I played a hand recently in a raised pot with suited connectors, and afterwards the other player involved said I had made a "moronic" play. I disagree, but I think it's useful to look at the decisions I made and evaluate them honestly.
It was a low buy-in NLHE game and I picked up 76o in the big blind. A player in early position opened for 3x the big blind, it was folded to me and I called. We both had stacks that were about the size of the max buy-in, which was 100x the big blind.
The flop came 582 rainbow, I had flopped an open ender. I like to semibluff draws in NLHE but I was out of position and he had raised, so I checked. He overbet, about twice the size of the pot. I thought for a bit and called.
The turn was a 4, I made my straight. I checked, and this time he bet about half the pot. I called. The river was a king. I checked and he checked behind me. He had QQ and I won the pot.
Now, the specific part of my play that he called moronic was my preflop call with 76. It's actually not a play I make a lot or would neccessarily recommend, but we always have to judge plays by the situation, not by a chart in a book.
I had observed the other player a bit and he had open raised more than his share of pots. I was getting pot odds of over 2:1 to call. I thought that he might not have much of a hand, but if he did have a big pair then 76 is not a band kind of hand to play.
In fact, 87s is the hand that plays best against AA heads-up (it's about a 4:1 dog), and 76s is not much worse off. You would prefer the cards to be suited, of course, but I don't think that really counts for as much as people sometimes assume. It's not like you're going to know you have the best hand with an 8 high flush - the straight is really the draw you would rather hit. The straight is more likely to be the nuts, and it's also more deceptive than the flush.
An added bonus is that if you hit big with a hand like 76 (two pair, trips or a straight) you may even bust the raiser. So, I called. I don't see a problem with that.
The decision that I actually do think is shaky is my call on the flop. Since he overbet the pot I was not getting even close to the 4:1 I needed to take a card off and try to hit my straight. So why did I call?
The overbet felt like an overpair to me, it's a pretty common play to overbet in that situation. While I was not getting the right pot odds to call, I felt that the implied odds were prettty good. He still had about 75% of his stack left, and I thought I might win it all if I hit.
Another big factor in calling is that I was drawing to the nuts, that was a very important point. If a 4 or a 9 came off on the turn I would have the nut straight, which would also be the best possible hand at the moment. There would be the possibility of a higher straight hitting on the river, or even a bigger hand like a flush or a boat, but I'd be willing to take that chance as the favorite if I could hit my hand on the turn.
In retrospect I think I was probably not getting the right price to call, even with the implied odds. Compared to his bet and the rest of the stack I was getting a little less than 5:1. That's only slightly better than the odds to hit the straight on the turn, and it assumed I could actually bust him.
The overbet seemed to signal that he was going to be willing to put a lot of chips in the pot but that turned out not to be the case. He was actually overbetting to protect what he thought might be a vulnerable hand, based on the rest of his play, and the king on the river really seemed to scare him him off. (I think he may have put me on AK, although I'm not sure how he thought I would have called an overbet on the flop and a bet on the turn with only two overcards. Would that have been less moronic than calling with 76 preflop?)
I think my play on the turn was fine. It surprised me a bit that he slowed down here and only bet half the pot, and I didn't want to lose him by raising.
Not betting on the river turned out to be a big mistake, though. I had the best hand, but instead of value betting I checked and gave him a free showdown. I was hoping to get in a checkraise, but after that small bet on the turn it was a mistake to count on him to bet my hand for me again on the river. I think he probably would have made a crying call for half the size of the pot there, and perhaps even a pot-sized bet. He might even have played back at me if I made a small bet and he sensed weakness.
So, looking back I think I made some questionable decisions, but not anything I'd call moronic. Of course you shouldn't let what someone says when they are steaming get to you, but I think it is very important to be able to look at your play in an honest fashion.
If you have any feedback on this hand, feel free to use the link below to add a comment :)
Ted
There's an article in the new Cardplayer called The Courage to Fold, and I think it's worth reading. As I mentioned in my last post, I've noticed that the biggest dent in my win rate for NL cash games comes from the times that I take a big loss, and at least some of the times I've been busted have been times when I could have made a good laydown. I had a feeling I was beat, but called with the worst hand anyway and did not get lucky. So, along with game selection, I've also been focusing on making disciplined laydowns when called for.
Here's an example from a hand I played last night where this really paid off. It was a NLHE cash game with blinds of $0.10/$0.25 and a $25 max buy-in. I had about the max. It had been folded to me in middle position and I had KJs. I limped, and it was folded around to the blinds. The small blind limped, and the big blind raised to $1. I thought for a moment but then folded. KJs is a pretty marginal hand, and the raiser could very well have had me dominated. I didn't know a lot about the big blind, but from what I had seen he seemed solid. I had position, but that didn't seem to be enough to make it worth calling another 3x the big blind.
The flop came J2J and I started to regret my fold, but by the time the smoke cleared the small blind was all-in and the big blind turned over AJ. Had I played that pot I think there's a very good chance I would have gone broke. It would have been tempting to put the raiser on a hand like a pocket pair and not on the one specific hand that would beat me which made sense, AJ. I certainly wouldn't have put the raiser on J2 or 22.
So, by folding preflop I saved myself not only the $0.75 I had to call, but the rest of my stack as well.
Ted
Well, I'm back. I was on vacation for a week and a half, and while I played lots of poker I didn't feel like writing much. I actually caught the worst run of cards I've seen in the year and a half I've been playing Holdem. I don't like to whine, but I've never seen people hit so many four, three and two outers :)
Thankfully things have smoothed out and I'm doing much better. I'm back to playing NL cash games, and I've changed my strategy a lot when it comes to table selection. In the past I've usually played the highest buy-in I can comfortably play on my bankroll, and then tried to find the weakest table at that level. But lately I've been sometimes playing at lower buy-in tables if I find games that are better. The reason for this change is that I've noticed that the big killer to my win rate is big losses, and those are less likely to happen against weaker players. I'd rather book relatively big wins at a lower buy-in if that's where the best game is than butt heads with better players.
Here's an example of a hand I played recently where I got quite a bit more action than I might have at a tougher table. I was playing at a table with a $10 max buy-in and $0.05/$0.10 blinds, and about 65% of the players had been seeing the flop when I arrived. There were only two players at the table who seemed at least fairly good (one I had played against before). The rest were average at best, and most appeared to have bought in short.
I was in the small blind with Kd 9d, and several players had limped in. I tend to play pretty tight from the small blind, but I thought this was a hand I'd like to take a flop with if I could limp. I called and the big blind checked.
The flop came 3d Ac 4d giving me the second nut flush draw. I really like to semibluff and was tempted to bet at least half the pot, but with four other players behind me there was just too good of a chance that someone had an ace. So, I checked, and the other players all checked behind me.
Turn was 2d. I had hit the flush. At this point I was pretty confident that I had the best hand, and I made the decision to slowplay. Hopefully with all of that weakeness on the flop, someone would take a stab at the pot. I checked, but unfortunately so did everyone else. I really was hoping for some action there to build the pot.
The river was 5s making the board:
3d Ac 4d 2d 5s
That card was a thing of beauty from my perspective, as there was now a wheel (A-5 straight) on board. I had slowplayed the turn hoping someone would bluff or catch up and make a hand, and in fact all of the players now had at least the five high straight.
At this point I was almost certain I had the best hand. There were only two hands that could beat me, the straight flush and the nut flush. Neither of those seemed likely holdings because of the lack of action on the flop. Anyone with Ad would have flopped a pair of aces, and they would almost certainly have put money into the pot with top pair and the nut flush draw. And a straight flush draw is very powerful, it is likely that someone would have bet it as well. My king high flush looked good here.
I was tempted briefly to check, but I decided that the better move would be to overbet the pot. I wanted to make it appear that I was only playing the board and was trying to scare the other people out. I bet $1.50, three times the size of the pot, an amount I hoped the other players with just the wheel would call. The big blind quickly called. The next player to act was the person I had played before - I knew him to be smart and he quickly folded.
Then another beautiful thing happened - the following player (in late position) raised to $6.50, which was a little more that two thirds of his stack. The last player to act folded. I moved in for $9.80, and the big blind and the late position player both called all-in, I had them both slightly covered.
My king high flush was indeed good. The big blind was simply playing the board, he obviously believed we were trying to deny him his share of a split pot. The late position player who raised had 66, he had made the six high straight. He actually had caught up and made a good hand, but I had him beat.
Afterwards the late position player made a comment that seemed to imply it was a bad beat, but that was not the case at all. He had a better hand than I did on the flop, but he gave me the free card that I needed to make the flush. The real money went in when the cards were all out, and by then I had the best hand.
Now, I mention this hand in relation to game selection because I probably would not have gotten this level of action from tougher players. An all-in call from a good player who was just playing the board would have been unlikely. In fact the one solid player I knew at the table saw my trap coming from a mile off - he knew I would not be putting money in there if I didn't have the board beat.
I would likely have been at least called by any player who made the six high straight, but even if all our money went in I would have only doubled up instead of almost tripling up. And that assumes I would have made it to the turn to hit my flush. A tougher player in late position may have bet the flop when it was checked to him. In fact with 66 on that flop he only would have been beaten by an ace or a few other hands, some of which were pretty unlikely. Some people would take a stab at the pot there. Had I faced a pot-sized bet or an overbet on the flop from a player who had position on me, I would have had a real decision to make.
I'm not saying I'm only going to play $10 buy-in tables, that's not my point. If I can find a soft $25 or even $50 table I will definitely play. But given the choice between a tough $50 table and a soft $10 table, I'm going to pick the soft one. I would rather book smaller wins consistently than face a table full of tougher players where I am more likely to take the occasional big loss.
We'll see how my theory holds up over time :)
Ted