Capture the Flag With Tristan Wade

Poker pro Tristan Wade, 29, had more than ten cashes last year on the tournament circuit, including a ring in a World Series of Poker Circuit event in August for $106,806.

The 2011 WSOP bracelet winner, who hails from Florida, might be known as a tournament expert, but he is also well-versed in cash game play. Card Player had the chance to ask him about his experience playing them, as well as pick his brain about some basic strategy for improving your hold’em game.

Brian Pempus: First off, can you talk about the role cash games have played in your career?

Tristan Wade: Throughout my career, cash games have had different roles. When I first started playing, it was an even mix of cash games and tournaments, which slowly turned into more tournaments and less cash. I always played cash games throughout, but have started to focus more time on them as of late. Multi-table tournaments have a lot of variance associated with them, and you can’t fully expect your return on investment. Cash games give you a much better idea of the money you will make considering a lot of their variables remain constant.

BP: How are the cash games in Florida?

TW: They aren’t as good as everyone thinks (laughs). There are a lot of good poker players in South Florida, and a lot of people have moved down here as well. You can still find good games, but with the bigger limits, you need to game select more. There might be only one or two spots. It is just like any poker situation where you need to pick your spots, and put in the time to be successful. If you don’t put in the hours and work on your game, you will have a hard time rising to the top.

BP: What is your usual game?

TW: I usually play no-limit hold’em. Sometimes I play pot-limit Omaha, and mixed games with, like Omaha eight-or-better, stud, and stud eight-or-better.

BP: What kinds of leaks do you think no-limit hold’em cash players most often still have these days?

TW: I think some cash players don’t adjust their ranges accordingly to their opponent all the time. In particular situations or games against certain players, you don’t necessarily need to be balanced when your competitor is never balanced themselves.

BP: That’s interesting. Can you give some examples?

TW: Well, let’s say you’re in a situation where you’re playing against someone who is never capable of bluff-shoving the river, and you hold the second nuts. Well this is an easy fold if that’s the case. This example is about as basic as it gets. Against most players, I would be happy to induce on the river and get more value holding the second nuts. If I was playing an opponent who wasn’t balanced, and unable to make a bluff in this situation, you need to be willing to adjust your calling range on the river in this spot. It is a typical spot where almost nobody would ever fold—second nuts versus the nuts—but against specific players, you should always fold. There are other situations, such as preflop all-ins, where your opponents range will never be balanced, and their range is limited to one or maybe two hands. These guys should be the easiest to play, but some players make their lives difficult over-thinking these spots.

BP: It does seem like some live fish sometimes would never four-bet preflop without aces or kings. Can you just explain why being so unbalanced makes one so exploitable?

TW: I think my example above highlights how being unbalanced can make you exploitable. If your opponent can easily define your range and, particularly, your exact hand, then you will miss out on equity with this playing style. You don’t always have to be balanced, but when you often play cash games against the same opponents, you should definitely be balanced.

BP: Can you describe how learning how to play cash well can help someone in tournaments?

TW: Cash games help with your creativity. You are playing deep-stacked most of the time. This is similar to the beginning levels in well-structured tournaments. The players who have more experience in this environment will thrive. When you play with 100 big blinds or more, you have a lot more freedom and leeway to gain information from your opponent. Also, it doesn’t hurt that, most of the time, one hand won’t eliminate you.

BP: Would you ever recommend buying in for less than the maximum? Is a push-fold, squeeze play-type approach to cash games ever a good idea?

TW: It depends on the game and the stacks in the game. There are some games around the United States I’ve played in where they had shallow maximum buy-in limits. Adjusting your strategy is crucial for playing short-stacked poker. Many decisions take place preflop, and there isn’t much play aside from that. There could be some merit to not buying in for the maximum, but if you feel you have an edge and can maximize your profits, I would say stick with the max.

BP: Can you give some basic advice on the pros and cons to limping in cash games?

TW: I don’t see many pros of limping in cash games, but only in select situations, such as limping into multi-way pots or limping on the button versus specific players in the blinds. In most cases, it’s best to raise preflop and take control of the hand. You can isolate players this way and define ranges better.

BP: In your opinion, is there ever a range of hands to be raising preflop—after several limpers—to start “building the pot” by raising just three or four times the big blind? Or should a preflop bet in this situation always be designed to also narrow the field a bit? As an example, if you look down at pocket fours after several people limped in front of you, would you ever consider raising to have the pot be bigger because it’s likely all the limpers call? This is assuming you can anticipate not getting three-bet as a squeeze play.

TW: Absolutely. There is merit to building pots with hands that have good equity. Especially if you know that you won’t get reraised and will get more value if you do connect with the flop. Thinning the field also has its advantages to winning pots without showdown.

BP: Can you talk about the somewhat tough situation regarding people changing seats to sit on an opponent’s left? Is this unethical, just frowned up, or is it an okay move to gain an edge?

TW: It can be frustrating to deal with someone changing seats. We all would like to do that if it provides an edge, but it’s something I’m not overly concerned about. You have to be comfortable playing against anyone, in or out of position. It’s good practice, and most of the time this isn’t an issue. The way I look at it, I wouldn’t make a conscious effort to change my seat often. Maybe every once in a while. The focus should be on making the best decisions possible. There are tons of variables to consider while playing poker. That is just one of them. There are always exceptions though, as it’s not black and white.

BP: What kind of goals do you have for yourself in 2015 with regards to cash games? In tournaments? Is it important to set goals in poker or do you think it should be done in a limited fashion so as not to put excess pressure on oneself?

TW: I’m normally not the type of person who sets goals. I plan on putting a lot of time into cash games in 2015. A lot of time to me might be 15-20 hours a week online. My tournament knowledge will increase along with this process as well. My only goals for poker in 2015 will be to play my best and make the most accurate decisions possible. In tournaments, you can’t control what goals you reach, if they are results-oriented. Cash games you have more of a control and can determine a win rate and such. Decision making is all you should focus on. ♠