If I had to name the worst play you can make in poker, this is it:
NO_LIMIT TEXAS_HOLDEM $5+$1 (Real Money), #564,382,813
Northridge Single Table Tournament, 8 Jul 2007 11:10 PM ET
Seat 1: MO35 ($1,480 in chips)
Seat 2: najdzel999 ($1,480 in chips)
Seat 3: Sampy X ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 4: 13aris13 ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 5: Yarking Dawg ($1,560 in chips)
Seat 6: Edu_Silva ($1,480 in chips)
Seat 7: Dr Zen ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 8: pikku-jii ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 9: Ronny Cox ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 10: ladytron604 ($1,500 in chips)
ANTES/BLINDS
Edu_Silva posts blind ($10), Dr Zen posts blind ($20).
I have 73 or some such shit, so I don't expect to go far in this hand.
PRE-FLOP
pikku-jii folds, Ronny Cox calls $20, ladytron604 folds, MO35 folds, najdzel999 folds, Sampy X folds, 13aris13 calls $20, Yarking Dawg calls $20, Edu_Silva calls $10, Dr Zen checks.
So I get a free ride. I haven't been watching these players, and this is only the second or third hand. I know Yarking Dawg. He's a bit too willing to gamble, but that's all I recall about him.
FLOP [board cards 4H,6H,2H ]
Edu_Silva checks, Dr Zen checks, Ronny Cox checks, 13aris13 checks, Yarking Dawg checks.
Now, if I flopped a flush on this board, I would bet. No one ever credits you for it, and you don't want to give a free card to a big heart. I have a gutshot draw, but I'm not all that excited about it.
TURN [board cards 4H,6H,2H,5C ]
My draw came in. I'm still not megaexcited though, but I'll call a bet with it.
Edu_Silva checks, Dr Zen checks, Ronny Cox checks, 13aris13 bets $40, Yarking Dawg folds, Edu_Silva folds, Dr Zen calls $40, Ronny Cox folds.
If I had to put this guy on a hand, I'd put him on a single highish heart. This is probably a semibluff.
RIVER [board cards 4H,6H,2H,5C,QD ]
Dr Zen checks, 13aris13 bets $1,440 and is all-in
WTF?
Okay, so the guy is betting 1440 to win 180.
There are two cases: he has two hearts or he doesn't. I doubt he has, but of course I won't be calling. This is a bet you need a very strong hand to call. Arguably, only the nuts can call it.
Now why is this a bad play? He has won the pot, no?
It's a bad play because I clearly had something on the turn. I either have a flush or I have a 3. The latter is more likely but I could have flopped a flush and waited for someone to bet it rather than scare the whole table away with a bet. With this many players to the flop, the chances are good someone has two hearts.
If he has no flush, he's pushed me off my hand, hasn't he? Yes, but he has gambled his whole stack that I don't have a flush and won't call with a straight.
If he does have one, he has just failed to get paid. I would have called a small bet. The river was a Q, so I might even have Qh and be willing to call a bet with top pair on the board. I've seen people do it.
When you make a bet that only the nuts can call, you want the pot to reward you. In poker, risks are worth taking only when the rewards are adequate.
Dr Zen folds.
Of course. I doubt he had a flush. But even though the reward is greater for me if I am right, the risk is too high. As it happens, the guy busted out fairly soon afterwards, after making several high-risk, low-reward bets, one of which paid, the other two not.
You see this all the time. Players push to win tiny pots preflop. If the rest of the table is even half-awake, it's only calling you with hands that beat you. If your hand is a bluff, you're risking everything for very little. If you have a very strong hand, you made very little for it. Either way, it's a poor play. Yes, sometimes a fishtard will call an allin push with a weak ace or a pair of 3s, but it's not something you should plan on.
Dr Zen's journey from knownothing fish to...
Links
- 2+2 -- gregatron on building a bankroll
- 2+2 -- the temple
- 2+2 -- wookie on building a bankroll
- 2+2 SSNL FAQ
- Aaron Wong's poker page -- excellent limit advice
- AleoMagus SNG strategy
- Alspach's poker
- Cardplayer -- the bible
- Carson on poker culture
- Carson's no limit blog
- Darse's no limit strategy -- probably better live
- Full Tilt's Pro Tips -- use with care
- Holdem hand value table
- Hoyazo -- fonking around
- HU odds chart
- Jim's Poker Letters -- oldies but goodies
- Lucko -- MTT ownage
- Matt Matros -- redefines "aggro"
- Mike Caro's Uni -- goldmine
- Neil Dewhurst's hand converter
- Noted Poker Authority -- the prophet
- Party
- Pocket Fives' guest articles
- Poker and math -- Carson gets technical
- Poker search
- Pokertracker
- SAGE heads up system
- SNG FAQ with links
- Stars
- The Room of Dreams
- Tommy Angelo -- genius, clown? You decide
- Twenty one outs twice -- Chris Fargis on draw and other pokerings
6 comments:
I make this "tard move" ocassionally on the end, when I have the nuts. There are more "fishtards" at these low limit SNGs than you might imagine. And in your example, the all-in bet would only need to get called 1 in 15 tries to be ahead of a half-pot, $90, value bet on the end. That assumes all of those $90 bets are called, which they won't be, so the all-in move doesn't even have to work every fifteenth try to be productive.
The play also works sometimes against better players because it often feels like it must be a bluff. It sounds like you were up against your garden variety donkey, but early in an SNG, a move like that, can do wonders for a good player's image.
The play certainly doesn't make sense as a bluff into such a tiny pot. But I believe it can be defended if he had the 3,5 of hearts or an A-high flush. He wouldn't have to be right all that often in hoping that you had a second-best flush or would make the call with a straight.
Again, it doesn't sound like your opponent was making this sort of a reasoned decision. And it's not a move that I would by any means favor over a considered value bet. There are, however, merits for the all-in move here.
Best of luck!
(Of course, I may be a fishtard as well? My ROI for SNGs of $50 and below hovers around 25%.)
I think my problem is that there is nothing that calls here that didn't bet the flop or raise the turn. Yes, I do agree that sometimes the "bluff bluff" is a great move, but you need to be in a hand with a donkey you're pretty sure will call. I'm not that donkey, and this guy cannot think I am.
For the sake of argument, he could have the 3,5 hearts and hope you are slow playing an ace high flush. Even so, he could have gotten the same result on the end with a smaller bet, as you would have certainly raised. I didn't mean to suggest that this particularly instance is the best case for making the "bluff bluff" play, rather I was defending the play generally (as you seemed to be panning it generally). And it doesn't necessarily have to be a bluff bluff play. It will work plenty well as an oversized value bet against the legion of donks. Assuming he had the flush, there are plenty of player who will call with any 3 and 7,8. If you've only played 3 hands with him, and you two have no history, how is it that he cannot think that you are the right kind of donkey to call his over-sized bet? And if he had been a strong player making this bizarre move three hands into the match, he would have had you confused and probably thinking he is a fishtard. Perfect.
I tend to make this play:
1. occasionally to deceive
2. into donkeys I know may call it
3. into boards where it is unlikely that I'm going to get action from anything other than a slow-played, monster second-best hand.
I have no data to support it, but I believe I easily get enough callers to make up for the money I lose when I am not called and might have made a smaller value bet instead.
Good luck on the tables.
I think the key to it is (b) though. You need to have some idea that you're going to get called. He can't think I'm going to call exactly because we've only played two or three hands! When I say you need to have some idea, I mean you need to have seen your donkey call a large overbet.
The reason I pan the "bluff bluff" here is that it's only getting called by the nuts or something very close to it. Assuming that a guy who has checked, checkcalled and checked again has the second nuts is a stretch.
You're never going to lose money if you make this play with the nuts, of course, and you're right that you'll need to have your value bets called a lot of times to make the same money, so yes, there's something to be said for it. But I think this guy didn't have the nuts. That's kind of the point.
As an aside, I'm always betting that flop with any flush. They never ever credit you with it and you don't want to give a free card. I can see why you might slowplay it, but I'd bet the A-high flush too, other things being equal. I might then check the turn and let the straight bet if it's out there, but I think that the bet on the flop is called so often that I don't want to miss it. Apart from anything else, you build a bigger pot, which you want.
I'm no expert though. An ROI of 25% for 50s and under is very respectable, as I'm sure you know, particularly if you approach that at the higher end. But I think you'd agree that you're making these moves with KK on a board like Kh8h7s8c9h where you can reasonably expect your villain to show you a flush, or sometimes a straight, sometimes even a worse boat, when he calls your push. Here the pusher a/ has the nuts and b/ can expect to get looked up by a range of hands.
Still, it's worth thinking about, particularly because it gives you a false image. Funnily enough, in a five-dollar MTT I would push AA on the first hand *every time*. The chances that someone has a hand they want to call you with are just so good. If I just win the blinds, oh well. At least I didn't stick in a decent raise, get outflopped and busted.
Of course, I would pick an example where you don't actually have the nuts! But you effectively do, because if you're shown 88 you just cry.
Something like that happened to me today. I limped with 99 at t20. A guy raised to 50 and three others and I called. The flop came A95 and I started doing a little dance. I rarely check a set, but I did this time. Raiser checked too, and the button bet 100. EP called, I raised to a very callable 300 and the PF raiser pushed.
If you have AA, I'm going to cry, I typed in chat. Man, I hate it when the tards play in a particularly retarded way and get away with it.
All good points, doctor. As usual, it all comes down to context. I guess in poker, as in life, there are no categorical imperatives.
Just stumbled upon your blog yesterday and am enjoying it. Keep up the fine work.
Post a Comment