A Bold Play

A Bold Play
by Rolf Slotboom

It was once again one of those nice and quiet Sunday afternoons. Knowing there are usually no big pot-limit Omaha games available on Sundays, I headed to the casino to play some limit hold'em, even though the stakes are relatively small (especially when you compare them to our regular pot-limit game). But because I rarely get to play any long sessions of limit hold'em anymore, I sometimes choose to play on one of these Sundays, because then the cardroom opens early - meaning I can log in quite a few hours and practice my discipline probably more than anything else.
Now, it is three or four weeks after my article “A semi-bluff succeeds” has been published, and quite a few of my opponents in the game have read that piece. In the article, I described this exact Sunday afternoon game, and analyzed a hand that I stole from my one of my opponents, in addition to one or two other moves I had made. Possibly because of this piece, people seem to focus on this alleged “stealing” and “bluffing” of mine much more than usual, so I knew I had to make the necessary adjustments, and would have to come up with a real hand every once in a while.

The $10-20 table that I'm playing at is not as soft as on an average Sunday, but it is still quite a good game. Having said that, I haven't won any pots in the first three hours of play, and I'm down almost $300. That's when the following hand develops. Everybody folds to a lady player two off the button who calls as the first one in, a loose / aggressive player in the cutoff calls as well, and I'm on the button with a queen-jack offsuit. Even though this is typically a hand I would limp with, because there are two relatively tight players in the blinds, and I want to get the chance to play against the two somewhat looser players only, I decide to raise. Indeed, both blinds fold, so three players see the flop AQT rainbow.

Both players check to me, I bet, and they both call. The way they call it looks to me like they are both rather weak. Even though some players like to check-call with a pair of aces (especially a weak ace, when they fear the raiser might have AK or AQ or so, but still want to keep him honest), in this case I think they don't even hold that much. So, when the turn is an offsuit six and they both check again, I fire $20, confident that indeed my pair of queens / jack kicker is the best hand right now.

The lady player hesitates and then finally calls. Knowing this player, she would have called instantly with an ace or even a queen, and the way she calls it seems to me that she isn't drawing but has a weak made hand. I put her on a ten, something like T9 or T8 probably. The other player, who is aggressive but rather inexperienced and way too loose, now calls rather quickly, and his body language suggests that he probably has a queen – in which case my jack kicker is undoubtedly good. (With king-queen, he probably would have raised preflop, and with any other paint card he would now have made two pair, and I don't sense that much strength in him.) It is possible he's got a QJ as well, but something like Q9, Q8 or even a queen-small suited are all just as likely, as this person would play all these hands in this type of situation.

Now, the river comes another six, making the final board AQT66. Once again, they both check, and with my now rather weak QJ (my kicker doesn't play anymore, meaning I will have to split with any queen, and anyone with an ace, six or even a KJ beats me easily), it would seem normal to simply check it back. After all, usually in this type of situation I will only get called by someone who has me beat or who has the same hand as me, so there would be no value in betting – right? Well, not really. If my read on both players was correct, and knowing both their tendencies, I was pretty sure I could get the lady to pay me off with just one ten, and after this much strength (with a tight player like me betting on all streets against this scary board, and the lady paying me off three times) the inexperienced player with the queen might then reason that at least one of us had to have an ace or better. This is exactly what happened: The lady with the ten called, and the third player then folded showing a queen, meaning that instead of a split I now won the entire pot.

The inexperienced player showed both surprise and disappointment at the outcome, because he is not someone to throw away a marginal hand easily, but now he had done just that and it turned out to be wrong! Well, of course he was correct in folding his hand, because in this situation where I knew I was going to get called, there was no chance whatsoever that I could be bluffing, and the way the betting went I was almost certain to have a big ace or better here. But because both players had basically given away their hands by their betting patterns, their predictability and their body language, they had made it very easy for me to make a “shot for nothing” by making a bet that, if my read was correct, was basically free of risk – and fortunately, it paid off well for me.

After that, I was fortunate enough to win a couple more pots, having raised before the flop with some very marginal cards. First, I raised from the small blind with a king-eight of clubs only, once again to force out the big blind, and to compete with the same two players again. This raise of mine happened to make the eventual winner fold, and instead of losing quite a few bets, my top pair of kings now won a decent-sized pot because of the contributions of the aggressive player, who called me down with second pair. And then, on the immediate next hand, I raised from the button with an ace-nine offsuit only, got three-bet by the small blind, and ended up winning a very big pot by making the nut flush on the turn. This meant that I had booked quite a good result for the day without getting any decent starting hands, and by winning three decent-sized pots with hands that were fairly marginal at best.

A few minutes after that, the two weaker players left and the table suddenly became shorthanded, as just some of the tighter players remained. With me having shown nothing but garbage in the last two or three pots, I decided to call it a day as well, because I knew that the tight players would never give me credit for a real hand anymore after all this previous aggression of mine with – in their eyes – crummy cards. Now, in a short-handed game you simply cannot afford to wait on premium cards and you will have to steal a lot, but after all the events on this day, I didn't think I could get away with any thievery anymore. So, this being the only game available on this day, I decided to simply go home and do some writing instead.

Still, I was pleased with the way I had played this session, in particular in the queen-jack hand mentioned. It doesn't happen very often that you have an almost perfect read on not just one but two players, and that from there you can basically predict their actions and lure the worst hand into calling and the same hand as yours into folding. It was a bold play that's for sure, a play I might not make again in a very long time – but it sure felt good.

Borgata Poker Open - Part 1

Borgata Poker Open - Part 1
by Rolf Slotboom

Some time ago, I wrote the article series “A few misconceptions in poker” and also a separate article called “A few misconceptions in Omaha”. Today, I will discuss a few common mistakes in big-bet poker, that even relatively good and experienced players still make sometimes.

A few misconceptions in no-limit hold'em:
Just because you have a good starting hand, doesn't mean you should always make a big raise. Also, when you catch a fairly-good-but-also-rather-dangerous flop, there's no need to always raise or even continue with something like top pair / top kicker or an overpair. If you feel that you are beat, or if you're in a situation where you're a small favorite or a big dog, it might be correct to simply wait for one more safe card – or even to throw your hand away.

Quite a few people who are new to no-limit hold'em, having stepped up from limit play, think that just because they have a big starting hand, they should automatically raise. But no-limit hold'em is not like limit hold'em. While in limit you will raise with your ace-king at least seven or eight times out of ten, in no-limit there is something to be said for keeping the strength of your hand hidden in order to make a move later. Now, this is not always the best way to play your hand, but it is the way you should sometimes play in order not to become too predictable. However, quite a few people who are relatively new to big-bet play don't seem to understand this. They think that the person who wins the pot with a six-five offsuit, having called a raise from their ace-king, is simply playing badly and has just been lucky to outdraw the best hand. While this may be true sometimes, it is also possible that the person with the six-five has taken advantage of the tendencies and / or predictability of his opponent. People who think they should always raise whenever they get two big cards are playing limit style. They may raise any time when the flop gives them something like top pair / top kicker, because they are used to doing this in limit. However, people who play like this in no-limit are the bread and butter for the more experienced players, who are able to look beyond their own hand, and who are capable of making plays based on the person they are up against, who are able to lure their opponents into making the wrong decisions - call or even raise when they should have folded, fold when they should have called. This is especially true if the money is rather deep, and thus the good players got more chance to make moves or to outplay their lesser skilled opponents.

A few misconceptions in pot-limit Omaha (apply to other big-bet games as well):
When on the end everybody checks to you, and you think that you probably hold the best hand, you should often bet big to get a call out of someone who thinks you are bluffing, or else simply check it back. Don't make a small bet for value with a lot less than the nuts in order to milk your opponents for a tiny bit of extra money. You are opening yourself up for a large check-raise that you may very well have to pay off. This is because the possibility exists that your opponent may have decided to check-raise because he smelled weakness in you (possibly because of your small bet on the end). If you are not very good at analyzing whether or not this person is making a move on you, or if he has simply raised because he's got you beat, then it might be best to just check it back on the end rather than try to make a tiny bit of extra money, while risking a whole lot. It is especially important to refrain from making this type of bet when you are either up against a very good player, or against someone that you cannot read very well.

I will illustrate this with a pot-limit Omaha hand I played recently. In an unraised pot, I was in the $10 big blind with 9873, suits irrelevant, and six people saw the flop 985 rainbow. I bet out the minimum, $10 (something I do quite often; I will discuss the reasons for this in an upcoming article), and the player on my immediate left raised to $30. By the amount of his raise, he had given me a fairly good indication of the strength and also the content of his hand. Knowing his play, he would probably have raised the maximum with a straight, and with a big draw he would either have flat-called or have made a pot-sized raise. So, it seemed that he didn't have either one of these hands, put probably held a relatively weak hand: something like bottom set or two pair with maybe a little bit of straight potential as well. Anyway, one or two people called the raise, as did I.

The turn came an offsuit jack and both the small blind and me checked to the flop-raiser. He hesitated and now bet $50, once again a bet that screamed: “I am weak, but I want to look like I am strong.” He got called by the small blind and it was up to me. I was fairly certain that none of my opponents had a straight – much less the nut straight - but I also knew the caller in the middle well enough to know that he doesn't like to release his hand once he has some money invested, and therefore I judged a big check-raise to be too risky. Because my hand had quite a bit of (straight / full, both non-nut) potential and because both players are rather predictable, I decided to simply call again and let my gut feelings dictate the best possible course of action on the river. The last card was a nine, giving me a non-nut full house. The small blind checked, I checked and the person on my left now bet $100, which made the small blind fold. It was now up to me – what should I do?

Well, usually with a boat that's anything less than top full, all you have in this game is a bluff catcher, and sometimes you don't even have that – in quite a few cases, a small full house is a clear fold. Rarely if ever do I raise for value on the end with a non-nut full, and a check-raise on the end with this type of hand is even more unusual for me. However, in this case this is exactly what I did. I check-raised to $500, got called and my hand proved good. My reasoning was simple. My opponent had basically given away the content of his hand by his betting actions and especially by the betting amounts. On the flop, I gave him credit for something like 55, 98, 95 or 85, with a little extra maybe. His betting actions on the turn and also his body language clearly suggested that the jack had not helped him, and I therefore ruled out the possibility of him having top three pair. In my opinion, the most likely hands for him to hold after the turn were 55, 98 or 95 with a gutshot or even open-ended straight draw possibly. Now, when the river paired nines and my opponent now betting $100, it seemed clear that he thought he had the best hand and was betting for value. But the way the betting had gone, there was no way he could have me beat. Either he would have a smaller full house than mine, or he would have exactly the same hand. From the betting on the turn and also from his general demeanor both on the turn and river it certainly didn't look like I was up against a J9 or JJ. What's more, I knew that a check-raise by me on the river might well be perceived as an attempt to steal the pot away from my opponent, so I was pretty certain that even with a worse hand than mine my opponent might still pay me off. This indeed happened. He called me with 55xx for a smaller full, and I won a rather big pot with a fairly marginal hand. Two lessons here:

1. Always make sure that the size of your bets doesn't give away the strength and / or exact content of your hand. In big-bet play, this is very important – especially when the money is relatively deep.
   
   
   
2. On the end, don't make a small bet for value when you are opening yourself up for a large check-raise. As in this case, don't try to milk a good player for $100 when you will have to pay off -or feel that you may have to pay off- a large raise. You should either bet big to get a call out of someone who thinks you are bluffing but then release if you get raised, or you should simply check it back and show down your hand (which will more often than not be good, of course). Putting your entire stack at risk in order to milk your opponent for a small amount is not just bad mathematics – it is bad poker.

The trouble with maniacs

The trouble with maniacs
by Rolf Slotboom

A while ago, I wrote a piece called “The best seat versus a maniac”. I explained the trouble you can get into because of highly aggressive players, even – and especially – if you’re in the position that quite a few people think is best: sitting on the immediate left of the maniac (i.e., having the maniac on your immediate right). One of the big problems a good player will face in this type of situation occurs when the players behind you don’t respect you when you three-bet the maniac. Let’s say the maniac raises as the first one in, you three-bet with a hand like AQ or 99 (you would definitely reraise with these hands to isolate the maniac, wouldn’t you?), and now someone behind you cold-calls or even caps it. After the flop, you will find yourself sandwiched between a highly aggressive player who will bet with anything and someone behind you who may or may not have you beat – a not very enviable position to be in, to put it mildly. This is especially true if the flop has not helped you, but may in fact have helped your opponents.

Let’s analyze a concrete example of this type of situation and look at the betting patterns and possible thought processes before, as well as after the flop.

Before the flop

Situation
The maniac has raised in early position as the first one in. Why is he a maniac? Well, he raises something like 7 or 8 hands out of 10 before the flop, and after the flop he will usually keep driving by bluffing and semi-bluffing, yeah sometimes even by betting with the best hand. Note that I said he will usually bet after the flop, but not always. This maniac does change gears every now and then. He knows how to put pressure on people, senses weakness very well and just feels when the opposition may not be that strong (meaning that he might be able to bully them out of the pot).

Your hand
JJ.

Analysis
You have a very good hand that is almost certainly better than the raiser’s. In fact, you should probably give the raiser credit for not much more than a random hand, since he raises before the flop so frequently. In this case, you have an almost automatic three-bet. If the people behind you fold, you will be able to play heads up, in position, with a hand that is likely to be best by far.

Actions
The cutoff cold-calls behind you, the big blind calls and the maniac caps the betting. Everybody calls, and you take the flop four-handed.

After the flop

Situation
The flop comes K84 rainbow. Now the big blind bets out, and immediately gets raised by the maniac. It’s up to you. What do you do?

Analysis
This is one of the most common problems when there’s a maniac in your game. You have invested four small bets before the flop with what may very well – though not necessarily – be the best hand, and now that the flop is here your opponents are putting the pressure up. Knowing that the maniac will probably try to bully you out, the big blind bets into him, knowing he will probably raise. The blind knows that if you hold a hand like 99, TT, JJ or QQ you will have a very hard time calling, and therefore he might be betting a relatively weak hand like A8 to make you lay down the current best hand. You know that the blind might hold a hand like this, and you also know that the maniac doesn’t need to have anything in this spot. On the other hand, there is someone behind you still to be heard from (someone who has cold-called your reraise before the flop, and who might very well hold ace-king, king-queen or some other hand that has you beat). Plus, if you call – and thus show weakness – the hand may get three- and four-bet to put even more pressure on you, and if someone does have just a simple king, you will be putting in four small bets on the flop while drawing to a mere two-outer. And that is just the flop: The same type of betting sequence might occur on the turn as well, where the betting doubles. Still, if you decide to fold but indeed you were holding the best hand, this can be considered a catastrophe, the pot being so big, and your opponents willing to go all the way to the river with hands like middle pair or even ace high (in the case of the maniac).

Actions
It is hard to tell if folding, calling or reraising would be best in this situation with you holding the jacks. If you think that by reraising you might be able to make someone lay down a king then this might be your best choice, however this scenario is highly unlikely considering the amount of money in the pot, and the fact that people know you may simply be trying to isolate the bully. So, it is imperative to know your opponents here, but even then you will make the wrong decision every now and then: either folding the current best hand (i.e., the big blind holds A8, the maniac holds a random hand and the cutoff holds something like AQ), or calling or even reraising when at least one player has you beat.

Some final words

Now, this is the trouble with maniacs. If your opponents keep playing their normal game, then having one maniac in the game can be very profitable to you. You can isolate the maniac with your good hands, having good position on top of that, meaning you give your hand the best possible chance to hold up. But usually, your opponents won’t be playing their normal game. They will be waiting for the maniac to bet or raise, and will not respect your raises and reraises as much as they usually do, because they know you will try to isolate the maniac whenever you can – they know you won’t need aces or kings to do that. If you’re in this type of situation, you may well get forced into making the wrong decisions after the flop, because people know how to use the maniac’s tendencies against you. This is even more so because of your position: you will often find yourself sandwiched between the maniac who will bet into you with anything and the players behind you who are also in the hand. And with all the bets you have paid before the flop and will pay after, and with the pots being much bigger than usual, any wrong decision you will make here can be considered a terrible, or even horrible one.

Handicapping

Handicapping
by Rolf Slotboom

Recently, there's been quite a bit of discussion as to what constitutes a "good" player. Is a good player someone who challenges the very best, and then knows how to beat them? Or is a good player someone who tries to find himself in the game that gives him the biggest possible edge, i.e., someone who actively seeks to play in games where the opposition is relatively weak?

Heat on me

Over the years, I have gotten a lot of heat because I am a prime example of the people from category no. 2: the ones who actively seek to play in soft games. On more than one occasion, I have heard people make claims like "Hmm, see how one can quickly develop into a poker force, simply by beating up a bunch of 101 regulars." A few well-known players / writers, and also some people who have not achieved anything yet, claimed that since I was never at the big events, because they never saw me play in games with expert opposition, I could not be that much of a player - so why on earth would I be worth listening to? Actually, most of these critics would use much kinder words than this - but basically, this is what they meant.

Well, I have to admit: these critics of mine do have a point. In most sports, players get recognized as being the best because they are able to beat the best. Poker on the other hand - especially cash game poker - is an endeavor where professionals can select their own hours and choose any games that they wish. (If the recent developments in tournament poker will continue, we might reach the situation here as well where someone gets acknowledged as the best because he beats all the best players in his field, in events where skill is by far the most important factor and the effect of luck is being minimized. This will be even more true if there's not just going to be television involved but, just as importantly, sponsorship and guaranteed prize pools that come from other sources than the players' money. If the very best players can compete in a highly skillful event with substantial prize money coming from sponsors rather than from the players themselves, then this would be a championship in the truest sense of the word.) I for one have always paid a lot of attention to game-, table- and seat-selection in order to give myself the best possible edge, and there's no question that it has paid off well for me. It doesn't automatically make me a top player, though. It does mean that I've been able to make top money - probably much more than most of the people, and even some of the experts, who are out there to criticize me.

Some more discussion

Now, even though I don't respond to accusations and / or criticism very often, this handicapping issue seemed interesting enough for me to do just that. I claimed that even with my good game selection, even with all the handicapping that I do, I am still faced with some good or even very good players on a regular basis. In the relatively big games that I play, it simply does not happen very often that a live one will sit down to simply hand over his money to the other players. (It does happen, but unfortunately not very often.) Anyone who thinks that in pot-limit games with buy-ins of over $500 one can expect to be up against slouches only, is horribly mistaken, and obviously has no clue about the average skill level of pot-limit or high-stakes poker. Which was basically my response on one of the poker forums. I wrote: "Guys, even with all my table- and game-selection, I am still up against some of the best (European) players. Even though I make most of my money from the people who are not that tough, I still have to be able to hold my own against some very good players: there are simply no high-stakes games available with bad and mediocre players only."

Now, that's when things got really strange. A well-known limit player claimed that he had not been that impressed at all with these European pot-limit players. He came to this conclusion because when these people sat down in his (limit) game, they would almost always play poorly. Now, this would be the same as discrediting this limit player for not being able to play big-bet poker well. Just because someone plays certain structures or certain games rather poorly, doesn't mean he can't excel in other games or structures. Indirectly, this person also implied me because he had called me a "pot-limit player" on numerous occasions. This despite the fact that I have built my entire bankroll by playing limit poker.

Also, another person jumped in on the discussion, saying that if I was indeed playing regularly in the same games as some of the best European players, then my game- and table-selection must not be so good after all. But, as I said, for the stakes that I like to play there are simply no soft games available: my options are basically limited to semi-tough, tough and very tough games only. What's more, if you take this logic further, one would never qualify as a good player:

• "If you try to avoid the toughest games, you cannot be a top player, because top players should be able to beat anyone, at any time, and under any circumstances.
  
• "If you do take it up against the very best, then you do a poor job of game-selection. As we all know, part of what makes the pro the pro is that he always tries to maximize his edge. Someone who chooses to play in the toughest games against the very best players obviously flukes in this area, and thus cannot be considered a top pro.
  

Some final words

The subject of handicapping is a highly interesting one, and I still am somewhat ambivalent as to what constitutes a "good" player. Basically, my view is this: I don't think one can claim to be an expert player, if he makes his money from beating relatively weak opposition only - even if by doing this, this person is able to make expert money. But to try to discredit someone just because he's smart and sensible when it comes to picking good games, seems like taking things a bit too far. I would say: Try to learn from the experts, because they may be able to teach you things that merely good player / writers could not teach you. But you should just as well listen to the people who may be less-than-expert, but still make very good money. If I see someone who has gained tremendous success without being an actual expert, for a large part by avoiding the people who might pose a threat to him, then this is a person that I would want to listen to.

: Stereotypes and prejudice

Stereotypes and prejudice
by Rolf Slotboom

When we are playing poker, we often judge new players, or people we don't know, according to certain stereotypes. It is not just the average or even weak players who do this, but also the good players, and even the experts. We use these stereotypes when we know nothing about an opponent's play, his tendencies, his level of knowledge and / or experience, etc. Examples of this type of thinking would be:

• Female players are often fairly tight in their starting requirements. They also tend to play their hands in a rather weak and passive manner.
  
• Asian players are usually loose / aggressive, and tend to disregard things like pot odds: whenever they have a draw, they want to reach the river, almost regardless of the size of the pot.
  
• Men with tattoos and long hair, or who in other ways are explicit in the way they dress, are often explicit in the way they play as well. While this may mean they play very aggressively, it usually means they are playing extremely tight.
  
• Young and white males tend to know all the odds and percentages, put lots of emphasis on hand selection, but often lack when it comes to playing the players and having a "feel" for the game.

Now, it is important to realize that these things are generalizations mostly, and say nothing of each individual player. However, with no other knowledge to rely on, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on this type of thinking- in fact, it would be very unwise not to. Unless we have other, more reliable, characteristics we can use, it is simply a percentage play to stereotype a new player according to the group he belongs to. So, if an Asian player we have never seen enters the game, and immediately starts raising like there's no tomorrow, we would tend to rely on the stereotype / generalization thing above, rather than automatically give him credit for a big hand. At the same time, if a young woman player that's new to us puts in lots of bets early, we will usually fold all but the very best hands, because we assume she would not be raising without a very big hand. Of course, if we discover later that she doesn't fit her stereotype and likes to bet and raise with all kinds of hands, we will make the necessary strategy changes, and adjust our game to how this specific person plays, rather than how women -as a group- tend to play in general.

When do these types of generalizations cross the line, and is there a difference between stereotyping and prejudice?

What we have discussed above is how good players use general group behavior to their advantage when they encounter an unknown individual from that group. But it is important to realize that while a group in general may tend to behave in a certain pattern, this does not say anything about an individual person coming from that group. For instance, there are quite a few extremely good and highly aggressive female players around, and I have seen people coming from China and Vietnam play tighter than you can imagine. So, when you hear people say things like "Women can't play" or "Asians always lose", you should know they have crossed the line from using general stereotypes in a beneficial manner, to being prejudiced about groups as a whole. There is nothing to be gained from being prejudiced like this: it adds nothing to your knowledge of people, nor does it help improving your game. In fact, you would only be making a fool of yourself when you claim things like this- most of all, because you would be clearly wrong.

Some final words

The truth of the matter is that most good or excellent players would almost never rely on stereotypes and generalizations exclusively when it comes to judging a new player's game. Usually, they will tend to "know" how this player plays by the way he talks, the way he handles his chips, his level of intensity and a dozen of other things. Hardly ever will good players base their decisions on generalizations and stereotypes only. More often, they will use individual player characteristics (does the player look at the action when he's not involved, did he come in right after the button and if not, why not, does he seem familiar with the game and the betting patterns, what does his general body language tell you: is he here to gamble or not?) in combination with the general characteristics of the group that he's part of- like for example when a young and white male who looks like a computer wizard enters the game. The good players will combine these two types of information, to make the best possible analysis -which would be nothing more than an educated guess- about the way this person probably plays. Those of you who don't use all this general and individual information when making adjustments to the new player's probable style of play, will be missing out on an excellent opportunity to improve your game- and maximize your earns.

Take care, you guys, and good luck.

The truth about hitting and running

The truth about hitting and running
by Rolf Slotboom

In this column, I have written quite a lot about hit-and-run follies, about the silliness of quitting the game when you've won, say, one or two buy-ins. There are quite a few players who regularly hit-and-run, and who believe they are doing the right thing. For the professional player, the concept of quitting while you're ahead doesn't make much sense, though. It doesn't matter if you play now, or quit and come back the next day, because it's all one session anyway. In fact, you might cost yourself money by leaving early, because for every hour at the table you figure to get paid: the more hours, the more money. Deciding factors in whether or not to continue playing should be:

1. Is the game still as good as it was before?
   
2. Are you still mentally and physically able to play your A-game? which adds up to;
   
3. Do you still have positive expectation?
   

Most hit-and-runners have a very high percentage of winning sessions, but an hourly rate that's a lot less spectacular. This is because they might have nine (relatively small) wins in a row, only to lose back all of their winnings on day # 10. Then, they simply cannot quit the game anymore simply because they're stuck, even though at this point they are by no means favorites to beat the game. (This might be because they are playing a lot worse than usual, because they are playing against good or even excellent players, or because game conditions are unfavorable- for instance, when the rake is simply too high for the type of game they are in).

Having said all this, I get accused of hitting-and-running myself quite often. When I scoop a big pot in my regular pot-limit Omaha game, it is not unusual to hear some of my fellow players make comments like: "OK, so you did it again. See you tomorrow. Seat open!", fully expecting me to leave the game soon. Just a few days ago, when there was no pot-limit game available and I chose to play in a juicy $10-20 hold'em game, I got lucky by winning two medium sized pots in only one hour of play. I was up maybe $200 when to my dismay, a few of the weaker players decided to leave the game to get some sleep. When there were just five players left, I decided to quit the game as well, because it was a raked game (making short-handed play unattractive), because it was unlikely the game would fill up again, and because the people who had stayed were all playing fairly decent.

In short: I figured my edge in this game would be small- if there was any edge for me at all. It was when I picked up my chips, that the gentleman on my left -a very nice and friendly player, someone who is almost never out of line- said to me: "Ace, I thought you were different. But you are just another hit-and-run player. I saw you do it a few days ago, and I see you do it now. In my casino, we ban players like that." I was surprised when he said that- not just because he had always been so nice to me in the past, but also because of the silliness of his statement. I know not a single regular hit-and-runner who is more than only a marginal winner in poker- not one of the top professionals I know thinks this system is of much use. If I were a regular hit-and-runner, I would never have been able to make as much money as I have. Also, that $200 I won on this particular night may have been a decent win for only one hour of play, it is nothing to become thrilled about for me: on a normal night, in my regular pot-limit game, I figure to do a lot better than that. But more than this, why wouldn't anyone like to play against people who hit-and-run? You never lose big against them, because whenever they have scooped a nice pot, they are out of there. But when they are most likely to be playing badly (when they are stuck, trying to get their money back) they simply cannot leave- even though their future expectation may have become negative, rather than positive. Thus: when they are likely to be playing well and are winning, they leave and when they are down, stuck or steaming they keep on playing- now why on earth would you ban players like that? The truth about hit-and-run is this:

Hit-and-run in limit poker.

In limit poker, hitting-and-running is simply a silly concept. When you are in a good game, playing well and are a favorite to beat the game, there's no reason to leave no matter how much you're winning or losing. In limit poker, the winning player gets paid by the hour- the more hours, the more money. Hitting-and-running will be beneficial to your percentage of winning sessions, but not to your hourly rate and certainly not to the total amount of money you will have won at the end of the year. That is all there is to it: when you have an edge, you play- when you don't, you don't. Now what could be simpler than that?

Hit-and-run in pot-limit poker.

In pot-limit poker, there is something more to consider, though. In pot-limit, the size of your stack in relation to the blinds and to the size of your opponents' stacks is very important. Because you may lose your entire stack on one hand, having a big stack may be a reason for you to leave- especially when there are dangerous, aggressive and / or experienced pot-limit players on your left, who are playing a big stack also. In pot-limit, it is important to be aware of your abilities, but of your limitations as well. A lot of players -myself included- are much better playing a short or medium stack than playing a big stack. Now if you think the danger of you losing your stack is quite high, and you might therefore be not so much of a favorite in this game anymore, then you should simply quit and come back the next day. Leaving with a win here wouldn't be the same as hitting-and-running though, even though your opponents will judge it as such. Also, it is a frequent occurrence in pot-limit that whenever I win a big pot one or two opponents are busted because of this. When they decide to leave and better players take their seats, or the game becomes short-handed, then I often quit and call it a day. But once again, this has got nothing to do with hit-and-run. Any player that quits the game simply because he's up a certain amount cannot be a good player, if you ask me. Despite everything you think you see or notice, hit-and-run players are not doing the right thing- and they certainly are not long-term winners JUST BECAUSE OF THIS STRATEGY. In my opinion, that's all there is so say about hitting-and-running; there's simply nothing more to it.

Take care, you guys, and good luck.

Choosing the best seat versus a maniac

Choosing the best seat versus a maniac
by Rolf Slotboom

A lot has been written about some of the difficult situations you will encounter when there's an extremely aggressive player, a maniac, at your table. Most poker writers have claimed you should try to sit to his immediate left, so you will be in position to isolate him. That is: when he raises before the flop, you can re-raise with your good hands to shut out the entire field and play heads up, in position with a hand that figures to be best. In my opinion, choosing this seat is not necessarily the best way to neutralize the maniac's power. In fact, I think that for quite a few games the advice given might even be dead wrong. I would contend that in some cases the seat to the maniac's immediate left might be the absolute worst seat at the table. (Note that I said in some cases, not in all cases). In this article, I will take a closer look at some of the problems you will face, sitting on the maniac's immediate left.

The best seat in pot-limit Omaha.

In pot-limit poker, one of the most important considerations in choosing your seat is the size of your, and your opponents', stack. If you are playing a small stack, then the best seat is almost always the one on the maniac's immediate RIGHT. You will be able to create some monster pots by either limp/re-raising before the flop or by check-raising after the flop. Because you can almost always count on him to do the betting for you, you have basically given yourself last position. You can let the actions from not just the maniac, but from the other players in the middle as well, dictate your best course of action (fold / call / raise). Had you been sitting on the seat that is recommended by a lot of writers (on his immediate left), you would indeed have been able to isolate him on a few occasions. By re-raising pot you would have been able to shut out the others and have the maniac all to yourself, while having position on him. There are a few problems with this strategy, however:

• By re-raising, you will usually be able to get only 20 to 40 percent of your stack in before the flop (depending on the size of the blinds and your exact stack size). Therefore, the maniac can put a lot of pressure on you later in the hand; when it looks like the flop hasn't helped you, but might have helped him. He may semi-bluff you out of the pot or make you pay off when he does have the goods.
  
• The advantage of a good hand over an average hand is not as big in Omaha as in hold'em, for example. It's pretty easy for someone to beat aces or kings when holding a random hand, especially a no-pair random hand, and this is exactly the type of hand the maniac might be holding.
  
• If you re-raise the maniac with an excellent hand like KKQJ (you would definitely re-raise with this hand, wouldn't you?) and someone behind you comes over the top, you are almost certainly facing aces. If the maniac chooses to fold, you will have to call an extra 60 to 80 percent of your stack with a hand that is very good, but a big dog heads up against aces. (For the exact match-ups of aces vs. either kings, high cards or medium rundowns, see my article "Defending against aces"). Had you been on the maniac's right, you would have been able to let go off your kings without it costing you too much, or you would have been able to see the flop rather cheaply in a multiway pot (which is desirable in the situation described here, because if you hit the flop you figure to have a nut hand, and you don't mind being up against a lot of opponents).
  
• The hands you do win by isolating the maniac will not be that big- you will either double up your small stack or lose. In pot-limit Omaha, it is possible to do a lot better than that. You can easily turn your $200 minimum buy-in into $700 or $800 if you try to maximize your winnings by sitting on the maniac's immediate RIGHT. (For more on the exact strategies required when playing a short or medium stack, see my article "Pot-limit game conditions"). Of course, after you have tripled your initial buy-in you have to change seats immediately- you don't want to play a medium or big stack with the maniac having position on you. But if you are playing a small stack sitting to his left and your strategy works (i.e. you isolate the maniac and double up through him) then your stack is still relatively small- and you still face the same problems you had before you doubled up.
  

The best seat in limit hold'em.

Of course I know that most poker literature is aimed at limit hold'em, and that the advice given (sitting on the maniac's immediate left) is meant for that game and not necessarily for pot-limit Omaha as well. However, even in limit hold'em I usually try to avoid the seat to the maniac's immediate left, for the following reasons:

• In the games I play in, most of my opponents tend to adjust their play to special circumstances fairly quickly. If they see me sitting to the maniac's immediate left, they know I will try to isolate him with any decent-looking hand; they know I won't need aces or kings to three-bet before the flop in this situation. If someone is sitting behind me with a relatively marginal hand like AQ (which he would fold for three bets under normal circumstances), he will probably not fold now- in fact, he might even cap it at four bets (and if he doesn't, the maniac might). What happens now, is you are sandwiched between a highly aggressive player who will bet after the flop with anything, and a serious player behind you who has shown strength- now, this is not an enviable situation to be in.
  
• Most players know that if there's a maniac in your game, you should tighten up considerably, simply because it will be more expensive than usual to see a flop. (This is common knowledge, and I generally agree with this reasoning). Now, if you are sitting on his immediate left, you will be seeing even less flops than that, exactly because of the seat you have chosen. When you have a hand that looks good enough to play, you will usually three-bet to shut the others out and to give your hand the best chance to hold up unimproved (hands like AQ or 88 come to mind). However, if you get any action behind you after you have three-bet with hands like these, you are in deep trouble. In fact, you will have paid three or four bets with a hand that clearly has negative EV for this situation: the player behind you almost certainly holds a better hand than you do. This doesn't mean that your three-bet was wrong; based on the information you had, it seemed like a reasonable play (your hand was quite likely to be best on this given deal). However, this does not change the fact that you have now paid three or four small bets for a hand that may barely be worth one, and in the long run your hourly rate will suffer. But flat-calling with the hands I mentioned is no option, either. If you get any callers behind you, you are in the same (bad) situation as described above: sandwiched between a highly aggressive player who will bet with anything, and players behind you who may or may not have received help from the flop.
  
• In limit hold'em, the expert player is able to make or save money because of the information he gets from his opponents' betting actions. If serious players have raised or re-raised when the action gets to him, he will almost certainly pass a hand like AQ, while this same AQ might have been a calling or raising hand for him under different circumstances. When sitting on the maniac's immediate left, you will not have a lot of information to rely on. Had you taken the seat I usually recommend for limit hold'em (three or four seats to the maniac's left, preferably with some weak callers in the middle), you would have had more information available to you in making your decisions. Also, you will have this information on exactly the type of hands where you need it most (pocket pairs, suited connectors), in the position where you are most likely to play them (the last four positions). By choosing the seat I recommend, you will have neutralized the maniac's power to a large degree, while still having position on him on the hands that count most (on or near the button). Now, because of the actions of the players in the middle, you will know whether you have the right odds to play your ten-nine suited, and if your pair of sixes might be profitable or not. Sitting on the maniac's immediate left, you would have had no other choice but to fold these, potentially profitable, hands.
  
• The other people in the game will certainly adjust their play because of the maniac's presence. Almost all players, even the ones that aren't usually very imaginative, will try to check-raise the maniac on the regular basis, and by doing this they will be bagging you as well. Therefore, isolating the maniac after the flop will not be easy either. If everybody checks to the maniac who bets, you are once again in the middle. You will have to fold a lot of your marginal hands that may in fact be good, simply because you don't know if the checks by the other players mean "I have nothing" or "I am waiting to trap the bully".
  
• Not only will you play very few hands, the pots you win will also be relatively small. On top of that, you are risking three or four bets instead of the usual one or two. Unless you are fortunate enough to pick up kings or aces, you will also lose a rather high percentage of the hands you three-bet against the maniac, simply because he receives help from the flop and you don't (or when he does have a better hand than you. The fact that he raises so often, doesn't mean he cannot hold aces or kings now- even a maniac is entitled to his fair share of premium hands, just like any other player). There's a lot of luck involved in hold'em once the flop comes and while it's not easy for him to outdraw aces, it is not that difficult with some of the other hands you might three-bet with (AK, AQ, AJs, KQs for example). Also, if the maniac raises and you three-bet, he knows the type of hand you are holding, but you know nothing about his hand. If the flop comes AKQ, he will definitely fold to your bet if he has nothing, but what do you do, having three-bet with AK, when three small cards flop and he comes out betting? Remember, there is hardly a maniac who is highly aggressive before the flop, but timid after. Most likely the maniac will put a lot of pressure on you when the flop is unlikely to have helped you. By playing like this, you will of course make money when you have him beat, but he will also force you to lay down the best hand every now and then, and he will often get paid off generously when he has a real hand.
  

Some final words.

What all these points illustrate, is that the seat to the maniac's immediate left isn't necessarily the best or most profitable one. I know that equally valid points can be made in favor of this seat, and I think that in some cases (especially when your opponents respect your re-raises and fold all but the very best hands) choosing this seat will be profitable for you. However, in quite a few of the games I have played in, the problems associated with this specific seat outweigh its benefits by far, and I guess that in your game they might too. Therefore, I suggest you take a closer look at the exact type of game you're in, at the tendencies of your opponents, the atmosphere at the table, and in pot-limit games at the amount of money at the table as well. You should take all these factors into consideration when choosing your seat and then use this seat as a starting point to a) neutralize the power of the maniac and b) to exploit his weaknesses.
Take care, you guys, and good luck.