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:
- 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.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment