table image: tight play and short stacks

[turnipmonster]

ml4l's post got me thinking more about table image, which is very important in live games.

I typically am playing a short stack in my PL game, between 5-800 when most people have 1500-2k. I have always believed that, as a short stack, you must play tighter and get out of line less because your bets don't carry very much implied weight. it also necessitates more bluffing early on, and less bluffing later in the hand.

but maybe I am wrong in these assumptions. does anyone here successfully utilize a loose aggressive style when short stacked?

--turnipmonster

[BigBiceps]

being loose-aggressive with a short stack causes you to either become a large stack or have to rebuy. If you want to play loose-aggressive it is better to be a large stack.

[SomeName]

if you play loose aggressive with a short stack you can normally double up very easily as people wont make laydowns to your stack. the first time you get top pair decent kicker you may get called by as little as ace high. you do have to be willing to re-buy to play this way though. I have some experience with this as you are capped off at only 200$ on party poker and sometimes you go into a game where everyone else has doubled or trippled up already. I have been very succesfull with the loose aggressive style in these games although i do sometimes lose a buy-in or two before winning.

[beerbandit]

I don't think anyone wants to be short stacked unless your short stack is bigger than your original stack. I'd buy in for more to have a comaparable stack. Unless you plan on putting 500 on the table trying to get in all-in against multiple players---which I see often. Yes I think that a short stack can work to your advantage if you can utilize it. Players are more aggresssive towards a SS. I know that I try to push the shorter stacks around. You must play tighter and once you have a big hand--release it upon them and now you are one of the big stacks.

[CrisBrown]

Hi beerbandit,

[ QUOTE ]
Players are more aggresssive towards a SS. I know that I try to push the shorter stacks around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this happen also, although I generally don't pick on the short stacks because, frankly, they don't have enough money to bother with.

Let's say I'm playing $2/4 NL and I have worked my stack up to $800. A guy with $80 in front of him makes it $16 from MP. He's been very tight and hasn't raised much, so I put him on a big pair, or at worst AK. I'm on the button, and I look down to see 98s. This is a hand I'd usually play against a raise if I have position and my opponent has a deep stack, but why on earth would I play it against a guy with only $80? Even if I hit my hand and he goes all-in, he doesn't have enough to pay off my drawing odds. Oh well. Nice 98s, but I'll wait for a deeper opponent to play that kind of hand. If your opponents realize this, you can pick up some nice money by killing their implied odds when you enter a pot.

That having been said, voluntarily sitting down in a big bet poker game with 1/4 of the average stack is about like voluntarily going into a gunfight with an empty clip and only one round in the chamber. If you can't afford to buy in for an average stack, perhaps it might be better to pick a lower limit where you could? It's hard enough to have an edge, and that edge will be narrow enough, without taking on that kind of disadvantage.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hiya turnip,

As others have said, most of the best NL players in the world have a reputation for reckless, loose-aggressive play, even if that reputation is inaccurate. Layne Flack, Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, Ted Forrest, Daniel Negraneau, etc. all foster an image of almost wildness.

This works to their advantage on a number of levels. They are more difficult to read. They are dangerous to be in a pot with, no matter what the flop looks like. And their opponents are likely to get impatient and start playing rag hands themselves ... although they don't have the skills to do so.

That having been said, most of these players aren't really loose-aggressive. If they play more hands than "the book" says they should, it's because they know how to play those hands well enough to play them profitably. They're all exceptional readers, and they have the discipline and confidence to get away from a hand. That confidence is an important element; they know they'll get another shot soon, so a pot is rarely so urgent that they can't afford to lay their hands down.

All of which comes down to this, in my opinion. It's not "loose" to play hands that you can play profitably, even most of your opponents could not play those hands profitably. It becomes "loose" when you're playing hands that you can't play profitably.

And that is why novice players are better off projecting a "tight" image. Because, frankly, they're better off to avoid the hands they don't know how to play profitably, and that means playing a lot tighter than "experts" play.

Cris

[turnipmonster]

I agree, good thoughts! the issue I was thinking of is more looseness as a function of stack size. given that we're playing a short stack in a game that tends to be deeper (like my 5-5 blinds game with 2k stacks), I am curious if people think it can be profitable to play looser than I currently play (which is pretty tight).

with deeper stacks we can make a lot of speculative calls of raises with stuff like 9Ts (in position of course), sacrificing some preflop EV in exchange for hopefully more EV on later streets. basically giving action to get action. I am just curious if there is anyone who specializes in this type of play (the way some people specialize in playing short stacked).

--turnipmonster

[CrisBrown]

Hi turnip,

I'm probably "looser" than most players here at 2+2. In ring game NL, I usually play about 33% of my hands, give or take. Yes, I'll call a raise in position with a suited connector. In fact, if I have a suited connector on the button, I'm hoping for a raise in front of me, or else a ton of limpers, because I want good implied odds for my hand. If I hit it, I can make a big payoff vs. someone who is married to a big pair, or in a multi-way pot. If I miss it, it's easy to lay down, and when the money is deep, I don't mind the 3xBB or 4xBB I gave away calling the raise.

But to do this, you have to know how to play a drawing hand. If someone bets the pot at you, and all you have is a naked four-draw (i.e.: no pair, no overcards), you have only two choices: (a) bluff-raise, if you think that will buy you a free card at the turn; or, (b) fold. If you just call, you're basically announcing your hand, and it's very unlikely that your opponent will pay you off if that draw completes.

Obviously, if your opponent makes a smaller bet, you have more options, because he may be semi-bluffing on a draw as well. If he's a tight opponent, you can bluff-raise him and possibly take the pot right there. If he's going to call anything, you can smooth call, and he'll probably pay you off when your draw hits. Obviously, you need to think about whether he has a bigger draw than you do. The weaker your draw, and the tighter your opponent, the more you will want to bluff-raise him off the pot right there.

Finally, it's worth noting that when you pick up a pair-plus-four hand, provided your non-paired card is live, you are usually not that big of a dog vs. a bigger pair. For example, if you have 76s and the flop is A-6-3 with two of your suit, you're only a 3:2 dog vs. AK. So if he bets the pot at you, it would be a mistake to fold, because you're getting 2:1 pot odds on your call. So -- unlike the naked four-draw situation above -- your options here are to call or to raise. Which you do will depend on how willing you are to gamble with this opponent.

If there were no A or K on this flop -- if it were J-6-3 with two of my suit, and he bet the pot at me -- I'd be more likely to raise. He could be betting on overcards, or if he has a hand like JT, he could be worried about kicker trouble or an overpair. So that gives me more fold equity for my raise. If he reraises me, though, I'm more likely to fold, because a reraise here usually means an overpair, two pair, or a set. Two of those three possibilities have me WAY behind, so unless he's on such a small stack that it can't really hurt me to call, I've got to let my hand go.

In short, you have to not only play your cards, but also your opponent's cards. Why would he bet this way on this board, given the pre-flop action and my actions? Is this player married to a big pair, so he'll pay me off for his entire stack if I hit my draw? How likely is it that I'll hit my hand and still lose?

Playing drawing hands requires a lot of experience, and sometimes more than a bit of blind, stupid luck. That is, there will be times when you won't know know whether your hand is already good, or whether he's ahead, whether you're drawing to the best hand, or the second-best. Those are times when you have to go with your intuition, and either fold or call and hope for the best.

Cris

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]

That having been said, voluntarily sitting down in a big bet poker game with 1/4 of the average stack is about like voluntarily going into a gunfight with an empty clip and only one round in the chamber. If you can't afford to buy in for an average stack, perhaps it might be better to pick a lower limit where you could? It's hard enough to have an edge, and that edge will be narrow enough, without taking on that kind of disadvantage.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but only to a point. I generally do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars to play with and i don't mind sitting at a GREAT game (casino boat, 500 min buy in 5/10 blinds in fl) with only the min. buy in. i know my stack will be at about double that very soon (i have another buy in behind me though).

also, i don't mind playing short stacked. it ALLOWS me to take pots i have no right to for the example you gave with 98s vs. 16 out of 80 raise.

if i have 500 and its a raise and 4 cold callers on THIS boat in THIS game i know i can move in or make a substantial bet and win this pot very very often since nobody wants to play against a short stack since they don't have too much money...BUT this is only against certain people in this game...if one or two real looseys are in i'm folding here with the very same hands i raise with should other players be the cold callers.

it would go 5/10 blinds, 40 to go, call, call, call, i make it 200/300/or all in (500) and they all fold, sometimes if i make it 200 i'll get a caller and i can judge what to do on the flop, but i win in these situations much more often than not without a hand...in fact ive done it with 63o.

the one time i got caught you'd never believe WHY...i FORGOT TO LOOK AT MY CARDS!!! i sensed weakness and raised to 200, the player (very solid big stack) to my right reraised to 500 all folded and i had to stop and just read him for a second...he turns to me and says, "you shouldn't be looking at me, son[im 24 and he was about 50]...you might want to CHECK to see what your cards are!!"

but all in all i dont mind shortstacked play so much...eventually i have a deep stack and can switch it up a bit.

but i'm staying outta your games cris!
good luck
-Barron

[Ben]

Awesome post Cris.

That's getting bookmarked...

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
have is a naked four-draw (i.e.: no pair, no overcards), you have only two choices: (a) bluff-raise, if you think that will buy you a free card at the turn; or, (b) fold. If you just call, you're basically announcing your hand

[/ QUOTE ]

(most of this is referring to a heads up situation)

this is really a stylistic question. I will just call a pot bet a lot of times, but if I will do it with a set, TPTK, and an overpair as well as a flush draw then my opponents really don't have a lot of info about what my call means. (assuming they know I will sometimes call with a made hand as well as a draw).

in order for me to really not announce my hand, I have to balance my play and sometimes raise with draws as well as made hands, and sometimes call with draws and made hands.

point being, if we play together a bunch and you always adopt a raise or fold strategy with a 4 card draw (flush or straight), it's not hard for me to come up with a reasonably effective counterstrategy.

I think the raise with a flush draw play is somewhat overused in NLH, as evidenced by the many online players who fail to balance their flush draw allins with legitimate allins with sets and the like. the flush draw allin move is only effective if players are willing to play other hands that way, and many don't. of course I don't mind this at all /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

--turnipmonster

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ben,

Thank you for the kind words. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cris

[Matt Flynn]

Yes if your opponents will lay down quickly and the game plays small. If they're collectively loose preflop and also loose on the flop you don't have enough stack at $500. $800's enough but occasionally you'll screw yourself bad. I.e., you don't have enough for two multiway streets one of which is raised and then still enough money behind to make an opponent lay it down.

If you have to play small what you want is to see flops unraised (unless you raise with a big pair or call a raise with AK maybe AQ) and then make your decision on the flop whether you're going all-in and play accordingly.

Your game will be higher variance because you will be going all-in frequently. If you have $1,200 you can sling chips and go all-in only rarely even if everyone's got you covered. Better have weak opponents or some reading skills though. I can't wait for some guy in a black silk shirt to start popping flops on me at the WSOP side action. The game hasn't even been called yet and he and I are fixing to play a pot (as Doyle would say).

Matt

[CrisBrown]

Hiya turnip,

[ QUOTE ]
this is really a stylistic question. I will just call a pot bet a lot of times, but if I will do it with a set, TPTK, and an overpair as well as a flush draw then my opponents really don't have a lot of info about what my call means. (assuming they know I will sometimes call with a made hand as well as a draw).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it's important to mix up your play, and my comments were essentially directed to people who aren't used to playing drawing hands. Yes, I'll raise with a draw sometimes, smooth-call with a made hand, and vice-versa.

In fact, one of the questions I ask myself when deciding how to play a given situation is: What did I do the last time I had this situation? I know my opponents watch, and keep notes. I don't want them to peg me, so along with all of the other situational factors -- my read of my opponent, stack sizes, etc., etc. -- I'm also thinking about whether this is a good time to throw a change up.

For example:

PokerStars $2/4 NL. I have $1240 and have everyone at the table covered by a good margin. The relevant opponents are: UTG ($840), EP ($578), MP ($133), and LP ($254). UTG makes it $12, EP calls, MP calls, LP calls, and -- getting 5:1 from the pot -- I call with the powerhouse 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif. BB folds, and the pot is $64.

Flop: 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

In short, exactly the flop I was hoping for. Umm ... yeah.

I bet out for $20. UTG folds. EP raises to $40, and it's folded back to me. Hrmmmm ... now, I know EP, and in fact I doubled up from him about three hours earlier when he did his usual push-at-the-flop-with-any-two-overcards against my JJ. He reraises pre-flop anytime he plays big cards, and he pushes all-in with them at the flop whether he's hit or he hasn't. Worse, he pushes all-in anytime he's on a flush draw and is reraised. So he's not on overcards, and ne's not on a flush draw. Ergo, he's on a small pair, and I play back at him, making it $180. He thinks for a long, long time, and finally calls. The pot is $424.

Turn: [9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif] 10 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

What are the odds he has 55? Very, very slim. I set him all-in (he had $386 left). He thinks for longer than it took Peter Jackson to make THE LORD OF THE RINGS, and calls.

River: [9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 10 /images/graemlins/heart.gif] 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

And I drag a $1192 pot with a pair of 9s and no kicker. (He mucked 66.)

I won't have to bluff this guy ever again to get paid off on my big hands. And some of the people who were at the table probably immediately typed "idiot" into their notes for me. In fact, I hope they did. They'll pay off my big hands too. That's what a change-up is for. You can't live on them, or your opponents will tee off on you. But every once in awhile, you need to set them off-balance.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

For what it's worth, the example was not intended to illustrate how to play a drawing hand. Rather, it was intended as an example of how vulnerable a player becomes when he plays a given hand the same way every time. Were it not for the fact that my opponent was so readable, my second-pair-no-kicker would've gone in the muck as soon as he raised my flop bet. But because his betting patterns were so consistent -- he never once varied, so far as I saw -- I could play a crappy hand with the confidence that it was the best hand.

Cris

[eggzz]

Cris, if your opponent was holding 55 in the hand you described, are you 100% certain that he would not have tried to slow play you by minimum raising to $40, as he did with the 6's?

You were absolutely certain that he did not hit his set, because you knew if you led out for $20 and he was holding 55, he would have raised you back for $150 or so instead of $40?

I seem to worry about getting slowplayed myself too often. That was a good read of your opponent. I remember a hand I was involved in recently where I pretty much did the same thing, and it made me feel good.

I held A /images/graemlins/club.gif4 /images/graemlins/club.gif. I was in the BB and I called a 2.5BB raise. About four of us saw a flop of J64 rainbow.

The preflop raiser led out for a bet of about 1/3 of the pot. Based on the way he had been playing, I instantly knew he had overcards and did not hit on the flop. He would have bet pot sized if he had an overpair, or if he paired up. I was 100% certain of this. I instantly smelled weakness with the bet he placed. The two players in the middle folded to his bet and I raised him double his bet. He reraised me and set me all in. I called and the turn and river were something like a 10 and a 2. I won with a pair of fours and he mucked KQs.

I thought it was a great play. I basically saw his hand and doubled up off of my read.

Later on, in the same game I had KQ myself and was faced with a tough decision. I was looking at a large raise to my pot sized flop bet on a Queen high flop. I felt my opponent had a good chance of holding AQ and I folded. But not before the guy I previously took down made a comment to the effect of: "Egg will fold, he calls with worse hands than that".

He was sore because he thought I made a bad play with my pair of fours. I don't know, maybe some of you will come back and tell me it was not a good play, maybe it was a terrible play. I'm still learning, but I thought it was a good read.

His sore loser comment confirmed to me what I thought: he didn't understand what a good play it was that I made against him, he didn't understand that he was stupid to reraise me with only overcards, and he certainly wouldn't have been able to lay down top pair with second best kicker, because he can't let go of his second best hands.

Feedback is certainly appreciated.

[CrisBrown]

Hi eggzz,

[ QUOTE ]
You were absolutely certain that he did not hit his set, because you knew if you led out for $20 and he was holding 55, he would have raised you back for $150 or so instead of $40?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never seen this player slowplay. Ever. That's not to say he'd never do it, but I had to go with my read based on my experience of the player.

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to worry about getting slowplayed myself too often. That was a good read of your opponent. I remember a hand I was involved in recently where I pretty much did the same thing, and it made me feel good. [...] I thought it was a great play. I basically saw his hand and doubled up off of my read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you made a stupid play. I think you made a great read and went with it. It's not often that you get that chance, especially online where the only information you have are the players' betting patterns. When you can get that kind of a read, you have to use it.

Conversely, you have to avoid being the kind of player that other players can read that clearly, or you'll be the one cursing and fuming when your opponent calls you down with a ratty hand that's better than yours.

Cris

[wrongpond]

I'm inclined to play this way if I can, but it's not something I'm good enough to do for a whole game, I like to do it when I'm a little ahead and then read the player not the hand when catch only part of the flop. I know that my reading skills can always use the practice, plus you get all the bonuses of which you spoke; more action for you because your giving more out; you become harder to read; your monster flops get paid-off more often, once you take down a really big pot change gears and sit back waiting for better hands, which will still get more action from all those who haven't noticed you've changed gears.

[cornell2005]

great posts chris

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
But to do this, you have to know how to play a drawing hand. If someone bets the pot at you, and all you have is a naked four-draw (i.e.: no pair, no overcards), you have only two choices: (a) bluff-raise, if you think that will buy you a free card at the turn; or, (b) fold. If you just call, you're basically announcing your hand, and it's very unlikely that your opponent will pay you off if that draw completes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Cris,

I don't agree at all. Off the top of my head...

1) Putting in a pot-sized raise just to get a "free" card is terrible poker. The reality is that you are charging yourself as much to draw as he could have on the next street. If you call, he might check the turn, in which case you could take a truly free card.

2) Along those lines, if you raise a draw, it should be because you think that your opponent will likely fold. If I didn't think that my opponent would fold to a pot-sized bet on the turn if I don't hit, I'm probably not going to raise the flop. The only other reason would be if you have no fear of being reraised and your opponent will misread your hand and pay you off if you hit.

3) Though calling is obviously a distinct possibility when someone flat-calls a flop bet, there are MANY hands other than straight/flush draws that should be played in a similar fashion.

4) Against a player who is quick to put a caller on a draw and won't pay off if the draw comes, here is a nifty play. If the board has two of a suit on it and you have a straight draw, you have essentially doubled your outs. If the flush comes, bluff and he'll fold. If the straight comes, you've made a hand.

5) Many times, more often with a straight draw than a flush draw, you have the proper odds to call the flop and then fold the turn if you miss your draw.

6) If someone catches on to your raising or folding with draws, you're going to get re-popped more often (I already know your reply; this way you get paid more on your big hands... But there are other ways to accomplish the same thing).

7) If you don't want to call because that would be "too predictable," what is NEVER calling? Sounds predictable...

That's all, for now... /images/graemlins/grin.gif Hope it didn't come off too harsh.

ML4L

[ML4L]

Hey turnip (and others),

Great idea for a thread; I was going to start a similar one as a follow-up to my other thread, but I was glad to see that you beat me to the punch... /images/graemlins/grin.gif My thoughts on some things that have been written so far:

1) It is generally very difficult to be loose-aggressive for an extended period of time with a short stack. This is because a) if you keep putting the money out there, there will be an all-in before too long, after which you are either busted or a big stack, and b) you are generally more likely to be called when you are a short stack because opponents do not have to fear big bets later in the hand.

2) Along these lines, semi-bluffing and bluffing with a short stack are GENERALLY not a good idea. If you fire out a raise on the flop, you probably don't have much money left to make a big bet on the turn. Thus, your raise does not carry as much weight.

3) That having been said, it is not necessarily a bad idea to start off loose-aggressive. Doyle talks about it in SuperSystem; he would often play his first buy-in very fast, and if he doubled up, he could keep the pressure on. If he busted, he could rebuy and play a little tighter. And, establishing a loose-aggressive image early in a session can do wonders for you later. But, again, playing loose-aggressive with a short stack MUST be with the intention of either busting or doubling-up; it is generally not a sustainable strategy.

4) Contrary to what some posters implied, playing a short stack does not mean that a player does not know how to play a deep stack or does not know how to play aggressively. All it means is that, for whatever reason, the player doesn't have much money in front of him at that given time. Your strategy must constantly adjust with the variables in the game, stack size being one of them.

5) Along those lines, not playing in a game solely because you can't afford to buy-in as deeply as others is ridiculous. Granted, your win rate will likely be lower than if you started with more ammo. But, if the game is good enough that you can still make money, and all you can afford (or all that you wish to risk) to buy-in for puts you at a short stack, oh well; it is STILL profitable. Dcifr touched on this.

6) If you are playing a short-stack, it is often best to just play very tightly and then when you get a hand that you like, be prepared to play it very aggressively and go to the felt with it. You often do not have the implied odds to play drawing hands. When you've doubled-up, you can incorporate a normal, ring game strategy. Read what Matt Flynn had to say on this issue (generally a good idea no matter the topic /images/graemlins/laugh.gif).

I think that's about it (for now)... /images/graemlins/grin.gif Hope this helps.

ML4L

[AJo Go All In]

wow. this is your example of "mixing up your play"? you got involved in a huge pot against an unbluffable player with a very shaky holding. this is a very bad idea. are you saying your read was so precise that he could not have had 98? or Q3?

[ QUOTE ]
I won't have to bluff this guy ever again to get paid off on my big hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure getting paid off on your big hands has never been and will never be a problem against this player, as shown by this hand.

i'm glad you're running well, but i hope you do not consider this hand one of your finer points. you were obviously up against the ultimate calling station, and in my opinion you got lucky that your bluff actually turned out to be a value bet. most of the time you will double him up with his crappy top pair and ask yourself why you tried to bluff a player that obviously cannot be bluffed.

[CrisBrown]

Hi AJ,

[ QUOTE ]
wow. this is your example of "mixing up your play"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If you missed the post "Clarification," this was an example of how vulnerable you become if you never mix up your play. This player was utterly transparent in his play. If he had big cards, he pushed in at the flop. If he had a flush draw, he pushed in at the flop. Every time. He won a lot of pots by getting other players to fold to this tactic.

When he didn't push in at the flop, I knew he: (a) didn't have big cards; and, (b) didn't have a flush draw. That left only a small pair, and I knew my 9s were good.

If just once he had mixed up his game, I'd never have played this hand this way. I certainly wouldn't against 99.9% of the opponents I've played. But when someone is this transparent, it's pretty much a crime not to take full advantage of it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

he couldn't have had 98?

[CrisBrown]

Hi AJ,

[ QUOTE ]
he couldn't have had 98?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was willing to bet $600 that he didn't.

That's the thing about playing a read: it's always possible that you've misread. It was possible he had AA or KK or AQ or QQ or 55 and -- for the first time -- decided to slow-play a big hand. Anything is possible.

Against this kind of hyper-aggressive opponent -- where you can't make an exploratory bet because he's likely to blow you off a hand -- that leaves you two choices: (a) never play a read, for fear that you might be wrong; or, (b) go with your read and take your chances.

If I had been wrong, I would have lost $600. Oh well. I'd still have been up $200 for the session. Misreads happen. As it turned out, I'd read him correctly.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi ML,

Not harsh at all. No worries. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
1) Putting in a pot-sized raise just to get a "free" card is terrible poker. The reality is that you are charging yourself as much to draw as he could have on the next street. If you call, he might check the turn, in which case you could take a truly free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Sklansky discusses raising to get a free card in TOP. I don't have a page site handy, but it's in the section about free cards. No, it's not a "free" card, in the sense that you've paid for it in advance, although in NL you may have gotten that card more cheaply. That is, your opponent might well bet more on the turn (after your call at the flop) than you would have raised. Also, the EV of a raise at the flop (where you get fold equity plus draw equity with two cards to come) is very different from the EV of a call at the flop and a call at the turn (no fold equity, less draw equity with one card to come).

[ QUOTE ]
2) Along those lines, if you raise a draw, it should be because you think that your opponent will likely fold. If I didn't think that my opponent would fold to a pot-sized bet on the turn if I don't hit, I'm probably not going to raise the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly if there is zero fold equity, then you have much less reason to raise at the flop. But there remains the difference in draw equity, getting the money in with two cards to come vs. with only one.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Though [a drawing hand?] is obviously a distinct possibility when someone flat-calls a flop bet, there are MANY hands other than straight/flush draws that should be played in a similar fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, and if you have enough of these in your arsenal to offset the times you might be calling with a draw, then you can mix in some calls on draws as well.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Against a player who is quick to put a caller on a draw and won't pay off if the draw comes, here is a nifty play. If the board has two of a suit on it and you have a straight draw, you have essentially doubled your outs. If the flush comes, bluff and he'll fold. If the straight comes, you've made a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here, and against that kind of player, I will sometimes make this move. The converse is also possible: you have a flush draw and there's a straight-laden board, or a flush of a different suit.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Many times, more often with a straight draw than a flush draw, you have the proper odds to call the flop and then fold the turn if you miss your draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a passive opponent this is true. But I specified that this was a response to a pot-sized bet, and in that situation you don't have odds to call-fold.

[ QUOTE ]
6) If someone catches on to your raising or folding with draws, you're going to get re-popped more often (I already know your reply; this way you get paid more on your big hands... But there are other ways to accomplish the same thing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, you know my reply. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
7) If you don't want to call because that would be "too predictable," what is NEVER calling? Sounds predictable...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no. If I raise vs. a pot-sized bet, I could (and usually will) be on a made hand. So the raise here doesn't signal a drawing hand. Now, because I will sometimes trap-call with a monster hand, I can mix in a few calls on naked four-draws.

While I probably overstated my argument originally, I still maintain that routinely calling pot-sized bets with a naked four-draw is a recipe for losing a lot of money. Observant opponents will pick up on it and kill your implied odds by not paying you off, in which case those calls are -EV plays that suck money out of your bankroll.

Most of the time, if I have a naked four-draw -- no pair or overcards, and no other draw potential -- I will fold to a pot-sized bet. It's just not worth chasing at that price. When I do continue with a naked four-draw vs. a pot-sized bet, I am much more likely to raise than call, for the reasons I've explained.

Obviously, if I have other outs -- a straight draw to go with a flush draw, overcards, a pair -- or if my opponent makes a smaller bet, the decision matrix changes. But in the specific situation that I described, I think routinely calling is a huge (and common) leak.

Cris

[ML4L]

Hey Cris,

If we keep responding to each other, it's going to get really nit-picky... But, I'm just going to clarify a couple of things that I said, then I'm done. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Putting in a pot-sized raise just to get a "free" card is terrible poker. The reality is that you are charging yourself as much to draw as he could have on the next street. If you call, he might check the turn, in which case you could take a truly free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Sklansky discusses raising to get a free card in TOP. I don't have a page site handy, but it's in the section about free cards. No, it's not a "free" card, in the sense that you've paid for it in advance, although in NL you may have gotten that card more cheaply. That is, your opponent might well bet more on the turn (after your call at the flop) than you would have raised. Also, the EV of a raise at the flop (where you get fold equity plus draw equity with two cards to come) is very different from the EV of a call at the flop and a call at the turn (no fold equity, less draw equity with one card to come).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I knew what your reply would be, so I was quick to phrase what I said in a way to circumvent it (I should have gone to law school /images/graemlins/laugh.gif). Note that I say putting in a raise JUST to get a free card, implying zero (or very little) fold equity. Additionally, I specify a pot-sized raise. You are correct; if you can raise a less-than-pot-sized amount without being transparent, and your opponent would have bet the pot on the turn had you not raised, then you have gotten a cheap card. But, given that by raising, you forego when you would have gotten a TRULY free card should your opponent check the turn (of course, it may be better to take the pot there than check behind, but that's off-topic). So, if you feel that your opponent is unlikely to fold, putting in a raise with a draw is often not the best way to play the hand.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Along those lines, if you raise a draw, it should be because you think that your opponent will likely fold. If I didn't think that my opponent would fold to a pot-sized bet on the turn if I don't hit, I'm probably not going to raise the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly if there is zero fold equity, then you have much less reason to raise at the flop. But there remains the difference in draw equity, getting the money in with two cards to come vs. with only one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you have something like an open-ended straight flush draw, why would you want all the money in on the flop IF YOUR OPPONENT WILL NOT FOLD? You are thereby charging yourself the absolute maximum to draw. I agree with your point that sometimes, it is best to duke it out on the flop with a draw, but that is when there is a reasonable chance of taking the pot right there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5) Many times, more often with a straight draw than a flush draw, you have the proper odds to call the flop and then fold the turn if you miss your draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a passive opponent this is true. But I specified that this was a response to a pot-sized bet, and in that situation you don't have odds to call-fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are considering pot odds. The key is implied odds, which is the reason that I separate straights from flushes. Many times, a straight will be relatively concealed, so that you are more likely to get paid off, thus increasing your implied odds. With a garden-variety flush draw, you are correct; if you will not get paid when you hit, the pot is charging you too much to call. But, as mentioned before, if by virtue of your position you might be able to win the pot with a bluff if some OTHER scare card comes, then a call may be correct. Still, the principle of implied odds is the reason that many times, it can be more profitable to call the flop with a GUTSHOT than a flush draw.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7) If you don't want to call because that would be "too predictable," what is NEVER calling? Sounds predictable...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no. If I raise vs. a pot-sized bet, I could (and usually will) be on a made hand. So the raise here doesn't signal a drawing hand. Now, because I will sometimes trap-call with a monster hand, I can mix in a few calls on naked four-draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying that a raise implied a drawing hand; I was saying that, if I know that you never call with draws, and then you call, I can immediately put you on a hand OTHER than a draw. Obviously, most of your opponents do not know this about you, and as you've said, you DO call with draws sometimes. I was just pointing out the importance of varying your play with draws, including sometimes calling (but you already knew that... /images/graemlins/grin.gif)


[ QUOTE ]
While I probably overstated my argument originally, I still maintain that routinely calling pot-sized bets with a naked four-draw is a recipe for losing a lot of money. Observant opponents will pick up on it and kill your implied odds by not paying you off, in which case those calls are -EV plays that suck money out of your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

THIS is what the beginners should keep in mind. Out-of-position, you are correct; most players don't even consider folding a flush draw or open-ender, but it sometimes correct to do so. This is true even moreso on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time, if I have a naked four-draw -- no pair or overcards, and no other draw potential -- I will fold to a pot-sized bet. It's just not worth chasing at that price. When I do continue with a naked four-draw vs. a pot-sized bet, I am much more likely to raise than call, for the reasons I've explained.

Obviously, if I have other outs -- a straight draw to go with a flush draw, overcards, a pair -- or if my opponent makes a smaller bet, the decision matrix changes. But in the specific situation that I described, I think routinely calling is a huge (and common) leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had just phrased it that way to begin with, it would have saved each of us some time... /images/graemlins/grin.gif Good discussion, though.

ML4L

[Ulysses]

It's important to distinguish between tournament and cash game players. Now, some successful tourney players also happen to be very good cash game players. But in the games around here, there are a number of very good tournament players who get killed in cash games. Emulating top NL tourney play is likely to not be a good idea in cash games for two reasons. You can rebuy and the blinds don't escalate.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
But to do this, you have to know how to play a drawing hand.
...
If you just call, you're basically announcing your hand, and it's very unlikely that your opponent will pay you off if that draw completes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you need to be mixing up your play more so it's harder to distinguish between your made hands and draws.

Do you ever flat call a bet w/ nothing and then pot it when the flush card comes? Sounds like you should be doing that sometimes against your opponents.

[Ulysses]

Cris,

You're being results-oriented here. Calling a pre-flop raise and then playing a big pot v. a calling station opponent w/ a hand like yours is a great strategy for going broke in NL. Sure, this time he had 66. You know what, though? Even against the player type you described, he'll have a hand like at least Q4 or 9J more times than not here.

Yeah, I know you said this was a "change-up." That's fine and everyone needs to vary their play. But changing up your play by playing big pots w/ garbage that didn't flop much is a horrible NL strategy.

I wonder how you'll describe this same hand the next time when your opponent turns over 96, kicker plays.

[AJo Go All In]

.

[Ulysses]

First, a general comment directed to many posters here. Yes, sometimes you can make a good read and call all-ins w/ very little and it turns out they were a stone cold bluff.

But, usually, they are at least a semi-bluff, so you're not making nearly as much as you think you are.

Most people making these kind of thin calls on the flop and turn will, over time, end up losing a lot of money. It's often wrong to make these super-thin calls, even moreso wrong on streets prior to the river on non-drawy boards.

[ QUOTE ]
where you can't make an exploratory bet because he's likely to blow you off a hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Against players like this, it'll likely be more profitable for you to bet smaller and induce a raise rather than being the one making the all-in bet.

[ QUOTE ]
If I had been wrong, I would have lost $600. Oh well. I'd still have been up $200 for the session.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much in line with your approach in a number of your results-oriented posts, this statement makes me strongly think that you are playing differently when you are "playing with others' money" as opposed to when you're even or down. Bad habit.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But to do this, you have to know how to play a drawing hand. If someone bets the pot at you, and all you have is a naked four-draw (i.e.: no pair, no overcards), you have only two choices: (a) bluff-raise, if you think that will buy you a free card at the turn; or, (b) fold. If you just call, you're basically announcing your hand, and it's very unlikely that your opponent will pay you off if that draw completes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Cris,

I don't agree at all. Off the top of my head...

1) Putting in a pot-sized raise just to get a "free" card is terrible poker. The reality is that you are charging yourself as much to draw as he could have on the next street. If you call, he might check the turn, in which case you could take a truly free card.

2) Along those lines, if you raise a draw, it should be because you think that your opponent will likely fold. If I didn't think that my opponent would fold to a pot-sized bet on the turn if I don't hit, I'm probably not going to raise the flop. The only other reason would be if you have no fear of being reraised and your opponent will misread your hand and pay you off if you hit.

3) Though calling is obviously a distinct possibility when someone flat-calls a flop bet, there are MANY hands other than straight/flush draws that should be played in a similar fashion.

4) Against a player who is quick to put a caller on a draw and won't pay off if the draw comes, here is a nifty play. If the board has two of a suit on it and you have a straight draw, you have essentially doubled your outs. If the flush comes, bluff and he'll fold. If the straight comes, you've made a hand.

5) Many times, more often with a straight draw than a flush draw, you have the proper odds to call the flop and then fold the turn if you miss your draw.

6) If someone catches on to your raising or folding with draws, you're going to get re-popped more often (I already know your reply; this way you get paid more on your big hands... But there are other ways to accomplish the same thing).

7) If you don't want to call because that would be "too predictable," what is NEVER calling? Sounds predictable...

That's all, for now... /images/graemlins/grin.gif Hope it didn't come off too harsh.

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post. i tend to use #4 and like it alot. i even do it with a gutshot occasionally since i'll take 13 outs to take the pot (9) or make a monster unreadable hand (4). that is unless this is a guy known for betting /raising his flush draws. in that case i just fold the gutshot and sometimes move him in if he can release or just call and if no flush comes, THEN see what he does and possibly make a nice bet laying him incorrect odds on the turn...i do this with made hands sometimes as well against a draw bettor since those types of people will put in money as a bigggg underdog with one card to come (4.11:1 to me is a nice sized dog- not a mastif but still good enough for me to call and let him have one cheap card and then one REAAAALLL expensive one)

-Barron

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

[ QUOTE ]
First, a general comment directed to many posters here. Yes, sometimes you can make a good read and call all-ins w/ very little and it turns out they were a stone cold bluff. [...] Most people making these kind of thin calls on the flop and turn will, over time, end up losing a lot of money. It's often wrong to make these super-thin calls, even moreso wrong on streets prior to the river on non-drawy boards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't calling. I set him all-in, reading him for a small pair, and he called off his entire stack on a hand that was almost dead. No, I would never have called an all-in on second-pair-no-kicker. But given the fold equity of my bet, combined with my confidence interval in my read, I judged the move to be +EV.

[ QUOTE ]
Against players like this, it'll likely be more profitable for you to bet smaller and induce a raise rather than being the one making the all-in bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree entirely. A big part of my EV was fold equity, and this wasn't a hand with which I wanted to be a caller.

[ QUOTE ]
Much in line with your approach in a number of your results-oriented posts, this statement makes me strongly think that you are playing differently when you are "playing with others' money" as opposed to when you're even or down. Bad habit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It didn't matter that it was "someone else's money." If I were thinking that way, it's always "someone else's money," as I've long since recouped my initial investment.

Cris

[Ulysses]

Flop: 9 5 Q

Ergo, he's on a small pair, and I play back at him, making it $180. He thinks for a long, long time, and finally calls. The pot is $424.

combined with my confidence interval in my read

I could play a crappy hand with the confidence that it was the best hand.

I disagree entirely. A big part of my EV was fold equity

You very confidently put this guy on a small pair on the flop. He calls your $180 pot-raise on the flop. With two overcards to your pair on the turn, you put him all-in (underbetting the pot) and he calls w/ 66.

Now you say that much of your EV in this spot is because you have a lot of fold equity? Your logic does not follow.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

[ QUOTE ]
You very confidently put this guy on a small pair on the flop. He calls your $180 pot-raise on the flop. With two overcards to your pair on the turn, you put him all-in (underbetting the pot) and he calls w/ 66.

Now you say that much of your EV in this spot is because you have a lot of fold equity? Your logic does not follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

(a) Underbetting the pot? I set him all-in. Is it my fault he didn't have enough in his stack that I could make a full, pot-sized bet? I don't get what you're saying here.

(b) Yes, a substantial part of the equity in any big bet is fold equity.

What's your point?

Cris

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
(a) Underbetting the pot? I set him all-in. Is it my fault he didn't have enough in his stack that I could make a full, pot-sized bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

You put this guy on a small pair on the flop. Yet he called your $180 re-raise. He has less than the pot left on the turn. How often do you expect him to fold?

[ QUOTE ]
(b) Yes, a substantial part of the equity in any big bet is fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold equity is zero if you know someone will call. Perhaps it is non-zero here, but given your description of the player and this situation, it surely isn't very much.

[ QUOTE ]
What's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same points as my initial response.