SSHE p.148: Continuing with marginal hands

[Kyle Stevenson]

I've only been playing poker for about three months, but I've been steadily winning by playing weak-tight at 2/4 and 3/6 tables full of players even worse than me, and in fact making a modest living at it. The smarter aggressive players eat me up, but I've been pretty successful just avoiding them.

I read SSHE for the first time (of many, I'm sure) yesterday. I like the idea of moving beyond weak-tight, but I'm very confused on how I'd incorporate all this aggression on the flop into my game, largely because I don't know how to follow up all these aggressive flop raises.

Here's an example from p.148. You have 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in the big blind. Four limpers, button raises, SB folds, you and limpers call. Flop comes T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], all check to the button who bets.

Miller says you have to at least call, since you're getting 13:1 on a 8:1 draw, and then advocates raising here to protect your hand in case you're currently best, and to protect some of your outs.

Well, now you're investing at least two bets, so you're getting at best 7:1. It's quite likely that the bettor reraises, or that someone in the middle was waiting to checkraise and will now reraise, in which case you're getting 5:1. Even 7:1 isn't good enough for your draw, so a substantial portion of your investment must be based on the possibility that your hand is currently good.

But if your hand is good, how will you know? My typical opponent is erratic enough that I can't make any laydowns with precision, and aggressive enough that he might well reraise with either a high pair or a club draw, the reraise doesn't mean I'm beat.

If I think unimproved sevens might be good, I'm stuck calling a reraise, calling the turn, and calling the river, even if my hand doesn't improve. At this point we get into the nasty territory of reverse implied odds. I'm not investing one bet to win thirteen anymore, I'm committing to six or seven small bets to win twenty or so. That's 3:1, and on the given action, I don't think I'm winning this hand 25% of the time.

As for driving people out... yes, one bet is a minor investment compared to a pot of 13 bets. But it takes quite a parlay for raising to save me the pot. They need a hand that will fold to two bets but not one, and a better hand than mine or one that would hit a draw, and I need to end up with the best hand among the remaining players, though not a good enough hand to beat the guy that I drove out. I'm not sure that comes in often enough to spend an extra bet on it, or two extra bets if the button reraises.

That's why raising seems wrong to me. I'd call, or maybe even fold if I think a checkraise on my left is likely.

But I suck, and Ed Miller doesn't, and he says this isn't even a close decision. So I figure my reasoning is flawed. What am I missing?

[Alexthegreat]

We may be playing against different types of players, because in my experience it is not likely that someone on a button "steal" bet will re-raise you....Also, it is not likely that you will be check-3-bet, unless the player in middle position has a super good hand.....

I don't utilize this play nearly enough, but most of the time I do use it, it works out fine......

[Michael Davis]

I think you're seeing monsters and are expecting to be beaten way too often. Nobody who checked to the button has a ten and probably none of them have a seven. A huge percentage of the time, the only person you are worried about having you beat currently is the button. And buttons will bet just because it is checked to them. So if your raise can eliminate everyone else, you will be heads up against a hand that you are good against often, and even if it is not 50%, the money that went into the pot preflop still gives you an overlay.

Also, I'm not sure you are correctly categorizing your opponents. Very few opponents will be threebetting you here without a hand that has you beat. And many of them will just call you down with a ten. You are going to be taking control of the hand when you checkraise. A lot of the other stuff you are worried about does suck, but usually doesn't come into play.

-Michael

[chesspain]

First you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
I've only been playing poker for about three months, but I've been steadily winning by playing weak-tight at 2/4 and 3/6 tables full of players even worse than me, and in fact making a modest living at it. The smarter aggressive players eat me up, but I've been pretty successful just avoiding them.

[/ QUOTE ]


And then you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
[after checkraising button on flop with middle pair]...it's quite likely that the bettor reraises, or that someone in the middle was waiting to checkraise and will now reraise, in which case you're getting 5:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm confused--are you actually avoiding the smart, aggressive players or not? In addition, I'm curious how you're making a "modest living" at 3/6 by playing weak-tight poker.

[Fnord]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm confused--are you actually avoiding the smart, aggressive players or not? In addition, I'm curious how you're making a "modest living" at 3/6 by playing weak-tight poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Table selection. There are enough players at 2/4 and 3/6 that suck that bad.

[xxxxx]

I wonder how often you'll turn an eight and still lose especially the eight of clubs. A J,9,6 or 4 on the river might make someone a straight if they don't already have it. A club may make someone a flush. Someone with a high pocket pair has seven outs to redraw. Someone with A-5 has five outs.

For all that, you may have the best hand for the moment and need to raise to drive people out.

[Token]

My understanding is that you shouldn't be using pot odds to determine if you should bet or raise, so saying that you shouldn't raise since you would then be getting 7:1 isn't quite right.

If you are re-raised by the button, you would then fold. Or if you are called, your raise might buy you a free card on the turn.

[sthief09]

it's pretty simple: if you get 3-bet, you don't have the best hand, and once again you're drawing. fortunately, that'll very rarely happen.

[J.R.]

"But it takes quite a parlay for raising to save me the pot."

OK

"They need a hand that will fold to two bets but not one, and a better hand than mine or one that would hit a draw,"

Overcards, a single overcard, a gutshot, bottom pair, a hand with a single club, or a better 7 immediately come to mind.

"I need to end up with the best hand among the remaining players, though not a good enough hand to beat the guy that I drove out."

You are investing 1 extra bet into a 14 big bet pot (this assumes you are going to call, the decision is whether its worth one more). A raise drives out a lot of hands that could beat you on the turn or river. Sure it may get raised, but that raise doesn't cost you a big bet in EV because you have roughly 15% pot equity v a bigger pair on the flop and since you will also be calling quite frequently on the turn, perhaps more flop equity than that since you have two streets to improve.

[Kyle Stevenson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[after checkraising button on flop with middle pair]...it's quite likely that the bettor reraises, or that someone in the middle was waiting to checkraise and will now reraise, in which case you're getting 5:1.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm confused--are you actually avoiding the smart, aggressive players or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe they're aggressive, but they sure aren't smart.

Most opponents I play against are very loose/passive preflop, they just want to see a flop, they don't care about who's paying how much to see it.

But the moment they smell any hint of a hand, or any hint of a draw, they get superhappy and start raising and reraising it up. It's tough to tell whether they're on top set or middle pair. I've had people cap the flop and the turn heads-up on a flush draw, for instance.

As for the checkraising, "check to the raiser" is pretty common. And people will pull out fancy plays, checkraising and slowplaying, to make themselves feel clever. They do so at inappropriate times, like slowplaying top pair with flush and straight draws on the board, and give up lots of money that way, but they can't be relied on to be straightforward.

Is this unusual? I wonder whether I'm just dealing with different game conditions than SSHE addresses.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I'm curious how you're making a "modest living" at 3/6 by playing weak-tight poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really really bad opponents. Cherry-picking the loosest Pacific 3/6 tables at good times of day, playing on Cryptologic when there's a full moon over London, playing at a small site even looser than Pacific, etc. Party 3/6 is generally too tight for me, I play NL25 or 3/6 stud when I'm there.

I've been quite surprised that I'm actually making money on the play - I started playing poker just as a bonus hunter, figuring I could at least break even on the play at the tiny limits. In June and July I was playing 1/2 and below, and the income was mostly from the bonuses.

But I've played 15000 or 20000 hands over the last two months, mostly 2/4 and 3/6 with a little 1/2 and 5/10, and the sample size is getting a little large to attribute it just to luck. My winnings are somewhere above $4000 over that period, on top of the bonuses. Enough to pay the rent, expenses, and dental bills while I look for a job.

It's gone well, but I'd like to be able to beat a wider range of games.