the gist: This is simply one of the best guides to learning pot odds.  Even as a seasoned player there are minor details that every player should review.  This might be the best article written on that subject.

Poker for Dummies from Cardschat

the gist: This is an article written by Daniel Negreanu that appeared in many newspapers.  The article is meant for new players to talk about the etiquette of poker.  It is an interesting read even if you have been playing for a while.

Daniel’s syndicated column-this version on slowplaying friends.

the gist:  If the money doesn’t matter to you or even if it does why not entertain the idea of a deal with you dictating the terms.  As with all negotiations you should probably say “no” at least once.

Cardplayer magazine on final table chops

In poker, if you keep track, your time has a very specific value. I would argue that your time should have that same value in everything that you do, which is sort of the point of this article. What I am specifically referring to in this instance is someone saying “I will only play this if I win a satellite”. Not that the act of winning the satellite is the problem because it certainly is not, it just may or may not be in line with your hourly rate. Here are a couple of examples that are my life guide. When I am playing serious poker I am likely doing best at Limit Poker. I can win multiple bets an hour at 15-30 and 30-60 but I have certainly had moments where I have done this at 50-100. This amount of success is a result of a very clear focus and analyzing my game. For this example I am going to say my hourly rate is about $100 an hour but that really only happens when I have an amount of focus I do not normally have. At the moment poker is little more than a hobby and anything that I make is sort of “fun money”.

Without going into a ton of details my hourly rate at work is between 200-300 dollars. Which is likely the bigger point of what this article is about because that is my true compass. Whatever I do needs to result in a net win at least higher than 200 dollars otherwise it is not smart to do. Of course I could be just doing it for fun which is something entirely different but even by that compass is poker more fun than say a movie or spending time with my kids? Sometimes it is, most times it is not.

All of this course brings me back to “I will only play if I win a satellite”. If you know what your hourly rate for poker and life was your decision would be a lot easier. In fact, you may learn that satellites are your most profitable way to play poker.

Paul “Beanie” Nobles

Poker wise I am not an expert on much but I think I can easily claim to be an expert on satellite play. The reason is simple, it is my best form of poker. I have won satellites for about 500k in big dollar events. I am a closer when it comes to satellites. What do I do different that separates me from the crowd? It’s simple, I play not only to win the seat I play to knock people out. Which is exactly contrary to what almost everyone who would teach satellite strategy would tell you to do. The key difference is that when I am trying to knock people out I am at no risk.

Here are a couple of ideas that I use.

1. For better or worse I am a home run hitter. I am constantly going for the knockout and I am comfortable being the lead dog. I want the chip lead.

2. Tournaments are about chip management. If you have a 200k chip lead on your next opponent who has 90k, you might be willing to take a few more risks and in my opinion you should because there just aren’t enough people willing to step up to knock people out in satellites. Especially at the end.

3. The end game is where things get tricky because usually people have caught on to what I am doing and frankly they are a bit pissed. It is not uncommon for one or two people to get really aggressive with me. Though I am typically at a big advantage on them because I have huge chips and they don’t, there all in plays can really neutralize my aggression. I tend to do a little more trapping at this point and try to play smaller pots, which once again I don’t think most people would recommend. But remember all of this depends on having built up a good stack. If you don’t have a good stack you would be silly to be trapping, you would be best off playing uncontested pots.

4. Uncontested pots is like poker nirvana. For me, the fact that I have won so many satellites puts me in a comfortable position against my opponents because I know when I get there at the end I am going to close more often than not. That is big leverage to have against a guy that might have qualified for $3 who is trying not to lose.

5. Go for the kill, if you have a hand like 44 in the big blind and an active player is raising a lot from the cut off play for the knock out. Of course if you re-raise him he might fold but that won’t get his whole stack. Winning stacks is what puts you in position to ultimately win the seat or seats.

6. Understanding concepts of leverage in tournament poker is the difference between being a winner and a loser but it gets amplified in a satellite. When you are in a regular tournament if you come in 6th place you might still win money, in a satellite paying only 2 spots you won’t. Here is an example. Let’s say you are on the button with 2 stacks that are small in the blinds but not small enough for them to necessarily be all in, depending on your stack you might want to move all in on them as a rule. The percentages are in your favor that they will not have a hand that they can call with and in satellites people will even lay a hand like Ace Queen if it means they will be eliminated. By the time they catch on and call you hopefully you aren’t dominated and have two live cards. Using the same example where the small blind has a big stack obviously you need to tread lightly, it is a very common play for the big stack in the small blind to re-raise a button raiser because most of the time they are going to be right.

If you had to say online players are this and live players are this I would think that my style fits in the live player category. Online players tend to want to win all uncontested pots which is possible but not always likely. So what I like to do is put people in a situation where they are uncomfortable. Post flop play is where I win most of these satellites.

Of course all of these ideas get scrapped when you are the short stack, you won’t always have the big stack but the fact that you will be willing to see flops actually puts you in rare territory for satellite players. Here is one of the keys that you want to focus on when you see flops, nothing is a definite, you do not have to play any one hand any one particular way. If I raise with a bad hand it doesn’t necessarily mean that I will be making a continuation bet if I am called by someone out of position that checks to me. In fact, doing this occasionally sets up slow plays down the line.

Obviously all of this sounds easy but it is far from that. Situationally I have seen almost any scenario. The situation I see the most though is panic. Which is something I rarely do and what allows me to evaluate my opponents on the fly and gives me my edge. Most people know that aggression is a big part of winning poker but that is where their game ends. To be really good at something you can’t have a formula, you have to be able to adjust on the fly.

Beanie

I am obsessed with failure, ironically I want to write a motivational book on the topic, the idea being simple that failure is a constant and success is rare. Most motivational books do not prepare you for failure, the theme is typically similar in most of them, if failure is mentioned just knock the dirt off and success, success, success will come a knockin at your door. Which everyone knows is a crock, mostly when you read those type of books (I read a lot of them) you are looking for a nugget or two. One thing I can not figure out is if all people respond to a fear of failure? Certainly fear of failure can be a huge motivator. If you are drowning fear of failure is devastating so when death is the lever it is pretty obvious people will get motivated to learn to swim or stay out of the water.

If you have not figured it out yet poker has a lot of failure attached to it, especially as you move up in stakes. I always love it when people say “I think my game is suited for higher limits” and what exactly would you be basing that on? Success at anything can happen once but continued success at anything requires persistence, intelligence and training. Poker is no different, if you are staying status quo you are failing, even if you are winning. That can also be the tough part, because you are not totally failing it occasionally gives you the feeling that you are succeeding, it is also hard to judge, if you judged success by making a profit then a lot of people are successful but I think I could make a strong argument they are failing.

So I would define failure in poker as not seeking better and more informed answers to how you should play the game. That is why fear of failure is not a powerful motivator when it comes to poker unless you play poker exclusively and sometimes at that point fear of failure can actually harm your game. Simply put making a profit or even losing are not in and of themselves a determinant whether you are succeeding or failing.

Now here is the tough part about what I am saying, books will only take you so far and training schools can maybe get you a bit further but poker is about trial and error. Once I went to a seminar, the cost was $10,000 for four days worth of training, at that time it seemed ridiculous but to this day I have not gone to a seminar that was more valuable in my life than that one (the organizer was a gentlemen by the name of Todd Duncan and the topic was mortgages). Poker does not really have that, and really neither did mortgages, Todd’s seminar got me to a certain point but knocking down the hard doors I had to figure out by myself. In fact, I do not think I reached my potential with mortgages though by most people’s standards I was a big success. By the time I really was starting to catch a good groove the market changed.

That is what is happening in poker right now, so that is why I am writing this article. Games are tougher, redefining success is something smart people do when markets go south. Do not fret though, markets have a way of changing back into your favor at some future point and at that point you will be very happy that you continued training and avoided failing by my definition.

The key points of this article are:

1. To be a success at something you have to continue to try and keep learning.

2. Winning and Losing is not the best way to determine whether or not you are failing. In poker everyone’s goals are different.

3. Invest in training and read source material but at some point you are on your own and it will be those moments where you will find your best attributes, assuming of course you are willing to fail and make mistakes along the way. If Phil Ivey would sell his inner most secrets you could not afford the cost.

4. Your biggest investment you will ever make will be in experience.

Paul “Beanie” Nobles

One of the first lessons I learned in poker is that catching up is not only profitable it is the difference between being a winner and a loser. Back in those days I was playing limit poker and hands like Ace King were useless unless the flop came Jack Queen Ten. Even then you had to sweat the board pairing, typically 9 people saw the flop (out of 11, yes I am well aware this is a silly game) and everyone hit a little bit of something. The name of the game was playing hands that caught up easily like pairs. Over time the losers couldn’t chase any longer, they had just lost too much doing it so the game soon went to only 5 people seeing the flop. Ironically, that was when I made my most profit. With too many people playing almost no one is doing anything too terribly wrong so your edge against the collective group is not that significant.

These days No Limit is the game and the punishment for playing badly is swift. Even in a loose $5-$10 game it would be rare to see 5-7 people calling $100 raise. So the field size gets smaller assuming you make decent raises and don’t price people in. Raising to $40 with 5 people in screams of a hand like Sevens where if you hit your set you have 5 other people on board and can stack at least one of them with top pair. So let me introduce you to a few concepts:

First Bluff: As you see more flops the texture of flops becomes easier to read and understand. It is important to bluff at favorable flop textures to set up some of the plays I will be mentioning later. In the case of playing against an overly aggressive opponent that always makes continuation bets you might want to check raise them with air occasionally just to let them know that you are onto their plan and that won’t fly while you are at the table.

Set Mining: This is the hobby of all nits everywhere. They just wait for pairs to hit the flop and try to get all the money in and unfortunately most people aren’t paying attention and don’t realize they haven’t played a hand in two hours. That is one of the advantages of online, between surfing for porn and sweating the $20 bet they have on Youngstown State people don’t pay attention so tight players get away with more online. This is why First Bluff is so powerful because when you hit your set you will build a monster pot by just leading out, if you bluff enough eventually people start calling you down with weaker hands. That is when you show them the nuts.

Playing suited connectors in position: You have at least 2 more options playing suited connectors in position than you do out of position. Ideally you would like to hit your hand occasionally and not bluff all the time but suited connectors give you the added option of semibluffing in position with information. Playing suited connectors early you are really only guessing.

Hands like Ace King and Ace Queen are great and likely represent the majority of playable hands but it is rare that someone will “stack off” in a decent game with a hand like Ace Jack. Sets are the best “catch up” hands. In the case of suited connectors it is likely better to hit your off card rather than the card that makes you. As an example, you will likely make more from your opponents by hitting the card that gives you trips (assuming you have a pair and a flush draw) than you will if you hit your flush. So bang the six harder. You have to have a feeling of how the table perceives you and use that image against them. Otherwise, the image you have established hasn’t allowed you to take advantage of catching up.

Paul “Beanie” Nobles

Brandon posted this on 2+2 and it generated a lot of discussion. The post compares online poker players to live poker players and why it is difficult to compare poker to really anything else.

Brandon Adams

It’s important to know how the other players at the table perceive you. You as a poker player must know what they think of you. I know, when I sit down at a poker table, what most everyone thinks about my style of play. I tend to play a bit more on the aggressive side; however I can also be a squeezer. If I am playing with someone I’ve never played with before I know they think of me as an aggressive maniac. When I sit down with professionals I have played with in the past I know they know I can squeeze.

There are many ways to change your image. It all depends on the nature of the game and the people in it as well. When you first go into a game not knowing anybody the best thing to do is play a couple of hands you would never play. And play them terribly, but make it a point to somehow show the hands without making it obvious that you are trying to show. That alone will give you a great image; that of an idiot, which is EXACTLY what you want. It’s amazing to me poker players seek validation more than anybody. Why in the world do you want your peers (the same guys you PLAY against) to think of you as a good player?!? You want them to think of you as a donk. When you sit down and make a couple of dumb plays and play a few hands you should not be playing you are set for the rest of your session. It will cost you a little bit in equity playing these bad hands but you make up for it in payoff vig throughout your session. The last thing you want is to be known as an FBS (a full blown squeezer). You want them to think of you as a gambling knucklehead. Good luck!!

Antonio Esfandiari

There is a lot of poker on television, really the only interesting hands are where someone makes a very bad play or something improbable happens. AA beating a flush draw doesn’t always make it past the cutting room floor. Therefore, the poker that you watch on television isn’t the most optimal way to play. So let me give you some ideas on what it really takes.

1. Poker is about fundamentals. Playing hands with position and changing with the style of game. A good example of this is a hand like 5s4s that is much more valuable as a No Limit hand rather than a Limit Poker hand. Poker Theory by David Slansky was one of the first books I ever read and the concepts still stick with me today. You have to have a base of understanding before you get creative.

2. Getting too creative is not profitable long term. Long term the money is made by making fewer mistakes (in terms of dollars) than your opponents. A good example is the above hand playing no limit, against one opponent from early position even if you hit a favorable flop not only will it cost you a great deal of money but you don’t have the ability to get much information cheaply. In no limit the practice of set mining is a big deal because it is rare that if you flop a set you will be up against a hand that beats you and you will often take the stack from hands like AA and KK.

3. Playing within a proper bankroll has been covered often and so has playing in games where you have little edge. What isn’t covered often is playing in games with a high rake. In a lot of ways it is a double edged sword because if players are savvy about how much the house takes the game can become a shark tank (also known as a nit festival). On the other hand a game with a $10 rake per hand with all fish may be profitable based on your contribution towards the rake. There really isn’t a ton of data on this subject but it is something you want to be aware of, playing in games with fish is important but ignoring the house edge is foolish.

4. Maintaining your mental health edge is important. I personally believe that poker is a young mans game because it is easier to maintain your focus without regards to the abuse you do to your body and mind. As you get older however you have to preserve what mental edge you have by reducing the time you play and maintaining a decent diet. Playing more when you are winning and less when you are losing is easier said than done but that is what it takes to be a professional.

This was my first article related to playing poker seriously. In future articles I will try and be a bit more specific. This was meant to be an overview covering some surface issues.

Paul “Beanie” Nobles

My number one rule regarding draws is this: just because you have a draw does not mean that you have to play it. In many instances, draws are unprofitable. There are three main reasons why you should approach draws with caution. First and most obviously, draws don’t get there very often. We all know that a flush draw gets there about 35% of the time. What always has to be kept in mind, though, is that the flush hits on the turn only 19% of the time. A flush that hits on the turn is usually more profitable than one that hits on the river. Moreover, we will often be priced out of the draw on the turn, forcing us to fold before we can see the river.

The second reason to be cautious with draws is that you often won’t get paid off when you hit. Most flops miss your opponent(s). There’s a psychological tendency to assume that our opponent has a monster and that we’ll get paid off huge if we hit our draw. This tendency relates to the mind’s deep urge to gamble – we change our view of any given situation to assure a continuation of action.

The third reason for caution is that sometimes you will hit your draw and it won’t be good. For this reason, always be more inclined to play a draw when it is the nut draw. Flush over flush situations are relatively common. If you are drawing to a straight on a straight-heavy board (basically, any board with a ten and another card close by), be cautious if you don’t have the nut draw. On a QT4 board, J-9 should be played with caution. If you call an opponents bet and a king comes on the turn, it’s quite possible that your opponent has something like AJ (meaning he’s hit the nuts on a gutshot and will be paid off with your whole stack). I’ve often semi-bluffed with gutshot straight draws and lost my whole stack when I hit because I was drawing to less than the nuts. A few weeks ago, I raised the flop with 7-T on a board of 4d8dJc, and busted out to QdTd when a 9c hit on the turn. If you are going to get cute with draws, you have to pick your spots carefully.

In Omaha, the first thing that one is taught is to not draw to straights or flushes when the board is paired. The holdem player is generally advised to follow this rule as well. If you hit a flush on a paired board in holdem, there are not many hands worse than a flush that will pay you off with big money. Your opponent will be very aware that there is full house and flush potential on the board. If he has A5, on a 5d5hTd board and a Kd comes on the turn, he will be checking and calling, not raising.

It’s become increasingly fashionable to play draws as semi-bluffs. Some players have reached the absolute extreme — they push all their money in on the flop any time they flop a straight or flush draw. I certainly don’t mind playing draws aggressively, but you don’t want to stick all your money in on a draw unless there’s a high probability that your opponents will fold.

There are two things that I think about when trying to determine if I’m willing to pot-commit myself on a draw. Assume that the stack sizes are such that you considering whether you should move all-in on the flop with a draw. The first thing to consider is: what is your pot equity if your all-in is called? The key inputs here are usually: 1) what is the probability that your opponent has a set, given that he calls, and 2) what is the probability that you have live overcards, given that your opponent calls?

The second thing to consider is the probability that your opponent will fold when you move in. The essential thing to consider here is whether your raise is credible. That is, does your opponent believe that you would have made the same raise with a big, non-drawing hand? Your opponent will only fold a made hand if he believes that you are the type of player to move in with big hands. More to the point, he’ll be especially hesitant to call you if he knows that you are the type to move in with monsters that will have him buried if he calls (sets for instance).

If you are the type of player who will move in with big hands such as two pair or an overpair, but not with huge hands such as a set, your opponent will be much more inclined to call you. If you’re opponent has, say, top pair with top kicker, and you move in on him, he will be hesitant to call you if you’re the type of player who sometimes moves in with a set, because he knows that sometimes a call will be severely punished (note that he’s a 98-2 dog to a set). If you always slowplay sets, then your opponent will feel that he can never truly get hurt by calling — he will sometimes be an underdog when he calls, but he will never be disastrously far behind.

An advanced play that often works well is playing a draw that you don’t have. Say I call on the button with 6d7d and the flop comes 4s5sQd. I’ll often play the straight draw with the intention of representing the flush if it hits. If this is your plan, then you have to be prepared to bet the turn if a card like Js comes off, even though it means that occasionally you’ll be giving up your free card (when an overaggressive player re-raises you without a flush).

The tactics of playing draws that you don’t have often makes gutshots profitable. If you have 7d8d, and the flop comes 5s6sQd, you usually shouldn’t call a flop bet unless you plan to bluff many of the times that you miss your gutshot. This flop presents a good opportunity to call with the intention of strongly represent a spade flush if a third spade hits.

To win truly huge pots, you have to surprise your opponents with hands that they think it’s impossible for you to be holding. Suppose that in the example above, the flop had instead been 6s4sQd. You call a big flop bet with 7d8d, intending to represent a spade if it hits. Unbeknownst to you, your opponent has a monster (a set of queens). If the turn comes a 5d, you can expect to stack your opponent, even if he is extremely deep.

After you’re decided to semi-bluff with a draw, one common dilemma that is often faced is deciding whether your raise should be an all-in raise. A related problem is deciding whether to bet or push after your opponent has checked the flop. In general, I’m of the belief that if your bet or raise is a high percentage of your chips, such that it’s fairly clear to your opponent that you’re pot committing yourself, then you are better off pushing all-in.

Brandon Adams

There are a lot of players who mix up their play well for small bets (they’ll bet out or raise with nothing on the flop with about the right frequency), but most players do not mix up their play well on big bets. That is, when they put really big money in the pot on the turn or river, they are never messing around. These players are too easy to put on a hand. You have to be willing to fire all your chips with no hand if it’s likely that your opponent will lay his hand down. This leads us to the theory of firing the second and third barrels.

Most of your big bluffs will occur when you have position on an opponent. This is especially true for big moves on the river. If an opponent checks to you on the river, it’s likely not a check of strength. I’ve found that when I’ve bet the flop and turn with no hand, and then had an opponent check to me on the river, a pot-sized bet is effective more than 60% of the time. People will often call with an overpair or with top pair on the flop and turn, but not on the river, and their check-call, check-call, check line often often tells you that they have a big pair but no better.

Needless to say, most opportunities to make big plays on the turn and river will occur early in a tournament, when the blinds and antes are small relative to the stack sizes. Suppose everyone has stacks of T$10000 with blinds of 50-100. You open for 150 from the cutoff position with Ad9d and the small blind calls. The flop comes KcTc5d. The SB checks. Many times you will check behind here and hope for the ace, but on this occasion you bet 200 and he calls. The turn brings a 4h. The SB checks. There’s now 800 in the pot. In this scenario, only fire the second barrel if you plan to fire the third. Both bets would need to be pot-sized. On the turn, I would think, “Either he’s checked a monster to me, or he has a draw, or he has a king.” King-queen is his most likely holding by far. Ace-ten is a possibility, and a hand that he would surely come off for a pot-sized turn bet.

After you semi-bluff the flop and get a call, you only want to consider firing the second and third barrels if your hand doesn’t have much real value. If, in the example above, you had AdJd instead of Ad9d, you wouldn’t consider firing the second barrel, because a raised on the turn, you will have to give up your gutshot draw to the nuts. Ad9d plays differently — you probably have outs if your second-barrel bluff is called (a river ace might win the hand for you), but you probably don’t have outs if you are raised on the turn. All told, against many opponents, your best line is probably to bet 800 on the turn, and then bet 2400 on the river if no ace, nine, or club appears. You wouldn’t want to bet the river when the straight or flush hits because it’s not credible that you have this hand, given that you bet the turn. If a club appears and your opponent checks after calling the flop and turn bets, there’s a quite high chance that he plans to call you.

Knowing when to make big moves on the river requires a lot of judgment, but moves of this type separate the great players from the also-rans because great players sometimes see opportunities to make big moves on the river that they know will work an extremely high percentage of the time. Players who make big moves based on great reads are capable of accumulating huge amounts of chips with little risk.

In tournaments and lower-level cash games, one move that you see a lot is the defensive bet on the river. The player who makes the defensive bet is usually a less experienced player that has built a huge pot out a position with a premium starting hand that hasn’t improved. Suppose, for example, that a conservative player raises in early position and gets two callers. The flop comes JcTd4s. He bets the pot and gets a call. The turn comes a 6h. Again he bets the pot and gets a call. Now he thinks to himself: this guy might have a monster. If the river comes a blank (2d, say), he will often fire a defensive bet of 1/5 to 1/3 of the pot. You simply have to move in on this player if you have a read on him. Often he has kings or aces and knows that there’s no way he can call your river push.

Another time that you will see the defensive bet is when your opponent has built a big pot out of position and then a draw hits on the river. Many times, your opponent knows that this draw could have hit you, and yet you know that it’s very unlikely to have hit him. In this case, your opponent will often make a small- to mid- size bet that is transparently a defensive bet, and you have to move in on him.

A player who makes big bluffs effectively is difficult to play against out of position. In tournaments, it’s important to recognize which players are capable of making moves. You should generally avoid playing big pots against these players out of position. A good player will bluff at you relentlessly if he has position on you and you’ve played your hand in such a way that he knows approximately what you have.

The most risky form of second and third barrel bluffs is the floating bluff. These are only profitable if you have strong reads on your opponents. Say I raise on the button to $300 in a game with $50-100 blinds and effective stacks of $12000. The big blind calls and the flop comes TcTd5h. The big blind checks and I bet $600 with Kh7h, then he raises to $1800. There are many opponents for whom this $1800 bet is much more likely to represent a bluff than a real hand. In this case, you will find it profitable to call the flop raise, and then bet the turn if he checks. If he bets the turn, then consider the $1200 you paid on the flop to be the cost of an unsuccessful bluff. The exception is if you’re quite certain that your opponent didn’t check-raise the flop with a ten or better — in this case, you can either raise the turn or call the turn with the intention of betting the river after a check. If you call the turn and then he bets the river, you probably have to give up. It’s unlikely he’s bluffing.

Brandon Adams is the author of Broke: A Poker Novel (available on Amazon). He’s a doctoral student at Harvard, and a regular in the biggest cash games and tournaments.

Brandon Adams

Why do we, or why should we, love sets so much? Well the name of the game is getting your money in when you’re a big favorite, and when you have a set you are usually a huge favorite. How big a favorite? Well, if you hit a set against an overpair and get all your money in on flop, you’re about a 9-1 favorite. If someone is willing to put all their money in with AdKc on a Ah-5s-6s flop against your set of sixes, they will be about a 49-1 dog. Think about that, how often can you get your money in as a 49-to-1 favorite?

When I hit the set of sixes in the above example and someone bets into me. I’m going to put in a stiff raise most of the time. I think most players slowplay their sets way too often. Start to think about things this way: if you can, even occasionally, get your opponents to put in all their money on the flop when they are a monstrous dog, you can make up for a hell of a lot of “mistakes” — times when you get your money in as a small to modest dog.

It somehow feels right to hold off until the turn to raise with a set, but it’s often a terrible mistake. Of course, you need to take this line sometimes to mix things up, but in general there are a few problems with it. First, many times, your decision to just call your opponents bet on the flop opens you open to a scenario where you can’t possibly win more money but you could lose your whole stack. If I bet the flop with 99 and you call with a set of sixes on the Ah-5s-6s flop, you’re in a world of trouble if a nine hits on the turn. The same is true if I bet out with 7h9c and the 8 hits the turn. I wasn’t going to call your raise with a gutshot, but when the 8 hits the turn, I’m happy to take all your money.

Second. there will of course be times when your opponent flops a strong hand (this includes big draws) and you want to extract maximum value. In general, if you have a strong hand and you put your opponent on a strong hand, the flop is the best place to extract value. Especially on a board that has strong drawing potential, your opponent will assign a much wider range of hands to a flop raise than to a turn raise. If you call your opponents flop bet and then pop him on the turn, alarm bells will go off and he might well muck AK.

If I raise the flop, my opponents will put me on a wide range of hands, or at least they should — if they don’t, then they’re going to be losing a lot of money because I’m frequently going to be putting in a stiff raise with nothing (9c10h, say) or with a draw of some kind. This brings out the third reason why you should be fast-playing your sets — you’re opponents need to know that your flop raises are credible, meaning that your flop raise should often mean that you are ready and willing to put your whole stack in. In general, you should be raising flops when a) you have every intention of putting all your money in if your opponent pops you or b) you have no doubt at all that you will be mucking if your opponent pops you. You want to avoid scenarios where you raise and then have to puzzle for half a minute about what to do when your opponent pops you.

I’ve discussed how I like to play sets once I’ve hit them.

A separate issue is determining when it makes sense to play a small- or mid-pair in attempt to hit a set. I have two strong views on this. First, the idea of limping in early position with small pairs to mid-pairs is usually sheer idiocy. Second, even when you have position, you can’t call too often with small- to mid- pars in an attempt to hit a set unless you are occasionally going to play your hand strongly when you miss the flop. If you, for instance, call a pre-flop raise from John Phan with 33 on the button, your strategy on the flop better not be “hit a set or fold”. If it is, John will very much like playing with you because seven times in eight he’ll bet and you’ll fold, and the most of the times you hit, he won’t have anything and won’t pay you with more than a flop bet.

What if you hit a set and you are behind? Most of the time, the answer is: you lose all your money. There are, of course, going to be cases where it’s obvious that your set is no good. If the flop comes 9-T-J rainbow in a four-way raised pot, and there is a bet and two raises before it gets to you, then you can go ahead and muck your set of nines. They’re no good.

At the Foxwoods $10k tournament last March, I was at a table with Erik Seidel and two of the tournament chip leaders. It was day two and there were maybe seventy players left. I won’t get the action precisely right here, but pre-flop one of the chip leaders raises in mid-position and the other re-raises from the button. The flop comes T-J-6 rainbow and the mid-position player bets out for 20000 (roughly the size of the pot). The player on the button called the flop bet and then the turn brought a Q. The mid-position player bet 65,000 to put himself all-in and the other player went into the tank. He thought for literally five minutes and then he announced that he was going to make a big laydown. He then mucked a set of queens! During the break, Erik Seidel excitedly told blank blank about what must have been one of the worst laydowns he’d ever seen. Tournaments generally aren’t the place for fancy laydowns.

Brandon Adams

In a tournament, what is the proper opening raise? Most people just make it three big blinds without giving it much thought. That’s probably close to optimal, but my view is that many players can benefit by opening for less than this amount. Dare we say min-raise?

Let’s start with a stylized example. Trivially, if your opponents will respond to your opening raise by either folding or going all-in, then it makes sense to raise the minimum. I think many tournament situations are approximated by this simple case. This argues for raising to two big blinds rather than three or more big blinds, and yet we rarely see top players do this. The standard opening raise among good players seems to be three big blinds. Two notable exceptions are Alan Goerhing (who frequently raises to 2BB) and Daniel Negreanu (who frequently raises to 2.5BB). Interestingly, most players raise the same amount whether there are antes or not, meaning that they offer their opponents drastically different pot odds once antes kick in.

I’m convinced that Daniel has it about right. Note the key tradeoff that Daniel is facing when he chooses to open to 2.5BB. The first consideration is the one noted above — you shouldn’t put in more money than is necessary to achieve your objective (namely, blind and ante theft). Daniel has probably observed that people play against him in very similar ways regardless of whether he raises to 2.5BB or 3BB – that is, his opponents probably don’t properly adjusted to better pot odds offered by the 2.5BB raise.

To see the disadvantage of a small opening raise for Daniel, note that he is often going to have position against players who choose to play against him. This is true because he will be opening the pot much more liberally from late position and because the big blind will be forced to defend frequently against Daniel, especially in the presence of antes.

Daniel is likely to be more skilled than his opponents. If you couple this with the fact that he is likely to have position on them in contested pots, you get the argument for big pre-flop raises. It’s the same argument that drives skilled cash game players to play extremely aggressively with position in early streets — namely, “Let me put in more money now, so I can steal it back later.”

There also seems to be a strong psychological element to the use of small pre-flop raises by Negreanu and Goerhing. I think there’s a sense in which they view these small raises as “sucker bets” for players who do think about pot odds. They are essentially saying, “Come on. You know you are getting the right price. I dare you to tangle with me.”

I took up this “sucker bet” against Daniel in Tunica. I doubled him up and he won the tournament. With ten players left and blinds of T$4000-$8000 ($1000 antes) he did his standard opening raise to $20000. I was in the big blind and couldn’t resist the 42:12 pot odds that I was being offered with Qc7c. At the time, I was stupidly thinking that I wanted to get in pots with Daniel because I thought he would be fearful of busting 10th and not making the TV table. My plan was to bet out the flop if I missed, check-call if I hit a piece of it, and check-raise all-in if I hit hard (queen-high flop, flush draw, two pair). Well, the flop came Qd4h8h. I check-raised him all-in and he made a great call with QT. The interesting thing is that I never would have played with Qc7c if he offered me pot odds that were just a bit worse.

When thinking about optimal opening raises, one thing you must ask yourself is, “Am I willing to make tough calls pre-flop?” If you’re not, tend towards smaller opening raises (such as 2.5BB). This is another reason why Daniel likes the small raises — why force yourself into situations where you have to make tough calls with small edges? If Daniel open-raised to 4BB instead of 2.5BB, then he’d frequently find himself in a scenario where he, say, opens with KJs and then has a player move all-in on him for 8BB more. If he had raised 2.5BB and then had someone come over him for 9.5BB more, he could easily lay his hand down with confidence. By open-raising to 4BB, he is offering himself good odds when re-raised all-in, and he will be forced into situations where he has to gamble as a dog.

The player who makes big open raises often has to contest big all-in pre-flop hands as a dog, because calling the raise and playing as a dog is often preferable to leaving a lot of money dead in the middle. Towards the end of a tournament, I like to craft my pre-flop strategy in such a way that I’m rarely leaving money dead in the middle. Too many times, I’ve lost a stack late in a tournament by opening pots and then being forced to repeatedly lay down hands as opponents re-raised me.

There are some players who believe that one should alter one’s standard opening raise with position. Specifically, they believe that you should raise relatively more in late position, especially late in a tournament. At this stage, antes are present and all-in pre-flop moves are common, so making larger raises with position is essentially a commitment device. You are saying, “Look, I know you might have a better hand than me, but I’m pricing myself into a call.” It can be an effective strategy, so long as you’re willing to call as a big dog. You also have to be willing to put in big pre-flop raises with some really bad hands.

To simplify, assume everyone at the table has 12BB. The pot contains 1.5BB in blinds, and 1BB in antes. Assume you’re on the button and the action folds around to you. If you open for 4BB, you are offering yourself 18:8 pot odds if the small blind moves in on you and 17.5: 8 pot odds if the big blind moves in. There are a lot of mediocre-to-bad hands like A4o that you will have to call with when offered these odds. You wouldn’t have had to call if you had opened to 2.5BB. Your opponent, knowing this, will move in on you with fewer hands when facing a 4BB raise. For you to take advantage of this, you will have to often make this 4BB as a steal with complete rags (56o, say) that you can comfortably laydown when re-raised. By raising to 4BB instead of 2.5BB, you will be offered worse odds on the steal (2.5:4 vs. 1:1) but you will be able to steal much more often.

To conclude, I believe that, in general, aggressive players are better off with relatively small opening raises, such 2.5BB. I recommend maintaining this standard even when antes are introduced. That said, it serves a player well to think carefully about his situation. You should make relatively large opening raises if your skill level is below that of your opponents. At the extreme (say you’re beginner at a table of world champions), you should craft a strategy that involves simply raising all-in or folding.

Generally speaking, I recommend raising the same amount regardless of position, but, as noted above, there are certain situations where it might make sense to craft a strategy involving large late position raises.

Brandon Adams

Playing strong deep stack poker requires that one think like a chess player, constantly looking ahead to action on later streets and thinking through the implications for the decision at hand. Deep stack tournament poker is similar to cash game play, so some of the examples in this chapter will come from cash games.

Suppose that you are playing heads-up $50-100 no-limit hold’em. Both you and your opponent have $15,000 in front. Your opponent has the button and opens for $300. You call with king-queen. Sometimes you would re-raise here pre-flop but often you will just call – it’s a hand that will frequently punish you for building a large pot out of position.

The flop comes Q-5-6, rainbow. Is this flop suitable for a check-raise? To me, the answer is clearly no. I will check-raise in this spot with a set of queens, a set of fives, a set of sixes, Q-6, Q-5, or 5-6, or, much more frequently, with nothing, but I wouldn’t check-raise with K-Q. A-Q is only marginally better than K-Q; I wouldn’t check-raise with that hand in this spot either.

You should check-raise only when you can confidently answer the question: Am I prepared to put all my chips in with this hand? A tactically sound raise will allow you to answer that question with confidence. If I call pre-flop with J-T, it might well be correct to check-raise with Q-5-6 flop given the high probability that the raise will take down the pot uncontested.

Say your opponent bets $600 on the Q-5-6 flop, and you check-raise to 2400, then he pushes. Are you calling with K-Q? I’m not. If you somehow know that he’s going to either push or fold after you check-raise, then you can say for sure that check-raising with king-queen, one of the best possible hands given this board, yields equivalent results to check-raising with a hand that missed the board completely.

Say your opponent just calls your flop raise. Are you happy now? On the turn, you will be facing a Q-5-6-X board, out of position, with $5400 in the pot and $13300 each behind. What’s your plan? It will fairly surely entail a lot of discomfort. You have, of course, two options — check or bet. They’re about equally bad.

Let’s look first at the option of betting. Say your plan is: bet the turn and fold to a raise. Let’s first assume that your opponent will respond to your turn bet by either folding or raising you all-in. If this is true, then your payoff profile still hasn’t changed from the J-T scenario. Think about that for a second –raising the flop with KQ, then betting the turn, yields the exact same results as raising the flop and betting the turn with nothing.

If you bet the turn and your opponent just calls, you still aren’t in great shape. Assume you pot-bet the turn, such that there is $16,200 in the pot and $6900/each behind. It’s not clear what the best line will be on the river — all that I can tell you is that tactically unsound play has forced you to confront a very uncomfortable river decision and it’s very probable that you will make a costly mistake.

It’s possible that your bad play will pay off for you. Maybe you bet the river and he somehow pays you with QJ. QJ is really the only plausible scenario where your check-raise->bet->bet line works out better with KQ than it does with XY (where X an Y bear no relation to the board). Maybe you choose to check-call the river and you induce a bluff from someone who paid too much for an open-end straight draw. All told, though, your decision to check-raise the flop with KQ still looks like a serious tactical blunder.

Let’s look quickly at the case of the check-raise->check line of play. Here you can only hope for the turn action to go check-check. If you check and your opponent bets, K-Q is probably buried. I’d fold to a pot bet in that spot. I believe such a fold is correct despite that chance that your opponent holds QJ or QT — this again demonstrates that the flop raise was flawed. If you had just called the flop, the likely action would have been: check-check on the turn, then bet-call on the river. In the first case, you are taken off a better hand to lose a big pot. In the second case, you win a $5400 pot.

If the turn goes check-check, you’re probably in good shape despite your mistake on the flop. If the potential flop draws miss on the river, you can check hoping to induce a bluff. If they hit, I would probably bet the river (I’m not going to fold here, so I might as well bet and hope that my opponent has QT or QJ).

Intuitively, many players believe that a high probability of having the best hand is sufficient grounds for a raise or re-raise. In deep stack poker, that is not true.

Brandon Adams