Rinse and Repeat

I went on a little heater playing live fixed limit 4/8 at the end of last month.  I decided to use the little bump in my bankroll and take a crack at 8/16.  The last three weeks have been pretty terrible.  I had one good session walking away 3 buyin's up and another modest positive session, the rest (about six in all) I had my ass handed to me.

A lot of what went wrong was just a normal end to running good; my old friend variance.  I can point to a lot of situations were I raised preflop, missed and either gave up or got called down.  There were also just some plain old coolers and a lot of missed draws.  I have to say I didn't learn anything new from my little adventure but a lot of stuff was confirmed.

One of the things that facilitated my winning streak is that I got some coaching that helped me think differently about my game.  I had fallen into a lot of weak-tight habits and was missing a lot of value.  Moving up to 8/16 with the higher proportion of decent players there, I saw (and felt) the effects of true tight-aggressive play that is absolutely essential in small stakes fixed limit.  My coach hammered home with me the fact that the bets in fixed limit are so small relative to the size of the pot that in most cases it's just correct to just keep betting and raising.

I intellectually knew this aggressive, thin value style of play was correct but still resisted, letting my anxiety of losing big pots get the best of me.  Sure enough, the better players I sat down with in the bigger game lost A LOT of pots.  BUT, the pots they won were bigger than they would have won if they took more passive lines AND they got some fold equity a few times.  The net results were decent sized stacks by the end of the night more often then not.

It's quite a different thing to read and learn about a strategy, it's quite another to watch it unfold in front of you and beat you into submission.  I'm heading back to 4/8 with my lessons a little more crystalized in my mind.  Hopefully, I'll be able to pad my bankroll at least as fast (or a little faster) than last time and take another crack at moving up.

Perfect Play and Correct Play

I’m reading poker legend, Barry Greenstein’s book, Ace on the River.  It’s filled with a lot of narrative, not just poker notes so reading it is very entertaining.  One of the concepts he talks about is the idea of the “Perfect Play” vs. the “Correct Play.”  The perfect play would be decisions a player would make if opponents cards were visible.  A correct play is informed decisions made with the information available. 

Many times the correct and perfect play are the same.  For example if an opponent showed his top pair on the flop in fixed limit hold’em and bet, but I had four cards to a flush and the pot was more than six small bets the correct and the perfect play would be to call.

There are a lot of cases, however, where the perfect and correct play are not the same.  A hand like this came up for me recently:

Hero in Highjack with A♦-Q♦
UTG limps
Hero raises
Button calls
BB calls
UTG calls
Four players, 4 Big Bets in the pot
Flop: 3♣-A♠-7♣
UTG checks
Hero bets
Button calls
BB folds
UTG check-raises
Hero 3!
Button takes two to the face
UTG calls
Three players, 8.5 Big bets in the pot
Turn 5♣
UTG checks
Hero bets
Button calls
UTG check-raises

Hero calls

Button calls

Three players 14.5 Big bets in the pot

River 10 ♥

UTG bets

Hero calls

Button calls

UTG turns over 8♣-J♣

The perfect play on the turn would have been to fold to the check-raise because I was drawing dead at that point.  The correct play was to call the turn and the river, why?

I’ve played a bit with UTG. He’s one of those “hard luck” guys who plays way too many hands and gets all sad and pouty when he gets drawn out on. He’s fairly passive and I’ve seen him make quite a few pretty hopeless call-downs and terrible river folds when he just “knows he’s beat.” His flop check-raise could mean he had a weak A, two-pair, a set or a flush or straight draw. Being ahead of a good portion of that range and the pots as big as it was, I think my 3! was good. I have no idea what button is calling with, probably a straight or flush draw.

The turn was a nightmare card but with UTG’s check, I decided to make a value bet as many players in this spot would often have one club, in his case possibly the A of clubs.  As big as the pot was, getting more than 12:1, I need to be ahead of both opponents less than 10% of the time.  Even though I was crushed in this hand and I failed to make the “Perfect Play” I made correct decisions.

Is a Free Card Really Free?

Another lesson Ed Miller gave me was on the folly of the free card play.  He’s not opposed to using it but with good players, it simply gives too much away.

I posted a hand here in the blog a few months ago about using the free card play and thought I had done well using it (I ended up missing my flush but succeeded in getting to showdown “for free”).  Ed says that when playing against better players using this trick, you might as well turn your hand face up.  He said too many players fall into predictable habits in their play that are easily exploitable by better players.  I should beware when I start talking in terms of, “I always play my strong draws like this when I’m in position.”

For example, say my better playing opponent has a draw along with me.  I have position, he bets and I raise going for my free showdown play.  I miss on the turn, he checks and I check behind.  I miss on the river as well, BUT SO HAS MY OPPONENT.  An observant opponent will know in this situation that I bet when I make my draw, and check when I don’t.  Since I checked on the turn, he is going to bet ANY card on the river unless it’s 100% obvious that I made my draw.  His bet relative to the size of the large pot means I only have to fold my hand a small percentage of the time for that bet to be profitable.

In this light the “free” card play isn’t all that free.  I’m paying a HUGE price for the one or two times it works in my favor because in all subsequent situations like this my opponents will have a very solid tell on me.  Ed says when he spots habitual behavior with opponents he will almost always check to them to see what they do.  If they bet, he’s pretty sure they made their draw and not pay them off.  If they check behind, he bets a later street and often picks up the pot, regardless of his holdings.

Ed says a much better approach is to “just keep betting.”  The size of bets in fixed limit hold’em relative to the size of most pots just makes it mathematically right to keep firing.  Many times the fold equity alone will make it profitable.  An example:

I was playing 6-7 off suit in a short handed game one off the button.  There were two limpers in front of me. I over limped, the button called, the SB completed and the big blind checked.  The flop came 8-5-2 with two diamonds.  One of the limpers bet, I raised.  It called around to the better who three-bet, I capped and everyone but the button called.  The turn was a 10 of diamonds.  I was worried about a flush but it checked to me and I bet.  The blinds folded and the two remaining players called.  The river was a Q of clubs and it checked to me again.  I had two players to get through.  It was very likely both were on draws along with me and that both had missed, just like me.  There were about 20 big bets in the pot.  Betting 1 to get 20, my opponents have to fold only about 5% of the time to make this play profitable.  I stuck a bet out there and lo and behold, they both folded.  I took down a $160 pot with 7 high!

Another great benefit with continuing to bet draws is opponents will pay me off when I do make my hand because they simply can’t be sure of what I have.  If my actions are consistent regardless of my holdings it is very difficult for opponents to get a read on me and my play becomes much more balanced.  No longer do I have to wait around for the stone cold nuts to bet and win.  Most of the time I will loose these hands but the times I do win these pots will be big enough to overcome the losses.

A Nice Hand?

Oddly enough, one of the reasons for me seeking out poker coaching is the fact that I’ve been doing so well lately.  Having winning sessions can mask problems with a player’s game.  Because a pot is shoved your way doesn’t necessarily mean you played the hand well.  In fact, this phenomenon can actually reinforce poor playing habits that will bleed a player’s bankroll dry in the long run.  An example of one of these hands is as follows:

Limped pot

Hero on the button with Q♥-7♥

Four players, 2 Big bets in the pot.

Flop:  J♥-5♠-6♥

Small blind bets

2 calls

Hero Raises

Small blind re-raises

The other two players fold

Hero makes it four bets

Small blind calls

Heads up, 7 Big Bets in the pot

Turn 7♣

Small blind checks

Hero bets

Small blind calls

Heads up, 9 Big Bets in the pot

River Q♦

Small blind checks

Hero bets

Small blind calls

Hero shows two pair, Small blind mucks his hand.

On first blush most players would look at this hand and say, “Great!  You won!  Nice hand!”  But was it?  With only one limper pre flop and me on the button, a much better play would have been to raise to try and get heads up with the limper.  An open limp is a very weak play and leaves one thinking “what could he have?”  Probably a very speculative hand that isn’t worth a raise and is very unlikely to connect with the flop.  I have a suited queen that has some slim showdown value, why allow the small blind 7:1 on a call and the big blind a free look at the flop?  If there were more than one limper in front of me, the overlimp makes sense, but not just a solitary player, raise away!

My flop raise was good.  I have a very strong hand against three players that is going to win about 36% of the time, far more than the expected average of 25% for the total of four players in the hand.  My goal is to get as much money as I can into the pot at this point, but SURPRISE, the Small blind ruins my plan by three betting and the other two opponents fold.  Now, my 36% is not looking so good.  Heads up with the Small blind, I need to be winning better than 50% of the time in order for any more bets go into the pot.  All bets going into the pot at this point are “going in bad” so here is my second mistake, the 4^th bet.

The turn gives me a pair but only 2^nd pair and completes a straight draw.  My opponent’s check is puzzling and could signal weakness but I’m still very unlikely to get him to fold and my hand is still not anywhere near the 50% equity I need to bet, but I bet anyway.  Mistake number three. A check behind and take my free card would have been a better play.  (incidentally, if I was out of position here, a bet probably would be the preferred play as sort of a blocking play, denying my opponent the option of checking or betting).

The saving Q on the river gives me the winning hand, so I hit a lucky card which does happen, especially in limit hold’em.  I do make the correct play of value betting the river and my opponent does call (out of position the better play might be to check here, concerned that only better hands will call and weaker hands would fold.  I also would be hoping my opponent might see the river as a scare card and try a bluff and I could call or check-raise).

I suppose the only consolation for this hand (besides winning the pot) is the fact that I have this hand analysis tool now that opens up a whole new way for me to understand why the decisions I make are incorrect.  I have my coaches and mentors to thank for this.  Hopefully soon it will result in better decisions at the table and long term profitability instead of lucky variance.

Reasons for Betting

One of the big lessons Ed Miller hammered home with me is to become very clear in my mind about my reason for betting.  Most players will say the reason they bet is because they believe they have the best hand.  I’ll discuss this reason more later but I’ve often found that players have lots of other reasons.

David Sklansky is famous for his theorem of poker that basically says he who makes the fewest mistakes of the smallest size, wins.  Many players interpret this idea to mean that their goal at the table is to get opponents to make the biggest mistakes possible.  So, if I can make intimidating bets to make my opponent muck their winning hand, I’m heading in the right direction.  Likewise, if I can make weak plays with the intent of getting opponents to call with weaker hands, again I’m getting the best of it.

In limit hold’em I’ve seen this play out over and over.  So many players get so frustrated when they are far out ahead on the flop but an opponent hangs on despite their ferocious betting and draws out on the river.  In the same vain, I’ve seen so many players moan in disgust as they turn over pocket A’s when they limped in preflop only for everyone to fold when they bet out on the flop.

Some players also bet to bluff.  In the games I play in bluffing doesn’t happen often but I’ve seen it.  Players with absolute air, betting like crazy to steal a pot playing little attention to what the board looks like.

Finally, I’ve seen many many players bet and raise because they want to “thin the field” or isolate on who they think is a weak player.  These players aren’t sure they have a winning hand yet but the know allowing other players to draw for one bet will “price them in” and they may draw out.

Ed told me that most of these reasons are simply wrong headed.  The plain truth is no one has any control at the poker table of anything that goes on.  Players play erratically and there is no possible way to get them to call or fold, price them out of a pot or any other course of action.  The best a player can do is clearheadedly watch your opponents tendencies, realistically evaluate the possibilities and make the best decisions you can given the information available.  Which brings me to the original reason to bet, for value.

Bets and raises should never be designed to try and influence opponents one way or another.  Rather, when deciding to bet, I need to think about when called, what percentage of my opponents range of possible hands he’s playing am I ahead of  AND how does that percentage of hands I’m beating stack up against my bet relative to the size of the pot.  An example: when the pot is large, 8 big bets, and I’m betting one to get 8, I only need to be ahead of a little more than 12% of my opponents range to make that bet profitable.  This is value betting and is the essence of fixed limit poker.

This analysis also applies to bluffing.  A bluff isn’t trickery, “seeing into your opponents’ soul” or some other method devised to manipulate.  It’s simply the analysis of what percentage of my opponent’s hands (given the flop texture and what I know about their playing) are they unwilling to showdown with AND how does that percentage stack up against the odds the pot is laying me for my bet.

Ed describes fixed limit as “one big percentage play.”  Basically, I’m betting when I think I’ve got enough of an edge given the size of the pot and I’m folding if I don’t.  Notice there is almost no room in this philosophy for checking and calling.  That’s because betting and raising is almost always right in limit hold’em.  The size of the bets are so small relative to the size of the pot, it’s mathematically correct to just stick the money in.  Ed says all players must use discretion and let the board texture and your reads on your opponents guide your decision making.  Also, solid fundamentals are critical to this strategy such has only playing premium hands. 

However, Ed advocates that in most situations I need to simply just be betting.  Another power element of this strategy is the benefit of disguising my hand strength and balancing my play.  It’s very easy for opponents to put me on a hand if I’m just betting and raising when I’ve got it and checking or calling when I don’t.  If I’m always betting and raising my play becomes much less transparent.  Opponents are left wondering what I have or how to react to me.  Furthermore, some opponents, some of the time, will fold. This “fold equity” can be added on top of that range percentage I’m using to guide my decision making.