Odds and Ends

As you probably know, I am one of the proud members of the Wednesday Poker Discussion Group (WPDG), which, coincidentally, meets each Wednesday in Las Vegas. We have grown and blossomed, and still are intact. A few issues ago, Alan Schoonmaker wrote about our 100th meeting, and it gave me pause to reflect on some of the things we have done as a group and the many ways we have grown. Many "members" have joined us along the way – some only once or twice when they have passed through Las Vegas, and many others who visited us once and haven't missed a meeting since. That is more than I can say for myself, since I travel so much that I miss many a meeting. In fact, when I do show up, I get a hero's reception, and it's pretty cool. I have everyone snowed into thinking I am "someone." Shhh, it will be our secret. Anyway, you might be interested in some of the things we have talked about recently, so I want to share them with you.

Recently, one of our members brought up for discussion a post that was made on one of the online poker news forums. It seems that a well-known and regular poster gave a few hand histories from a $30-$60 hold'em game he had played. The reason these hands were of interest is that the member couldn't believe what he was saying, and wondered if we agreed with him. The game he described was a very aggressive one, more so than usual. He was talking about playing hands like ace-small suited and a pair of deuces when under the gun (first to act). After being negatively critiqued for playing these hands when under the gun, he went on to post that his preflop action was not in question, and that it was the post-flop play that was. He believed that playing these hands from early position was acceptable. This raised lots of eyebrows, as this guy can play, and play well. So, our group began discussing playing these types of hands when out of position. It would appear that many high-limit players don't realize the danger of these hands any more than beginners do.

When you play poker, you have to ask yourself why you are playing. If you are at the table because you want the action and are not results-oriented, by all means play these types of hands. These hands can win big pots and create all sorts of action. However, if you want to win, whether by grinding out some small victories or really learning and studying the game and maximizing your potential, you can't even think of playing these hands (from early position) other than in the most passive games. These hands can certainly be played under favorable circumstances, but not when you're first to act. These are the types of hands that play well from late position for one bet only, and when there are several other players in the pot. So, our group of about 20 that day discussed the play of these hands, and we all decided the poster was wrong, and perhaps isn't as good a player as we had thought. Or, perhaps he is not winning as much as he could be winning, because he plays hands like these from out of position and therefore wastes several bets.

After all of the talk about the play of these hands, we turned to our very own Pokerbear for his comments. Of course, Pokerbear is Card Player columnist Barry Tanenbaum. I was watching Barry while the discussion ensued, and his face showed his angst at the thought of any of the devoted disciples of Wednesday wisdom playing that way. When we finally looked to him for direction, he commented, "Poker is a game of situations, and if you are playing these hands from under the gun, you cannot know what the situation is." He continued, "If the game was an overly aggressive one, as described, it was exactly the kind of game in which you wouldn't consider playing those hands." The bottom line was that our Wednesday group of regulars figured this type of play is less than optimal, and wouldn't do it in the game in question. What do you think? In small-limit passive games, if you play well after the flop, you can get away with calling with these types of hands from any position, as most of the pots are multiway and unraised. In games like that, you are playing the situation correctly because you can predict what that situation will be. But that's unlike the game in question, in which the poster knew the impending situation (usually a raised pot with few players), chose to ignore it, and played the hands anyway.

What are the dangers? Well, the two deuces are easy to play. Either you flop a set or you don't, in which case you should usually fold. With the ace-small suited, you need a miracle flop like a straight or trips, or you need the flush draw to come. If an ace flops, you might be in kicker trouble. The downside is that you have pretty much totally wasted a bet by calling preflop. So, you can see that the dangers are many. For the most part, you are playing out of position and hoping to catch something. That's not only dangerous, but costly.

To summarize, in a small-limit nonaggressive game (not to be confused with the many ram-and-jam small games you are likely to encounter), you can see some flops with these hands. However, in the long run, playing these speculative hands in early position is not positive expected value poker. You have to realize that to proceed, you need to hit a big chunk of the flop, since you will be out of position the entire hand. Playing from early positions is much tougher than playing from late positions. Doing so gets costly, enough so to turn a winning session into a losing one. If the pot is raised behind you, you have to hate your hand. That is why you have to know the type of game you are in. Whether the stakes are small or large, a game will have a certain feel to it, and you need to decide if it is fast or slow, aggressive or passive. If you continue putting money into pots preflop, only to throw away your hands on the flop, you cannot beat the game. With better hand selection, you can save many bets. Class dismissed.

E-mail me for information about the Oasis Open poker tournament (Oct. 24-28), Card Player Cruises poker vacations, or anything involving poker. I enjoy hearing from you.