Poker’s ONE thing

Posted on by
Reply

Good news is we live in a world where information is vast and fast. Bad news is we live in a world where information is vast and fast. Jokes aside, we love the access but we hate being overwhelmed by it. This is why we put such a high premium on concepts akin to “prioritization”, “efficiency” and “concentration”. It is only natural to want to extract the pure essence or the “big picture” of the chaos that is the world around us. No piece of information can resonate with us and ultimately scale, if it is not rooted in something very simple. This fundamental core idea is the Holy Grail we seek when we are searching through the endless stream of noise and trying to make sense of it all. Fortunately, this is not a fool’s errand. Even the most complicated structures are built with very simple building blocks and even the most complex organisms were single cells at some point. Similarly, even the most complicated concepts have rather simple – although potentially very deep – roots.  In their best-seller book “the ONE thing[DP1] ” real estate entrepreneurs Gary W. Keller and Jay Papasan are discussing exactly that: how focusing on the most important aspect of every project can improve productivity and scale.

The concept of the idea is hard to “grasp”

The idea of the idea

This concept is not new. It goes all the way back to Plato who was the first to coin the term “idea” to describe the common essence of a subject matter which may be technically different to individuals but it bears similarities among them. This commonality is exactly what bridges the gap between the different experiences and makes communication possible. The classic example is the word “dog”. Everyone likely has a different mental image of what this word means, but the truth of the matter is that we likely agree on certain characteristics that permeate all these images. These include but are not limited to: four legs, barking, moving tails, voracious appetite, a certain cuteness etc. This idealistic abstraction of an otherwise highly varied concept is what is now known as a Platonic Form[DP2] .

We may now take it for granted, but Plato revolutionized the way we think, or more accurately, the way we understand thinking and transfer information between individuals. This is why, when we often describe a concept in a few words, we may also begin with something among the lines of: The basic idea of X is […] or end with something like: […] and that’s the main idea behind X. What makes this remarkable is that coming up with the concept of the “idea” is an idea in itself. Essentially, Plato had the idea of the idea, or the first meta-idea. In essence, he was able to abstractify the concept of abstraction itself which is very impressive, especially once we take into account that there was no word for it at the time!   

It’s all about brief but big ideas

Digging a big deeper, we start to realize that a certain simplicity of the core essence of an otherwise complicated subject matter seems to be a necessary (although not sufficient) condition of success. We already saw that Plato[DP3] ’s big idea was the invention of the idea itself, but he was not alone. His teacher Socrates[DP4]  based almost his entire philosophy on the grounds of a certain “innate ignorance” (something that I would call meta-humility) which allowed him to constantly probe with deeper and deeper questions to eventually expose the gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the world. Plato’s student Aristotle[DP5] , on the other hand, was always keen on identifying patterns by sampling the environment around him, an approach that earned him the title of the grandfather of the scientific method. The point is that, nuance aside, the lifetime achievements of these great men can be meaningfully summarized in basically one sentence.

Aristotle, the grandfather of the scientific method

It does not end there. Leonardo Da Vinci [DP6] was driven by a remarkable curiosity about the mechanics of the physical world, as well as an unquenched thirst for worldly beauty, both of which were evident in his artistic work. An innovator of extraordinary caliber, Da Vinci was able to infuse engineering into his artwork, producing a nearly animated representation of reality in ways that had never been done before. Isaac Newton[DP7]  based a lot of his work on simple principles such as: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction (his 3rd law of motion) or the idea that both time and space can be similarly continuously divisible, something which resolved Zeno’s paradox of motion[DP8]  and led to the invention of calculus. Albert Einstein[DP9]  had the simple and yet incredibly profound idea that gravity is not a force but rather a distortion (“curvature”) of the fabric of space-time, which was based on the even more astonishing idea that neither space nor time are uniform and their properties change depending on the matter/energy interacting with them as well as the conditions of the observer. Charles Darwin[DP10] , formed his entire theory of evolution on the elementary principles of common ancestry and natural selection, namely the fact that nature favors adaptation. Pablo Picasso[DP11]  was famous for his reductive approach where he would paint the same painting over and over, each time removing non-essential attributes. It was as if he was trying to paint Plato’s idealistic Forms. Incidentally, one of the common misconceptions about Picasso was that he was unable to draw in a “regular” way, so he came up with his “weird” methods to justify his artistic existence. This could not be further from the truth. He was very much capable of ultra-realistic drawings (as evidenced from his earlier work[DP12] ); he just chose not to do it.

Mona Lisa, Da Vinci’s Magna Opus and a significant artistic inspiration

Modern Nuggets

The list is endless and we need to get to poker, but the reader may indulge me with a few more examples from our modern society. If we look at some of the world’s most successful CEOs we will notice a similar pattern. Take for example Warren Buffet [DP13] (Berkshire Hathaway), Bill Gates[DP14]  (Microsoft), Jeff Bezos[DP15]  (Amazon), Elon Musk[DP16]  (Tesla, SpaceX) or Jensen Huang[DP17]  (Nvidia). We can list some of their basic ideas in less than a paragraph. Invest and hold for decades in things you understand. Build a platform, where all software can be created, instead of wasting time on individual software. Customers are always the number #1 priority. Energy efficiency and space exploration are paramount. We should focus on software that builds software (aka. artificial intelligence), thus effectively automating the process of automation itself!

Not all simple ideas are worth-pursuing!

Of course, it would be disingenuous to say that the visions above are all that these men ever employed in their careers, or that they never had poor or controversial ideas. It would also be equally misleading to assert that all simple ideas are worthwhile. Let’s not forget that some of the biggest atrocities humanity has participated in such as genocides, slavery and nearly every form of war (holy, civil, colonial etc) are all based in elementary, yet terrible, ideas. This is why simplicity is a necessary yet not sufficient condition for success. 

Bottom line

What any of this has to do with poker? The point of this long introduction is to convey the idea that behind complex structures and lifetime achievements one can always uncover SIMPLE nugget-like ideas. By “simple”, I mean they can be described succinctly, not that they are shallow or easy to implement. They are incredibly important, because they require very little mental bandwidth when we need to recall, consult and generally refer to them to steer us in the right direction. Since poker certainly qualifies as a complex structure, it would be natural to look for poker’s one deep core idea.

Poker’s ONE idea: Control the hand!

What is then poker’s big main idea? First, let’s make sure we understand what is not. It is certainly not the answer to how we play any particular hand. This vaguely describes what we want, but it is far too complex to be usable. We can go more abstract and say it is maybe all about attacking or defending equities (ie shares of the pot), since poker has a lot to do with getting more than one’s fair share and forcing opponents to do the opposite. This is certainly progress as it provides us with a more concrete vision of where to look. The problem is this idea does not provide us with the how to do it. To get the “how”, we need to dig deeper. We need to find a way to do it in a way that our opponents won’t, at least not instinctively. We need a bifurcating concept that would clearly separate ourselves from the rest of the field, thus allowing for a skill differential to emerge and ultimately profitability. This “differentiator” is the act of being in control of the hand. If a player like Alex controls the hand (whatever that means at this point), then by definition her opponents (for example Bobbie) do not, which is exactly the bifurcation we were looking for. What is left, is to understand what this means and why it can lead to profitability. Once we do, we will have a clear road map to the elusive how we can employ this strategy

Poker’s fundamental asymmetry: Bet > Call

What does it mean to control the hand? Simply put, it means to be the one responsible for when and how much money goes in the middle. This could allow someone like Alex to manipulate the action of the hand in her favor. For example, she may elect to build a larger pot when she likely has the best holding or keep the pot small when she doesn’t. It could also allow her to take calculated risks with timely bluffs when she is unlikely to have the best holding but Bobbie is also unlikely to withstand some heat. And so on. If this sounds a bit too good to be true, it is because we haven’t yet explored the most important asymmetry of the game.

I am talking about the innate difference and ultimately superiority of the action of betting versus that of calling. In a vacuum and when all else are being equal, Alex wants to be the one who betsversus the one who calls. This is because there are some very subtle yet incredibly important differences between the two.

The reader familiar with my work will recall that I have talked extensively about the subject in my book[DP18]  as well in several articles online (see for example: here[DP19] ). I will happily again summarize the nuances briefly. Essentially, it comes down to two properties. The first one is that there are two ways Alex can win by betting against Bobbie: either by making him fold and win the pot outright, or by getting called and end up having the best hand in showdown anyway. On the other hand, there is only one way Bobbie can win by calling and this is by ultimately making the best hand. In other words, a call cannot generate any fold equity[DP20] .

The second difference is that a bet dilutes an opponent’s range[DP21]  faster and thus making hand reading easier. The idea is that when Alex is choosing between checking and betting, her holdings are divided into two buckets (namely the checking bucket and the calling bucket). In contrast when Bobbie is facing a bet, he now has three choices, namely to fold, call or raise, so his holdings are now distributed into more buckets thus effectively reducing the number of hands per bucket. In other words, Bobbie’s range can be more efficiently narrowed down that way. These subtle but noticeable differences between a bet and a call are what I like to refer to as: Poker’s Fundamental Asymmetry. Poker players articulate this dichotomy eloquently by calling ‘bets’ aggressive actions, while they reserve the term passive for ‘calls’. This is very good evidence for the presence of an asymmetry.

Of course, this is largely a simplified birds-eye-view explanation to convey the basic idea that – in the long run – a bet is innately better action than a call. This does not mean that calls do not have their uses, but it means that one needs to be cognizant of the fact they are employing a lesser strategy when calling, so they should better have a very good reason for it. We will get back to this later.

For now, we should point out that controlling the hand means more than just prioritizing betting over calling. It literally means being the player who dictates the action at the table. Aggression (ie prioritizing betting over calling) is just a first step in that direction.

Typical Controlling Actions

What are some ways one can control the hand? We can start with something like the following non- exhaustive list and build from there:

  • Choose betting/raising over calling
  • Use the Trifecta preflop (Position, Initiative and Card Advantage)
  • Be the first to go all-in
  • Check to get a free card in Position

Let’s look a bit closer. We already examined the first option thoroughly. The second approach simply refers to the fundamental idea of using Position (ie. acting Last postflop) and Card Selection (ie “patience”) in order to place ourselves more favorably against the opponent by having more information and better holdings than them in a vacuum. Subtly, it also suggests using Initiative which technically means to be the last aggressor before the flop. Alex loves that idea because it generally means that opponents will check to her on the flop and even on later streets. This is the epitome of what it means to be in control of the hand!

Going down the list we see that in all-in situations (something very relevant in push/fold[DP22]  scenarios during the later stages of a tournament) being the first to go all-in generates control. Similar to the superiority of a bet versus a call, the pusher can win the hand in two different ways (by generating folds or in showdown) while the caller is forced to get lucky and win at showdown. Lastly, it may be sometimes prudent for Alex to check and get a free card in position. This may seem like she’s waving the white flag (and she very well may) but by the time she does that the majority of the damage has already been done. The archetypical example is when Alex bets on the flop, gets called by Bobbie, and then check back on the turn. That way she gets to see all 5 cards and she can realize her hands full equity. Sure, Bobbie may read into this and bet the river but Alex can now play nearly perfectly based on whether she hit her hand or not.

Being in control, often means making big folds

Go big or go home

The astute reader may be wondering: Why is controlling the hand even possible? To answer the question properly we need to look at several layers of abstraction. For starters, the game is no longer symmetrical (see “fair”, as in an “edge” is now possible) the moment we have the aforementioned bifurcation of approaches. On the one side of the spectrum we have someone like Alex who likes to prioritize controlling actions and the seizing of control. On the other side, we have players like Bobbie who are largely indifferent towards them, electing to have a more passive/responsive role. This dichotomy gets further stretched by the fact that players like Alex have the tendency to quickly get out of the way early in those pots where they realize they are not going to have control over. (Weaker players can have good hands too, so “forcing control” indiscriminately would be ill-advised). This is what I like to call the go big or go home mentality. Alex either maintains control all the way by continually applying (controlled) pressure or she typically gets out of the way early when this is no longer possible. There are some exceptions to that of course, but they are exactly that, exceptions.

The Gordian Knot conundrum: Bet or Guess!

We can go deeper than that. To understand the power of controlling the hand, let us ask ourselves, what happens when we are not in control? What would Alex do if she is not in control of the betting? The honest answer is she should have to play the guessing game. This is because she would no longer be able to generate folds so she would need to correctly assess how often she can win the hand instead.

This is best illustrated via the following simplified example. Say the pot is $100 and the bet is $50 (the rest of the details are irrelevant for this exact point). Since the Bettor is risking 1 unit to win 2 units they would break even if the Caller calls at a 2-1 ratio. In other words the Bettor would break even the moment the Caller folds 33% of the time or more. In most cases, this is a very low and achievable frequency. In all likelihood the Bettor will make money on Caller’s folds alone (ie on Fold Equity) and then essentially free-roll their competition when called. This is a luxury the Caller does not share! From the Caller’s perspective all they see is that they would be risking 1 unit ($50) to win 3 units ($100+$50) and thus they will have to make an assessment whether or not they think they can at least win 25% of the time to break even. This is harder than it sounds, especially if the Caller is sitting with an unpaired hand. Imagine for example we are the Caller with a hand like KQ on an A52 board facing a bet. Unless our opponent has an Ace, we have a decent chance of winning the hand (and that includes the cases where they have a low pair, which would mean that our 6 outs give us a borderline breakeven equity of ~25%). So do they have the Ace or do they not? Who knows? The point is however that this is certainly not a question the Bettor has to worry about, since they get most of their profit from Caller’s folds anyway!

We can conclude that, as the Bettor, Alex was somewhat indifferent to how Bobbie reacts, because unless Bobbie raises her (something the Bobbies of the world typically do not do very often) she can still win the hand whether he calls or not. As the Caller however, things are much more complex because now she has to decide whether or not she wants to fight back or not. This is akin to the Gordian Knot[DP23]  problem, where Alexander the Great[DP24]  famously elected to cut the very intricate Knot of Gordium, instead of tediously untying it. The moral of the story is that without a sword/boldness on his side, Alexander would be forced to untie the Knot the hard way. Similarly, without betting on her side, Alex would have to solve the riddle of the hand by guessing correctly.

Alexander the Great, cutting the Gordian Knot

Maniacs: When controlling the hand goes too far!

Let’s take this abstraction one step further still. What happens when someone tries to take the betting control away from Alex? The answer would depend on how they intend to do it. Are they going to do it the wrong way or the right way? The easy (but wrong) way would be for Bobbie to abuse aggression and employ a suboptimal high frequency of bets and raises. This is what poker players affectionately call, a “maniac[DP25] ”. By definition, this means that now Bobbie is in control of the betting and thus the hand. However, in the process of doing so he sacrificed something very sacred to poker players: unpredictability. Using our previous metaphor, by betting too frequently Bobbie made the Knot too easy to untie! This means that although Alex has no longer control over the hand and although this would typically mean that she has to play the guessing game, the truth of the matter is there is not much guessing necessary. If Bobbie bets indiscriminately with good and bad hands alike, Alex would be a favorite to call him down until showdown with a good hand, as the likelihood of Bob making a very strong hand is really low. Incidentally, this is a very common misconception among beginning players as highlighted by their inability to adjust to maniacs. Just because one can never truly know if a maniac has a hand or not (they would bet both after all), it does not mean all hope is lost, since one can still play the odds! Making a hand in poker is rare, so someone who bets ALL the time is bound to NOT have a hand the majority of the time.

Fighting back for control the right way.

Now let’s address the elephant in the room by asking the obvious question: What happens if Bobbie tries to take the control of the hand from Alex the right way? That is by employing a carefully crafted loose aggressive strategy with a good balance of bluffs, value-bets and everything in between. Unfortunately, there is not much Alex could do in that situation other than perhaps attempting to do it better than Bob or decide to change tables if she cannot.

The astute reader may now realize that the success or failure of controlling the hand depends on what the opponents will do. In other words, an opponent can voluntarily elect to deem our strategy moot by refusing to comply. This is exactly right! Poker rules are fair, which means if all players were to play perfectly there would be no edge to be had. In other words, we cannot control how other opponents play, we can only control how we do and hopefully we do so in a way that maximizes the chances of their mistakes, while minimizing the chances of ours. Said in yet another way, poker success is highly relative and depends on the skill differential between Alex and Bobbie. Without a skill differential there is no profit to be made. This is why for example, any professional would make a very strong case for game selection[DP26] . It may not be important for Alex to be one of the best players in the world to be profitable, but it is absolutely paramount to be one of the best players at her table! Fortunately, this is still very much possible since not everyone elects to prioritize profitability over having fun. As a matter of fact the exact opposite is true, as most players play the game to have a good time before anything else, which inevitably means that they will have to make “sacrifices” on the profitability end of things. 

Exploitative versus Optimal Strategies

To wrap this up, it may be worth saying a few words about poker’s eternal debate, namely exploitative[DP27]  versus optimal[DP28]  play. Fortunately, this comparison is irrelevant here, as both approaches will “fight” for the same end result, namely, the control of the hand. The main difference is that an exploitative approach will go for maximal control at the risk of losing that control if the opponents can re-adjust and counter-exploit, while an optimal approach will play it “safe” and settle/hedge for a lesser piece of the “control pie” while ensuring that this piece is not at any risk, irrespective of how the opponents react. Another difference is that a solver will handle the tough spots (ie the “guessing spots”) much better than a regular human would. Besides that, both approaches have the same goal, namely to be as close to dictating the action as possible. In other words, the concept of controlling the hand is universal among all strategies. This is exactly why it is poker’s most fundamental concept.

With that in mind, if you were to boil it down to one quintessential question, next time you feel lost in the middle of a complicated hand, it would be the following: Are you in control of the hand?

REFERENCES:

 [DP1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Thing_(book)

 [DP2]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/

 [DP3]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

 [DP4]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/

 [DP5]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/

 [DP6]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leonardo-da-Vinci

 [DP7]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton/

 [DP8]https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ParMot

 [DP9]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein

 [DP10]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Darwin

 [DP11]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pablo-Picasso

 [DP12]https://www.pablo-ruiz-picasso.net/period-first.php

 [DP13]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

 [DP14]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

 [DP15]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos

 [DP16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

 [DP17]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jensen_Huang

 [DP18]https://dandbpoker.com/products/why-alex-beats-bobbie-at-poker?_pos=1&_sid=5038c0be4&_ss=r

 [DP19]https://upswingpoker.com/study-poker-and-win/

 [DP20]Fold Equity is simply poker lingo for the value created from the folds caused by a bet.

 [DP21]A poker range is a players possible hands in any given situation.

 [DP22]A push/fold situation in tournament poker, arises when a player has a short enough stack that their only viable options before the flop is to either fold or go all-in.

 [DP23]https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gordian-knot

 [DP24]https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great

 [DP25]A maniac is a player who typically bets/raises in almost all hands and all streets.

 [DP26]Game Selection is the practice of choosing games/tables where one things has the edge over the rest of the field.

 [DP27]An exploitative strategy is a strategy that allows the hero to maximally capitalize on opponents’ mistakes (‘exploit’) at the risk of allowing the opponents to re-adjust, effectively nullifying all of hero’s profits and counter-exploiting them back.

 [DP28]A game theory optimal (GTO) strategy is one that secures a lesser profit than the exploitative strategy but without the risks of leaving one open to re-adjustment and counter-exploitation by the opponents.

You are less unlucky than you think!

Posted on by
Reply

One of the most popular complaint that I hear (even from good players) is how “unlucky” they are. Clearly, we can’t all be unlucky, because – by the definition of luck – for every one person who gets unlucky, somebody else needs to get lucky!

So where does the misconception lie?

For starters, people tend to ignore all the instances that went in their favor and remember only those that didn’t. This is also known as selective memory. Things get even worse, when they assume that they deserve to win the hand every time they are ahead.

A classic example is AA vs KK when the money goes all-in before the flop. If AA wins then the person who held them, usually has no idea how lucky they got! “But what are you talking about Duncan, aren’t you supposed to win with AA vs KK?”. No you are not! Not the entire pot anyway. You only deserve to win 82% of the pot, which literally means that you get 18% lucky every time you scoop it! This is more than what the best investors make in a year. If this is not luck, I don’t know what it.

Also, the thing with poker (and with any other game that involves even the slightest amount of luck), is that things can go against your way for longer than you think. To put things in perspective let’s compute some quick odds of some “unlikely” events:

1) First let’s examine two instances of trips versus a straight draw on the flop: For each instance you are about a 70% favorite to win the hand and thus you are a 30% underdog to lose it (this is higher than most people would think btw). What is even more interesting, is that the chance of us losing both hands is 0.30 * 0.30 = 0.09 = 9% which is again more than most people would think!

2) Similarly, if you had an overpair to the flop and your opponent has a lower overpair, your chances of losing is about 10% which again is not insignificant!

My point here is that you will lose more than you think and that you need to play a lot (and correct!) for the “long run”to prevail.

Another thing that I want to point out – which is a bit more subtle – is that the better the competition the worse your odds! By that I mean that when the money goes in, you should always be concerned!. What do I mean by that?

Let’s take the instance where we made trips for example. Let’s also say that we play it aggressively to the point that all the money eventually goes in. Against a weak opponent, this can mean that they are drawing pretty “thin” (meaning that our opponent has low chances to win the hand). But against a good opponent, this will rarely be the case, as they will not only have a better hand than us a huge percentage of the time (!) but even when they don’t – they will make sure that they at least have a ton of outs and thus a huge chance to beat us even if they are behind!

This in not much different than the “theorem of relativity” for poker. The stronger action we are facing the more the value of our hand drops.

And one last thing: One of the most frustrating factors of the game is of course the luck factor. Especially when we get the money in with the best of it, only to see our opponent catching on the turn and/or the river. But this is the ONLY WAY we can make money in this game. That’s because bad players will give us action regardless of how bad they are. Poker is the only game where you can learn the rules one day and then sit with the world champion and beat them the same day. That cannot happen in chess. But that’s also the reason why you don’t see amateurs challenging Magnus Carlsen for hundreds of thousands of dollars like they would Phil Ivey or any other poker pro.

 

Is limping Ever Good? (Q & A)

Posted on by
Reply
Q: I’ve gotten myself in more trouble being the aggressor OOP than I should. Is OOP aggression overrated? Should I start limping instead? 
   
A: It’s not aggression OOP which is overrated but rather playing OOP which is overrated. In other words, folding is very often the correct move even if you have seemingly decent hands like KJo or JTs.
   
And before we start digging any deeper let me mention something else first. Raising OOP is much harder to play than limping OOP, that’s for sure. Still if you play correctly it is more profitable than limping. (That of course assumes that Raising is better than Folding to begin with).
Q: What happens if I have AJ or AQ and then I miss the flop? Wouldn’t it better had I just limped? 
 
A: No. Missing the flop OOP is pretty tough and requires some elegant maneuvering on your part in order to maximize your value but WITHOUT going too far. That’s not easy and it comes down to the concept of using the aggression correctly. But this is not a reason to limp. It’s a reason to play better post flop.
  
This is where your hand-reading skills as well as your understanding of the board textures become invaluable. For example, say that you hold AJo and you deem your opponent somewhat fit-or-fold. Then the board comes Q62r (r = rainbow). That’s a very easy “single-stab-and-then-give-up” cbet. That’s because, if your read is right, that particular villain will only call with a decent pair (say A6 or 77+) or better. This means that if we get called we shut down immediately unless we improve. Conversely, if he never calls unless he has a pair, it means that he folds a ton of hands to our cbet which makes the latter very profitable, all by itself. (Let’s call this Hand #1)
  
Now change the above texture to QT7hh (h = heart, hh=two hearts etc) and all of a sudden you can CHECK. Yes you read this right. I said “check”. Reason being, this board is scary not just for you but also for him. And if he is fit or fold then he’s probably NOT betting all those hands that we beat (like A8o or 56s for example). On top of that he’s probably not betting weak show down value hands either (AT, 88-99 etc). Heck, he may not even bet his draws here. This of course means that if he bets we are very happy to fold because we are likely beat (and we saved a cbet), This also gives us a great chance to see a turn (while keeping the pot relatively small) and potentially make a delayed cbet since we know now that his range is weak. If on the other hand we bet that flop, all his weak SD (SD = showdown) hands will call us and now we have to play two more streets OOP with a speculative hand.  (Let’s call this Hand #2)
Q: I’ve been limping a little from early position lately wth playable hands…like KJ or SC. Is that bad? 
  
A: Have you considered flat out folding these hands? The problem with speculative hands (especially suited connectors) is that you REALLY need the initiative and position to be profitable with them. Otherwise you are just buying your cheap lottery ticket (aka ‘limp’) and then you wait to hit a big hand (not a draw mind you – that’s not going to be enough without having control of the pot). But how is that different than what everyone else is already doing at the table?
  
Speaking of which, if you instead open-fold you essentially reject the offer for the “lottery ticket” which immediately puts you ahead of the curve.
Q: How about a low pair like 22-66?
  
A: This is the only group of hands you can maybe limp with. Problem is, after a while it becomes too transparent (it’s usually not advisable to take a line based on private information – in this case the strength of your hand – rather than public information like your position or your stack size).
Q: What if I have a hand like KJ, I raise from OOP and get reraised? I can’t call now, can I?
  
A: We need to look at the big picture here:
  
1) First of all, from Early Position we shouldn’t have too many hands that fold to a reraise. That’s why open-folding a hand like KJo or even KQo (we reduce the size of the “raise-and-then-fold-to-a-reraise” hands)
  
2) Secondly, they will not reraise us all that often. And the value of our raise should have been realized already from:
  
 – All the times everyone folds and we pick up the blinds
 – All the times only the blinds call, and so we have position on them.
 – All the times we take it down with a cbet
 – All the times we transform our initiative into value (for example in hand #2 above, they check their AT hand after we miss a cbet – because we showed aggression preflop – and then we hit our gutshot on the turn)
  
3) If we get reraised we should be HAPPY to fold because we are certain we are beat. But if we limp and then we call a raise, we have no idea how far behind we could be. (Imagine for example, that we hold KQ and we limp and then call a raise. Then a K comes and we reluctantly check/call 2-3 streets only to lose to AA)
Q: But if I raise and then get reraised I have to fold. I am now down a raise and I have no chance to catch bc I’m out. If I limp and get raised, I can either call (and I’m in for just a raise…same as if I raised wth no 3-bet) or I can fold and only I’m out a blind.
  
A:You are correct if you limp and you get raised you are screwed either way!
  
– If you call, then you might as well have raised yourself (so you at least have the initiative and all the other perks I described above)
– If you fold then you might as well have folded to begin with, to save your blind.
  
That’s why limping is so bad and it is widely considered to be one of the major “sins” of poker. Raising or folding are usually much better. (Again, let’s not forget folding. Playing OOP sucks so you might as well fold a ton!)
Q: If I am the raiser from oop and the flop comes with a bad texture but I miss it, should I feel compelled to cbet?
  
A: You shouldn’t be. Just because you have the initiative, it doesn’t mean you have to utilize it right away (or at all). This is what I meant above when I said that using your aggression correctly is hard. So you can check a decent amount here.
Q: Let’s say that I decided to cbet anyway. Maybe that cbet will work, but let’s say it won’t because I’m up against someone who is willing to play his position and see the turn. Now I’m stuck being the aggressor in a decent pot that I’m totally invested in.
  
A: You are not really “invested” in anything. The money in the pot is not really yours anymore and you play to maximize your profit from that point onward. This means that even if you decided to cbet the flop, you can still give up on the turn if you objectively think that this is the most profitable line (i.e. you cut your losses short, because every other action would lose you even more money!)
  
And that’s the key. Let’s go back to hand #1 where you had AJo and the flop was Q62o. You cbet that flop knowing very well that your opponent will fold a good 50%+ of the time. That’s your profit right there! If he folds that much, then it really doesn’t matter what happens on the turn. So if we do this experiment 1000 times and he folds 500 times and calls 500 times, you could even insta-fold when he calls (without even seeing the turn) and you would still be making money!
Q:  Ok, let’s say the turn gives me 2nd pair and a gutter, it’s gonna be hard to fold right? 
  
A: Hard and Correct are two different things. We are not in this business to make the easy choices. We are in this business to make the correct choices. So if you poker analysis tells you, that you should fold, then you should fold even if you hold the 2nd nuts! Again, it all comes down to how difficult it is to use our aggression correctly. But once you learn how to not “fall in love” with your hand, it’s not as hard anymore.
In closing, a wise man once said: “I don’t care about defending by blinds, I care about defending my button instead“. This principle is applicable to all other bad positions like the early and the middle ones. So you shouldn’t worry too much about getting involved there (just fold but very strong hands). Instead, you should concentrate on maximizing value from the BTN and the CO.

Running it twice

Posted on by
Reply
The concept of “running it twice” is well known especially among the high-rollers. The concept is simple: Say two people are ALL-IN on the flop. Now, instead of “running” the turn and the river once, to determine a single winner, they run them twice. And each time the winner gets half the pot. Similarly, they can run them 4 times, each time for a quarter of the pot.
I am often asked the question if “running it twice” affects your odds of success. Especially, if the same deck is used and the cards are not reshuffled (which is usually the case). The answer is of course: It doesn’t! The only thing it does, is reducing your overall variance while maintaining your Expected Value (EV) intact. In other words, by “running it twice” (or more times) not only you will make the same amount of money in the long run, but also your bankroll will fluctuate less.
But WHY is it that our EV stays intact? Well let’s look at a simplified example, where we have a Flush Draw (FD) with only 8 cards left in the deck, only 2 of which will complete our draw.
The assumptions:
  1. Hero has a spade draw on the flop and he will win if and only if he hits his FD
  2. The deck has only 8 cards, 2 of which are spades.
Question 1: What are the chances of Hero winning the hand? 
 
Probably the easiest way to compute this is by computing the 3 disjoint winning scenarios for Hero. Namely:
  • He hits the turn and misses the river: (2/8)*(6/7) = 0.214 or 21.4%
  • He misses the turn but hits the river: (6/8)*(2/7) = 0.214 or 21.4% (no surprise there: We switched the “2” with the “6”, plus the two scenarios are symmetrical)
  • He hits both turn and river: (2/8)*(1/7) = 0.036 or 3.6%
Total chance of winning the hand is: 21.4 + 21.4 + 3.6 = 46.4% (not too shabby! – This result is skewed from the typical
FD because 9/44 is closer to 1/5 than to 1/4 – but who cares? :-D)
Question 2: What happens if we run the entire deck? (a total of 4 runs)
 
Well, since there are 2 spades there are two cases:
  • Case 1: Hero wins 2 out of the 4 runs, or 50% of the pot (if the spades are spread)
  • Case 2: Hero wins 1 out of the 4 runs, or 25% of the pot (if both spades come in a single run)
Final Question: What is the EV of hero if we run it 4 times?
 
In order to answer this we need to know how frequently each case happens.
It is easier to compute the frequency of the second case. The chance is simply 4 times 3.6% = 14.4%, where 3.6 is the chance of hitting both turn and river. (This is because, the chance of hitting it on the first run is the same as hitting it on any other run)
Therefore, we have that case 2 happens 14.4% (which nets Hero 0.25 of the pot) while case 1 happens the remaining 85.6% of the time (which nets Hero 0.5 of the pot). Now a simple EV calc shows that:
EV(hero, run it 4 times) = 0.856*(0.5) + 0.144(0.25) = 0.464 = 46.4% which is EXACTLY what we found above!
Conclusion: Hero’s and Villain’s EV ware not affected by the multiple runs!
————————————-
A few things to notice:
  1. Hero runs below EV only 14.4% of the time but his realized losses are huge (46.4 – 25 = 21.4%)
  2. Hero runs above EV a whooping 85.6% of the time but his realized gains are tiny (50 – 46.4 = 3.6%) (This is where a lot of people think that when they have a draw, they should run it twice. They think that because  they have a higher chance to chop the pot, they are golden. They don’t realize how much value they lose, when they don’t. As a matter of fact, if anything they help villain who now has nothing to lose – see next point)
  3. This is essentially a risk-free situation for villain who in reality they CAN never lose more than half the pot. Sure they do sacrifice a bit of EV the majority of the time (85.6%), but they get to keep 3/4 of the pot once in a while (14.4%) making a huge profit! And all that, without having to risk a single penny!
  4. The above point also shows the benefits of running-it-multiple-times in the form of reduced variance and consistent earnings. In other words, villain is perfectly hedged!

 

Playing Suited Connectors from the Blinds

Posted on by
Reply

This is an interesting hand played by Bruno. My comments are in Italics. Bruno holds J♦T♦

—————————————————————————————-

Preflop – Very loose call, but the original raiser was a 39/30 VPIP/PFR (i.e. he gets involved in the pot 39% of the time, 30% of which is with a raise). The CO who called was a fish, playing 75% of hands. I felt like it was a good multiway hand, so I called.

Given your read, that’s fine, although in the long run, 3bet squeezing is probably way better, and here’s why:

1) MP is loose and thus he has a lot of junk in his range (so we have decent Fold Equity (FE) preflop)

2) If MP folds, the fish will likely follow suit

3) Our hand plays exceptionally well in 3b pots because it flops really well (much better than a hand like TT or JJ for example. The key here, is that even when behind, we can apply pressure on favorable boards (and we can get a ton of these favorable boards with this hand)

4) Without the initiative, we often need to make a hand (not just flop a draw) to be profitable and that’s really hard

All in all, I like a raise to something like $0.35.  

Flop – He bets less than half. I have top pair, very likely to be ahead, no need to raise.

Sure, check calling here is fine, since we keep all of his bluffs in. Also, if we raise here, the problem is that if he doesn’t fold, we are not very happy (which essentially means that we are somewhat turning our hand into a bluff):

  • If he calls he probably has a better jack or a straight draw
  • If he raises he almost definitely beats our hand unless he again has a straight draw

And since there are not that many reasonable straight draws (QTs , T8s and maybe KQ are the only ones that make sense), we should probably just call instead, like you did. 

I take the same line as yours.

Turn – Half pot again. I dont see a need to raise, since I fold all worst hands. I have enough equity to continue tho, since if I’m behind I have 15 likely outs (and I might even be ahead here).

You are correct again.

By betting again, villain’s range becomes significantly stronger, so we should be worried about him having (at least) a better Jack or an overpair. We still beat a few draws and bluffs of his, but we are behind more often that not. And since we have a ton of outs (15) we can stay in the pot by just calling.  

I take the same line as yours.

River – Slight overbet shove. This guy is very loose, but I feel like my river call was a mistake. This card doesn’t improve anything thats behind of me OTT, and he suddely showed more strength. I just have a hard time folding broadway 2 card flushes.

You should never fold in that spot. Not only villain could be easily bluffing overcards or value-betting with overpairs, but your range is weak and very underepped. So that’s an easy call.

As a matter of fact, I prefer you shoving instead, to get value from all Jx, and overpairs. I expect him to check back a lot on that river, since you already called twice, so you seem likely to have some sort of a strong pair.

I like going all-in here. 

———————————————–

What do you guys think of this hand? Feel free to leave your comments below!

How to play monsters Out Of Position

Posted on by
Reply

Question 1: I get 77 in the bb, Hi-Jack (HJ) bets 25, me and small blind only callers. Flop comes 762 rainbow. Me and sb check to the raiser (this seemed like a good board to check top set oop). HJ cbets 55 (into a $70 pot), sb calls and I just call with my monster. Should I raise instead?

Answer:

YES, I like a RAISE here for many reasons:

1) Both players showed interest in the pot, so one of them may have something

2) If the original raiser, was just cbetting (with a plan to slow down on the turn) and we don’t raise the flop then there is a good chance that the turn will be checked around even if the sb has a good hand. And we obviously don’t want that.

 3) There are a lot of turn/river cards that would kill our action later, even if the opponents are happy to stay in the pot now. For example, if one of the villains has an overpair or a 7x type of hand, then now is the time to get the money in, or they ll slow down later.

4) The board is not that wet (it’s low and rainbow) but it’s not that dry either. There are still some draws available (namely 45, 89, T9 etc) from which we want to get some value.

5) We are OOP! This seems our main topic of discussion as of late, but it really sucks to play OOP, even when we have a set! And that’s why. Here it’s because it is tough to get our hand’s full worth (sb is facing the same problem and that’s why they were forced to shove into the raiser when they hit their draw – I like their line on the turn, although they should have folder pre). So we need to check raise, take back the initiative, control the pot and thus minimize our positional disadvantage.

If we had position on both of them and they somehow bet into us, then it’s ok to flat with a top set sometimes, but as is, we don’t have much choice other than raising and hoping they ll make a mistake. OOP sucks whether we flop good or bad. Let’s never forget that!

Question 2: Turn comes a 5, with two diamonds on the board now. Sb shoves for $300 into a $225 pot. Should I call? 

Answer: ABSOLUTELY!

We beat so many hands they are doing this with, it’s not even funny: Worse sets, two pair, combo draws, hands like 88 and the list goes on.

And if they just happen to have one of the very few hands that we were losing to (like 89 for example), we have outs.

Also, even though their line looks strong we should not regret our decision, even if they end up showing us the nuts! Using the skyscraper metaphor, it’s like we sit on the 98th floor and they so happen to be on the 100th. Tough luck, but we never fold. This is what is called a “cooler” in poker.