Archive for June, 2009

Asking for Trouble

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

One source of valuable information that Sharkscope can give you about a tournament opponent you know little about is ‘average stake’. Often you will find that the player in question is indeed playing at a level he is accustomed to but it is extraordinary how often this isn’t the case. I have been struck recently about how often I have taken my place in a $109 SNG only to discover that several of my opponents at that level have an average stake of about $5. Further more, of those cavalier individuals who have suddenly taken a shot at a big money game, the vast majority will having been losing at the very lowest level. Quite simply, they are looking for one great game at high stakes to sort out their debts. To be frank these are good people to find yourself up against. They tend to be unaccomplished and now, thanks to a moment of madness, they are probably terrified.

These people are gamblers. I make a clear distinction between poker players and panicking, desperate gamblers. Poker players wager calculated sums with reason to believe they will see ROI -’return on investment’ in the long term. They have shown an ability to win some money over a period of time that has seen good and bad runs. I have previously suggested that a conservative estimate of what that time period would be is in the region of 1000 games or more. And trust me this is a conservative estimate. I know great online tournament players who have had a bad 1000 games. The swings are more brutal than 99% of online players could ever imagine.

For the gambler leaping up the stakes the phrase return on investment is an unnecessary compliment in itself. Throwing ten times more money at something you have previously been unsuccessful at isn’t investing in my eyes. Sharkscope should show their ROP – return on punt. When I go to the Epson Derby I’m not investing my money because I don’t know the first thing about horse racing. But I might take a punt, based on some ludicrous hunch involving a horse’s trainer being born on the same day as my uncle. In poker, you need to prove that you can win at the low levels in order to earn the right to play for big bucks. Put another way, get a bankroll!

The problem with this is that it can all take rather a lot of hard work, patience and can be rather time-consuming. Given that most losing ‘poker players’ – if I use the term in the loosest sense – are convinced that they are just unlucky, they can easily convince themselves that success is always just around the corner. (Most winning players are also convinced they are unlucky as well and that says a great deal.) Frighteningly, but also brilliantly from my point of view, a losing $5 player will often even conclude that their game is more suited to the high stakes. The rationale here would be that they operate on a level so high that their moves are wasted on other low stakes players. ‘A better player would have folded to my bluff there’, is not an uncommon thing to hear. So off they head to the high stakes where their brilliant play will finally be rewarded.

Delusional doesn’t even begin to cover this mentality. Yes, there is truth in the fact that a ‘move’ can sometimes work against a better player and not an imbecile but one of the game’s greatest skills is learning to play each opponent properly. ‘Don’t try to bluff a player who simply can’t fold‘, is a valuable lesson and one best to learn at lower stakes. These are the players who will pay you off when you really do have a hand. But putting all this to one side, the fact is that you’re probably not good enough to win at high stakes until you are a proven success lower down.
It is temptation that combines with this self-delusion when a player ends up in ‘too big’ a game. I’m sure that a player who has lost $250 playing $5 SNGs is discouraged by the thought that it will take a supremely good run at that level to merely return to even. He will then become intoxicated by the thought that just one good game at the $109 level will wipe out all the debt in an instance. Throw into the mix a sense of injustice having probably lost the previous game with AK against AQ and you have all the ingredients needed to make that rash decision to leap in at the deep end.

Of course, the most likely outcome of this decision is that that our loss chasing gambler will simply accelerate his demise into the red. Even the best tournament players on the internet don’t routinely make the money more than half the time in a standard format. Not over a year or two’s play at least. It is quite possible that the gambler will even play a faultless game. Indeed, I have noted that these stake leapers will often become very tight and put in a competent performance because so much is suddenly at stake. However, in a desperate bid to eradicate poor play they will often become too tight and weak. Suddenly their blinds are available for the taking and they become predictable. The regular high stake players have noted that the newcomer appears too scared to bluff or get out of line at all. Good players will inevitably use this to their advantage.

In the final analysis if the gambler falls short of the money at this level it will hurt more than ever. It won’t ultimately matter whether the crucial moment was determined by bad play or bad luck because the greatest pain will come from having needed a result far too much. Deep down, he will be angry with himself for entering a game that he had no business being in. But wait, perhaps he will make the money and it will all be ok. Possible. But I suspect that the bad decisions will not end there and it will all end in tears soon enough.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker.com

Posted in Sharkscope, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Champagne Poker – The Squeeze Play

Friday, June 12th, 2009

The squeeze play. Perhaps the most impressive and scintillating move in poker. It can only be attempted at rare moments when a series of circumstances combine to perfection and it can only be executed successfully with the mental fortitude to risk everything with very little. For every gem there will be half a dozen disastrous squeeze efforts that leave the perpetrator looking foolish. It is to Texas Holdem what the overhead kick is to football. Spectacular, high-risk and not to be attempted by the uninitiated.

The idea is that a player regarded as tight and conservative, identifies a loose aggressive player raising the pot in front of him and a similarly loose second player calling that raise before the action reaches our hero. At this point the ‘tight conservative’ player in late position puts in a massive re-raise with a mediocre hand to force everybody to fold and take down a decent pot without even seeing the flop. This is a standard squeeze scenario although it can also be attempted with multiple callers in front or from various seat positions, including the blinds. The move sounds simple in its description and yet the margin for error is miniscule. If any one of the factors is misjudged then the consequences are likely to be dire.

First of all ‘the squeezer’ must know that Player A, the initial raiser, is opening up pots with a wide range of start cards. Over a long period of play this should become apparent from either the sheer quantity of raises or from seeing the cards he shows down having played to a raise pre-flop. However, it is dangerous and far too easy to tag a player as loose aggressive just because he raises a few hands in a row. It’s vital to spot the difference between a card rush and generally more expansive play. A similar criteria must be used to assess the strength of Player B, the pre-flop caller in front. The additional information one has to work on here is that Player B opted to call, rather than re-raise Player A. This also implies weakness, particularly if we assume that Player B has also noticed the attacking intentions of Player A and has decided to see a few flops against him with marginal hands. The complexity of assessing what Player B thinks of Player A and assessing his tactics with this in mind is high-risk but essential for this move.

Having surmised that neither active player in the hand is strong, ‘the squeezer’ is now poised to make his play, but there are still more factors to consider. It’s far too simplistic to think ‘they’ve got nothing so they can’t call me.’ This is where table image comes in. It amazes me how often the player most likely to bluff at the table is the same player who most recently bluffed. A reputation as a bluffer will get good hands paid off but it won’t help future bluffs to succeed. For this reason the squeeze is suited to a player regarded as a rock, waiting for a big hand to make his move. If people don’t think you have the squeeze move in your playbook that’s ideal!

Infuriatingly, being a decent tight player with a good table image and the capability of making a great read still may not be enough though. Let’s say for instance that ‘the squeezer’ puts Players A and B on hands like Ace-rag suited and average high cards like Q-J. Let’s then say that his read is correct and that his opponents do indeed hold moderate start cards that have potential but can’t be played to a huge re-raise. The problem is that final assessment that they can’t be played. This would be the view of 95% of solid, experienced poker players but it may not mean that Player A or B will actually fold. Some players just can’t lay down a hand and this will certainly be the case if they suspect foul play. If the big intimidating raise looks like it doesn’t want a call then it is more than likely to get one from one of these ‘instinctive’ players, even with Q-J or A3s.
The temptation to call the squeeze will also be affected by stack size. A wild aggressive player with a monstrous pile of chips may feel that a loose call won’t really matter, so curiosity gets the better of them. A loose player who feels like he is on a roll is a dangerous commodity and virtually unbluffable. Similarly, a short stack is often inclined to think that there’s nothing left to lose so why not take a gamble. The squeeze must therefore be directed against players who do value their remaining chips and can lay down marginal cards.

The great thing about this manoeuvre is that it plays the opponents and the situation and is less card focused. It is based on an approximation of the cards that you think your opponents have and gives very little thought to what you hold yourself. Unfortunately, even a perfectly timed move can still be rumbled by a player left to act waking up with a beauty. But it really should have to be an exceptional hand to rumble you, given the play pattern up to this point. A wonderful illustration of this was a squeeze carried out by Dan Harrington at the 2004 WSOP. Renowned professional Harrington, carries the ironic nickname of ‘Action Dan’ due to his tight conservative reputation. He was therefore the perfect man to push the button with 6-2o against the loose aggressive players in front who had entered the play with K-9o and A-2s. This not only worked on them but the icing on the cake was that another player, still to act behind Harrington in the blinds, could not wait to throw away his AQ against such apparent strength. This illustrates how poker can be elevated from the solid and dependable to the stylish and great.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Squeeze Play | No Comments »