LJ, I love you, but I'm lazy and as you clearly pointed out, I'm a taker. But since I did agree to give back a little, here's the plug.
Note: This is a plug for a free poker training deal. If you are not a poker player, you can stop here since this will just bore you to tears. Hell, it's boring me and all I did was ctrl+c and ctrl+v from cmitch's blog. Thanks cmitch.
Here's the plug:
If you aren't signed up for free poker training, you are missing out. If we play at the same tables, please ignore this post.
Get Cardrunners/Stoxpoker for Free
I continue to receive CRs and Stoxpoker for free thanks to their truly free poker training program just for playing on FTP.
The link: http://www.trulyfreepokertraining.com/
The details:
Earn 5.5k FTP points in a month and get 1 month of CRs free
Earn 3k FTP points in a month and get 1 month of StoxPoker free
No hit to rakeback
You keep your points
Pretty simple (I guess it is FTP paying ppl additional RB to play)
Go sign up
To follow up on Bayne's recent post about the FTC requiring "Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service" I was not paid anything to make this post. I just can't imagine why people wouldn't sign up for it. If you hit the required number of points then you get free access to the training sites. If you fall under the required number of points then you can get discounted access (I think - may need to read the TFPT website info)
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The rare poker post
My blog should be changed to "Other stuff and poker." It's becoming increasingly rare for me to post strategy or any situational thoughts... but it seems like that's been the trend on a lot of blogs. I mean, you all are tired of reading about how to play AK in position, out of position, 200BB deep v 100BB deep, etc etc right? Well, I sure am tired of talking about it. Plus, as I mentioned few posts ago, I'm playing bottish anyways so it probably doesn't even matter... for now. I would want to say that I am gonna renew my resolve and start reading up more poker material etc etc but right now, I am having more fun doing other stuff so it is what it is.
Having said that, this is a poker blog so I figured, I should post something poker related. About a week or two ago, crushmastac asked about overlimping/reraising in 6 max games. I'm sure a lot of you have seen it before. You know, where some guy limps UTG or UTG+1, someone raises in LP, blinds fold and then the original limper 3 bets. Trappy.
His question was what do I think about this play and how to counter it. Honestly, I think this is a question better suited for Bruechips who thinks about stuff like this probably more often than I do. (here's your blog pimpage dude) Having said that, I do have some thoughts.
You can't really counter that play. In other words, just like any 3 bet, you just have to go by how often this guy does it. In other words, if you have seen him do it with aces and only aces, it's pretty easy. You figure out if you have set mining odds and if not, you fold. If you have seen him do that frequently, that you need to push back by 4 betting or calling (if you have position... if not, I would recommend 4 betting). But what do I think of the play in general... well, it really depends. Just like any other "move" in poker, it really depends on whether you are capable of mixing it up or not.
If you are limp-reraising with only AA or KK, it's a terrible move. You're practically announcing what your hand is so that's obviously terrible. If you're gonna do that, you also need to start doing that with some other random hands. The question is, what would the random hands be? Should you include AK? AQ? Is that still too tight? Maybe you should try to do it with JJ+ and AQ+? That's one thought but if you are only doing it with that range, I still don't necessarily like it unless you are so afraid of playing post flop poker that you just want to end the hand pre. The only danger is that there's no guarantee that someone will raise and do you really want to see a flop 4 handed with AA? But let's just say that you love that move... well, one way to make it alright is by polarizing your ranges.
I think this is key for any of the moves though. Instead of starting to do it with terrible hands that could easily be dominated like AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ and pocket pairs TT and belowm, you might want to polarize the range. Now, your initial thought might be, what the hell are you talking about? How are the above hands easily dominated? Well, if you are not polarizing your range and are doing it with let's say top 5% of your hands, then the hands that will call you will usually dominate/beat what you have. You don't want to be in a situation where you are out of position and you are unsure how good your hand is after hitting top pair... in a overinflated pot preflop. So, instead, one thought would be to mix in some sh*t hands when you do this. So, instead of saying that you're gonna do the limp-reraise move with AQ+ and QQ+, you could also include 22-44 and maybe some suited connectors like 89 or T9. I'm not sure that polarizing those ranges make this a good move but it's definitely a thought. That way, if you don't hit and you cbet but you encounter resistance, the decision would generally be easier. Also, more often than not, you could bluff off the better hand. In other words, if you do the limp reraise with AQ and you hit a Q high flop and you bet out and the other guy folds, you most likely had the best hand to begin with. So, you didn't really gain much of an additional value since you had the best hand and you took it down by betting. On the other hand, if you polarize your range and you do that, then let's say you hold T9 and you pull the same move on the Q high flop. It's very possible that you could get several better hands to fold such as lower pocket pairs, a few Ax hands, etc. The ability to bluff off some of the better hands will be adding value to the move itself.
Polarizing ranges are key in any situation I believe. I used to think that when people said I needed to open up my range, that meant that I needed to raise with the top x% of hands as opposed to the top y% of hands (obv x > y here). However, now, I realized that by polarizing, you might be 3 betting with the top x% + some random hands as situation dictates which I think will obviously increase the frequency so that they might start playing back at you more often, even when you have a real hand which adds value as well as being able to take it down with a cbet post flop (if not pre) or having to fold to pressure post flop without too much agonizing decision.
I don't have the math to support any of this but this is more or less a "thought about poker" post so that's all you're gonna get from me. Maybe this helps, maybe this doesn't. Feel free to comment.
Having said that, this is a poker blog so I figured, I should post something poker related. About a week or two ago, crushmastac asked about overlimping/reraising in 6 max games. I'm sure a lot of you have seen it before. You know, where some guy limps UTG or UTG+1, someone raises in LP, blinds fold and then the original limper 3 bets. Trappy.
His question was what do I think about this play and how to counter it. Honestly, I think this is a question better suited for Bruechips who thinks about stuff like this probably more often than I do. (here's your blog pimpage dude) Having said that, I do have some thoughts.
You can't really counter that play. In other words, just like any 3 bet, you just have to go by how often this guy does it. In other words, if you have seen him do it with aces and only aces, it's pretty easy. You figure out if you have set mining odds and if not, you fold. If you have seen him do that frequently, that you need to push back by 4 betting or calling (if you have position... if not, I would recommend 4 betting). But what do I think of the play in general... well, it really depends. Just like any other "move" in poker, it really depends on whether you are capable of mixing it up or not.
If you are limp-reraising with only AA or KK, it's a terrible move. You're practically announcing what your hand is so that's obviously terrible. If you're gonna do that, you also need to start doing that with some other random hands. The question is, what would the random hands be? Should you include AK? AQ? Is that still too tight? Maybe you should try to do it with JJ+ and AQ+? That's one thought but if you are only doing it with that range, I still don't necessarily like it unless you are so afraid of playing post flop poker that you just want to end the hand pre. The only danger is that there's no guarantee that someone will raise and do you really want to see a flop 4 handed with AA? But let's just say that you love that move... well, one way to make it alright is by polarizing your ranges.
I think this is key for any of the moves though. Instead of starting to do it with terrible hands that could easily be dominated like AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ and pocket pairs TT and belowm, you might want to polarize the range. Now, your initial thought might be, what the hell are you talking about? How are the above hands easily dominated? Well, if you are not polarizing your range and are doing it with let's say top 5% of your hands, then the hands that will call you will usually dominate/beat what you have. You don't want to be in a situation where you are out of position and you are unsure how good your hand is after hitting top pair... in a overinflated pot preflop. So, instead, one thought would be to mix in some sh*t hands when you do this. So, instead of saying that you're gonna do the limp-reraise move with AQ+ and QQ+, you could also include 22-44 and maybe some suited connectors like 89 or T9. I'm not sure that polarizing those ranges make this a good move but it's definitely a thought. That way, if you don't hit and you cbet but you encounter resistance, the decision would generally be easier. Also, more often than not, you could bluff off the better hand. In other words, if you do the limp reraise with AQ and you hit a Q high flop and you bet out and the other guy folds, you most likely had the best hand to begin with. So, you didn't really gain much of an additional value since you had the best hand and you took it down by betting. On the other hand, if you polarize your range and you do that, then let's say you hold T9 and you pull the same move on the Q high flop. It's very possible that you could get several better hands to fold such as lower pocket pairs, a few Ax hands, etc. The ability to bluff off some of the better hands will be adding value to the move itself.
Polarizing ranges are key in any situation I believe. I used to think that when people said I needed to open up my range, that meant that I needed to raise with the top x% of hands as opposed to the top y% of hands (obv x > y here). However, now, I realized that by polarizing, you might be 3 betting with the top x% + some random hands as situation dictates which I think will obviously increase the frequency so that they might start playing back at you more often, even when you have a real hand which adds value as well as being able to take it down with a cbet post flop (if not pre) or having to fold to pressure post flop without too much agonizing decision.
I don't have the math to support any of this but this is more or less a "thought about poker" post so that's all you're gonna get from me. Maybe this helps, maybe this doesn't. Feel free to comment.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Playing your opponent's hands
Last night was an interesting night. I was gonna play until I got my daily 200 points but then the fulltilt website was not working so it doesn't show me how many points I have... so, not knowing how many points I had for the day, I just kept playing, just to be on the safe side (in the end, I ended up with 360 points by the time the website was back up). I say interesting because I was on the bad end of a set up quite a few times... but sucked out on almost every single one of them. On my HEM, I believe my $EV was like -$36 but I ended up with +$360. I felt so dirty...
Well, in order to continue with my attempt to watch more vids, I watched a 2-4NL 6 max vid on DeucesCracked by Whitelime... and then I realized why I wasn't making much money there. Watching his play was... jaw dropping to say the least... After watching this vid, I am now convinced... if you are serious about wanting to get better, watching the pros play is a must. I am probably way late on the bandwagon (after all, I never joined CardRunners) but I am now realizing how crazy awesome some of these vids are. It's gonna take time for me to soak in everything that happened on that one hour vid but this hand illustrates the thought process that whitelime has and he uses it to exploit his opponents.
Basically, we all know that we should always be thinking in terms of what the opponent has. And I generally do... the problem is, I don't necessarily think in terms of "if I'm the opponent and I have a range of x, what hands within that range would I be able to do this with?" What do I mean? Let me illustrate:
From the DeucesCracked vid: Lime-Aid Part Deux (episode 1)
6 max 2-4NL deep stack
Whitelime has the villain (who has 200BBs) covered. The villain is a familiar name if any of you play 2-4NL. I'm not saying the villain is really good or anything (though, he is a solid player, I think) but the villain is definitely a regular.
Whitelime to this point was very active. And once again, on the button, he raises with 84s. Villain calls from the SB, BB folds. Heads up pot.
Flop K-J-6 rainbow.
Whitelime cbets and gets checkraised by the SB. At this point, I know that I would instamuck. I mean I was bluffing, I was caught and I am done. But this is why he makes the vids while I watch in awe...
He repops him.
Let me recap this. When the flop comes, the pot is $30. Whitelime bets approx $24 (I think) and gets checkraised to like $90). Keep in mind they both start with $800+. Whitelime, as he discusses his thoughts on the vid, then elects to repop to like $280 or something where basically, the only move that is available for the SB is shove or fold... shove and play a $1600 pot or fold.
And this was his reasoning. On a board like KJ6r, there are only two hands out of the whole range of hands that the villain has where he can shove. 66 or KJ. Why only two? Well, his thought was that KK or JJ would have repopped him preflop. So, with no reraise, the only two hands here that the villain could credibly have is 66 or KJ. The villain again is a fairly solid player so K6 or J6 would not be in his calling range preflop. In a spot like this, whitelime knows that it would be incredibly tough for the villain to 4 bet shove here on the flop and think he has any fold equity so it would be a bad play by him to do it with an OESD. So, basically, the opponent's range is extremely limited on what he can shove with which is why whitelime decided to put him to the test there. Sure enough, the villain folds and whitelime takes down a good sized pot with 84s.
Again, this is where his thought process clearly incorporates playing the opponent's hand. Let's say the opponent has KQ (even though I would think even KQ would have repopped him pre). Or QJ. He checkraises, thinking his top pair is good against a loose button raiser. Except all of a sudden, you're 3 bet on the flop when you already announced that you have at least top pair. That has got to be extremely scary and the question is, are you willing to risk your entire stack with KQ? You have to think that if you call here, if a blank falls, you're gonna be put to the test for your entire stack on the turn. Can you take that pressure? And again, keep in mind, this is 200BBs. Getting stacked with top pair that deep is just very unprofitable in the long run.
Talk about reading the flop texture and the opponent's hands... and this is just one example. Very sick.
Well, in order to continue with my attempt to watch more vids, I watched a 2-4NL 6 max vid on DeucesCracked by Whitelime... and then I realized why I wasn't making much money there. Watching his play was... jaw dropping to say the least... After watching this vid, I am now convinced... if you are serious about wanting to get better, watching the pros play is a must. I am probably way late on the bandwagon (after all, I never joined CardRunners) but I am now realizing how crazy awesome some of these vids are. It's gonna take time for me to soak in everything that happened on that one hour vid but this hand illustrates the thought process that whitelime has and he uses it to exploit his opponents.
Basically, we all know that we should always be thinking in terms of what the opponent has. And I generally do... the problem is, I don't necessarily think in terms of "if I'm the opponent and I have a range of x, what hands within that range would I be able to do this with?" What do I mean? Let me illustrate:
From the DeucesCracked vid: Lime-Aid Part Deux (episode 1)
6 max 2-4NL deep stack
Whitelime has the villain (who has 200BBs) covered. The villain is a familiar name if any of you play 2-4NL. I'm not saying the villain is really good or anything (though, he is a solid player, I think) but the villain is definitely a regular.
Whitelime to this point was very active. And once again, on the button, he raises with 84s. Villain calls from the SB, BB folds. Heads up pot.
Flop K-J-6 rainbow.
Whitelime cbets and gets checkraised by the SB. At this point, I know that I would instamuck. I mean I was bluffing, I was caught and I am done. But this is why he makes the vids while I watch in awe...
He repops him.
Let me recap this. When the flop comes, the pot is $30. Whitelime bets approx $24 (I think) and gets checkraised to like $90). Keep in mind they both start with $800+. Whitelime, as he discusses his thoughts on the vid, then elects to repop to like $280 or something where basically, the only move that is available for the SB is shove or fold... shove and play a $1600 pot or fold.
And this was his reasoning. On a board like KJ6r, there are only two hands out of the whole range of hands that the villain has where he can shove. 66 or KJ. Why only two? Well, his thought was that KK or JJ would have repopped him preflop. So, with no reraise, the only two hands here that the villain could credibly have is 66 or KJ. The villain again is a fairly solid player so K6 or J6 would not be in his calling range preflop. In a spot like this, whitelime knows that it would be incredibly tough for the villain to 4 bet shove here on the flop and think he has any fold equity so it would be a bad play by him to do it with an OESD. So, basically, the opponent's range is extremely limited on what he can shove with which is why whitelime decided to put him to the test there. Sure enough, the villain folds and whitelime takes down a good sized pot with 84s.
Again, this is where his thought process clearly incorporates playing the opponent's hand. Let's say the opponent has KQ (even though I would think even KQ would have repopped him pre). Or QJ. He checkraises, thinking his top pair is good against a loose button raiser. Except all of a sudden, you're 3 bet on the flop when you already announced that you have at least top pair. That has got to be extremely scary and the question is, are you willing to risk your entire stack with KQ? You have to think that if you call here, if a blank falls, you're gonna be put to the test for your entire stack on the turn. Can you take that pressure? And again, keep in mind, this is 200BBs. Getting stacked with top pair that deep is just very unprofitable in the long run.
Talk about reading the flop texture and the opponent's hands... and this is just one example. Very sick.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Is QT > T9?
I'm not gonna lie. The past few months on the poker front has been brutal for me. It's not so much that I'm losing money as it is more that I'm not making money... uh oh, do I sound like the well known "breakeven" player? Hell, he's probably better off... I mean he's got ad revenues and rake back. I got neither. 2-4NL 6 max has been brutal and there would be days I would make a killing... and then there are days I would lose like 5 buy-ins... that's a lot of money... Couple that with the fact that my entire work paycheck is still going straight to savings/stock market (ie, gone) and I'm using my poker fund to pay for my daily expenses, my account balance is a lot lower than where it was last year. In an effort to turn that around, I decided to start watching some videos on DeucesCracked.com and also, I started playing a lot more 1-2NL FR games instead of 6 max games where I just knew that the additional hands I'm playing was not making up for the difference in the edge that I'm giving up. And then I remembered how ridiculously soft 1-2NL FR games are... especially since the aggro level at 2-4NL 6 max is fresh in my memory.
I think it was Don that pointed this out but these days, the blogs are definitely low on strategy posts... well, it may be that it's not... I currently show 600+ in unread posts so I guess there's a good chance that there are some out there that I'm not seeing... I'll catch up to them though... But anyways, I'm hopefully gonna be back to posting some more strategy posts or at least poker thought posts since I've been getting away from them for some time.
So, last night, I watched Late Night Coaching series on DeucesCracked and the first vid I decided to watch was a 5 star rated vid of a 6 max NL game, coached by Chaostracized. Even though there were a few interesting concepts in it, it was very very elementary for me. I did post something to that effect in the forums there and I was pleasantly surprised when Joe Tall (founder of DeucesCracked) responded to my post with another recommendation. So, I decided to give that a shot as well. It was the Late Night Coaching series by DogIsHead. Once again, it was pretty elementary even though this one did a little bit more of a deep dive into some strategies. After I posted another comment in the forums, I did discover that the Late Night Coaching series is catered for more of an amateur + crowd who is still trying to grasp some concepts and the vids try to answer the questions that maybe some people might be afraid to ask. Let me clarify one point. The vids are great. The concepts covered was not as interesting or new to me as I wanted but that's not a knock on the quality of the analysis or the questions addressed so if any of you are playing .50/1.00 NL or lower (6max) and you want to learn to kill it, I think these vids will be a tremendous help.
Nonetheless, I take all vids seriously so one thing I was interested in was a discussion about QTs. There was a hand where a MP taggish player put in a standard 3.5x raise and the hero (the one that is being coached by DogIsHead) called with QTs. Joe Tall who is also part of the vid discussion asked if he would rather be calling here with a hand like T9s instead of QTs and DogIsHead thought about it, talked about it, and basically concluded that QTs is almost always better than T9s in that instance.
This stuck with me because I can't seem to get it out of my head. My thought (as Joe also described) is this... QTs shares so much more in terms of the hands that you are beaten. In other words, if you hit a Q, what do you do? In other words, I feel like a hand like QTs is worse than T9s against a tag because it's more likely to be dominated. Of course, if you hit your Q, then you beat a hand like JJ or TT which are two more hands that would be beating you if you only had T9. But when you hit your Q, do you call a double barrel? Do you raise the flop? If you raise the flop and you get called, what do you do? I just feel like QT puts you in a far worse spot than T9 is... but maybe that's more indicative of my lack of post flop play. I really don't know. In the example, the hero hits the Q but gets stacked off and the initial raiser has AQ. And I feel like you're more likely to run into situations like that with a hand like QT. Anyone disagree? What am I missing?
I'm gonna write this out to see. Let's say a TAG's MP raising range is any pair, AK, AQ, AJ, maybe ATs, KQ, KJ, QJ, JTs. I think that's fairly normal for a normal TAG's MP range in 6 max. Maybe a little too tight? I don't know. But let's say that's the range. If you have QT, if you hit your Q, you are behind AA-QQ, AQ, KQ, QJ. That's a lot of the range. If you hit the ten (either QT or T9), you are behind AA-TT and the maybe ATs. Of course, you are ahead against JTs with QT but not with T9. But besides that, it's easy to get away from. So the fact that it beats out two more pairs in the raising TAG's range is enough to make QT better than T9? I'm not so sure. What are everyone else's thoughts? Are middle connectors easier to play in position rather than the two broadway one-gappers?
I'm gonna have to think through this one some more. I just wanted to get it down on virtual paper.
I think it was Don that pointed this out but these days, the blogs are definitely low on strategy posts... well, it may be that it's not... I currently show 600+ in unread posts so I guess there's a good chance that there are some out there that I'm not seeing... I'll catch up to them though... But anyways, I'm hopefully gonna be back to posting some more strategy posts or at least poker thought posts since I've been getting away from them for some time.
So, last night, I watched Late Night Coaching series on DeucesCracked and the first vid I decided to watch was a 5 star rated vid of a 6 max NL game, coached by Chaostracized. Even though there were a few interesting concepts in it, it was very very elementary for me. I did post something to that effect in the forums there and I was pleasantly surprised when Joe Tall (founder of DeucesCracked) responded to my post with another recommendation. So, I decided to give that a shot as well. It was the Late Night Coaching series by DogIsHead. Once again, it was pretty elementary even though this one did a little bit more of a deep dive into some strategies. After I posted another comment in the forums, I did discover that the Late Night Coaching series is catered for more of an amateur + crowd who is still trying to grasp some concepts and the vids try to answer the questions that maybe some people might be afraid to ask. Let me clarify one point. The vids are great. The concepts covered was not as interesting or new to me as I wanted but that's not a knock on the quality of the analysis or the questions addressed so if any of you are playing .50/1.00 NL or lower (6max) and you want to learn to kill it, I think these vids will be a tremendous help.
Nonetheless, I take all vids seriously so one thing I was interested in was a discussion about QTs. There was a hand where a MP taggish player put in a standard 3.5x raise and the hero (the one that is being coached by DogIsHead) called with QTs. Joe Tall who is also part of the vid discussion asked if he would rather be calling here with a hand like T9s instead of QTs and DogIsHead thought about it, talked about it, and basically concluded that QTs is almost always better than T9s in that instance.
This stuck with me because I can't seem to get it out of my head. My thought (as Joe also described) is this... QTs shares so much more in terms of the hands that you are beaten. In other words, if you hit a Q, what do you do? In other words, I feel like a hand like QTs is worse than T9s against a tag because it's more likely to be dominated. Of course, if you hit your Q, then you beat a hand like JJ or TT which are two more hands that would be beating you if you only had T9. But when you hit your Q, do you call a double barrel? Do you raise the flop? If you raise the flop and you get called, what do you do? I just feel like QT puts you in a far worse spot than T9 is... but maybe that's more indicative of my lack of post flop play. I really don't know. In the example, the hero hits the Q but gets stacked off and the initial raiser has AQ. And I feel like you're more likely to run into situations like that with a hand like QT. Anyone disagree? What am I missing?
I'm gonna write this out to see. Let's say a TAG's MP raising range is any pair, AK, AQ, AJ, maybe ATs, KQ, KJ, QJ, JTs. I think that's fairly normal for a normal TAG's MP range in 6 max. Maybe a little too tight? I don't know. But let's say that's the range. If you have QT, if you hit your Q, you are behind AA-QQ, AQ, KQ, QJ. That's a lot of the range. If you hit the ten (either QT or T9), you are behind AA-TT and the maybe ATs. Of course, you are ahead against JTs with QT but not with T9. But besides that, it's easy to get away from. So the fact that it beats out two more pairs in the raising TAG's range is enough to make QT better than T9? I'm not so sure. What are everyone else's thoughts? Are middle connectors easier to play in position rather than the two broadway one-gappers?
I'm gonna have to think through this one some more. I just wanted to get it down on virtual paper.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
To cbet or not to cbet
If you're the preflop raiser, I am assuming that your initial inclination would be to cbet. If it's not, it definitely should be. However, the question is, how often? The answer is somewhere between all the time to once in a while. The problem with cbetting too often is that these days, a lot of players are starting to play back or float the cbets because so many players do it too often. So, cbetting requires further understanding of the texture of the flop. For example, if you raise preflop with 77 from MP and there are two callers behind you, it's probably not a good idea to bet when the flop comes A-Q-9. Maybe it is, depending on the opponent but given no other information, betting on that flop in this situation I think is a leak because more often than not, the board is likely to have hit one of your opponents.
One school of thought is that if you don't bet, how do you find out where you stand? This is the frequently mentioned "betting for information." And in general, betting for information is a leak. A fellow blogger mentioned that betting for information is worthless because the information obtained is never worth the price you pay to find out. I agree with this statement more and more. Having said that, I'm not advocating that you cbet only when you hit your hand. The idea is you have to understand the texture of the flop and the likelihood of your opponent hitting the board in order to make it profitable. So in other words, in the above example, if I raised with 77 and the board came A-Q-7, I would cbet 100% of the time. If someone is calling a raise, it's very likely that they hit the piece of the board. So, it's very profitable to play it that way. Again, if your thought is that if the opponent is paying attention, they might fold their ace. Perhaps, but keep in mind, you're not just betting when you hit. You're just being a little more selective on when to cbet and when not to.
Another example of when it would be more profitable not to cbet is if you have a big pocket pair but a higher card shows up. You know, your typical raise with KK from the CO, one of the blinds call and the flop comes out A high rainbow. I mean that happens like 80% of the time right? It sure seems like it doesn't it? I know that in the past, if it got checked to me, I would cbet. Sometimes I would take it down, sometimes I wouldn't. The thing is, this is a big leak. Why? Because you're turning your big hand into a big bluff. If you have position, there's no problem checking behind. At that point, you're not trying to hit the K. You're actually enticing the opponent to bet into you. In other words if you cbet on that board with your hand, you don't stand to make a lot of money. You're betting for information and that is it. If you check, then on the later streets, it becomes more likely that the opponent will try to steal this pot away from you. In other words, you go from only winning a small pot when you have the better hand to possibly increasing the pot because the opponent's range will include more hands rather than just the A. Plus, by not cbetting the flop, you keep the pot small so you're saving yourself money on the flop to call the bets on the later streets.
Here are some HHs that I thought I could use to illustrate my thought process on cbetting.
Hand 1: 1-2NL Full ring - both players involved have a full buy-in
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [6h 6s]
4 folds
RecessRampage raises to $7 from MP
3 folds
BB calls $5
*** FLOP *** [Ts 8d Ad]
BB checks
RecessRampage bets $10
BB raises to $34
RecessRampage folds
Uncalled bet of $24 returned to BB
BB wins the pot ($33.25)
Even though this contradicts what I said earlier about having a middle pocket pair and not betting out, this is a little different. I have position and since it was checked to me, I felt that the bet here is a must. With 66, you can only win if you bet here. The board is too draw heavy that I felt I will bet out once and try to take it down. Once I get checkraised, I'm obviously done with the hand.
Hand 2: 1-2NL 6 max
both players involved have full stacks
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [Ac Jc]
4 folds
RecessRampage raises to $6 from the SB
BB calls $4
*** FLOP *** [4d Td 4s]
RecessRampage checks
BB checks
*** TURN *** [4d Td 4s] [Ts]
RecessRampage checks
BB bets $4
RecessRampage calls $4
*** RIVER *** [4d Td 4s Ts] [6d]
RecessRampage checks
BB checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
BB shows [Js Qd] two pair, Tens and Fours
RecessRampage shows [Ac Jc] two pair, Tens and Fours
RecessRampage wins the pot ($19) with two pair, Tens and Fours
This was an instance where in a blind v blind battle, I like my hand. And, even after the flop, I like my hand. Ace high is a decent hand in a xxy flop so here, I figured I would let the opponent take control of the pot. Of course, I only got one bluff out of him but again, if I cbet here, if the opponent is good, he could raise, knowing that it's very unlikely that I hit the ten and steal the pot away. Or, he can fold and either one would be ok for the opponent since they both could be argued that it's the right play. So, instead, I tried to give him the rope so he can hang himself. Of course, there are times the opponent shows up with a ten here but you can't fear the less likely instances IMO.
Hand 3: 5-10NL Full ring
RecessRampage ($1,230)
Villain ($505.70)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [6s 6h]
4 folds
Villain calls $10
RecessRampage raises to $45
3 folds
Villain calls $35
*** FLOP *** [3d Tc 9h]
Villain checks
RecessRampage bets $80
Villain raises to $345
RecessRampage has 15 seconds left to act
RecessRampage folds
Uncalled bet of $265 returned to Villain
Villain wins the pot ($262)
This is an instance where I hate my cbet. Since I have position, I am now thinking that maybe I should have just peeled another card to see if a card that would benefit me more would show up. In other words, I want to see an A high flop whenever there is a limper ahead of me and I raise preflop. It's easier to rep the A. On a board like this with a bunch of middle cards, it's more likely to hit my opponent who limped then called my raise.
Hand 4: 5-10NL Full Ring
RecessRampage ($1,231)
Villain 1 ($1,000)
Villain 2 ($1,078)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [Ac Qd]
RecessRampage raises to $35 from UTG
2 folds
Villain 1 calls $35
1 fold
Villain 2 calls $30 from SB
BB folds
*** FLOP *** [4h Qs Qc]
Villain 2 checks
RecessRampage bets $70
Villain 1 folds
Villain 2 has 15 seconds left to act
Villain 2 raises to $210
RecessRampage has 15 seconds left to act
RecessRampage has requested TIME
RecessRampage raises to $520
Villain 2 has 15 seconds left to act
Villain 2 has requested TIME
Villain 2 raises to $1,043, and is all in
RecessRampage calls $523
Villain 2 shows [4d 4s]
RecessRampage shows [Ac Qd]
*** TURN *** [4h Qs Qc] [5s]
*** RIVER *** [4h Qs Qc 5s] [8c]
Villain 2 shows a full house, Fours full of Queens
RecessRampage shows three of a kind, Queens
Villain 2 wins the pot ($2,198) with a full house, Fours full of Queens
I'm not gonna lie... that one hurt. The reason I cbet on this flop is because with two players, I felt that one or both of them could have a pocket pair. On a xxy board, at this level, I thought a middle pocket pair might fight me for this pot so I went ahead and put in what looks like a normal cbet. The big blind almost on cue checkraises me. So I thought about my options here to determine what the best way to make money is. I can call and see if he fires out another bet or I can put in another raise here to see if the BB would overplay his pocket pair. And you know that saying (I don't know the exact quote) where on a xxy board, the 3rd bet is almost never a monster? Well, I figured I'll play along with that quote and put in a 3rd bet on the flop. Of course, after that, when he shoved, I did not like it because I felt that he might have 44. However, folding there would obviously be a mistake since he can easily have KQ or something like that and 44 would be the ONLY hand that beats me. Sure enough, that's what he has and I lose a big pot. But I like the cbet here because it balances out my range in terms of when I cbet, I can be doing it with a complete whiff or I will still cbet with a monster. It would be hard for my opponents to narrow down my range when I cbet.
This post got a lot longer than I intended... I have some more hands but I think this post is long enough so I'll stop here for now. Good luck at the tables!
One school of thought is that if you don't bet, how do you find out where you stand? This is the frequently mentioned "betting for information." And in general, betting for information is a leak. A fellow blogger mentioned that betting for information is worthless because the information obtained is never worth the price you pay to find out. I agree with this statement more and more. Having said that, I'm not advocating that you cbet only when you hit your hand. The idea is you have to understand the texture of the flop and the likelihood of your opponent hitting the board in order to make it profitable. So in other words, in the above example, if I raised with 77 and the board came A-Q-7, I would cbet 100% of the time. If someone is calling a raise, it's very likely that they hit the piece of the board. So, it's very profitable to play it that way. Again, if your thought is that if the opponent is paying attention, they might fold their ace. Perhaps, but keep in mind, you're not just betting when you hit. You're just being a little more selective on when to cbet and when not to.
Another example of when it would be more profitable not to cbet is if you have a big pocket pair but a higher card shows up. You know, your typical raise with KK from the CO, one of the blinds call and the flop comes out A high rainbow. I mean that happens like 80% of the time right? It sure seems like it doesn't it? I know that in the past, if it got checked to me, I would cbet. Sometimes I would take it down, sometimes I wouldn't. The thing is, this is a big leak. Why? Because you're turning your big hand into a big bluff. If you have position, there's no problem checking behind. At that point, you're not trying to hit the K. You're actually enticing the opponent to bet into you. In other words if you cbet on that board with your hand, you don't stand to make a lot of money. You're betting for information and that is it. If you check, then on the later streets, it becomes more likely that the opponent will try to steal this pot away from you. In other words, you go from only winning a small pot when you have the better hand to possibly increasing the pot because the opponent's range will include more hands rather than just the A. Plus, by not cbetting the flop, you keep the pot small so you're saving yourself money on the flop to call the bets on the later streets.
Here are some HHs that I thought I could use to illustrate my thought process on cbetting.
Hand 1: 1-2NL Full ring - both players involved have a full buy-in
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [6h 6s]
4 folds
RecessRampage raises to $7 from MP
3 folds
BB calls $5
*** FLOP *** [Ts 8d Ad]
BB checks
RecessRampage bets $10
BB raises to $34
RecessRampage folds
Uncalled bet of $24 returned to BB
BB wins the pot ($33.25)
Even though this contradicts what I said earlier about having a middle pocket pair and not betting out, this is a little different. I have position and since it was checked to me, I felt that the bet here is a must. With 66, you can only win if you bet here. The board is too draw heavy that I felt I will bet out once and try to take it down. Once I get checkraised, I'm obviously done with the hand.
Hand 2: 1-2NL 6 max
both players involved have full stacks
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [Ac Jc]
4 folds
RecessRampage raises to $6 from the SB
BB calls $4
*** FLOP *** [4d Td 4s]
RecessRampage checks
BB checks
*** TURN *** [4d Td 4s] [Ts]
RecessRampage checks
BB bets $4
RecessRampage calls $4
*** RIVER *** [4d Td 4s Ts] [6d]
RecessRampage checks
BB checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
BB shows [Js Qd] two pair, Tens and Fours
RecessRampage shows [Ac Jc] two pair, Tens and Fours
RecessRampage wins the pot ($19) with two pair, Tens and Fours
This was an instance where in a blind v blind battle, I like my hand. And, even after the flop, I like my hand. Ace high is a decent hand in a xxy flop so here, I figured I would let the opponent take control of the pot. Of course, I only got one bluff out of him but again, if I cbet here, if the opponent is good, he could raise, knowing that it's very unlikely that I hit the ten and steal the pot away. Or, he can fold and either one would be ok for the opponent since they both could be argued that it's the right play. So, instead, I tried to give him the rope so he can hang himself. Of course, there are times the opponent shows up with a ten here but you can't fear the less likely instances IMO.
Hand 3: 5-10NL Full ring
RecessRampage ($1,230)
Villain ($505.70)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [6s 6h]
4 folds
Villain calls $10
RecessRampage raises to $45
3 folds
Villain calls $35
*** FLOP *** [3d Tc 9h]
Villain checks
RecessRampage bets $80
Villain raises to $345
RecessRampage has 15 seconds left to act
RecessRampage folds
Uncalled bet of $265 returned to Villain
Villain wins the pot ($262)
This is an instance where I hate my cbet. Since I have position, I am now thinking that maybe I should have just peeled another card to see if a card that would benefit me more would show up. In other words, I want to see an A high flop whenever there is a limper ahead of me and I raise preflop. It's easier to rep the A. On a board like this with a bunch of middle cards, it's more likely to hit my opponent who limped then called my raise.
Hand 4: 5-10NL Full Ring
RecessRampage ($1,231)
Villain 1 ($1,000)
Villain 2 ($1,078)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RecessRampage [Ac Qd]
RecessRampage raises to $35 from UTG
2 folds
Villain 1 calls $35
1 fold
Villain 2 calls $30 from SB
BB folds
*** FLOP *** [4h Qs Qc]
Villain 2 checks
RecessRampage bets $70
Villain 1 folds
Villain 2 has 15 seconds left to act
Villain 2 raises to $210
RecessRampage has 15 seconds left to act
RecessRampage has requested TIME
RecessRampage raises to $520
Villain 2 has 15 seconds left to act
Villain 2 has requested TIME
Villain 2 raises to $1,043, and is all in
RecessRampage calls $523
Villain 2 shows [4d 4s]
RecessRampage shows [Ac Qd]
*** TURN *** [4h Qs Qc] [5s]
*** RIVER *** [4h Qs Qc 5s] [8c]
Villain 2 shows a full house, Fours full of Queens
RecessRampage shows three of a kind, Queens
Villain 2 wins the pot ($2,198) with a full house, Fours full of Queens
I'm not gonna lie... that one hurt. The reason I cbet on this flop is because with two players, I felt that one or both of them could have a pocket pair. On a xxy board, at this level, I thought a middle pocket pair might fight me for this pot so I went ahead and put in what looks like a normal cbet. The big blind almost on cue checkraises me. So I thought about my options here to determine what the best way to make money is. I can call and see if he fires out another bet or I can put in another raise here to see if the BB would overplay his pocket pair. And you know that saying (I don't know the exact quote) where on a xxy board, the 3rd bet is almost never a monster? Well, I figured I'll play along with that quote and put in a 3rd bet on the flop. Of course, after that, when he shoved, I did not like it because I felt that he might have 44. However, folding there would obviously be a mistake since he can easily have KQ or something like that and 44 would be the ONLY hand that beats me. Sure enough, that's what he has and I lose a big pot. But I like the cbet here because it balances out my range in terms of when I cbet, I can be doing it with a complete whiff or I will still cbet with a monster. It would be hard for my opponents to narrow down my range when I cbet.
This post got a lot longer than I intended... I have some more hands but I think this post is long enough so I'll stop here for now. Good luck at the tables!
Friday, August 22, 2008
Table selection vs Seat selection
So Gnome and I have been exchanging a few thoughts in regards to game selection. He's a big believer in game selection and from what I can tell, he spends time trying to find the right table where there are bunch of losing players. I, on the other hand, just tend to go find an open table and sit. So, when Gnome asked me why I didn't game select, I thought it was a point worth discussing here and also, I thought that maybe I can share what I do. I mean even though I don't necessarily spend the time to game select, I don't just sit at any table.
Now, one easy way to find the juiciest tables is obviously through tableratings.com. However, when I was first introduced to this site, one thing I noticed was that all the "good" tables had waiting lists that were like 5 or 6 deep. By the time I would get seated, the table would be filled with all the sharks. I just felt like I was spending too much time looking for the game and not enough time playing it. So, I kinda stopped looking.
When the other day, Gnome left me a message about why I don't game select, I decided to give it another go. Just to come to the same conclusion. Here were some of the things I noticed in regards to the highly rated (ie, most donkish) tables:
- waiting list that is as deep as the number of seats for the table
- bunch of short stackers (you mean there's hardly any post flop poker AND the only guys you would be playing a big pot against would be the better players at the table)
So, I went back to my old method... which was looking for tables with the least waiting list or an open seat. However, I don't just sit at any table. One thing I like to make sure when I put myself at the table or the waiting list is how deep the table is. I don't want to be at a table where the full buy-in is $400 and yet half or more of the table only has like $100 in front of them. Once I see that everyone has a fair amount in front of them, I would sit there... but this is what I do (maybe to make up for the lack of game selection)... I seat select.
In other words, I might not be as picky about which table I go sit at but one thing I make sure is whether the seat I'm about to take is a good one. See, the thing with game selection is that you could find a table with a bunch of donkeys which is fine except if your seat sucks, it's not as cool. Let's say you find a highly rated table with a bunch of losers. You get on the waiting list and poof, a seat opens up. You go to the table and you find a few shorties here and there. Then you notice that to your left is a big stack aggro solid player... that's terrible. Almost to the point where it's not worth sitting there.
So, here are things I look for when I look at tables or when I'm seated and I'm deciding whether I really want to buy in or not:
- who is to my left (both immediate and two seats to my left)
- what are the stack sizes in relation to my position
- how deep are the general stacks at the whole table
You obviously want the uber aggro to your right instead of on your left. You also want the deeper stacks to be to your right. In other words, you want the ideal position on any of the stacks that could really hurt you and in a cash game, you are at liberty to choose your seat... at least initially. And obviously, you want the stacks to be fairly deep so that it doesn't just turn into preflop poker.
Do you seat select at all? Do you practice game selection? Have a nice weekend all. I have my fantasy football draft coming up tonight and I am not prepared...
Now, one easy way to find the juiciest tables is obviously through tableratings.com. However, when I was first introduced to this site, one thing I noticed was that all the "good" tables had waiting lists that were like 5 or 6 deep. By the time I would get seated, the table would be filled with all the sharks. I just felt like I was spending too much time looking for the game and not enough time playing it. So, I kinda stopped looking.
When the other day, Gnome left me a message about why I don't game select, I decided to give it another go. Just to come to the same conclusion. Here were some of the things I noticed in regards to the highly rated (ie, most donkish) tables:
- waiting list that is as deep as the number of seats for the table
- bunch of short stackers (you mean there's hardly any post flop poker AND the only guys you would be playing a big pot against would be the better players at the table)
So, I went back to my old method... which was looking for tables with the least waiting list or an open seat. However, I don't just sit at any table. One thing I like to make sure when I put myself at the table or the waiting list is how deep the table is. I don't want to be at a table where the full buy-in is $400 and yet half or more of the table only has like $100 in front of them. Once I see that everyone has a fair amount in front of them, I would sit there... but this is what I do (maybe to make up for the lack of game selection)... I seat select.
In other words, I might not be as picky about which table I go sit at but one thing I make sure is whether the seat I'm about to take is a good one. See, the thing with game selection is that you could find a table with a bunch of donkeys which is fine except if your seat sucks, it's not as cool. Let's say you find a highly rated table with a bunch of losers. You get on the waiting list and poof, a seat opens up. You go to the table and you find a few shorties here and there. Then you notice that to your left is a big stack aggro solid player... that's terrible. Almost to the point where it's not worth sitting there.
So, here are things I look for when I look at tables or when I'm seated and I'm deciding whether I really want to buy in or not:
- who is to my left (both immediate and two seats to my left)
- what are the stack sizes in relation to my position
- how deep are the general stacks at the whole table
You obviously want the uber aggro to your right instead of on your left. You also want the deeper stacks to be to your right. In other words, you want the ideal position on any of the stacks that could really hurt you and in a cash game, you are at liberty to choose your seat... at least initially. And obviously, you want the stacks to be fairly deep so that it doesn't just turn into preflop poker.
Do you seat select at all? Do you practice game selection? Have a nice weekend all. I have my fantasy football draft coming up tonight and I am not prepared...
Monday, August 18, 2008
Game selection
Game selection was never too high on my priority list. I mean I've heard others preach it but I just wanted to sit at an open seat... as long as I didn't have like a known aggro or a known super solid player to my left, I was ok with that. So, I never really got into visiting sites like tableratings.com that would have information on which tables are the most lucrative, etc... plus those always seem to have a huge waiting list like 5 or 6 deep... in a 6 max game... I mean by the time I would get there, it would be filled with sharks who wanted to play in the "juicy" game.
However, recently, with my woes in 6 max, I did take a step back and gave the game some thought. And you know what? The games are actually pretty freakin tough, I think. I mean it's either the games have gotten tougher or I just regressed... or a combination of the two. But in all honesty, I do believe that the games have gotten tougher. Now don't get me wrong. There are still tons of donkeys out there. But in a normal 6 max game, I would have 4 tables open and 4 or 5 of them at each table are regulars... that's generally not a formula for a lucrative night.
When I first converted to 6 max, the thought was that 6 max would be more profitable since you would be forced to play more hands and so if you can make better decisions, it would lead to more profit. The thing is, with the 6 max tables (at least at 2-4NL and above), the games are so much more aggressive and a lot of players are willing to get it all in preflop that I'm not sure too many of us would have as significant an edge as we used to. The thought is this. If I thought 6 max could be more profitable, and hence I make the move there, so would a lot of others who were doing well in full ring matches right? I mean guys who make money want to go some place where they can make even more money. So, it brings over all these guys that already made money, who are willing to work on their game, who dedicate the time to study and next thing you know, you're just passing cash around from one player to another, just to be redistributed the next night.
As I mentioned before, I felt like I was running bad and playing bad. So, I decided to go back to my bread and butter which was the full ring game and I noticed one significant difference. The game is so much slower and more passive. Maybe during my foray in 6 max, I've gotten aggressive. That's probably some of it but the amount of limping in these games were unbelievable. And then I thought to myself, you know what? Since 6 max has gotten so aggressive, any new player who wants to just "try" NLHE is probably back playing 9 handed where it's rare that they would get 3 or 4 bet (as opposed to 6 max which is like pretty much the norm).
So, game selection may not be something I would seriously do yet but I do know now that I would be looking at 9 handed games first and then a few 6 max tables where there might not be as many regulars... no point in being in tougher games when there are plenty of sheep waiting to be skinned.
However, recently, with my woes in 6 max, I did take a step back and gave the game some thought. And you know what? The games are actually pretty freakin tough, I think. I mean it's either the games have gotten tougher or I just regressed... or a combination of the two. But in all honesty, I do believe that the games have gotten tougher. Now don't get me wrong. There are still tons of donkeys out there. But in a normal 6 max game, I would have 4 tables open and 4 or 5 of them at each table are regulars... that's generally not a formula for a lucrative night.
When I first converted to 6 max, the thought was that 6 max would be more profitable since you would be forced to play more hands and so if you can make better decisions, it would lead to more profit. The thing is, with the 6 max tables (at least at 2-4NL and above), the games are so much more aggressive and a lot of players are willing to get it all in preflop that I'm not sure too many of us would have as significant an edge as we used to. The thought is this. If I thought 6 max could be more profitable, and hence I make the move there, so would a lot of others who were doing well in full ring matches right? I mean guys who make money want to go some place where they can make even more money. So, it brings over all these guys that already made money, who are willing to work on their game, who dedicate the time to study and next thing you know, you're just passing cash around from one player to another, just to be redistributed the next night.
As I mentioned before, I felt like I was running bad and playing bad. So, I decided to go back to my bread and butter which was the full ring game and I noticed one significant difference. The game is so much slower and more passive. Maybe during my foray in 6 max, I've gotten aggressive. That's probably some of it but the amount of limping in these games were unbelievable. And then I thought to myself, you know what? Since 6 max has gotten so aggressive, any new player who wants to just "try" NLHE is probably back playing 9 handed where it's rare that they would get 3 or 4 bet (as opposed to 6 max which is like pretty much the norm).
So, game selection may not be something I would seriously do yet but I do know now that I would be looking at 9 handed games first and then a few 6 max tables where there might not be as many regulars... no point in being in tougher games when there are plenty of sheep waiting to be skinned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
