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.
zondag 3 juni 2007
The Truth About Tells
By Daniel Negreanu.
I’m going to let you in on a little secret here. If you believe that watching for a twitchy eye or a flared nostril is what poker is all about — you’re quite wrong. Many poker players (mainly those who are new to the game) are preoccupied with the notion that bluffing and the ability to discover tells are what it’s all about.
I often hear someone say something like, “Oh, I could never be a good poker player. I have a terrible poker face.” Or, “I wouldn’t be very good at poker. I just can’t tell a lie, so I wouldn’t be able to bluff with a straight face.”
Well, if you believe that, this column should be a pleasant awakening. While it is important to avoid giving away too much information with your body language, it’s nowhere near as important as learning the fundamentals of the game. In fact, I would bet that a world-class player could beat a low-limit game even if he told his opponents what he had on the turn every single time! Of course, that would work only if his opponents didn’t always believe him, but I think you get the idea.
So, what is it, then? What is it that separates average and good players from the great ones? Well, obviously, tell recognition would be one factor, but it’s simply not the most significant. The answer is: hand-reading ability; the ability to process information that you’ve gathered from your opponent in the current hand and in past hands, and to use that information to narrow down your opponent’s holdings. Picking up on your opponents’ betting patterns and understanding what they are and aren’t capable of doing, makes this much easier. So, when you hear people talk about “reading people,” what it really comes down to is reading into your opponent’s mind what he is thinking at the moment, and trying to figure out how he would play various situations. It’s not about noticing that when Al has a flush draw, he eats an Oreo cookie without opening it up first, but when he has top pair, he licks out all the cream first. That would be one heck of a tell, but obvious tells like that are pretty much reserved for the movies. However, some pros would like you to believe that their biggest strength is their ability to “see through your soul”; that is, knowing what your holecards are just by looking at you. This might be true in cases in which players have exaggerated tells, but for the most part, a great player makes his read based on the actual betting that took place, not the facial tics.
Now, I shouldn’t be telling you this, but I will anyway. It’s simply a scare tactic used by many pros to make you feel uncomfortable. Think about it: When you make a bet (whether it’s a bluff or not) and your opponent throws his hand in immediately, or even calls immediately, is it intimidating? No, not really. Well, what if he takes extra time? He stares you down. He cuts his chips out to make it look like he wants to raise, and so on. Now, that might make you sweat a little bit, especially if you are indeed bluffing! If it doesn’t make you sweat, it at least might make you uncomfortable having a guy stare at you for so long. It’s all a ploy, as simple as that.
Most often, a player knows exactly what he’s going to do within five seconds. You’ll see it on the World Poker Tour telecasts quite often, thanks to the hidden cameras. There was a hand at the World Poker Open tournament in which Dave “Devilfish” Ulliot made a play with the 5diamonds 2diamonds. The player he had raised moved all in, and David went into the tank (meaning he took a substantial amount of time pondering whether or not to call the bet)! Why did he do this? After all, he is an experienced pro, and knew full well that he wasn’t going to call the all-in raise, so why waste all that time?
Well, there are a couple of possible answers to that question. He may have just wanted to save face in order to conceal the fact that he was raising with a trash hand, or, more likely, he was trying to make his opponent sweat a little bit. He wanted to make him nervous, and put him through three minutes of torment before finally releasing his hand. Many players in this situation would be so relieved that it’s finally over that they subconsciously might think to themselves, “Hmm, I better think twice about making any moves against that guy in the future.”
Well, that’s just what the Devilfish wanted from him. He wanted to scare him. He wanted him to think that if he ever tried to bluff him, he would have to deal with a full five-minute stare-down. That’s more than the average guy wants to deal with at the table, so many of them will begin playing in a straightforward manner from that point on — thus making it even easier on our pro to control the table.
Don’t be paranoid of or obsessed with tells. That’s not where your focus should lie. I remember a few years ago something that I thought was rather cute. There were a few aspiring pros in a $10-$20 game at the Mirage one night. They looked fresh and ready to play. For several hours I watched them. Their eyes were constantly fixated on the player who was next to act. They gave each and every player the stare-down — on every street, whether they were in the hand or not! I thought it was quite funny, actually. They were so obsessed with trying to figure out what people’s tells were that they completely neglected what was actually going on in the hands — who bet, who raised, and so on. Instead of watching the action of the game and studying betting patterns, they spent all of their time trying to figure out if Grandma Betty actually had a nervous twitch, and whether or not her twitch revealed something about her holecards! They clearly had a lot of passion and energy for the game, but they were wasting all of that energy exercising the wrong muscles.
I’m going to let you in on a little secret here. If you believe that watching for a twitchy eye or a flared nostril is what poker is all about — you’re quite wrong. Many poker players (mainly those who are new to the game) are preoccupied with the notion that bluffing and the ability to discover tells are what it’s all about.
I often hear someone say something like, “Oh, I could never be a good poker player. I have a terrible poker face.” Or, “I wouldn’t be very good at poker. I just can’t tell a lie, so I wouldn’t be able to bluff with a straight face.”
Well, if you believe that, this column should be a pleasant awakening. While it is important to avoid giving away too much information with your body language, it’s nowhere near as important as learning the fundamentals of the game. In fact, I would bet that a world-class player could beat a low-limit game even if he told his opponents what he had on the turn every single time! Of course, that would work only if his opponents didn’t always believe him, but I think you get the idea.
So, what is it, then? What is it that separates average and good players from the great ones? Well, obviously, tell recognition would be one factor, but it’s simply not the most significant. The answer is: hand-reading ability; the ability to process information that you’ve gathered from your opponent in the current hand and in past hands, and to use that information to narrow down your opponent’s holdings. Picking up on your opponents’ betting patterns and understanding what they are and aren’t capable of doing, makes this much easier. So, when you hear people talk about “reading people,” what it really comes down to is reading into your opponent’s mind what he is thinking at the moment, and trying to figure out how he would play various situations. It’s not about noticing that when Al has a flush draw, he eats an Oreo cookie without opening it up first, but when he has top pair, he licks out all the cream first. That would be one heck of a tell, but obvious tells like that are pretty much reserved for the movies. However, some pros would like you to believe that their biggest strength is their ability to “see through your soul”; that is, knowing what your holecards are just by looking at you. This might be true in cases in which players have exaggerated tells, but for the most part, a great player makes his read based on the actual betting that took place, not the facial tics.
Now, I shouldn’t be telling you this, but I will anyway. It’s simply a scare tactic used by many pros to make you feel uncomfortable. Think about it: When you make a bet (whether it’s a bluff or not) and your opponent throws his hand in immediately, or even calls immediately, is it intimidating? No, not really. Well, what if he takes extra time? He stares you down. He cuts his chips out to make it look like he wants to raise, and so on. Now, that might make you sweat a little bit, especially if you are indeed bluffing! If it doesn’t make you sweat, it at least might make you uncomfortable having a guy stare at you for so long. It’s all a ploy, as simple as that.
Most often, a player knows exactly what he’s going to do within five seconds. You’ll see it on the World Poker Tour telecasts quite often, thanks to the hidden cameras. There was a hand at the World Poker Open tournament in which Dave “Devilfish” Ulliot made a play with the 5diamonds 2diamonds. The player he had raised moved all in, and David went into the tank (meaning he took a substantial amount of time pondering whether or not to call the bet)! Why did he do this? After all, he is an experienced pro, and knew full well that he wasn’t going to call the all-in raise, so why waste all that time?
Well, there are a couple of possible answers to that question. He may have just wanted to save face in order to conceal the fact that he was raising with a trash hand, or, more likely, he was trying to make his opponent sweat a little bit. He wanted to make him nervous, and put him through three minutes of torment before finally releasing his hand. Many players in this situation would be so relieved that it’s finally over that they subconsciously might think to themselves, “Hmm, I better think twice about making any moves against that guy in the future.”
Well, that’s just what the Devilfish wanted from him. He wanted to scare him. He wanted him to think that if he ever tried to bluff him, he would have to deal with a full five-minute stare-down. That’s more than the average guy wants to deal with at the table, so many of them will begin playing in a straightforward manner from that point on — thus making it even easier on our pro to control the table.
Don’t be paranoid of or obsessed with tells. That’s not where your focus should lie. I remember a few years ago something that I thought was rather cute. There were a few aspiring pros in a $10-$20 game at the Mirage one night. They looked fresh and ready to play. For several hours I watched them. Their eyes were constantly fixated on the player who was next to act. They gave each and every player the stare-down — on every street, whether they were in the hand or not! I thought it was quite funny, actually. They were so obsessed with trying to figure out what people’s tells were that they completely neglected what was actually going on in the hands — who bet, who raised, and so on. Instead of watching the action of the game and studying betting patterns, they spent all of their time trying to figure out if Grandma Betty actually had a nervous twitch, and whether or not her twitch revealed something about her holecards! They clearly had a lot of passion and energy for the game, but they were wasting all of that energy exercising the wrong muscles.
When To Call And When To Bet - Finally, Some Powerful Answers
By Mike Caro
"Somebody's got to keep him honest," Tom said, calling the bet. The next player to act raised. The original bettor reraised. And poor Tom folded.
"Betting is more a matter of feel than science," Dick explained to me years ago in Gardena. I had folded before the draw. He had drawn two cards to queens with an ace kicker and made aces up. I knew this for a fact, because he showed me. Because he didn't want other players around us to hear, his voice was low and conspiratorial. He immediately was raised by a pleasant 97-year-old woman in a frayed pantsuit - well, maybe not 97, but close enough. He called reluctantly, and lost. Poor Dick.
We were playing hold'em and young Harry said, "I'm going to fold. You've been bluffing too many times. I think this time you've got it." He threw his cards away proudly. The man he was addressing then said, "You shoulda called me, son," turning over a jack high with a smirk. He had missed a straight. Poor Harry.
I'm not singling those three players out for ridicule. Sometimes it seems as though these same mistakes are made by practically every Tom, Dick, and Harry you meet at the poker table. And because these mistakes are so common, I think we should examine them today.
Tom's Mistake
How many times have you heard that "Gotta keep 'em honest" line? Well, there's a bit of truth in it, because if you never call with questionably strong hands, your opponent can bluff whenever he chooses and will beat your brains out. Now, I tend to be a guy who thinks getting your brains beat out is bad poker, so I advocate calling sometimes to "keep 'em honest." But when?
The simple answer is that you should call whenever you calculate that if you made the same call in the same situation a million times, you would show an overall profit. That sounds obvious to experienced players, but it's important that beginners grasp the concept. You don't much care about whether you're going to make money by calling right now. In fact, most of the time, you'll lose money by calling. And that's how it should be, because - at least in limit poker - the rewards of winning the pot are always much greater than the cost of the call. Therefore, you're risking much less by calling than the reward you'll receive if you win. That means you can call and lose lots of times for every rare time you call and win - and you'll still make money.
Catch a Bluff and Lose
So, sure, keep 'em honest at the river. You don't want to be bluffed very often in limit poker. But the weaker your hand, the less likely you should be to try to catch a bluff. There comes a point where your hand is so weak that you can catch an opponent bluffing and lose. And, of course, if your hand is relatively strong, but not strong enough to catch most "legitimate" bets, you might unexpectedly beat opponents who are too exuberant in their value betting. So, even when you think you're trying to catch a bluff, the stronger your hand is, the more likely you are to win.
This is even more important when you're in a situation like Tom's. Tom made the mistake of trying to catch a bluff without considering how many players remained to act behind him. One of the simple techniques I teach is to decide in advance when you're the cop and when you're not the cop. You're the cop - and in a position to keep opponents "honest" - when you're heads up or when you're last to act and nobody has called. Hey, when nobody else calls, we're all counting on you! Otherwise, we don't get to see if the bettor is bluffing, and that can drive us crazy, right? But even if you're in the last position and everyone else has passed, you still shouldn't call all the time, and the stronger your hand is, the more likely you should be to call. Everyone knows that, but did you know that you often need a stronger hand to call in the last position after everyone has passed than you would if you were heads up?
How come? It's because most opponents are less likely to bluff into many opponents than they are just one opponent. Not only is this how most opponents play, they are correct in playing this way. Yes, the pot is usually bigger when there are more players. That means there's more to win by bluffing and more to win by calling. But the success rate for a bluff is greatly reduced against many opponents. What happens in practice is that potential callers at the river, when there are many of them, do not adequately take into account how significantly overcalls diminish the value of a call. This lack of correct handicapping is true whether it applies to the original call or the overcall.
You Must Call Most of the Time
As I've explained before, if a single player would call only 50 percent of the time, it's always a good idea to bluff. The pot is likely to be five times the size of the bet. So, if you lose your bet half the time and win the pot half the time, your profit is enormous. You lose $100 on one failed bluff; you win $500 on another bluff that works. That's $400 profit on two attempts, or an average gain of $200 on a $100 bet - a 300 percent return on investment or a 200 percent gain. It's what skilled players live for.
But what if there are two opponents who can call? What if they are oblivious to the fact that they should be more careful with their calls when there are several opponents in the pot? What if they continue to call half the time? Now, half the time that the bluffer survives the first opponent, he loses because the second opponent calls. That comes out to only a 25 percent chance of success - still enough to merit a bet, especially since the pot he's shooting at is likely to be larger with more players. What if there are four potential callers? Then, there's only a 6.25 percent chance (50 percent times 50 percent times 50 percent times 50 percent) that the bluff will succeed against opponents who won't adapt. The odds are then 15-to-1 against success, and the bluff is unprofitable unless the pot is at least 15 times as large as the wager. And it gets worse if there are more players.
Also, it gets worse because most opponents call more than half the time. When heads up, they better, otherwise they're likely to get bluffed out of their bankrolls. Another important point about overcalling is that it takes a much stronger hand to justify an overcall than a call itself. Suppose the pot is $100. If you're the last caller and it costs $10, you're getting 10-to-1 odds, and you'll break even by winning just one out of 11 times. But if there's already been a call and you're the overcaller, you're facing a $110 pot while getting 11-to-1 odds. Unfortunately, if you think you have only the same chance of winning as the first caller, you're going to win the pot only half the time that you beat the original bettor. That means the pot that you're going after is theoretically only half as large - $55. So, you're investing $10 to win $55. You need to have a hand that's strong enough to beat the bettor one out of 6.5 times to break even.
Trust me, there's a lot of difference between a hand that will win once in 11 times and one that will win once in 6.5 times. The lesson learned: You need a hand that is much stronger to overcall than to call, even though the pot is bigger when you overcall
Here's another factor: Players don't correctly adjust to the additional strength that's required to overcall. Therefore, you need to be more cautious than you theoretically should be when you make that first call with players waiting to act behind you. This was Tom's mistake. It might have been better had he raised with his medium-strong hand to prevent calls behind him. This is a powerful tactic that you should occasionally choose when you think there's a reasonable chance that you're facing a bluff and several opponents could overcall with mediocre hands if you merely call.
Dick's Mistake
Dick's mistake was thinking that you should just bet at whim - whenever you feel like it. In fact, there is great science that governs when you should bet and when you shouldn't. Here are just four of dozens of major factors that guide you wisely toward the right decision:
* Oftentimes you shouldn't bet a strong hand if your opponent bluffs too much. You'll sometimes make more money by checking and letting him try to bluff when he holds a weak hand.
* The more liberally your opponent calls, the more medium-strong hands you should bet for value.
* If a player is threatening to call, you should bet all medium-strong hands. When you see this, the player is trying to prevent your bet. That means he's weak and looking for a cheap showdown, but will often call reluctantly if you bet.
* You should not bet medium-strong hands into very tight players. You won't get called by weak hands that you can beat, and are only likely to lose when you get called.
Harry's Mistake
Harry's mistake is very common. He thinks opponents randomize correctly, and that if they've been bluffing a lot, you can "time" them and figure they're not bluffing this time. Sure, there's a good chance that the player will have a strong hand this time, but that's usually so regardless of previous actions. Players who bluff too much are always profitable to call unless you have a specific reason, usually a tell, to believe they almost certainly aren't bluffing right now.
My advice: When you hold questionable hands against opponents who have bet and who bluff too much historically, keep calling. When you hold questionable hands against opponents who have bet and who don't bluff often enough historically, keep folding. Don't try to time your opponents
So, we've learned:
1. An overcall must be done with a much stronger hand than a call.
2. A first call must be done with a stronger hand than you'd theoretically consider calling with if opponents waiting to act behind you are oblivious of point No. 1 above.
3. A first call should indicate more strength than a call with nobody to act behind you, assuming the pots are the same size.
4. In practice, it's less profitable to bluff two players than one player, and even less profitable to bluff three or more players. All attempts to bluff four or more players, throughout the history of poker, have been massively unprofitable, on average.
5. Sometimes it's better to raise than call with a medium-strong hand with players yet to act behind you.
"Somebody's got to keep him honest," Tom said, calling the bet. The next player to act raised. The original bettor reraised. And poor Tom folded.
"Betting is more a matter of feel than science," Dick explained to me years ago in Gardena. I had folded before the draw. He had drawn two cards to queens with an ace kicker and made aces up. I knew this for a fact, because he showed me. Because he didn't want other players around us to hear, his voice was low and conspiratorial. He immediately was raised by a pleasant 97-year-old woman in a frayed pantsuit - well, maybe not 97, but close enough. He called reluctantly, and lost. Poor Dick.
We were playing hold'em and young Harry said, "I'm going to fold. You've been bluffing too many times. I think this time you've got it." He threw his cards away proudly. The man he was addressing then said, "You shoulda called me, son," turning over a jack high with a smirk. He had missed a straight. Poor Harry.
I'm not singling those three players out for ridicule. Sometimes it seems as though these same mistakes are made by practically every Tom, Dick, and Harry you meet at the poker table. And because these mistakes are so common, I think we should examine them today.
Tom's Mistake
How many times have you heard that "Gotta keep 'em honest" line? Well, there's a bit of truth in it, because if you never call with questionably strong hands, your opponent can bluff whenever he chooses and will beat your brains out. Now, I tend to be a guy who thinks getting your brains beat out is bad poker, so I advocate calling sometimes to "keep 'em honest." But when?
The simple answer is that you should call whenever you calculate that if you made the same call in the same situation a million times, you would show an overall profit. That sounds obvious to experienced players, but it's important that beginners grasp the concept. You don't much care about whether you're going to make money by calling right now. In fact, most of the time, you'll lose money by calling. And that's how it should be, because - at least in limit poker - the rewards of winning the pot are always much greater than the cost of the call. Therefore, you're risking much less by calling than the reward you'll receive if you win. That means you can call and lose lots of times for every rare time you call and win - and you'll still make money.
Catch a Bluff and Lose
So, sure, keep 'em honest at the river. You don't want to be bluffed very often in limit poker. But the weaker your hand, the less likely you should be to try to catch a bluff. There comes a point where your hand is so weak that you can catch an opponent bluffing and lose. And, of course, if your hand is relatively strong, but not strong enough to catch most "legitimate" bets, you might unexpectedly beat opponents who are too exuberant in their value betting. So, even when you think you're trying to catch a bluff, the stronger your hand is, the more likely you are to win.
This is even more important when you're in a situation like Tom's. Tom made the mistake of trying to catch a bluff without considering how many players remained to act behind him. One of the simple techniques I teach is to decide in advance when you're the cop and when you're not the cop. You're the cop - and in a position to keep opponents "honest" - when you're heads up or when you're last to act and nobody has called. Hey, when nobody else calls, we're all counting on you! Otherwise, we don't get to see if the bettor is bluffing, and that can drive us crazy, right? But even if you're in the last position and everyone else has passed, you still shouldn't call all the time, and the stronger your hand is, the more likely you should be to call. Everyone knows that, but did you know that you often need a stronger hand to call in the last position after everyone has passed than you would if you were heads up?
How come? It's because most opponents are less likely to bluff into many opponents than they are just one opponent. Not only is this how most opponents play, they are correct in playing this way. Yes, the pot is usually bigger when there are more players. That means there's more to win by bluffing and more to win by calling. But the success rate for a bluff is greatly reduced against many opponents. What happens in practice is that potential callers at the river, when there are many of them, do not adequately take into account how significantly overcalls diminish the value of a call. This lack of correct handicapping is true whether it applies to the original call or the overcall.
You Must Call Most of the Time
As I've explained before, if a single player would call only 50 percent of the time, it's always a good idea to bluff. The pot is likely to be five times the size of the bet. So, if you lose your bet half the time and win the pot half the time, your profit is enormous. You lose $100 on one failed bluff; you win $500 on another bluff that works. That's $400 profit on two attempts, or an average gain of $200 on a $100 bet - a 300 percent return on investment or a 200 percent gain. It's what skilled players live for.
But what if there are two opponents who can call? What if they are oblivious to the fact that they should be more careful with their calls when there are several opponents in the pot? What if they continue to call half the time? Now, half the time that the bluffer survives the first opponent, he loses because the second opponent calls. That comes out to only a 25 percent chance of success - still enough to merit a bet, especially since the pot he's shooting at is likely to be larger with more players. What if there are four potential callers? Then, there's only a 6.25 percent chance (50 percent times 50 percent times 50 percent times 50 percent) that the bluff will succeed against opponents who won't adapt. The odds are then 15-to-1 against success, and the bluff is unprofitable unless the pot is at least 15 times as large as the wager. And it gets worse if there are more players.
Also, it gets worse because most opponents call more than half the time. When heads up, they better, otherwise they're likely to get bluffed out of their bankrolls. Another important point about overcalling is that it takes a much stronger hand to justify an overcall than a call itself. Suppose the pot is $100. If you're the last caller and it costs $10, you're getting 10-to-1 odds, and you'll break even by winning just one out of 11 times. But if there's already been a call and you're the overcaller, you're facing a $110 pot while getting 11-to-1 odds. Unfortunately, if you think you have only the same chance of winning as the first caller, you're going to win the pot only half the time that you beat the original bettor. That means the pot that you're going after is theoretically only half as large - $55. So, you're investing $10 to win $55. You need to have a hand that's strong enough to beat the bettor one out of 6.5 times to break even.
Trust me, there's a lot of difference between a hand that will win once in 11 times and one that will win once in 6.5 times. The lesson learned: You need a hand that is much stronger to overcall than to call, even though the pot is bigger when you overcall
Here's another factor: Players don't correctly adjust to the additional strength that's required to overcall. Therefore, you need to be more cautious than you theoretically should be when you make that first call with players waiting to act behind you. This was Tom's mistake. It might have been better had he raised with his medium-strong hand to prevent calls behind him. This is a powerful tactic that you should occasionally choose when you think there's a reasonable chance that you're facing a bluff and several opponents could overcall with mediocre hands if you merely call.
Dick's Mistake
Dick's mistake was thinking that you should just bet at whim - whenever you feel like it. In fact, there is great science that governs when you should bet and when you shouldn't. Here are just four of dozens of major factors that guide you wisely toward the right decision:
* Oftentimes you shouldn't bet a strong hand if your opponent bluffs too much. You'll sometimes make more money by checking and letting him try to bluff when he holds a weak hand.
* The more liberally your opponent calls, the more medium-strong hands you should bet for value.
* If a player is threatening to call, you should bet all medium-strong hands. When you see this, the player is trying to prevent your bet. That means he's weak and looking for a cheap showdown, but will often call reluctantly if you bet.
* You should not bet medium-strong hands into very tight players. You won't get called by weak hands that you can beat, and are only likely to lose when you get called.
Harry's Mistake
Harry's mistake is very common. He thinks opponents randomize correctly, and that if they've been bluffing a lot, you can "time" them and figure they're not bluffing this time. Sure, there's a good chance that the player will have a strong hand this time, but that's usually so regardless of previous actions. Players who bluff too much are always profitable to call unless you have a specific reason, usually a tell, to believe they almost certainly aren't bluffing right now.
My advice: When you hold questionable hands against opponents who have bet and who bluff too much historically, keep calling. When you hold questionable hands against opponents who have bet and who don't bluff often enough historically, keep folding. Don't try to time your opponents
So, we've learned:
1. An overcall must be done with a much stronger hand than a call.
2. A first call must be done with a stronger hand than you'd theoretically consider calling with if opponents waiting to act behind you are oblivious of point No. 1 above.
3. A first call should indicate more strength than a call with nobody to act behind you, assuming the pots are the same size.
4. In practice, it's less profitable to bluff two players than one player, and even less profitable to bluff three or more players. All attempts to bluff four or more players, throughout the history of poker, have been massively unprofitable, on average.
5. Sometimes it's better to raise than call with a medium-strong hand with players yet to act behind you.
zaterdag 2 juni 2007
Are You Sage? Getting an Edge in Heads-Up No-Limit Hold'em
A poker tournament is often as much about mental endurance and discipline as it is about the cards and strategy. After all, particularly in no-limit hold'em, a single error can put you on the sidelines, even after playing flawlessly - or brilliantly - up to that point.
Here's how to interpret the above table:
1. The "power number" of each card is its rank: J=11, Q=12, K=13, A=15 (don't forget that the ace is 15!)
3. The SAGE Table
But let's assume that you've made it past all but one opponent; you're heads up at the end of a no-limit hold'em tournament. All of your work (and, let's be honest, luck) has paid off; you and your opponent are contesting for the top prize. The cruel irony, of course, is that both of you are mentally (and perhaps physically) exhausted, but you're about to play for the largest single increase in prize money, and this is the portion of the event that scares people the most. Many folks are so delighted to make it down to heads-up play (and are exhausted from the event) that they lower their focus. And, regrettably, lots of players feel completely lost playing heads-up no-limit hold'em. They either guess their way through it or seek a deal with their opponent; they're willing to give up some equity just to be done with the confusing and sometimes terrifying two-player battle. The poker player who can wade into this battle with courage and knowledge stands to win the largest prize in the entire event, not to mention the glory of finishing first.
The good news is that mathematics and game theory can often provide a clear and well-lit path through the foreboding forest of the heads-up portion of a no-limit hold'em tournament.
In this feature, we describe a simple technique that you can use in many heads-up no-limit situations; we call it the SAGE™ System. It is so straightforward that you can write it down on a 3"-by-5" card. With a few minutes' study, you can memorize it and use it anytime you find yourself heads up.
Why do I need the SAGE System?
Some players have said to us, "Well, I think I'm already playing pretty well heads-up." Frankly, this is unlikely, because: Most players play far too tightly in heads-up jam-or-fold situations.
This is not our opinion - it is a mathematical fact. And don't believe for a moment that tournament pros such as Chris Ferguson are not aware of this.
With that said, please understand that this system will not make you invincible in the heads-up portion of a no-limit hold'em tournament. However, against most opponents, who don't correctly adjust for the large blinds and weaker hand values of heads-up play, you should have a 5 percent-40 percent advantage; 5 percent is good, 40 percent is crushing.
You might ask, "Hasn't this material already been published?" Well, yes, but not widely. There are a few places in the online forum world where this information is shared (most notably in the "Two Plus Two" forums - http://www.twoplustwo.com/). But we are not aware of any book or magazine that contains this information, and we believe our presentation is easier to use in practice than anything that has been published in any medium. Dan Harrington has produced a stunning pair of books (Harrington on Hold'em, two volumes) that give a lot of information about playing heads-up. However, the main thrust of his discussion is major tournaments, where the stack-to-blinds ratios are often 100-1 or more (so our system does not apply). And in fact, we believe Harrington gives incorrect advice in one of his smaller-stack examples (more about that in a bit).
When does the SAGE System apply?
Let's be sure that you understand exactly when you can apply SAGE:
1. You are heads up with a single opponent at the end of a no-limit hold'em tournament. The important point is that there is just a single prize left. Note that a one-table satellite into a larger event also has this feature (the single prize is a seat in the larger event).
2. The blinds are large compared to the stack sizes. To put a value on this, if the ratio of the smallest stack to the big blind is greater than about 10-1, our system is of no use to you. However, this small-stack-to-blind ratio is extremely common in online sit-and-go tournaments, and even more so in brick-and-mortar casino sit-and-go tournaments and one-table satellites (thus the acronym SAGE: Sit And Go Endgame System). Please note that our system doesn't worry about the size difference between the stacks. Only the size of the shorter stack matters.
3. The small blind (who is on the button, and acts first) chooses to either move all in ("jam") or fold. As the blinds grow large compared to the stacks, this is a winning strategy for the small blind (SB). Of course, once the SB jams, the big blind (BB) can choose only between calling or folding; our system will tell the BB how to defend optimally.
When does the SAGE System not apply?
1. When there are more than two players left. For example, you may ask: "Suppose that we're threehanded, the button folds, and I'm the small blind. What should I do?" The system we present here cannot answer that question. Here is why: When you are threehanded, there are two more prizes to be contested (second and first; everybody is already guaranteed third-place money). In this situation, the value of the chips is not fixed; that is, the value of a single chip in your stack may be different than the value of that same single chip in an opponent's stack. An exception to this would be a one-table satellite with a single prize: a seat in the target event. In this case, all that matters is the stack sizes.
2. When the stacks are still large compared to the blinds. This is an important point. For instance, if you are in the final event of the World Series of Poker, the stack to blind ratios will be so large that SAGE does you no good. You will just have to (as the pundits are fond of saying) "play good poker."
3. When the small blind limps or makes only a small raise. In these cases, our system provides no guidance to the big blind (BB) player (at least not yet; this is obviously an interesting area for further research).
Now that you understand when the SAGE System does and does not apply, we're finally ready to tell you about the system!
So, what is this SAGE System?
The SAGE System is based on what mathematicians call an "equilibrium strategy," which is a strategy that cannot be "beaten" in the following sense: If either player deviates from the equilibrium, his expectation will go down (and thus, in a two-player game, his opponent's expectation must go up). Studies have shown that for short-stacked, heads-up no-limit hold'em, using an equilibrium strategy makes the outcome of the tournament nearly a coin toss (weighted by the players' relative stack sizes, of course). To put it another way, if you find yourself facing Chris Ferguson heads up, this system will prevent him from using his (presumably) greater poker expertise to get an advantage over you.
There are many ways to find the equilibrium strategy; we started by ranking the 169 possible hold'em starting hands according to their overall "power" in heads-up play (unsurprisingly, A-A is first and 3-2 offsuit is last). Starting with this list enabled us to devise the SAGE System so that it is easy to use in practice (it also results in a slight deviation from the "true" equilibrium strategy, but it gives up virtually zero edge). We then modeled the expected winnings of each player mathematically and used a procedure called "minimax" to find the equilibrium strategy. The following table summarizes the results:
Optimal Top Percentage and Cutoff Hands
Here's how to interpret the above table:
• The "R" column is the ratio of the shorter stack to the big blind, after the blinds have been taken. For instance, if the shorter stack is $17,000 and the big blind is $3,000, R = $17,000 ÷ $3,000, or about 6.
• The "SB Top %" is the percentage of your hands that you should jam with in the small blind, given that value of R.• "SB Cutoff Hand" is the worst hand that meets that criterion. Of course, for this to be any good to you, you have to know the ranking of all 169 starting hands. SAGE makes it unnecessary to know this list.
• "BB Top %" is the percentage of your hands that you should call with, if the SB jams.• "BB Cutoff Hand" is, again, the worst hand that you should call with, if the SB jams.
• "SB Edge" is the amount that the SB can expect to win, in "big blind" units, for that value of R, if both players follow this system. Note that when R is 7 or greater, the SB has a slight negative expectation if he employs only the jam-or-fold strategy. If R is this high and you're the SB, you should "play good poker" (that is, mix up limping, minimum raising, and jamming). However, if you think your opponent is substantially better than you, you can simply play the equilibrium strategy, secure in the knowledge that you're giving up only a microscopic edge.Now, if you had a list of all 169 starting hands, you could just find your hand in that list and see if it's above or below the threshold in the table above. While this is straightforward for a computer to do, it's not the sort of thing that most of us could do in a live tournament. The SAGE System simplifies the entire process into two easy steps. As promised, you can keep it on a 3"- by- 5" card with you if you're playing online, and can quickly memorize it for brick-and-mortar casino use.
1. Compute a Power Index (PI)1. The "power number" of each card is its rank: J=11, Q=12, K=13, A=15 (don't forget that the ace is 15!)
2. Take the power number for your higher card and double it.
3. Add the power number of your lower card.
4. If it's a pocket pair, add 22.5. If they're suited, add 2.
6. The sum is the Power Index (PI) of your hand.2. Use the PI
1. Compute the ratio (R) of the shortest stack to the big blind.2. Look up the necessary PI for that value of R.
3. If the PI of your hand is greater than or equal to that value, jam (if you're the button/SB) or call (if you're the BB).3. The SAGE Table
SAGE Examples
Example No. 1
The blinds are $500-$1,000. After the blinds are taken, the SB has $5,635 in chips and the BB has $2,865 in chips. The SB has pocket threes. So, what's his power index (PI)?
PI = (2 x 3) + 3 + 22 = 31
The BB has J-4 suited. His PI = (2 x 11) + 4 + 2 = 28. The value of R is the smaller stack ($2,865) divided by $1,000, which is close enough to 3 for our purposes.
Looking at the table, the SB should jam. His PI of 31 is much greater than the necessary value of 22. The BB should call; his PI of 28 is greater than the necessary value of 24.
Example No. 2:
The stack sizes and starting hands are the same, but the blinds are $200-$400. Is anything different? The SB's PI is still 31, but R is now $2,865 divided by $400, which is about 7. Looking at the entry for R=7, the SB number is 26, so he should still jam. But the BB, whose PI is 28, doesn't have the value of 30 necessary to call. He should fold if the SB jams.
Conclusions
There's one important thing to learn from this: Heads-up no-limit hold'em is not rocket science when the blinds are high compared to one of the stacks. Note that suitedness counts for almost nothing, and connectedness counts for less. We suspect that you will now agree with us that most players grossly underestimate the need to jam early and often. For that reason, you will often have a dramatic advantage over your opponents when using this system.
This information is correct, and provably so. Yet, even Dan Harrington got one of his examples wrong. On Page 409 of Harrington on Hold'em, Volume II, he describes a scenario in which you are in the big blind with Q-7 offsuit. The blinds are $3,000-$6,000 with a $300 ante, and this is the second hand of the heads-up finale of a tournament. Your opponent has $35,400 and you have $144,600. Your opponent, on the button, jams; what should you do? Dan goes into quite a bit of discussion about why this is a close decision. With SAGE, you simply compute the power index for your hand and the current value of R:
PI = (12 x 2) + 7 = 31.
R = $35,400 ÷ $6,000 6.
You look in the table and see that the value for calling is 29. You have 31. It's an easy call, and you hope that the flop is Q-Q-7.
Last question: Why are we giving this away? First, because it advances the game of poker. No discipline (including a game) can grow and thrive unless its disciples discuss, argue, prove, and disprove. Second, we don't see why just a select few people should have this information. You can bet your entire bankroll that Chris Ferguson and many others have it. Now, you do, too. *
We are indebted to Mike Maurer for his review and critique of this system.Please note that the SAGE System is Copyright © 2005 by James Kittock and Lee Jones, and the terms SAGE System and "Are you SAGE?" are trademarks. You have our permission (indeed, our encouragement) to use it. But you can't take credit for it and you can't sell it.Lee Jones is the author of the best-selling book Winning Low Limit Hold'em, and is the cardroom manager for PokerStars.com. James Kittock is a math teacher at Mission College in Santa Clara, California, and a serious low-limit hold'em player
cardplayer.com
Understanding Pot Limit
Pot limit is an intermediary bet between no limit and limit. The bets and raises cannot exceed the size of the pot (the pot limit). This variety is supposed to limit pot size, but often the results are the same as in a game of no limit, which is to say that players bet their total stack in one round.
A pot or pot limit raise corresponds to the amount of:
1. The pot in question.
2. The total bets on the table.
3. The total that the player must see before raising.
Example of a raise in Pot Limit at a $1/$2 table: The flop has been dealt. There are three players in the hand.
The pot is $10. Player 1 bets $4, player 2 sees the bet. How much can player 3 raise?
Taking the aforementioned rule into account, we have:
1. $10 in the pot
2. $8 in bets on the table
3. $4 that the player must see
Player 3 can therefore raise $22.
A pot or pot limit raise corresponds to the amount of:
1. The pot in question.
2. The total bets on the table.
3. The total that the player must see before raising.
Example of a raise in Pot Limit at a $1/$2 table: The flop has been dealt. There are three players in the hand.
The pot is $10. Player 1 bets $4, player 2 sees the bet. How much can player 3 raise?
Taking the aforementioned rule into account, we have:
1. $10 in the pot
2. $8 in bets on the table
3. $4 that the player must see
Player 3 can therefore raise $22.
Sit and Go, Tournament or Cash Game ?
Sit and Go, Tournament or Cash Game ?
I suppose it would be too easy to answer, “It depends.”And yet, it depends. It depends on many factors, which we’ll discuss in the following paragraphs:
How much time you have :
- Less than one hour: A SnG turbo or cash game
- 1 hour: This is the standard duration of a Sit and Go. You will go through all the phases of a tournament at high speed, the first rounds being useful for calmly increasing your stack. The turbo tournaments – at noon or at midnight – usually last about an hour as well, due to the rapid increase in blinds.
- Many hours: if time is not a deciding factor, all choices remain open to you.
- Undetermined: The cash game is the best choice if you have pressing obligations, like a better half.
Your temperament :
- You are patient, attentive, and you are in control of your emotions in the event of a hard hit: you have the profile of a 10-player cash game participant. Wait for good hands, trap your opponents, and collect their rakes.
- You like competition, the valuable rewards, and the pressure: you have the profile of a tournament player. The essence of poker is competition, but tournaments are the most gratifying form available. In fact, your victories at cash games will always be silent, whereas it’s always a pleasure to take a tournament having beaten 100, 200 or even 1000 players.
- You need action, to see many hands and to play your opponents as much as your cards: you have the profile of a short-handed player. Whether it’s a cash game or a tournament, you need to play poker with as few players as possible around the table in order to satisfy your rhythm.
Your budget
According to your means, and above all your ability to deal with bad patches. Actually, it’s easier to control ones losses and to be on tilt at a tournament or SnG than at a cash game table. At a cash game table, you will probably end up losing one or more rakes and that can cost you a lot of money quickly. At a SnG or tournament table, it’s easier to control one’s losses. By the same token, though, the cash game tends to be more lucrative for a good player.
Your previous experience
You may have discovered poker through television, an ad, or more likely through a friend who gave you the poker bug. Hence, you get into the habit of playing the same way you began. My advice is to test all three types of poker, because they provide sufficiently different experiences in terms of diverse and complementary sensations. Enjoying SnGs, tournaments, or cash games depends on a complex chemistry within the player, which responds differently depending on many factors.
Try each type for at least a few hours in order to find out where you’ll be most comfortable. Don’t limit yourself to one type of game without having tried the others at least once, or you may miss out on the type of poker you’re best at.
My advice
You’ll hear some players swear by tournaments. Others will play 8 SnGs at the same time and make a living off it. But most players win at cash games. To me, the cash game is real poker, the kind that will make you improve your game in every aspect and will help you to discover the subtlety of this magnificent game.
I therefore advise you to divide your time in the following manner :
- 60% for cash games.
- 20% for SnGs.
- 20% for tournaments.
Keep in mind that the most important is to keep the game fun so that poker remains a passion – one that may bring in a little money now and then, but above all a passion.
I suppose it would be too easy to answer, “It depends.”And yet, it depends. It depends on many factors, which we’ll discuss in the following paragraphs:
How much time you have :
- Less than one hour: A SnG turbo or cash game
- 1 hour: This is the standard duration of a Sit and Go. You will go through all the phases of a tournament at high speed, the first rounds being useful for calmly increasing your stack. The turbo tournaments – at noon or at midnight – usually last about an hour as well, due to the rapid increase in blinds.
- Many hours: if time is not a deciding factor, all choices remain open to you.
- Undetermined: The cash game is the best choice if you have pressing obligations, like a better half.
Your temperament :
- You are patient, attentive, and you are in control of your emotions in the event of a hard hit: you have the profile of a 10-player cash game participant. Wait for good hands, trap your opponents, and collect their rakes.
- You like competition, the valuable rewards, and the pressure: you have the profile of a tournament player. The essence of poker is competition, but tournaments are the most gratifying form available. In fact, your victories at cash games will always be silent, whereas it’s always a pleasure to take a tournament having beaten 100, 200 or even 1000 players.
- You need action, to see many hands and to play your opponents as much as your cards: you have the profile of a short-handed player. Whether it’s a cash game or a tournament, you need to play poker with as few players as possible around the table in order to satisfy your rhythm.
Your budget
According to your means, and above all your ability to deal with bad patches. Actually, it’s easier to control ones losses and to be on tilt at a tournament or SnG than at a cash game table. At a cash game table, you will probably end up losing one or more rakes and that can cost you a lot of money quickly. At a SnG or tournament table, it’s easier to control one’s losses. By the same token, though, the cash game tends to be more lucrative for a good player.
Your previous experience
You may have discovered poker through television, an ad, or more likely through a friend who gave you the poker bug. Hence, you get into the habit of playing the same way you began. My advice is to test all three types of poker, because they provide sufficiently different experiences in terms of diverse and complementary sensations. Enjoying SnGs, tournaments, or cash games depends on a complex chemistry within the player, which responds differently depending on many factors.
Try each type for at least a few hours in order to find out where you’ll be most comfortable. Don’t limit yourself to one type of game without having tried the others at least once, or you may miss out on the type of poker you’re best at.
My advice
You’ll hear some players swear by tournaments. Others will play 8 SnGs at the same time and make a living off it. But most players win at cash games. To me, the cash game is real poker, the kind that will make you improve your game in every aspect and will help you to discover the subtlety of this magnificent game.
I therefore advise you to divide your time in the following manner :
- 60% for cash games.
- 20% for SnGs.
- 20% for tournaments.
Keep in mind that the most important is to keep the game fun so that poker remains a passion – one that may bring in a little money now and then, but above all a passion.
Bankroll management
Correctly choosing one’s limits.
Even as a winning player, you must face a bad turn now and then when the cards seem to be against you. The most egregious error would be to play your entire bankroll. Even as the favorite each time at 90%, which is huge in poker, after 20 times you will have 9 chances out of 10 to lose everything. Your bankroll should therefore be able to absorb any bad shocks.
Moreover, by betting too large a portion of your bankroll, you risk playing badly due to being stressed by the stakes.
According to your level and self-confidence, you should have:
For a cash game : At least 10 rakes (5 for the very small limits) at the table’s limit at which you are playing if you think you’re level is higher than the others, and at least 20 rakes otherwise.
For example : if you’re playing at a table of $0.50/$1.00 with the maximum rake at $100, the minimum bankroll is $1000, but you will be really comfortable there if you play with $2000.
For SnGs : At least 20 times the amount of the registration (10 times the amount if you’re playing at very low limits) and up to 50 times the amount for the higher limit tables. For example: in order to play SnGs of $5+$0.50 you should have at least $110 of rake.
For tournaments: if you only play tournaments you should set aside 50 times the amount of the registration fee. If you play now and then, there’s no regulation since the cost is so low compared to the gains. Pay for them with cash games or SnGs.
Determining thresholdsThanks to the previous pointers, you can now determine a program for going above or below your limits. In fact, when you attain a bankroll that permits you to have the minimum for the following level, you can move forward with confidence and certainty.
For example: you have been playing at $0.10/0.20 for two months. You have gone from $400 to $1000. You now have sufficient bankroll to go to the $0.25/$0.50 limits and enjoy playing at higher stakes.
You should also have put in place certain bankroll thresholds that will alert you to the necessity of going down a level, especially if you’ve just gone up.
For example: you lose $200 on a $0.25/$0.50 and go back down to $800 of bankroll. Go quietly back to $0.10/$/0.20 to win the money back before trying the higher limits again.
Keep track of your bankroll’s development.
The easiest is to create a small Excel file that allows you to note your results and your wins/losses. You can create one yourself or use very good ones that already exist.
You can download a nice Excel file, for example from www.pokeralyon.fr/programmes.php
Don’t try to recover your losses by changing your habits.
As we have already mentioned, every player loses a bit of his bankroll in a bad turn. Whether in a SnG or a cash game, be absolutely sure to avoid the mistake of going up in limits to try and recover your losses. Even the most reasonable players have been tempted to do this at least once. Remember NEVER to do it. You may be lucky and recover your money in a few minutes and cold sweats, but in most cases it’s the quickest way to lose your entire bankroll. Never count on luck in poker. Leave that strategy to the losers
Remember :
Choose your limit : 20 times the amount of the cave at a cash game, and 20 times the registration for a SnG.
Expect changes in your bankroll and fix thresholds to climb above or below the limit.
Keep track of your bankroll with a gains/losses file.
Start over: never try to win back a loss by playing at higher limits.
Even as a winning player, you must face a bad turn now and then when the cards seem to be against you. The most egregious error would be to play your entire bankroll. Even as the favorite each time at 90%, which is huge in poker, after 20 times you will have 9 chances out of 10 to lose everything. Your bankroll should therefore be able to absorb any bad shocks.
Moreover, by betting too large a portion of your bankroll, you risk playing badly due to being stressed by the stakes.
According to your level and self-confidence, you should have:
For a cash game : At least 10 rakes (5 for the very small limits) at the table’s limit at which you are playing if you think you’re level is higher than the others, and at least 20 rakes otherwise.
For example : if you’re playing at a table of $0.50/$1.00 with the maximum rake at $100, the minimum bankroll is $1000, but you will be really comfortable there if you play with $2000.
For SnGs : At least 20 times the amount of the registration (10 times the amount if you’re playing at very low limits) and up to 50 times the amount for the higher limit tables. For example: in order to play SnGs of $5+$0.50 you should have at least $110 of rake.
For tournaments: if you only play tournaments you should set aside 50 times the amount of the registration fee. If you play now and then, there’s no regulation since the cost is so low compared to the gains. Pay for them with cash games or SnGs.
Determining thresholdsThanks to the previous pointers, you can now determine a program for going above or below your limits. In fact, when you attain a bankroll that permits you to have the minimum for the following level, you can move forward with confidence and certainty.
For example: you have been playing at $0.10/0.20 for two months. You have gone from $400 to $1000. You now have sufficient bankroll to go to the $0.25/$0.50 limits and enjoy playing at higher stakes.
You should also have put in place certain bankroll thresholds that will alert you to the necessity of going down a level, especially if you’ve just gone up.
For example: you lose $200 on a $0.25/$0.50 and go back down to $800 of bankroll. Go quietly back to $0.10/$/0.20 to win the money back before trying the higher limits again.
Keep track of your bankroll’s development.
The easiest is to create a small Excel file that allows you to note your results and your wins/losses. You can create one yourself or use very good ones that already exist.
You can download a nice Excel file, for example from www.pokeralyon.fr/programmes.php
Don’t try to recover your losses by changing your habits.
As we have already mentioned, every player loses a bit of his bankroll in a bad turn. Whether in a SnG or a cash game, be absolutely sure to avoid the mistake of going up in limits to try and recover your losses. Even the most reasonable players have been tempted to do this at least once. Remember NEVER to do it. You may be lucky and recover your money in a few minutes and cold sweats, but in most cases it’s the quickest way to lose your entire bankroll. Never count on luck in poker. Leave that strategy to the losers
Remember :
Choose your limit : 20 times the amount of the cave at a cash game, and 20 times the registration for a SnG.
Expect changes in your bankroll and fix thresholds to climb above or below the limit.
Keep track of your bankroll with a gains/losses file.
Start over: never try to win back a loss by playing at higher limits.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)