Inappropriate Slowplaying in No Limit Hold 'em Tournaments

[captZEEbo1]

I'm an 100BB nl cash player, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about these tournament situations. Two quick comments about your intro....

QQ on Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
-this is a dumb slowplay, you want someone with KJ or Axs to pay for their draw/checkraise their draw and get it allin or Tx to get it allin before the scare cards hit

AA on A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
-this is a better slowplay b/c opponent likely has crap so you have to hope turn gives them a flush draw or gutshots and you want them to then let them draw for it OR they might decide to bluff you off your "KK" by reprsenting Ax.

[-Oz-]

I didn't go into a lot of detail in the atricle about these two situations, but whether either is a good slowplaying opportunity has at least as much to do with the other factors as with the particular cards. Who has the betting lead? What position are they in relative to you? What the current style of your opponent? What's your current image? Etc, etc.

I was using these examples to demonstrate a point: in the QQ case, it's much easier for your opponent to make a second best hand that he'll put a lot of money in the pot with than in the AA case. But they certainly are both candidates for slowplaying depending on the other factors.

Thanks for your comments.

-Oz-

[M.B.E.]

This is a really provocative article.

I disagree with the statement "Once the pot is around 20 percent of your stack or larger, there is no shame in just taking it down with a normal bet, especially if a free card has any possibility of knocking you out of the tourney." Actually I think the converse is true: if the current pot is 20% to 50% of the money behind, you should be more inclined to slowplay than if the current pot were, say, 10% of the money behind. That's for two reasons: first, your discussion about giving your opponents correct implied odds, as in your example where you slowplay AT on a TT3 flop allowing your opponent with 77 to catch a 7; second the concern expressed by Hectorjelly in this thread that you want to bet your monsters in order to build a pot.

I found your third example really interesting, where you attempt a steal with Q8, are called by the chip leader, and the flop comes Q86. The board offers a variety of possible straight draws, and if your opponent has a gutshot, then by slowplaying you are essentially risking 96K in chips to win 58K. (There's 58K remaining in your stack and 38K currently in the pot.) Of course you won't always win 58K more if you slowplay this flop by checking. For example, if your opponent has JT, you check behind on the flop, and the turn card is a deuce, there's a good chance your opponent will bet the turn, perhaps 20K and then you move in and he folds. If your opponent has JT and the turn is a jack or ten, then you almost certainly get all-in on the turn with your opponent drawing to six outs.

I think what this example really turns on is how your opponent has seen you play before. If your check will look suspicious after you raised preflop, then you do need to bet this flop. However, if you have previously raised preflop and then checked behind on the flop when it missed you, while your current opponent was at the table, then it is reasonable to also check behind now with top two pair. This should cause your opponent to bet the turn even if he has absolutely nothing.

Even if you don't check, you still can slowplay by betting less than you normally would. The pot is 38K and you have 58K left; if you bet this flop, you are hoping that your opponent has either one pair or some kind of draw and will checkraise you all-in. I think if you bet 19K you will look pot-committed and so your opponent would be less likely to make the checkraise-with-bottom-pair play. I'd prefer a bet of 14K or so. This is still a "slowplay" because with a moderately good hand like top pair you would bet more than that, probably all-in. In theory that type of slowplay should be balanced by also betting 14K or so in a situation like this when you have nothing.

[M.B.E.]

Here's an example. Blinds 400/800, ante 50, someone limps UTG, you limp on the button with JTs, SB completes, BB checks. Flop QJJ rainbow. SB bets 1500, other two fold. SB has a big stack, bigger than yours. Pot is now 5150. If your remaining stack is 50,000, then slowplaying here is a mistake: you need to raise. But if your remaining stack is 14,000 then slowplaying the flop is probably correct.

[-Oz-]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a really provocative article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I thought it was too and I was hoping to stir up a little controversy.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the statement "Once the pot is around 20 percent of your stack or larger, there is no shame in just taking it down with a normal bet, especially if a free card has any possibility of knocking you out of the tourney." Actually I think the converse is true: if the current pot is 20% to 50% of the money behind, you should be more inclined to slowplay than if the current pot were, say, 10% of the money behind. That's for two reasons: first, your discussion about giving your opponents correct implied odds, as in your example where you slowplay AT on a TT3 flop allowing your opponent with 77 to catch a 7; second the concern expressed by Hectorjelly in this thread that you want to bet your monsters in order to build a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't understand your argument here. The 2 reasons you cite are contradictory to your point: they are both reasons not to slowplay. It seems to me that, as the pot becomes a larger and larger portion of your stack, it becomes more important to take it down quickly, and the more disasterous it becomes to give a free (or cheap) card that beats you. The definition of "large" is certainly up for debate. I somewhat arbitrarily say 20%, but I'm willing to listen to arguments why that number should be different.

[ QUOTE ]
I found your third example really interesting, where you attempt a steal with Q8, are called by the chip leader, and the flop comes Q86. The board offers a variety of possible straight draws, and if your opponent has a gutshot, then by slowplaying you are essentially risking 96K in chips to win 58K. (There's 58K remaining in your stack and 38K currently in the pot.) Of course you won't always win 58K more if you slowplay this flop by checking. For example, if your opponent has JT, you check behind on the flop, and the turn card is a deuce, there's a good chance your opponent will bet the turn, perhaps 20K and then you move in and he folds. If your opponent has JT and the turn is a jack or ten, then you almost certainly get all-in on the turn with your opponent drawing to six outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, whether your cEV is higher by slowplaying will be a complex scenario depending on a large number of variables including your opponent's propensity to bluff, his view of your play, etc. My point was, most players (and I include myself in this group) probably would do better overall by simply taking down a large pot with what is very likely the best (but vulnerable) hand. This is opposed to weighing the potential small +EV edge by judging the risk/reward ratio of slowplaying vs the hand range of their opponent correctly.

Thanks for your comments.

-Oz-

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't understand your argument here. The 2 reasons you cite are contradictory to your point: they are both reasons not to slowplay.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the pot is quite small, then they are reasons not to slowplay.

If the pot is 10% of your remaining stack, then your example of implied odds will be applicable -- hence you should not slowplay. But when the pot is larger, 40% of your stack or whatever, then your opponent's implied odds will not be as good, so slowplaying might be a reasonable option.

Similarly, where the pot is only 10% of your remaining stack, and you flop a monster, then you need to build a pot -- a reason not to slowplay. But if the pot is 40% of your stack, then it is already "built", so this reason would not apply.

[M.B.E.]

Let's consider an extreme example, where the pot is very large in relation to your stack.

We'll say blinds 250/500, ante 50. You post the ante and big blind which leaves you with 2000 in chips. Someone with a huge stack limps in MP, everyone else folds (including the SB), you have T6o and check. Now the flop comes T66 rainbow. Pot is 1750, huge in relation to your remaining stack. Does this fact -- that the pot is so large -- militate in favour of slowplaying, or against it? I would say the large pot militates in favour of slowplaying.

Maybe your opponent has two outs to beat you. Or maybe he needs to catch runner runner. Either way, it's not a big deal to let him have a free card. I'd say your best play is to check. Then if your opponent makes a small bet, just call rather than checkraising.

If your opponent has 88, let's say, and goes on to catch an 8 on the turn to beat you, well those are the breaks. He might well have called your checkraise anyway with 88. You haven't lost all that much when this unlikely event occurs. If instead of 88 your opponent has something like 87 or A3 or 55, you really want him to catch his card because if he does, then it's highly likely you can get 2000 more from him (whereas he'd fold if you bet out on the flop).

So even though in this example the pot is huge in relation to your stack, it isn't your objective to take it down right away: slowplaying is better.

Now modify this example so that the pot is small. We'll divide everything by 10, except for your stack size. Thus blinds are 25/50, ante 5, and after you check with T6o in your big blind, you have 2000 left in your stack, your opponent has you covered, and the pot is just 175. Now slowplaying is a poor option when the flop comes T66. Now, if your opponent does have something like 88 and catches his 8, he easily could get your stack. But, if your opponent has A3s and catches an ace, you won't get 2000 from him (as you would have in the previous example where the large pot would stimulate your opponent's action if he makes a second-best hand). Here, with a small pot, slowplaying by check-calling the flop would be a terrible idea.

This is the type of situation I had in mind when I said that in NL you should be more inclined to slowplay when the pot is big than when it is small.

Comments?

[-Oz-]

OK - I now understand where you are coming from. Thanks for taking the time to explain it in more detail.

I think there's been an important issue missing from my essay and all of these discussions: the relative strength of your hand when considering a slowplay. It can't ever be too wrong to slowplay a flopped full house; if you have outs against you, they are generally few. But with hands like 2 pair and trips, you will likely be on more precarious ground. I'll have more to say about this in a future article.

-Oz-

[KingDan]

The whole article is results oriented to prove a point. I think the hand with q8 should be bet, but not because he villian can have a gutshot straight draw.

[-Oz-]

OK. In the interest of continuing this discussion, in your opinion, what is the point I'm making? How does my being "results oriented" invalid this point?

-Oz-