23 The Newbie Chronicles: Top Poker's Amazing Aggressiveness

[mdlm]

There is a poker group that meets on a regular basis in LV. Many of the group’s members are on an email distribution list.

On February 14th, Daniel Negreanu (DN) sent an email to this list that I found quite interesting. He discussed a specific hand with a view to making a point about turn play, but I want to discuss the preflop and flop play.

DN begins the description of the hand as follows: “You raise coming in with the Q-J of hearts from middle position and both blinds call you.” DN did not specify whether this was an open-raise (unless that's what "coming in" means) but it is clear from the rest of the message that this is an open-raise.

This play is not unusual. Jones recommends raising with QJs in this position and calling with JTs.

DN continues: “The flop comes K-9-4 with one heart. The SB checks, BB bets, and you raise.” This play amazes me. QJs on this flop is slightly better than a random hand. Jones would recommend folding in this position every time and that is exactly what I would do without a moment’s hesitation.

DN goes on to say: “SB folds, and BB calls (You don't HAVE TO raise here of course, but let's assume that you suspect the BB doesn't have to have a K, maybe a hand like 5-5, or even A-10 instead).” The amazing thing about the two hands that DN suggests (AT and 55) is that you are way behind both. This means that the raise is a pure bluff.

Two questions:
1. Let’s say that the BB folds. Would you show your hand here? If you are constantly raising on the flop in this situation, the opponent will figure it out and will start raising you back with hands that might be as weak as a low pair. If that is going to happen, why not speed up the process by showing the hand?

2. Is my understanding of how to play this hand completely off? If not, at what limit do I need to start thinking like DN? I am hoping that the answer is something like: “Up until $6-$12 your thinking is good. At $10-$20 you have to start thinking like DN and if you are not there by the time you get to $15-$30 you are smoke.”

3. I guess that some advanced players will say that bluffing is a big part of poker and so I should not be too surprised that DN talks about raising with almost nothing on the flop. What percentage of the time would you raise in the situation that DN describes?

==>
Comments on Comments

Easy E suggests doing a detailed comparison of Acespade and TTH. That is a good idea and one that I will consider. It would certainly enhance my understanding of poker.

Louie Landale (LL) says that the computer is not a good poker player because it does not learn. I’m not sure if LL is referring to TTH or to computers in general. If he is referring to computers in general, then his statement is clearly wrong since there are many computer programs that learn and, in fact, many game programs that learn. If he is referring to TTH, both the web site and the software itself claim that TTH adapts its play. Whether it does so or not is, of course, a different question.

==>
Goal Update

Last week I spent 16 hours on poker: 4 hours in PokerPages tournaments, 10 hours playing TTH, and 2 hours on 2+2.

I have spent a total of $476.43 out of my $1000 budget. If I had a CD player I would’ve purchased a copy of Tommy Angelo’s IRB (www.imrunningbad.com).

An update on each of the four goals (which are to be accomplished by 3/30/03):

1. Read and study Jones’ “Winning Low Limit Hold ’Em”
I have confirmed 2 1/3 out of the three points I need to achieve this goal. A point (flush draw value bet) is pending an analysis of 10,000 hands.

2. Beat Acespade
Goal Completed on 11/5/02.
Over a period of 100 hours (3600 hands) I beat Acespade’s best lineup at the rate of over 4 BB/hr.

3. Beat Masque World Series of Poker
Goal Completed on 11/17/02

4. PokerPages 85% rating in one calendar month playing 20 tournaments
My rating in March is 67.87%. I played in three tournaments and finished #12 out of 163, #89 out of 181, and #191 out of 205.

[MarkD]

QJh with K94 on the flop. His opponent(s) can have very little and bet into him on this flop (I'd say this is probable at around 10-20 or so, but don't quote me). He raised preflop and got two calls so let's assume 6sb's in the pot preflop.

He has a gutshot to the nut straight, and a backdoor flush draw. Backdoor flush I believe works out to be ~1 out, that's what I do, I assume it's one out. So he has 5 outs to win the pot. 42-5 against him hitting so it's 8.4:1 against and he's getting 7:1 (a bet to him plus the preflop action).

So obviously folding is wrong in this situation. A Queen or Jack could be good here so his chances of having the "best hand" increases. If he calls he will need the best hand to win, but if he raises his opponent may fold. Also, his opponent may check to him on the turn and if he wants to he can take a free card (assume a complete blank, no flush card). This increases his odds of making his hand a lot.

He was getting 8:2 on his raise (assuming his opponent will just call the raise and not reraise or fold). It's about 5:1 to make his gutshot (to the nuts) by the river, plus he has the backdoor flush and two cards that may pair to be the best hand. Even if the gutshot is his only way to win he only needs to make one bet on the end to make the raise even money (assuming DN checks the turn behind his opponent).

So... I'm not sure if you can understand the above (ask if you don't please), but I think I showed that folding is the worst play, calling is the second worst, and raising is the best. You can't fold in his situation because of the odds, and raising gives you extra chances to win the pot plus options on the turn (ie. checking it through or betting a blank/heart in hopes the BB folds).

Flop raise was a semi-bluff, not a pure bluff. Does that help?

[Ed Miller]

IMO, folding in this situation is a horrible play. You have four outs to the nuts and a backdoor flush draw. You also have only two opponents on a ragged board and you were the preflop raiser. It is very possible that neither of your opponents has a K which gives you 6 more outs, bringing your total to 10 + backdoor draw. That is assuming you are indeed behind, which you aren't necessarily.

The amazing thing about the two hands that DN suggests (AT and 55) is that you are way behind both. This means that the raise is a pure bluff.

You have 10 outs against either of these hands... more than a flush draw. I would not call that anywhere close to "way behind."

Bottom line, mdlm, is that playing aggressively (here and in other situations) forces your opponents to make a hand or fold. Yes.. you are behind AT... but is AT really going to call you down when you raise preflop, raise the K-high flop, bet the turn, and bet the river? Because the answer is a resounding no for the large majority of opponents... are you really behind here? He will view himself as probably behind to a K... possibly AK... and be counting his outs. And he won't like them.

When you play aggressively, you force your opponents not to make a better hand than yours... but to make a hand that they feel comfortable paying you off with... which for many players is no less than top pair. And the beauty of this is that, to go with your pressure, you have 4 outs to the nuts to fall back on (and 6 more outs to beat any pair but top pair).

This is why many players auto-bet after the flop if they've raised preflop... even if they don't help and just have overcards. The point is that by raising preflop, you've marked yourself with a strong hand... and by betting the flop, you are forcing your opponents to hit the flop or fold their weaker starter.

Think about how you would play if you were your opponent... what would you do with your 55 on a flop of K-9-4 with a preflop raiser who raises the flop? I bet you would muck it...

[Mike Gallo]

Dude,

In order to learn this game, start playing against live opponents. not computerized opponents.

Go to the Foxwoods and sit at a 2-4 game.

Best Wishes

[rayrns]

In Jones book under "playing when the flop misses you".
(quote)Suppose the flop misses you completely, but it looks very ragged and you think it might have missed everybody else to. Is this a good time to bluff? In a bigger limit game, the answer might well be yes. In a low-limit game, you're probably wasting your money.(end quote)
I wouldn't exactly call the flop very ragged but even if you did, it looks like this could be a good time for a bluff. In the case of having a chance at the nut straight, the semi-bluff looks good.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm not certain what limits the e-mail group is discussing. But, to compare Jones' book, which is targeted at the lowest limits, and Daniel Negreanu, who plays the game at the highest limits, is comparing apples and oranges.

Second, while his QJs is behind both 55 and AT, his raise is not a pure bluff, it's a semi-bluff. Remember the definiton of semi-bluff: you're raising with a hand that is probably not the best, but the bet may cause your opponents to fold now, and you also have a chance to improve and have the best hand. This hands fits that definition.

Also, and again this may not apply to Jones' millieu (2/4, 3/6 etc.), you have to consider what your opponent thinks you hold. Put yourself in the shoes of the person holding a 3rd pair or A high, shaky kicker, against pressure from the pre-flop raiser.

Answering your questions:

1. No. Amost never show your hand when they fold.
2. You're right. The higher you get in limits, the more you can use semi-bluffs.
3. He doesn't hold "almost nothing," he's just behind at this point in the hand. He holds a classic semi-bluff hand. He may have six solid outs in any Q or J, every T is an out to the nuts, and any heart gives him a flush draw. He's showing strength to take control of the hand. The BB didn't 3-bet preflop, so he probably doesn't hold a strong K, and not reraising on the flop suggests he may not hold any K.

At the low limits Jones discusses, winning is about knowing where you are and betting the probable best hand. While that works at higher limits as well, when you're up against higher quality opposition, a lot of your marginal profit comes from being able to win when you don't hold the best hand.

[Waveygravey]

First of all you're wasting no end of money folding in that spot as better people than me have already told you!

Also i would have thought your experiences to date would have shown you how hard it would be to make a winning poker robot such as you'd see in a computer game. LL's statement isn't that far from the truth as the robot will only be as good as the poker player/programmer that made it. Realistically the robots will be 'trained' by a set of data for a certain set of circumstances. If you can be sure that the data you used to train the robot contained a big enough sample of hands to handle every situation they're gonna meet in a game of poker then it's theoretically possible to make a +ev player. However the last few months when you've been learning the game should make you appreciate how unlikely that would be.

I think that if you keep avoiding playing real people for real money, you will only learn in the narrow confines of a computer program compounding errors over and over.

I honestly hope you're not expecting to turn up to a table at some point with a perfectly worked out strategy for every situation and think you're gonna win. Poker isn't like that, you'll get your pants taken down for you and you'll pull them back up again thinking, damn I best go play my computer game some more.

[Louie Landale]

Assertive BBs certainly don't need a K to bet; and if they DID have a King, check-raising is an option.

Your back-door flush draw is worth about 1 out, and added to your gut-draw you have 5 outs that will almost always win, or about 8.4:1 against gettng 7:1 to call. Combine that with the implied odds your position gives you and that a Q or J can easily give you the best pair, then folding the flop is completely out-of-the question (except against Mother-Theresa types).

Do not fold on the flop. Should you raise? On the flop, your hand is clearly worth a semi-bluff bet if the blinds check it to you. Notice that raising only costs one bet since your first call bet is already committed. So now you are considering semi-bluffing for one bet to increase your chances of winning the 8 bets that are already out there. Knocking out the SB, putting pressure on the BB and increasing your chances of winning on the turn or taking a free card should intuitively suggest that the single bet you invest (your raise), DOES increase your equity in the 8bet pot that exists, by close to a bet. So while raising may not be clearly correct, it is certainly NOT clearly incorrect either. The factor that would decide would be the assertiveness of the BB: certainly don't raise if he's passive (although the "free" card you get may be worth it).

Notice also that these very light raises almost always increase your equity when you raise with more solid hands.

[1] Do not show the hand. Unless you are absolutely SURE you are WAY ahead of the opponents psycologically and intellegently, and WILL be able to control and predict their reactions better then they, when they see the hand; AND those predictions and controls are in your best interest.

[2] The "thinking" problem, I believe, is this: the bigger the pot the more you should be willing to call (no duh), but also the more you should be willing to bet/raise in order to increase your chances of winning, even if only a by a small amount. New players generally think they should only bet/raise when a favorite, but more experienced players know otherwise. This is the main reason that the higher stakes games usually feature less calling (they are more sensibly disciplined) and more raising (they are more sensibly assertive).

[3] Perhaps you confuse the notions of "bluffing" with "semi-bluffing".

- Louie

[mobes]

Start playing dammit. I live in Boston and I told you I will set you up with a game at any limit you want.

[Easy E]

... or we hunt him down and set fire to his socks.