Online Pot-Limit Draw Part II

Several players have written requesting strategy for pot-limit draw. I began last time with opening-hand guidelines. A good way to get a feel for strategy is to look at two example hands.



Good pot-limit draw play involves building pots. To maximize your winnings, you want to make some pots larger so that subsequent bets can be larger. To minimize your losses, you want to either make some pots smaller or drive others out.

You also don't want to make some bets that would be automatic in a limit game. Examples from a fivehanded game with blinds of $1-$2 clarify these points.



Stealing a Pot

This example shows a hand played completely different from how it would be played in a limit game. The player to my right, WillieWooWoo, was very predictable. I knew how the size of his bet related to the strength of the hand he held. He opened for twice the minimum, $4. That told me that he had better than one pair. I had a flush draw.



In a limit game, I would never call an open-raise with a flush draw, because the expected value is negative. I needed to make at least five times the initial bet to warrant my staying, and that would rarely happen. Most of the time I would get three small bets before the draw and the equivalent of two small bets after the draw. Sometimes I would get four small bets after the draw. But for an investment of two small bets, I could expect a return when I made the hand of seven small bets at most, or less than 3.5-to-1. In a $1-$2 limit game, say, if the first player came in for $4 and I called, in five times that the situation came up, I would lose $4 four times, or $16, and I might win $15 once, for an overall loss of $1. Much of the time that I hit the flush, I would win less, because typically a player who has two medium pair checks to the one-card draw and calls. Sometimes I would win more, and sometimes I would lose more, when the hand got beat. Overall, though, calling to draw to a flush without proper pot or implied odds is a losing proposition, and I would never come in in a limit game behind one player who had just opened for a raise.



It's a different story in a pot-limit game. I called and the big blind called. The big blind drew three cards, WillieWooWoo took one card, and I took one card. I did not make the flush. The big blind checked. WillieWooWoo bet $2, the minimum. This told me that he had two pair and had not improved. He did not want to check and then perhaps have to call a pot-sized bet, so he made a protection bet. I raised $12. The big blind folded. WillieWooWoo thought for long enough to convey the idea that he really had a hand but was smart enough to make a good laydown. I had taken the pot away from him. If he had bet more after the draw, I would have folded quickly, figuring that he had made a full house. Now, if I had made the flush when he bet that $2, I would have raised only $4. This was a small enough raise to keep him in. He would not have liked it, but would have called. So, my play was a very low-risk way of making money with a hand I wouldn't even play in a limit game. I would either miss the hand and take the pot away from him or make it and win a reasonable pot. My only dangers were that he would make a complete hand at the same time that I made my flush – but that would happen only once in approximately 60 times that this situation came up – and that the big blind would make three of a kind and, after having passed, call a bet and large raise. But that's why they call it gambling. I would win this pot probably more than 80 percent of the time the situation came up, compared with the 20 percent or so in a limit game.



Now, had the player on my right been someone listed in my notes as a calling station, I still would have come in, but with the intention of either betting or raising the pot, but only if I made my hand. Many players in pot-limit games bet the minimum after the draw without having improved the hand they originally raised with and then call any raise. I would almost always make more than five times my original investment against such a player.



Winning With a Miracle Draw
I won a very large pot with a hand that before the draw was third among four competitors and was a solid fourth to end up winning the pot. I had to call a relatively large bet when I knew very well that I was at least third best at the point I called. SammyT came in for a $5 raise from under the gun. He was a tight-aggressive player and I knew he had at least two big pair. Joker0009 called the $7. This player I knew to often be tricky and generally tight. The very worst hand he had was a pair of aces, and that was unlikely. I leaned toward two pair or better. The button folded. TheTurk called from the small blind. He was a player I had in my notes as generally tight, a calling station, and a check-raiser. He would call here with aces, two pair, small trips, and any draw to a straight or flush. His most likely hand was the last. I had the $2 big blind and a pair of tens.



In a limit game, I would quickly call for one raise, knowing that I likely had a worse hand than at least one and likely two of my opponents, but was getting immediate pot odds of 7-to-1 and higher implied odds. It was a bit better than 7-to-1 against making three tens or better. Trips would be good most of the time and would almost always win one big bet after the draw. Yes, sometimes it would lose two or three bets, but that was more than offset by the times that it would win more than two bets. Sometimes I would make two pair and win. That improved my drawing odds.



But here I was in a pot-limit game, and it was not just one $2 bet extra to me, but two and a half times as much, another $5. The pot already contained $23 and could quickly get very large. I called.



TheTurk drew one card, as I expected. I drew three cards. A 10 and two kings arrived. As I was wondering how I would play my full house, SammyT drew two cards. He had earlier drawn two to trips, so I figured he had trips again, and I'd let him bet, see who called or raised, and then check-raise. But while I was thinking, Joker0009 stood pat. Wonderful! That absolutely had to be a real pat hand; that is, it could not be a bluff. He had initially been hoping to entice others in, because if he raised on top of SammyT's large raise, no one else would come in and maybe SammyT would even give up. And he might even get lucky and someone would reraise behind me. After the draw, TheTurk checked (naturally). I checked. SammyT checked, undoubtedly very pleased that his three of a kind had not lost more money. Joker0009 bet $8. He was probably afraid that no one would call more than that. Lots of players do this, underbet after the draw with a big hand. TheTurk check-raised $8, his favorite play. He usually check-raised a small enough amount that the bettor couldn't afford to fold. I wondered how much I could raise and not lose anyone. I reraised $20. SammyT folded and the other two both called. This was a $141 pot, considerably more than a $1-$2 limit game would have generated with the same hand distribution. I might have gotten more, but had I tried, say, a $50 reraise, I think one of them would have folded. And if one of them would have folded for even a $40 reraise, the net effect would have been the same. I'll never know, but it was a nice pot, and I won only because Joker0009 had tried to get cute. Had he reraised initially to, say, $15, I think TheTurk still would have called, and SammyT either would have called or maybe even reraised. But I wouldn't have called. Then, Joker0009 could have put them both all in.



I don't know what they had, because the site I was on has no hand history feature. To call a raise from TheTurk and my reraise, I suspect Joker0009 had a small full house. He may have just fallen in love with his hand. And so could TheTurk, for that matter. People make amazingly bad plays in pot-limit games.

Michael Wiesenberg's The Ultimate Casino Guide, published by Sourcebooks, is available at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com and other online book purveyors. Send inquiries, imputations of incorrectness, and incantations to [email protected]. Part I of this series can be found here.