I Think That I Love This Situation

[shipitfish]

I had to stop thinking about poker for a bit after losing that grand, and I will be posting more about total donkey plays I made last weekend. But, I want to be clear about the hand that is the subject of this post: I am pretty sure that I love this situation. I made a brief off-handed reference to it in my earlier post. The thrust of the argument against my play below is that the preflop decision leaves me an underdog (i.e., playing AQs against a likely big pair or AK), and therefore it's not worth taking a flop. Furthermore, one could argue that the flop is at best a coin flip, so why introduce so much variance for this? Before I get deep into the analysis, let me first retell the whole situation, which should be stated and considered first before extensive analysis can be at all useful.

The hand begins on 21:09 on last Saturday when readysteady, a tight-aggressive, overpair-overplayer player on Full Tilt raised UTG to $9 in a six-handed NL HE game with $1/$2 blinds. I was right next to him and decided to call with A Q. I could have easily been dominated by AA, QQ, or AK, but felt that it would be reasonably easy to get away for a small raise on the flop if it came A or Q high. Meanwhile, having seen him play aces once before at this table, I felt he'd raised less preflop with AA from early position (probably only $6), trying to induce action. He'd won with those aces earlier, so it was unlikely he hadn't gained a temporary “must over-protect aces” philosophy. He had raise to $6 before from early position with hands like AJ, so I suspected here that he held a vulnerable big pair that didn't want to see a flop out-of-position — probably TT or JJ. But, maybe he did hold QQ or KK; I couldn't rule it out. AK was another possibility, of course.

There was still some chance he had AA, but I figured (at the time) that most of the time, he held a hand like AK or TT-KK as opposed AA. In fact, the real numbers were much better. He's a tight player who almost always holds one of those hands when he makes that raise. With an Ace in my hand, there are only three ways he can make AA, while he has 33 ways to make one of those other hands, so he's about 1-to-11 underdog, statistically, to hold AA after his $9 raise. Why am I so focused on AA in this post-hand analysis? I'll get to that shortly.

To continue with the hand itself: I decided to call his $9, and that I'd get away on the flop if I made merely one pair. I had $259 and he had me covered. He had overplayed one pair a number of times at this table; he fit the typical profile of someone who plays NL HE by being very tight preflop and getting all the money in on nearly any flop where he holds an overpair or top pair, strong kicker. I'd of course rather have a set-building hand against him, but a nut-flush-building hand wasn't too bad, and I'd have position for the rest of the hand, as I expected the rest of the four people to fold unless they had monster.

With $21 in the pot, we see the aforementioned 5 2 3. (My original quick note about the hand had the suit of the 5 wrong, but it isn't relevant since it wasn't a diamond. :) readysteady bet out $15.

I now had him read for an overpair, or maybe a feeler bet with AK (pretty unlikely). Folding on this flop seemed like a bad move; I have too many outs against so many of his possible holdings. I could call and see if the turn hit me, or raise right away. It was highly likely that he would reraise, and I decided that, before I raised, I had to know what I'd do when he reraised. If he reraised, I had to be committed to playing for all my chips. I had limited time to make this decision, but I was sure in about 20 seconds of my one minute to act that I had to be committed.

My biggest consideration was how I'd get paid off if my outs came. I thought he might put one more pot-sized bet in if I hit the flush or the straight, but he might slow down if an overcard came. If my overcards are actually live outs, then I might make another half-pot bet from him on the turn, and when I called it or raised, he'd be done with the hand because he knows that I am not going any further without a pair that beats his (i.e., his “get all money in with overpair” rule no longer applies). Meanwhile, if one of my overcards isn't good (specifically, if he holds KK), I'm a favorite (see numbers below), but it's still tough to play a Q on the turn. I was therefore ready to commit my stack.

I raised to $40, readysteady paused for about a quarter of the allotted time (15 seconds) and reraised to $100. That pause made me even a bit more sure that he didn't have AA. I felt he'd be faster to commit chips with AA, because he doesn't have to pause to consider that I might have an overpair to his. The pause, of course, could have merely been his consideration of a set, but this was a player I'd seen commit quickly to aces once at this table. I felt he would do so again. I moved in, putting my whole remaining $250, and he thought again (this time only about 2-3 seconds) and called. He showed K K and the board completed to 5 2 3 J K. His set won $521.

Now, in the moment, I didn't have time for heavy math analysis. But even after the hand, I think that the questions are really these: (a) should I fold AQs preflop to an early position raiser, and (b) should I just see if my draw hits on the turn rather than getting all my money in?

As to the first question, I don't think it is reasonable to fold the hand, even against a tight online player. The typical profile of tight players in the six-handed games on Full Tilt — a profile which this fellow fit and had confirmed by his actions — is that they overplay overpairs and/or strong top pair for all their chips. My 9-to-253 implied odds are just too huge to pass up in a six handed game. The other players behind me are highly likely to fold. I'm going to see a flop heads up with position.

Of course, I may be dominated. I need a lot of help on the flop (which I got, IMO) to put any more chips in the pot. But when I do get that help, I'm going to get his whole stack. I am focused on taking stacks in NL HE; not making sure I make the absolute direct odds pre-flop EV play. This is why I decided that for me in this hand “hitting the flop” did not include merely top pair. I definitely needed two pair or better.

Two pair would be tough to play, but this fellow was likely to slow-play a set, so it'd go check-bet-call or check-bet-raise on an AQx flop should he hold a set. Either way, I would have slowed down and eventually folded two pair in that sort of situation. I might lose a bit more on the turn, but I'm only going to bet a quarter of the pot on the turn when he checks again, worrying specifically about the check-raise by that set of aces of queens. Once he check raises, I'm done — I've folded two pair many times in such a spot. So, while there are some negative implied odds for two pair against a set, I also get paid off pretty well from AK, with which he bets out rather than check-raising in that spot. (I should note that despite lots of advice out there about betting out with a set, few players do it; I didn't think readysteady was likely to.)

If I flop Broadway, I'm getting all my money in on the flop while winning. In that spot, he puts it all in with AK most of the time, and a set all the time. If I flop a flush, I almost always win but I admittedly don't make too much from him, unless he flops a set.

If I flop what I flopped, overcards, a flush draw, and a gutshot, I have to tread lightly if the flop is ten high or bigger, but in this case, with all babies, I'm in great shape.

Yes, he can wake up with AA in that spot, and I get my money in as a 36% underdog. But, going back to the hands he likely to have, given his preflop action and flop lead, he's a 1-to-11 underdog (about 8%) to have specifically AA. So, 8% of the time, I'm a 36% underdog. Another 8% of the time (when he has QQ), I'm a 44% dog. Meanwhile when he has KK (18% of the time), I'm a 51% favorite. Against the rest of the likely pairs (TT, JJ), which he holds 36% of the time, I'm about 58% favorite. I'm of course crushing AK (the extra 30%), but if his flop lead was actually a feeler bet with AK, he folds any AK when I raise.)

Anyway, I'll even set aside my read that he didn't hold AA. I'll just do the pure EV calculation that his lead bet gives us no new information (i.e., it may be an AK feeler), and that he gets all the money in with any pair (i.e., we assume no fold equity). I do the calculation by assuming I win right there when he holds AK, and that I have to face the odds with all my chips when he has any other holdings.

With these assumptions, my flop EV (when I raise on the flop, expecting him to reraise and we get it all in) is as follows:

Hand	Probability of Holding	EV formula	EV component
AA	8%	36% × $271 + 64% × $-250	$-5
KK	18%	51% × $271 + 49% × $-250	$3
QQ	8%	44% × $271 + 56% × $-250	$-2
TT, JJ	36%	58% × 271 + 42% × $-250	$19
AK holdings	30%	$36	$11
TOTAL:	100%	—	$26

(The EV “component” field is the “percent he has it” column multiplied by the “EV formula” for that situation.)

Now, I agree that introducing $250 of variance for $26 of EV is nowhere near the best spot I can get find in these tight-weak games online. But, it's still a good spot that I'd take every day for $250! I believe in keeping a large bankroll (larger than most proposed recommendations), in part so you can take these tight marginal edges.

There are also meta-game considerations here to think about. I have chosen to play short handed NL HE tables precisely because the players there tend to be tight-weak preflop and play one pair too loosely after the flop. I play best in NL HE against tight-weak players who overplay one pair.

When playing against these players, I want to sometimes take these tight-edge gambles. I want them to know they are going to get action when they overplay one pair. More importantly, I want them to know that sometimes they won't be a huge underdog against me when I give them such action. (Indeed, I engaged readysteady in chat window discussion about the odds precisely to make sure he realized that I'd pushed an extremely tight edge.)

You see, I want readysteady (even his username exudes tight-weak play, did you notice that?) to overplay that KK every time. I want him to continue to believe that folding an overpair is impossible. I want everyone at the table to feel the same way. I want readysteady to call up his poker buddies, and tell him about the huge fish who pushed in with AQs with “only” 15 outs. I want them all to react this way, because, if I didn't have straight draw outs as well, I wouldn't have played the hand the way I did. I would have called with 2-to-1 direct odds on the flop, seen if I made the flush on the turn, and folded for a pot-sized bet if I didn't. It would have been a little mundane pot that wouldn't even have made it to my blog. But, I had at least three extra outs, and went for it. Sure, the math shows I'm risking $259 to chase $26 in EV. But, most of the time when I get the money in with him, I have a set of fives, not the nut flush draw with one (maybe two) overcards and a gutshot.

Some might argue this is a reckless way to play NL HE when I could sit and wait for more of lock. I'm going to ask my coach to read this one, but I'll probably need a lot convincing from him that I made the wrong move. I watch these tight-weak players bleed away money playing ultra tight and making themselves like textbooks. I want them to fear me at the table; to worry that they can't fold because maybe I have some big draw, not a set. I don't move in every time with AQs in that spot with every player. It felt right in this situation, with that board, against that player.

We can argue about “risk vs. volatility”. We can disagree that introducing $259 of variance into one's bankroll for $26 of EV is too much variance. (Although please consider that the limit HE player frequently puts 30 BBs at risk to win at most 2 BBs for a given evening — and that this situation is much better.) But, I think that's the most important point of this hand: varying a little bit from playing “by the book” (i.e., calling with AQs after a preflop raise, moving in with a big draw that may be at best a coin flip) builds a complicated table image that keeps your opponents guessing and forces them to respond to you.

We'll see what Bob says when I ask him to read this — if I'm full of crap, I'm happy to eat my words if he tells me to. :)

Update:Bob finally answered me on it.

Comments

[salvelinus.livejournal.com]

Bradley, I don't imagine for a second that you considered the hand as thoroughly while playing it as you describe in your post. There just isn't that amount of time while playing online. Be honest - you gambled on a small edge and lost.

You're not playing $5/10 NL or $10/25 NL. Online (and live) $1/2 NL is a grinding game, so I believe that if you're going to play this level online and be successful, for the most part, grinding is the way to do it. Forget about trying to project an image for the next time you will play this person. It isn't worth the risk to your chips over the long run.

I think that your play is fine in certain tournament situations, and in certain live situations where you can more accurately gauge weakness/strength, tells, and mood in players. I really don't believe that pauses between clicks in an online game mean anything (your opponent could be multitabling, talking on the phone or surfing porn for all you know).

I agree with Salvenious

[(Anonymous)]

For the limit you are playing at you are making things too complicated. The fact that you are aware of projecting image and the reasons for making the play you did make sense.... but at the limit you are playing at you over complicated things and got burned for doing it.

Having hit a relatively good flop you should of called to see his next move and to see if the turn card was a diamond. This way you would have narrowed down even more what he was holding and assessed your own situ better etc.

At a level where players go all in with pocket 10's on a low flop you are not going to get him to fold and you will only get paid off if your draws hit.

Calling one more bet would have saved you alot of $$$$$ (at a higher level.....totally different story)

Getting paid off when I hit....

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Actually, one of the reasons I moved in is because I felt strongly that I was a slight favorite and that he'd shut down if my overcard(s?) or flush draw hit. I felt that getting the money on the flop as a slight favorite assured that I always got paid off when I made the hand. This isn't a typical NL “slight favorite or huge underdog” situation. Against AA and QQ, I'm in reasonably bad shape but not a huge underdog, and against everything else he can possible hold, I'm a favorite.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Of course I didn't consider the hand this thoroughly. As is typical with my posts, everything during the hand action description (above, until you get to His set won $521 is the stuff I actually thought through in the moment, and the rest of it is post-mortem analysis. During the hand, I did really feel that he didn't have AA, and knew I was roughly even money against all hands but AA and QQ. I didn't do all that math in my post, of course, in the one online minute I had to act.

As for whether this player was paying attention and focused, I believe that he was. He had a number of times commented on the outcome and actions of other players in hands where he didn't even see a flop. He may have been two-tabled, but I knew he was paying attention and a player making an effort to play correctly (although overplaying one pair too much).

That's the thing about Full Tilt — many players there are regulars and are trying to play correctly. They pick the site, I believe, because of the pro player affiliations and the focus the site has on teaching you to play better. There are some total fish about, but the real juicy thing about the games is that they are tight-weak players who have learned just enough to be a danger to their bankroll.

Getting the right table image with these regulars is indeed a factor on this site. Although, I may be overvaluing it. I have only seen readysteady on once since then; but there were too other people I'd seen about 500 hands with at the table. If they should continue to be around, my AQs play may have an impact on them.

As for click-based tells in general, I agree that maybe I overvalue them sometimes. I have always felt I'm flying blind playing NL online, and it's only been the sheer juiciness of the games that has led me to it rather than online limit.

But, again, I am not above considering that I completely misplayed this hand. If I did; however, I am inclined to believe it was the preflop call that was at fault, not the flop play.

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

i like the preflop call exactly because you can easily put him on a hand. you're not calling to hit one pair...you want to hit your flush, broadway, trips, or two pair (which you'll still have to play cautiously).

after you see that flop, you know you're a favorite to his hand range, so i like the way you played it. my only thought is that your flop raise should have been pot sized...around $65 to go. you really would rather he folded here. maybe you could shave that down to 60 or 55 and get the same fold equity...shrug.

his flop reraise is pretty terrible. he's basically the very definition of implied odds...your hand is about the worst one that will give him action on that flop.

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

what were starting stack sizes?

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

As I mentioned in the post, he had me covered for my $259. He had $417. Do you think the amount over $259 he had is relevant psychologically for him? In further consideration, I'm beginning to think maybe it is. Maybe I would have had fold equity against him if we are even in chips — if he would have to put in much of his initial buy-in to call my all-in. Of course, that's off topic even it's true, because he was playing with only $42 of his original buy-in against me given the chip counts. (It was a $200 maximum buy-in table, and he and I had only bought in once at that point).

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I am not sure why I raised so little on the flop. Looking back, I speculate that my subconscious thinking perhaps was that he'd sometimes just call and see a turn, and check to me. In other words, I perhaps felt raising just a little might make him inclined to put me on a smaller pair than his and “trap” me (in his mind). So, I might have had a glimmer of a non-verbalized thought at the time that he'd just call sometimes instead of reraising — effectively allowing me to pull the beginner's “raise for a free card” trick some of the time.

I believe, however, that tuning the raise to induce him to fold isn't really the place to go in thinking about this hand. He folds AK for even a minimum raise, and he's staying in with everything else regardless. It's just a matter of whether he reraises or calls, and how he plays the turn based on the raise made. I assumed no fold equity in my post-hand analysis because I think I had none (save against a feeler AK bet).

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

okay, here's something to really think about. if you don't think he's going to fold to a flop raise unless he was just making a continuation bet with AK, then it would be better to just call on the flop and extract more from him if you hit. if he has AK, then you'll know later when he checks it to you and you'll be able to steal it then.

the thing that makes semi-bluff raises really profitable is when they fold and you can pick up everything in the pot with no risk of having to draw/get outdrawn. if there's no fold equity, then there's a more optimal way to play it than making what is basically an even money bet.

i like it as a free card play in general, but not against this type of player.