A Funny Hand (little to no analysis, I promise!)

On 2p2 (the popular poker forum I browse), it's customary to include humorous and fitting pictures to go with the hand history you're posting. Why? Probably because the hand is often far more interesting to the poster than the readers, so to compensate, the poster tries to jazz up the hand with some funny jpegs.

Note: the opponent is a competent regular. If this were a fish, I'd be playing much differently.


Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 2 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

BTN/SB: $763.00
Hero (BB): $600.00

Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BB with 4 6
BTN/SB raises to $18, Hero raises to $54,





BTN/SB calls $36



Flop: ($108.00) 5 Q Q (2 players)
Hero bets $66,






BTN/SB calls $66



Turn: ($240.00) J (2 players)
Hero checks,





BTN/SB checks



River: ($240.00) 6 (2 players)





Hero checks, BTN/SB bets $138,





Hero calls $138

Final Pot: $516.00
BTN/SB shows 8 9 (a pair of Queens)
Hero shows 4 6 (two pair, Queens and Sixes)
Hero wins $515.50
(Rake: $0.50)






A few quick thoughts on this hand:

• Our opponent could have won this hand on either the flop or the turn, had he raised. You really need to turn up the aggression when you're playing heads-up, and he didn't.
• I felt okay with calling here because I couldn't put him on a huge hand (like three queens) because he checked the turn and I couldn't put him on a marginal hand that still beat me (like 77) because I didn't think this particular opponent had the capacity to value-bet that thin. Honestly, someone with 77 or the like should be checking the river because I could easily have 99, JT, etc.
• This hand is a good example of how tough the games are these days and of how high-variance heads-up play can be.
  

Value-Betting for Beginners

To value-bet is to make a bet after the flop with the hope of getting called. Knowing when to make a value bet (and how much to bet) is a necessary skill for a winning player to acquire and cultivate. As you may know, most bet sizes are determined as a percentage of the pot. (For example, I typically make a bet in the amount of about 70% of the pot.) As the pot grows, the size of the bet necessarily grows. As such, the decisions that you make on later streets (the turn and the river) will involve bigger amounts. Since all we care about is money, clearly these bets are very important to our bottom line.

For example, suppose you're in a hand that has involved some betting throughout. When the river falls, it gives you three of a kind (but also puts a third heart on the board). By now, the size of the pot is, say, $300. Your opponent checks to you. You are scared that your opponent has a flush, so you check behind. He shows you two pair. You win the hand, but by failing to make a value bet on the river, you've missed out on anywhere from $150 to $200 of your opponent's money. That may not seem like much to those of you working at Baker Botts or Google or whatever, but that's some real folding money to me.



Since value-betting is such an essential skill, it probably won't surprise you to learn that it is a very nuanced, intricate decision. Obviously, if you have an unbeatable hand, you're going to be betting, but what if your hand is a marginal one? That is, your hand is probably better than your opponent's but if your opponent raised your bet, you'd have to fold. Should you still bet? This situation is dependent on the type of opponent you're facing. If your opponent is very passive, he's easier to value-bet because you don't have to fear being check-raised. Inversely, you have to be wary of an aggressive opponent--he's liable to raise you (either for value or to bluff you off a marginal hand). Considerations like this one are beyond the scope of this introductory post--I just want to demonstrate some of the intricacies involved.

In determining whether to value bet, you simply must put your opponent on a range of hands. I've seen beginners go through a process similar to this: "Well, I have two pair. That's okay, I guess, but it's worse than a straight flush, quads, a full house, a flush, a straight, or three-of-a-kind. I guess it's not a very good hand." The beginner fallaciously believes that his hand has an absolute value. This is wrong. The only value that your hand has is its value relative to your opponent's hand. You can lose pots with full houses and you can win 'em with Ace-high.

**As your hand only has relative value, you need to determine your opponent's hand so you can decide just how relatively valuable your hand actually is.** Here is a fairly routine example of this process. As the focus of this post is the value-bet on the river, I will be eliding over the play on the other streets.


Poker Stars $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players

Hero (CO): $410.60
BTN: $454.15
SB: $1056.50
BB (slightly loose, definitely passive): $416.00
UTG: $469.00

Pre Flop: ($6.00) Hero is CO with A 8
1 fold, Hero raises to $12, 2 folds, BB raises to $24, Hero calls $12


We've been playing this guy for about an hour and we haven't seen him 3bet (a/k/a "reraise") before the flop. Thus, we can assign him a pretty reliable range of JJ+, AK. So, we're clearly behind but we have "implied odds" to justify our call. Basically, our thinking is this: "hey, this guy has a hand he's in love with. If I can catch a flop and crack his big pair, I can probably take him for a decent-sized pot. If I airball the flop, I merely lose a small pot and no harm is done. My hand--a suited ace--lends itself to big flops, so let's invest this $12 and try to catch gin."


Flop: ($50.00) 5 5 9 (2 players)
BB bets $20, Hero calls $20

Great flop for us. We could throw in a raise but we have very little fold equity because we're pretty sure he has a big pair and fish hate folding big pairs (justifiably so). Let's keep the pot small until we're winning.

Turn: ($90.00) T (2 players)
BB bets $32, Hero raises to $72, BB calls $40

Boom. We have our flush and if our range is accurate, we know we're ahead. We could get cute and simply call the turn bet, but we want to build the pot while our opponent still likes his hand. If we smooth-call and a fourth spade comes on the river, that could freeze our man and we'd be left with winning a small pot. We do not want to win a small pot, especially in this situation where we called the preflop 3bet knowing we were behind for the express purpose of flopping big and winning a big pot.

When he calls our raise, we can rule AK out of his range (unless he has the king of spades, perhaps). So, now we're putting him on JJ+. Yes, I suppose he could have TT but that's quite unlikely considering he didn't reraise us on the turn.

River: ($234.00) 9 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $40, BB calls $40

Any fear of TT (or 99, I suppose) evaporated when he checked the river. Now we know exactly where we are: we have a flush and he has an overpair to the board. If we were beginners, we might be tempted to think to ourselves, "Shoot, now any 9 or any 5 beats us. There's so many full houses out there that maybe we should be careful and just check behind." Luckily, we're thinking players who realize that although the board looks scary for someone with a flush, it is nearly impossible for our opponent to have a better hand. We have determined (approximately) what our opponent's hand is, and now we know that relative to his hand, our hand is valuable. Also, we know from observing our opponent that he's fairly passive and we thus don't have to fear a check-raise from him that would probably force us to fold.

So, we've done all the hard work--now it's just a question of extracting value. Here we only bet $40--we probably could have gone as high as $60, honestly. (We don't need to talk about bet sizing today..we've enough on our plate as it is.)

Final Pot: $314.00
Hero shows A 8 (a flush, Ace high)
BB mucks Q Q
Hero wins $312.00
(Rake: $2.00)





ez game.

The "Write the Future" Curse

"Write the Future" is the name of the breathtaking Nike soccer ad that feels more like a movie trailer. While the reviews have been resoundingly positive, its cast has performed less than admirably in real life. Could there be a "Write the Future" curse? Let's examine the evidence.

First, here's the ad in case y'all haven't seen it yet:



Let's break it down:

1. The first player to touch the ball is Didier Drogba, from the Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast). Days before the World Cup, Drogba broke his arm in a friendly against Japan. While he has admirably taken the pitch despite the injury, his contributions have been limited. Furthermore, his team will likely fail to advance from its group.

2. Fabio Cannavaro takes over next in the commercial. Italy--the team for which Cannavaro plays and the defending champions--lost today to Slovakia and consequently finished last in its group (a group widely believed to be the weakest of the 8).

3. After Cannavaro comes Wayne Rooney, the diminutive English striker. While England has advanced, they look very shaky (they finished behind the United States, need I say more?) and Rooney has been kept off the scoresheet. I'm gonna chalk this up as evidence in favor of the curse.

4. When Rooney makes his heroic tackle, the commercial cuts to scenes of Rooney's popularity/greatness, including one where he bests Roger Federer at ping-pong. Federer has struggled mightily at Wimbledon this year, getting taken to five sets in his first match and going to four in his next (both against unknown opponents).

5. Next after Rooney we see the one-and-only Ronaldinho, the oft-imitated Brazilian superstar. At this point you're thinking, "Brazil have looked untouchable so far...surely this can't be evidence of a curse." But wait, don't forget that Ronaldinho himself was left off Brazil's World Cup team. Clearly, the commercial has used its powers to curse Ronaldinho while rewarding those who have neglected him (his national team).

6. One of the celebrity cameos we see is Kobe "No surname necessary" Bryant doing his own version of the Ronaldinho stepover celebration. Kobe just won his fifth ring by beating the archrival Celtics--he's on top of the world right now. So, obviously, Kobe is the exception that proves the rule. Moving on...

7. Cristiano Ronaldo features last in the ad, and I gotta admit, his team has played well (it helps to have someone like North Korea to use as a punching bag). But surely the Curse has something in store for this Mediterranean metrosexual--besides, if it doesn't, I'm sure I can use my heightened powers of rationalization to explain why Ronaldo's success is not evidence against the existence of the Curse.

8. Homer Simpson. Well, the Simpsons have been going downhill for a while, so unless the Curse is able to have some sort of causal effect on events that occurred earlier in time, we'll just have to view Homer's appearance as a wash.


So, you decide: is this curse just a series of unfortunate coincidences* or something rivaling 4 8 15 16 23 42? Only time will tell...





Update: Apparently I'm not the only person to have this idea. For what it's worth, I didn't bite anyone's shit, I came up with this on my own.

*ELAINE: Well, I mean, he was in the apartment, and then it's gon and it's in your apartment.

RAVA: Maybe you think we're in cahoots.

ELAINE: No, no.. but it is quite a coincidence.

RAVA: Yes, that's all, a coincidence!

ELAINE: A big coincidence.

RAVA: Not a big coincidence. A coincidence!

ELAINE: No, that's a big coincidence.

RAVA: That's what a coincidence is! There are no small coincidences and big coincidences!

Going on the Record...

...and saying that I will be very impressed with the Celtics and Doc Rivers if the C's manage to win Game 7 on the road without Kendrick Perkins (whose injury will prevent him from playing). Perkins has been a crucial component to the Celtics' success, and his loss causes huge problems for Doc. Rivers might end up relying on 'Sheed, who has been, uh, far from reliable.




The Lakers are -7 and I'm guessing (I use the word "guess" cuz I don't pretend to be an expert, a sports bettor, or an expert sports bettor) they handily cover.

More World Cup Observations

1. If I were Australian, I'd be embarrassed by my national team's showing today against Germany. The Socceroos spent a large part of the first half putting their hands in the air, and played the second half like they just didn't care. If you missed the match, it went mostly like this: Australia plays an offside trap, a German forward or midfielder continually beats the trap with a perfectly-timed run, the Aussies whine and scream in vain for an offside call, and the Germans take direct aim at the net.

Now look, I'm not saying that Australia ever had a chance in this game. Germany played as well as any team we've seen so far, and the Aussies looked slow and less skilled. Hats off to Germany for their pace and their intricate runs. For Australia, there's no shame in losing to a more talented team that's on its game, but the Socceroos went down without a fight (unless screaming at the linesman counts as a fight) and embarrassed its citizenry in the process.

2. Quick--name the first European nation to win a game in the 2010 World Cup. (Answer below.)

3. Adidas needs to fire its marketing department. How hard is it to sell soccer cleats? Hire six famous and skilled soccer players, give them an adidas ball to play with and adidas cleats to wear while playing, encourage them to play creatively, and film them for 5 hours. Nike runs laps around adidas and has been doing so for years. No excuses, adidas--you've been synonymous with soccer for decades. Fix your shit.

4. I've been impressed with the refereeing at this tournament. The linesmen have done a great job calling offsides, and the center refs have been keeping the players under control and playing within the rules of the game. My favorite calls so far were the two yellow cards given to the Germany side for simulation (a/k/a diving). I used to ref and I can tell you that this is one of the hardest calls to make. Even if you know that no foul occurred, it's much harder to be sure that the player fell on purpose in an attempt to draw a whistle. Players loose their footing for all sorts of reasons (losing their balance attempting to turn quickly, getting feet tangled up, etc)...it's very difficult to attribute the fall to a flop (it helped me when the player flailed his limbs as he was tumbling to the turf). Plus, the penalty for diving is fairly harsh, though deservedly so, so a ref really wants to be sure of the call before doling out a yellow card.

5. Answer to #2: Slovenia!

6. On an unrelated note, where in the hell is Slovenia?

Quick Thoughts about the U.S.-England Match

1. How come England had so many odd-man rushes in the second half? I realize that they started playing with three forwards, but that doesn't explain why the U.S. had so much trouble getting men back to defend. Was England faster, fitter, or both?

2. Everyone watching realized that Tim Howard had to make a few clutch saves to keep the U.S. level--what is less clear is how these chances arose. I didn't see anything other than the same telecast y'all saw, but for my money it seemed like there were communication problems in the back. This is quite disconcerting when you consider that the U.S. seemed to rely heavily on the offside trap. Now, maybe the U.S. won't employ this tactic against its next two opponents--the trap is typically used by the inferior team as a way to neutralize the more skilled team's talent, and the U.S. is on paper more talented than Slovenia or Algeria--but if Bradley sticks with it, we could find ourselves in a familiar spot--holding our breath as Howard has to bail us out. Hopefully, the next striker finishes as poorly as Heskey did today, but "we can't take that chance!"

3. Landon Donovan played a tremendous game today. He delivered great balls off of set pieces (corner kicks and free kicks were the only consistent way for America to threaten the English defense), got back on defense, and played with more poise than his teammates. While Onyewu was blasting the ball away instead of playing it back to Howard ("when in doubt, kick it out" stopped being a viable strategy after sophomore year in high school), Donovan played with aplomb and pace.

4. What's the deal with ESPN having an English play-by-play guy? I know he's distinguished and respected, but can't we get an American voice for the U.S. games? Am I the only one who misses Jack Edwards?


(The Gus Johnson of soccer features prominently in this video.)

5. If Rooney keeps performing like he played today, he won't be hugging the queen anytime soon. (I don't even need a hyperlink...by now y'all have seen the ad.) "But the U.S. locked him down!" Yeah, so what--if America can take him out of the game, what do you think Italy's gonna do?

6. I'm not looking forward to waking up at the crack of dawn to watch the next game, haha.

Personal Jurisdiction

("Personal Jurisdiction" is part 2 of an ongoing attempt to bore y'all to tears.)

Before we dive into this, let me say one thing: although it may be counter-intuitive, a state court in, say, Georgia can apply Alabama's, Florida's, or any other state's law to a claim. This is a fairly common stumbling block for people trying to get a handle on personal jurisdiction--just trust me when I tell you that State 1 can hear a case between two parties who live in State 2 (or between two parties who live in State 1) and apply State 2's law to the claim.

One other thing: we're only worried about state courts here, because federal courts have a lower hurdle to clear with respect to personal jurisdiction.


Okay, so, the court you're trying to appear in front of has the right to hear the type of claim that you're presenting. (In other words, it has proper "subject-matter jurisdiction" over the claim.) Congratulations! However, proper SMJ is necessary but not sufficient. The court must also have personal jurisdiction (also known as "territorial jurisdiction") over the parties.

Personal jurisdiction deals with the right of a court to adjudicate the rights of a person (or thing, if the dispute is, say, over a piece of property but let's not worry about that). This is a common-sense concept: a state court in Maine shouldn't have any power to enforce a judgment over an Oregonian in a dispute between two Oregonians that concerns a car crash that occurred in Portland (unless we're talking about Portland, ME...). Yet, if the only hurdle to proper jurisdiction were subject-matter jurisdiction, the Maine court would have this authority (because the Maine state court can hear this type of case). That's why we need another protection, and that comes in the form of personal jurisdiction.

Now, our Maine court (or any other, obviously--we'll stick with Maine as the example) must have proper personal jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and the defendant, but since personal jurisdiction is waivable, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived any potential objection to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him when he files the suit in the Maine court.

The far more important question is this: when does the Maine court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

(1) The defendant can waive his objection to personal jurisdiction, typically by making a "general appearance" in court. If the defendant makes a general appearance, there goes his right to dispute the personal jurisdiction issue. So, a savvy defendant will make a "special appearance" in court, which basically tells the court, "look, I don't think you have any rights over me (ie, 'I don't think you have any personal jurisdiction over me') but in order to persuade you of this, I have to be here to explain my side. So, look, I'm only here for purposes of disputing your potential personal jurisdiction over me. I'm not waiving the defense."

You waive your objection to personal jurisdiction when you don't mind litigating in Maine (maybe you got a great deal at a bed-and-breakfast in Falmouth). Unfortunately, winning on the personal jurisdiction issue doesn't let you totally off the hook--the plaintiff will just re-file, this time in Oregon. That's why defendants will sometimes waive their objections.


(2) If the defendant gets served with a summons in the state in which the lawsuit was brought (here, Maine), the ME court has personal jurisdiction. That's kind've a harsh rule but it's been around for a while and it looks like it's here to stay for the foreseeable future.




3. The last way for a court to have proper personal jurisdiction is the most confusing. Long story short: the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state (here, Maine), the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant must be reasonable, and the Maine statute must authorize the exercise of personal jurisdiction (this is rarely a problem because many states give their courts as much reach as possible).

No one really knows exactly what "minimum contacts" means, but if the defendant has purposefully contacts with the state of Maine, Maine probably has personal jurisdiction. So, clearly the Maine court has no personal jurisdiction over the Oregonian defendant in our car crash example, but if the defendant were, say, a corporation from Oregon who advertises and sells its products in Maine and purposefully avails itself of the benefits of being present in Maine, then that Maine court will have personal jurisdiction.


I know I just said a lot...maybe this analogy will help:

Let's say that you just moved out of the house and found a full-time job, and to celebrate you got your first tattoo (to your mom's noticeable chagrin). When you return home for Thanksgiving, she scolds you for getting the tattoo and threatens to ground you. Here, your mom has no personal jurisdiction over you. She can't enforce a punishment against you because you no longer live under her roof or take money from her. You have "insufficient contacts" with her. Now, if your younger sister (who's still in undergrad) had gotten that same tattoo, your mom would be able to enforce a punishment over her by taking away her tuition money or kicking her out of the house or whatever.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

**We interrupt this "sports and poker" blog to bring you an important message about civil procedure.**

I just hit you with my car, and now you want to sue me. You cannot choose to sue me in whichever court you please, though--that would give you unfair strategic advantages and would thus violate my constitutional right to due process. You still get some flexibility, though. So, how do we decide whether a court is appropriate for your litigation? Well, in order for a specific court to be the proper place for your claim, that court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. (There are other requirements as well, but they are less important so we can save them for a later date.)

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is simply the right of a court to hear the type of case that you're presenting. If you're trying to sue me in a state court, you've got nothing to worry about. Most state courts are courts of "general jurisdiction"--they can hear claims that have to do only with state law (like torts) and they can typically hear claims that concern federal law. (Again, there are some small exceptions but they're small enough that we needn't worry about them.)

If you're trying to sue me in federal court (perhaps you think that a federal court is more likely to get you a favorable outcome), that's going to be a more difficult challenge for you. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction--that means they need jurisdiction conferred on them by both the Constitution and by Congress. (The Constitution is pretty liberal with its grants of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, so we're really only worried about statutory authorization.) There are three basic ways for you to get your claim into federal court: (1) if the cause of action concerns a "federal question" (basically, if federal law is implicated in either the original claim or a defense to the claim); (2) if there is diversity jurisdiction, or (3) if supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Diversity Jurisdiction is very simple to explain: if you're black/Hispanic/Asian and I'm white, the federal courts are more interested in our litigation--cuz nothing say "compelling drama" like an interracial dispute--so they get to hear the claim.





Naw, just kidding...by "diversity" we mean "diversity of residence:" if you're domiciled in California and I'm domiciled in Texas, it putatively wouldn't be fair to you if you were forced to litigate in TX (and it wouldn't be fair to me if I had to defend myself in front of a hippie jury in California). So, the U.S. constitution lets us go to a theoretically more impartial location, a federal court. This rule made more sense in the 19th century, when certain states did not get along well with others--now it seems like a bit of an anachronism. Plus, we don't wanna clog up the federal courts with insignificant personal injury claims--that's the job of drug offenses! So, the plaintiff has to be suing for at least $75,000. (In legal terms, we need an "amount in controversy" of at least $75k.)

[Aside: it gets more complicated when you have co-plaintiffs and co-defendants--do we need complete diversity or will partial diversity suffice? What if we're suing a corporation instead--where is the corporation domiciled? Etc.]

[Second Aside: being in a federal court doesn't mean that federal law applies...that'd be way too easy, haha. For example, if you're suing me for driving negligently, there's no federal law on negligence, so a federal court (who again is allowed to hear this case because there is diversity jurisdiction) would still be applying state law. But TX state law or CA state law?! Trust me, you don't want me to get into that.]

Supplemental jurisdiction is more confusing, so let me just give you the Chicago-Kent School of Law version: supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to decide a claim--even when the federal court has no other basis for jurisdiction over the claim--when the claim is closely linked to another claim that the same federal court does have independent jurisdiction over. Supplemental jurisdiction exists because it (theoretically) facilitates efficiency in the judicial system and conserves resources.

So, if you and I are both from, say, Illinois and I hit you with my car, you typically can't get yourself into federal court. There's no federal question implicated here (negligence is state law) and there's no diversity of citizenship. BUT if you somehow had both your negligence claim and a related federal question claim against me, the negligence claim could "piggyback" its way into federal court.

Supplemental jurisdiction is muddled in many ways, AND it's discretionary--the federal court can choose to say, "Nah, we don't want this case" and we'd have to go back to state court. (A federal court might pass on the case if, for instance, it thinks the jury will get confused by the two claims.) So, we're not gonna get into it further--at least you know it exists.


I think this post is already too long, so we'll leave personal jurisdiction for the next time.

Preventing a Downswing

I've played poorly the last few times on Stars, and it's almost 100% attributable to the fact that I've not been thinking through the hands enough. Basically, the cycle starts like this: you have a losing day despite playing well (you get unlucky or run KK into AA or whatever), so the next time out you chase losses a bit by adding more tables than you normally play. This causes you to have less time to think, so you make the occasional fundamental error, which means more losing, which means more tables (or maybe longer sessions, which also leads to more mistakes), and so it goes.

If you catch this problem early enough, it's not a huge deal--as the cliche goes, "poker is measured in years, not days." A few bad days, or even a bad week, is just a bump in the road when you've been playing as long as I have. That said, it's obviously important to right the ship as quickly as you can.

What follows probably the best example of this downward spiral--I threw this hand in here (with a bit of explanation) because it's a mistake that many players will make and I want you to avoid this spot.



Poker Stars $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players

SB: $283.90
BB: $400.00
UTG: $400.00
UTG+1: $400.00
UTG+2: $410.75
MP1: $488.00
MP2 (Tight-aggressive regular): $449.00
Hero (CO): $655.50
BTN: $1385.25

Pre Flop: ($6.00) Hero is CO with 9 9
4 folds, MP2 raises to $12, Hero raises to $36, 3 folds, MP2 calls $24


This is standard play here with the 99. You can argue for a smooth call or even a fold, but you're probably wrong, haha. I'm not gonna get into it here because it'll take forever to hash out the various alternatives and that's not the point of this post.


Flop: ($78.00) 4 5 4 (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero checks

This is the ideal flop for us. When MP2 called our reraise out of position, we safely assign him a range of a big ace or a medium pocket pair. So, unless he has 55 (unlikely) or 44 (exceedingly unlikely), we're winning. I suppose he could have TT but we may be able to persuade MP2 to fold TT if we bet hard enough.

If MP2 has overcards, he probably will be done with the hand if we bet here. If he has a medium pocket pair, he's probably not going to fold to a bet here because he's still skeptical that we have him beat. (For what it's worth, we probably do have him beat.) I like to say that the opponent "needs convincing" that we have something like AA or KK, and it usually takes more than a flop bet to meet the burden of persuasion. That's a good thing, though--what typically happens is that we bet the flop, he calls (skeptically), we bet the turn, and--assuming the turn didn't help him--he folds (reluctantly). We end up winning more money than we would have had he simply folded on the flop.

Our hand is vulnerable to lots of overcards, so we probably would be content with a fold from our opponent. This isn't always the case, of course--if we had AA we'd want our opponent to stick around.

So, for all these reasons, we should certainly be betting this flop. We'll fold out overcards and we'll continue our story that we have a huge pocket pair. Clearly, checking here (as we did) is a mistake.

For what it's worth, I probably checked this flop here because I was feeling a bit exploitable/vulnerable. When you're losing, you realize just how easy it is for someone to bully you out of a pot. Rarely do I get it all-in against a regular without a very strong hand, so it'd be quite easy for MP2 to check-raise me and get me to fold. Now, of course, MP2 very rarely will make this play because he's more worried about stacking fish than getting into "regwarz" (fights with other regulars) and because if I have something like KK or AA he just threw away $400. It's very unhealthy for your poker bankroll if you're playing like a "catastrophist" (always assuming the worst), because it turns you tentative at very inopportune times.

Turn: ($78.00) A (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero bets $52, MP2 asks for time, deliberates, and calls $52

I don't dislike this bet. Our opponent probably has us on a big ace or a pocket pair. When we checked the flop, he probably put us on a big ace because most pocket pairs would bet that flop. So, betting the ace (as a bluff, obviously--we don't want MP2 to call us here) continues our story that we have the opponent beat.

In this specific hand, MP2 "time-banked" before calling...that's often a sign of indecision. So, good try--we bet the turn hoping he'd fold, but he called. Oh, well--time to cut our losses and move on, right?

River: ($182.00) 2 (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero bets $116, MP2 calls $116


I hate this river bet, and here's why: we tried on the turn to convince the regular that we had him beat. We almost persuaded him (he time-banked, after all), but we didn't convince him. So, after the river (the most harmless of cards), we try again to convince him? What an egregious mistake. Our chance to convince him came and went--firing on this river is akin to lighting money on fire.

No regular worth his salt will call the turn and then fold the river in a spot like this where the river changed nothing, because you have to play consistently if you want to win. This is actually a common mistake that losing regulars make too often--they call the turn to see what the opponent will do on the river...this is a losing play because you're merely putting off the decision or, alternatively, you're spending too much money on purchasing additional information (the additional information here is how the hero acts on the river).

**Note: this hand is not a perfect example because the opponent himself had an unbeatable ace, so he wasn't really deliberating so much as trying to induce a bluff from us on the river. It doesn't matter whether he had AK or JJ, though: we still should not ever be betting this river on a bluff. Once he called the turn we pretty much know he's going to be calling the river.

Final Pot: $414.00
MP2 shows K A (two pair, Aces and Fours)
Hero shows 9 9 (two pair, Nines and Fours)
MP2 wins $411.00
(Rake: $3.00)


Okay, so that hand was a disaster, but at least we learned from it.

A Hand I'm a Little Too Proud Of

Through his poker literature, David Sklansky taught me (and my coworkers) that the point of poker is to win money, not to win pots. With that in mind, let's examine a recent hand played on Stars. (By the way: I used a converter to change the raw hand history into something more legible. Among other changes, a player's position is used in lieu of that person's screen name.)



This first hand is merely background information:


Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players

UTG+1: $600.00
Fish: $213.00
MP1: $706.20
MP2: $548.30
CompetentRegular: $1161.00
Hero (BTN): $642.30
SB: $679.00
BB: $600.00
UTG: $609.00

Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BTN with A 9
2 folds, Fish calls $6, 2 folds, CompetentRegular raises to $18, 3 folds, UTG+2 calls $12

Flop: ($45.00) 6 K 6 (2 players)
Fish checks, CompetentRegular checks

Turn: ($45.00) 7 (2 players)
Fish checks, CompetentRegular checks

River: ($45.00) 2 (2 players)
Fish checks, CompetentRegular checks

Final Pot: $45.00
Fish shows 4 3 (a pair of Sixes)
CompetentRegular shows 8 Q (a pair of Sixes - King+Queen kicker)
CompetentRegular wins $42.75
(Rake: $2.25)

Notice a few things here: Fish open-limped with a very marginal hand, and CompetentRegular ("C.R.") made an isolation raise in position with a similarly marginal hand. Fish put up very little resistance throughout the hand, even after C.R. seemed to have given up on winning the pot. From this hand and other bits of information, we can glean that Fish is both loose and passive. This read is far from bulletproof, but in the world of online poker--where you'll see a player for 15 minutes, then never see him again--you have no choice but to extrapolate reads from tiny bits of information.

Now, on to the main hand (if it's not clear, "Fish" and "C.R." from Hand 1 are the same players as "Fish" and "C.R." in Hand 2)...



Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players

MP1: $600.00
Fish: $471.70
CO: $667.20
BTN: $716.30
CompetentRegular (C.R.): $1158.75
Hero (BB): $630.30
UTG: $541.85
UTG+1: $600.00
UTG+2: $621.00

Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BB with J J
4 folds, Fish calls $6, 2 folds, C.R. raises to $18, Hero calls $12, Fish calls $12


This is unorthodox preflop play on Hero's part. With JJ, Hero is certainly beating the range of his two opponents' holdings, so you'd think that a preflop reraise would be in order. A re-raise will almost certainly take down the pot, so Hero would win Fish's $6 + C.R.'s $18 + Hero's own big blind of $6, for a total of $30...this is obviously not a horrendous result, but keep in mind that we want to maximize the amount of money we can win. (If you can't tell by now, "we" are in the role of Hero.) Merely winning the pot is not sufficient.

So, Hero instead decides to smooth-call C.R.'s raise. There's one overriding reason for merely calling--Hero wants to keep Fish in the hand.* Hero is not scared of C.R., because Hero has seen C.R. raise with a wide range of hands in spots like this one. Plus, C.R. is a winning regular but he won't get too cute in spots like this one. In other words, if C.R. flops a monster, Hero will pick up on that quickly and minimize the money he loses. If everything works out as planned, Hero will outflop C.R. and Fish and will be able to get more money out of his JJ than he would were he merely to reraise and take down the pot preflop.




Flop: ($54.00) 5 6 7 (3 players)
C.R. checks, Hero bets $30, Fish calls $30, C.R. folds


Hero should like this flop, for a few reasons: most obviously, Hero still has an overpair to the board and is likely beating both of these players. Less obviously but no less importantly, it's quite likely that Fish (who has a history of playing raggedy cards) has caught a piece of this flop--either with something like middle pair or a straight draw. The only bad part about this flop is that it has possibly hit C.R., but if C.R. flopped a strong hand he'd probably bet out and Hero could then proceed with caution.

Once C.R. checks, Hero feels great about his hand. He knows that Fish is passive and likely won't bet a marginal hand like middle pair, so Hero takes the lead. This is somewhat risky because the general idea is that the first person to act after a bet in a multiway pot usually has to have a fairly strong hand to call (because this player has to worry about the people still to act behind him in addition to the bettor), but it's still the best play because we want to extract value from Fish and also get C.R. out of there as soon as we can.

Happily for us, this is just the result we get. We accomplished our two main goals: have Fish put more money into the pot and get C.R. out of the hand before he catches his Ace or his gutshot or whatever. Now that it's just us and a loose, passive opponent, it becomes a very easy situation for us to play.


Turn: ($114.00) 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $42, Fish calls $42

At first glance, Hero probably dislikes this card because Fish can easily be holding a 7. Upon further consideration, however, there are lots of cards that we'll hate, for various reasons (lots of low cards hit Fish's potential draws, and lots of overcards either hit Fish, scare us, and/or freeze Fish from putting in any more money). Besides, the 7 counterfeits any small two pair that Fish could potentially hit AND from Fish's standpoint, he's thinking, "well, if I felt good enough about my hand to call on the flop, the turn changes nothing. I didn't have him on a 7 on the flop or I'd have folded, so why should I be scared of another 7?"**

River: ($198.00) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, Fish checks

I personally think Hero should be betting this river. Against a more aggressive fish, this is a great spot to check and then snap-call any bet, because we want to give the player a chance to bluff the river with his missed draw and we (very) generally don't like to bet when a raise will "make you throw up." This particular fish, however, will likely not bluff because he's a passive player, and the 3 is not a very scary card.

Final Pot: $198.00
Fish mucks J 5
Hero shows J J (two pair, Jacks and Sevens)
Hero wins $195.00
(Rake: $3.00)


The Takeaway:

1. Even when you're multitabling, it's important to pay attention to the action on all the tables whenever possible, especially when the hand involves an unknown player. If Hero had not noticed the first hand, he would not realize that C.R. was raising so lightly. Thus, Hero would probably have re-raised with JJ and would have missed out on significant value as a result.

2. Poker is often about finessing the fish--you want to isolate him whenever possible, but this is not always easy to do. As we saw, Hero couldn't isolate Fish preflop because there was no amount that Hero could re-raise to that would result in both (1) Fish calling and (2) C.R. folding. So, Hero had to bide his time and wait for a better spot (here, on the flop) to isolate.

3. Playing correct poker means worrying about winning money (as opposed to worrying about taking down pots). Sometimes this means that you have to sacrifice a sure win for a shot at a bigger payday. Hero was 98% likely to take down the pot preflop if he had re-raised, but it was a pot barely worth winning, so he decided to take a, say, 70% chance at winning a healthy pot. That's the mathematically correct decision, but sometimes it's hard to do when you're, say, down a few buy-ins and just need to take down a pot to steady the ship.

3a. "Better to win a small pot than to lose a big one." This poker cliche, while obviously true in its smallest sense, is misleading and not proper strategy.





*Were this hand to take place in a casino, Hero (being a crafty veteran) would undoubtedly steal a glance at Fish before deciding how to proceed. If Fish has already uncapped his cards and is merely waiting to fold, Hero would choose to re-raise instead of smooth-call, because Hero would know that Fish is out either way and once Hero knows this the proper play is to put in the re-raise in position against the competent regular. Inversely, if Fish is in the process of counting out the chips to call the bet, Hero can smooth-call with confidence that Fish will be coming along for the ride. The quick, peripheral glance to your left when the action is on you is probably the most powerful tool you have for figuring out your opponents' likely actions.

**Maybe I'm giving Fish too much credit with his thought process here, but it's likely he's thinking something along these lines...though if you asked him to articulate his thought process, he probably would struggle.