Learning No-Limit From Scratch ­- Losing the Minimum

All plays lose value if your opponent is correctly reading your strategy. Some plays only have value when your opponent is incapable of reading your intent and correctly adjusting. For that reason, many valuable plays in smaller no-limit games against weaker opposition have little value when playing higher-stakes games where tougher opposition will read your strategies and make correct adjustments to them. Of course, some of the better players at lower stakes will correctly adjust also. So, when considering a strategic play, you need to differentiate between opponents who read accurately and correctly adjust and those who don’t.

I open-raised in early position to $20 in a $2-$5 no-limit game with 10 10 and was called by a mostly loose-passive opponent on the button, both blinds folded. Mr. Loose-Passive was $760 deep. I had him covered, giving us $760 effective stack sizes. We took the flop heads-up, one I smashed when it came 10 9 3. With a huge number of potential draws available, playing straightforwardly and leading out against this loose-passive opponent would be the right play. Slow-playing would be a poor choice, as Mr. Loose-Passive would check many of his draws that he would call with, as well as call me with any pair, some of which he would likely check. Slow-playing on draw-heavy boards where you’re likely to get called anyway, often just results in you giving up expected value.

Looking to maximize my value, I fired $35 into the $45 pot, and he called. My bet-sizing leaned toward the high side, but with such a draw-heavy board and a calling-prone opponent, I thought a bigger bet was my best choice. The turn card came the 8, picking up additional draws and straightening the Q-J portion of his range. I tossed in $90, he hesitated and called again, putting $295 in the pot. I read him for being weak or drawing.

Hello, the worst card in the deck, the J. Both the diamond flush hit and it put a four-straight on the board. That said, I didn’t have to have the worst hand, but it was a tricky spot being out of position. Mr. Loose-Passive was $615 deep, and if I checked to him, he would value-bet his made hands that beat mine as well as make some bluffs. I didn’t want to check-fold, nor did I want to call a big bet, even if his range included some bluffs. I thought about my best option. Was there a way to manipulate Mr. Loose-Passive into not placing me in a tough situation on the river? A difficult situation I would inevitably make some expensive errors in.

I didn’t think Mr. Loose-Passive would raise on a bluff and he might make a small call with two pair. I felt that if I bet a small amount, I’d set the betting price at a lower price point than if I checked. I would get calls from a few weaker hands in his range that he would otherwise check and prevent him from executing a bluff. The combination in value from each of those scenarios made me deduce a small-sized wager was the optimum play. I bet $105, a smallish wager in a $295 pot, he sighed and called. I flipped over my three tens. He stared at my hand with a puzzled look and then turned up the 6 4 for the flush.

Yeah, I lost the pot. But in retrospect, I’m happy with my play. Had I checked the river, I would have undoubtedly been faced with a bet larger than $105. If I check-folded, I would have mucked some winners to his betting range when he was bluffing. Alternatively, I would have called some bigger-sized bets if I would have check-called, though I would have picked up some of the value lost by picking off his bluffs.

Would check-calling have better value than betting small? I think it would if I was up against a bluff-happy opponent. But Mr. Loose-Passive, while capable of bluffing, wasn’t one to bluff repeatedly. But the fact he was capable of bluffing, but not one to raise as a bluff, made preventing that bluff add value to my situation. And had he held a hand like J-9 suited or 9-8 suited, rather than checking when checked to, he most likely would have called my bet and lost. Yes, that’s not much of his range, but it adds additional cumulative value to my wager.

The hand speaks to selecting a course of action based on my opponent’s tendencies. With a higher-quality opponent who might read the intentions of my play accurately, the small river bet play wouldn’t be suitable. A quality reader and good player would not only raise in that situation with his good hands, but also raise as a bluff with his weak hands, making my reasons for making a small-sized bet irrelevant. The key to making plays like this correctly is accurately reading your opponent, his mindset, and the plays he is capable of.

Live poker is not to be played with a mindset of analyzing your cards compared to the board, determining the strength of your hand, and playing it accordingly. It’s not video poker, where the principal situation doesn’t vary. Live poker involves people, with varying strategies at the poker table. You need to be able to read your opponent’s strategies, adjust by designing plays to exploit his strategies and execute those plays.
It’s a lot of mental processing, but playing poker well isn’t easy, and when you learn to adjust effectively, you’ll have taken your game to a higher level! ♠

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. Roy’s blogs and poker tips are at www.RoyCookePokerlv.com. You can also find him on Facebook or Twitter @RealRoyCooke