A Change of Plans - All Vegas Poker Strategy
Poker strategy hand analysis by AVP Resident Pro Benton Blakeman
By AVP Resident Pro Benton Blakeman
It's been a long time since I've dedicated an article to a hand review. Today I'd like to do just that. I'm going to dissect a hand that I played last week in a live cash game, detailing each decision that I made and why I played the hand the way that I did. I'll be the first to admit that I likely played this hand far from perfect. It actually may be a losing proposition to take the line that I took for most of the hand, but I think there is a huge key element that can be focused on that we can all learn and profit from.
The game in question is $2/$5 no-limit hold’em at the Beau Rivage in Biloxi, Mississippi. The game is unique because there is no max buy-in for the no-limit games at the Beau, so the $2/$5 plays a lot bigger than most capped $2/$5 games. I would compare it to a $5/$10 game in Las Vegas, with average stacks of $1,000 or more and quite frequently several players sitting $5,000 deep. The game is normally three or four regulars, three or four competent semi-regulars, and a few random players.
I buy in for $1,500 and haven't played many hands yet. I start out by chatting with the regulars, and I have concluded that the game is decent, with a few donating players in it. Another thing I have found out is that one of the tight regulars, an older gentlemen who is about 70 years old or so, is winning $800 or so. That means he is being a bit tighter than normal, protecting his win and not getting too far out of line. That player becomes our opponent for the hand in question.
I am under the gun and straddle for $10. This can be our first point of discussion: whether straddling is profitable or not. In a nutshell, the answer would be no. I personally straddle very often for several reasons. If the majority of the table is straddling, I also straddle to keep up my gambling image. This falls in the category of "you must give action to get action." Another main reason that I straddle is that I want the rest of the table straddling, as well. I feel that the little bit of equity that I give up by straddling is outweighed by the fact that I will play better post-flop than most of my opponents, meaning I increase profits when I'm playing in position, and I decrease my losses when having to play out of position when I straddle. It is also good for the game, as it loosens players up and gets them gambling more.
Going back to the hand, I am under the gun and straddle for $10, the player to my left folds, and then our opponent opens to $25. This is his normal raise size, so there isn't much to deduce from his sizing. What I do know about this player is that he rarely raises preflop, especially from early position, and when he does, his range is weighted very heavily toward pairs of jacks and higher, as well as A-K and A-Q. Keeping in mind that he's winning and playing tighter than normal, I feel that there isn't much else in his range in this spot. One other regular calls from the cutoff, and then a looser, gambling player calls from the button. After the blinds fold, I look down and find J-10 offsuit. This hand is far behind the raiser’s range, but with $10 already in and $15 more to call, I think I'm getting a good enough price to see a flop and then decide what to do post-flop. Also, I have great relative position on the raiser, meaning that I can check the flop to him, let him react, and then see what the other two callers do before I have to act. So, with all of this information, I make the call for $15 more and we see the flop four ways.
The flop comes out 9-7-4 with two spades. There is $107 in the pot, and being first to act, I check to the raiser. He leads out for $125 of his $1,500 stack. Both the cutoff and button fold their hands, and the action is back on me.
My first instinct is to fold, for several reasons. First, this player — who is tight and is protecting his profits — has bet slightly more than the pot. This solidifies my read that he has a big pocket pair. In the past, though, I have seen him make this bet with A-K and A-Q in an effort to end the hand, so I think that's still a part of his range. Second, I don’t have a spade in my hand, and I have only a gutshot draw with a couple of overs that likely won't be good, even if I hit one of them on the turn. Lastly, even if I call and hit, I don't think I’m ever stacking him, as he's a decent enough hand-reader to fold an overpair to heavy action if the board reads 9-7-4-8.
While all signs point toward a fold, I start thinking about the fact that he is being overly tight and protecting his profits. Because of this, I know that a check-raise always will get him to fold hands like A-K and A-Q, and I also hope that he'll consider folding an overpair a decent bit of the time, for fear that he is up against a set or a monster combo draw that he is flipping against. The more I contemplate a check-raise, the more I like it.
One of the major downsides is that, against a player like him, I won’t be willing to continue this bluff if it doesn’t work on the flop. I've played enough with him to know that if he decides to call with his overpair on the flop, he likely will be calling down with it, unless the board gets very ugly. I hate making a big one-street bluff and then having to give up, but this just seemed like a great spot against the perfect opponent to do just that.
After making up my mind to follow through with this plan, I check-raise his $125 bet and made it $325 total. This is enough to guarantee a fold from A-K and A-Q, as well as enough to give him the chance to fold overpairs, yet small enough to minimize my losses when he calls or shoves over my check-raise. The possibility of him shoving over my raise isn't a big concern, as he normally just calls or folds his big pocket pairs when faced with pressure.
I am thinking it’s a brilliant play … that is, until he calls $200 more without much hesitation at all. I do learn one thing from his call — he has a made hand. I know that with a draw, even something like A-K of spades, he would have had to think about his options. His quick call here told me that he has an overpair. Based on card removal, knowing that I have a jack and a 10 in my hand, his most-likely holdings are Q-Q, K-K, or A-A. With that info, I think I definitely have to give up on my bluffs, unless I’m lucky enough to catch an 8 for a straight. Even with a spade hitting the turn, I won't feel confident continuing, because if his overpair contains a spade, I imagine he would call my turn bet and then possibly call an all-in on blank rivers, because he will think he has invested too much with his overpair to fold.
What I once thought was a brilliant plan has turned into a huge misstep. Was there a need to run a big bluff on the tightest player at the table? Couldn't I have just waited and found a better spot to put $325 in the pot against a fish? If anyone would tell me that my hand wasn't played optimally up to this point, I don't think that I could make a solid argument against them. Enough is enough — I am done with this hand!
In 2010, Phil Galfond, in my opinion one of the greatest players and thinkers in the game of poker, tweeted, "Every card that falls, and every action that your opponent takes, is simply another opportunity for you to make the correct decision." This is such a profound quote. It's simply saying that, while we may make mistakes on earlier streets in the hand, each new card that falls affords us the opportunity to make the most profitable decision with the new info we're given.
After my opponent’s flop call, I was done with this hand. Done. But sometimes plans change. The dealer burns and turns. The ace of hearts is placed on the table as the turn card. My, oh my, how this changes things. Two seconds before this, I was beating myself up for trying to bluff this player. Now, the gears in my mind start spinning on overdrive. What a perfect turn card! Based on his range of Q-Q, K-K, and A-A, I know that a turn bet will now get a fold from two-thirds of his range. And not only that, but I don't even have to risk much, because he should always be folding Q-Q and K-K to my turn bet, since he can no longer beat hands like A-8 of spades that I check-raised with on the flop.
Without much hesitation, I know that this bluff must continue. I make what I think looks like a value-bet of $340. Now, not only does my opponent have to worry about the turn bet of $340 cutting into his profits from the night, but he also has to worry about what I'm going to bet on the river, which likely will be my last $750 or so. He goes into the tank for a few minutes, talking about the hand out loud. He mentions that I could have a set, and more likely that I got lucky by hitting an ace with the nut-flush draw. Eventually he folds pocket kings. He asks me to see my hand. I don't want to show him, but he insists on seeing one card. I oblige and turn over a red 10. He immediately reaches across the table and turns over the other card. He spends the next 20 minutes talking about the hand, both to himself and to me. To his credit, he analyzed the hand and my range pretty well, as I likely would have played sets and the nut-flush draw this exact way against him.
In a nutshell, I think this hand was played OK by me. I don't know if bluffs like this are necessary in my game, but I do know that I will be getting more action from him in the future. I also now realize the importance of evaluating the lines we take in a hand, street by street. I embrace the fact that plans can change, and I look forward to following Phil's advice that each new card brings another opportunity for us to make the correct decision. Let’s all go out there and make good, profitable decisions on the tables!
This discussion continues in our AVP Forum. Please click HERE to join in and read more!
"He asks me to see my hand. I don't want to show him, but he insists on seeing one card. I oblige and turn over a red 10. He immediately reaches across the table and turns over the other card. He spends the next 20 minutes talking about the hand, both to himself and to me."
Didn't this piss you off in the least bit? It reads like it was something so nonchalant, as if this happens all the time. Personally, I would have wanted to punch the guy, even after taking a bunch of his money. Had you not written "I don't want to show him" then I would have figured you were just playing an angle and letting him see your cards because you wanted to set him up in the future. But you clearly wrote that you didn't want to show him...then why didn't you get pissed at him turning over your second card??? Just curious.
I like it! It's nice when the deck allows you to tell a complete story, and sell it to your opponent - I was thinking hero was done with this hand too after the flop! But, as you mentioned, it's important to keep your options opened.
I would love to see move situational articles, Benton. Great read.
@cfioren317
Great question. In most circumstances I'd agree with you. But this is a regular who I'm very friendly with and he meant no harm by it. Plus, once the ten is exposed it pretty much shows that I'm completely bluffing here. Also he did look at me briefly before turning the second one and I shrugged my shoulders which essentially meant "if you really want to go ahead." I just didn't think it was that important to include all that but you are definitely correct that it would be terrible etiquette to do this to a player who you aren't friendly with or at least have a cordial repore with. I just said that I didn't really want to show my hand because I truly like the guy and didn't want to show off that I bluffed him but he was the one who really wanted to see.
@Dark_Tag
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I hope to write more of these in the future both with my own hands and analyzing members hand histories.
@BentonBlakeman
Great question. In most circumstances I'd agree with you. But this is a regular who I'm very friendly with and he meant no harm by it. Plus, once the ten is exposed it pretty much shows that I'm completely bluffing here. Also he did look at me briefly before turning the second one and I shrugged my shoulders which essentially meant "if you really want to go ahead." I just didn't think it was that important to include all that but you are definitely correct that it would be terrible etiquette to do this to a player who you aren't friendly with or at least have a cordial repore with. I just said that I didn't really want to show my hand because I truly like the guy and didn't want to show off that I bluffed him but he was the one who really wanted to see.[/quote]
That clears it up for me...when you said you didn't want to show him, it wasn't to hide your play...it was because you didn't want to embarrass him LOL. That's awesome.
I really like the line you chose in this hand. In my experience when a preflop raiser/c-bettor merely calls a flop check-raise, they are looking for any reason to give up in the hand in future streets. Bombing the Ace was brilliant.
V's biggest mistake there was not raising enough pre. $25 after a straddle is inviting a cascade of callers.
Once Benton checkraised, V is actually in a tough spot. He really should raise back. Sure, Benton could be raising with a set or two pair, but with flush draws/straight draws present, plenty of semibluffs are available.....or Benton could have had top pair and was just looking to win an extra bet. V is ahead much of the time here. But the problem with calling (and quickly), it gives away your hand there and sets yourself up to get bluffed if the the scare card hit (and A, spade, 8,T,6). V has to figure Benton is going to bet the turn and make it tough to continue with KK. But with V playing with scared money, he didn't want to play for stacks there. If you're not willing to play a big pot there, you should just fold to the checkraise......but if you fold this hand to just any random checkraise, then you're playing way too scared and you're to get bluffed unmercifully in this type of game.
Well done Benton. Now I probably wouldn't have checkraised. I may have floated with the intention of stealing if the right card hits, but I probably would have just folded and moved on.
@FightingIllini2- I think your last sentence is very good! Over 90% of the time I think folding is correct too. And even though I won this hand I still think folding may have been slightly better than my line. As I stated, I wrote about this hand bc it was a perfect example of a plan that changed due to the turn, but in all honesty I think plays like this should be down very seldom and only against the right opponents in the right spots. Bottom line is if you always check fold this spot you probably aren't doing anything wrong. Taking my line and executing probably is close to the same EV over time as just folding bc sometimes my line works and sometimes I lose $600+ more than if I just folded. The big plus to doing it vs a reg is a set up a future dynamic vs this player to get paid off more often when I make hands and take this line vs him.
Very interesting. It's very similar to a hand I played in my last session of $1/$2 NL a couple of weeks ago. I actually like this line and the way of thinking and how things changed when the ace showed up. You're probably right about the EV but I also agree that this line can work well against certain opponents. Thanks for sharing. I always learn something from your writings.
Glad you enjoyed it Jess! Thanks for the kind words and keep on crushing souls at the table!
lol You too BB.
@BentonBlakeman
The reason why I think a float is better than the checkraise is that.....1) semibluffs available and 2) the size of V's flop bet. He overbet the pot by $18. That's a big bet, usually signals a scared bet trying to take it down right there.....which signals KK, QQ, or JJ as the likely hands (he likely bets less with AA since he isn't worried about overcards but just spades and some straight cards.....an $85 bet is a good size). Flatting that bet looks REALLY strong. You likely don't have a draw since you're not getting nearly the right price to draw (and a tight player looking to preserve his win isn't likely going to pay you off if you "hit" your draw). Flatting signals a strong made hand....like a set or two pair. The only legit drawing hand that V could have is A ♠ Q ♠ , but why bet so much when V is a likely favorite over Benton's likely hand? V essentially telegraphed that he has KK-JJ, and can't put Benton on the same hands since he didn't reraise his straddle preflop with 3 others in. So V needs to conclude that Benton has a VERY strong hand that beats V's overpair.
Given that read (and assuming that V is capable of doing this analysis....which means he needs to be a good player), all you need to do is bet $200 on the turn and likely take it down, especially given that the ace came on the turn. This line has just a good of a chance of bluffing V off the hand, but with less investment to do so (need $325 instead of $665).
Still, folding the flop is the prudent play that needs to be done at least 90% of the time.
I am glad that you ended up winning that hand. If you were playing against me, you would have gone broke. I would have put you all-in after your re-raise. If you happened to flop a set or two pairs, I would eventually lose about the same amount of money anyway assuming the Ace doesn't come on the turn or the River.
However, by putting you all-in, I could possibly take down the pot right there.
Also, regardless of how well I know a person, I don't allow him/her to touch my cards. It is part of poker etiquette for that person not to touch my card. If you guys were really closed, he can ask you afterward. However, by turning over your card, he revealed a lot of information about your hand/bluff. Also, if you were head up with another person and that person folded then that person turned over your card. You couldn't possibly get mad because he/she said, hey, "You didn't say anything when the other guy turned up your card, so I assume it is okay."
@Rocketpoker92
I understand but I disagree with the fact that "if I were playing against you that I'd have gone broke." First, I was bluffing so if you shove like you said I'm never calling so its impossible for me to go broke. Second, this hand was against a certain player. It was player dependent. Just because I took this line against this player doesn't mean that I'd take that line against you or other players in my game.
"Was there a need to run a big bluff on the tightest player at the table?"
I guess there's never a "need" in any given hand, but the tightest player at the table who was also likely to be trying to lock up a win sounds like a pretty good target.
@TheGameKat
Haha, bingo. And that's the heart of it all. Don't just bluff to bluff. It happens best when the exact scenario falls into place against the exact opponent who's capable of folding made hands. The rest of poker is just maximizing value with our hands that are winners and minimizing losses with our second best hands. Bluffing isn't as big of a part of the game as poker on TV makes it out to be.
@BentonBlakeman
Haha, bingo. And that's the heart of it all. Don't just bluff to bluff. It happens best when the exact scenario falls into place against the exact opponent who's capable of folding made hands. The rest of poker is just maximizing value with our hands that are winners and minimizing losses with our second best hands. Bluffing isn't as big of a part of the game as poker on TV makes it out to be.[/quote]
Right and we're not spending all our time looking at the pulse in the neck of our opponents.
However, I'd be interested in your take on the following statement by Ed Miller (from memory so it may be a paraphrase):
"Deep-stacked no-limit holdem revolves around the threat of the all-in bluff." (My italics)
Hmmm. I know Ed is a respected writer. I can't say that I really ever fear an all in bluff when playing deep stacked. In fact, I welcome it. But sure, bluffs are much more effective when deep because of pot manipulation, fear of the money, ect so if that's what he means then yes bluffing is a bigger part of the game than late tourney play where average stacks are 25bbs.
@TheGameKat
I remember reading that, but I think it was the threat of the all-in bet. Harrington essentially says the same thing somewhere in HoCG.
- Numerius
@Numerius
I remember reading that, but I think it was the threat of the all-in bet. Harrington essentially says the same thing somewhere in HoCG.
- Numerius[/quote]
Ha well that makes a difference. Thanks.
Kind of but not really. Essentially when facing an all in its either a value bet or a bluff, so I think my analysis stays the same. I tend to manage and manipulate pot size well so I really don't worry about the "all in bet" (or bluff) that often unless I'm the one setting up bet sizing to make that all in bet.
@BentonBlakeman
Right I don't think the implication is that the threat should provoke fear, just that deep-stack leverage can drive strategy. Or something.
Well that's absolutely true. Leverage is huge when playing deep stacked no limit hold em. Players who correctly use leverage by sizing correctly can instill fear in opponents by making certain bets on the turn that imply that an all in river bet is coming. This is why you'll hear me say "I bet $250 on the turn and my opponent knew they couldn't call bc if was going to cost them $700" which implies that they knew the $250 bet is only the beginning and that the river bet will likely be for their remaining $450 stack, so it will cost them $700 to see the hand to showdown. I think that's likely what Ed was writing about and that is definitely a big part of deep stacked no limit strategy.