Archive for June, 2008

Image is Everything

Monday, June 30th, 2008

In poker you will be judged by others on reputation and on how you’ve appeared in the rest of the game, or in previous encounters. Many observant types gain a read on their opponents very early on which can be a good thing. But it’s important to realise that table images are constantly changing and your assessments should not be set in stone. Furthermore, don’t just focus on your opponents’ images, because you have one of your own and you need to know what it is at all times.

With my many online sit-n-go rivalries, image and reputation are key factors in my strategic decisions. When I play ‘Mr Raise-Fold’ I attempt to use my knowledge of him and his verdict on me to my future advantage. To explain the background to this rivalry I should explain that ‘Mr Raise-Fold’ and I have crossed paths on many SNG 6-seat tournaments.

The first time we played each other I noticed that when the play got 3 or 4-handed he raised pre-flop an inordinate amount of the time, but folded to almost every re-raise. This of course isn’t that unusual since it’s what happens when somebody tries to constantly steal the blinds without very much to back it up. It isn’t even that bad a strategy since so many players will let you steal with nothing, even though they are very suspicious. Calling or re-raising with nothing is difficult to do. I started to feel that ‘Mr Raise-Fold’ was pushing his luck by making this move too often and consequently stopping the likes of me from stealing. I couldn’t stand for that! So how was I to counteract this infuriatingly effective tactic against weak players? I had to start re-stealing.

To simply call more of his loose raises was not strong enough. I had to be prepared to re-raise him all-in and force the fold. This was a man who always responded to re-raises in precisely the same way. He would take his time, agonise over the decision, tell the table that he had a marginal hand to call with, like A-J…and then fold. There were two possibilities. Possibility A was that he was always telling the truth and that he did have a good hand every time he raised, but it just wasn’t quite enough to call a big re-raise with. This is very dubious when you raise 75% of the hands 3 or 4-handed. Possibility B was that he raised with an enormous range of cards and when he got caught with his hand in the till, he just folded. Much more likely. My suspicions were confirmed when I finally did get to see his cards a few times – nothing as good as AJ was to be seen.

‘Operation Re-steal’ had to happen. This was all a matter of timing, and would inevitably rely on some good fortune. There was always a possibility that he would have a genuinely big hand or that one of the weak tight players found something. But it was a risk that I would have to take occasionally. The move began to work several times over the course of a few games. I didn’t want to push my luck so it was a rare play. But, eventually, I did get caught out.  ‘Mr Raise-Fold’ raised with A-Ko and I moved all-in with 10-9s. For one night only my rival was to become ‘Mr Raise-Call’. I fortuitously won the showdown and all hell broke loose.

I’ve been folding AJ to your re-raises and now you donk me with 10-9,’ he exclaimed. Well firstly I knew, and he knew, that he raised with a load of junk half the time, so the AJ comment was irrelevant. Secondly, I moved with a hand like 10-9s for a reason. I still had a 41% chance of showdown success against AK and a 49% hope had I been called by a pocket pair lower than 9-9. It was a calculated risk, with considerable fold equity and part of a carefully thought-out strategy. But he couldn’t see past the luck factor and the reckless nature of the play when looked at in isolation.

After that encounter we have never sat at the same table without ‘Mr Raise-Fold’ commenting on my infamous ‘donk play’. I couldn’t be happier. He establishes my table image as a fish, which a typically tight-aggressive player thrives upon. It makes it so much easier to get my big hands paid off. You really can’t buy that sort of publicity.  As for our own personal battle, I think ‘Mr Raise-Fold’ is a bit more wary about raising my big blind with junk when he knows (he thinks) what I’ll push all-in with. And when I do wake up with AK and push his raise I’m now pretty confident that he’ll be calling me with a hand like AJ – if he ever actually has it.

Posted in Image is Everything | No Comments »

Bankroll Management

Friday, June 20th, 2008

One of the primary benefits of playing sit-n-go games is that they make it easier to manage your funds. However awful the badbeat, however undeserving your opponent, you can never lose more than your tournament entry fee. This is drastically different to cash games where the cruellest misfortune will often be reflected in the heaviest losses, and the bankroll swings can be brutal. But with sit-n-gos (SNGs) a logical approach and a sound understanding of likely result patterns will leave you in a strong position in the long run.

The first important thing to accept is that anything can happen on any given occasion. I’m always amazed when I hear players predicting their imminent success with clueless bravado. Even if we take the considerable leap of faith that such a player is the best at the table, the luck factor can unravel him at any moment. Once you accept that anything can happen in a one-off game soon you will realise that the same evaluation also applies to a run of 10, 20 or even 50 games.

As a long-time student of the game, I think the one thing still capable of surprising me to this day is just how streaky the runs of fortune can be. With this in mind, a key factor is being able to cope with bad luck at any time. This is always a major challenge from a psychological perspective but it becomes nigh on impossible when playing at a stake you can barely afford, or feeling that you must win.

If you are a good player, and by this I mean you have enjoyed success over a prolonged period of time, then your bankroll will grow in the long term, but it must be there to protect you in the short term. If you have established a rate of return (ROI) of 10% over 1000 games then there is a decent indication of what you can expect to earn at that stake if you play a further 1000 games. I would cautiously suggest that it would be reasonable to think that the same player, in a further 1000 games would probably see an ROI of between 5-15%. It’s only over a huge sample of games that we can start to look at projected earnings as the luck factor evens out.

Some players may feel that 200-500 games are a fair sample from which to draw conclusions. All I can say is that from my own experiences, one 500 set of games can produce quite variant results to another batch of 500. Basic logic suggests with any survey that the bigger the sample, the more credible the results. Maybe one day I’ll muse that even 1000 games isn’t a sufficient sample to draw reasonable conclusions from.

If we follow the example above then we can start to see the importance of an appropriate bankroll, even for a successful player. If a player enters 1000 games with an entry fee of $55, he will be investing $55 000 in total. This seems, and is, a massive outlay but if he has an ROI of 10% on this run then he will re-coup a further $5500 by the end of this period. So theoretically a bankroll that begun at $55 000 would then be up to $60 500. But very few people who play regularly at mid-level stakes have $55 000 to work with from the outset. So what is a reasonable bankroll to start playing hundreds of $55 games without putting yourself in peril?

ROI is just one factor to contemplate. Perhaps a bigger consideration is to estimate how much you will lose on a bad run, and at what point you might drop down in stakes. For example, a player who begins with $5000 may decide that he will play  $55 games unless he drops below the $3000 mark. For this to occur he can lose the equivalent of 36 entry fees before he’s forced to re-think his strategy. While it is hugely unlikely that he will fail to cash in 36 consecutive games, a losing run of $2000 is very possible even for an accomplished player.

This may sound discouraging, (and some may disagree that a good player could lose $2000 at these stakes) but it doesn’t need to be. To be aware that bad runs will happen and have the bankroll to cope with them is half the battle; in fact it’s much more than half the battle. Let’s say that I had played 2000 games at $55 stakes and knew that my worst run in that time was a $3000 slump but that I was definitely winning in the long-term. Secondly, let’s argue that I would drop down in stakes if my bankroll fell below $4000. With these factors in mind I would be content with a starting bankroll of $7000. This way it would need an unprecedented bad run for me to run into difficulties.

Although I’ve focused on $55 games here, the thought processes and issues to look at are exactly the same whatever stakes are involved. Bankrolls aren’t just there for the losing players – they are vital to even the very best.

Posted in Bankroll Management | No Comments »

Continuation Betting – Part 2

Saturday, June 14th, 2008

Last week I discussed the virtues of selective continuation betting after a pre-flop raise. I talked through one situation where a flop bet seemed advisable when many people check, and conversely one scenario where many players bet but I would check. Such is the extent of the strategic possibilities in this aspect of the game that I thought I’d continue on the same subject again now.

As I touched on before, continuation betting off your own pre-flop raises is so commonplace that to not do so is generally regarded as weak. It is weak to hand over the initiative on any occasion when ‘first bet wins.’ One of the hardest things to evaluate is which scenarios are ‘first bet wins’ spots. Many ill-advised players will conclude that since so many pots are won by the anticipated continuation bet that doing so every time makes sense. I would agree that the continuation bet is the right play more often than not but, more controversially, I will argue that sometimes it is so doomed to failure that the weak play is the right play.

I think it’s abundantly clear that continuation betting can be very effective but I want to focus on its limitations and pitfalls.

To explain this thought process I’ll refer to my sit-n-go (SNG) strategy. In a single table tournament with 10 competitors the principle early objective is to survive. In a typical mid-stake tournament – such as for $55 -  at least two or three players are likely to play loose aggressive poker from the outset. This can be a great time to pick up a major hand for a good player because some ‘action’ is almost guaranteed and calling stations are likely to get involved with borderline hands. This will often mean that overpairs will double-up against players who can’t fold top pair and that AK and AQ will often plunder chips from opponents who play weak kickers.

This is all well and good but the abundance of worse, loose players can be a double-edged sword. (Note that in SNGs, players who play loose from the outset will be bad players 99% of the time).  The trouble that can come from reckless continuation betting at low-quality opponents is illustrated most starkly by that most frustrating of hands, AK. When I began playing regular SNGs this was the hand and the situation that continually put me in the soup.

Two players limp in from early positions since ‘the blinds are so low that it’s always nice to see a flop.’ The play passes to me who has to raise with AK. Let me repeat that I feel obliged to raise, because if 6-7 players limp I may well be in big trouble even if I seem to flop well. But with several loose aggressive players at the table my bet still attracts three players who will call a pre-flop raise with almost anything in the early stages of the tournament. The flop comes 10-Q-3. What do I do? Well, the old me came out firing with the continuation bet. I would do this because a strong bet can take the pot uncontested and if I got called then there were several cards I could still hit on the turn. But I don’t do this anymore because experience showed that all I generally got for my trouble was a depleted chip stack and irritated. This familiar situation needed to be identified as decidedly not a ‘first bet wins’ scenario. The continuation bet was no more than wishful thinking; it was rarely likely to work.

Now I adopt Plan B. Put simply, I don’t bet the flop and if I can’t see another card cheaply then I’ll fold. Now I realise this will be hugely disappointing to maverick players wanting to read about daring check raise bluffs that put the calling stations back in their place. This is early-phase SNG strategy at its most unsexy. Check-fold sounds lame, it sounds weak – and it is. But in the early stages of these tournaments self-preservation is what counts. Of course we all want to double-up early on and this can happen. But it will now take a lot more than ace-high and a gutshot straight draw to get me betting at three players who all want to chase. Put in these terms I think that the tentative approach sounds like a no-brainer. It’s worth emphasising that the mutli-way nature of this pot is the crucial factor in declining to bet the flop. Had only one opponent seen the flop on my raise I would certainly be betting most boards, particularly if in position.

I’ve concluded that weak play is acceptable in this situation, as much as it riles me to admit it. I console myself with the theory that if I know it seems weak then actually it isn’t that weak. Most weak players are oblivious to their own limitations where as I have escaped where strength would have most likely lost me chips. Furthermore, if any opponents regard me as weak then I can use that to my advantage later on when the pots really are worth fighting for. Concede the battle to win the war.

Posted in Continuation Betting | No Comments »

Continuation Betting – Part 1

Friday, June 6th, 2008

The continuation bet is such an expected and accepted part of Texas Holdem play pattern that people get in the habit of doing it thoughtlessly. For some characters if they have raised pre-flop then they will be betting the flop, regardless of what cards they hold and the nature of the flop. This has become the norm for a very good reason – it’s generally effective.  It’s a simple strategy that players of any standard can carry out. If you’ve hit the flop, then you’re betting a decent hand which is generally a good idea and if you’ve missed the flop then a bet out of the blocks may win you the hand anyway. What could be better? But as with all aspects of poker the continuation bet needs to be applied with intelligence and awareness to be most rewarding.

 

Firstly, if you raise with strong cards and hit the flop then the continuation bet is typically the right play to make. Your opponents may well call you with mediocre holdings such as top pair with a weak kicker, second pair or a draw. Average-poor players are always likely to do this because they find it hard to fold. This resolve is particularly tested when they’re on the blinds and they really want to see a flop. Then, if they get any piece of it they want to stay involved. From their perspective, all you did was raise and continue betting. That doesn’t mean anything because everyone bets off their own raises. You could have nothing. The dangerous mentality of a chaser is ‘I don’t have much but I have something. Mr Continuation Bet could easily have nothing, and something beats nothing.’

 

But what about continuation betting when you absolutely nail the flop – when you hit the nuts? This conjures up a dilemma for the pre-flop raiser who always bets the flop but now really wants some action. The great temptation is to suddenly check the flop and hope somebody else gets interested. This can work brilliantly against a novice or any player who has hit the flop well too. But the problem is that most experienced players around the table will hear a siren go off as soon as you check. Nothing ‘announces’ a big hand quite so loudly as a player who has been continuation betting all day, suddenly checking. With this play pattern good players will tread very carefully.

 

In one obvious example if I raise with AK, get one caller and the board comes Q-A-A, what should I do? The temptation is to check but then even the doziest observer is going to know that I have a great hand. If my opponent has nothing at this stage then a free card is unlikely to change that fact unless he miraculously hits a straight or a full house on the turn, which would be a disaster for me anyway. Furthermore, only a true optimist would attempt to bluff me in this spot when my check looks so strong.

 

So what if I do make the continuation bet? Well, naturally, there is a strong chance that he has missed the flop and will fold. But crucially if he has anything at all then my weak-looking bet will only encourage him. If he has a lower ace (other than AQ) then he is in big trouble but convinced he is winning. If he holds a queen then second pair looks very tasty against my ‘unconvincing’ bet. Even if my adversary holds any other pocket pair (other than QQ) he may well wrongly think he is in front and decide to raise. A particularly brave soul, let’s face it – probably a fish – may even try to take me off the hand with absolutely nothing if he concludes from my continuation bet that I don’t have an ace.

 

Conversely, if I’ve raised pre-flop with 99 and the flop comes A-Q-Q I may use my knowledge of what a continuation bet seems to represent here to play my hand shrewdly. Now I may check the flop with the intention of betting the turn to fully represent the ace. Admittedly, this is a move involving some risk since my opponent may have a hand themselves. But thinking logically, if they have hit the flop then my continuation bet at that point would have failed anyway. So really I’m only causing myself potential greater bother with the solitary turn card. Even then my opponent may well fold his superior hand if he’s convinced that I hold an ace.

 

It’s crucial to realise that there is no definitive right and wrong move in these scenarios. It depends on so many factors – detailed knowledge of your opponent, your current table image, how many hands you’ve played recently, position and chip stack size – to name a few. But robotically betting off your raises without forethought is doomed to failure in the long run. Being predictable is catastrophic against the best players and sooner or later they will punish you for it. So don’t get out-thought and out-played by always doing the same thing.

Posted in Continuation Betting | No Comments »