Learning No-Limit From Scratch ­- Wrong Play, Right Time

I’m part of a public poker group that discusses hands and strategy. It meets at 3 p.m. every Wednesday at Ricardo’s on Flamingo Blvd. in Las Vegas. The group contains several mid-level pros as well as many novices looking to learn the game. It’s a fun time swapping stories and tactics with a group dedicated to improving their game.

Bob, the moderator, was playing $1-$2 and picked up 4 3 in the big blind. Everyone folded to the hijack, a new player to the game he had little information on, who raised it to $7. The small blind called and Bob tossed in the extra $5. Three players took the flop with $21 in the pot. The hijack and small blind were both $300 deep, and Bob had them covered.

The preflop call was very questionable, though one I would make if I thought the hand had good implied odds value. Since Bob didn’t know anything about the raiser, estimating his implied odds was mostly guessing. I tend to value suited connectors lower than most, but still play them when the situation is right. That said, I need significant implied odds available to make that call, particularly in situations in which I don’t have a clear read and might not be able to get away from a second-best hand. You can find yourself in some bad spots by taking these hands off lightly.

But Bob “swished” the flop, the A 10 4 giving him bottom pair and a weak flush draw. The small blind knuckled and Bob contemplated his best play. Like most close play choices, this is an opponent-dependent move for me. If I have an aggressive opponent who will continuation bet a large portion of his range, including a lot of air and weak hands, I’ll check-raise. I want to obtain the expected value (EV) from the feeble hands. Of important note, in this case, I’m defending against a shove, so my check-raise isn’t setting myself up to get played off my hand.

Additionally, my check-raise might get some value from the small blind calling too. But, if Mr. Preflop-Raiser doesn’t continuation bet liberally, I’m going to bet my holding. I’m likely to get some better hands to fold and if I get called, my hand still has sound equity.

Bob checked, Mr. Prefllop-Raiser bet $15, and the small blind called. With $51 in the pot at the point of decision, I’d check-raise strong with the hope of immediately winning while knowing I can’t be in too bad a shape if called. Even if my flush draw is dead, the fact I have a pair with it adds value, as I have another flush draw nominally beat. Bob flat called.

The turn came the 3, providing Bob bottom two. The small blind checked, and he fired $40 into the $66 pot. Mr. Preflop-Raiser min-raised to $80. The small blind folded. Bob called.

The river was the J, filling Bob’s flush. At this point, I don’t think there is much chance Bob doesn’t have the best hand. I’m betting and the best play becomes a bet-sizing equation. The amount to bet becomes a function of reading hands and what action you think your opponent will take. You need to be able to estimate what percentage chance your opponent(s) will call differing size bets and which has the best equity. In this case, when Bob bet the turn and got raised, the raiser would likely think he’d made two pair, with aces and threes being a large part of his two pair range.

Thereby, his opponent’s raise signifies he can beat A-3. Though that doesn’t have to be true in all scenarios, it’s prone to be correct in many if not most. Additionally, when Bob fired the turn, his opponent shouldn’t read him for a flush draw. And since he’s now made a hand that his opponent wouldn’t read him for, if Bob represents that hand, his opponent is apt to identify bluffs as a large portion of his range. So, in Bob’s opponent’s mind, Bob is extremely unlikely to have a flush.

For those reasons, I would push my stack all-in for effectively $200. I think Mr. Preflop-Raiser will call that bet more than half as often as he would call a bet of $100, giving Bob higher EV.

Looking to cement getting a call, Bob bet $100, was called, and, to his surprise, his opponent turned over 5 2 for a larger flush. While the play of the hand makes sense, it’s a holding I would dramatically discount from my opponent’s range on the assumption that few people would play that holding.

Unknowingly, Bob was in abysmal shape on the turn. That said, his read that his hand was best wasn’t poor thinking; it was a huge favorite to be best. He just ran into a better hand that was a unique part of his opponent’s range. Against his opponent’s entire plausible range, his thinking was correct. I just would have bet more on the river.

This hand is an example of adjusting your bet-sizing based on your read of your opponents’ hand. I think it’s likely Bob saved himself $100 nominally, but cost himself expectation. He was coolered by his opponent’s holding. Over many trials of similar situations, his flush is going to be best way more often than not. That said, I think Bob is happy to have the $100 in his pocket, not his opponent’s.

It’s also a sample of what we do every Wednesday, discussing hands and strategies. This was a complicated hand that speaks to many issues, from hand selection, reading hands and situations, to bet sizing. No-limit hold’em is a complex game with many more moving parts than limit.

If you’d like to improve your game, come join us. Ricardo’s at 3 p.m. every Wednesday. ♠

Roy Cooke played poker professionally for 16 years prior to becoming a successful Las Vegas Real Estate Broker/Salesman. Should you wish any information about Real Estate matters-including purchase, sale or mortgage his office number is 702-376-1515 or Roy’s e-mail is [email protected]. His website is www.RoyCooke.com. You can also find him on Facebook or Twitter @RealRoyCooke