The easter holidays have just ended. I was going to go skiing in the countryside, but because of the weather (and me being too lazy) there's been more poker than skiing. I played a lot of poker hands from the button's point of view in a hypothetical game with three decent players (Yeah. I was the dealer and controlled all three players). I was playing pretty close to what Wiesenberg suggests in his articles in Card Player. The first 500 hands, I raised with pairs of 10's and better. The next 500 hands, I included 9's and 8's. I also raised with any flush draw and open ended straight draws containing a queen.
I was finished with the 1000 hands after a little more than 12 hours of playing. I confess that I probably used less than 10 seconds to shuffle between each deal, but I don't think that affected the randomness too much. I also didn't bother to continue with the hands where the button folded.
I think I had straight flush draws three or four times, but didn't hit on any of those. The best hand I saw was quad 10's in one of the blinds. He had quads before the draw.
The biggest confrontation was when the big blind was dealt tens full of aces. The button raised with eights-up and called a reraise. He got eights full after the draw, and raised the bet from the big blind. The big blind reraised. At that point the button figured that he was probably behind, so he just called the reraise.
I tried to analyze the most thought-provoking hand in my last post (three-way action). The most interesting coincidence happened in a hand where the button raised with a flush draw. Both blinds had the same garbage hand, and the cards were arranged identically (4537A). Did I say garbage? That's a double-gutter...
Anyway, I just calculated that this should occur about once in 757500 hands (I gave the small blind a hand with 5 cards of different ranks and calculated how often the big blind would have the same ranks in the same order). That means that the probability of this happening is slightly smaller than the probability of being dealt a royal flush. I hope my calculations are correct. (47*46*45*44*43/243 = 757 500,740740...)
Online draw strategy by Michael Wiesenberg can be found here:
http://www.cardplayer.com/author/article/all/14/6406
If the above address doesn't work, you can look for the article manually at www.cardplayer.com
Edited: The sample size here is too small to draw any conclusion about what hands to raise from the button three-handed. The button made 202 times the big blind with tens as the minimum raising hand, and 234 big blinds with eights as the minimum raising hand. My own thoughts before I started the experiment was that it's a little too tight with tens as minimum raising hand and a little too loose with fives. I think I'd raise with a pair of sevens with a couple of big sidecards as the minimum hand. If I knew that the opponents were too tight, I might raise with something as weak as fives. If they were too loose, I think I might fold some pairs of sevens and eights (especially against extremely aggressive opponents).
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
three-way action
This hand came up when I simulated a game of limit draw with three reasonably good players. Look at my other post (1000 hands from the button) for more info.
On this particular hand, the button decided to raise with a jack-high four-flush. He was mainly trying to win the blinds. He had been raising with pairs of eights and better, and semibluffed with most flush draws.
The small blind had trip fours and reraised. He had been reraising the button with aces, any two pair and a few come hands earlier.
Before the button had a chance to consider his next move, the big blind capped the betting with trip aces. This was the only pot in that session (1000 hands) that got capped by the big blind. Because the small blind had a somewhat tight range, it seems safe to assume that the big blind would muck most hands worse than aces up. He might occasionally decide to cap with kings up and an ace kicker (this is probably a "cap or fold-situation" with two pairs).
The button decided that there was a reasonable chance that he was drawing live, so he called after some deliberation. The small blind called quickly, and had to decide how many cards to discard. He drew two cards. He thought that the most probable hands for the big blind were higher trips or a pat hand. He would almost certainly check after the draw unimproved. If he made a full house, he would bet into the other players.
The big blind discarded a king, and drew one card to AAA6. The button drew one card, hoping to make his flush.
The small blind looked at the two cards he had drawn. He saw a pair of treys, making him a full house. He bet out. The big blind had caught another king, and was cursing his kicker choice. He decided that the small blind was a good enough player to have high trips or better unless he was bluffing. The big blind also thought that it was unlikely that the small blind would draw two cards to high trips. He just called, hoping for an overcall from the button if trip aces were the best hand.
The button had caught his jack-high flush. He had to be worried about the action in front of him, though. If he decided to raise now, it would be obvious that he either had a complete hand or was bluffing, so it was unlikely that both his opponents would call a raise. He also thought that there might very well be a better hand out there, so he decided to call.
I've thought a little more about this hand, and decided that the small blind might have made a costly mistake. Once he drew two and saw that the big blind drew one card, he should possibly have made a check instead of a bet. The big blind would probably bet his trips, and the button might raise with his flush. At that point, there would be a reasonable chance of someone else having a full house, so the small blind could just call and hope for an overcall from the big blind.
The decision to draw two cards can also be questioned. It's obviously the best choice when one of the others have a pat hand. If there's a chance that drawing one card will induce a value-bet from the big blind with aces-up or small trips or a bluff from one of the opponents, it might be better to draw one card.
This hand is a little bit hypothetical, of course. The arrangement of three good players in the same draw game is probably not a common one, and should normally be avoided if your goal is to make money. Against less skilled players than the ones I described, I think it's quite possible that the pot gets capped after the draw anyway.
I made a post about this hand in the 2+2-forum. The responses were that you should normally try to play against weak opponents, and I agree that a bet is probably going to extract more value in that scenario. I think that a check might be an optional way to play the hands against two very skilled opponents. I think that a check would have won at least three bets in the hand I just discussed. This is just one specific scenario, of course. A bet might be more profitable if your opponents had other kinds of hands. You might get called by an opponent with small trips that wouldn't bet if it was checked to him.
The conclusion I've made is that it's probably better to bet out against weak opponents. Against tough opponents it's a good idea to mix up your play, so perhaps you should bet sometimes and check sometimes in similar situations.
On this particular hand, the button decided to raise with a jack-high four-flush. He was mainly trying to win the blinds. He had been raising with pairs of eights and better, and semibluffed with most flush draws.
The small blind had trip fours and reraised. He had been reraising the button with aces, any two pair and a few come hands earlier.
Before the button had a chance to consider his next move, the big blind capped the betting with trip aces. This was the only pot in that session (1000 hands) that got capped by the big blind. Because the small blind had a somewhat tight range, it seems safe to assume that the big blind would muck most hands worse than aces up. He might occasionally decide to cap with kings up and an ace kicker (this is probably a "cap or fold-situation" with two pairs).
The button decided that there was a reasonable chance that he was drawing live, so he called after some deliberation. The small blind called quickly, and had to decide how many cards to discard. He drew two cards. He thought that the most probable hands for the big blind were higher trips or a pat hand. He would almost certainly check after the draw unimproved. If he made a full house, he would bet into the other players.
The big blind discarded a king, and drew one card to AAA6. The button drew one card, hoping to make his flush.
The small blind looked at the two cards he had drawn. He saw a pair of treys, making him a full house. He bet out. The big blind had caught another king, and was cursing his kicker choice. He decided that the small blind was a good enough player to have high trips or better unless he was bluffing. The big blind also thought that it was unlikely that the small blind would draw two cards to high trips. He just called, hoping for an overcall from the button if trip aces were the best hand.
The button had caught his jack-high flush. He had to be worried about the action in front of him, though. If he decided to raise now, it would be obvious that he either had a complete hand or was bluffing, so it was unlikely that both his opponents would call a raise. He also thought that there might very well be a better hand out there, so he decided to call.
I've thought a little more about this hand, and decided that the small blind might have made a costly mistake. Once he drew two and saw that the big blind drew one card, he should possibly have made a check instead of a bet. The big blind would probably bet his trips, and the button might raise with his flush. At that point, there would be a reasonable chance of someone else having a full house, so the small blind could just call and hope for an overcall from the big blind.
The decision to draw two cards can also be questioned. It's obviously the best choice when one of the others have a pat hand. If there's a chance that drawing one card will induce a value-bet from the big blind with aces-up or small trips or a bluff from one of the opponents, it might be better to draw one card.
This hand is a little bit hypothetical, of course. The arrangement of three good players in the same draw game is probably not a common one, and should normally be avoided if your goal is to make money. Against less skilled players than the ones I described, I think it's quite possible that the pot gets capped after the draw anyway.
I made a post about this hand in the 2+2-forum. The responses were that you should normally try to play against weak opponents, and I agree that a bet is probably going to extract more value in that scenario. I think that a check might be an optional way to play the hands against two very skilled opponents. I think that a check would have won at least three bets in the hand I just discussed. This is just one specific scenario, of course. A bet might be more profitable if your opponents had other kinds of hands. You might get called by an opponent with small trips that wouldn't bet if it was checked to him.
The conclusion I've made is that it's probably better to bet out against weak opponents. Against tough opponents it's a good idea to mix up your play, so perhaps you should bet sometimes and check sometimes in similar situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)