Another Bust-Out Hand from the WSOP $2K NLHE Event

An email list I subscribe to is abuzz over another subscriber's bustout hand from the $2,000 no-limit hold'em tournament a week ago.


Here's the situation. He's got a smallish stack, enough to last several orbits of the button at the present level of blinds, and there are some substantially larger stacks to his left. All three of the big-stack players have been hammering the small stacks, attacking their blinds, and coming over the top when the small stacks themselves make plays for the blinds.


My correspondent claims that one particular player has reraised all-in six consecutive times running when my correspondent opened with a raise. My correspondent felt compelled to let his hand go (including, he said, some suited aces and some pocket pairs) to the reraises, but he was growing increasingly sure that the opponent who reraised was doing so with *anything*, taking advantage of my correspondent's (and the other small stacks') unwillingness to make a stand.


My correspondent picks up a suited KQ in late position. He figures KQs plays showdown well against a random hand, so he decides that it's a mile ahead of a random hand, so he plays it like before -- opens with a reasonable-sized raise -- and expects his opponent to come over the top. Sure enough, the raise comes, and my correspondent calls, pretty much without hesitation.


Turn the cards up: the other guy has JJ. No help when the board is burned and turned, and my correspondent goes home empty-handed.


The debate on the email list is running heavily on both sides. One side insists that KQs is not a hand you want to play showdown with, and if you *expect* your opponent to raise you all-in, you should just muck it and wait for a better hand. On the other side, people are claiming that if you do indeed believe your opponent is reraising with random hands, KQs holds up about 63% of the time versus random hands, comparable to pocket sixes, or somewhere between AT and A9. The people who like my correspondent's call also point out that KQ is only a 54:46 dog versus JJ, and he was getting the right price to call the reraise.


Some people have suggested pushing all-in with the hand in order to rule out resteals. Others have suggested that if the odds favor a reraise by a hand that is massively dominated by KQ (say, by J8), then you *want* to get that money into the middle of the pot before you call.


In the discussion on this email list, I've weighed in on the side of the people who like my correspondent's play ... although I am wondering if the edge in a 63:37 shot is big enough.


What do people here think?

> One side insists that KQs is not a hand you want to play showdown with


I think that this is skewed thinking: When you can put your opponents on a range of hands (in this case obviously about at least 80% of his hands) and he will play all of them the same way (i.e. reraise) and you know that your money is going in preflop, then it is just as useless to worry about the hand he might hold in this particular situation, as it would be to worry about the river card.


What I mean is this: KsQs, As9s or 6s6c are very different hands - while you are less likely to run into a dominating hand with KQ as there are only 36 of them (vs. 78 w/ A9 and 48 for 66) you are a 3:2 dog vs. smaller pairs and aces; with 66 you're usually a slight favorite but are a 4:1 dog vs. a higher pair, etc - But in this situation, against a more or less random hand, they are all the same (i.e. about 3:2 favorites).


These resteals work b/c people are agonising if he might just now hold an overpair to our sixes, or a better ace to our A9. But if he is reraising with about any hand, one could simply imagine that he hasn't yet got any cards at all and just think of his hand as two additional and seperatly dealt board cards.


> I am wondering if the edge in a 63:37 shot is big enough.


This should also depend on how much it costs to wait for a better hand - not just in terms of blinds, but also in terms of missed opportunities b/c of your poor chip position. Only big pairs do significantly better than 63% but it can take about 200 hands until you get one in a similar situation where you can open from late position.

(Even AKo is only 65% and I doubt that anyone would muck it in this situation.)


cu


Ignatius

What this does go to show is the power of the re-steal against typical opponents. Basically when you are the stealer you need to think ahead and adapt to the conditions at hand.


Simplifying for a moment, suppose it's passed to you on the button and you can see the SB start to fold his cards. How often you raise depends on how the BB will react. If he will fold often enough, you should raise with any 2 cards. Say you are putting in 6 units to win 3, and you have plenty of chips. If your opponent will fold 75% of his hands or more, then you should raise with any two. If he will reraise you with anything (as seems to be the case here) you should only play if you are going to call the reraise. In between is trickier (obviously). Nonetheless I think you should decide of the two strategies to employ. Any 2 or something that doesn't mind a reraise (or a call if you think your opponent is likely to call as well as reraise). Simply seeing an Ace or a pair and thinking "Me Raise" without considering your opponents will not cut it !


In practice of course we have additional opponents in between ourselves and the big blind, and stack sizes to worry about. Just remember that the big blind is your key opponent. Everyone else has to worry about running into a big hand behind them. You should be constantly evaluating your left hand opponents to get a line on how they will react to a raise from you. Once you have made this evaluation you decide on your "any two" positions e.g.if it is passed to me, I am going to raise with any 2 cards from the small blind or the cut-off, but not the button. The only situations in which a middling hand like 77 or QJ or A9 is really any better than 72 are when you think you might get called and have some play on the flop ; when one or more of your opponents is short-stacked and they might either call all-in or raise all-in small enough such that you have to call ; or if you decide that your hand is good enough to stand a reraise.


In the particular example I think our correspondent's play on the final hand is good. However I question how he has been playing previously. Did it really take 6 consecutive reraises from the same guy for him to decide he was being targetted ? Once is happenstance ; Twice is coincidence ; Three times is enemy action (Goldfinger if I remember correctly). After three I would be very confident that my opponent is reraising with very many if not all hands. If he is only raising with the best 20% (and that's quite a lot of hands) the chances of him having a reraising hand 3 out of 3 are less than 1%. Of course I would be watching how he reraises and folds to other potential stealers as well. Once I've decided he's at it to this extent, the next re-raise of me is going to get called. If I haven't got enough to call it, I'm not going to raise.


Hope this helps,


Andy.

FWIW if I encountered this I'd have to start putting myself all in before the flop. I'd ask myself what good does it do to attack the blinds if I'm constantly being put to a decision for all my chips. I'd eliminate the re-steal from their arsenal and put the decision on them.

This is a reasonable plan ... but it risks all of one's chips for the sake of stealing the blinds. Someone could wake up with a hand, and bust you.


The point of my friend's plan was that, on the assumption that the big-stacked opponent was restealing with a wide range of hands, he ought to have been a favorite to double up. That's a better return on the stack of chips he put at risk.

Somehow I ended up off the list this discussion was on (but I have discussed it with members of the list, and know who the person was).


First I think it is important to know whether the re-raisers had re raised EVERY hand, or it just felt that way (ie almost every hand, or very often).


Secondly even if they were re raising all in frequently, it probably was not with any 2 cards. It may have been with any pair or any ace--still a lot of hands. But from what I understood there were 2 or 3 big stacks, so it would only take one of those 3 to have this type of hand to move you in.


I completely agree that once you raise you are committing your whole stack. This means dont raise unless you want to committ your whole stack---OR move all in preflop to prevent them coming over top.


I also agree that you generally want them coming over top with weaker hands, thus with some hands you would not want to move in preflop.


That said, KQ is a hand you do not want to see a flop with. You will almost always be a dog, it is just a question of whether you are a big dog or a small dog. Of course it is possible that the re-raisers have Q-10, but I doubt it. I doubt it because If they move in with any pair, any ace and EVEN any k or Q there is still a greater chance that they have a pair or and A than a K or Q because I have a K and Q.


SO when I pick up KQ here I think I just muck (knowing that I will have to be all in with it if I play). In Lieu of mucking I may move all in to get the signal through that I am not going to be pushed around any more. In this case JJ still calls, but in general I finally take a stand.


If I have a pair 88 or bigger, or A-10 or a bigger A, make a standard raise and quickly call all in. This is a rare time when varying your raise directly based on your hand strength has little drawback. If you move in with KQ, A-4 is still pretty damn unlikely to call. And when you make a standard raise with 99 I really dont care if they muck, or they move in with crap to get me to fold--


Basically a perceptive player will realize when I move in I dont want a call--still they need a pretty good hand to call (remember I could have 77). And, when I make a standard raise I am willing to call an all in. Good luck making use of that info.


Calling all in with KQ--even if you win the hand MAY slow them down, but may still cause them to move in with hands that I just as soon would not play against in the future.