Crushing Live Poker With TWITTER

August 25 – There Are Certain Situations To Pot Control

Pot control is really overrated in live low- and mid-stakes no-limit games. However, players used to wrongly implement the concept all of the time. I remember about six to eight years ago pot control was absolutely rampant in no-limit cash games. Commonly you would see players check back the turn with overpairs simply because they did not know what they were going to do if they were raised. This did not make a lot of logical sense, however, as the frequency of a check-raise bluff, especially in three- and four-bet pots was extremely low. But people believed the old adage that you did not want to play a big pot with one pair.

In reality, the times to correctly pot control are rare and the game has evolved over the past few years where you hardly see it implemented. However, if you are up against an opponent that is capable of blowing you off of your hand with a draw or bluff and is also balanced enough to play big pots with strong hands, you are forced to do things to manage the size of the pot.

One such situation happened to me in the $5-10 no-limit game at the Commerce last week. In this particular game starting stacks are capped at $1,500, but often times players will get very deep. In this spot I was actually $4,000 deep with the villain. This particular villain has a lot of experience playing larger games and tough competition and he recognizes that in order to win a big pot you must build a big pot. He is also capable of running large bluffs, but plays very tight preflop. He has the ultimate “TAG” style.

In this particular hand I opened to $35 under the gun with Q Q. The villain called in middle position and we went heads up. The flop came out J 7 4 and I made a $50 continuation bet. My opponent called rather quickly. The turn brought the 3 putting out a backdoor flush draw. In most cases at this level I would simply bet again from out of position to continue to get value from a jack or a flush draw. I would reevaluate the situation if I was raised. But against this particular opponent I knew that he was capable of not only raising the turn with a draw but also raising it with the actual nuts, 6-5. He is also good enough to turn some sort of hand that was marginal on the flop onto a bluff, knowing that he doesn’t have the best hand, like 7-6. This balanced range is extremely rare at this level but it forced me to check in order to manage the pot size. I simply could not call a big raise because I knew that my opponent would know exactly where I was at and would have position on the river. So, I decided to check. He bet $120, and I called. The river was the 3 and it completed the front door flush. I checked again and to my surprise my opponent quickly checked behind. I tabled my queens expecting to win and he turned over 6 5 for the turned nuts with a flush draw!

I actually think that he made a mistake by not value betting the river, although I am not sure that I would have called with the queens. However, you can see that I definitely would have been raised on the turn and would have been put in a difficult, precarious spot. So by checking I actually made the hand easier for me to get to a showdown.

August 15 – Four-Flush Runouts in No-Limit Hold’em Cause Interesting, “Unique” Un-Bluffable Scenarios

One of the more interesting and “absolute” situations in hold’em is boards that contain a four flush, that are unpaired. Unlike other runouts, it is easy for someone to hold the absolute nuts as it only requires a single card from the deck as opposed to a combination of two cards. Because of this, it makes a particular situation “un-bluffable” by a player and should cause someone to only call a raise or reraise with the “nut” flush if there is any possibility of a straight flush.

For the purpose of clarity, when I mention “nut flush” in this article I am talking about the highest-ranked flush, like an ace-high flush, or a king-high flush, when an ace is present on the board. Even though this technically might not be the “nut flush” if a straight flush is present that is how most people for the most part use the term.

A few days ago I played a very interesting hand at the Bicycle Casino’s Legends of Poker main event that demonstrates what I am talking about. With the blinds 250-500 with a 75 ante, I had about a 65,000 stack. It got folded around to me on the button and I raised A 9 to 1,300. Both blinds, sitting each with about 25,000, called. The flop came out K Q 7 and both players checked to me. In retrospect, I think that I should bet here a lot of the time as I rarely will get check-raised unless somewhat flopped a flush. I think pocket kings and queens always rereaise preflop and with a decent frequency so does K-Q. So unlike a board that comes out say 6 5 4, where I might not get a lot of fold equity when I make a continuation bet, this board is actually rather ripe for it. This time, however, I decided to check back the flop and add a little bit of deception to my nut-flush draw.

The turn brought out the beautiful J giving me the one card “nut flush.” Both players checked to me again and I decided to bet super tiny, 1,200, to make it look like I was bluffing at the pot. Much to my surprise, both of my opponents called.

The river rolled off a fifth spade and the final board looked like K Q 7 J 6. Now anyone with a spade lower than the 6 played the board. Both players checked to me again and this time I bet small again, 2,200. Unbelievably, the small blind thought about it and raised me to 8,200! The big blinded folded and the action was back to me. On this particular board there are two combinations of straight flushes, A 10 and 10 9. Because I held the A in my hand that combo was impossible so the only hand that I could lose to was the 10 9. That does not mean that I should rereaise this bet, however. You see, in this unique situation in hold’em where I could easily hold the one card nut with the A, it is basically impossible that someone would ever raise for value with a worse hand, say the second nut 10, and call a reraise. And that is the case simply because if the player with the 10 does not have the A, I can. In my exact position, my play of reraising his check raise, in essence, can never be a bluff in the absolute sense, because if I don’t hold at least the As my opponent can. So no matter how unlikely it is for him to have 10 9, I absolutely cannot reraise his check raise as he will never call me with a worse hand. I ended up thinking for a bit, and said, “Well, I don’t have the 9 in my hand. I just call.” He then sheepishly turned over 3 3 to play the board.

As you can see this is much different than any other board where people can have different strengths of full houses, quads, or higher flushes where they have to use both cards in their hand. This situation is the only one in hold’em where it is easy for a player to have the absolute nuts, because they only have to hold one specific card. And because of the ease of this situation it is impossible for another player to reraise a raise as a bluff because they simply do not hold that card. ♠

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.