In my first blog entry, I wrote about the common 'decent player' fallacy of playing hands 'the way you are supposed to' rather than thinking about the overall situation. Today, I'd like to follow up on that by comparing two hands - one unquestionably played badly and one that is defensible - and analyzing the thought process behind them.

In this month's 2+2 Magazine (the link will change soon so I'm not linking it yet), there is an article by David Sklansky that also attempts to talk about unorthodox approaches to no limit. In his example, with 80 BB behind in a 'straightforward' playing game, he holds 77 after 2 limpers in MP and overlimps in an eventual 6 way pot. He then checks a 732 flop (fourth of six to act) and makes the argument that, if a rainbow Q hits the turn, you should check one more time.

Obviously, I hate to be on the wrong side of David Sklansky. However, this is an example of a very badly played hand and a misguided thought process - one that's full of fancy play syndrome, and very light on thinking about your opponents' ranges and their thoughts about your hand.

Why? DS's thoughts about the flop check are that "[y]ou check because it is likely that no one has much, you want them to catch up if they don’t, and you expect they will bet if they do. Plus if you check, someone may bluff or semi-bluff with a hand that they would have folded had you bet." That's true to a point - if you check, one of the two players behind you might bet something like 66 or even A3 that would probably fold to a bet. But that pales in comparison to the range of hands that will (at least) call a bet now and possibly even on the turn and river, but will check behind on the turn if you follow his probable line of check/call, check - not just the obvious ones like 54 and 99, but any 7, some 'gutshot plus ace' hands like A4, and even random overcards from players who decide this is the perfect flop to float vs. a likely weak-ish made hand. (Remember, just because players are straightforward doesn't mean that they are robots or terrible poker players.) Just as importantly, on this flop, the hands that 'catch up' on the turn will very often catch up to the nuts and now have a good shot at stacking you.

So much for the flop check. Assuming we got to the turn this way, do we check again when a Q hits? Of course not! All of the same arguments still apply - except that now, in this small pot, if we knew someone behind us had a queen, we would much rather bet out (and hope KQ raises) than go for a very scary looking checkraise. Remember how weird this line looks to your straightforward opponents - you showed no real interest in the hand PF and on the flop, but now checkraise a card that probably hit somebody in a six way pot. While some people will call you down light, most will fold something like QJ right there, while happily calling you down on two streets (and probably even raising a jack on the river) if you just bet your hand.

This hand is a good lesson in how to avoid playing in an unorthodox way. Don't just do it because you have the effective nuts and decide now is a good time to slowplay; you must have a reason for it and a plan for the hand.

---

With that hand in mind, I'd like to talk about a hand I played at full ring 10/20 NL the other day. This hand actually took place in a fairly passive PF, calling station-type bad postflop game of the type DS describes, with effective stacks of 100 BB. My image at the time was fairly tight, possibly even nitty; I did not have particularly good reads on my opponents, but thought they were the typical loose/bad players in that game.

In the actual hand, two or three people limped PF and I decided to limp 7 5 on the button. (There are some good arguments for raising here, too. DS's and Ed Miller's No Limit: Theory and Practice has some good analysis of preflop spots like this one.) The blinds completed/checked and five or six people saw the flop, which came J T 9. It was checked to the limper on my right (I believe in MP3), who bet half the pot, meaning he had 'something' but not particularly very much.

In theory, this meant I had a 12 out draw, and some people would raise here. The arguments for raising are that it cleans up the eights as outs, lets you take a free card on the turn, and inflates the pot for when you hit. In this game, however, QT might still call a bet/raise cold, and a jack would never fold (not now and possibly not on the turn), so I chose to call instead and hope for a diamond. One of the EP limpers overcalled, so 3 of us saw the Q hit on the turn; EP checked and the other limper quickly bet half the pot again.

Now, this hand suddenly became interesting. If I called, I wouldn't be protecting my hand. If I raised, with my image, most likely both players would fold, although a naked king might still call down. Additionally, a 3 bet would make me throw up, but I would likely have to call it.

So what should I have done? To some degree, the good thing here is not that you find the best line, but that you're thinking about it at all, because most mediocre to decent players simply raise their flush. However, the best line here varies with the situation, and, of course, my opponents' hand range.

Here, I thought that MP3's hand was clearly not a set - he would have frozen up when that very ugly turn hit, although he just might be bad enough to bet an 'improved' 2 pair. Instead, this was either a bluff, a straight (perhaps something like KT, who semibluffed the flop and 'hit' the turn) or a higher flush. In that case, I didn't have to worry about the board pairing unless the EP player had a huge hand, too (and he gave no indication of that with his PF limp/flop overcall on a JT9 board.) Most likely, then, I only had 6-7 diamonds to worry about, and perhaps not even that, in terms of protecting my hand, and any straight would have no choice but to pay off on a non-diamond river. Therefore, although I had to really think about the situation, I chose to just call again.

EP did something interesting - he overcalled - and all three of us went to the river. The river was a low black card, he checked, and MP now quickly bet the pot! Now what?

At this point, the pot was around 1250 (625 for me to call) and we had 1000 more behind. I thought about it for a few seconds and decided to just call again. My reasoning, which should be easy to see by now, was severalfold:
-If EP had a king, he might come along and overcall;
-MP's range was now very clearly 'bluff or straight +' and possibly shaded towards the high end;
-It was very unclear whether MP would pay off a river shove with just a king, especially with my image.

As it turns out, I think my reasoning on the river was wrong. EP thought a while, but folded, and MP turned over Ks8s for a turned straight that he was likely mistakenly 'value betting' (because, of course, he had a king and both of us showed no strength.) It's very possible that I got the most out of the hand, but in retrospect, if I had to play it over again, I would probably shove the river regardless and hope MP called; I underestimated how weak my hand looked, and it was very possible that a bad player would somehow find a call there.

However, this hand *is* a good example of when to 'think unorthodox' and why. It's not enough to simply play a hand differently because you feel like it, any more than it would be to check a 732 flop because 'you have top set and they have nothing'. Instead, you should always try to find the best line based on your range (this is where G-Bucks come in), your opponents' range, their perception of you, and how the hand has appeared to play out to them. Furthermore, the right result is sometimes not as important (although it sure does help your bank account) as the thought process you took to get there.

In my next column - always assuming I find a hand or two worth writing about - I'll try to expand on this concept and mix in some examples of the thought process that goes into good hand reading.

lakeoffire says

The 7d 5d hand was very informative but I do have a question. I don't play a lot of cash games but, in the early to middle stage of a tournament, I'd play it pretty much like you did, calling the river bet instead of pushing, for fear of a better flush. Am I leaving too much money on the table? FWIW, late in MTT play, I push here. Thanks,
LakeofFire

04/05/07

EdmondDantes says

I like the thinking; thanks for posting this. I saw a thread on the Sklansky hand (the set of 7s) and my immediate reaction was that it was misguided, certainly for the stakes I play (3/6-5/10 no limit). I've always thought it best to bet strong hands in multi-way pots and hope that someone picked up a decent enough piece to come along. I hear the "let them catch up" argument, but I feel like it's just as likely that a turn card can kill the action as encourage it. My approach is admittedly more thuggish than creative, but in most of the games I play (either online or live) I don't have a lot of history with my opponents. In a larger, more sophisticated game with a good experience base with my opponents (an understanding of their propensity to bluff a orphaned pot, slow play, over play, etc.), I might act differently, but, again, at my limits, my sense is that betting that flop is the right play. Also, there are some cards that can roll off that could be gut-wrenching in a limped pot—a 6 or an A (45 just thumped you), a 5 (ditto 64), an 8 (88 just got there). I'm not one to fear monsters in the closet, but multi-way, un-raised pots can be a swampland for sets, and I can identify 16 cards that COULD put my hand in rough shape.

As for your 57d hand, I like the line as played, including the river call. If I had some sense of MP's range and willingness to call with 2 to 1 odds with three cards to a flush showing, maybe I shove, but I'd have to have a pretty good sense how he's been playing.

As played, his range could include A2d, A3d, A4d, A6d, 86d, yes? Likewise, if you shove, does he really call off another grand here with the K high straight? As played, your range includes any diamond flush draw (note: in my experience, I've seen a lot more calling in position with a flush draw than raising). If he's thinking, at the very least, he gives you credit for a K here since you've been nitty. But then again, if you've been nitty what K are you limping with, K9-KJo? And if you're nitty, are you calling with 2nd or worse pair and a gutter AND pushing the river given that board?

Note: I don't give either of you credit for a set here. Maybe a set of nines, but a set of nines bets that flop harder, me thinks.

If I were him, breaking it down, I'd think

10-20% bluff (Harrington says it, therefore, it is so and I'd include two pair or worse in this category, although your line is hardly a two pair line)
80% flush

Assuming you shove the 1250 pot, pot would stand at 2900 (correct me if I misread…625 call, plus another 1000 behind), so he's calling 1000 to win the 2900 pot

In ran it through the Evaluator and got (from his perspective)

TwoRags.com EValuator Tool Scenario (change hand ranges)

Your Hand: Ks 8s
Board: Js Td 9d Qd 4c
Pot: $2900
Call: $1000
Pot Odds: 2.9 to 1

Hand Range Probability Win%
1: 5d 7d 80%
2: 2s 7s 20% 100%

SUMMARY RESULTS

Win Probability for this Scenario: 20%
Less: Break-even win% needed: (26%)
Negative Variance: (6%)

Total Expectation: $780
Less: Amount of Call: ($1,000)
Negative Expectation: ($220)


(I used 5d 7d here; he obviously doesn't know exactly what you have, but any flush beats him and produces the same result.)

The above shows his EV is clearly negative. That said, I'm often amazed by the horrible calls some folks make. If I subtract a few dozen IQ points, it's pretty easy to see him putting you on a K or lesser hand and calling. Dropping the 80% flush to 60% swings the EV to $170 and, of course, guys make those calls everyday providing tuition and spending money for better players everywhere.

In the end, though, I'm loath to push in the face of someone that's shown strong interest (pot size bet at river) on that board. A flush is a fine hand but here it's banged up by a least a few likely hands (diamond suited A2, A3, A4, A6, 68d) given the play. Brunson's books are dated but his "Don't got broke in an unraised pot" has some real insight.

Still digging,

Edmond

04/05/07

Adanthar says

I'm gonna address this a little bit in the next column. Even at 10/20 NL (granted, I have very good game selection), assuming your opponents think about the game on that level is not always correct. When you play in very soft games like that one, you're basically playing vs. people whose idea of hand analysis is "I have a straight, I call" [and this goes roughly triple for tournaments, where nobody is ever good enough to fold anything.] Instead of performing an EV calc from his perspective, then (keeping in mind that even if you wanted to do that, it'd take too long), what you want to do is to take the rough probability of each of his hands, then subtract a certain % for the chance that he folds it. For example, here, you would assume a distribution of X% straights and Y% flushes, then divide X% by the percentage he folds a naked king to a shove. This latter percentage, which is what you're focused on, comes with experience, but against bad players it's safe to start with 1% and go from there.

04/06/07

EdmondDantes says

Yeah, I try to avoid giving my opponents too much credit for active thought, although it certainly varies by table. My game selection is not so discriminating ("Ah, open seat. Great!") so I usually need to watch a few orbits and figure out who's solid and who's a live one. That said, I reassess constantly, especially in tournaments. It's amazing the plays I see from guys I initially labelled as pretty smart. Myself included unfortunately!

As for the EV assessment, it's obviously not something you can do real-time, but I find most of this hand re-assessment is best done away from the table, for me at least. That way, when I'm in similar situations, I can assign a hand range and have a sense of how the math probably shakes out. The "from his perspective" analysis is something I'd only do for an opponent I labelled a "thinker". Against the "I have a straight, I call" guy, I'd tend more toward the "Am I good here and will he call a shove light?" EV analysis, i.e. 30% chance he calls $1000 is better than 50% chance he calls $500 is better than I just call here, ergo: shove.

In any event, I'm looking forward to Part II. Thanks again for posting!

Edmond

P.S. At some point, I'd love to hear your thoughts on game selection. A number of authors have touched on it "Game selection is paramount! Play against weak opponents." but leave it at that. Some issues I can see here: 1) online v live; online you have the luxury of multiple games from which to choose; live when they call your name, that's usually the only seat/table available; 2) what's a good game for your style of play; 3) balancing player ability v predictability; I've played in 5/10 games that guys were tough but predictable and 5/10 games where guys were awful and therefore very difficult to assign a range; 4) how about moving up and improving?; in most forms of competition, you need to play better players to improve; by choosing soft games, are you limiting your progress as a player?; etc.

04/06/07

Chooose an identity

Login/Register Enter Name Anonymous

Log in with your TwoRags.com account. Click here to register. Email: Password: Remember log-in information Name: