Adapting to a Weak-Loose Field

Conventional poker wisdom dictates that you should play limit hold’em using a tight but aggressive strategy. And that is generally true, particularly if your opponents have a propensity to fold marginal hands. When you play aggressively, some of those folded marginal hands are the best hand, giving you a lot of value. But opponents have various styles; some players do not fold their marginal hands, and good players must adjust to that. One speed or style does not fit all situations. You must know when to change things up, when to modify your strategies, or you will find yourself dazed, confused, and without chips when facing different types of opponents.

When I sat down in a $30-$60 limit hold’em game at Bellagio, I intensely focused on analyzing the texture of the game and what plays I could best utilize to acquire value from my opponents’ styles.

The game was good, as it was full of inexperienced, weak-loose tourists. Only in Vegas, baby! However, they presented a different challenge from the typical contest. They took off lots of flops and raised infrequently, and only with hands that easily warranted raising. My opponents’ mindset was to call with hands that they thought might be good to play (good being a relative term), and to play conservatively to the river, habitually check-calling with hands that might not be good at the moment, but might improve to be the best hand.

As a general rule, these players did not bet a hand worse than top pair and didn’t bet their draws, making them easy to read. Odds were unknown to them, and reading hands was a primitive exercise at best. Several of them recognized me as the “Card Player columnist,” and were intimidated by my presence; they played their hands more conservatively when I was in the pot, although more from a betting perspective than a folding perspective.

So, how should Roy adjust? Since my opponents were weak-loose, calling often preflop but seldom raising, I could loosen up my starting-hand requirements, particularly in late position. Since most hands were played with volume, I leaned toward loosening up with holdings that were likely to make big hands — wired pairs and suited holdings — rather than those likely to make one pair, marginal kicker. When an opponent raised preflop, I gave him credit for having a premium hand, and I played “trouble” holdings tightly, folding some and playing others in a cautious manner, not putting my chips unnecessarily at risk until my opponent had defined his hand.

Since my opponents were habitual check-callers, continuation-bet aggression on the flop and turn without the best hand was often just a waste. Raising preflop and post-flop with position was often a good play, because it caused my opponents to “check to the raiser,” thereby enabling me to take off many free cards. Those free cards added many right-priced plays to my session, and made some positive-priced plays better-priced plays, increasing my overall edge for the session.

Inasmuch as my opponents bet for value only with what they considered good hands, I adjusted my play based on those parameters. I lowered my estimated “bluff-catching equity” on my calls, folded marginal hands to a bet when I felt I wasn’t getting the right price to “suck out” on top pair, and made free-card plays.

I played solid and mostly straightforward poker, utilizing few fancy plays in my session. Since my opponents didn’t read hands well, spending equity to deceive them was a waste of chips. I tightened up my bluffs and semibluffs, as the check-calling nature of my opponents significantly reduced the value of those plays. And check-raising lost some of its value, as my opponents’ propensity to bet was reduced. I stayed mentally and emotionally in control, and just ground my way through the session.

In games like this, once players are involved, they’re likely to call you. Intimidation — that is, aggression — loses much of its value. Pots tend to be won more often by a showdown than by a bet and fold. If you don’t adapt, you’ll just be throwing your money away.

There’s a caveat here, though. I have written before about scenarios in which you face a field of various styles. When you sit down in a 10-handed (or nine-handed, eight-handed, and so on) game, you find that it often has its own temperament, but more commonly, there is a stylistic mix. It is imperative that you note not only what each player’s style is, but how the players react to each other. When you are in a pot, you have to judge each dynamic on its own. This is one of the many reasons that while poker is a game of only five basic actions — bet, check, fold, raise, and call — no two situations are identical, and each has to be assessed independently, rather than by rote-play rules of thumb or conventional wisdom.

I booked a small win in that session, but nothing to write home to mother about. However, I played correctly based on my opponents’ styles of play, and deep down inside, I know that over time, using the right strategies at the right times will bring the chips home to papa.

Longtime poker pro and author Roy Cooke’s Card Player column has appeared since 1992. A successful Las Vegas real estate broker since 1990, his website is www.roycooke.com. Should you wish to inquire regarding real-estate matters — including purchase, sale, or mortgage — his phone number is (702) 396-6575. Roy’s longtime collaborator John Bond’s website is www.johnbondwriting.com. Find John and Roy on Facebook.