Learning No-Limit From Scratch: Betting With The Worst Of ItCooke Explains When To Bet As An Underdog |
|
In position on the river, we generally value bet when our hand is a favorite if we are called. But when we are out of position, because we have events to occur behind us, that is not always the case. Sometimes we should bet when we are an underdog if called if an event may happen behind us that will cost us more expectation than if we had checked.
A drunk and wild tourist sitting immediately to my right who had me covered raised to $15 from under the gun in a $2-$5 no-limit hold’em game. Next to act, holding the A
J, $500 deep, I contemplated three-betting. Several thoughts caused me to flat. I had little fold equity against a highly aggressive opponent I couldn’t read, and the chances I would be dominated by a hand yet to act were high. The chance that any individual opponent held A-K, A-Q, A-A, K-K, Q-Q, or J-J was about 3.15 percent. Collectively, with seven opponents yet to act, it was over 20 percent that I was dominated. Additionally, I had a hand that played well against the weaker portions of my opponents’ ranges, making letting those hands call add value to my holding.
It folded around to the button, an opponent who I’d only played about 15 hands with and that had doubled through me in his third hand, when he called my under-the-gun raise with Q-J offsuit. He made it $45. I wasn’t thrilled about the three-bet, but Mr. Button indicated looseness when he called an under-the-gun raise from me with Q-J offsuit on the hand he stacked me. That said, I was unsure of his three-bet range. However, most players widen their raising range on the button, particularly when the original raiser is wild and aggressive. Both blinds folded, Mr. Wild Drunk called, and I called. There was about $140 in the pot.
The flop came the A
7
2, giving me top pair, jack kicker and a backdoor nut-flush draw. Mr. Wild Drunk knuckled, and I checked behind him, fully expecting Mr. Button to bet. He didn’t disappoint and bet $75. Mr. Wild Drunk called. I flatted, feeling there was some chance I held the best hand, but I wasn’t enthusiastic about my holding.
The Q
turned. Once again, Mr. Wild Drunk checked to me and I knuckled behind him. Mr. Button contemplated and checked. I was still unsure of his range. Was he checking A-K, afraid of A-Q, checking for pot control? Or did he have a wired pair and bet the flop to represent an ace? Could he have a non-standard three-bet hand he was just playing aggressively on the button? I thought all were possibilities.
The river delivered the 5, a card unlikely to help anyone. Mr. Wild Drunk checked, and I thought about my best play. If Mr. Button held A-K, he was going to value bet. I didn’t think he would bet an underpair. I also felt he might bluff if I checked. With $365 currently in the pot, any value bet or bluff was likely going to be half pot or more. And what about Mr. Wild Drunk? He wasn’t going to be folding any ace last to act, even one with a poor kicker.
It was a dilemma. If I bet, I lost the value of picking off Mr. Button’s bluffs, but picked up the call from Mr. Wild Drunk. Additionally, most of Mr. Button’s calling range would be A-K, a hand which beat me. I didn’t think that any river bet of mine would be called over 50 percent of the time by a weaker hand. But, if I checked and Mr. Button bet, I would call. Even if Mr. Wild Drunk called, I might still call because I felt Mr. Wild Drunk virtually couldn’t have me beat based on how he had played his hand, and I would still beat Mr. Button’s bluff range.
Since my river play was about getting whatever showdown equity my hand held from the pot as cost-effectively as possible as opposed to acquiring positive expected value (EV) from a bet, the lower the amount I shelled out to acquire my hand’s showdown equity, the greater my value. I wanted to make a bet that would appear to be legitimate, block any bluffs, and include more hands in my opponent’s calling range to maximize whatever value the bet might create.
I bet $125, about one-third pot. I felt it would be read as being legitimate sizing. I loathed the result when Mr. Button called, and Mr. Wild Drunk folded. I turned my A J over, Mr. Button flipped over A-K, and the dealer shoved him the pot.
The hand speaks to considering how a hand is likely to play out, and making an effort to change how it plays with your actions. By betting $125, I “set the size” of the bet and didn’t put myself in a situation of either getting bluffed or calling a bigger bet. The lost EV of the bet being called by Mr. Button and the loss of the value of calling his bluffing range was at least partially compensated by the scenarios where Mr. Button would have folded and Mr. Wild Drunk would have called with an inferior hand. That said, I also lost less value the times I river-called Mr. Button value bets.
The bet-sizing issue is a major component of why no-limit is much harder than limit. It creates many complex issues that just don’t exist in limit. Thinking ahead and taking stack sizes and estimated betting sizes into account should alter your strategy significantly. Make sure you think through how the hand is likely to play with different portions of the range of your opponent(s) and how best to adjust to those circumstances before making your strategic decision.
And if you can do that effectively, you’re on your way to world-class play. ♠
Roy Cooke played poker professionally for 16 years prior to becoming a successful Las Vegas Real Estate Broker/Salesman. Should you wish any information about Real Estate matters-including purchase, sale or mortgage his office number is 702-376-1515 or Roy’s e-mail is [email protected]. His website is www.RoyCooke.com. Roy’s blogs and poker tips are at www.RoyCookePokerlv.com. You can also find him on Facebook or Twitter @RealRoyCooke
Copyright © 2001-2024
CardPlayer.com. All rights reserved.
.jpg)
