Sizing Up A Game

Great article as usual. I might have to seriously consider subscribing to CP if Ed’s writing stuff like this for them now.

I just played a three-day session of B&M in Tunica for the first time in a few months where poker played a much smaller role in my life. Coming back after some time away focused my thoughts on some of this stuff. I’m getting better at making the intuitive judgments Ed profiles here, but I would have had to work hard at writing it down as a process as Ed has done here.

It’s implicit in Ed’s suggestions, but probably worth making this point: Like all intuitive small-sample judgments in poker, you really need to be open to reconsidering your conclusions throughout a session. Maybe the “loose” player or the “table bully” actually got a run of three overpairs and two flopped sets in the course of 20 hands. But all that said, an inadequately-warranted judgment is usually better than no judgment at all. Be ready to test your judgments as more evidence comes in, but don’t disregard them just because of a small sample. If someone looks loose-passive (or alternatively, looks like the table rock), he usually is.

Observation at the table really is both essential and fun. One woman showed a somewhat uncommon combination of behaviors. She was very loose and called flop and turn pot-sized bets with any pair, gutshots, etc. But conversely, she was pretty aggressive when sensing weakness, often betting to pick up orphaned pots. Tailoring a plan to beat her wasn’t hard — I’d need good hands, because she’d take marginal hands to showdown. I wouldn’t need monsters, because she was calling with many sub-TPTK hands. And I could use her aggression to put more money in the pot. So each time I flopped TPTK or better, I check-raised, expecting to get called and have very low SPRs for the turn!

And pride compels me to mention my two successful PF reraises to burn two respective table bullies (and their callers) with 66 and KJs, even though they’re probably pretty standard fare. Both hands seemed like great semi-bluffing hands — the 66 reraise was all-in, so it was quite plausible I had the better starting hand and was racing if called) — and both semi-bluffs got the bully to back down, winning decent pots with no flop.

I’m sure thinking about how to exploit my opponents’ tendencies will become more natural over time. But even constrained by my present rudimentary poker ability, it’s very satisfying.

Ed this awesome.

This is what I needed to know, I just didn’t know I needed to know it.

I need to start reading Card Player.

‘Over time, solid fundamentals will win, but a custom-tailored exploitative strategy will win faster and better.’

How much of this is the case for limit games? Or is there not much you can create in the way of a custom-tailored strategy in a $4/$8 game? In other words, in limit should I mainly play by fundamentals pre-flop and on the flop because there’s no way I can significantly increase my chance on getting heads-up with one specific player? Is this more of a strategy option in higher limit games?

VegasSocrates,

“… because there’s no way I can significantly increase my chance on getting heads-up with one specific player?”

This is not correct, because there ARE ways (namely to raise). Don’t get fooled by the fact that the amount by which you can raise is (usually) smaller. You have to look at this amount in comparison to the (likely) final pot! Since the pot is usually smaller, too the raise (even though it’s limited) can be as significant as in NL. Thus you can use raises to isolate players in LHE also!

A typical example is playing to the left of a maniac: The maniac raises to 2BB you make it 3BB and everyone else has a hard time calling 3BB (or at least 2BB) preflop. Very few starting hands are worth playing for 2 or 3 BB, so the isolation works pretty well, even though it would have been a min-raise (twice) had this been a NL game.

Another example is the “golden rule” never to call a bet if that makes you the FIRST caller after the bettor with other people still to act. It’s “fold or raise” in LHE (a few exceptions apply of course). The reasoning (in most cases) behind this “rule” is again isolation or at least thinning the field.

Again, the key why these “small” raises work as an isolation is the expected final pot size!

Give it a try and you’ll see that it works like a charm!

Greyzy:

Your point is well-taken, in that no matter how lose the game you can generally decrease the expected number of opponents in the hand. There’s usually some probability > 0 that your raise will knock any given player out! (I suppose it could be that your raise makes the pot even more attractive to a gambler, but let’s ignore that.)

However, in some loose small-stakes games, VegasSocrates is largely right — you can’t plan your strategy around playing short-handed pots, no matter what you do. So you can’t have a strategy that’s heavy on bluffing. That doesn’t mean never bluff; it means, be careful to only bluff when you’re against players who can fold.

FWIW, I think an exploitative strategy is still worth thinking about in SSLHE, but it’s less important w/r/t to NLHE for the reasons VS cited.