Archive for August, 2008

Taking the Plunge

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

One comment I hear more than most when I tell non-poker players how much I play online is ‘how can you read your opponents when you can’t see their faces?’ Well, I can see the faces of the people asking this question and can read that many of them think I’m mad. What they mean to say is, ‘I’m already sceptical how you can continue to make regular money playing poker, but to rely on a format where you can’t even see your opponents must be crazy!

At this point somebody who plays a little poker will often jump into the conversation, often to defend me, and the subtext of my alleged insanity, to say that I can still win online by relying on the maths of poker. There is some truth in this. The process of successfully playing the odds in your favour can still be achieved to a reasonable extent online without the aid of physical tells. Simply knowing the value of certain hands in certain positions will give you a fighting chance. But reading opponents online is still important and can still be done. One example of this is borne out by a player type I call the clueless plunger.

The clueless plunger is a player who will throw every single one of his chips in during the early stages of a tournament when the blinds are insignificant and barely worth winning. A dramatic example of this, and not that unusual, is the push of about 1500 chips (or whatever you start with) to win 30 in blinds. How can that ever be sensible? The simple answer is that it can’t. If the plunger has a weak hand to any extent then his play resembles the antics of a buffoon. Equally, if he has a hand that you would genuinely consider playing for all your chips pre-flop i.e. AA or KK, then he has wasted a golden opportunity.

In other words, whatever two cards the clueless plunger was holding I have my information on the sort of player he is and have a read on him for the future. In contrast a couple of the other players at the table may be reluctant to draw conclusions on the plunger if they never saw the cards he was holding. Their thinking might be along the lines that he’s probably a loose cannon but that they will reserve judgement until they see his cards in a showdown. This is perfectly sensible but the reluctance to draw conclusions could be costly.

For example, if the clueless plunger continues to make this clumsy all-in move repeatedly, then you must immediately decide how you will play him. It may be impossible to wait for more information if he charges in again on the next hand while you lie in wait in the big blind with J-J. You can’t fold in this spot just because you haven’t seen his cards up to this point. J-J is not a hand you would typically want to be calling an all-in with at the start of a tournament but these are exceptional circumstances. The plunger is playing like a lunatic; impatient, incompetent, drunk or quite possibly all three. It’s only a matter of who will knock him out first and receive the ‘free chips’ at the table.

Now I do realise that this caricature of bad play doesn’t require world class levels of reading ability! But it does go to show that you don’t need a sweaty face in front of you to glean information. In this example you don’t even need to see any cards, let alone a physical tell. Even the mathematics goes out the window when confronted with a borderline call against a madman. At this point instinct takes over and this will be shaped by squeezing all the information possible out of certain situations and learning from experience.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Reading Weakness | No Comments »

Misinformation

Friday, August 8th, 2008

Last week I discussed the dangers of overbetting on a bluff as well as the possible flaws of suddenly underbetting with strength. This time, by taking the same line of thought a stage further, I’ll demonstrate how you can use similar play patterns to create suspicion when you do want it. In other words, once you see what the worst players are doing it may not hurt your chances to impersonate some of those characteristics, and briefly make yourself look bad. Being under-rated is never a bad thing in poker.

Experience shows me that when a player looks weak and suddenly bets disproportionately high on the river, more often than not, he is weak. But sometimes the player actually will be strong and on these occasions it’s the facade of weakness that will prove most lucrative. Before I’m accused on talking in riddles, let me explain by way of a head-to-head example.

Player A has been raising a high percentage of pots prior to the flop and generally follows this through with a continuation bet. Player B has noticed that while Player A will almost always bet the flop, he will typically slowdown or give up on the hand after this point if he thinks he’s behind. With this play pattern noted Player B begins to call a higher percentage of flops, even with very little, with the intention of taking control of the pots on the turn and river. On two occasions in quick succession Player A checks the turn before bluff betting, somewhat unconvincingly, on the river. Both times Player B successfully calls the bluffs with very little but with enough to win. It appears that he has gained the upperhand.

Soon afterwards, Player A is dealt 3-3 and raises pre-flop once again. The flop comes A-7-4 but undeterred he inevitably, and quite reasonably, bets the pot again. Player B has hit top pair with A-2 and flat calls. The turn card brings a jack at which point the increasingly dejected Player A checks with the intention of giving up another battle. But miraculously a rogue 3 comes on the river to provide the perfectly disguised set. At this point Player A is assured of winning the hand having out-lucked his opponent who had begun to outplay him and gain a stranglehold on proceedings. But Player A is about to fully capitalise on his good fortune by maximising his pay-off with one final enormous bet.

For all his weaknesses Player A reads the situation well and assesses recent events constructively. Firstly, he realises that his hand is almost certain to be ahead. There are no full house or flush possibilities and the chances of a straight or better set being out there are incredibly remote. Secondly, he is conscious of having been caught bluffing twice recently after checking the turn and betting the river. This time he can repeat the same play pattern with suspicions already running high. But shrewdly he decides to go for the juggernaut by betting well over the size of the pot in an act of seeming desperation. If it was a bluff it would be a terrible one but Player A is self-aware enough to appreciate that recent form suggests he is capable of a really bad play. With all this in mind Player B is suckered into a call and left to rue his ill-fortune. He did nothing wrong but Player A utilised his good fortune by capitalising on his table image and sending out as much misinformation as possible.

Of course the opportunities to misdirect your opponent and feign weakness are not confined to times when you fluke a river. Had Player A flopped a set and bet out as normal he would likely have received a call anyway. The temptation would then be to check the turn and lure Player B into action having strongly implied weakness.

It stands to reason that if feigning weakness when strong is one target then suggesting strength when weak is the twin objective. Just one example of this would be the tournament bully who raises every time play passes to him on the button. Then suddenly, he calls instead of raising in that same position. The rest of us immediately exclaim, ‘why no raise – he must have AA!’ (Only in our heads of course). Many players fears the rogue limper and will proceed with caution. They are subsequently very unlikely to raise. Consequently, what a perfect opportunity to limp in with any old rubbish.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Bluffing | No Comments »

The Importance of Bet Sizes

Friday, August 1st, 2008

It’s simply not enough to realise when your hand is strong and that you need to put your chips in. The artistry comes in getting paid off on your good hands without unduly risking defeat. It’s been said that if want a call then you bet the highest amount you can get a call with. Conversely, if you want your opponent to fold then you should bet the smallest amount that achieves that objective. It may sound easy but it’s a strategy that takes years to hone and may never be perfected.

For now let’s forget about the exact cards being dealt and focus only on bet sizes and intentions. Where better to start than with the biggest bet-size related blunder you can come across – the over-bet bluff. This is the cardinal sin of poker and the fishiest move in any fish’s repertoire. The classic example is the missed flush draw panic play. This is the novice who bets into a flop with nothing but a flush draw and gets called by Player B. The turn card arrives without solace so he bets the size of the pot again and earns another call. When the river draws another blank the fish identifies, correctly, that there is only one way he can now win this sizeable pot. A call can’t and won’t be tolerated so he throws in one last monster bet that would surely make any opponent tremble and fold. Except it doesn’t.

Player B has seen the fish bet out on every draw imaginable in the past 15 minutes. It’s been a case of providing the novice with just enough rope to hang himself. But any suspicions in Player B’s mind have only been heightened by the curious bet on the river, which was suddenly much larger, even in relation to the size of the pot. What the novice hopes is a powerful and intimidating play actually resembles blind panic and weakness. Player B now has more to lose but he also has a very significant pot win in his sights. He decides that the call with top pair is irresistible, even with a weak kicker, and the novice’s airshot is exposed at great cost.

When dissected more closely the river overbet was always doomed to failure. The intention behind the bet was to force a fold and that’s how it came across. If the novice did have a strong hand then surely he would have wanted to be paid off on the river. If that was so then the most efficient way of inducing a call would have probably been another pot-sized installment bet. Ironically, a bet that looks like it ‘wants’ a call is much less likely to get one. Thus a more measured bet may have had Player B more concerned about his weak kicker. Most importantly, and very obviously, the novice was risking a huge and disproportionate amount of his stack on an ill-disguised bluff.

Could the overbet have worked if Player B was also on a flush draw? Quite possibly yes, if Player B had nothing to call with then the fold may have been forced. But even in this instance the chances of success would only have been hampered by the overbet. If Player B simply couldn’t call then he’d also have folded to a much smaller, more believable bet. However, the suspicious nature of the overbet might encourage him to call down with almost anything, like if he tagged a mediocre pair while chasing the draw. The overbet might even encourage a re-raise bluff with anything from a particularly adventurous opponent. All and all, the desperate overbet with nothing is a minefield, riddled with flaws.

As is so often the case in Texas Holdem, there is a comparable scenario at the opposite end of the spectrum. As wild and reckless as the overbet is the incongruous under bet is just as likely to create suspicion and stand out like a sore thumb. Picture the scene; there’s a calling station at the table that plays every hand and bets the pot whenever the play is checked to him. Suddenly, after 30 minutes of this behaviour he raises pre-flop and when the play passes to him post-flop he bets the minimum amount possible, much less than the size of the pot. It’s a frankly comical play because every other player can assume he has flopped very well. It’s now probably only a question as to whether he has 2-pair or a set. If he receives any action at all it will likely be from an opponent even more half-witted than himself who has ignored the considerable information being emitted.

With bet size being such a crucial aspect of the game it’s best to keep things simple when in doubt. Betting half, or the full size of the pot may seem unimaginative but it stops your opponents gleaning too much information and normally provides you with some much-needed value. That said, the information that different bet sizes gives out leads us to the next level; the prospect of deliberately providing mis-information. More on that next week.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Bet Sizes | No Comments »