Don't Play Poker to Wind Down

Played $50 NL hold'em for two hours late last night. Played absolutely shite.

In terms of play I made all the mistakes the better player in me knows not to make. Mistakes I normally profit from when others make them - ill conceived bluffs, far too much limping preflop, draw chasing without odds, calling instead of raising when ahead, paying off winning hands blah blah blah ad infinitum. If I was watching me I would think: FISH!

Observation wise, I was all over the place. I wasn't reading the board properly, I was reading my opponents poorly and in one hand I even found myself only noticing an opponent on one side of the table, totally forgetting that another player was also active in the hand.

Really I shouldn't have been playing at all, as me and the other half have recently had a medical problem to deal with and it's been praying on my mind, and into the bargain I was quite tired. I suppose I played to try and forget the problems and wind down, but they were always there niggling at me throughout the session.

The lesson: Don't use poker to wind down and de-stress, it really doesn't work. I'll rephrase that: By all means play poker to wind down and de-stress if you don't care about winning. But if you're the type who plays poker to win then have a few drinks to wind down instead of playing a few hands.

I only played one $50 NL table because, even in my emotional state, I was self aware enough to know that my concentration was only partly there. The table I played was really loose and pretty aggressive, the pots were big and there was plenty of loose calling, loose betting and bluffing going on.
If I was playing my A-game it would have been a most glorious table to be at. Sadly I was playing my C-game all night and I was one of the loosies, as John Vorhaus describes them in his Killer Poker books.

I tried two stupid bluffs against players who I had already noticed were incapable of folding any pair. A player called Mike was constantly raising the flop and turn, and "value" betting 1/4 the pot on the river with top-pair-no-kicker and middle-pair-middle-kicker type of holdings. He was the type who wouldn't fold if he had any piece of the board, unless someone moved in on him. Even then he was making some very questionable calls.

In one hand I got ahead of myself and stupidly tried to bluff Mike by betting the the pot into him on the river after check calling his big bet on the turn. I had to fold when he reraised me all-in.

Ten minutes after this hand I was in the small blind and called a UTG pre-flop raise with T9s. I know I know.......calling a raise from out of position, with a suited connector and with only 3-way action. Little chance of winning a big pot even if I hit the fop hard. I can't say I'd recommend it as a quality play. Mike had limped from OTB and also called the raise.

I flopped a full house, nines over tens and the board was two tone. A scary enough board, paired and with two suited cards. I checked to the original raiser who led out for the size of the pot. Mike raised large and I called. To observant players my check and then an overcall would look suspicious, but I wanted to keep the original raiser in as my hand was unlikely to be outdrawn. The original raiser folded.

The turn made me tens full and the stone cold nuts. In keeping with my action on the flop I checked and Mike checked behind. The pot was now about 55bb.

I was now trying to think how I could get paid big on the river. A few minutes before he had raised me all-in on the river after I tried to bluff him, and I had to fold. In that disastrous hand I had "call bluffed" on the turn to try and steal on the river.

"Could I exploit my earlier bad play? Maybe Mike sees me as a bluffer". I figured he was likely suspicious of me and might just call me with a worse hand.

So I decided my best chance to get paid big was to make it look like I was trying to buy the pot. He was a very loose player and likely would not be able to dump a strong hand even if he thought he was beaten.

The river was a king. There was a very small chance he had called the raise preflop with kings but I discounted this because there was absolutely no way I was not getting my stack in the middle here. I overbet into him for about 70bb, almost putting myself all-in.
He thought for a few seconds, called and doubled me up. I don't know what he had as he mucked his hand.
Ironically, I don't think he would have paid me off if the previous failed bluff hand hadn't happened.

That hand halved my losses for the night. I was stuck for over two buy-ins at one point, but I soon called it a night and was lucky to finish down only one buy-in.

Commitment Issues

Almost finished reading Professional No-Limit Hold'em Vol 1. It's been informative though some sections take a bit of digesting.

It looks like the authors assume their readers are familiar with basic poker theory. I'd say it's pitched somewhere around intermediate level rather than at the extremes of pure novice or expert.

No-Limit play often has relatively long periods of play where the betting is "normal" and there are no all-in confrontations. But any escalation in the action always carries with it the possibility that stacks will be played for. In such situations your opponents mistakes gain you the most, and conversely, your mistakes gain them the most.

Miller, Flynn and Mehta talk a lot about the Commitment Threshold. This is the point in a hand when you have to decide whether you want to get all-in. If you do want to get all-in, you try and manipulate the pot to get your opponent committed. If you don't want to get all-in you avoid making or calling any big bets. It's the single most useful concept I got from the book and I'd summarise it as

"Don't make a habit of putting 1/3 of your stack in the pot and then folding".

Of course it's obvious you should avoid putting in your whole stack if you aren't pot committed. But why 1/3 of your stack? Look at it this way: if your opponent bets 1/3 of your stack and you call, or if you bet 1/3 of your stack and your opponent calls, there is now more than your remaining stack in the pot.
So any significant betting in the next street is going to put you to an all-in decision. If you were unsure about putting in the original 1/3 now you have an even tougher decision about the last 2/3. And you want to avoid tough decisions. You want to GIVE your opponents tough decisions and not face them.

The authors explain the Commitment Threshold concept in a number of other ways which help to make it clear:

• If you're facing an all-in bet after putting in 1/3 of your stack then you're getting good enough odds (2:1) that you should probably call. If you believe calling would be a mistake, then putting in the original 1/3 was probably a mistake .
• Once your stack is 4 times the pot, you usually shouldn't make any reasonable bet unless you're committed. If you make a reasonable bet when your stack is 4 times the pot, you will have put in 1/3 of your stack. And you don't generally want to put in 1/3 of your stack unless you want to put the last 2/3's in.

The crucial idea I take from this is that the time to think about whether you want to play for your stack is BEFORE you put the first third in. An even better time to start thinking about it would be when you get your two down cards.

My Current $50 NL Strategy

What follows is the basic strategy I use for online short handed (6-Max) NLHE cash tables with a $50 buy-in (100bb). Although I'm a winning player using this strategy over about 30,000 hands, I don't claim it's the best possible strategy. It's not a strategy that was created in one day, but has evolved dynamically over about 14 months.

The strategy is based around a starting hands chart I started putting together when I first started playing poker. I took the chapter on starting hands standards from one of the first poker books I read, Harrington on Hold'em, and bits from a beginners video by Howard Lederer, and made a basic starting hands chart.

Over time I modified the chart based on:

• my experience from online sng's and micro stakes cash games
• books and online articles I've read
• Poker Tracker statistics
• online real hands statistics from the big sites
  

When I don't have substantial reads on my opponents I default to this chart. Once I feel I have useful information on their betting patterns, tendencies and hand ranges I rely less on the chart and start to apply more situation based play. I'm looking for good read based opportunities if I do deviate from the chart. But if in doubt I default to the chart - like I said, it's not written in stone, but it gives me a solid and useful starting point.

The reason I'm putting this up here is as much to solidify the strategy in my own mind as to offer it to other players browsing this site. It's useful... no, I'd say it's essential to go through the basics every now and again, until these fundamentals become second nature. Having said all that, if anyone disagrees with anything or has anything to add, by all means row in.

Below I go through the hands I term "playable" from the various positions. Note that 'playable' does not mean they HAVE TO be played every time from that position. And the converse is also true - it's okay to sometimes play hands not listed for that position if the situation in a hand seems favourable to do so. But the main thing to remember is that I'm looking for favourable table conditions and a good situation to justify deviating from the chart.

Table Selection

Using the poker room lobby and my HUD I scan the sites and look for tables where ideally:

• 40%+ of the players are seeing the flop
• The average pots are more than 25bb.
• 25%+ of the players are going to showdown.
• A relatively low percentage pots are raised pre-flop (preferably less than 10%).
  

If I can't find any profitable tables I leave rather than taking the worst of it just because I'm eager to play (which I usually am!). After I find some potentially good tables I watch the action and make notes for ten minutes or so, and eventually join the waiting lists for the two tables.

I take a seat when one comes available (if I still think it's a profitable table). The important thing here is to keep monitoring the table. If the second table I opened still looks good then I might buy-in there as well; if not, I'll shut it and open another and wait for the HUD to bring up some stats on that. But either way I'll constantly have two tables open so I can move if the table(s) I'm at become unprofitable or break up.

Usually I play two tables, other times I feel I'll do better sticking to one table. I don't like to play any more than 2 tables at a time, as my style of play is quite read dependent and I feel I'll lose reads if my attention is spread too thinly. Of course this is totally a personal preference so knock yourself out and play ten tables simultaneously if that's your thing.

Seat Selection

I've found this to be critical. I'm looking to seat myself to the left of loose and/or aggressive players and to the right of tight and/or passive players.

Say there are four loose/aggressives and one tight player at a table. I will try to sit to the right of the tight player. The reasoning behind this is well documented – tight players are more predictable so I'm not worried about them springing any sudden moves, therefore I don't suffer much by conceding position to them. Also, against the right type of tight player I can raise to steal his big blind if it's folded around to me pre-flop. And if my tight opponent does get involved you can usually put him on a narrow range of hands and play accordingly.

I want maniacs and generally loose opponents to my right so I am not taken by surprise by their actions. If they get involved when I have a hand I can raise/reraise them to build a big pot so I can milk it to the max.

As with table selection, if I cannot get a good seat I close that table and open another one.

Play by Position

Even in 6-max, I play extremely tight UTG and still very tight in MP. I'm considerably looser in the cut-off and button positions. This translates into playing only 10% of my hands UTG, about 13% in MP, 23% in the cut-off and about 30% from the button.

UTG

Under the gun I'm usually only playing 66+, AJs+, AQ+, KQs, along with a small number of suited connectors like T9s and 87s which are added in to vary my play and keep my opponents guessing.

MP

In middle position (UTG+1) I'm still pretty tight, but widening my range slightly to 44+, AJ+, ATs+, KQs, KQo. A few extra suited connectors are in the mix also.

C/O

In the cut-off I begin to open up quite a bit. All pairs, suited aces from A7s up and offsuit aces from AKo to A9o are all playable. Broadway hands from KQs to KTs, QJs to JTs and KQ to KJ offsuit are also playable, as are suited connectors 87s down to 54s.

OTB

On the button it's all of the above plus suited aces down to A5s, unsuited aces down to A7, K9s+, QJs to Q9s, JTs to J9s, KTo+, QJo and JTo. I'll play suited connectors 54s+ as well as suited gappers 75s+, and a few unsuited connectors 87o to T9o.

BLINDS

I like to play really tight from the small blind because I'll be out of position for the rest of the hand. My range here is {22+, A9s+, AT+, KQs}. From the big blind I'm a bit looser and will play {22+, A6+, AXs+, KQ, 76s+}.

I try to complete in the small blind only about 30% of the time but in practice I tend to play too loose there. This is definitely one of the leaks that I'm trying to plug. These half bets seem like nothing, but over thousands of hands they amount to a lot of $. Say you have played 30,000 hands of 6-max. 5,000 of those hands are in the small blind. Let's just say for the sake of argument you should "only play" 30% of your hands from the SB, that's 1500 hands, but in reality you played 40%, or 2000 hands. That's 500 hands you put in money with when you shouldn't. Just from completing the small blind that's $125, not to mention any money you put in post flop.

Playing Premium Pairs

With big pairs (AA-JJ) I'm nearly always opening with a raise (90%) regardless of position. I'll very occasionally limp with a big pair to induce a raise so I can reraise, or sometimes limp if I think limping might be profitable for deceptive purposes post flop. This is opponent dependent.

But if I limp with a big pair I will try to play it carefully post flop. This is especially true if there are several opponents, as it's much harder to narrow my opponents hand range in a limped pot. Something I have gotten better at with experience is laying down big pairs if things turn ugly on the later streets. This was something I just could not do when I started out. Now when I've limped with a big pair I'm always thinking "Be prepared to dump it on a later street if my read says I'm beat".

Occasionally with a big pair I'll cold call a raise or limp and call a raise if I can be fairly sure I'll be heads up after the flop. I like to sometimes do this against poor but but aggressive opponents, or sometimes simply for deception or to mix up my play. But mostly I'm re-raising preflop with big pocket pairs, probably 80% of the time against the type loose calling stations you typically encounter at these stakes.

If I have AA I'll try to get all the money in preflop if I sense my opponent is willing. With KK-QQ it's read and opponent dependent whether I want to get all-in preflop. Against the worst opponents I'm happy to.

Playing Medium Pairs

If I have JJ-99 in the two early positions I'll open raise about 75% of the time and limp the rest.

From the cutoff and button I'll raise first-in with JJ-99 maybe 90% of the time. The idea is to get heads up as there's a good chance a medium pair will be the best hand on the flop in 6-max. I have the advantage of initiative and good position, and will bet the flop almost regardless of what falls. I won't be overly concerned if one overcard falls and will usually bet on the assumption I have the best hand unless my opponents action indicates otherwise.

From late positions I'll also call a raise with medium pairs, or, if I believe my opponent is frisky or loose I might reraise, although I won't make this move as often as I would with with the bigger pairs.

If several players have limped in before me, I have 2 options: limp along with them for set value, or put in a big raise to try to take it down preflop or failing that, get heads up. In this situation I'll limp along probably 90%, and make the sweeping raise about 10% of the time. A slightly more risky play against several limpers is to put in a standard raise here, as a pot builder. The danger is, of course, that someone will come over the top, thus destroying the implied odds for my pair to draw to a set. So I'm not a big fan of making a normal size raise in this type of multi handed situation as it re-opens the betting.

Playing Small Pairs

UTG and MP: I tend to play them somewhat similarly to medium pairs, but probably more like 50/50 between open-limping and open-raising. I'll avoid playing very small pairs from early positions if the game is really aggressive with many pots raised and reraised before the flop.

I'll usually call a normal raise with small pairs and very very occasionally reraise for deceptive purposes, if I believe the table conditions will allow it.

I'll sometimes limp with small pairs from up front. I'm not convinced by people who say "Never open limp in 6-max". NEVER is too prescriptive. What you SHOULD do very much depends on the table conditions and your image. So I think it's ok to open limp from early positions on occasion in 6-max games. But it's fair to say raising when first in is a good default play .

I'll open-raise with my small pairs most of the time (90%) from the cutoff and button, with an occasional limp thrown in.

If there are many limpers before me then I play them more or less the same as middle pairs.

When the pot is raised in front of me I will call up to 6-7% of my stack with any playable pair, as long as I feel there's little danger of a reraise. I think it's ok to call up to 7% of your stack against most opponents. You are looking to hit a set and getting 13 to 1 implied odds. The odds of hitting the set are a bit less than 8 to 1 but the difference makes up for the times you

a) don't stack your opponent

b) hit your set but still lose.

Playing Suited Connectors

I play them from up front very infrequently. But those times I do play them from the early positions I mix up between limping and raising. If I don't do that then observant people will know I always have a pair or big cards when I raise from the early seats.

I open-raise suited connectors most of the time in the C/O and OTB. I treat suited connectors like small pairs in terms of calling raises, except in the case of SC's I feel the stacks need to be about 20 times the raise to make them playable.

I'm looking to hit 2-pair, a straight draw, or flush draw. I'll take a stab on the flop with a pair but I won't commit much money, as the whole point of playing them is for their implied odds.

Playing Big Suited: AKs, AQs, AJs.

First in I nearly always raise with AK suited or unsuited. You are rarely a huge dog with AK but if things get stupid preflop I might lay it down.

I play AQ and AJ similarly but more selectively and might fold more often to a reraise, again opponent dependent. I play AQ and AJ more carefully than AK when I'm out of position.

If there are many limpers and I'm in late position I might make a big raise with any of these three hands- to get heads up or if my hand is suited I might call and hope to flop a big draw.

Against very weak opponents I might just call with these hands.

Playing the Lower Suited Aces

I avoid playing these from up front. These are raising hands from the button and the cut-off if you are first in, though I am a bit more circumspect about raising with A2s A3s etc, especially if the blinds are not the folding types.

I'll limp behind several limpers with suited aces, with the very occasional raise thrown in. Obviously I'm looking flop a flush draw, two-pair or trips. If I hit only a naked ace on the flop I'm not going to put much money in the pot, though against one or two opponents I will stab at an ace high flop or use it as a bluff catcher.

That's pretty much my preflop strategy. Beyond the flop things are too complicated to summarise here.

'Til the next time. May the flop be with you.

The Most Important Thing

When I first started doing this I was all fired up and enthusiastic and hoped to be posting every single week. Sadly, postings have been rather thin on the ground - I'm almost embarrassed to say my most recent post was as long ago as September '07.
I can't say I'm happy about the frequency of postings.... but all the same I'm not ready to give up. So, my two dear readers, don't remove me from your bookmarks just yet!

There have been ups and there have been downs since the last post. But my overall feeling on the last few months is that my game has improved. Well, actually it's my approach to the game that has improved.

It's a subtle distinction. I've not improved much in the sense of having learnt many brilliant new moves and strategies, although I have done some of that. What I have got better at is this: I now play badly less frequently than I used to. I tilt less.

Something that never ceases to surprise me is that, contrary to expectations, learning the fundamentals and forming an effective strategy is not the most difficult thing in poker.

The hardest thing to do (by a long way) is to consistently apply your strategy.
In theory, it sounds like it should be easy - you learn a strategy that works well and you apply it when you play.

But it's not easy at all. Most of the profit in poker is made by pushing small edges. You're rarely a huge favourite in any hand. So if you keep getting all your money in when you are a 60/40 favourite, you will still lose a large proportion of the time. The maniac who is pushing in on all kinds of flops is not as far behind as you would like to believe. He hits now and again and this keeps him at the table. In the the short term, luck predominates and therefore it's likely to take some time for your good play to show in your bottom line. And another effect of the short term luck factor is bad play being sometimes rewarded.

In the face of this variance consistently playing your best game is far from easy. Over time, you may or may not have the patience to wait for your luck to stabilize and for your just desserts to arrive. Most people don't. The absence of immediate rewards for skilful play, combined with the apparent rewarding of bad play, is a heady mix that is psychologically hard to deal with. Effect seems to be only vaguely related to cause, but really this is a mirage. If you strive to play well consistently, short term variance eventually will gradually give way to cold maths - the cold maths of you having the 60% part of the 60/40 confrontation more often than your opponent. It's what mathematicians call the Law of Large Numbers. But beware - it is easy to fall victim to this mirage - and if you do you become succeptible to relying on luck.

That's a roundabout way of saying that the hardest thing in poker is learning how to maintain self-control. It is acknowleged by many experts on the game that the skill edge that even a good player has is slim in percentage points. So loss of self-control in the form of deviations from your best game turns otherwise skilful players from winners into losers, or prevents them from becoming winners in the first place.

Professional player, author, and coach Tommy Angelo uses terms like "A" game and "C" game a lot in his writings. In his wonderful and quirky book Elements of Poker he describes every player as having an A, a B and a C game. Your A game is your best game, your C game is your worst, tilt-ridden game. He doesn't talk about B much, which is odd, but let's worry about B game another time.

The idea is to play your A game as frequently as possible, and play your C game as infrequently as possible. You can work on your A game by learning strategy, analysing hands and the like. To improve your consistency, you look at your C game, and to use Mr Angelo's term, you "lop off your C game". So, what does "lopping off" your C game mean?

Visualise your poker performance as a line graph. Your quality of performance at any given time is represented by how high up the Y-axis your curve is, consistency is how smooth the curve is, and time is measured along the X-axis. A long smooth straight line high up the Y-axis represents a consistently good performance. This is the ideal performance curve.

In any real world performance curve however, there will be downward spikes. These represent periods of poor performance. So a smooth curve high up the Y axis is your A game. Downward spikes represent periodic descents into your C game. With apologies to the author, an image may make things clearer:



When Tommy talks about "Lopping off" your C game he is saying you smooth off these spikes. By lopping off your C game you improve your A game. Or, more accurately, by lopping off the spikes you increase the frequency with which you play your A game.

For a while, I had, in my own way, been trying to lop off my C game. Angelo's concept introduced me to an interesting way of looking at performance: you basically have two games and you work on them both. And it also brought home the realisation that you cannot afford to play your "C" game any significant proportion of the time.

"Significant" is not easily quantifiable but you will know what it means for you. For each player it will mean something different. For me it means avoiding periodic the descents into tilt that have been occurring roughly every 3 months. As Mr Angelo says, he realised very early in his poker career that "tilt was the most important thing". So strategy considerations are going on the back burner for now - I'm going working on the most important thing. Lopping off my C game is going to be my main aim for the next few months.