The lead-out/re-raise is the new check/raise

Royal will attest that back in the "good ol' days" a couple years ago when we played Sunday Night Poker, check/raising and slow playing were well and good. This was because you had some characters like Krazy Karl who you could count on to be hyper-aggressive once he hits his hand or a calling station like Chris who will call an all-in with A7os on a paired board (non-Ace pair btw). Well those days are gone and we're playing with a different crowd now.

So what is better than a check/raise? The lead-out/re-raise! For example. Timid Timmy Transparent opens the betting with an overbet of 14. You can put him squarely on a big pair. He is not going to raise up with a 46 or junky hand like that, he is straightforward and you can gauge his hand strength by his bet. You call with Snowmans and it is heads up going into the flop. Flop comes out a glorious 258 rainbow. You are out of position so what do you do? His and your 14 and some blinds make the pot about 30. If you check/raise, your opponent will probably bet out the pot or so and if you raise then you will take down 60 chips since Timmy is timid and knows that check/raising means strength. However, if you lead out for 30 instead and making it look like you have A8 or 89, something like that, then in order for Timmy to show that he has an overpair and how strong his hand is, he will need to commit AT LEAST 60 to the pot and probably more like a raise to between 75-90. Now if you re-raise him you have made two or three times as much on the flop alone. Timmy's raise may even be enough to pot commit him depending on his stack. An example of this was when Jeh flopped the nut straight against Matt's overpair. With the pot as big as it was pre-flop, leading out even a half-pot sized bet by Jeh would have forced Matt to throw in a huge re-raise to put Jeh in his place. Then at that point I think the money gets in. A lot of cards can kill the action on the turn (like an Ace to a pair of Kings) and you want to let the person with the powerful hand hammer the pot while they are behind.

Another variation on this is what I call a "seed bet", an underbet to the pot that is looking for a re-raise. Let's say you put your opponent on a strong Ace and the flop comes out Ace high but gives you two pair. This is an occasion where being out of position is actually helpful because you can throw in a seed bet knowing that you are going to get popped which opens the door for you to get more money in while you are ahead. If you lead out too strong, your opponent may just flat call and you are stuck sweating out the turn card which may counterfeit your two pair or put a scare card on the board which slows you down. One example of this is against Jay in the lunch game. I flop trip Tens on a KTT flop. Jay has AK and position on me. I give him credit for the King based on pre-flop action. So I lead out feeling quite sure that I'm going to get popped. With the short stack nature of the lunch game, I feel that I can get him committed. Sure enough, Jay puts in a "let's clarify where we stand" raise. I push and for not that much more Jay calls off the rest of his stack on a two outer (which he hit but we are not ROT here). Now if I had check/raised there, Jay has much less invested, can reasonably fear that I have a Ten of some sort, and can get away from the hand.

So bottom line is, if you know your opponent feels they are strong and ahead, a lead-out/re-raise will get more money into the pot faster and will be more likely to get an opponent pot committed than a check/raise which can scare off customers.

Royal overestimates the Royal draw

I meant to post this earlier, but time is a tough beast to pin down.

I thought I had the “perfect situation” hand on Friday night. My hand: . I’m not sure who raises to 6 pre-flop, but 5 other people besides myself (UTG) call the bet to see the flop. Flop comes . Ivan checks, and thinking to myself “holy crap, how can I lose?” I check to see where the rest of the table stands. It checks around. Bah. Turn comes . Now, besides the club-flush draw, there’s a spade-flush draw. But, still, I’ve been clearly duped by the flop and when Ivan checks I check behind. But this time it checks all the way to MB, on the button, who bets 4. Then Ivan raises to 8. Good, this is what I was wanting. I call Ivan’s 8 bet, knowing that MB is probably going to bump it even higher, and even if she doesn’t, I’m still going to be good on the river, right? The table folds to MB, who bumps it to 20. Excellent! Ivan folds, and I bump it to 40, knowing this is an obvious bet to most of the table, showing that I’m much stronger than I’m letting on, but hoping that MB won’t pick up on it and will re-raise me. She merely calls.

To recap, how did I get here? I was so floored by the made-Broadway with the open-ended straight-flush/Royal-flush flop that I am throwing all kinds of possibilities out the door: there’s a possible higher club flush draw out there, and a possible higher spade flush draw out there. There’s the full-house draw (which Martin schooled me on later, as recounted here). I’m not accounting for any of these things, obviously, because if I had I would have bet differently.

River brings . Ugh. What have I gotten myself into? Suddenly it all comes clear. Oh, look: there’s a spade flush possibility! Oh, look: there’s a full house possibility! Somebody at the table says “That’s a great river card. Would have been better if you’d brought the Ace of clubs.” I check to MB, fearing the worst. MB makes a good value bet of 40. She would have gotten a lot more out of me if she’d bet higher, but I call, and she flips up . I say “I would have preferred the Ace of clubs” and show my crushed straight.

So, I know what I did wrong, but is there anything you would have done differently? I think the only thing that’s going to get MB off of her two pair is an all-in bet on the flop. I had less than a full buy-in in front of me, and I think MB was probably about the same. In my mind at the time I wanted to see all streets because I wanted to turn my great hand into an amazing hand. Most of us are guilty of this when straight-flushes are possible, giving even a gut-shot straight-flush draw way too much credit. So I guess I’m not looking for a critique of my hand. I know I shouldn’t have given my straight nearly as much credit as I did, and I should have taken it down early. But I was clearly not going to make an all-in bet on the flop, based on what I knew. Anything I would have bet would have been called by MB, so with that logic I made out better than I should have.

Knowing right now what to do better next time is clearly different than being in the moment of a Royal draw. Right?

Getting better odds than I thought with a set

Later on Friday night I call a raise with pocket Sixes. Flop is dealt and the good news is that I hit my set, the bad news is that it is all Spades, Ace high at that. I am in early position and throw out a 20 chips as a protection/probe bet. The typically very solid Royal bumps it to 40. Hmmm. Everyone else is out of the way and it comes back to me. I decide I need more information and I re-raise to 60 or 80 (I forget, I guess I should blog these things immediately after the hand!). Royal pushes all in for another hundred and change (116?). Now I'm stumped. I even say to the table that I re-raised to get more information and now that I have it I'm not sure what to do. I dismiss the idea of set over set because I don't see Royal having Pocket Aces here. The two hands that I see most likely are a strong Ace with a Spade kicker or KsQs. I mull over the hand for a while and finally end up calling. I am ahead as Royal shows A with Qc for top pair/strong kicker but no Spade redraw which is great because a fourth Spade came and the board didn't pair.

I threw the hand on the Poker Stove to see what was what and to my surprise, even if Royal flopped the nut flush with KsQs, I STILL was getting odds to call on the flop as a set is basically going to boat or quad up one time out of three. The numbers that were lingering in my head were 20% and 25% to improve on the turn and river respectively. The odd thing being that if you brick the turn, it actually gives you three more outs to catch a boat on the river. Needless to say, if I were up against an Ace with Spade kicker I'm more than priced in and actually ahead in the hand 70/30. So in retrospect, getting 2:1 on my call makes it a no brainer (as long as I am not up against set over set and even then the book says you just can't worry about that) since I am priced in even against the worst case scenario of the range of hands I figure I'm up against...even though I didn't know it at the time.

I'm behind...why am I calling?

There were two hands where I was very confident that I was behind and yet I called anyway. Both hands were against Ivan. One hand I had AJ and flopped top pair. I believe it was me leading and a smooth call from Ivan. Turn was a blankish looking card. I lead again and get re-raised (all-in?) I know that I am way behind. I can't even beat AK. I put him on two pair and he is speeding up on the turn because he either made his two pair or the board was getting too draw heavy. I have no reason to call but we get all the money in anyway. He shows a set of Nines and I am already drawing dead. River bricks so I don't even get a losing two pair or trips. D0nkerric.

Last hand was stupid, this one was more forgivable based on hand strength but still makes no sense once the hand is thought through. Limped pot. Flop comes T97 two clubs. Perfect flop for the SpainR. Unfortunately I have 97 instead. I can't beat a straight unless I boat up. Ivan and I nibble around the edges with the bets and I'm not interested in building the pot unless I boat up. Turn is a high card (Q?) but not a club, no flush. Again, small bets. River pairs the Seven. I now have gotten the boat that I "wanted". I believe that Ivan opened up for 20 and I could have called. I even remember thinking, I can beat a straight now but a straight would have made no sense since Ivan was not protecting against the flush. I'm also guessing that he would not lead out into a paired board with a straight. So I raise since I get criticized for playing weak/tight so much. I get re-raised all in and I feel that I'm beat. I know I have a house but I have the nut low house. I know that Ivan is a good enough player to know what a paired board means I am behind T7, Q7, 99, TT, and QQ. I'll exclude QQ as very unlikely and even TT or 99 would likely have come in for a raise. I can't see Ivan getting involved in a hand with bottom pair only and raising with just trips. I know I'm beat and I'm calling anyway because "there's just not that much more behind to call".

Throwing money away. Not that hard to figure out. D0nkerrific x 2!

Playing Trips Extremely Deceptively

At poker Friday at Jason and MB's there was a hand I said I'd tell Jason about later, so I'll tell you all.

I can't remember the exact preflop action, but there were a lot of players to the flop, and I believe it was unraised. I have A4o on the button.

The flop was 443 rainbow, and I'm hoping for a bet, but it checks around to me. I bet about 8, figuring the other 4 is in the deck somewhere and I'll probably take this down. Jason calls, though, and everyone else folds.

The turn is a 2. I'm mildly concerned about A5, but I don't really think Jason would call my flop bet with that unless he had me squarely on position bet with weak holdings. He checks and I bet again, about half the pot this time, and he calls again.

Now I think it's likely he has something like 77, with a longshot that he's slowplaying a boat or a solid 4 that he got as a big blind special. I think he would have raised with a weak 4 by now to find out where he stands. Ultimately, he's just not betting like he has a 4, he's betting like he feels he's ahead if I don't have a 4 and he's keeping me honest.

The river is a T that makes a backdoor flush, and Jason bets out 31. Interesting...he either does have a boat, or he thinks his middle pair is good.

I check my cards, and see A5 staring back at me. A5? Oops. The bad news is I've misread my hand the whole way, and the good news is it's even better than I thought it was.

I raise to 100, which feels "standard" at 3x. Jason is mumbling about "two small bets and then a big one," trying to puzzle it out, but I remember my bets being in the 35% - 50% pot range, plus the river raise. Jason finally folds.

In retrospect, that bet was too big, "turning my hand into a bluff," as Joe and Andrew would say. He can no longer call with anything losing to me, particularly the middle pair I put him on, and I'm basically hoping that I've misread both hands, and he's actually on some kind of 4 that he's played cautiously and is willing to call with.

If he backdoored the flush or slowplayed a boat, he now gets to make a big raise that puts me to a tough decision. If I'd raised to 75 or 80, I think he would be priced into a lookup with a middle pair, and it would be cheaper to throw away if he comes over the top and I believe him.

At any rate, that represents the third time I can remember where I misread my hand, but it's the only time where my hand actually improved when I learned what it really was. Interestingly, it's the second time it has happened when I've played ace-wheel card, the flop came with a paired wheel card, and I put myself on trips with an ace kicker. Clearly I'm trying to will myself into a monster; I'll have to be careful with that.

The dreaded Aces versus Kings

Friday Night Poker at Jason and MB's place. Early on in the session. We are playing deep stack poker. Blinds are .25/.50 but you can buy in for up to $100 or 400xBB. Ryan has caught fire early and has shown down KK with a raise to about 12-15'ish? On the hand in question, Tom, who I don't play with much, raises to 20 with maybe a limper or two ahead of him. Something tells me big pair. I look at my cards and I put on my pilot's cap because we have American Airlines in the house. I figure that 20 should be enough to isolate so I smooth call to try to trap. Surprisingly enough, Ryan comes into the pot as well. That was very unexpected and I couldn't figure out what Ryan would be just calling a large bet with and not raising. Flop comes QJx (rainbow?) and I am first to act, so I check to suss out the situation. Ryan checks. Tom leads out for 60 I think, pot sized bet. It is now becoming clear to me that Tom has either Aces or Kings, another pair of Aces is unlikely so I have him exactly on Kings. The range of hands I had him on would have QQ-AA, maybe JJ too. I think that it would take a rather disciplined player to lead out with a set on a relatively dry board. Sure AK has a single sided straight draw but I think the excitement of hitting a big set (perhaps even top set) is too intoxicating to lead out. I cannot give him credit for leading out with a set. I raise, I make it 140. He pushes all in and I'm sticking with my read and I insta-call. He fears that he is now facing a two outer when he asks me if I hit my set and I show Aces to reveal that he is facing a two outer for a different reason. Turn kicks me in the face when a King appears. The river is not as dire as it might otherwise be because in addition to my two outs for the highest set, I also can catch one of four Tens to make Broadway. River bricks and I ship nearly all 400 chips over to the end of the table.

I got the money in when I was ahead but whenever something like this comes up, you still run through the play and try to figure out what could have been done differently. I mostly think that the hand just played out like it would have. If we got into a pre-flop raising war, I think it would be most likely that we would have gotten the money in before the flop and the outdraw would have happened anyway. But I also considered that since it was such a deep stack game, with a first raise to 20, I would probably have made it 60, if the next raise was to 200-ish and I pushed, then if the "third raise means Aces" edict were observed then maybe Tom could have laid it down with only half his stack committed. But then I thought that if I did push, I would have probably done a bit of Hollywood and tried to get the money in so I suppose I was just destined to get felted on that hand and there's just not a lot that can be done about that.

Master of the Four Way all In

Since Marsh asked me, I felt a duty and an honor to post on his blog. You can always learn something about this game, and Marsh helped me with a couple tricks early in my poker career.

I thought I would comment on my wife’s play recently, as she has had not one but two four way all ins in her last 2 sessions of casino poker. In all the time I have played, both live and on line, I can’t recall a single four way all in, other than my wife’s. I have seen sets over sets, royal flushes, quads losing to a straight flush (on line), a famous one outer, but never a four way all in. Here is a description of the hands, and then some strategies if you would like to try to duplicate this feat.

Playing in Palm Desert on a loose table with some tourists, locals, and rich people, MB (my wife) has four callers in front of her and looks down at AQ os. Unconventional, I admit, but she min-raises the 5 way limped pot. The flop comes Kc, Jc, 10s. She checks, seat 3, a construction guy who plays aggressively bets $8 into a $20 pot, seat 5 raises to $28, seat 6 folds, seat 9 calls, and MB raises to $60 leaving $28 in chips behind her. Seat 3 looks at MB, says I bet you have AQ and then goes all in for about $75, seat 5 goes all in as well but is covered by seat 3, and seat 9 goes all in too for his last $10. MB then goes all, having everyone covered and capping the action. The next 2 cards blank, seat 3 now famous for not giving anyone odds to suck out, flips over K5 os, seat 5 flips over 9c10c, and seat 9 flips over 8,9 os. MB rakes the monster.

3 months later, playing in London at a $50 pound max table with 1 pound, 1 pound blinds, MB has 3 callers in front of her and looks down at AA in the big blind. Unconventional again, she min raises to 2 pounds. Everyone calls. Since I was not at the table, the replay may be a bit off but it went something like this. The flop comes Q, blank, blank with 2 clubs. MB checks, Seat 4 bets, Seat 6 calls, Seat 8 calls, and MB raises. Everyone calls. The next card is an Ace, not a club. MB goes all in, and seat 4, 6, and 8 all call. Players show AQ for 2 pair drawing dead, the 8 and 3 of clubs, and KJ (the name of the cardroom is the gutshot). The next card blanks and MB rakes another monster.

How did she do it:

• Maximizes value out of premium starting hands. Most all experienced players would have put in more substantial raises preflop. It is tough to min raise with big starting hands, but you are still the most favored hand with AA vs. any other possibilities of starting hands. So even if you are in a four way pot, you may have less than a 50% chance of winning the pot, but will have a greater likelihood of winning against any other starting hand. Min raising with AA in a 4 handed pot is shocking to most players, so few will put you on that hand.
• Look like you don’t know what you are doing when you bet. MB is a very experienced player but she does have an unsure look about her when she bets. Players often think she is a donk and call her down, then get surprised when they lose all of their chips. If you don’t think you can master the donk look when you bet, then make a donk play on purpose for a small amount of chips early in a multi hour session, it may pay off for you beautifully later.
• Play at tables without deep stacks. MB bought into tables where the maximum buyin was 50 times the blind. Obviously, this creates more desperation plays and more donkish behavior.
• Don’t be afraid to be out of position in a multi way pot. Some may disagree here, but I don’t find as much of a disadvantage to out of position play with multiple players involved. You are first to act, but by checking, someone will typically bet top pair, middle pair, or a draw if it is a multiway pot, and then you can make your decision being last to act. Flopping the nuts makes these decisions much easier.

I realize you will have some losses on big pots with this strategy, but if you can win a multi-way pot for every pot you lose, I think the strategy can work and create a positive EV.

"Good Player" Moves

Lunch poker...I'm on the button. Nick is SB, Martin is BB. Joe limps in mid-late position, then it folds to me.

I have A8o. Hardly premium, but with position and what I figure rates to be the best hand at the moment, I raise to 5. I'm expecting Nick to fold, but I fail to process that Martin is likely to call, at which point Joe will as well. Oh well...

To my surprise, Nick calls, Martin folds, and Joe calls.

The flop is A♥ 8♣ 4♦, and the action checks to me. I bet 8, half the pot. This is such a standard flop bet for me when I'm the aggressor that I'm not sure how it will be taken, but I'm thinking it will probably buy it right there.

Nick calls, and Joe folds.

Interesting call from Nick...I'm not exactly sure what to put him on, here, maybe an ace or a mid-pocket and he doesn't fully buy that I'm on an ace.

The turn is 6♥, and Nick checks to me.

I'm awfully sure I'm good, now, but I check because Nick is a good enough player to read it as a c-bet/slowdown. It's blatantly giving him a free card, and I'm not totally comfortable with that, but at the same time, it's what will sell Nick on the c-bet/slowdown. I figure he either has two outs to his set or three outs to a better two pair, and a very longshot of two hearts, but the ace is out there, so I have a hard time putting him on two hearts, and I have mentally discounted a heart as an out for him.

Which is good, because the river is 3♥.

Nice and low, though. I don't put Nick on calling my raise out of position with something like 75, and now I'm hoping for a bet. He obliges with a bet of 15, and I think for a bit, and raise to 30.

The minraise is uncharacteristic of me, and I'm not entirely sure why I did it. I guess I felt like, if my move had worked, he was betting out fairly light on the premise that I had missed and was done with the hand. A bet like 40 would actually induce a fold, in that case, but it felt like he would look me up for 15 more, and he did. He mucked and I took it down.

I thought the hand was interesting because it was one of those instances where I got a perfect storm to pull a move I wouldn't normally do, and the storm was heavily dependent on Nick being a good player. I would not have checked behind on the turn against most of the lunch game players, both because I couldn't be sure they would feel the "failed c-bet" I was projecting, and because I couldn't be sure many of the other players weren't playing something like 75 or two random hearts.

Nick could have been on a set, at which point I would have been destined to lose money to him, because a deceptively-played set does fit all his actions, including smooth-calling a bone-dry flop and checking to an aggressive player on the turn who had bet every street so far. Fear of a set almost led me to smooth-call his 15 on the river, but I had that moment of, "Ryan! If you are going to get tricky and your plan appears to have worked, either go with it and accept the results, or stop the fucking trick plays!"

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting hand because of how I would only play it that way against a good player. Very representative, I think, of the sentiment that good players would rather play against other good players instead of donkeys.

In the end, I think I like a mix at my tables. 100% donks is really not that fun, even if I can make it profitable (bet good hands, value when they hit, check/fold when they miss, repeat, repeat, repeat). 100% sharks is fascinating poker, but the EV suffers, so I'll take a nice mix any day.

Pass the Trash stepped limit

Today was dealer's choice Tuesday and it was my turn to select the game. The game I ended up with was Pass the Trash but instead of the standard betting limit structure, I wanted to ramp the limits up each street. Previously, limit games have been .50/1 and I thought those limits were too low for this crowd. Ryan has even noted that the variance on limit dealer choice days is far lower than on other days.

First of all, the way the game is played is that everyone is dealt seven cards. Pick three cards that coordinate the least with your best four and pass them to the player on your left. After you've picked up the three from the person to your right, you have to ditch two cards and the remaining five cards are your hand. You then order the five cards face down. Each card is revealed one at a time with a betting round in between each card. After the fourth card, each player must declare their hand as either hi, low, or both. All declarations are done simultaneously by opening your hand to reveal zero, one, or two chips.

So the way we played, everyone had to post a single chip ante to get cards. After passing the trash, ditching your two cards, ordering them, and revealing your first card, a round of betting limit style in increments of two chips capped at three raises. Reveal the second card then a round of betting with four chip increments. Third card then betting in eight chip increments. Then the fourth card is revealed and the final betting round in sixteen chip increments. Overall, I like having higher limits. A bet of four on the end just isn't enough to bluff in my opinion. I am not married to the stepped limits but I think it echoes the increasing bets in NL.

What I didn't like was the fact that the hi/lo nature pretty much split up every pot but with no scoops today. I also think that solid fundamentals would add to your chips stack. Nothing too fancy required. Get a good hand, observe other hands developing, put the chips in when you are good and there you go. Anyone losing large amount of chips I think had plenty of warning that they were behind. One thing that a lower limit structure would have done is prompted more showdowns just because they can be seen cheaper. It did get expensive because betting got three-bet or capped on late streets but that is because hands were still multi-way in late streets and one person typically is just feeding the pot to be chopped by the hi and lo.

So what to do for next time. I definitely think playing limit should use limits higher than .50/1. Stepped limits allowed for players to "chase" or try to represent hands and get more money into the pot before it got chopped up. There wasn't as much declaration drama as expected but that may have been because the field got thinned so much from the higher limits. Maybe the Fibonacci sequence as suggested by others for next time will allow for more players to the showdown and some more interesting declaration play.