Inappropriate Slowplaying in No Limit Hold 'em Tournaments

[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-