Disassociating the Ego - Part II: Madhouse and Constant Moves

In this column, we will take a look at another way that our egos can affect our game. Most of us already know that it is a cardinal sin to allow our bravado to have any say in the plays that we make at the poker table. As in all competitive situations, one of the worst mistakes you can ever make is to underestimate your opponents. The same holds true on the felt, of course. There are few poorer decisions that players can make than deciding their table is full of donkeys and they can run over them with any two cards, regardless of game circumstances.



Whether you are playing with a bunch of monkeys who should be swinging in the trees is immaterial. It simply means that you should be employing different strategies against them. A good player just reaches into his bag of tricks to find those that work against bad players. Don't fall into the trap of being the player who thinks he has enough moves to run over his opponents, regardless of the situation.



Madhouse

One example of this is what I call playing "madhouse." This involves hammering away regardless of what cards your opponents may hold and what cards you hold. While this is often an effective strategy when used selectively, the player who fails to account for ever-changing game factors will find himself using this approach at his own peril.



While this strategy is used effectively by many players in no-limit hold'em, it can often be a big mistake in limit. Remember, in limit games, you typically need to have a hand. While it's true that occasionally you will be able to run over a table, eventually even the poorest of players will catch on to your strategy and pick you off, or reraise your weak holdings.



Even in no-limit, you may need to switch it up a little. When I sense that a player is trying to run over me, I typically just return the favor and start reraising like it's going out of style. It's basically a message: "Look, buddy, I know what you are trying to do, and it's not happening over here. Take it on down the road." This isn't to say that you shouldn't run over players if they give you the opportunity. If I find a player whom I can take advantage of in this way at my no-limit table, I raise him until he can't see straight. Don't switch a strategy if it's working – but don't force one if it isn't, either.



Another mistake I see is a player employing the madhouse strategy after losing a big pot or being drawn out on. It can be a typical form of steaming, or some players play this way all the time, wanting to maintain constant pressure on their opponents. Again, this works as long as the other players are unable to catch on to it and either set traps or simply come over the top of you. And, again, it works much better in no-limit than limit.



The real problem with this strategy is that it works against weak players but fails miserably against strong ones. It can be an effective tactic if used correctly. Just be careful not to overuse it, and also not to use it on the wrong kind of players. If you do, you'll soon discover that the madhouse strategy can send you straight to the poorhouse.



Constant Moves

I'm guilty of this one, and I know you are, as well. The fact of the matter is that all players are guilty of it at times. Underestimating your competition is an inevitable consequence of having confidence. If you don't think you are the best player at the table much of the time, why are you even there? Part of being one of the best, though, is not being too cocky – but just cocky enough. Deciding that you can make constant moves on players with no regard for actual game factors is most definitely not smart.



A few months back, I was playing $30-$60 limit hold'em at Bellagio and had a very weak player two seats to my right.



He was raising lots of pots with extremely soft holdings. Several times he brought it in with a raise from early position and ended up showing a hand like the A 3. I decided to try to isolate him with hands that would be, on average, stronger than his typical holdings. When he brought it in with a raise, I made it three bets when I had a hand like the K J or the A10. Occasionally, a player behind me played the hand, as well, making my attempt to isolate much more dangerous.



When I did manage to get the pot heads up with the initial raiser, I tried to hammer on him as much as possible. No matter what came on the flop, I raised his initial bet. Anytime he made it three bets, I capped it. Many times, I did this regardless of the cards I held. A few times, he turned his hand up and had the best hand, and took down a huge pot, but many times, I was able to build a nice pot for myself. Overall, though, I would say that our altercations became break-even affairs, thus negating my plan and any overall positive results. It's tough to run a hand like the 9 8 through on a board of A 10 7 Q 3, understand?



The more lethal situation I was creating for myself was when a player or two entered the pot despite the several bets they had to call in front of them. These players weren't playing loosely, as my initial target was, and generally had hands that were strong enough to cold-call two and sometimes three bets. They perhaps were catching on to my isolation strategy and were attempting to cut themselves in on a piece of the action. Unfortunately, it took me a little longer than it should have to further refine my play to account for this. It was one thing to isolate the loose player from late position when he came in with a raise, but when he opened from early position and I raised, it often left us both too vulnerable to the rest of the table. If I raised with a medium to weak ace, it often cost me when a player behind me had a holding such as the A Q or the A J. These players often did not reraise with these hands, but instead cold-called, and I inevitably fell into my own trap when an ace flopped. I was continuing to try to take over the table with any two cards.



This kind of play was going to work only about half the time anyway, when I could use it against a solitary player. My thinking was correct, but my execution was far from perfect.



Don't confuse this kind of overconfidence with, say, the play of a Phil Ivey. Phil will try to steal, force other players to play poorly against him, and just cause overall havoc at his table, and it is all part of an overall plan. You will often see Phil toss away his cards when it is clear that the strategy isn't going to work in a particular hand. He doesn't often fall into the trap of thinking he can just outplay his opponents in any single hand, regardless of their starting hands.



I don't see this as falling into overconfidence in the slightest. He is employing a particular tactic and trying it on players against whom it will usually work. As soon as he can see that he can't keep running it, he drops it. The point is that Mr. Ivey will attempt to take any two cards and outplay his opponents when it is the appropriate play at the time. When it isn't, he simply doesn't do it. This is a far cry from underestimating your opponents and mistakenly trying to force them out of every pot. After all, it's pretty tough to get a player to fold pocket aces, regardless of the circumstances.



Remember this, as well: If your opponents are really that bad, you can't outplay them anyway! Don't try to bluff a player who won't have a clue what you are doing. I know you are telling yourself that you know this, but I see it time and time again. Don't fall into the trap, and give your holecards a quick look-see before you try to bulldoze the table.

Joe Sebok loves to receive all of your questions and comments. You can reach him at [email protected], and can read all of his past columns at www.barrygreenstein.com under the "joepoker" link. Part I of this series can be found at www.CardPlayer.com.