Crushing Live Poker With Twitter

April 10 – If you get worried after being called when making a bet for value, you may be overplaying your hand

There are two major reasons to bet in no-limit hold’em—to get called by a worse hand (value) and to get a better hand to fold (bluff). As simple as these concepts seem, a lot of inexperienced players constantly put themselves in way ahead, way behind situations due to their overaggressive action or their large bet sizing.

I do a call-in show on my training site CrushLivePoker.com. Many times the callers say something similar to “I bet big so that he knew I had something. Once I was called, I knew I was beat.” This way of thinking is fundamentally flawed when choosing a correct bet sizing or action. You never want to bet or raise for information with regards to your opponent’s hand. You only want to get called by worse or get better to fold. If you make an action that does not achieve one of these two things, chances are that particular action is not going to be the best play in that situation.

I actually made a mistake similar to this in a recent hand that I played at the Commerce Casino’s $5-$10 no-limit game last week. It was about 1 a.m. on a Saturday and the game was good. I had just moved over to the table and sat with $1,400. The main villain in the hand had me covered and was a very good professional, someone that was capable of making big lay downs. A recreational loose player limped in under the gun and I raised to $40 behind him with A 10. Five players ended up calling, including the villain in the cutoff. The flop came out A 10 3, giving me top two pair.

Obviously I was very happy with this flop, as I thought I could get a lot of value from single paired aces, so I bet $145. The villain in the cutoff called, which I was not thrilled about. This was not because I thought he had me beat, but because I thought he would make the right decision in the rest of the hand and that I would be forced to play my hand rather “face-up” because of the nature of the multi-way field. It folded back around to the limper, who started with $800, and he also called. This limper was a pretty poor player.

The turn brought in the 2, putting a backdoor flush draw out. The limper checked and this time I decided to bet $420. The villain called again, and at that point, I knew that I had made a mistake. You see, this villain was an extremely skilled player and I highly doubt that he would ever call my turn bet with a hand like A-J or A-Q. His three-betting percentage with A-K is almost 100 percent versus me as well, so there really were not many worse hands that he could have called me with on the turn with a third player in the pot that I beat for that bet sizing. Even though the pot had about $600 in it, I really should have bet only about $250, as the limper only had $600 left in his stack. That way the good player could possibly call again with just an ace. But when I bombed the turn, even with top two pair, at that moment I knew that the good player had a set or had made a straight. The action got back around to the limper who moved all-in for $600 total, not reopening the action (Commerce 100 percent rule). I, of course, completed the bet, as did the villain in position.

The river rolled off the beautiful A and, with about $750 left in my stack, I moved all in. The villain in the hand tanked forever and made an incredible laydown with 5 4, saying that he thought at least one of us now either had backed into a flush or a full house. In fact, after the river the good player was in third place, as the limper showed down 3-3.

Usually I am good about choosing action and sizing that does not put me in a way ahead, way behind situation, but after the hand, I realized how unnecessary the amount of the turn bet was, especially since the bad player I was targeting for value (limper) was short.

April 8 – Raises to overbets are rarely bluffs

If you have read my articles here before, you know that I have strong opinions regarding late street raises, especially on the river. The simple fact of the matter is that these aggressive actions are almost never bluffs at the mid to low stakes of live no-limit hold’em.

People often ask me if I ever feel personally exploited at the table because I have made my feelings about bet-folding for value so strong. These people wonder if I am actually getting bluffed a lot because of my idea that turn and river raises from your opponents are almost never bluffs. My response is simple. I do not fold all the time. The line that my opponent takes has to make sense in order for me to fold. I have certainly picked off some bluffs over the last few years on later streets because my opponents line does not tell a story.

However, even when your opponents line do not seem all that viable, you really have to take a step back if you face aggression versus a pot size or overbet that you make on a later street. I have a perfect example of this and it came from a $5-$10 no-limit game that I played a few days ago.

The villain in the hand was a Middle Eastern, late 50s to early 60s recreational player. I had played with him a few times before and he certainly was not a high-level thinker. He also had a bit of a tilting streak in him that made him sometimes do some wacky things. He sat with $1,150 to start the hand and I had him covered. A very fishy older gentlemen with about an $800 stack limped in under the gun and I decided to isolation raise to $40 in the cutoff with K 8. The button three bet me to $80, almost a min-raise. Everyone folded, including the limper, and getting pot odds I decided to call.

The flop came out Q 6 8, giving me middle pair. I checked, first to act and my opponent did not take long and checked behind. At this point with the preflop and flop action I thought that there was a very good chance that the button had A-K, or possibly pocket nines or tens. The turn was the 4, giving me a flush draw now to go along with my pair. Here, I decided to bet small to target A-K and lead for $100. The button thought about it for a moment and called. The river rolled off the K, which I found extremely interesting, as it gave me kings up. At this point, I thought that it would be unlikely that the button would call another bet with 10-10 or 9-9, so I really wanted to go for the gold and target A-K. So with the pot being $380 I decided to overbet $450. The button thought for about 20 seconds and then announced “all-in.”

This action on the river was absolutely shocking. When I went back, looked at the board and remember the action, the hand just did not make any sense. I tried to think of the “monsters” that he might slowplay here. Q-Q as top set just wasn’t congruent. First of all, people usually don’t just min raise Q-Q preflop because they want to protect against overcards. And even if he did take that sizing, it would be unlikely that he would check back the flop on such a wet board. But even if he were to check back the flop with top set, he would then have to just call the turn, with two flush draws appearing and a straight draw. I thought that this was next to impossible. I went through all of the other hands he may have overplayed at the end like A-A, K-K, A-K, K-Q and none made any sense. Those hands would not check back the flop, call the turn and raise all-in on the river.

At the end, the pot was laying me over 3.5-1 and I could not think of a hand that was logically played in this manner. However, sometimes you have to lean on your experience in spots like this and in the ten years of playing and broadcasting professional poker, I could not think of a single time where someone had bluff-raised the river versus an overbet or overplayed a hand like those listed with this action. However, a lot of times if a hand makes no sense and I am getting pot odds I will just sort of close my eyes and call. And this is exactly what I did here. Unfortunately for me, my opponent said “set” and tabled Q-Q.

This leads to the main point of this Tweet. Even if someone’s line does not make sense, if you are dealing with raises to your overbets people seem to play “straight up” and their bluffing frequency is extremely low. In this case, I probably should have leaned more on my live poker playing experience and the rarity of the situation as opposed to fall back on what was logical hand reading. ♠

Follow Bart for daily strategy tips on Twitter @CrushLivePoker and @BartHanson. Check out his poker training site exclusively made for live cash game play at CrushLivePoker.com where he produces weekly podcasts and live training videos.