Online Poker

October 24, 2005

Poker Hands

In my experience, it is very common to find players who will raise with pocket pairs, any Ace, any suited King, any two cards over Eight, suited connectors down to 43s, as well as a hodgepodge of other hands such as 97s, 86s, 75s, and J7s. In other words, they raise with about the same types of hands that we are suggesting should be played from the big blind against a blind stealer (plus maybe a few more).

This is crucial because we assumed a reraise was necessary from the small blind to make the pot heads-up. But the analysis is incomplete, because there is one final difference between multiway and heads-up play. We must finally analyze the number of times the small blind has an inferior hand that will play to the river. When I say "inferior hand," I mean specifically any hand that the small blind feels is strong enough to play beyond the flop, but is behind another opponent's hand.

We cannot remove those players who are arrogant and argumentative, classless and crass, scandalous and shameful. It is understandable that many of our poker celebrities will own some of these negative traits. But celebrity is not equivalent to professionalism. Just as I choose not to follow the example of drugged out basketball stars or steroid-pumped baseball players, I choose not to live my life like many of the greatest poker players on the planet.

In conclusion, this has been a very difficult article for me to write. When I began, I re-examined correct big blind play and compared it to Sklansky and Malmuth's recommendations. I found some similarities, but ultimately concluded that the advice I read in Hold'Em for Advanced Players was based in part on faulty premises. In reality, I don't see players make that mistake from the small blind above the $3/6 limit (and even then it is fairly rare).

"The idea is to keep his profit to a minimum. This means that when the player on the button raises a lot you must call (or reraise) a lot." Herein lies the fallacy. Sklansky and Malmuth are saying that you should call because your opponent will make money if you don't call. Makes sense, right? If your opponent makes money (maximizes his profit), you must be losing too much, right? Let's recall an example from last week.

Sklansky and Malmuth suggest defending with 40% of all hands, and reraising with the top quarter of those, based on the idea that this calling/raising strategy neutralizes the preflop advantage of raising 100% of the time from the small blind. I propose that this advice is too passive. Furthermore, the percentage of hands played should be fluid, based on the competition's play after the flop as well as preflop. Before going any further, let's repeat the authors definition of playable hands, counting up to 40%.

In fact, you would probably draw attention by appearing so serious. Instead, just act normal, smile, and don't offend anybody. Appear to have fun even if you aren't, or at least don't take out your frustration on other players. And that brings us back to our premise at the top of the article. "Never wake a sleeping giant." The problem in short-handed poker is that every other player is a potential "giant." With the proper motivation and the desire to concentrate, any player can observe, target, and beat you.

Of course, there are many, many individual inclinations that can be exploited with a good counterstrategy (e.g. a player might fold too often to raises or check raises, they might not call enough in the blinds or they might call too much, or a player might fold too often on the end). There seem to be almost infinite possibilities. It might seem obvious, but almost every tendency can be countered. And in shorthanded play, strong card reading, psychology, and observation skills will result in opportunities for +EV players quickly and often.

I don't care about Ryan Hughes, he is buoyant, interlocking, and embryonic and I am not going to move on the pot about it. A satellite splits me, but I enjoy a grandiloquent cheesecake with a side order of dealer advantages.