Spread Limit Hold 'Em Theory

[W. Deranged]

Some Low Spread-Limit Hold ‘Em Theory

As a student and a young player, I have found myself at many low limit tables, notably the $1-3 spread limit hold ‘em table at Turning Stone in Verona, NY. In thinking about how to beat these low limit games, and reading the “loose games” section in HPFAP, as well as “Winning Low Limit Hold ‘Em,” I have come to realize that this type of low, spread limit game is a beast entirely unique to itself, one which, it seems to me, tends to favor bad players more than standard, structured limit games. In other words, the kinds of mistakes that bad players make tend to be punished more in $2-4 (the small game, for example, at Foxwoods) than it is in $1-3.

$1-3 players are by-and-large weak players, who will, like all weak players, play too many hands and play them too long. Particularly, players in this type of game will continue to play if they catch any part of the flop, including middle and bottom pair with no kicker, any straight draw, and bad overcards. In structured limit games, this sort of play gets badly punished on later streets, notably on the turn, where the increase in the size of the bet, combined with the reduction in the number of cards to come, tends to make bad calls significantly unprofitable, even in pots that have been raised on one of the two streets. (In the case where the pot is raised on both streets, the pot becomes so large that such holdings, particularly gutshots to the nuts, become correct to call).

This, though, is not the case in $1-3. Very often, if any amount of money has gotten into the pot pre-flop or on the flop, since the betting cannot increase past $3 on the turn, bad players back into profitable calls on the turn. Since most raises pre-flop and on the flop tend to be maximum raises (the Turning Stone game often plays much more like a straight $3 game than a $1-3 game; $1 bets tend to be “sweetener” bets put in mindlessly and $2 and pretty rare), players tend to get TWICE the odds from the pot on calls on the turn than they would in an identical hand at a structured limit table. What often occurs is that money put in with bad hands by the poorer players builds large pots which give other poor players correct odds to call on later streets.
Here is an example:

You hold AK in sixth position; all but one player calls and you put in a maximum raise to $3 pre-flop. (In the Turning Stone game, as noted, this is very often the size of the first raise pre-flop). Six players see the flop for $4 apiece, and the flop comes A87 rainbow. It is checked to you and you bet $3. Three players call, including one player in position three in front of you. The turn comes a 5. It is checked to you and you bet $3, confident you are still ahead. Both players behind fold, and it is up to the player in position three. The pot is now $39 (24 + 12 + 3), and so position three is getting better than 13 to 1 from the pot. He is holding J10, and hand called on the flop with only a gutshot. He thus has only 4 outs going into the river, but those 4 outs give him 10 to 1 odds to call on the turn. In other words, his automatic call on the turn becomes unquestionably correct, and significantly so, as that bet will show a return of almost 130% in the long-run!

Comparatively, if the hand were played at a $2-4 limit table, the size of the pot when the bet gets to player three would be $36 (24 pre-flop + 8 flop + 4 turn), and so the pot would be only laying the player 9 to 1 to continue drawing, making the turn bet a losing bet. (Given, we are not considering here implied odds and whether the player was getting correct odds to take two shots at the gutshot on the flop, only the momentary profitability of the play on the turn).

One will see many other situations which are similar (a dominated ace-rag playing against AK, players playing middle pair, etc…), where bad players unknowingly make correct calls on the turn due to the character of the betting structure. Even in cases where it is not quite so clear that the turn bets will be correct in a spread-limit game where they will be incorrect in the structured game, it is clear that bad players do not get punished for bad play on the turn in such low, spread-limit games (very bad calls, such as playing gutshots in unraised pots, may become only very slightly bad, etc…)


The conclusion that I have been able to draw from this phenomenon is similar to that suggested in HPFAP in the “loose games” section; namely, that, in such games, it is better not to try to punish your opponents early in the betting (i.e. preflop), when your advantages are slimmer, because that will make some of their later plays correct. Early in the betting, your advantage tends to be smaller than after the flop, and betting heavily early tends to make it impossible to punish opponents later.

The result is that it seems to be incorrect to make maximum raises preflop with hands that are strong, but unlikely to make locks on the flop (namely, reverse-implied odds hands such as AQ and AK offsuit). On some level, I think it may be incorrect to raise at all with AK off in early or middle position in the $1-3 spread limit game, unless, as is rarely the case, there are several early folders who suggest that the pot may be played short-handed. The best hands to raise with, as suggested in HPFAP, are the high pairs and the big suited connectors which have the potential to hit huge flops. Further, it seems generally correct to play AK off for a call-raise, particularly if it will allow you to isolate a loose raiser, as one of the few times pots are played short-handed at 1-3 comes when the pre-flop betting gets to three bets.


Just a couple of ideas on spread limit play. I’m interested to hear comments, particularly as to whether anyone thinks that a game like $1-3 is best played by using all three betting sizes in different situations.

[SevenStuda]

Wow, thanks for the long boring post. Maybe you should start a web blog, so we share all the events in your life.

-Dimitri

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the kinds of mistakes that bad players make tend to be punished more in $2-4 (the small game, for example, at Foxwoods) than it is in $1-3.


[/ QUOTE ]

In 2-4 the first raise doubles the blind. In 1-3 the first raise can quadruple the blind, and subsequent raises can do much more. The spread limit game punishes them proportionately more. Spread limit punishes bad players and favors good players much more. You have it completely opposite here.

[ QUOTE ]
Very often, if any amount of money has gotten into the pot pre-flop or on the flop, since the betting cannot increase past $3 on the turn, bad players back into profitable calls on the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

The bad players are punished MUCH more preflop and on the flop in spread limit than they are in limit. True, they are sometimes punished somewhat less on the turn, but this is generally not nearly enough to make up for the mistakes they have already made. This is particularly true in unraised pots.

[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion that I have been able to draw from this phenomenon is similar to that suggested in HPFAP in the “loose games” section; namely, that, in such games, it is better not to try to punish your opponents early in the betting (i.e. preflop), when your advantages are slimmer, because that will make some of their later plays correct. Early in the betting, your advantage tends to be smaller than after the flop, and betting heavily early tends to make it impossible to punish opponents later.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your conclusion here is simply misguided. In spread limit games, you CAN punish them more early than you can later. Therefore you should DO it. While you may wind up not being able to make them make a mistake on the turn call, or at least not make a very big one, you can punish them MUCH more preflop or on the flop.

As I said, if the pot is unraised before the flop, it is particularly true that you can punish bad players REAL BAD. Say six limp for $1. Then you bet $3. That's like a 2-4 game where they call three bets COLD, except there is less money in the pot, three $1 bets but not the six small bets like it would be in a 2-4 game! This forces hands like gutshots to make a VERY large mistake on the flop. Now if all six call, there will be 6 * 3 + 6 = $24 in the pot. If you bet again, the first caller will get 7:1 on their call. This is not as bad as you make it out to be.

Say you raise preflop. Someone who limps for one then calls three more cold. If it's reraised they call six more cold. Etc if it's raised beyond that. In 2-4, with a three bet cap it's limited to forcing them to call three (big blind size) bets preflop. In spread limit it's NINE big blind size bets.

If the pot is raised, it is true you might not be able to force people to make a significant mistake on the turn, especially if multiple players also call a flop bet. But in 2-4, if you raise it preflop, you often cannot force them to make a mistake on the FLOP anyway. Say you raise to $4 and six take the flop, putting 12 small bets in the pot. Now on the flop (2-4 we're talking), someone with a gutshot is getting 13-1. Only on the turn do they finally make a significant mistake. Why is this so different from spread limit, except that it's on a later street instead of an earlier one that they make their mistakes?

When I play the 2-6 spread limit at Excalibur, I just LOVE it when someone calls a preflop raise of $8, then calls a flop bet of $6. True, if they stay this far, especially if it's multiway, they might not be making a very big mistake on the turn, perhaps no mistake at all. But who cares, I already punished them big time earlier.

You need to rethink the whole spread limit thing. As a general rule, spread limits punish weak players proportionately more than split limit games do. You need to think of it in terms of big blind sized bets tho.

Also, I suggest you move up to a higher limit than 1-3 if you're playing in a casino. The rake is way too much at that tiny game to make it anything but BARELY beatable (at best).

al

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
The conclusion that I have been able to draw from this phenomenon is similar to that suggested in HPFAP in the “loose games” section; namely, that, in such games, it is better not to try to punish your opponents early in the betting (i.e. preflop)...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been pointed out many times that the loose games advice in HPFAP refers to loose games with thinking players. If none of your opponents are considering pot odds when making their calls then any attempt at pot manipulation becomes much less useful.

You think not raising pre-flop with AK in a game full of calling stations is going to make you more money? No way.

/mc

[koolmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
He is holding J10, and hand called on the flop with only a gutshot. He thus has only 4 outs going into the river, but those 4 outs give him 10 to 1 odds to call on the turn. In other words, his automatic call on the turn becomes unquestionably correct, and significantly so, as that bet will show a return of almost 130% in the long-run!


[/ QUOTE ]

Stop focusing on his correct call (at 10-1!) on the turn and start focusing on the mistakes he and the rest of the table made preflop and on the flop.

I mean, really, in this situation, 10 out of 11 times you drag a $42 (or larger) pot that you only put $10 into. What is there to complain about?

[W. Deranged]

Thanks for the observations...

I agree with you generally, and it helps to clarify some of my ideas about spread limit hold 'em. I think that, in general, the way that the early $3 bets/raises dwarf the $1 big blind is compensated for by the relatively small size of the $3 bets on the later streets. In this way, the game compensates for itself. Indeed, bad players can be punished, and you are right that they have to be punished very early on in the betting, when their calls are going to be the most incorrect proportionately.

In general, bad players are punished in both games, but, since the only real opportunity to punish bad players in spread limit comes early on (whereas it comes later in structured limit), should this change the strategy of the game, particularly as to play pre-flop? For example, if you are holding AQ, is it better to limp, then force your opponents to call the 3 big-blind bets on the flop after you hit your hand, getting less money in the pot but giving your opponents worse odds; or is it better to raise and make your opponents make earlier mistakes, though that raise will allow them to "earn back" some of their mistakes on later streets? Whereas in structured limit, there are many situations where bad opponents will be making mistakes on all streets, in spread limit that seems less likely.

My point is simply that this ability to "earn back" money from mistakes made on earlier streets with calls on later streets is disproportionately high in low, spread limit games, and that there may very well exist situations where your opponents "earn back" too much money from each other to make aggressive play early correct.

Thanks for the input, though. I was focusing too much on the wrong things.

[koolmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
you are right that they have to be punished very early on in the betting, when their calls are going to be the most incorrect proportionately.
...
For example, if you are holding AQ, is it better to limp?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question suggests that you don't really agree that you have to punish loose calls early.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, if you are holding AQ, is it better to limp, then force your opponents to call the 3 big-blind bets on the flop after you hit your hand, getting less money in the pot but giving your opponents worse odds

[/ QUOTE ]

It should not be a requirement of yours that every bet they make be -EV. Besides, if they are going to a showdown regardless, and you have more pot equity, you should get as many bets in the pot as you can. If you are heads up and your opponent has as much as 49% pot equity, you still make money every time he puts a bet in, regardless of his pot odds.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply that this ability to "earn back" money from mistakes made on earlier streets with calls on later streets is disproportionately high in low, spread limit games, and that there may very well exist situations where your opponents "earn back" too much money from each other to make aggressive play early correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that he's "earning it back" not just from you but also from the other bozos who called your raises and his earlier calls of your raises. That's what created the overlay. In games where a lot of players see the flop, many times the best two hands have more than their fair share of pot equity.

Consider a NL game in which you and your opponent have $50 stacks. He holds 32o and you hold AA. You raise to $49 preflop and he calls. The flop comes A22 rainbow. You push your last $1. Does it really bother you that your opponent has 99:1 pot odds with a 22:1 chance of drawing his single out while simultaneously avoiding the remaining ace? His earlier mistake is so overwhelming that he cannot overcome it.

Consider another situation in which you are playing heads up $1/$2 limit hold'em, but there is a jackpot of $1000 added to the pot. You have AA. What hands would your opponent be correct to call you down with? Any hand until he is almost 100% sure that he is drawing dead. The overlay created by the jackpot gives him the odds to do so. You both have +EV in this situation. The loser is the person putting in the $1000 jackpot. As the size of the jackpot decreases, your opponent's hand must be stronger in order to call.

Think of the money put in by the 83o, the 92s, and all the other garbage hands that called "to see the flop" as this jackpot. It will be of a certain size, and it will give certain draws the odds to call. If those hands draw out on you, so be it. You'll still end up ahead; just do the math.

[koolmoe]

*duplicate post*

[pudley4]

3-3-3-3 is better than 2-2-4-4

(Although the thread is primarily talking about AKo, it's applicable any time you're playing significantly better starting hands than your opponents)

[Louie Landale]

Yup, "1to3" should almost always mean "3". The exception may be if on the button and everyone folds, then raise just 2.

Your example is sound but by no means compelling. Just because the lack of a double sized bet on the turn can and does turn a bad call into a good call is NOT the only thing that matters. In this case [1] the player with JT made a mistake calling a full $3 raise from the tight player preflop, and [2] since the pot was smaller made a bigger mistake calling the flop bet in the 1-3 than he would have made in the 2/4 game.

These spread limit games favor the weak-tight players at the expense of the loose players since the blinds are so small and the preflop and flop bets, by the tight top-pair-good-kicker folks, is proportionally larger compared to the pot than in a typical fixed limit game.

Lets compare your 1-3 game with a typical 3/6 game rather than a 2/4 game. When the tight player raises preflop the opponents that have already called 1 are facing a 300% increase: with 4 players, a tight raise, the first player is facing a pot of $8 and a $3 call. Whereas in a 3/6 game the pot is $18 with the same cost. Big difference. Likewise ON the flop the pot is proportionally smaller.

I assert that the worsened preflop and flop calls cost the loose player more money than his not-so-bad loose calls on the turn.

Your suggestion to not try to punish the weak hands early to insure the pot remains small is a very common but REDICULOUS conclusion. Shame on the authors for suggesting that. Its easy to prove that raising with the best of it, even if it gives them the correct odds to call later, is worth a lot more than NOT raising and increase your chances of winning a tiny pot later.

Not raising with the best of it is definately a mistake, by anybody's definition, and can only be justified if it CAUSES the opponent to make an even bigger mistake later, such as folding winners or drawing dead or betting or raising slim. Yes just call, hehehe, if you can trick him into doing something stupid like capping the flop when you get there. If he's going to call regardless then you want the pot as big as possible since you are the favorite. If he's going to either call correctly or fold correctly based on the pot size, then you do better with the bigger pot.

Without a doubt you should raise MORE often with good pre-flop hand in the 1-3 than the 3/6 to reduce the implied odds the weak hands are getting with their $1 calls.

- Louie