Murphy Plays an Entry Blind in Lowball

Murphy usually plays hold'em, $6-$12 and higher. Sometimes while waiting for a hold'em seat, he plays lowball. He plays better than average - much better, actually, given how poorly the average lowball enthusiast plays - and he's getting better all the time. I ask him about hold'em, and he asks me about lowball.

He asked by e-mail recently about the play of his first hand during a short session. I share some of the interesting exchange here:

"Here was my lowball situation earlier in the evening. I killed from one to the right of the cutoff seat. The person in front of me opened, the cutoff called, the blinds folded, and I looked down at 8-5-5-3-2 and called. My thought at this point was that I didn't really like my hand that much, but getting better than 5-to-1, I couldn't be in too much trouble, and I was second to act. The opener drew two. Now, I was really in a quandary. I had thought about drawing two if the opener was pat or drew one, but now my 8 draw looked better. So, I drew one. The person behind me also drew one. The opener bet, and after only a moment, I called with a 10. My thought at this point was that I could (1) fold (but I suspected I had the opener beat), (2) raise (to get the person behind me to fold a 10, many or most nines, and maybe even an 8-7), or (3) call. I decided on calling because I figured calling got me most of what raising would without any fear of having the opener get spunky. The person behind me showed his hand to his neighbor and they actually discussed the hand - if it got shown down, I wondered if I could get it called dead - but he threw it away. He had a 9-6. His thought was that he would automatically fold a 9-7 or worse and automatically call with a 9-5 or better, but he didn't know what to do with a 9-6. The first player was bluffing. So, I picked up some chips, and then got called to the $20-$40 hold'em game."

Several points came up. You can see that Murphy is learning. Experienced lowball players may laugh at some of his assumptions, but Murphy is thinking. Our e-mail dialogue on each point follows. Some places repeat quotes from the preceding for clarity.

First, I commented on his killing the pot when he sat down instead of waiting nearly a whole round for the blind to get to him. In the following, I'm Q and he's M. (Q is my Internet pseudonym.)

Q: "Proper move. Makes you look like an action player, gets you a hand sooner for the same price of playing a round, and if you win, it's a nice pot. Plus, it gives you last action from late position. You get to see how the others play their hands before the draw, and if you have a pat hand or a good one-card draw, you can raise, and, if things work well, two or three players are already committed."

M: "The person in front of me opened, the cutoff called, the blinds folded, and I looked down at 8-5-5-3-2 and called. My thought at this point was that I didn't really like my hand."

Q: "Wrong assessment. You should love it. That's far better than the average hand you pick up when you kill to get dealt in."

M: "I wouldn't have called if I didn't think I was getting a good price. But the reason I didn't really like it has to do with having what I thought was a weak draw from middle position."

Q: "It's not a weak draw when getting nearly 6-to-1 (including the folded blinds). Many lowball players routinely open or call an opener with worse than your 8-5 draw, even in killed pots. The guy to your left revealed nothing about the quality of his draw. Yes, it turned out he was drawing better than you, but he gave up his chance to freeze you out. Now, if you make the hand and either bet or call, and the third guy raises after the draw, you can safely dump. That is, if the first player bets, you call, and he raises, he almost certainly has an 8-5 beat. So, the bottom line on the a priori odds is that you are not a 6-to-1 dog; you might even be drawing better than one or both of your opponents. As long as both of them are drawing, the very worst odds against you would be approximately 4.3-to-1. That would be if both had wheel draws, and one had the joker. Against typical draws, you are only about a 2.5-to-1 underdog - and you're getting 6-to1! I'd like to get 6-to-1 every time I'm only a 2.5-to-1 dog!"

M: "Now it's hard for me to extract money when I'm good or to get away from it when it's bad. It seems like the hold'em situation of getting stuck in the middle with top pair, medium kicker on a board with a draw. Your hand is often good, but it's tough to make money and it's easy to lose it."

Q: "For many reasons, that's not a valid comparison. Perhaps the most important is that lowball has fewer rounds, and one of those was already pre-empted. That is, there's only one round left. Plus, the limit doesn't increase. In a double-limit game, maybe you would draw two for 'free.' (I wouldn't.) And the comparison breaks down further. As I said, you won't lose more than one bet after the draw, as opposed to several bets in a hold'em game. If the first player bets, you will never raise, so that's all you can lose. You can fold if the player behind you raises. Not many players would raise a bet and a call on a bluff, so again, you can figure a raise almost certainly beats whatever you call with. That's the money losing part. It's also not tough to make money with the hand. You can call if the first player bets. Before you draw, you're obviously planning on making the hand. Oftentimes, players bet worse than an 8-5 into two other players, even in a killed pot. If the first player checks, you can bet if you make the 8-5, or you can check, hoping to induce a bluff or a bet with a worse hand than yours from the player behind you. I favor the bet, particularly with your totally unknown image."

M: "I couldn't be in too much trouble, and I was second to act."

Q: "Too much trouble"?!! Against typical draws, you have a huge +EV (positive expected value). If the opener was capable of opening in a killed pot with a two-card draw, the guy in the cutoff made a big mistake by not raising with his 6 draw and freezing you out. If it was Marvin or Jimbo who opened, he should have raised."

M: "There is part of the problem. I don't know the lowball players very well, so I have to work from a less accurate model than you."

Q: "No, no, of course. I'm only telling you the after-the-fact reality. That player who laid down the best hand should have won the pot before the draw. If he had raised with his excellent one-card draw, you would not have come in - I hope you wouldn't have! - and the opener would have been less likely to bluff after the draw. But even if he did, the one-card draw would have called and won with the 10 you caught."

M: "I didn't know the first guy was capable of opening on a two-card draw until he actually drew. To be honest, I didn't expect that to be normal behavior for a $20-limit lowball player at this club."

Q: "'Normal'? 'Optimal'? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, many players I consider to be tight still open from middle position in a pot that has a re-entry blind - that is, a $40-limit pot, as you had made this one with your blind - to draw two cards to a hand that has the joker or to draw one to an 8. Sure, often you're beat in the situation you were in. Nonetheless, even against two one-card draws better than yours - or one plus one pat hand worse than yours - you are not a 5-to-1 dog. So, when you get more experience, you'll see that far from being something to dread, your hand was a good one."

M: "The opener drew two. Now, I was really in a quandary. I had thought about drawing two if the opener was pat or drew one, but now my 8 draw looked better."

Q: "When you have more lowball experience, you'll see that you were thinking wrong. No matter what he does, you draw one. You'd have to have a huge tell on him to draw two, but if your tell was that good, you wouldn't have come in for the $20. In other words, it's wrong to consider anything else."

M: "OK. What if he rapped pat? How do I look sitting in between a pat hand and an unknown hand with my one-card draw to an 8?"

Q: "They don't know what you're drawing to. You're an unknown player. You could easily be drawing to a 7. Lots of players don't raise when they've killed the pot to draw to a 7, particularly a rough 7. (I do in the right spot, but not always.) But, again, if the pat hand bets and you make that 8, you call. The player behind you will not raise with anything but a smooth 7 or better. More than 90 percent of the time, a raise has you beat. A pat 8, and from some players a pat 9, will often bet into the two one-card draws. Yes, you're in a wobbly spot, but not a bad one. If the opener bets, you're getting 4.5-to-1 for the call. Putting everything together, if you call a pat hand in that spot with an 8, you should win more than 18 percent of the time, and probably a lot more. Yes, you'll lose most of the time in that situation (and I'm including the possibility of the guy on your left beating both hands), but not 82 percent of the time, and probably not even 70 percent. A call there is still a +EV."

M: "Are you saying this decision is always independent of the opener's draw?"

Q: "Yes - well, most of the time. Do you have Poker Probe? Work out drawing one to an 8-5 versus drawing two against typical draws, even with both opponents drawing one to better than your hand, and you'll see that the two-card draw is far worse. Sure, by drawing two you'll end up with some situations in which you beat a good hand and can raise after the draw, whereas you can never raise in this situation, but that doesn't offset the negative side of taking two cards. If the first player checks and you make your 8, you bet. It's that easy."

M: "The opener bet, and after only a moment, I called with a 10. My thought at this point was that I could (1) fold (but I suspected I had the opener beat), (2) raise (to get the person behind me to fold a 10, many or most nines, and maybe even an 8-7), or (3) call. I decided on calling because I figured calling got me most of what raising would without any fear of having the opener get spunky."

Q: "Very good reasoning. I don't know what made you suspect the opener's bet after he took two cards. I'll bet you called just because he did draw two. In any case, you're getting better than 4-to-1 for your $40 call. If you think the opener would bluff about a fourth of the time, calling with a 10 is good. Game theory would put that at about two-elevenths of the time if you had to consider only the opener, but that's offset a bit because some of the time you call, the player behind you has you beat. That is, to have an edge, you need the opener to bluff somewhat more than two-elevenths of the time; a fourth is just a guesstimate. By the way, the opener might have bluffed because he figured you were drawing to a weak hand and would have a hard time calling with a good draw behind you, and then all he would have to do is get it past the other player. Furthermore, someone who's capable of opening with a two-card draw in a killed pot is also capable of bluffing. Raising is very bad here. You didn't give any indication of drawing to a hand with which you can now raise. Plus, if the player behind you makes a 7 or better, he's likely to call anyway. He's going to win with all the hands he'd win with anyway, and some of those hands cost you two bets instead of just one. Plus, if the first player really made a good hand, you're in trouble, or if he wanted to follow through with his bluff, you're still in trouble. Calling, which you did, is definitely the best response."

M: "The person behind me showed his hand to his neighbor and they actually discussed the hand - if it got shown down, I wondered if I could get it called dead - but he threw it away."

Q: "Yes, that was somewhat unethical, but if it's who I think it was, he had no intention of calling once he showed the hand to his neighbor. Was it Crying Jake?"

M: "I don't know. Somebody called him by his name, but I don't remember it. He was rather pleasant to me, and when he saw my hand, he didn't really whine."

Q: "Then he definitely was not Crying Jake."

M: "His reaction was more of an 'ah shucks' and a little postmortem."

Q: "Nothing to worry about. Lowball players show their hands much more often than hold'em players, but never to someone still in the hand, and, in a situation like you discussed, never when they intend to call."

M: "He had a 9-6. His thought was that he would automatically fold a 9-7 or worse and automatically call with a 9-5 or better, but he didn't know what to do with a 9-6."

Q: "He must have been hot when he saw you win with a 10. You should have stuck around to get paid off, but if it was Crying Jake, he would not have loosened up any despite your play. How do you know what his thought was? Did he say?"

M: "Yep. That came out in his postmortem (as did the 'insight' that he should have raised predraw)."

Q: "That's strange reasoning. If he thinks a 9 is good, 9-6 is no different from 9-5. In fact, neither is 9-7. Your most likely calling hand is an 8. If he doesn't want to call with 9-6 or worse, he shouldn't want to call with any 9. It's certainly tough to overcall, of course, but any 9 he would make is going to be as good as any hand worse than an 8 that you would have called with. If he thinks there is a possibility that you called with a 9 or even a 10, he made his second mistake by not overcalling. Relating to the smoothness of his 9, the only way for you to have a 9-5 is to have drawn to a 9-5 - and that's not very likely. If you had had a wheel or a 6 draw to begin with, there's a very good chance that you, even though a relative beginner, would have raised before the draw. Since you probably weren't drawing that well, it's very unlikely that you would have a hand that could beat a 9-6 but not a 9-5. If you'd had a 9-5 to draw to, it's more likely that you would have drawn two cards. There's a world of difference between drawing to an 8-5 and to a 9-5. You should be very pleased that he played so badly. It was very easy for him to say after the fact what he should have done, but the bottom line is that he didn't do it when he had the opportunity. Lots of players don't like to put in $80 when they're drawing. That's gambling, and many old-time lowball players just aren't gamblers. Had he raised before the draw, you would have lost $20 instead of making $140. Had he overcalled after the draw, you would have lost $60."

M: "It's possible the person sitting to his left was Jake, 'cuz he seemed to whine more than the person who had folded the hand. I didn't say anything (and rarely do) during this conversation."

Q: "Smart - particularly here where you might be on shaky grounds with comments; plus, you'd be revealing that you know more than they give you credit for. Crying Jake is tall and out of shape, always wears a baseball cap, and complains with every hand, including throwing away lots of hands faceup so that everyone can commiserate about the facecards that he keeps getting but no one else does."