Phil's Timing Was Off!

In my last column, I discussed the power of math in poker, but I also indicated that reading your opponents is an essential ingredient in no-limit hold’em tournament success. In the $25,000 buy-in North American Poker Tour high-roller shootout tournament in Vegas, I had a seven-player heat in which I would have been better off using pure math. Basically, I let John Duthie and Hevad Khan run over my blinds: They raised my big blind 100 percent of the time, and I never reraised. In fact, in four hours of play, I called a raise twice from the big blind, and I won only one pot out of the big blind. Given that the blinds and antes increased every 40 minutes, and we started with antes, this was some pretty weak poker on my part.

If the structure is a slow one, I do not mind letting people run over my blinds. I figure that I am conditioning my opponents into believing that they can bluff me, and then when it really counts, I call them down and win a huge pot. Also, I will slow-play hands to set this up. For example, I may only call with A-K suited from the big blind, and then check my hand on the flop and on the turn when the board comes down A-K-4-6.

But when the structure is fast, it is a different story. You cannot let a bad run of cards dictate that you will fold every big blind for three hours straight. The best countertactic when someone is raising your blind all the time is to reraise a few times and let him know that you will not roll over every time. Normally, I like to use my reading ability to determine when I should reraise from the big blind; however, sometimes you just feel like folding every time because you do not have a strong read, or you are playing on the Internet (and there is no read). This is where math can help a bad read. The math (game theory) says that you should assume your opponent doesn’t always have a strong hand, and that you should go ahead and reraise out of the big blind sometimes. If I am playing on the Internet, I am forced to use mostly math in my decisions. Thus, if this event had been on the Internet, I would have reraised Khan and Duthie when they came knocking at my big-blind door. After a few reraises, they would have gotten the message that this was not a “weak blind” that they could steal every time.

When I finally did take a stand, I was wrong! With the blinds at 600-1,200 and a 100 ante, Duthie opened for 3,600, and I looked down at K-J in the small blind. I thought for a long time, and although my initial read was strength, because he opened for a full three-times-the-big-blind raise, I convinced myself that he was weak, and moved all in for 22,700. Duthie then said, “I hope you don’t have aces; I call.” He showed down the A K, and I busted out, knowing that I had gone with my read, and that it was a bad read. This made me think back over my 25-year career, and I remembered that I am not always right, and that I like to make a move only when I have a very strong read on my opponents. It’s not like you have to read everyone perfectly every time to win 11 World Series of Poker bracelets; it is more like having to read someone perfectly maybe once or twice an hour. So, as I started play on day one of the World Poker Tour L.A. Poker Classic, I vowed to use more mathematics, and I hoped and prayed that my reads would be right when I really needed them to be right.

Learn more about Phil by going to his website, www.PhilHellmuth.com, and visit his webstore at www.PokerBrat.com.