Analyzing My Own Analysis

As some readers of this column know, I put a lot of time and effort into keeping the quality of my work as high as possible. I want my columns to be not just fun to read, but also accurate and helpful for both the serious professional and the recreational player. Usually, I write and rewrite my columns quite a few times, so that readers will find not only a good story, but also all kinds of useful information they expect from a poker strategy column. Having said all of this, it is not unusual that, after seeing my columns in print, I wish I could change or add things to them – simply because my analyses were incomplete, incorrect, or both.

Today, I will discuss excerpts from two of my past columns. I will take another good look at these columns, to basically reanalyze my previous analyses. Because some of my views came out rather unclear, and because I might have left out some important or relevant information in both columns, I will use this column to add what I should have added initially.

Analysis No. 1:

Ace Speaks: Disagreeing With T.J.

Card Player, Volume 16, No. 13, June 20, 2003

In this column, I questioned T.J. Cloutier's recommendations on how to play pocket kings in limit hold'em after a raise and a cold-call. I hold T.J. in the highest regard: His poker results, his general demeanor, and his contributions to the game are second to none, if you ask me. Having said that, I did not agree with his analysis of how to play kings in the specific situation described in his Championship Hold'em. In this book, T.J. stated:

"Suppose it's been raised by someone in early position and another player has called the raise. You must reraise with your kings before the flop. You'd hate for one of them to have an A-4 and then see an ace hit the board … Now suppose the flop comes A-10-7. The first person to act comes out betting and the next player just calls. It's up to you with one player left to act behind you. What do you do? Your kings aren't looking quite as good as they did before the flop, are they? In fact, they're looking a whole lot like a piece of toilet paper! So, you throw them in the muck."

In my column, I questioned T.J.'s reasons for reraising in this case. I did not agree that the reason to three-bet was to stop someone with a weak ace from coming in behind you. In fact, I argued that you would want somebody with a weak ace to come in behind you. If you hold pocket kings and there is a raise and a cold-call in front of you, you know at least one ace is accounted for already, and therefore you wouldn't mind another ace coming in. If an ace flops, you are done with the hand anyway, whether you are up against two, three, or more opponents. So, if by just calling with your kings you can get people behind you to call with a hand like A-4, this would be an argument for just calling, in my opinion, rather than an argument against it. Not only will you add deception to your game by just calling with such a strong hand, you will also lose less if a bad flop comes (for instance, if there's an ace in it), and will win just as much, or even more, if the flop is favorable to your hand. This is because of the extra money the players behind you have contributed, now that you have chosen not to three-bet.

However, what may not have been totally clear from this analysis is that I do think a three-bet is necessary, but for other reasons than the one T.J. gives. If by reraising I can get all others out, and can get myself playing a very good hand, in position, against players who are marked with big cards as well (hands like A-Q, K-J, and maybe A-K), I consider this a highly profitable situation, and not reraising therefore would be silly. Simultaneously, if by just calling I will entice people with small or medium pocket pairs or suited connectors to come in behind me, or if by just calling I will give the big blind the proper odds to call with a hand like 5-3 suited, I will have gotten myself into a lot more trouble than I should have. Let's say my call induced somebody with the 9 8 to call, and then the button calls with pocket sevens, and then the big blind defends with the 5 3. Now, if we give the raiser A-Q and the cold-caller something like J-10, I will probably need another king to win the pot, because there are hardly any &"safe" cards left in the deck for me. For instance, good-looking flops like 7-3-3 or 9-8-2 will cost me a lot of money here. When the cards are distributed like this, with my opponents covering the high, middle, and low parts of the deck, even a high-quality hand like K-K is in dire straits after the flop. If in the six-way pot described here the flop comes with three small cards, no ace, I will simply have to become aggressive to defend my kings. But one of my opponents may have easily flopped a small set, a straight, or two pair, making me either drawing dead or drawing slim. So, I would recommend reraising with kings in this situation, but for different reasons than T.J.'s. I would reraise to clear the field, to have a better view of who's playing what, and to play in a three-way pot with people who are holding the same cards I am: paints. In the setting described here, I know I will probably take my hand to the river, unless there's an ace on the board, four cards to a flush that I don't have, or something scary like Q-J-8 or J-J-10.

Note that in a slightly different situation, just calling with kings would have been more appropriate than three-betting. This would be if I'm on the button, the under-the-gun player has raised, and quite a few players in front of me have called his raise. This is because now, a reraise will not clear the field behind me (I'm on the button already), and by just calling, it will be easier for me to defend my hand after the flop – not to mention the fact that if I three-bet, it will be easier for my opponents to make the right decisions against me later in the hand. Because of all of this, just calling here is probably best. Because of my deceptive preflop call, I now might make more money if the flop is favorable, while losing less if it's not – which is exactly what limit hold'em is all about.

Analysis No. 2:

Ace Speaks: The Truth About Hitting and Running

Card Player, Volume 16, No. 14, July 4, 2003

In this column, I discussed why the concept of quitting once you've won, say, one or two buy-ins has little meaning to the serious and/or professional player. To be more concrete, I stated:

"There are quite a few players who regularly hit and run, and who believe they are doing the right thing. For the professional player, the concept of quitting while you're ahead doesn't make much sense, though. It doesn't matter if you play now, or quit and come back the next day, because it's all one session anyway. In fact, you might cost yourself money by leaving early, because every hour you are at the table, you figure to get paid: the more hours you play, the more money you win …; "

"In limit poker, hitting and running is simply a silly concept. When you are in a good game, are playing well, and are a favorite to beat the game, there's no reason to leave no matter how much you're winning or losing. In limit poker, the winning player gets paid by the hour – the more hours played, the more money won. Hitting and running will be beneficial to your percentage of winning sessions, but not to your hourly rate, and certainly not to the total amount of money you will have won at the end of the year. That's all there is to it: When you have an edge, play – when you don't, don't. Now, what could be simpler than that?"

When this column was published, I received a lot more e-mails than usual, mostly from people who do think the hit-and-run system serves them well. What I forgot to mention in my column was that I actually think hitting and running might not be so bad for some people – more specifically, for the player who does not beat the games. For him, quitting while still ahead might actually be beneficial, for the following reasons:

• He cannot give back his winnings, which might have happened had he kept on playing. (Remember, he is no long-term winner, so the scenario of him giving back all of his winnings plus maybe a little more is not that unlikely.)

• Using a hit-and-run approach means that quite a few of his sessions will be fairly short. Because of this, he will spend fewer hours at the table, meaning that in the long run his results will improve (that is, he will lose less).

• By using the hit-and-run system regularly, his opponents see that he wins occasionally – or even often. Because they may see him win something like six or seven times out of 10, some of them might actually begin to fear him a little. If they give him credit for being a better or more dangerous player than he actually is, it is not unlikely that as a result, they will play worse against him – and our player's results will benefit from this.

• He will probably enjoy the game more, and get a feeling of accomplishment because he has so many winning sessions. For people who play for recreation only, this is a not-to-be-underestimated factor. Someone who wins on one particular night, even if it's just a little, will probably return from the game in a much more positive state of mind than someone who has played for hours and hours, yet still goes home a loser.

Of course, for the person who does not beat the games, there might be an even better system than quitting while ahead, and that is not playing at all. However, one should realize that not all players are in it strictly for the money. Some play for recreation, some for enjoyment, and others to meet nice and interesting people or simply to pass time. If by hitting and running these players can keep their overall losses at an acceptable level, while at the same time enjoying themselves, I see nothing wrong with it – and I probably should have mentioned that in my original column.