Home Articles Books Coaching Free Stuff About

Three No-Limit Plays That Give Away Your Hand

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

Being too readable can really hurt your no-limit game. Winning no-limit depends on fear and surprise. If your opponents are uncertain about your holding and fear the hands you could have, you can steal a lot of pots. And if they are surprised by what you have when you get all-in, you can win some monster pots. If you’re too readable, you won’t have fear or surprise on your side, and your results will suffer.

Readable opponents are always my favorite. I don’t care if they are tight or loose, if I know what they have a lot of the time, I will pick them apart. One key to reading many players is to pick up on plays I call “giveaways.” They are specific plays that are very reliable and immediately allow me to narrow my read to just a few possibilities. Here are three common plays that I consider giveaways.

The Weak Continuation Bet

A player opens for $20 in a $2-$5 game. The button calls, and the big blind calls. Everyone has at least $500. The flop comes K :spade: J :spade: 5 :club: . The big blind checks, and the preflop raiser bets $25. This less-than-half pot bet is often a tell-tale sign of weakness. The board is big and coordinated. The preflop raiser got called in two places and feels he should make a continuation bet. But he’s not feeling good about his hand or chances, so he throws out a small bet. If you’re on the button, raising to $75 or so will win this $85 pot immediately quite often.

The remainder of this article is insider content available to premium members only. Log in to your account or become a premium member and get instant access.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Three No-Limit Plays That Give Away Your Hand”

lp
@ Mon Feb 18, 2008 07:33:01 PM
1

after reading this article I immediately applied it to my game, looking for my own weaknesses and my opponents. Over the next few days, I made the same amount that it would have taken me 2 hours in 20 min.

I am now prompted to buy the book you have co-authored.

AKQJ10
@ Mon Feb 18, 2008 08:40:36 PM
2

lp:

Although I certainly think highly of all Ed’s books, your post indicates that you’re thinking quite wrong about poker. No 20-minute session, not even 30-tabling, is going to give you a sufficient sample to judge whether you’re playing better.

JLD
@ Mon Feb 18, 2008 10:51:35 PM
3

Ed,

I have read many of your books (as well as many others) and think this kind of betting pattern analysis with specific examples is the most glaring gap in the poker literature. I think this is a good part of the feel that good players gain from experience and which beginning/developing players need help in learning.

I think it could be really powerful when combined with player types. For example, (and more as examples than necessarily correct) if you face a checkraise from a passive player it means a very strong hand whereas the same move from a very aggressive player could also be a draw or a pure bluff as well. If you raise a weak lead on the flop and get called, it may be a weak one pair, a draw or a slow-played monster. If the opponent is a calling station it is more likely to be a weak one pair or draw whereas this is less likely with a tight aggressive player (unless you have a loose aggressive image).

Irrespective of the quality of my own insights, I think drawing on your experience to discuss various betting patterns cross-referenced by player types would be very valuable. You discussed this a bit in PNL regarding willigness to stack off (SPRs) for various opponent types. I would love if you would do more along this line in terms of the betting patterns and the same player types. For example, what do various betting patterns over multiple streets (check-raise, check-call then donk bet, reraise) typically mean for various player types? For live play (i.e. lack of pokertracker), what do certain betting patterns indicate about a person’s playing style and what other types of betting patterns they might employ?

In short, I loved this article and would love to see more, whether here or in your next book(s).

Thanks!

Cinch
@ Sun Mar 02, 2008 02:36:57 AM
4

What about the guy that makes the tantalizingly small continuation bet just to draw suspicion and a raise, then checks on the turn so his opponent will continue to fire?

Cinch

Ed Miller
@ Sun Mar 02, 2008 02:48:43 AM
5

Cinch,

Definitely happens sometimes. Rarely in small and medium live games, somewhat more often online. Sometimes the weak lead is a draw too.. like it could be spades or a combo draw. But overall I’ve had a lot of success attacking weak leads, at least on certain board types like the one in my example.

wisenhimer
@ Wed Apr 16, 2008 01:24:40 PM
6

TO be fair…..were not realy sure what IP makes in two hours…..

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>