Cutthroat Poker

[hitman]

Sometimes, variance can be your friend. I have questions about two poker scenarios and, while these questions are general, I wish to frame them in the context of a middle-limit hold'em game. Suppose you are playing at a full table with a player whose skill you estimate is about the same as yours. However, you know that this player is playing on a bankroll much smaller than your own and, in fact, a bankroll too small to justify his participation in your game. Suppose his BR is about 1/3 what it should be to play in the game with a 5% RoR. Furthermore, this player is a professional and, should he bust out, he won't be back to make you pay for any variance-increasing tactics you use.

What tactics would you use in the case of a full table characterized by the prevalence of weak, relatively loose players (the typical marginal sort of player you can expect to encounter in $15-$30 at the Bellagio or such) to punish this player for being in a game too big for his own good?

What tactics would you use in a heads-up scenario with this same player? Variance could be used to wipe him out and lock up his money as your own but, at the same time, should his bankroll triple, then he is no longer under-bankrolled to play against you and now, since your skill is the same as his, you are just going to get raked to death if you keep playing.

Everyone acknowledges that hand-reading is a skill necessary to becoming a winning player. But what about being able to put someone on a bankroll? What is this worth? Likewise, what is it worth to know that a person (whether under-bankrolled or not) is the type who either (a) has a stop-loss limit which you know or (b) absolutely will not go home stuck.

[cferejohn]

Well, I can't say that I've ever been in a situation like this, perse, but it seems like in a full game, the obvious thing to do is tend to raise big drawing hands (see suited connectors) when there are lots of limpers in already. When you do hit, you will get bigger payoffs, but the variance will be larger. Obviously, this can bite you in the ass as well, since if he gets lucky and hits 2 or 3 hands in a short period, his bankroll might be right back where it needs to be. I would say in this situation, you would want this player on your left, unless he is extrememly aggressive (and if he is, his variance is going to be high anyway).

Heads up, I would be very aggressive (even more so than usuall) and hope that his short bankroll makes him too tight (think of how you would play heads up at a tournament).

[oddjob]

i think that you'd have to make some strong moves to get this guy heads up right away. i would then prefer to be on his left. therefore when he limps or raises you can raise/reraise and try to isolate him, or get him to fold his hand.

you'd have to this quite aggressively, and he'll probably figure out what you're trying to accomplish anyways, and start to play only his top top hands.

[ninthyaga]

I agree. You'll want to sit to his left and isolate him as much as possible. If you think about it, there are two sides to this. 1) You want to increase his fluctuations, and 2) You want to minimize the size of his wins. To increase the fluctuations, you'll have to play more aggressively with him. As mentioned before, start making use of the semi-bluff when you're on a draw. You might be able to take the pot if you don't even hit your draw, but if you do, you'll maximize your dent in his roll. Also, if you get it heads-up and he takes the pot, he only gets paid 1 to 1. However, this kind of playing might not be right for you, because you'll be deviating from your normal game. You should think about whether or not it's worth taking these risks just to get him out of your game. Normally, another good player on the table shouldn't affect you too much, especially if you sit behind him.