Poll #2
Question: How many no limit tournaments $300 and up do you plan to enter this year?
Choices: 0, 1-3, 4-7, 8 or more
Results: 1-3 (66%), 4-7 (33%) [3 votes]. Needless to say the results are disappointing with only three voters. Perhaps folks like to play in smaller buy-in tournaments.
Poll #1
Question: What do you do with top two on the flop on a dangerous board (straight and flush draws) with significant flop action and up against two other players when you have a very small investment in the pot?
Choices: Fold, All-In, Phone a Friend
Results: 40% fold, 40% phone a friend, and 20% all-in [10 votes]. The phone a friend results are a little disappointing, that was really for kicks, unless it means non-poker players are reading the blog, then I guess that's a good sign. It is intriguing that the majority chose fold, as I expected the winning choice to be all-in. In one of my blog entries (check it out here: Top Two On The Flop) I do in fact indicate folding as being the best choice, but that was in a specific situation based on a very good read. Based on the poll question, since top two is a powerful hand and the only better hand is a set, it makes equal sense to go all-in, pushing out those drawing hands and possibly getting heads-up with just one other player on a draw, or even taking down the pot right there. However, with only a small investment in the pot, if you are up against a set, some people may have thought, it makes sense to fold anyway and avoid trying to draw out to a full house, which would happen only 17% of the time. Tough question, tough choice.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Playing The Nuts and Ockham's Razor
You know I like to fantasize about poker hands. Actually, it helps me think about various situations that I have not specifically come across yet so when I do encounter them I can think lucidly about the situation when I am actually in it. In the following situation you are playing a $100-$200 NL cash game (I told you it was a fantasy). You can put yourself in the shoes of either player in this scenario and hopefully get something out of it.
You open raise from middle position to $700 after looking down at KK, folds around to bb who calls. $1,500 to the flop. Flop is AKK. Check-check to the turn, which brings a Q. Your opponent bets $1,000, you raise to $3,000, he calls. $7,500 to the river, which brings a blank, say a 5. Your opponent bets $8,000, you raise all-in (you have $16,300 total), your opponent calls. He flips over AA for AAAKK and of course you show the nuts and take the pot of $40,100.
Pre-flop action
Your opponent flat calls your raise with rockets. That works of course. He did this for a few reasons: i) He is disguising his hand, ii) He is already heads-up with you, so a re-raise here is not necessary, iii) A re-raise to say $2,500 and he risks you folding (sure, it's better to win a small pot than lose a big one of course) - he does not want you to fold, he wants to get maximum value out of his rockets, and iv) If he does raise to say $2,500, he "risks" you making a third raise, which at that point essentially commits his stack. Naturally he doesn't mind that at all, but seeing a flop allows him greater room to maneuver and may bring greater rewards than getting you off your hand pre-flop. If the small blind had called then it would make sense for the big blind to re-raise.
On the flop
It's difficult to argue against slow playing the stone cold nuts here. Certainly you're hoping for a juicy turn to stir your opponent to action.
On the turn
On the turn the board is now AKKQ. When your opponent comes out betting $1,000 into the $1,500 pot, he: i) Is trying to buy the pot right there [I would consider someone trying to buy the pot in this situation if they did not have at least an A or Q] since you checked behind him on the flop, ii) Has QQ, and would bet out since he wants to see if you have any of the hands that beat him such as KK, AA, AK or KQ, iii) Has a big ace, and thinks he could either win it there or may be in a chop situation [any two hands like AQ or worse (AJ, A-10, etc.) is a chop since the hand would be AAKKQ], or iv) Has AA. Why the bet then? Well, it's a value bet that may get your attention regardless of what you have. And if you do have a big hand, your opponent figures, like AK or QQ perhaps, then he may be able to induce a raise out of you figuring that he has disguised his hand pretty good up to this point. Also, if you don't at least call a bet on the turn with this board, your opponent thinks, then you may not call another bet on the river anyway.
So when you raise on the turn, your opponent ought to be putting you on AK, QQ or KK at that point. Why raise with the nuts when you know that only one card on the river is truly a scare card (the ace, which of course would be a sick quad over quad situation)? The same reason that your opponent bet out on the turn - you think to yourself if your opponent does have a big ace or AA then they would certainly at least call your raise, and if they didn't have much, they would fold and you wouldn't have got any more value out of them on the river anyway. From your opponent's perspective the chances you hold the following hands on the turn: a) AK -- (1/46 X 2/45) = 0.00097 or 0.097% or about 1 in 1,000; b) QQ -- (3/46 X 2/45) = 0.0029 or 0.29% or about 3 in 1,000; c) KK -- (2/46 X 1/45) = 0.00097 or about 1 in 1,000 [same as AK]. So it is three times more likely you have QQ than you do either AK or KK, and the only hand that your opponent cannot beat is KK.
As an aside, another option on the turn is to smooth call your opponent's bet. That would have made the pot $3,500 to the river. Say your opponent again bets out on the river to the tune of $4,000, you are raising big anyway. If you go all-in, at this point your opponent has some chance to get away from his aces full with $5,700 committed still sitting with $14,300 behind, "your money" left on the table (if your opponent is good enough to get away from aces full here). And if you raise to $12,000 for example, he can call and if he loses does have $6,300 left, which was again "your money" left on the table. Thus I believe the best thing to do on the turn is raise and you force an even bigger bet on the river which would commit your opponent, or you may induce a re-raise on the turn from your opponent right then and there.
On the river
Here is the thing about Ockham's razor, which paraphrased is generally accepted to translate to, "The simplest solution is the best, however implausible it may seem." On the river your opponent makes a slight overbet of the pot, perhaps trying to give the impression that he is buying the pot (assuming you don't have at least an ace), then you go all-in. At this level your opponent knows you don't have QQ (which would be afraid of KK, AA, AK or KQ), and thus you have either AK or KK. He is committed to calling another $8,300 (remember he has $12,000 in already) since he now is a 50% chance to win and as I demonstrated with the math, either hand is equally likely. Is that true? From the action and the math, either AK or KK are equally likely indeed. However, can the 14th century theorist help us out here? If you're your opponent, can you get away from AAAKK, knowing that the only hand that beats you is KKKK? It sure is possible if you think about it in this way: i) "The simplest solution is the best..." Would AK go all-in on the river knowing that AA beats them? (KK is not possible for your opponent to have if you do in fact have AK) Probably not in this spot. Would they (you) go all-in with AK for just a chop, if the opponent also has AK? Probably not. Thus they (you) must have KK. ii) "...however implausible it may seem." From a deduced math perspective (don't know the exact term, if there is one) the odds that you have either AK or KK are 1 in 1,000, your opponent thinks to himself, but the fact that you went over the top all-in on the river now makes that chance 100% (that you have either) and 0.5 not 0.001 for each hand - an increase of 500 times! It is 500 times more likely you do have KK now, consistent with point (i).
If you were your opponent, would you be able to fold AA in this spot?
This hand is an example of the nuts versus the second nuts. If you held KK would you play it this way for maximum value? If you held AA would you be able to get away from the hand on the river? If you were the player who held AA and you thought they were the nuts the whole time, should you have also checked on the turn? I hope this entry helps the reader to think about similar situations they may have been in and invite additional comments for this post.
You open raise from middle position to $700 after looking down at KK, folds around to bb who calls. $1,500 to the flop. Flop is AKK. Check-check to the turn, which brings a Q. Your opponent bets $1,000, you raise to $3,000, he calls. $7,500 to the river, which brings a blank, say a 5. Your opponent bets $8,000, you raise all-in (you have $16,300 total), your opponent calls. He flips over AA for AAAKK and of course you show the nuts and take the pot of $40,100.
Pre-flop action
Your opponent flat calls your raise with rockets. That works of course. He did this for a few reasons: i) He is disguising his hand, ii) He is already heads-up with you, so a re-raise here is not necessary, iii) A re-raise to say $2,500 and he risks you folding (sure, it's better to win a small pot than lose a big one of course) - he does not want you to fold, he wants to get maximum value out of his rockets, and iv) If he does raise to say $2,500, he "risks" you making a third raise, which at that point essentially commits his stack. Naturally he doesn't mind that at all, but seeing a flop allows him greater room to maneuver and may bring greater rewards than getting you off your hand pre-flop. If the small blind had called then it would make sense for the big blind to re-raise.
On the flop
It's difficult to argue against slow playing the stone cold nuts here. Certainly you're hoping for a juicy turn to stir your opponent to action.
On the turn
On the turn the board is now AKKQ. When your opponent comes out betting $1,000 into the $1,500 pot, he: i) Is trying to buy the pot right there [I would consider someone trying to buy the pot in this situation if they did not have at least an A or Q] since you checked behind him on the flop, ii) Has QQ, and would bet out since he wants to see if you have any of the hands that beat him such as KK, AA, AK or KQ, iii) Has a big ace, and thinks he could either win it there or may be in a chop situation [any two hands like AQ or worse (AJ, A-10, etc.) is a chop since the hand would be AAKKQ], or iv) Has AA. Why the bet then? Well, it's a value bet that may get your attention regardless of what you have. And if you do have a big hand, your opponent figures, like AK or QQ perhaps, then he may be able to induce a raise out of you figuring that he has disguised his hand pretty good up to this point. Also, if you don't at least call a bet on the turn with this board, your opponent thinks, then you may not call another bet on the river anyway.
So when you raise on the turn, your opponent ought to be putting you on AK, QQ or KK at that point. Why raise with the nuts when you know that only one card on the river is truly a scare card (the ace, which of course would be a sick quad over quad situation)? The same reason that your opponent bet out on the turn - you think to yourself if your opponent does have a big ace or AA then they would certainly at least call your raise, and if they didn't have much, they would fold and you wouldn't have got any more value out of them on the river anyway. From your opponent's perspective the chances you hold the following hands on the turn: a) AK -- (1/46 X 2/45) = 0.00097 or 0.097% or about 1 in 1,000; b) QQ -- (3/46 X 2/45) = 0.0029 or 0.29% or about 3 in 1,000; c) KK -- (2/46 X 1/45) = 0.00097 or about 1 in 1,000 [same as AK]. So it is three times more likely you have QQ than you do either AK or KK, and the only hand that your opponent cannot beat is KK.
As an aside, another option on the turn is to smooth call your opponent's bet. That would have made the pot $3,500 to the river. Say your opponent again bets out on the river to the tune of $4,000, you are raising big anyway. If you go all-in, at this point your opponent has some chance to get away from his aces full with $5,700 committed still sitting with $14,300 behind, "your money" left on the table (if your opponent is good enough to get away from aces full here). And if you raise to $12,000 for example, he can call and if he loses does have $6,300 left, which was again "your money" left on the table. Thus I believe the best thing to do on the turn is raise and you force an even bigger bet on the river which would commit your opponent, or you may induce a re-raise on the turn from your opponent right then and there.
On the river
Here is the thing about Ockham's razor, which paraphrased is generally accepted to translate to, "The simplest solution is the best, however implausible it may seem." On the river your opponent makes a slight overbet of the pot, perhaps trying to give the impression that he is buying the pot (assuming you don't have at least an ace), then you go all-in. At this level your opponent knows you don't have QQ (which would be afraid of KK, AA, AK or KQ), and thus you have either AK or KK. He is committed to calling another $8,300 (remember he has $12,000 in already) since he now is a 50% chance to win and as I demonstrated with the math, either hand is equally likely. Is that true? From the action and the math, either AK or KK are equally likely indeed. However, can the 14th century theorist help us out here? If you're your opponent, can you get away from AAAKK, knowing that the only hand that beats you is KKKK? It sure is possible if you think about it in this way: i) "The simplest solution is the best..." Would AK go all-in on the river knowing that AA beats them? (KK is not possible for your opponent to have if you do in fact have AK) Probably not in this spot. Would they (you) go all-in with AK for just a chop, if the opponent also has AK? Probably not. Thus they (you) must have KK. ii) "...however implausible it may seem." From a deduced math perspective (don't know the exact term, if there is one) the odds that you have either AK or KK are 1 in 1,000, your opponent thinks to himself, but the fact that you went over the top all-in on the river now makes that chance 100% (that you have either) and 0.5 not 0.001 for each hand - an increase of 500 times! It is 500 times more likely you do have KK now, consistent with point (i).
If you were your opponent, would you be able to fold AA in this spot?
This hand is an example of the nuts versus the second nuts. If you held KK would you play it this way for maximum value? If you held AA would you be able to get away from the hand on the river? If you were the player who held AA and you thought they were the nuts the whole time, should you have also checked on the turn? I hope this entry helps the reader to think about similar situations they may have been in and invite additional comments for this post.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Advanced Poker Theory: Monster Folds
This entry is designed as a brainstorming session to try and figure out what to do in a hypothetical situation. To set this up properly, let's say you're playing in a large NL tournament where the buy-in is at least $300. The assumption here is that in tournaments, players in general don't place chips into the pot on stone cold bluffs, they have a tendency to play a bit tighter than usual, and therefore typically have a made hand or monster draw or some juicy pot odds to keep them around. (The reader may immediately disagree with this statement, regardless, the scenario below stands.)
So here is the scenario: Blinds at 25-50 no antes, you have about 6000 chips and your opponent in question has about 4000 in chips. Folds around to a late position raiser (to 150), you look down at AK on the button and re-raise (to 500), player calls. 1075 in the pot. Flop comes out K-6-K with two diamonds. Player checks, you bet 600, player goes all-in, you call. Player flips over 6-6 which holds up (you need the case K or another A to win).
Was there anything else you could have done differently?
Your opponent check-raised you all-in. It is clear that your opponent is afraid of something, what is he afraid of? Why didn't he come out betting on the flop? Because he only became scared because of your bet. Your bet indicates to him that you have a K, likely with a big kicker like A or Q let's say, or you could even have a pocket pair like QQ for example. If your opponent correctly puts you on one of these types of hands (he could pretty much eliminate quad kings because who would come out betting with the stone cold nuts?, and he could probably eliminate K6 based on your pre-flop re-raise), his check-raise - and not just any check-raise, an all-in check-raise at that - is saying he wants to take down the pot right then and there and not get drawn out on. If you are holding a hand like AK or QQ, your opponent thinks to himself, then any A, K or Q on the turn or river beats him. He may not know exactly what you have, but he could certainly be afraid of any over-cards. Overcards to what? Overcards to pocket 6's! If another seven shows up on the turn or river, how does he know you don't have pocket 7's or K7 for example?
If your opponent is not afraid because he has a monster he would just slow-play and check-call (another way to play the 6-6 of course), or has a weak hand (he would fold to almost any reasonable bet) or maybe thinks you are just trying to buy the pot (and may call hoping to outplay you or check it down, etc.). Thus, does not the check-raise all-in play give you some pause?! Another piece of psychology is that your opponent may put you on a big ace, even AK, and confident you will call an all-in with that hand! So if you are thinking that the all-in play is unsophisticated, think again - it could that the player puts you on AK and knows you will call. However, if that's the case, why not milk you for all your chips slowly rather than risk you folding to the all-in check-raise? Because perhaps that's the only way your opponent believes they can get your chips, and they are comfortable taking the risk of you hitting what they know to be a four outter. If we look at the hands you can put your opponent on when he check-raises you all-in, they can be reasonably described as either: A flush draw (remember that?!), AA (an overpair), AK (same as you), KQ (any other weaker kicker than you), QQ (any underpair), AQ (representing any two non-paired cards), K6 (the nuts) or 66 (the second nuts). I mean, any poker player right off the bat without this minutiae level of detail knows there is pretty much only one hand that beats him and that is 66. So does your opponent have 66?
Let's break this down: We should reasonably eliminate the flush draw, AA, KQ, QQ and AQ types of hands (see statement in opening paragraph). (In addition, can we not eliminate these hands only unless you think your opponent is putting you on a steal, and thus he has essentially re-bluffed you in his mind. If in fact your opponent is putting you on a steal, then would they not just call to try and outplay you on a later street or hope to check it down? The all-in play here is just too reckless - especially for a flush draw early in the tournament when the player has enough chips - to believe your opponent is bluffing, unless they have something like KQ, and that is the only hand you can reasonably beat here is the point, since hands like AA or QQ should come out betting a value bet on the flop.) Thus your opponent either has AK (same as you), K6 (the nuts) or 66 (the second nuts). At this point can we not eliminate K6 as well? Would he likely call a big re-raise pre-flop with K6? Probably not. Anything is possible, but probably not in this case. And would he check-raise all-in with the nuts? So that's two strikes against that hand. (Although K6 can also get drawn out on by the same AK or KQ type of hands roughly 10% of the time with two cards to come.) So we're down to AK or 66. (At this point the astute reader will see that the best you can do is chop.) You're put to a decision early in a tournament for a good portion of your chips, but you also know that soon the blinds are going up to 50-100 and if you have 2000 chips you're still at 20 times the big blind and can still fight, so you're tempted to call since you could have the best hand and still won't be out of the tournament if you lose.
From a math perspective, which hand is more likely, AK or 66? Since you have AK and there are two kings on the flop, your opponent will be holding AK approximately (1/47 X 3/46 = 0.0014) or 0.14% of the time. Since there is one 6 on the flop, the chances your opponent is holding 66 is (3/47 X 2/46 = 0.0028) or 0.28%. So it is twice as likely (.28 > .14) your opponent has the 66! And you could understand why he would go-all-in too, he doesn't want to get drawn out on by a better boat, even if it is only 9:1. (And if he does have the K6, then you're dead to three outs instead of four anyway.) Since you've invested 1100 into the pot, you still have around 5000 chips, plenty for early play at 25-50 with the next level at 50-100. If your opponent has any of the other types of hands then what a hell of a play he made.
So lay it down when your opponent check-raises you all-in, assured you thought through the scenario, and live to fight another hand. Even though there pragmatically is only one hand that beats you, that one hand is vulnerable to any overcard that may come. It's a nice pot for early in the tournament for your opponent to take it with an all-in, let it go. Now that's one monster lay down.
So here is the scenario: Blinds at 25-50 no antes, you have about 6000 chips and your opponent in question has about 4000 in chips. Folds around to a late position raiser (to 150), you look down at AK on the button and re-raise (to 500), player calls. 1075 in the pot. Flop comes out K-6-K with two diamonds. Player checks, you bet 600, player goes all-in, you call. Player flips over 6-6 which holds up (you need the case K or another A to win).
Was there anything else you could have done differently?
Your opponent check-raised you all-in. It is clear that your opponent is afraid of something, what is he afraid of? Why didn't he come out betting on the flop? Because he only became scared because of your bet. Your bet indicates to him that you have a K, likely with a big kicker like A or Q let's say, or you could even have a pocket pair like QQ for example. If your opponent correctly puts you on one of these types of hands (he could pretty much eliminate quad kings because who would come out betting with the stone cold nuts?, and he could probably eliminate K6 based on your pre-flop re-raise), his check-raise - and not just any check-raise, an all-in check-raise at that - is saying he wants to take down the pot right then and there and not get drawn out on. If you are holding a hand like AK or QQ, your opponent thinks to himself, then any A, K or Q on the turn or river beats him. He may not know exactly what you have, but he could certainly be afraid of any over-cards. Overcards to what? Overcards to pocket 6's! If another seven shows up on the turn or river, how does he know you don't have pocket 7's or K7 for example?
If your opponent is not afraid because he has a monster he would just slow-play and check-call (another way to play the 6-6 of course), or has a weak hand (he would fold to almost any reasonable bet) or maybe thinks you are just trying to buy the pot (and may call hoping to outplay you or check it down, etc.). Thus, does not the check-raise all-in play give you some pause?! Another piece of psychology is that your opponent may put you on a big ace, even AK, and confident you will call an all-in with that hand! So if you are thinking that the all-in play is unsophisticated, think again - it could that the player puts you on AK and knows you will call. However, if that's the case, why not milk you for all your chips slowly rather than risk you folding to the all-in check-raise? Because perhaps that's the only way your opponent believes they can get your chips, and they are comfortable taking the risk of you hitting what they know to be a four outter. If we look at the hands you can put your opponent on when he check-raises you all-in, they can be reasonably described as either: A flush draw (remember that?!), AA (an overpair), AK (same as you), KQ (any other weaker kicker than you), QQ (any underpair), AQ (representing any two non-paired cards), K6 (the nuts) or 66 (the second nuts). I mean, any poker player right off the bat without this minutiae level of detail knows there is pretty much only one hand that beats him and that is 66. So does your opponent have 66?
Let's break this down: We should reasonably eliminate the flush draw, AA, KQ, QQ and AQ types of hands (see statement in opening paragraph). (In addition, can we not eliminate these hands only unless you think your opponent is putting you on a steal, and thus he has essentially re-bluffed you in his mind. If in fact your opponent is putting you on a steal, then would they not just call to try and outplay you on a later street or hope to check it down? The all-in play here is just too reckless - especially for a flush draw early in the tournament when the player has enough chips - to believe your opponent is bluffing, unless they have something like KQ, and that is the only hand you can reasonably beat here is the point, since hands like AA or QQ should come out betting a value bet on the flop.) Thus your opponent either has AK (same as you), K6 (the nuts) or 66 (the second nuts). At this point can we not eliminate K6 as well? Would he likely call a big re-raise pre-flop with K6? Probably not. Anything is possible, but probably not in this case. And would he check-raise all-in with the nuts? So that's two strikes against that hand. (Although K6 can also get drawn out on by the same AK or KQ type of hands roughly 10% of the time with two cards to come.) So we're down to AK or 66. (At this point the astute reader will see that the best you can do is chop.) You're put to a decision early in a tournament for a good portion of your chips, but you also know that soon the blinds are going up to 50-100 and if you have 2000 chips you're still at 20 times the big blind and can still fight, so you're tempted to call since you could have the best hand and still won't be out of the tournament if you lose.
From a math perspective, which hand is more likely, AK or 66? Since you have AK and there are two kings on the flop, your opponent will be holding AK approximately (1/47 X 3/46 = 0.0014) or 0.14% of the time. Since there is one 6 on the flop, the chances your opponent is holding 66 is (3/47 X 2/46 = 0.0028) or 0.28%. So it is twice as likely (.28 > .14) your opponent has the 66! And you could understand why he would go-all-in too, he doesn't want to get drawn out on by a better boat, even if it is only 9:1. (And if he does have the K6, then you're dead to three outs instead of four anyway.) Since you've invested 1100 into the pot, you still have around 5000 chips, plenty for early play at 25-50 with the next level at 50-100. If your opponent has any of the other types of hands then what a hell of a play he made.
So lay it down when your opponent check-raises you all-in, assured you thought through the scenario, and live to fight another hand. Even though there pragmatically is only one hand that beats you, that one hand is vulnerable to any overcard that may come. It's a nice pot for early in the tournament for your opponent to take it with an all-in, let it go. Now that's one monster lay down.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
It's a Cooler: Aces Full vs.....Aces Full
Last night at a NL home game I was in a hand with one other player...definitely a cooler. In poker, the term "cooler" refers to a hand that is very difficult for one player to get away from, since that player quite reasonably believes they have the best hand, but where the other player is more sure or knows they have the best hand, maybe even the nuts. This is a hand that players can get busted on certainly, and at the very least lose a big portion of their stack. Some quick examples off the top of my head in my experience include:
- Flush over flush on the flop, one player is pushing their baby flush
- Any other flush over flush, especially on a board with straight draws and no pairs
- Straight over straight, on a board with no flush and no pairs
- Full house versus full house
In the hand last night, I made a standard raise in late position with AQ off, dealer calls, blinds fold. Flop comes out A-Q-8 rainbow. I check, button bets, I call. Turn is a blank, I check, button bets, I raise, button calls. River is an Ace, based on chip stacks and pot size, I go all-in, button calls. Button shows A-8 for AAA88 and I'm sitting with AAAQQ.
In this scenario, the button did suspect something or was still slow playing their two pair on the turn, since they only called my raise on the turn, I could easily have something like Q-Q for a set or even A-K in that spot. When the case ace fell on the river, there is only one hand that beats the button's hand: A-Q.
Math for this scenario:
a) Odds to get a flop with A-Q-8 given two known starting hands of A-Q and A-8: ((2/48 X 3/47 X 3/46) X 2) + ((3/48 X 2/47 X 3/46) X 2) + ((3/48 X 3/47 X 2/46) X 2) = 0.0003469 X 3 = 0.0010407 or 0.104% or about 1 in 1,000
b) Odds for the case ace to fall on the river = 1/44 = 0.0227 or 2.27%
c) Odds for this board = (a) X (b) = 0.00104 X 0.0227 = 0.0000236 or 0.00236% or about 2 in 100,000
Given the board at the river, what are the odds the button thinks I could have A-Q?
This is roughly 1/45 X 2/44 = 0.001 X 2 = 0.002 or 0.2% or 2 in 1,000. Definitely a cooler.
With this action, and with the chip stacks and pot size on the river, I could easily be pushing trip aces with K-Q kickers (holding AK), or queens full of aces (holding Q-Q), and of course, aces full of queens (holding A-Q). So, theoretically, button could easily believe they are good 2 of 3 times and have to call with their aces full of eights. Again, definitely a cooler.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Poker Players Alliance
If you're a poker player, especially in the NYC area, then you should show support for the PPA: Poker Player's Alliance
Closing in on one million supporters as of December 12, 2007, the PPA, lead by former New York State Senator Al D'Amato exists "to promote the game, ensure its integrity, and, most importantly, to protect poker players' rights." The PPA's tagline is "keep it legal", so passing laws to protect our right to play online as well as convene in live play is what you are showing support for.
If nothing else, the minimum contribution of $35.00 (you can show support for free too) gets you a really cool t-shirt AND a poker calculator. (When I joined for $20.00, I got a t-shirt only, but that level doesn't exist anymore.) Descriptions of the PPA's contribution levels are here: PPA Contribution Levels
Closing in on one million supporters as of December 12, 2007, the PPA, lead by former New York State Senator Al D'Amato exists "to promote the game, ensure its integrity, and, most importantly, to protect poker players' rights." The PPA's tagline is "keep it legal", so passing laws to protect our right to play online as well as convene in live play is what you are showing support for.
If nothing else, the minimum contribution of $35.00 (you can show support for free too) gets you a really cool t-shirt AND a poker calculator. (When I joined for $20.00, I got a t-shirt only, but that level doesn't exist anymore.) Descriptions of the PPA's contribution levels are here: PPA Contribution Levels
WSOP 2008 in Atlantic City
The WSOP circuit events are back in Atlantic City in 2008, March 5 to 15 at Caesars. Check out the link at the bottom of the page or just go here: WSOP Circuit Atlantic City 2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
WSOP $300 NL at Harrah's Atlantic City
Sunday December 9 found myself and a few friends playing in the $300 + $40 NL WSOP sponsored tournament at Harrah's in Atlantic City. Starting chips at 4000, blinds starting at 25-50 for 45 minute rounds.
A big shout out and congratulations to my friend Walt who ended up in 10th place at the event, out of a field of 701 players. As luck would have it, at around the third level Walt was moved over to my table with about 2500 in chips, all but outta there. He played two hands well back to back and shot up to about 20000 chips. We stayed at the same table through level seven when I busted out, more on that in a second. On day two at the final table I estimated perhaps 4 or so short stacks relative to the blinds, and Walt was one of them. Roughly 30 minutes into the first round Walt found himself on the button with rockets. He raised pre-flop and the cut-off limper called. With the stacks so short, there was only one move on the flop of 9-J-K: all-in. Player calls and turns over Q-10 for a straight. Ouch.
Overall, I was happy with my play but could just not get any momentum going. I stayed above water at about 12 or 13 times the big blind through level seven. How I busted out: Folds around to a late position limper and I look down at A-J suited in the small blind. I go all-in hoping to pick up 4600 in needed chips (I had about 10000 total at this point). Big blind folds and limper thinks a long time and finally calls showing 5-5. 5-5 holds and I'm out in place 170 or so, 100 positions from the money. Bummer. At least I made my money back at the tables.
A big shout out and congratulations to my friend Walt who ended up in 10th place at the event, out of a field of 701 players. As luck would have it, at around the third level Walt was moved over to my table with about 2500 in chips, all but outta there. He played two hands well back to back and shot up to about 20000 chips. We stayed at the same table through level seven when I busted out, more on that in a second. On day two at the final table I estimated perhaps 4 or so short stacks relative to the blinds, and Walt was one of them. Roughly 30 minutes into the first round Walt found himself on the button with rockets. He raised pre-flop and the cut-off limper called. With the stacks so short, there was only one move on the flop of 9-J-K: all-in. Player calls and turns over Q-10 for a straight. Ouch.
Overall, I was happy with my play but could just not get any momentum going. I stayed above water at about 12 or 13 times the big blind through level seven. How I busted out: Folds around to a late position limper and I look down at A-J suited in the small blind. I go all-in hoping to pick up 4600 in needed chips (I had about 10000 total at this point). Big blind folds and limper thinks a long time and finally calls showing 5-5. 5-5 holds and I'm out in place 170 or so, 100 positions from the money. Bummer. At least I made my money back at the tables.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
On The Flop: Set Over Set Over Top Two
Last month (November) I witnessed a flop that was wicked, which I don't think I've ever seen before. We all have seen set over set on the flop at least a few times, and know how unlikely that is. But how about set over set over two pair (and not just any two pair, top two)!! All three players in the hand were essentially allin on the flop, with the winner went to the player who held the best set (set of 10's).
Flop: A - 10 - 3
Player1 holds A - 10
Player2 holds 10-10
Player3 holds 3-3
Odds of that flop coming out given the three known hands:
a) Flop can come out in the following ways --> A-10-3, A-3-10, 10-A-3, 10-3-A, 3-A-10, 3-10-A
b) Each combination odds is --> (3/46 X 1/45 X 2/44) + (3/46 X 2/45 X 1/44) + (1/46 X 3/45 X 2/44) + (1/46 X 2/45 X 3/44) + (2/46 X 3/45 X 1/44) + (2/46 X 1/45 X 3/44) = 0.000066 X 6 (appx.) = 0.000395 or 0.0395% or about 4 in 10,000. Ouch!!
Odds that A - 10 will win: He needs an ace for a boat 2/43 + 2/42 = appx 9.4%
Odds that 3 - 3 will win: He needs the case 3, bummer. 1/43 + 1/42 = appx 4.7%
Odds that 10 - 10 will hold against the two other hands: 100 - (9.4 + 4.7) = 85.9%
Aside - Set over set over two pair in another type of combination -->
Say the flop is AKx and the players have AA KK and AK. What are the odds of that flop coming out given the three players' known hole cards?
We have: (1/46 X 1/45) X 6 = 0.000483 or 0.0483 or about 5 in 10,000.
As an aside, the odds of having set over set on the flop is:
Given that two players each have a pair already, the flop needs to come out with one of each of their hole cards. Say players hold JJ and 99. Thus the flop could be J-9-x or J-x-9 or 9-J-x or 9-x-J or x-J-9 or x-9-J (six combinations). Each combination is appx 2/48 X 2/47 = 0.00177 or 0.177%. Thus odds of set over set are appx 0.00177 X 6 = 1%.
As another aside, the odds of having set over set over set on the flop is:
Given that three players already have a pair, the flop needs to come out with one of each of their hole cards. 2/48 X 2/47 X 2/46 = 0.000077 X 6 = 0.00046. Thus the odds of set over set over set on the flop are appx 0.046% or almost 5 in 10,000.
Flop: A - 10 - 3
Player1 holds A - 10
Player2 holds 10-10
Player3 holds 3-3
Odds of that flop coming out given the three known hands:
a) Flop can come out in the following ways --> A-10-3, A-3-10, 10-A-3, 10-3-A, 3-A-10, 3-10-A
b) Each combination odds is --> (3/46 X 1/45 X 2/44) + (3/46 X 2/45 X 1/44) + (1/46 X 3/45 X 2/44) + (1/46 X 2/45 X 3/44) + (2/46 X 3/45 X 1/44) + (2/46 X 1/45 X 3/44) = 0.000066 X 6 (appx.) = 0.000395 or 0.0395% or about 4 in 10,000. Ouch!!
Odds that A - 10 will win: He needs an ace for a boat 2/43 + 2/42 = appx 9.4%
Odds that 3 - 3 will win: He needs the case 3, bummer. 1/43 + 1/42 = appx 4.7%
Odds that 10 - 10 will hold against the two other hands: 100 - (9.4 + 4.7) = 85.9%
Aside - Set over set over two pair in another type of combination -->
Say the flop is AKx and the players have AA KK and AK. What are the odds of that flop coming out given the three players' known hole cards?
We have: (1/46 X 1/45) X 6 = 0.000483 or 0.0483 or about 5 in 10,000.
As an aside, the odds of having set over set on the flop is:
Given that two players each have a pair already, the flop needs to come out with one of each of their hole cards. Say players hold JJ and 99. Thus the flop could be J-9-x or J-x-9 or 9-J-x or 9-x-J or x-J-9 or x-9-J (six combinations). Each combination is appx 2/48 X 2/47 = 0.00177 or 0.177%. Thus odds of set over set are appx 0.00177 X 6 = 1%.
As another aside, the odds of having set over set over set on the flop is:
Given that three players already have a pair, the flop needs to come out with one of each of their hole cards. 2/48 X 2/47 X 2/46 = 0.000077 X 6 = 0.00046. Thus the odds of set over set over set on the flop are appx 0.046% or almost 5 in 10,000.
Top Two On The Flop Continued...A Combinatorial Perspective
So to continue the discussion about the 5-10-J flop and me holding 10-J. Remember there are two other players in the hand. The question this discussion asks is this, "What are the odds I am beat, or if both players call, what are the odds I will get drawn out on?"
I think this topic is an advanced poker topic that warrants further discussion after this initial post.
Please read the previous post first to understand the hand in question in more detail.
What hands you can likely put your opponents on in this scenario:
1) A big overpair (QQ or KK or AA)
2) A flush draw
3) A straight draw (something like QK or 9Q or 89) [NOTE: The 89 is much less likely, as is the 9Q for the big re-raise.]
4) A set
5) Another two pair, like J-5 or 10-5 (most likely for UTG here)
As a side point, it is more likely for UTG check-raiser to have a made hand like (1) or (4).
First question -- What are the odds I am beat?
Answer: There is only one hand that beats my top two, and that's a set. As in the previous blog entry, the odds of someone having a set are about 0.37% here. As an aside, the odds of the other hands are:
Odds of (1) = 4/47 X 3/46 X 3 = 0.01665 = about 1.7% (of having any of the three overpairs)
Odds of (2) = 11/47 X 10/46 = about 5%
Odds of (3) = 4/47 X 4/46 X 3 = about 0.74% (of having any of the three draws)
Odds of (4) = See last post. About 0.37%
Odds of (5) = 2/47 X 3/46 X 2 = about 0.56% (of having any of the two choices)
And as it turned out, the most likely hands (1) and (2) were the hands that were being held by the other two players.
Second question -- What are the odds I could get drawn out on, if both players call?
Answer: We need to look at the winning percentages of each likely hand.
Re-draw winning percentages with two cards to come:
Odds of (1) = (1/45 + 1/44) = about 4.5% (any of the three overpairs, given a flush draw) to make a set + make a better two pair (can only make a 5) is 3/45 + 3/44 = 13.5% thus 18%
Odds of (2) = (8/45 + 8/44) = about 36% to make the flush (cannot make a 10 clubs) + make a better two-pair = (3/45 X 3/44 X 2) = 0.0091 or 0.91% + make a set of aces = (3/45 X 2/44) = 0.003 or 0.3%, thus total is 36 + .91 + .3 = about 37%
Odds of (3) = (6/45 + 6/44) = about 27% (each of the three straight draws, given the flush draw) to make the straight
Odds of (4) = Re-draw on river to a boat or quads = [if J-J - no quads possible, needs 10, 5, or turn card for a boat = 2/44 + 3/44 + 3/44 = 0.18 or 18%] [if 10-10 - no quads possible, needs 5 or turn card for a boat = 3/44 + 3/44 = 13.6%] [if 5-5, can only get quads to win, 1/44 = 2.3%]
Odds of (5) = Re-draw to a boat = [can only get a 5 to win, 2/44 = 4.6%]
Based on my reads and the most likely hand combinations of (1) and (2) being present, 37 + 18 = 55% (I am only 45% to win) if both players call my all-in. Since player2 was likely to call an allin, this would make UTG player more likely to call another $80. Thus my odds of getting drawn out on are what we might say is a coin flip, which sucks for having only a $6 investment (actually $6 + $4) in the hand. This is another reason I folded. You can still argue against the fold as in my previous post.
But check out the re-draw winning percentages if the hands present were (2) and (3) - the flush draw and a straight draw. If both players call my allin, and these hands are present, I am now only 36% to win!! Let me repeat, this sucks for having a $10 investment in the hand, and another reason why I folded, since I was unsure if could get at least one player off the hand. And again, you can still argue against the fold. Of course in this case I was sure I was not up against both of these hands.
Any other combination I am quite the favorite, unless at least one player has the flush draw, then it really is close to even money.
CONCLUSION
In this type of betting action on the flop, when you're up against at least two other players and faced with an all-in decision on a pot in which you have a small investment, unless you are stone cold or have great reads in which you are quite sure you have a decided winning percentage with two cards to come, it is ok to fold what you are pretty sure is currently the best hand!
I think this topic is an advanced poker topic that warrants further discussion after this initial post.
Please read the previous post first to understand the hand in question in more detail.
What hands you can likely put your opponents on in this scenario:
1) A big overpair (QQ or KK or AA)
2) A flush draw
3) A straight draw (something like QK or 9Q or 89) [NOTE: The 89 is much less likely, as is the 9Q for the big re-raise.]
4) A set
5) Another two pair, like J-5 or 10-5 (most likely for UTG here)
As a side point, it is more likely for UTG check-raiser to have a made hand like (1) or (4).
First question -- What are the odds I am beat?
Answer: There is only one hand that beats my top two, and that's a set. As in the previous blog entry, the odds of someone having a set are about 0.37% here. As an aside, the odds of the other hands are:
Odds of (1) = 4/47 X 3/46 X 3 = 0.01665 = about 1.7% (of having any of the three overpairs)
Odds of (2) = 11/47 X 10/46 = about 5%
Odds of (3) = 4/47 X 4/46 X 3 = about 0.74% (of having any of the three draws)
Odds of (4) = See last post. About 0.37%
Odds of (5) = 2/47 X 3/46 X 2 = about 0.56% (of having any of the two choices)
And as it turned out, the most likely hands (1) and (2) were the hands that were being held by the other two players.
Second question -- What are the odds I could get drawn out on, if both players call?
Answer: We need to look at the winning percentages of each likely hand.
Re-draw winning percentages with two cards to come:
Odds of (1) = (1/45 + 1/44) = about 4.5% (any of the three overpairs, given a flush draw) to make a set + make a better two pair (can only make a 5) is 3/45 + 3/44 = 13.5% thus 18%
Odds of (2) = (8/45 + 8/44) = about 36% to make the flush (cannot make a 10 clubs) + make a better two-pair = (3/45 X 3/44 X 2) = 0.0091 or 0.91% + make a set of aces = (3/45 X 2/44) = 0.003 or 0.3%, thus total is 36 + .91 + .3 = about 37%
Odds of (3) = (6/45 + 6/44) = about 27% (each of the three straight draws, given the flush draw) to make the straight
Odds of (4) = Re-draw on river to a boat or quads = [if J-J - no quads possible, needs 10, 5, or turn card for a boat = 2/44 + 3/44 + 3/44 = 0.18 or 18%] [if 10-10 - no quads possible, needs 5 or turn card for a boat = 3/44 + 3/44 = 13.6%] [if 5-5, can only get quads to win, 1/44 = 2.3%]
Odds of (5) = Re-draw to a boat = [can only get a 5 to win, 2/44 = 4.6%]
Based on my reads and the most likely hand combinations of (1) and (2) being present, 37 + 18 = 55% (I am only 45% to win) if both players call my all-in. Since player2 was likely to call an allin, this would make UTG player more likely to call another $80. Thus my odds of getting drawn out on are what we might say is a coin flip, which sucks for having only a $6 investment (actually $6 + $4) in the hand. This is another reason I folded. You can still argue against the fold as in my previous post.
But check out the re-draw winning percentages if the hands present were (2) and (3) - the flush draw and a straight draw. If both players call my allin, and these hands are present, I am now only 36% to win!! Let me repeat, this sucks for having a $10 investment in the hand, and another reason why I folded, since I was unsure if could get at least one player off the hand. And again, you can still argue against the fold. Of course in this case I was sure I was not up against both of these hands.
Any other combination I am quite the favorite, unless at least one player has the flush draw, then it really is close to even money.
CONCLUSION
In this type of betting action on the flop, when you're up against at least two other players and faced with an all-in decision on a pot in which you have a small investment, unless you are stone cold or have great reads in which you are quite sure you have a decided winning percentage with two cards to come, it is ok to fold what you are pretty sure is currently the best hand!
What Would You Do.....Top Two On The Flop
Small cash NL home game, blinds at $0.50 / $1.00
Pre-flop action:
UTG limps, I'm in middle position and call with 10-J, player raises to $4, UTG calls, I call.
$13.50 to the flop
Flop action:
J-10-5 with two clubs. UTG checks, I bet $6, pre-flop raiser makes it $21, UTG checker re-raises to $80.
I have about $160, player to my left has less (he's all-in if he calls), UTG raiser has more than me.
I fold. Player to my left calls. Club on the river to make the caller's nut club flush.
UTG shows K-K.
Why I folded:
I know I'm a huge favorite against at least one of the players. I did figure UTG for a big overpair, so I had that one nailed. UTG big check-raise essentially puts me all-in, and the issue I had was this: a) I could possibly be up against a set (a set of 5-5-5 most likely if anything) - so the fact that UTG showed K-K shows my read was correct - I knew he had a pocket pair, just not sure which one it was, and b) I figured player to my left with such a large re-raise from my $6 bet would probably call. I hate being against a player's 3-2 odds all-in, that isn't a nothing probability with only $6 invested.
If I was sure I could get player to my left to fold with an all-in then I would make that play.
Arguments against my play:
I understand the easiest and most straightforward argument against my fold, especially considering my reads (if the reader in fact believes that I made those reads): I have the best hand, therefore I should go all-in in this situation. Anything else is just pussy poker. Fair enough.
My own aruguments to support the argument against my very own play:
a) What are you doing playing NL if you're not going all-in with the best hand?
b) You can even figure the approximate odds of someone having a set against you in this situation. Here is my rough calculation:
Remember, the flop is 5-10-J and I have 10-J. Odds of having a set of 5's = 3/47 X 2/46 = 0.00278 (0.278%). Odds of having a set of 10's = 1/47 X 1/46 = 0.000463 (0.0463%). Odds of having a set of J's also = 0.000463 (0.0463%). Thus, odds of having any set on this flop given the fact I have top two is 0.278% + 0.0463% + 0.0463% = 0.37%.
You can't be afraid of a set here. Stop playing scared, and stop playing pussy poker. Well, an argument against that is it doesn't matter if a given situation is literally one in a million, given the situation now exists, the chance that a player has the goods is 50%, isn't it? They either have it or they don't. Well, to tell the truth I really wasn't convinced someone had a set, therefore why the heck did I fold?!
c) By me going all-in, I do the following -- i. I support my table image of being a good solid player who won't put his chips at risk unless he has the best hand, and ii. I create significant fold equity. At least one player should fold here given 3 large re-raises on the flop (my all-in would have made the third), and if I get a caller, I should be happy to be against a draw one should say.
CONCLUSION
With only $6 invested, it was difficult for me to make the all-in play for another $160 or so. It was possible I was up against a set, and if I do get the caller with the draw the draw is only 3-2 dog, not bad odds for him. I don't like being put to the test for my entire stack with such small investments, unless I am stone cold (the absolute nuts), or short stacked or something along those lines. Still, I am at odds with myself here and may not make the same play again. I may go all-in hoping that both players behind me fold (or get a caller, increasing the pot and hope that Hold 'Em remains) and take down the pot uncontested which did swell to about $115 or so.
Pre-flop action:
UTG limps, I'm in middle position and call with 10-J, player raises to $4, UTG calls, I call.
$13.50 to the flop
Flop action:
J-10-5 with two clubs. UTG checks, I bet $6, pre-flop raiser makes it $21, UTG checker re-raises to $80.
I have about $160, player to my left has less (he's all-in if he calls), UTG raiser has more than me.
I fold. Player to my left calls. Club on the river to make the caller's nut club flush.
UTG shows K-K.
Why I folded:
I know I'm a huge favorite against at least one of the players. I did figure UTG for a big overpair, so I had that one nailed. UTG big check-raise essentially puts me all-in, and the issue I had was this: a) I could possibly be up against a set (a set of 5-5-5 most likely if anything) - so the fact that UTG showed K-K shows my read was correct - I knew he had a pocket pair, just not sure which one it was, and b) I figured player to my left with such a large re-raise from my $6 bet would probably call. I hate being against a player's 3-2 odds all-in, that isn't a nothing probability with only $6 invested.
If I was sure I could get player to my left to fold with an all-in then I would make that play.
Arguments against my play:
I understand the easiest and most straightforward argument against my fold, especially considering my reads (if the reader in fact believes that I made those reads): I have the best hand, therefore I should go all-in in this situation. Anything else is just pussy poker. Fair enough.
My own aruguments to support the argument against my very own play:
a) What are you doing playing NL if you're not going all-in with the best hand?
b) You can even figure the approximate odds of someone having a set against you in this situation. Here is my rough calculation:
Remember, the flop is 5-10-J and I have 10-J. Odds of having a set of 5's = 3/47 X 2/46 = 0.00278 (0.278%). Odds of having a set of 10's = 1/47 X 1/46 = 0.000463 (0.0463%). Odds of having a set of J's also = 0.000463 (0.0463%). Thus, odds of having any set on this flop given the fact I have top two is 0.278% + 0.0463% + 0.0463% = 0.37%.
You can't be afraid of a set here. Stop playing scared, and stop playing pussy poker. Well, an argument against that is it doesn't matter if a given situation is literally one in a million, given the situation now exists, the chance that a player has the goods is 50%, isn't it? They either have it or they don't. Well, to tell the truth I really wasn't convinced someone had a set, therefore why the heck did I fold?!
c) By me going all-in, I do the following -- i. I support my table image of being a good solid player who won't put his chips at risk unless he has the best hand, and ii. I create significant fold equity. At least one player should fold here given 3 large re-raises on the flop (my all-in would have made the third), and if I get a caller, I should be happy to be against a draw one should say.
CONCLUSION
With only $6 invested, it was difficult for me to make the all-in play for another $160 or so. It was possible I was up against a set, and if I do get the caller with the draw the draw is only 3-2 dog, not bad odds for him. I don't like being put to the test for my entire stack with such small investments, unless I am stone cold (the absolute nuts), or short stacked or something along those lines. Still, I am at odds with myself here and may not make the same play again. I may go all-in hoping that both players behind me fold (or get a caller, increasing the pot and hope that Hold 'Em remains) and take down the pot uncontested which did swell to about $115 or so.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Poker NYC
On a whim I decided to create this blog. Over the past 2.5 years in NYC years I have played with many poker players in many venues (read: different people's apartments, clubs, casinos) and thought it would be nice to have one place where we can discuss the game. Various topics of discussion may include:
> Where are the great home games in NYC, both cash and tourney?
> Which poker books do you think are the best for beginner or advanced players? Do you think poker books suck?
> Do you think there is a difference between tourney and cash play strategy, and what are the major points to consider?
> What bankroll should you have for playing various cash levels? What is your strategy to advance to higher cash levels?
> Do you use pot (or implied) odds, when, why, why not?
> What is it about poker do you love?
> How many players really make a living from poker, consistently from year to year, where do they play?
Of course, please feel free to start a discussion on any poker topic.
> Where are the great home games in NYC, both cash and tourney?
> Which poker books do you think are the best for beginner or advanced players? Do you think poker books suck?
> Do you think there is a difference between tourney and cash play strategy, and what are the major points to consider?
> What bankroll should you have for playing various cash levels? What is your strategy to advance to higher cash levels?
> Do you use pot (or implied) odds, when, why, why not?
> What is it about poker do you love?
> How many players really make a living from poker, consistently from year to year, where do they play?
Of course, please feel free to start a discussion on any poker topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
