One of the hands I have a love/hate relationship with is medium pairs (7-8). Very few times will you ever fold them preflop, and in a limit game, deciding rather to just call or raise isn't that hard.
But no-limit can be troublesome. Raise bigger from early position? Limp? I tend to mix up my early play, limping most of the time and raising big probably 20-30 percent of the time.
I just don't know if it's ideal. My play is based on the lose less money when your hand doesn't hit philosophy, which will happen more times than not. But it also doesn't get rid of any weak Aces or kings, making it more likely my medium pair will be out flopped.
But the limp play sometimes makes it easier to win bigger pots when your hand does hit. Let's say I have 8-8, 2nd to act, and I limp, as do 5 others. Six players total, and the flop comes A-8-3 rainbow. It's fairly obvious no one has a real strong ace, by the lack of action, but an A-8, or A-3 is possible. And any player with a decent ace will still stay. If I lead out here, I'd go about 3/4 pot-pot sized bet or more depending on the flop (rainbow, all suited, 2 suits, etc...). Bet stronger if there's two of the same suit, less if rainbowed or all the same suit. Anyone who made the nut flush will stay in, but isn't likely to be too aggressive, wanting to extract as much as he can from the board. And you want to give anyone on a flush draw the improper odds to call. (It's amazing how many people ignore the odds and chase on the flop).
And I'm often lost on late to act preflop. If there's a 3x-5x raise in front of me, it's okay to assume my 8s are the low hand right now, but is it worth it to call the raise?
All limpers and my 8s may be good. Do I raise and how much? Ideally, I want a heads up situation, rather I create it or the initial raiser does. And if you know your opponent, and can put him on the proper hand, even if you miss your pair, can you pull off a bluff?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
The perils of pocket Aces
Recently I ended up in a hand I've always worried about. Instincts always tell me to raise on pocket aces, but here's an example of a 4-8 limit cash game where it's not as easy a raise as it seems.
I'm on the button, and look down to see the two black beauties. Seems obvious when the action gets to me, I'm raising those aces. Except, at this nine player table, all six players in front of me call, meaning in theory there is $30 in the pot already (I say in theory because I'm not subtracting any rakes). If I raise that ups it to $38. And the purpose of a raise like this is to get rid of players and hopefully develop a potential heads up. But if I make it 38, the small blind is looking at $6 to a $38 pot. Unless he's holding 7-2, 8-3 or the like, logic says you put in the six, since it's better than 6 to 1 pot odds. Either way, the big blind then just has $4 to put into a pot of either $38 or possibly $44. 9 to 1 or 11 to 1 pot odds is an another easy move.
And as the action moves around a second time, there's no reason for anyone who called initially to now fold as the pot builds.
By the end of the first round betting, the pot can be at $72. That's real nice if your pocket aces hold up. But odds are really going against you now. Six initial callers indicate that no one feels real strong about their hands to raise, so you have a wide variety of hands, likely a couple of suited connectors, a K-J, and more importantly, very likely at least one, if not two, players with A-medium/low, a typical 4-8 starting hand that is worth sticking around cheap for, but not raising. What does this mean? It means with nine players, pocket Aces is least likely to improve. And it's very likely someone flops trips, a flush or connects the straight.
But is just a call any better? You wouldn't think so, but in a hand like this, I think it can be the proper play. No one is going to leave the hand, and it's unlikely you improve, but who is going to throw away Aces at any point on a hand? The pot will be nice enough by the end in the unlikely case the aces hold, but your bankroll takes less of a hit in the more likely case you lose.
At best, if everyone is in the hand, Aces hold about a 47 percent chance of winning. And that is based only on completely random hands held by others (in other words, no real legitimate starting hand, such as pocket pair, connectors, suited, etc...). But few players just play two random cards. Most have a reason to play, thus the realistic odds give the aces just a 15-25% chance of holding up.
The best scenario would be if you raised on the button and then either the small or big blind re-raised. $4 into a $40 pot may be no issue, but when you raise and the big blind re-raises, now everyone before you has to decide if $8 into the pot is worth it. The lead position is looking at $8 into a $52 pot.
Even though at this point pot odds suggest everyone would stick around, a few may fold just because psychologically 3-bets preflop is a lot tougher than 2, especially knowing that I can still reraise. So the big blind helps you out here.
Let's suppose it got back to me and everyone stayed. The pot has now grown to $92 and I can cap the betting with another raise if I want. It hard to say if capping makes sense then or not. If everyone stayed, a cap builds the pot, won't get rid of anybody and really makes the aces vulnerable. But if the aces hold, then that $144 preflop pot is nice.
In the real hand I just called. And the SB and BB just called. The flop came 7-2-Q rainbow. Three players check before a player bets. Two stay, two fold. I call. SB, BB fold, final guy calls.
Turn J. Now I know I'm dead. Same lead better leads out again. One caller, one folder. I call and one exits, leaving three of us. River is a 5, and I know I have no business staying after the leader leads out again. He gets called, and at this point even though I know I'm beat, pot odds say it makes no sense to lay down.
Indeed, first player had Q-7 suited for two pair and the other guy mucks, as do I.
It left me wondering if a raise might have chased him out, but still I think I made the right play.
I'm on the button, and look down to see the two black beauties. Seems obvious when the action gets to me, I'm raising those aces. Except, at this nine player table, all six players in front of me call, meaning in theory there is $30 in the pot already (I say in theory because I'm not subtracting any rakes). If I raise that ups it to $38. And the purpose of a raise like this is to get rid of players and hopefully develop a potential heads up. But if I make it 38, the small blind is looking at $6 to a $38 pot. Unless he's holding 7-2, 8-3 or the like, logic says you put in the six, since it's better than 6 to 1 pot odds. Either way, the big blind then just has $4 to put into a pot of either $38 or possibly $44. 9 to 1 or 11 to 1 pot odds is an another easy move.
And as the action moves around a second time, there's no reason for anyone who called initially to now fold as the pot builds.
By the end of the first round betting, the pot can be at $72. That's real nice if your pocket aces hold up. But odds are really going against you now. Six initial callers indicate that no one feels real strong about their hands to raise, so you have a wide variety of hands, likely a couple of suited connectors, a K-J, and more importantly, very likely at least one, if not two, players with A-medium/low, a typical 4-8 starting hand that is worth sticking around cheap for, but not raising. What does this mean? It means with nine players, pocket Aces is least likely to improve. And it's very likely someone flops trips, a flush or connects the straight.
But is just a call any better? You wouldn't think so, but in a hand like this, I think it can be the proper play. No one is going to leave the hand, and it's unlikely you improve, but who is going to throw away Aces at any point on a hand? The pot will be nice enough by the end in the unlikely case the aces hold, but your bankroll takes less of a hit in the more likely case you lose.
At best, if everyone is in the hand, Aces hold about a 47 percent chance of winning. And that is based only on completely random hands held by others (in other words, no real legitimate starting hand, such as pocket pair, connectors, suited, etc...). But few players just play two random cards. Most have a reason to play, thus the realistic odds give the aces just a 15-25% chance of holding up.
The best scenario would be if you raised on the button and then either the small or big blind re-raised. $4 into a $40 pot may be no issue, but when you raise and the big blind re-raises, now everyone before you has to decide if $8 into the pot is worth it. The lead position is looking at $8 into a $52 pot.
Even though at this point pot odds suggest everyone would stick around, a few may fold just because psychologically 3-bets preflop is a lot tougher than 2, especially knowing that I can still reraise. So the big blind helps you out here.
Let's suppose it got back to me and everyone stayed. The pot has now grown to $92 and I can cap the betting with another raise if I want. It hard to say if capping makes sense then or not. If everyone stayed, a cap builds the pot, won't get rid of anybody and really makes the aces vulnerable. But if the aces hold, then that $144 preflop pot is nice.
In the real hand I just called. And the SB and BB just called. The flop came 7-2-Q rainbow. Three players check before a player bets. Two stay, two fold. I call. SB, BB fold, final guy calls.
Turn J. Now I know I'm dead. Same lead better leads out again. One caller, one folder. I call and one exits, leaving three of us. River is a 5, and I know I have no business staying after the leader leads out again. He gets called, and at this point even though I know I'm beat, pot odds say it makes no sense to lay down.
Indeed, first player had Q-7 suited for two pair and the other guy mucks, as do I.
It left me wondering if a raise might have chased him out, but still I think I made the right play.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Online gambling
I'm not as upset to see online gambling be done in the United States as a lot of other people are.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the government over regulating our lives and having the states turn into a true big brother type society. And the ease of a game almost anytime is great. As is the fact that you don't need a lot of money to play, and can in fact play for free some spots.
But if the Absolute Poker scandal from a few years back taught us anything, it's that these sites should be monitored and have some accountability to its players. I do eventually see the US starting online poker again, after all demand is too high for the government to just keep sites, but when they come back they will have policies in place to make sure everything is on the up and up.
But for me the internet also takes away a big element of the game in sitting around a poker table and chatting with your buddies, or complete strangers, not to mention learning how to read players and understand thoughts and strategy. Yes there are internet stars who have made millions just online, but not a lot translate to the real game. Tom Dwan comes to mind. But it is also well known Dwan was playing underage on poker sites as he learned the game and started raising his bankroll. The underage gambling is one of the big concerns of the government, and I completely understand that.
Dwan made the transition because he didn't change his style much but also doesn't change expressions much. Internet players often have a hard time realizing that although their style may be the same in a real game, their body language is different.That all-in bluff you make at a crucial point of an online tournament may go well because that player on his computer doesn't see your small grin, etc.
But back to the point, poker is a game to be experienced, not just played. In a way it's kind of like the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles deciding to play a football game on an XBOX instead of the field.
To play it at the casino is the way to experience that. The problem of course is that not all casinos have real low limit games or small buy in tournaments you find online, and you don't find a tournament starting every minute. But that's not always a bad thing. That by itself forces gamblers to follow a rule every pro from Doyle Brunson to Dwan reiterate...follow a schedule or plan. "I will play for two hours before taking off 8, etc." and never gamble more than you can afford to lose. Going to a casino pulling out a $100 and losing it makes that seem a lot bigger reality than sitting online and losing it, and pressing rebuy.
Internet poker will be back, and a few people who finally decide to step into a real casino in the meantime, may be better off in the long run when it does.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the government over regulating our lives and having the states turn into a true big brother type society. And the ease of a game almost anytime is great. As is the fact that you don't need a lot of money to play, and can in fact play for free some spots.
But if the Absolute Poker scandal from a few years back taught us anything, it's that these sites should be monitored and have some accountability to its players. I do eventually see the US starting online poker again, after all demand is too high for the government to just keep sites, but when they come back they will have policies in place to make sure everything is on the up and up.
But for me the internet also takes away a big element of the game in sitting around a poker table and chatting with your buddies, or complete strangers, not to mention learning how to read players and understand thoughts and strategy. Yes there are internet stars who have made millions just online, but not a lot translate to the real game. Tom Dwan comes to mind. But it is also well known Dwan was playing underage on poker sites as he learned the game and started raising his bankroll. The underage gambling is one of the big concerns of the government, and I completely understand that.
Dwan made the transition because he didn't change his style much but also doesn't change expressions much. Internet players often have a hard time realizing that although their style may be the same in a real game, their body language is different.That all-in bluff you make at a crucial point of an online tournament may go well because that player on his computer doesn't see your small grin, etc.
But back to the point, poker is a game to be experienced, not just played. In a way it's kind of like the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles deciding to play a football game on an XBOX instead of the field.
To play it at the casino is the way to experience that. The problem of course is that not all casinos have real low limit games or small buy in tournaments you find online, and you don't find a tournament starting every minute. But that's not always a bad thing. That by itself forces gamblers to follow a rule every pro from Doyle Brunson to Dwan reiterate...follow a schedule or plan. "I will play for two hours before taking off 8, etc." and never gamble more than you can afford to lose. Going to a casino pulling out a $100 and losing it makes that seem a lot bigger reality than sitting online and losing it, and pressing rebuy.
Internet poker will be back, and a few people who finally decide to step into a real casino in the meantime, may be better off in the long run when it does.
Sometimes you're the windshield
Playing 4-8 limit, I quickly went through my small $100 buy-in and was down to $16. I looked down to A-J of clubs on the button. There's moderate action in front of me, and I raise. I know the table pretty well and know one guy is going to call no matter what, that's fine. He calls, but so do some others.
Flop comes J K 5. After some checks, one guy bets, I of course raise to all in. In my head I know he either has the King or a straight draw, and I'm hoping for the straight draw.
Nope. He turns AK, and I know my time is short as the turn reveals an off card. Then BAAM, the jack hits for the trips and I survive another hand.
Still I never quite get caught up, surviving a couple other all-ins, but that's okay. Sometimes even in a losing session, you remember the hands you won.
After I left poker, I got neither up nor down in two hours of Blackjack and Pai Gow, then decided to kill time at a few penny slot machines.
Down about another $40, I finally decide it's time to head out, only to see a machine I hadn't seen before. Sit down and put in $10. Down to $3 and I hit. Small hit at first, just $16. But then another, and another. I walk away from the machine $80 ahead.
Sometimes a bad day at poker just isn't all bad afterall.
Flop comes J K 5. After some checks, one guy bets, I of course raise to all in. In my head I know he either has the King or a straight draw, and I'm hoping for the straight draw.
Nope. He turns AK, and I know my time is short as the turn reveals an off card. Then BAAM, the jack hits for the trips and I survive another hand.
Still I never quite get caught up, surviving a couple other all-ins, but that's okay. Sometimes even in a losing session, you remember the hands you won.
After I left poker, I got neither up nor down in two hours of Blackjack and Pai Gow, then decided to kill time at a few penny slot machines.
Down about another $40, I finally decide it's time to head out, only to see a machine I hadn't seen before. Sit down and put in $10. Down to $3 and I hit. Small hit at first, just $16. But then another, and another. I walk away from the machine $80 ahead.
Sometimes a bad day at poker just isn't all bad afterall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)