a pair of Sevens)
BigStack collected 3730 from pot
MidStack finished the tournament in 3rd place
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3730 | Rake 0
Board [Jd 4h 5h Qs Kd]
Seat 3: MidStack (small blind) showed [Ad 5c] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 5: BigStack (big blind) showed [7s 7d] and won (3730) with a pair of Sevens
Seat 6: Hero (button) folded before Flop
Now I revisited this hand at the end of the day and really wanted to know whether you should call or whether this ridiculous fold with 23-1 pot odds, leaving me with half a big blind, could actually be correct!
Unfortunately, ICM calculators like SNG Wiz aren’t capable of dealing with situations where you have already acted in the hand, such as here. In this situation, we need to do the ICM calculations longhand. Here it is also complicated some more by the fact we have two possibilities to consider: our probability of winning if we call (which we’ll label p) and the chance the Midstack busts if we fold and therefore we sneak into the cash (let’s call this one x).
For those of you who are not too bothered about the maths of poker, skip to the ending. To the rest that remain, let’s have a go at this problem.
So first off we are going to need an ICM calculator, such as can be found at holdemresources.net. Thankfully this does the really hard stuff, so we are left to concentrate on only the moderately hard. You stick the stack sizes and payouts into the calculator and it tells you each player’s equity, according to ICM. We can use this to figure out what our equity will be in various outcomes, and then construct an equation to compare.
FOLD
If we fold, we are going to have 100 left after the hand. If the big stack wins, we’re in the cash! But if the midstack wins, with 100 left we are going to be f♠♦♥♣d.
The ICM calculator tells us that our equities in those two situations are:
EQ[we fold, bubble pops] = 35.33%
EQ[we fold and midstack wins] = 1.55%
1.55%. That’s what f♠♦♥♣d looks like.
CALL
Here we need to make an assumption to simplify things. We are going to assume that we know what their hands are in this situation and if we win the main pot (most likely by spiking a Ten) then the Big Stack will win the side pot, as it will mean that the Mid Stack failed to spike his Ace and so came third in the hand to my pair of Tens and the Big Stack’s 77. This will nearly always be the case, unless we get some funky board like A55 or TT55x or maybe AT2. These things are gonna happen, but very infrequently (like maybe 5% of the time), so let’s discount them. As for how this will bias our calculations, it will slightly overestimate our equity for calling and so we’ll end up with a slightly lower winning percentage we need to make the call.
So either we triple up and end up heads-up with Big Stack or we bust and get nothing. The ICM calculator gives our equity in the first case as:
EQ[triple up, make the cash] = 44.00%
And it should be obvious that if we bust, our equity is zero.
THE EQUATION
To analyse whether calling is better than folding, we need to set the equities of the two against each other in an equation and then solve it. The probability we calculate will be the winning chance above which calling will be better than folding. But since we have both p (our chance of winning) and x (Big Stacks chance of winning when we fold) in this case, we cannot “solve” the equation. We will have to introduce some likely values for one to look at what that would make the other.
So setting EQ[FOLD] = EQ[Call] will mean the following equation:
EQ[FOLD + CASH]*x + EQ[FOLD + F♠♦♥♣D]*(1 - x) = EQ[CALL + WIN]*p + EQ[CALL + LOSE]* (1 - p)
Putting our numbers in:
35.33*x + 1.55*(1 - x) = 44*p + 0
33.78x + 1.55 = 44p
Now we have our equation, let’s put in a couple of values. First of all, the Big Stack here is likely to have a tighter range than the Mid Stack, and he’s a much less fishy player, so let’s assume he is a 2-1 favourite when we fold (that is, x = 0.67). In that case:
35.33*0.67 + 1.55 = 44p
25.22 = 44p
p = 0.5732 or a 57.32% chance of winning
Well look at that! If the Big Stack is a good favourite here, you need a 57% winning chance to call - and I’m pretty sure that’s impossible with T2o in a three-way pot. It’s not just a fold - it’s a huge fold. And remember, because of the bias introduced by our assumption, this number is an underestimate.
What about if the Big Stack is not such an extreme favourite? Let’s see what happens if the two of them are all-in for a coin flip (x = 0.50):
35.33*0.50 + 1.55 = 44p
19.22 = 44p
p = 0.4368 or a 43.68% chance of winning
So whilst that has made a big difference, again you’re never gonna be winning 44% of the time with T2o in a three-way all-in. Remember, with a random hand versus two other random hands you are 33%. Here you have a decidedly below-average hand against two clearly well-above-average hands. Still a huge fold.
In fact, against a range of the top 20%of hands for the Mid Stack and the top 15% for the Big Stack, your T2o has a 19.5% winning chance. With these ranges, when we fold the Big Stack has 54.9% equity in the pot. So looking for x = 0.549 and p = 0.195...
EQ[FOLD] = 20.10%
EQ[CALL] = 8.58%
Calling here would cost me 11.52% equity, equivalent in this $100 buy-in game to $64.45!
RESUME HERE IF YOU SKIPPED THE MATHS
These calculations have proved that in this situation it is in fact correct to fold the hand, despite your 23-1 pot odds and half a big blind remaining. Not only that, but it would be a grave error to call here, costing me in fact almost two-thirds of my buy-in in equity if I call. SNGs, whilst being such a repetitive and formulaic format, never fail to amaze me sometimes. Never would I have thought that calling with 23-1 pot odds could possibly cost you $65 in a $100 buy-in game. If you take anything from this post, it should be that in SNGs, ICM is King.
PezRez
**WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS MATHS**
A situation came up for me recently that left me with a ridiculous choice to make. It’s the bubble and on the button with 4bb I‘ve got to shove any two. I found T2o and shoved it - or meant to, but I didn’t quite slide the bar all the way up and so raised to 700, leaving myself with 100 behind.
Then something incredible happened: the middle stack shoved and then the big stack shoved over the top! I watch in glee (“They’ve got it all in!”) - and then realise the action is back on me. Oh yeah, I opened this hand. And I have 100 left. All the chips are in the middle, and I have 23-1 pot odds to call all-in here with T2o. It seems like a no-brainer, but I just clicked fold and coasted into the money. Here’s the HH:
PokerStars Game $93.25+$6.75 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200)
Seat 3: MidStack (1515 in chips)
Seat 5: BigStack (6685 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero (800 in chips)
MidStack: posts small blind 100
BigStack: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Tc 2d]
Hero: raises 500 to 700
MidStack: raises 815 to 1515 and is all-in
BigStack: calls 1315
Hero: folds
*** FLOP *** [Jd 4h 5h]
*** TURN *** [Jd 4h 5h] [Qs]
*** RIVER *** [Jd 4h 5h Qs] [Kd]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
MidStack: shows [Ad 5c] (a pair of Fives)
BigStack: shows [7s 7d] (a pair of Sevens)
BigStack collected 3730 from pot
MidStack finished the tournament in 3rd place
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3730 | Rake 0
Board [Jd 4h 5h Qs Kd]
Seat 3: MidStack (small blind) showed [Ad 5c] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 5: BigStack (big blind) showed [7s 7d] and won (3730) with a pair of Sevens
Seat 6: Hero (button) folded before Flop
Now I revisited this hand at the end of the day and really wanted to know whether you should call or whether this ridiculous fold with 23-1 pot odds, leaving me with half a big blind, could actually be correct!
Unfortunately, ICM calculators like SNG Wiz aren’t capable of dealing with situations where you have already acted in the hand, such as here. In this situation, we need to do the ICM calculations longhand. Here it is also complicated some more by the fact we have two possibilities to consider: our probability of winning if we call (which we’ll label p) and the chance the Midstack busts if we fold and therefore we sneak into the cash (let’s call this one x).
For those of you who are not too bothered about the maths of poker, skip to the ending. To the rest that remain, let’s have a go at this problem.
So first off we are going to need an ICM calculator, such as can be found at holdemresources.net. Thankfully this does the really hard stuff, so we are left to concentrate on only the moderately hard. You stick the stack sizes and payouts into the calculator and it tells you each player’s equity, according to ICM. We can use this to figure out what our equity will be in various outcomes, and then construct an equation to compare.
FOLD
If we fold, we are going to have 100 left after the hand. If the big stack wins, we’re in the cash! But if the midstack wins, with 100 left we are going to be f♠♦♥♣d.
The ICM calculator tells us that our equities in those two situations are:
EQ[we fold, bubble pops] = 35.33%
EQ[we fold and midstack wins] = 1.55%
1.55%. That’s what f♠♦♥♣d looks like.
CALL
Here we need to make an assumption to simplify things. We are going to assume that we know what their hands are in this situation and if we win the main pot (most likely by spiking a Ten) then the Big Stack will win the side pot, as it will mean that the Mid Stack failed to spike his Ace and so came third in the hand to my pair of Tens and the Big Stack’s 77. This will nearly always be the case, unless we get some funky board like A55 or TT55x or maybe AT2. These things are gonna happen, but very infrequently (like maybe 5% of the time), so let’s discount them. As for how this will bias our calculations, it will slightly overestimate our equity for calling and so we’ll end up with a slightly lower winning percentage we need to make the call.
So either we triple up and end up heads-up with Big Stack or we bust and get nothing. The ICM calculator gives our equity in the first case as:
EQ[triple up, make the cash] = 44.00%
And it should be obvious that if we bust, our equity is zero.
THE EQUATION
To analyse whether calling is better than folding, we need to set the equities of the two against each other in an equation and then solve it. The probability we calculate will be the winning chance above which calling will be better than folding. But since we have both p (our chance of winning) and x (Big Stacks chance of winning when we fold) in this case, we cannot “solve” the equation. We will have to introduce some likely values for one to look at what that would make the other.
So setting EQ[FOLD] = EQ[Call] will mean the following equation:
EQ[FOLD + CASH]*x + EQ[FOLD + F♠♦♥♣D]*(1 - x) = EQ[CALL + WIN]*p + EQ[CALL + LOSE]* (1 - p)
Putting our numbers in:
35.33*x + 1.55*(1 - x) = 44*p + 0
33.78x + 1.55 = 44p
Now we have our equation, let’s put in a couple of values. First of all, the Big Stack here is likely to have a tighter range than the Mid Stack, and he’s a much less fishy player, so let’s assume he is a 2-1 favourite when we fold (that is, x = 0.67). In that case:
35.33*0.67 + 1.55 = 44p
25.22 = 44p
p = 0.5732 or a 57.32% chance of winning
Well look at that! If the Big Stack is a good favourite here, you need a 57% winning chance to call - and I’m pretty sure that’s impossible with T2o in a three-way pot. It’s not just a fold - it’s a huge fold. And remember, because of the bias introduced by our assumption, this number is an underestimate.
What about if the Big Stack is not such an extreme favourite? Let’s see what happens if the two of them are all-in for a coin flip (x = 0.50):
35.33*0.50 + 1.55 = 44p
19.22 = 44p
p = 0.4368 or a 43.68% chance of winning
So whilst that has made a big difference, again you’re never gonna be winning 44% of the time with T2o in a three-way all-in. Remember, with a random hand versus two other random hands you are 33%. Here you have a decidedly below-average hand against two clearly well-above-average hands. Still a huge fold.
In fact, against a range of the top 20%of hands for the Mid Stack and the top 15% for the Big Stack, your T2o has a 19.5% winning chance. With these ranges, when we fold the Big Stack has 54.9% equity in the pot. So looking for x = 0.549 and p = 0.195...
EQ[FOLD] = 20.10%
EQ[CALL] = 8.58%
Calling here would cost me 11.52% equity, equivalent in this $100 buy-in game to $64.45!
RESUME HERE IF YOU SKIPPED THE MATHS
These calculations have proved that in this situation it is in fact correct to fold the hand, despite your 23-1 pot odds and half a big blind remaining. Not only that, but it would be a grave error to call here, costing me in fact almost two-thirds of my buy-in in equity if I call. SNGs, whilst being such a repetitive and formulaic format, never fail to amaze me sometimes. Never would I have thought that calling with 23-1 pot odds could possibly cost you $65 in a $100 buy-in game. If you take anything from this post, it should be that in SNGs, ICM is King.
PezRez
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Full Tilt Hearing
PezRez on 2nd August
Hey guys,
No strategy discussion for this post, but I thought I would talk a little about the situation at Full Tilt. As I'm sure everyone is aware, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, who regulate Full Tilt, pulled the plug a little while back, throwing everyone's funds into limbo. There was a lot of vitriol directed online to the AGCC, and to the United States - and President Obama. While Obama may or may not be a tool, in this case I suspect the real culprit are Full Tilt. If the AGCC had discovered, for instance, that Full Tilt were unable to pay out their customers, then by pulling the plug they absolutely did the correct thing. If they knew that there was a rotten company trading, they could not do nothing and allow people to put more money into the business with little hope of getting it back. Having said that, the AGCC should make every effort to ensure players get their funds back, and they don't get sucked into the Black Hole of Doom that is the US treasury, to cover interest on repayments to China and bullets for shooting Afghans.
So the AGCC public hearing was held in London last week, and Al(md261) and I decided to go along to see if we could find out what was happening to our money. The room was full, with maybe 70-80 people, and proceedings started a little late. As a portly gentleman whose interest was obviously as a player rather than an industry observer derisively snorted, the lawyers for Full Tilt, explained that they wished to make a preliminary appeal for the hearing to be held in secret. They had good reasons, they said (to more snorts from our friend in the fifth row); just those reasons were a bit sensitive too, so they made a Pre-Preliminary Appeal to explain to the AGCC exactly why the preliminary appeal needed to be held in secret.
Now I'm not a big fan of secrecy, but as ridiculous as it sounded, this seemed quite reasonable. Our portly gent, no doubt planning to make a scene from the get-go, stormed out, saying, "This is a disgrace, you should be looking after the players and not this corrupt company", or some such. But I think maybe that's what the AGCC were doing. The thing is, it sounded to me like Full Tilt needed a rescue in order to save it from oblivion. There have been rumours swirling around about a possible buy-out, which if it occurred, needless to say, would result in the players being returned their funds as a matter of priority. However, Full Tilt's argument was that, essentially, they had been so naughty (tsk tsk) that if it was revealed what they had been up to, their reputation and so any hope of a rescue for the company (and my cash) would be destroyed. Which is absolutely understandable. Of course, Full Tilt were acting in their own interests when they asked for secrecy, but in this case I think it's quite likely those interests coincide with our own, as players hoping to retrieve the money we may have lost. So I think that man's self-indulgent rant, planned from the beginning, was a little off the mark.
In any case, secrecy was granted and nothing much happenned that day. There is to be another hearing, some time in September I think, which after this experience I will think twice about attending. For all of us hoping to recoup our losses, let's hope that Full Tilt gets bought out swiftly.
PezRez
Hey guys,
No strategy discussion for this post, but I thought I would talk a little about the situation at Full Tilt. As I'm sure everyone is aware, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, who regulate Full Tilt, pulled the plug a little while back, throwing everyone's funds into limbo. There was a lot of vitriol directed online to the AGCC, and to the United States - and President Obama. While Obama may or may not be a tool, in this case I suspect the real culprit are Full Tilt. If the AGCC had discovered, for instance, that Full Tilt were unable to pay out their customers, then by pulling the plug they absolutely did the correct thing. If they knew that there was a rotten company trading, they could not do nothing and allow people to put more money into the business with little hope of getting it back. Having said that, the AGCC should make every effort to ensure players get their funds back, and they don't get sucked into the Black Hole of Doom that is the US treasury, to cover interest on repayments to China and bullets for shooting Afghans.
So the AGCC public hearing was held in London last week, and Al(md261) and I decided to go along to see if we could find out what was happening to our money. The room was full, with maybe 70-80 people, and proceedings started a little late. As a portly gentleman whose interest was obviously as a player rather than an industry observer derisively snorted, the lawyers for Full Tilt, explained that they wished to make a preliminary appeal for the hearing to be held in secret. They had good reasons, they said (to more snorts from our friend in the fifth row); just those reasons were a bit sensitive too, so they made a Pre-Preliminary Appeal to explain to the AGCC exactly why the preliminary appeal needed to be held in secret.
Now I'm not a big fan of secrecy, but as ridiculous as it sounded, this seemed quite reasonable. Our portly gent, no doubt planning to make a scene from the get-go, stormed out, saying, "This is a disgrace, you should be looking after the players and not this corrupt company", or some such. But I think maybe that's what the AGCC were doing. The thing is, it sounded to me like Full Tilt needed a rescue in order to save it from oblivion. There have been rumours swirling around about a possible buy-out, which if it occurred, needless to say, would result in the players being returned their funds as a matter of priority. However, Full Tilt's argument was that, essentially, they had been so naughty (tsk tsk) that if it was revealed what they had been up to, their reputation and so any hope of a rescue for the company (and my cash) would be destroyed. Which is absolutely understandable. Of course, Full Tilt were acting in their own interests when they asked for secrecy, but in this case I think it's quite likely those interests coincide with our own, as players hoping to retrieve the money we may have lost. So I think that man's self-indulgent rant, planned from the beginning, was a little off the mark.
In any case, secrecy was granted and nothing much happenned that day. There is to be another hearing, some time in September I think, which after this experience I will think twice about attending. For all of us hoping to recoup our losses, let's hope that Full Tilt gets bought out swiftly.
PezRez
Monday, 25 July 2011
Destroying Value Part 3
PezRez on 25th June
PokerStars Game $27.58+$2.42 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level II (15/30)
Seat 1: Player 1 (1315 in chips)
Seat 2: Hero (1295 in chips)
Seat 3: Player 3 (1280 in chips)
Seat 4: Villain (830 in chips)
Seat 6: Player 6 (4280 in chips)
Player 1: posts small blind 15
Hero: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Js Jc]
Player 3: folds
Villain: raises 60 to 90
Player 6: folds
Player 1: folds
Hero: raises 165 to 255
Villain: calls 165
*** FLOP *** [6d Ad 2s]
Hero: checks
Villain: bets 525
Hero: raises 515 to 1040 and is all-in
Villain: folds
Uncalled bet (515) returned to Hero
Hero collected 1575 from pot
Hero: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1575 | Rake 0
Board [6d Ad 2s]
Seat 1: Player 1 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: Hero (big blind) collected (1575)
Seat 3: Player 3 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Villain folded on the Flop
Seat 6: Player 6 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Yes, that’s right children – another instalment in the smash-hit Destroying Value series. And yes, kiddies, it’s the same as always. But when this hand occurred today, I had to post it as yet another confirmation of my point (as if parts 1 and 2 were not sufficient).
Preflop I make a pot-committing reraise against a terrible, terrible fish. Imagine a donkey made sweet love with a fish; he could be their illegitimate child. No really; he is awful. But I think you get the picture.
So on this flop, given how awful he is, I could just shove, and he probably would call with a fair few hands (I should call this post “Slightly Minimizing Value Pt.1”). But I remembered the exhortations I made of you all in previous posts, and went for the check. He quickly bet 525 of his 575 remaining. I put the rest in, and he insta-folded (I laughed quite hard at the time).
Told you he was a fish.
PezRez
PokerStars Game $27.58+$2.42 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level II (15/30)
Seat 1: Player 1 (1315 in chips)
Seat 2: Hero (1295 in chips)
Seat 3: Player 3 (1280 in chips)
Seat 4: Villain (830 in chips)
Seat 6: Player 6 (4280 in chips)
Player 1: posts small blind 15
Hero: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Js Jc]
Player 3: folds
Villain: raises 60 to 90
Player 6: folds
Player 1: folds
Hero: raises 165 to 255
Villain: calls 165
*** FLOP *** [6d Ad 2s]
Hero: checks
Villain: bets 525
Hero: raises 515 to 1040 and is all-in
Villain: folds
Uncalled bet (515) returned to Hero
Hero collected 1575 from pot
Hero: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1575 | Rake 0
Board [6d Ad 2s]
Seat 1: Player 1 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 2: Hero (big blind) collected (1575)
Seat 3: Player 3 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Villain folded on the Flop
Seat 6: Player 6 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Yes, that’s right children – another instalment in the smash-hit Destroying Value series. And yes, kiddies, it’s the same as always. But when this hand occurred today, I had to post it as yet another confirmation of my point (as if parts 1 and 2 were not sufficient).
Preflop I make a pot-committing reraise against a terrible, terrible fish. Imagine a donkey made sweet love with a fish; he could be their illegitimate child. No really; he is awful. But I think you get the picture.
So on this flop, given how awful he is, I could just shove, and he probably would call with a fair few hands (I should call this post “Slightly Minimizing Value Pt.1”). But I remembered the exhortations I made of you all in previous posts, and went for the check. He quickly bet 525 of his 575 remaining. I put the rest in, and he insta-folded (I laughed quite hard at the time).
Told you he was a fish.
PezRez
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Recognising what range my opponent perceives I hold...
PezRez on 11th June 2011
PokerStars Game $70+$6 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100)
Seat 2: Villain (4067 in chips)
Seat 3: Player 3 (1200 in chips)
Seat 5: Player 5 (1383 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero (2350 in chips)
Hero: posts small blind 50
Villain: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Kc As]
Player 3: folds
Player 5: folds
Hero: raises 150 to 250
Villain: calls 150
*** FLOP *** [Qd 9s 7d]
Hero: bets 300
Villain: calls 300
*** TURN *** [Qd 9s 7d] [Ah]
Hero: bets 550
Villain: calls 550
*** RIVER *** [Qd 9s 7d Ah] [Kd]
Hero: checks
Villain: bets 2200
Hero: calls 1250 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (950) returned to Villain
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Villain: shows [4d 4c] (a pair of Fours)
Hero: shows [Kc As] (two pair, Aces and Kings)
Hero collected 4700 from pot
First of all, I must offer my sincerest apologies for not having posted any new hands for over 2 months. I spent the time in Spain, brushing up on my Spanish, and so took a holiday from poker and posting. I’m now back and raring to go, albeit in a poker world which seems very different from the one which I left in April, after Black Friday, the repercussions of which are still being felt and I’m sure some of which remain to be seen. But ho-hum. [Some of you may notice that this hand is an old one, as the buy-in is no longer offered on Pokerstars (all these changes, sigh). This is in fact an interesting hand from several months back, which I had saved (with several more where that came from). ]
So this post is all about recognising your opponent’s perception of your range. My opponent in this hand is an excellent player who just loves to get all up in your grill. Contrasted with my opponent in ‘A Cautionary Tale’, who I needed to recognise had no thoughts/expectations/brain, this player is very likely to read the sequence of the hand in a certain way, which I was lucky enough to be able to exploit with the hand that was dealt to me.
So first things first: I’m second in chips, with the big stack, an excellent player, to my immediate left in the big blind. And I have AK. Contrary to how many people might feel about this situation, I’m not thrilled with my hand here. AK can be hard to play out of position, especially with this stack size and especially against a player of this calibre. I don’t really see any other options, however, than a standard-sized raise. My opponent calls. Uh-oh, here we go.
The Q97 flop is not good at all. Generally flops with a JT,QJ,J9,T9 etc combination are bad to continuation bet on, and I feel like my big-stacked opponent is highly likely to float me here. Nonetheless, I feel I probably have the best hand, he could fold, and it would just be too weak a way to play AK to check-fold when I miss here. I put out a grudging C-bet with my fingers crossed and my opponent quickly calls. Well, I did see it coming.
The turn brings likely salvation. A shiny Ace of hearts gives me top-top. You might think the thing to do now would be to check and allow my opponent, who is likely floating, to represent the scare card, then BAM! – hit him with the check-raise. However, I need to think how my opponent will perceive my various actions. True, when I check he will likely bet. But a call or raise will give away the fact that I definitely have a piece of this board here, and my action is likely to stop there. What if I bet? Well, my opponent would have expected me to C-bet with the majority of my range on this flop. The Ace would appear to hit my range solidly, but he knows I know this. When I bet strong, it’s probably not a middling Ace (A7-A9, for example), as I might prefer to check these hands, let my opponent bluff and avoid difficult situations. So it’ll be a big Ace (exactly what I have), OR... a bluff. He knows that the Ace looks like a tremendous scare card for me to bluff with. So when I bet, I think the range he will put me on will be big hands (big Aces, two pairs, sets etc.) or a shit-load of bluffs. In fact, since most regulars reliably bluff scare cards too often, the bluffs far outweigh the real hands. I think my tenacious opponent, with a mountain of chips, won’t be able to lay down any hand here, as he will think there is just too good a chance he can take this pot away from me. He calls.
The river gives me top two-pair and I feel pretty confident I’m ahead. The pot is 2200, and I have 1250 remaining. Perfect to push all-in, right? That would be the plan if I thought my opponent was value-calling me. But as I elaborated previously, I think he is quite possibly itching to make a move, and I need to give him an opportunity. So I check, he snap-pushes, I snap-call and he had pocket 4s! At least this time my estimation of my opponent was spot on.
PezRez
PokerStars Game $70+$6 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100)
Seat 2: Villain (4067 in chips)
Seat 3: Player 3 (1200 in chips)
Seat 5: Player 5 (1383 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero (2350 in chips)
Hero: posts small blind 50
Villain: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Kc As]
Player 3: folds
Player 5: folds
Hero: raises 150 to 250
Villain: calls 150
*** FLOP *** [Qd 9s 7d]
Hero: bets 300
Villain: calls 300
*** TURN *** [Qd 9s 7d] [Ah]
Hero: bets 550
Villain: calls 550
*** RIVER *** [Qd 9s 7d Ah] [Kd]
Hero: checks
Villain: bets 2200
Hero: calls 1250 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (950) returned to Villain
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Villain: shows [4d 4c] (a pair of Fours)
Hero: shows [Kc As] (two pair, Aces and Kings)
Hero collected 4700 from pot
First of all, I must offer my sincerest apologies for not having posted any new hands for over 2 months. I spent the time in Spain, brushing up on my Spanish, and so took a holiday from poker and posting. I’m now back and raring to go, albeit in a poker world which seems very different from the one which I left in April, after Black Friday, the repercussions of which are still being felt and I’m sure some of which remain to be seen. But ho-hum. [Some of you may notice that this hand is an old one, as the buy-in is no longer offered on Pokerstars (all these changes, sigh). This is in fact an interesting hand from several months back, which I had saved (with several more where that came from). ]
So this post is all about recognising your opponent’s perception of your range. My opponent in this hand is an excellent player who just loves to get all up in your grill. Contrasted with my opponent in ‘A Cautionary Tale’, who I needed to recognise had no thoughts/expectations/brain, this player is very likely to read the sequence of the hand in a certain way, which I was lucky enough to be able to exploit with the hand that was dealt to me.
So first things first: I’m second in chips, with the big stack, an excellent player, to my immediate left in the big blind. And I have AK. Contrary to how many people might feel about this situation, I’m not thrilled with my hand here. AK can be hard to play out of position, especially with this stack size and especially against a player of this calibre. I don’t really see any other options, however, than a standard-sized raise. My opponent calls. Uh-oh, here we go.
The Q97 flop is not good at all. Generally flops with a JT,QJ,J9,T9 etc combination are bad to continuation bet on, and I feel like my big-stacked opponent is highly likely to float me here. Nonetheless, I feel I probably have the best hand, he could fold, and it would just be too weak a way to play AK to check-fold when I miss here. I put out a grudging C-bet with my fingers crossed and my opponent quickly calls. Well, I did see it coming.
The turn brings likely salvation. A shiny Ace of hearts gives me top-top. You might think the thing to do now would be to check and allow my opponent, who is likely floating, to represent the scare card, then BAM! – hit him with the check-raise. However, I need to think how my opponent will perceive my various actions. True, when I check he will likely bet. But a call or raise will give away the fact that I definitely have a piece of this board here, and my action is likely to stop there. What if I bet? Well, my opponent would have expected me to C-bet with the majority of my range on this flop. The Ace would appear to hit my range solidly, but he knows I know this. When I bet strong, it’s probably not a middling Ace (A7-A9, for example), as I might prefer to check these hands, let my opponent bluff and avoid difficult situations. So it’ll be a big Ace (exactly what I have), OR... a bluff. He knows that the Ace looks like a tremendous scare card for me to bluff with. So when I bet, I think the range he will put me on will be big hands (big Aces, two pairs, sets etc.) or a shit-load of bluffs. In fact, since most regulars reliably bluff scare cards too often, the bluffs far outweigh the real hands. I think my tenacious opponent, with a mountain of chips, won’t be able to lay down any hand here, as he will think there is just too good a chance he can take this pot away from me. He calls.
The river gives me top two-pair and I feel pretty confident I’m ahead. The pot is 2200, and I have 1250 remaining. Perfect to push all-in, right? That would be the plan if I thought my opponent was value-calling me. But as I elaborated previously, I think he is quite possibly itching to make a move, and I need to give him an opportunity. So I check, he snap-pushes, I snap-call and he had pocket 4s! At least this time my estimation of my opponent was spot on.
PezRez
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Don't Leave $$$ on the Table
md261 on 27th April 2011
There has been exciting events in the poker world recently. Not much has really changed for non-US players, but since many people are reacting by withdrawing a large percentage of their bankroll from the big 3 and are looking to play elsewhere, a great opportunity has occured for everyone who can play at Non-US sites.
Networks like Party Poker, iPoker, OnGame and others are looking at this as the big opportunity to sweep up some of the players leaving Stars, FT and Cereus, and add them to their own network.
This surge in activity has led to real competition and price-warring between the networks. They view every player they gain now as a potential revenue stream for many years to come, and they are willing to do many things to gain players at this time. Competition is great for consumers as companies have to offer better value-for-money or better services to their clients, otherwise people will go elsewhere.
Networks want to get big players on, and will offer high % RB deals (sometimes even as high as 60%+) to get these players. If you are a full time pro, a high RB deal can add $10,000-$100,000 to your yearly winnings, for no extra work. Networks do not widely publicise these deals, because then players who do not know about it, and who think they are getting a great deal at 30% Rakeback, will demand a better deal, which means less money for the Network. Regardless of the stakes you play you can often get higher RB deals than you are getting.
IF YOU ARE NOT GETTING A HIGH % RB DEAL YOU ARE LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE
As a general economic rule of thumb, the more competition there is, the better deals the customer/consumer gets, this seems to hold true for poker sites as well. Many people do not fully understand the relationship between a poker network and a poker skin.
Pokerstars and Full Tilt have no skins, you can only join the one site to play on one network, sites like Pokerstars.fr are not skins, because .fr players cannot play on the same network as players outside of France. However a site like iPoker is a different case, here are a list of some of the skins that belong to the iPoker Network:
Bet365, Betboo Poker, Betfred, Betmost, BigSlick, Bluesq, Centrebet, Celebpoker, Chillipoker, DafaPoker, Expekt, Hansapoker, Mansion poker, noigpoker, nutspoker, pokeroceanm pokeruts, redfoxpoker, the nuts poker league, titan poker, vulcan poker, and others I do not know about.
This means that if you sharkscope sittysutty, who plays at celebpoker on sharkscope, you will realise that if you sharkscoped him on any of the other pokerskins listed above, it will also tell you his results. This is because they are the same player, you cannot have the same usernames on 2 different skins, because they are essentially playing on the same site.
A Network like iPoker will have a simple business strategy which almost guarantees them income, which will go something like this (the actual %'s are guesses). iPoker will give 65% of all the rake that a player brings in to the skin he is playing on. If sittysutty rakes $10 at CelebPoker, CelebPoker will receive $6.5. The skins are all competing with each other, and since there are so many skins there is lots of competition, so they may offer 60% RB to get players to play there, so sittysutty can receive $6 before any profit from the games. He need only break even at $50 turbos and he can get a $150+/hr hourly rate (12 tabling) without making any 'sharkscope' profit.
This is a good business strategy for the skins as well, if you are for example Manchester United football club, or William Hill bookmakers, you have a client base who may want to play poker, and you can take advantage of that by creating a skin like Manchester United poker, or William Hill poker. The skin just changes the colour scheme to Manchester United colours, and doesn't have to do anything else and it has created a new revenue stream. Manchester United Poker would have too few players by itself for any games to run, and they would need to pay lots of money to create the poker site and do all the programming, but as a skin they can make money and not have to worry about anything else.
Wherever you are playing it is well worth investigation regularly if you could be greatly increasing your hourly rate by changing where you play. It is very easy and comfortable to play at only one site, where the software is good and you know exactly what the blind levels will be, and who the good regs are. Spending 5 hours investigating other options could increase your hourly rate greatly, and even upping it $10/hr can make tens of thousands of $$$ difference over the year. Even if it doesn't it only costs you 5 hours.
This post is long, so I will not go into further detail, I may follow up this blog post with another post about the reliability of skins and why Rakeback affiliates are not allowed to advertise and have to remain concealed if people are interested.
When people we have staked or coached have asked for advice I will suggest to do good research, and make sure you are getting the best RB deal possible. I am always happy to pass on players details to a select few people I know who offer these deals to get their offers, but you should always do your own research and make sure you are confident that you are getting the best deal you can. Otherwise you are leaving money on the table.
md261
There has been exciting events in the poker world recently. Not much has really changed for non-US players, but since many people are reacting by withdrawing a large percentage of their bankroll from the big 3 and are looking to play elsewhere, a great opportunity has occured for everyone who can play at Non-US sites.
Networks like Party Poker, iPoker, OnGame and others are looking at this as the big opportunity to sweep up some of the players leaving Stars, FT and Cereus, and add them to their own network.
This surge in activity has led to real competition and price-warring between the networks. They view every player they gain now as a potential revenue stream for many years to come, and they are willing to do many things to gain players at this time. Competition is great for consumers as companies have to offer better value-for-money or better services to their clients, otherwise people will go elsewhere.
Networks want to get big players on, and will offer high % RB deals (sometimes even as high as 60%+) to get these players. If you are a full time pro, a high RB deal can add $10,000-$100,000 to your yearly winnings, for no extra work. Networks do not widely publicise these deals, because then players who do not know about it, and who think they are getting a great deal at 30% Rakeback, will demand a better deal, which means less money for the Network. Regardless of the stakes you play you can often get higher RB deals than you are getting.
IF YOU ARE NOT GETTING A HIGH % RB DEAL YOU ARE LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE
As a general economic rule of thumb, the more competition there is, the better deals the customer/consumer gets, this seems to hold true for poker sites as well. Many people do not fully understand the relationship between a poker network and a poker skin.
Pokerstars and Full Tilt have no skins, you can only join the one site to play on one network, sites like Pokerstars.fr are not skins, because .fr players cannot play on the same network as players outside of France. However a site like iPoker is a different case, here are a list of some of the skins that belong to the iPoker Network:
Bet365, Betboo Poker, Betfred, Betmost, BigSlick, Bluesq, Centrebet, Celebpoker, Chillipoker, DafaPoker, Expekt, Hansapoker, Mansion poker, noigpoker, nutspoker, pokeroceanm pokeruts, redfoxpoker, the nuts poker league, titan poker, vulcan poker, and others I do not know about.
This means that if you sharkscope sittysutty, who plays at celebpoker on sharkscope, you will realise that if you sharkscoped him on any of the other pokerskins listed above, it will also tell you his results. This is because they are the same player, you cannot have the same usernames on 2 different skins, because they are essentially playing on the same site.
A Network like iPoker will have a simple business strategy which almost guarantees them income, which will go something like this (the actual %'s are guesses). iPoker will give 65% of all the rake that a player brings in to the skin he is playing on. If sittysutty rakes $10 at CelebPoker, CelebPoker will receive $6.5. The skins are all competing with each other, and since there are so many skins there is lots of competition, so they may offer 60% RB to get players to play there, so sittysutty can receive $6 before any profit from the games. He need only break even at $50 turbos and he can get a $150+/hr hourly rate (12 tabling) without making any 'sharkscope' profit.
This is a good business strategy for the skins as well, if you are for example Manchester United football club, or William Hill bookmakers, you have a client base who may want to play poker, and you can take advantage of that by creating a skin like Manchester United poker, or William Hill poker. The skin just changes the colour scheme to Manchester United colours, and doesn't have to do anything else and it has created a new revenue stream. Manchester United Poker would have too few players by itself for any games to run, and they would need to pay lots of money to create the poker site and do all the programming, but as a skin they can make money and not have to worry about anything else.
Wherever you are playing it is well worth investigation regularly if you could be greatly increasing your hourly rate by changing where you play. It is very easy and comfortable to play at only one site, where the software is good and you know exactly what the blind levels will be, and who the good regs are. Spending 5 hours investigating other options could increase your hourly rate greatly, and even upping it $10/hr can make tens of thousands of $$$ difference over the year. Even if it doesn't it only costs you 5 hours.
This post is long, so I will not go into further detail, I may follow up this blog post with another post about the reliability of skins and why Rakeback affiliates are not allowed to advertise and have to remain concealed if people are interested.
When people we have staked or coached have asked for advice I will suggest to do good research, and make sure you are getting the best RB deal possible. I am always happy to pass on players details to a select few people I know who offer these deals to get their offers, but you should always do your own research and make sure you are confident that you are getting the best deal you can. Otherwise you are leaving money on the table.
md261
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Turning Bottom Pair into a Bluff Heads-Up
PezRez on 5th April 2011
In this hand I bluff the turn with a hand with some showdown value because a bet folds out a large portion of my opponent’s range that beats me.
PokerStars Game $35+$3 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100)
Seat 4: Hero (4490 in chips)
Seat 6: Villain (4510 in chips)
Hero: posts small blind 50
Villain: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [6d Qh]
Hero: raises 150 to 250
Villain: calls 150
*** FLOP *** [Jc As 6h]
Villain: checks
Hero: bets 200
Villain: calls 200
*** TURN *** [Jc As 6h] [Kd]
Villain: checks
Hero: bets 500
Villain: folds
Uncalled bet (500) returned to Hero
Hero collected 900 from pot
Hero: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Board [Jc As 6h Kd]
Seat 4: Hero (button) (small blind) collected (900)
Seat 6: Villain (big blind) folded on the Turn
My opponent has been tight throughout the game, so I’m happy to open a lot of buttons. If I’m not going to open Q6o in this situation, what am I waiting for? I raise to 2.5x, and surprisingly my opponent calls. I am sure this tight opponent has a real hand, but as he’s pretty straightforward I feel he would have reraised me with anything close to premium.
The flop is a good one. I have bottom pair – but most importantly an Ace has flopped. This is the most populous card in my range, so I stand to have a good deal of fold equity on this flop. The bottom pair means my bet is really a semi-bluff; if I get called the chances are slim that my pair of Sixes is in the lead, but at least I’ll have 5 outs to make a genuinely good hand. On these Ace-high boards, your opponent has few draws (and no overcards) with which to call, so he’s likely to fold to any bet if he hasn’t connected (about two-thirds of the time). Consequently you can save some chips by shaving down your continuation bet to not more than 40% of the pot, as the impact will be pretty similar to a larger bet. If I’ve hit the flop I’ll make this same bet to encourage action and my opponent is probably expecting me to bet more if I’m bluffing, so I don’t think he’ll attempt a move.
My opponent calls, and with his flat-calls both preflop and on the flop I’m not convinced he has an Ace. A baby Ace is definitely possible, but at this point 80% of the time he has specifically a Jack. He calls because he can’t fold middle pair on the flop; but he worries I have an Ace and is playing cautiously, waiting to see what develops and whether I bet again. As I’m quite sure he has me beaten, I’ll probably take a free card if a blank hits, but if I get a decent scare card to bluff with I’m sure I can squeeze those Jacks out with some well-applied pressure.
A King is exactly what I’m looking for; another overcard to the Jack and a very plausible card for a button-raiser to hold. On the other hand it gives me a gutshot to go with my pair, so if I get called I still may well have 9 outs. Usually I would be checking behind with bottom pair and a gutshot heads-up, mostly because it’s clear no worse hand will call. However, here many better hands – all those timid Jacks – will fold reliably, so given that’s what I strongly suspect he holds a bet is obvious. 500 into 800 is plenty to achieve the desired effect, and I take the lead in the heads-up.
PezRez
In this hand I bluff the turn with a hand with some showdown value because a bet folds out a large portion of my opponent’s range that beats me.
PokerStars Game $35+$3 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100)
Seat 4: Hero (4490 in chips)
Seat 6: Villain (4510 in chips)
Hero: posts small blind 50
Villain: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [6d Qh]
Hero: raises 150 to 250
Villain: calls 150
*** FLOP *** [Jc As 6h]
Villain: checks
Hero: bets 200
Villain: calls 200
*** TURN *** [Jc As 6h] [Kd]
Villain: checks
Hero: bets 500
Villain: folds
Uncalled bet (500) returned to Hero
Hero collected 900 from pot
Hero: doesn't show hand
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 900 | Rake 0
Board [Jc As 6h Kd]
Seat 4: Hero (button) (small blind) collected (900)
Seat 6: Villain (big blind) folded on the Turn
My opponent has been tight throughout the game, so I’m happy to open a lot of buttons. If I’m not going to open Q6o in this situation, what am I waiting for? I raise to 2.5x, and surprisingly my opponent calls. I am sure this tight opponent has a real hand, but as he’s pretty straightforward I feel he would have reraised me with anything close to premium.
The flop is a good one. I have bottom pair – but most importantly an Ace has flopped. This is the most populous card in my range, so I stand to have a good deal of fold equity on this flop. The bottom pair means my bet is really a semi-bluff; if I get called the chances are slim that my pair of Sixes is in the lead, but at least I’ll have 5 outs to make a genuinely good hand. On these Ace-high boards, your opponent has few draws (and no overcards) with which to call, so he’s likely to fold to any bet if he hasn’t connected (about two-thirds of the time). Consequently you can save some chips by shaving down your continuation bet to not more than 40% of the pot, as the impact will be pretty similar to a larger bet. If I’ve hit the flop I’ll make this same bet to encourage action and my opponent is probably expecting me to bet more if I’m bluffing, so I don’t think he’ll attempt a move.
My opponent calls, and with his flat-calls both preflop and on the flop I’m not convinced he has an Ace. A baby Ace is definitely possible, but at this point 80% of the time he has specifically a Jack. He calls because he can’t fold middle pair on the flop; but he worries I have an Ace and is playing cautiously, waiting to see what develops and whether I bet again. As I’m quite sure he has me beaten, I’ll probably take a free card if a blank hits, but if I get a decent scare card to bluff with I’m sure I can squeeze those Jacks out with some well-applied pressure.
A King is exactly what I’m looking for; another overcard to the Jack and a very plausible card for a button-raiser to hold. On the other hand it gives me a gutshot to go with my pair, so if I get called I still may well have 9 outs. Usually I would be checking behind with bottom pair and a gutshot heads-up, mostly because it’s clear no worse hand will call. However, here many better hands – all those timid Jacks – will fold reliably, so given that’s what I strongly suspect he holds a bet is obvious. 500 into 800 is plenty to achieve the desired effect, and I take the lead in the heads-up.
PezRez
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
