Lesson: 40
Playing a Big Draw in Limit Hold 'em
Chris "Jesus" Ferguson
December 19, 2005

In Limit Hold 'em, it is not uncommon to see pots that are contested by four, five, or even six players. This happens with some frequency at lower limits, especially when playing with those who haven’t learned the virtues of a tight-aggressive style of play.

In multi-way pots, draws become especially powerful, and playing big draws aggressively against multiple opponents can create very profitable situations. For example, say that you’re dealt As-8s on the button. Three players limp before the action gets to you, and you decide to limp as well. Both blinds call, so a total of six players see the flop of 4s-7s-Jc. You have no hand at the moment, but you do have the nut flush draw.

On the flop, the small blind bets and three players call. What’s your best action? Clearly, folding would be wrong. With two cards to come and nine outs, you’ll make the nut flush roughly 35 percent of the time, making you only a 2:1 dog. With six small bets going in the pot pre-flop and four going in on the flop, you’re getting pot odds of 10:1.

You might be tempted to just call and see what the turn brings but, in fact, raising in this situation gives you better value. The pot is getting large and it’s likely that all your opponents are going to call. Even those who have nothing more than second pair or a gutshot straight draw may feel that their pot odds are favorable enough to justify calling the second bet. If your raise gets called by four people, you’ll be getting great value. You’d be getting 4:1 on your money when you’re only a 2:1 underdog – a clear win for you.

The raise might also work well for you on the turn and river. By acting after the flop, there’s a chance that the other players will check to you on the turn. This gives you the option of checking and taking a free card if you don’t make your flush.

The level of aggression that you show with a draw will largely depend on your position. To show how your play might change with position, imagine you’re in a hand with the same hole cards (As-8s), the same number of players (six), and the same flop (4s-7s-Jc). This time, however, you’re not on the button but are in the big blind instead when the small blind bets out. Here, you want to encourage the other players in the hand to put as much money in the pot as possible. If you raise, you’re probably going to force players with second pair or a gutshot to fold, so your best option is to call. Give your opponents every opportunity to throw money in the pot.

Finally, let’s look at how you might play the same cards when you’re the first to act. If you have a nut flush draw in the small blind and there are six players in the pot, go ahead and bet. It’s a favorable situation for you, so you want to make sure that some money goes in the pot. When out of position, I’ll usually follow-up my flop bet with another bet on the turn no matter what card hits. Then, if I miss again on the river, I can decide whether or not I want to bluff at the pot. If I’m against only one or two players on the river, I’ll usually bluff. If there are five players left in the hand, I won’t bother. It’s too likely that someone will call.

You can make a lot of money playing draws in low-limit Hold 'em. Just remember that you want as many people contributing to the pot as is possible, which means that in different positions, you’ll need to do different things to get the most out of your draws.

Lesson: 39
Know Your (Table) Limits
Paul Wolfe
December 12, 2005

In the 18 months that I've been playing poker at Full Tilt Poker, the one question I am asked most often is a variation on the following:

"Hey Paul? What are you doing in this $10-$20 No-Limit game? Ivey, J-dags, and Matusow are at the $25-$50 No-Limit table, and E-dog is playing in the $50-$100 Limit game. Why don't you join them?"

The first thing I do when I walk into a poker room is put my name on the lists of games I'm interested in; the next thing I do is have a good look at the particular games I've just signed up for. More often than not, I'll sit at the first available table when my name is called, but I immediately take stock of the game and behave accordingly. Often times, everything is just fine, but sometimes I'll ask to be added to the table change list. Other times, a seat change button is enough to make the game palatable. On rare occasions, I simply leave the table.

As I play, I take note of the loose players and tight players, and then use that information to decide which seat will be most profitable. Likewise, I keep a casual eye on the other games. If I get called for a table change, I make sure the new game is the more lucrative one; if it's not, I'll stay put and ask to be put at the bottom of the transfer list. And while I have seen unbeatable $3-$6 games and very soft $10-$20 games running side by side, it's safe to assume that higher limits mean tougher games.

If you're playing to learn, nothing will challenge your poker skills like being at a table with Howard Lederer and Phil Gordon. If you're playing poker for entertainment and making money isn't your goal, by all means choose your tables according to where you'll have the most fun. But if your only goal is to make money, forget about everything except picking the weakest game at a limit you can afford, even if it's the $1-$2 game when you're itching to play $2-$4. In ring game poker, it is better to play smaller at the table you're likely to beat than it is to play bigger at a tougher table. You also need to take your time about moving up a level. I have seen many $1-$2 players sustain steady win rates at those stakes for a month, then disappear for weeks after taking a shot at the $2-$4 game.

Knowing where to play is as important as knowing how to play. If you pay close attention to your game selection, you'll grow the kind of bankroll that will allow you to have more games to choose from.

Lesson: 38
Getting Started in Stud-8
Jennifer Harman
December 05, 2005

Stud-8 or Better is a great game. The rules are nearly identical to regular 7-Card Stud, but there's one key difference. At showdown, the pot is split; half is given to the player with the best high, and half to the player with the best low. In order to take a portion of the pot, a low hand must have no card higher than an 8. If there is no qualifying low, the high hand takes the entire pot.

With players aiming for both high and low hands, Stud-8 invites a lot of action. But beginning players, even those with some 7-Card Stud experience, often come to a Stud-8 table with a poor understanding of what hands do well in this split-pot game.

To understand what types of hands you should play in Stud-8, you must grasp this key concept: In Stud-8, you're looking to scoop pots. By scoop, I mean that you want to take both the high and the low halves of the pot. That's where you're going to make your real profit.

The starting hands that are most likely to make you the sole winner of a big pot contain three low suited connectors. For example, As-2s-3s and 4h-5h-6h have great potential. They'll often make unbeatable lows and have a flush or a straight to go along with them. So, if you see a hand that starts with three low suited cards, look to play it aggressively.

You should play hands with three low cards, especially those that include an Ace. A starting hand like Ac-2d-7c may not have potential to make a flush, but there is a good chance that you'll create a solid low. And the Ace gives you a shot at a decent high, with something like Aces-up. Even a hand like 4-5-7 has enough of an opportunity to make both straights and lows to make it playable.

The major mistake that new Stud-8 players make is that they play aggressively with hands that might serve them well in a regular game of 7-Card Stud. For instance, a hand like T-J-Q plays well when you only need to be concerned about creating a high hand. But in Stud-8, this is a hand that should be mucked. With no chance of making a low, a player could find himself chasing a draw that would only net half the pot. Those sorts of situations will often lead to dreadful results.

Big pairs, like Jacks, Queens and Kings, are also difficult to play in Stud-8. A quick example will illustrate the problem big pairs present. Say you're dealt a Queen and a 7 in the hole, and another Queen as your up-card, giving you a pair. After the betting on third street, two other players remain, one showing a 5, the other a 3. This appears to be a good situation for you, as the other two seem to be looking for lows. But then, on fourth street, the player who had a 3 catches an Ace and you find a 9. Now you're in a very difficult spot. The Ace might have helped your opponent's low draw and perhaps added a straight draw to his hand. Or it might have paired an Ace he had in the hole. It would be difficult to know where you stand. Even if you were ahead, you need to be concerned that your opponent will pair the Ace or hit a straight before the end of the hand.

If you're going to play big pairs in Stud-8, proceed with caution. Be ready to dump the hand if one or more of your opponents develop a scary board.

The later streets in Stud-8 can be lot of fun as players try to figure out how their opponents' hands are developing. It takes practice and experience to become a good Stud-8 player. But if you follow the suggestions for starting hands I discussed here, you should be on your way to playing Stud-8 profitably.

Lesson: 37
What's Your Starting Hand Really Worth?
Steve Brecher
November 28, 2005

Most players know that pre-flop position is important in hold 'em. The earlier your position, the more players there are behind you and, unless you hold pocket Aces, the bigger the chance that one of them will have a hand better than yours.

There is another aspect to position: It's better to act after your opponent(s) rather than before. But for this tip, I'm going to investigate the chances that a player behind you will have a better hand.

There is no universal definition of what "better" means when comparing hold 'em starting hands. For this article, I needed some reasonable, quantifiable criterion. So in the following, I'm assuming that one hand is "better" than another if its showdown equity is greater. A hand's showdown equity against another hand is the average portion of the pot it will win across all possible combinations of board cards. This is similar to the percentages that TV poker programs display next to player hands when the players are all-in. If you're interested in investigating this for yourself, there are several free computer programs and websites which calculate the showdown equities of user-specified competing hands.

For example, Ah 2d all-in pre-flop against Kc Qc will, over all possible boards, win an average of 53.9% of the pot. So the A-2 is the "better" hand against K-Q suited by our definition. Obviously, it is not better for all purposes; at a full table I'd usually open-raise in early position with K-Q suited, but toss A-2 offsuit.

Given some specific hand category – such as K-Q suited – we'll need to know the chance that a random hand dealt from the remaining 50 cards will be "better." This requires that we have a showdown equity calculation for each of the 1,225 possible opposing hands and tabulate against how many of them the K-Q suited has the worse (less than 50%) equity. It turns out that 238 of the 1,225 possible opponent hands are "better" in this sense. So we say that the chance of a random hand being better than K-Q suited is 238/1,225 or 19.4%; conversely, the chance that a random hand will not be better is 80.6%. This tabulation would be too tedious to do by hand. For the example results below, I developed some simple software to do the calculations.

Suppose that you are considering an opening bet pre-flop. There are players yet to act behind you. I'll denote the number of hands to play behind you as N. For example, if you're on the button, then there are two hands - the blinds - behind you, and N would be equal to 2. What is the probability that none of some number of random hands will be better than yours? It is the chance that one random hand will not be better than yours multiplied by itself N-1 times, which is the same as saying it's that probability raised to the Nth power. For example, if there's a 40% chance that a random hand won't be better (i.e., a 60% chance it will be better), then the chance that none of three random hands will be better is 40% x 40% x 40%, or 0.4 to the 3rd power, which equals 0.064. Hence, the chance that at least one of the three hands will be better is 1.0 - 0.064 or 0.936 or 94%.

I think the most interesting thing about these numbers is the difference between earlier and later positions. This is something to consider when you're thinking of open-raising in early position.

Lesson: 36
Big Slick: A Slippery Hand
Rafe Furst
November 21, 2005

I often tell people that short-term results are not a reason to change how they play, but I likewise encourage them to use any excuse to study and analyze their game.

Recently, a player on Full Tilt Poker lamented that he'd gone broke with A-K in his last several tourneys, and he suspected that he was doing something wrong. A few questions revealed that he was getting knocked out fairly early in these tournaments when he put his A-K up against pocket pairs for all his chips. It's a familiar lament.

Many people fall in love with A-K pre-flop in No-Limit Hold 'em because they know that they can rarely be much worse than 50-50 to win the hand if they get all of their money in heads up. While this is true, the reverse is also true: Rarely will you be much better than 50-50 to win an all-in showdown.

So why is A-K considered such a great starting hand? Folding equity. Under the right conditions, you can increase your pot equity to well over 50% by getting your opponents to fold in situations where they shouldn't. Here's a scenario: Blinds are $200-$400 and Jen Harman (who has $12,000 in front of her) raises to $1,200 from middle position with pocket tens. You re-raise all-in for $6,000 with A-K from the button. It is difficult for Jen to call here because, even though she suspects you might have A-K, she knows you could also make that play with A-A, K-K, Q-Q or J-J.

Does she want to play for half of her stack on what figures to be, at best, a 57% favorite? You, on the other hand, are confident that unless she has one of two hands (AA or KK), you are no worse than 43% to win, even if she calls. Unless Jen picks up on a tell, she is forced to fold a hand that is actually better than your A-K by a slight margin. Not only that, but you've also made her give up all the extra chips in the pot (mostly hers) that were giving her great odds to make a call. Variants of this scenario come up all the time in No-Limit Hold 'em.

By putting your opponents in a bind where they must first call you and then have to beat you in a race, you can turn a hand that is 50% to win with all the money in pre-flop and turn it into a hand that is a 75% favorite or better.

The mistake many inexperienced players make is not giving their opponents a chance to fold. They look down to find A-K and can't wait to get all their money in the middle and race. But as we can see from the example above, the power of A-K pre-flop really comes from the "folding equity" you gain when you can make your opponent lay down a hand they would not lay down if they could see your hole cards.

Here are three keys to getting the most out of A-K pre-flop:

1) Jam with A-K, but don't call all-in with it.

2) Raise enough when you have A-K to give your opponents a chance to fold.

3) Don't raise so much that the only hands that are willing to call you are the hands that have you dominated (A-A and K-K).

To execute these plays properly, it is important to keep in mind the size of the blinds relative to your opponents' stacks and your own stack. A-K loses much of its value when your opponents are short-stacked or pot committed -- and therefore unlikely to lay down a hand -- or when the blinds are very small relative to everyone's stacks. These principles apply to both ring game and tournament play. Getting back to my friend who kept busting early in tourneys with A-K...

In the early stages of a tournament, the blinds are very small relative to everyone's stack size. This contributed to his breaking of each of the three rules:

(1) He was calling his opponents' all-in raises when they had their expected pocket pairs.

(2) He was jamming only after his opponents were pot-committed.

(3) After getting gun shy from having his A-K cracked a few times, he made his raises way too big to "protect" his hand, but then was only getting called once he was beat.

This is one of those instances where looking at short-term results can lead to long-term improvements.

Lesson: 35
Bad Cards or Bad Plays?
Team Full Tilt
November 14, 2005

Losing is part of poker and all serious players, including the world's best, can recount losing streaks that lasted for months. Often, the downswing starts with a particularly unlucky run of cards. A series of bad beats or impossibly tough hands eat away at the bankroll. As the bad run continues, and money continues to disappear, players are forced to confront one of the toughest questions in poker: Am I a victim of lousy luck or am I playing poorly?

John D'Agostino knows how difficult it is to find the correct answer. "Any time I lose a few sessions in a row, I start questioning myself," D'Agostino says. "But I know that some days, even if I play perfectly, I'm going to lose."

Erik Seidel notes that in tournament poker, months-long dry spells are to be expected. In the midst of such a run it's hard to know if you're a victim of expected fluctuations or if there's something wrong with your game. "It's really hard to determine," says Seidel, "but I think most of us tend to fool ourselves and tend to think we're playing better than we are."

Then there's the inevitable interplay between bad cards and poor play. The pros report that in the midst of a bad run, bad luck can lead to bad decisions. Jennifer Harman notes that when things are going poorly, she has a tendency to push hands. "Let's say I have Ace-King and I don't flop a pair," says Harman. "I'll be in there raising. But there's no point. My table image is bad and nobody thinks I can flop a hand, so I can't bluff. I might as well wait till I flop a pair. At that point, my opponents are going to call me down and pay me off anyway."

For D'Agostino, a bad run can lead to more timid play. 'I definitely made some bad days a lot worse than they needed to be. Sometimes, I started playing more passively. In the middle of a hand I'd be asking myself, ‘How is this going to go wrong?' But if I played the hand the way I usually would, I'd have won the pot earlier on." D'Agostino says that when he has that sort of mindset, he's likely to miss bluffing opportunities.

Such a streak can destroy a promising player. Harman says, "There are a lot of players who have gone on losing streaks and can't recover. They start playing bad and thinking that they're doomed forever. And all of a sudden, they're on the rail."

How do the pros get a handle on their play and determine what's causing the downswing? Harman recommends sharing hands. "I'd ask people to watch me play or I'd jot down hands and ask friends ‘Did I play this right?' If they said I was playing it wrong, I'd have to reevaluate my play because I was letting the losing streak affect my play."

"Just book a win," says D'Agostino. He notes that confidence is critical at the poker table. So, in the midst of losing streak, leaving a session with a win - even if it's a small one - can help a player regain that mental edge. "Once you can feel confident about yourself, things will start to roll," he says.

Finally, a winning player needs to develop an honest, self-critical nature. Seidel notes that he rarely talks poker, but when he and John Junada chat about a play, the conversation usually begins, "Listen to how badly I played this hand.…"

When playing online, there's every opportunity to assess your play. Save your hand histories. When a session is over and your head is clear, review your actions and see if you can spot problems in your play.

Lesson: 34
Strategies for Short-Handed Limit Hold 'em
John D'Agostino
November 7, 2005

In last week's tip, I shared some strategies for playing short-handed no-limit cash games. This week, I'm following up with some more short-handed advice, this time concentrating on Limit Hold ‘em.

If you read last week's tip, you'll know that hand values change in short-handed play and that it's proper to play a greater percentage of hands than would be wise at a full ring game. In these games, I play a lot of hands. So many, in fact, I've gotten the reputation of being something of a maniac. But there is a method to my madness. By the end of this article, I think you'll agree.

Button Play

In a three- or four-handed Limit Hold ‘em cash game, I will raise about two of every three times I have the button. The quality of my hand is essentially irrelevant. The position raise puts me in control of the hand and, even if I'm holding total trash, the pressure puts the blinds in a spot where they need to catch a piece of the flop.

For example, say I raise on the button and the big blind calls with a modest but playable hand, maybe Qc-Td. Now, if the flop comes with any Ace or King, the blind is going to have a very difficult time continuing with the hand if he checks and I bet the flop. In fact, the blind is going to have a very difficult time continuing on any board that doesn't contain a Queen or Ten.

If I follow up my raise and bet the flop with, say, 7-high, and get called or check-raised, it's very easy to lay down the hand. I know this is going to happen at times, but I pick up the pot often enough to make the constant button aggression profitable.

Small Blind Play

When playing against opponents who raise frequently in position, I'm sure to respond with aggression in the small blind. If I'm holding a hand that's likely best at a three-handed table - something as modest as A-9 might qualify - and I'm facing a button raise, I take control of the hand and three-bet. That puts additional pressure on the big blind. If I only call the button raise, the big blind will be getting great odds (5:1) to call the additional bet. And I'd far prefer to play the hand heads-up.

After three-betting from the small blind, I follow up with a bet on the flop almost 100 percent of the time. Since I represented a big hand pre-flop, I want to put my opponent to a decision immediately. Once I see how my opponent reacts, I can decide how I should proceed with the hand. I'll have to give it up sometimes, but the pressure will force a lot of folds.

Big Blind Play

The big blind is the only place where I'm content to call bets pre-flop. In fact, a call is my usual reaction to a button raise. If I start with a moderate hand, I can see the flop and decide how to proceed. If I start with a strong hand, like pocket Aces or Kings, I'll still call and look to check-raise the flop. I don't like to three-bet from the big blind because it tends to announce my hand. My opponents know that I'm starting with a very big hand.

Overall Goal

As you can probably tell by now, I believe that aggression is key to success in short-handed Limit Hold ‘em. I think the constant bets and raises create two dynamics that can be exploited for profit. First, by being the aggressor, I have the opportunity to pick up a number of pots where both my opponent and I miss the flop.

Second, the aggression has the tendency to lead opponents to make some very bad decisions. After some time, opponents may call bets on every street with nothing more than Ace- or King-high. When they start doing that, I can tighten up and only bet hands that are likely to be winners at showdown.

At times my style may look maniacal. But in short-handed limit play, it works.

Lesson: 33
Taking on a Short-Handed No-Limit Game
John D'Agostino
October 31, 2005

Let's face it; nobody takes up poker because they love the idea of sitting idly at a table while folding for hours on end. But, in a full ring game with eight or nine other players holding cards, it's proper to spend most of your time folding because there's too great a chance that one of your opponents holds a powerful hand.

But, in short-handed play when only three or four people have cards, you're forced to open up. With the blinds coming around so frequently, you need to be playing and winning a number of pots just to stay even. And, with only a couple of opponents, you can be less concerned about running into a big starting hand. On most deals, everyone's holding trash.

Here's some advice for altering your strategy for short-handed no-limit cash games. Keep in mind that all the advice here is geared toward short-handed play while players have deep stacks. The advice given here won't work especially well in a tournament, or against players who come in with less than 100 times the big blind.

My love of short-handed play is one of the reasons I play online so much. It's rare to find a three- or four-handed table in a casino, but online, I can find short-handed games any time I want.

Pre-Flop Strategy

Three- or four-handed games are usually very aggressive, and I will never limp in. I open-raise or I fold. In a typical short-handed game, I'm raising one in every three or four hands when I'm not in the blinds. I recommend raising with every hand you'd raise with in a full ring game (big pair, AK, AQ). In addition, I raise with any pocket pair, including twos and threes. I'll also raise with suited-connectors, such as 4s-5s.

What might be something of a surprise is that I'm extremely wary of hands that seem to hold some promise. Hands like A-J, A-T and K-J, are hands that most know to treat cautiously in a full ring game, but I will often fold these in a short-handed game as well. Why? Well, these are hands that are likely to get me in a lot of trouble. For example, if I were to raise with K-J, and the flop came K-T-3, I'm either going to win a small pot, after betting my top pair and seeing my opponents fold, or I'm going to lose a much larger pot as my decent hand goes down in flames against two-pair, a set, or an out-kicked top-pair.

It's also important to note that A-J, A-T are just about useless against re-raises and must be mucked against most opponents. With a hand like 4s-5s, however, I can call a re-raise with hopes of catching a big flop (two-pair, trips) or a big draw, and then taking my opponents entire stack when I hit. If I miss a flop with a suited connector or manage to hit only bottom pair, I can easily fold to a flop bet. But if I call a re-raise with A-T and then catch top pair on a Ten-high flop, I may get in real trouble against a bigger pair. Or if I flop an Ace, I could be out-kicked.

Post-Flop Strategy

If a pre-flop raise from the cutoff or button has been called by one of the blinds, it's important to make the most of your positional advantage. Keep in mind that in a short-handed game, your opponent isn't likely to hold much of a hand and that even if he held something decent, chances are he missed the flop. (In hold 'em, unpaired hole cards will fail to make a pair on the flop about two-thirds of the time.)

So, if I missed the flop completely while holding something like 6-high, I'll almost always bet the flop. If I get called or check-raised, I'll happily shut down. But, I pick the pot up often enough to make the bet in this situation worthwhile.

If, however, I'm holding a decent Ace and miss the flop, I'll usually check. In a short-handed game, Ace-high can win at showdown, and taking a free card gives me a chance to hit my hand on the turn.

I'll also bet most of my draws on the flop. Often, I'll win the pot with a bet. Even if I'm called, I've got the added benefit of building a large pot. If I happened to hit my draw on the turn or the river, there's a good chance I'm going to take my opponent's stack.

Psychological Strategy

Short-handed play takes some getting used to. The pace is furious, forcing a lot of tough decisions in very short periods of time. The swings are far more dramatic than in a full ring game but, I think that after adjusting to the pace of the action, most players will come to love the excitement that accompanies short-handed play.

Lesson: 32
What I learned at the WSOP
Jay Greenspan
October 24, 2005

This past summer, I had the good fortune to cover the World Series of Poker for PokerWire.com and Full Tilt Poker. For six weeks, I watched world-class players ply their trade and, in that time, I learned a ton about poker. What follows are three lessons I learned from watching Full Tilt Poker's pros during their long days of play.

Never Rush a Big Decision

Even in the top ranks of poker, there's a tendency among players to act rashly and blurt out an action – "All in!" or "I call!" – without having taken nearly enough time to carefully consider the situation. Of course, a player shouldn't delay while holding the nuts. But I was often surprised to see the time the pros took to mull over situations that seemed to have only one clear-cut action.

One of the best examples of this came in the final hand of the WSOP's first event. Allen Cunningham was heads-up with Scott Fischman. Fischman bet the flop of T-6-3 and Cunningham raised. Fischman called, then checked the turn, a 4. Cunningham made an aggressive bet, but Fischman then quickly check-raised all-in. Cunningham stopped and thought. He had two-pair, 3s and 6s - a hand that usually requires a call in heads-up play. But, he didn't rush the decision. After a few minutes of thought, he called. When Fischman showed 4-5, it was clear that Cunningham made the right choice. The river, an Ace, gave Cunningham the pot and the bracelet.

I was impressed that after 13 hours and 300 hands of play, Cunningham didn't automatically put his faith in a fairly big hand. He took the time to stop and review the conditions in their entirety. This sort of thoroughness is one reason the pros are less likely to make big, costly mistakes.

Never Talk During Play

In one of the early WSOP tournaments, Mike Matusow was playing very aggressively. He had a huge stack and used it to bully the table. In one early orbit, he raised on the button. The big blind re-raised all-in.

Mike had spent most of day chatting up the table. He turned to the man and asked, "You gotta hand?"

The man replied, "Best hand I've seen in hours."

"Best hand in hours," Matusow echoed, "That means you don't have Aces… I only have King-five, but I think I have to call."

And Matusow was absolutely right. The big blind had pocket 10s, and given the size of the pot, Matusow correctly determined that with one over-card, he was getting the right price to call the bet.

Through a seemingly vague and innocuous statement, the big blind had given Matusow vital information, which he was able to use to make the best possible decision.

The lesson here; when playing, keep your mouth shut and don't do your opposition any favors.

Bet Your Hand

The great players – Phil Ivey, Erik Seidel, Chris Ferguson, etc. – usually err on the side of aggression. That is, they sometimes find themselves betting with hands that are underdogs to win. But, in my time at the WSOP, I can't remember a time when I saw a top pro miss a bet in a vital situation.

By contrast, many novice players in this year's WSOP seemed determined to check-raise or slow play their hands. They were trying to be tricky. But often, their failure to bet was disastrous. Opponents were permitted to check down hands with which they might have called bets, and others were allowed to draw for free.

The best players are aggressive, and by following their lead, you're less likely to make mistakes that could cost you valuable chips.

We've all heard that poker is a game of skill rather than luck, and watching the top pros play – either live or on television – only proves the truth of that statement. Watch how they act at the poker table, and it quickly becomes clear why the same players consistently finish in the money. Follow their examples, and it's a good bet that you'll pick up a few tips that can improve your game.

Lesson: 31
Back to the Drawing Board
Perry Friedman
October 17, 2005

You are in the big blind with Ts-8s against a player who smooth-called pre-flop. The flop comes K-X-X with two spades. What do you do?

You would like to make your flush, and you don't want to pay too much to get there. Instinctively, you think checking is the best way to get a free card, and you're right.

In fact, checking is the only way to get a free card, but it may not give you the best opportunity to make your hand, nor will it pay you maximum value when you make the flush.

Suppose your opponent bets the pot. Now you're getting 2-1 to call for a 4-1 chance of making your hand. You don't even get to see the turn card. You've been priced out.

What happens if you lead out with a small bet? If you're against a player who likes to slow play or a player who will bluff you out with a big bet, a small bet gives you the best chance of seeing the turn.

How small is a small bet? Try betting between 1/3 and 1/4 of the pot. If there is $300 in the pot and you bet $100, you are now getting the right price to make your flush. If you bet $75, you are now getting better than pot odds, and this doesn't account for your implied odds, which take into account the amount of money your opponent will bet or call on the turn and river. If you make your flush on the turn, and your opponent is willing to call your $400 bet, you are getting implied odds of $300 (current pot size on the flop) + $400 (expected amount your opponent will call on the turn) = $700 to $100 (your bet on the flop), or 7-1.

This is an even better play when your drawing hand is less obvious. Suppose the flop is Q-9-6. Now you are drawing to the double gut shot straight, where a 7 or a J makes your hand. While an 8 or a K is an obvious scare card, a 7 looks like a card unlikely to have helped anyone. (The risk factor here is that the J might give you the "idiot end" of the straight against an opponent holding K-J, and your 1/4 pot bet is exactly the right price for him to call.)

In a tournament, this type of drawing strategy can become a riskier and less profitable play, especially early on. Because you start with a limited number of chips in tournament play, your odds need to be closer to 5-1 or even 6-1 before you should consider risking them on a draw, and potentially leaving yourself short stacked.

The important thing when drawing is to be the aggressor. Losing initiative leaves you vulnerable to being priced out of the pot, whether it's by a made hand or a bluff. If you want to see another card at the right price, your best bet is to be the bettor.

Lesson: 30
It's Not Easy Being Green. Or Is It?
Team Full Tilt
October 10, 2005

In the premier episode of our new show, "FullTiltPoker.Net Presents Learn from the Pros" broadcast on FOX Sports Net, five of our pros engaged in a roundtable discussion about stepping up in limits.

Everyone agreed that one of the best ways to improve your game is to play against better players. Jennifer Harman said she faced more tough decisions at her first table with Doyle Brunson than she'd faced in all her previous years of playing poker. Layne Flack and Howard Lederer agreed that the constant pressure can be a good thing, forcing you to weigh each decision more carefully and rethink old habits and patterns. Chris "Jesus" Ferguson said his best learning opportunities come at World Series final tables, and Phil Ivey remarked that, with time, you start to look forward to playing out of your comfort zone. Perhaps the adrenaline helps keep you focused.

But maybe there's a corollary to this; the idea that being a first-timer relieves you of the pressure that can only come from having already had a taste of victory.

It's true that you see a lot of the same names winning tournaments, but some newcomers have had some incredible finishes, and many of today's pros started out with very early success. Erik Seidel finished second to Johnny Chan in his very first World Series of Poker Main Event. Andy Bloch won the first No-Limit Hold 'em event he ever entered. Phil Gordon finished fourth in his first WSOP Big Dance. And Howard Lederer has made the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event just once - the first year he entered the event. When Howard survived to Day 4 in 2003, he made this observation:

I am playing for more money than I ever have, and this kind of chance at the WSOP will probably only come up for me a few more times in my life. But, for some reason, I am only thinking about this table, this hand, this moment. I have read some Zen Buddhism in the last few years and it is really helping me now.

In particular "Zen and the Art of Archery", a short little book, has everything you need to know about staying in the moment. Thinking about the recent past or the possible future at moments like these can only hurt your ability to make the plays necessary to win. And, those thoughts can actually make it impossible to win. I have started to think that players like Varkonyi and Moneymaker have an advantage over experienced tournament players. Yes they would like to win, and they know this is an important tournament, but they don't feel that importance deep in their bones like a seasoned pro who has been trying to win the WSOP for years. It frees them up to play their best when it matters. My best finish was in my first try. It wasn't real to me. I remember having a great time, and not feeling a lot of pressure.

Getting back to the roundtable... everyone agreed that tournaments are a good way to get out of your comfort zone without risking your bankroll. Try to let inexperience work for you, not against you. If you're at your first final table and you see enough bracelets to fill a Tiffany display window, use it as a learning opportunity. Also use it as a chance to enjoy the moment and focus on the here and now. You don't yet have a past, and living in the moment is the best way to ensure you have a future.

Lesson: 29
Texture Isn't Just For Fabric
Phil Gordon
October 3, 2005

When I'm thinking about my actions after the flop or turn, I look to the "texture" of the board - i.e., what cards are in play, and how might they interact with my opponent's likely starting hands - to help determine if and how much I will bet.

My normal post-flop betting range is one third of the pot to the full size of the pot. The texture of the board dictates where in that range I choose to bet, and I determine that based on the following four factors:

1. How strong is my hand with respect to all of the likely hands for my opponent?

If I have a very strong hand with respect to all of the likely starting hands for my opponent, I'll usually go for the lower end of the spectrum, betting around 1/3 of the pot. I want my opponent to call.

If I have a moderate strength hand with respect to all of the likely starting hands for my opponent, I'll likely bet 2/3 of the pot. I want my opponents to fold some hands that are better than my hand and call with some hands that are worse than my hand.

If I have a weak hand with respect to all of the likely starting hands for my opponent and I want to bet, I'll bet the pot. I want my opponents to fold hands that are better than my hand.

2. How likely is my hand to improve?

If my hand is unlikely to improve, I tend to bet more than 2/3 of the pot. I want to take this pot now.

If my hand is somewhat likely to improve, say about 15% to 20% of the time, I am more apt to bet 2/3 of the pot.

If my hand is very likely to improve (about 34% of the time or more), I am more apt to bet 1/2 of the pot.

3. How likely is my opponent to have "hit the flop" and have a pair or better?

If my opponent is unlikely to have hit the flop and have top pair or better, I tend to bet 1/3 of the pot whether I think I have the best hand or not.

If my opponent is likely to have flopped exactly one pair, and I think I have the best hand, I tend to bet 2/3 of the pot.

If my opponent is likely to have flopped two pair or better and I think I have the best hand, I tend to bet the size of the pot. If I don't think I have the best hand, I'll almost never bet.

4. How likely is my opponent to have a primary draw? (That is, a draw to the best possible hand on the board, like a straight or a flush.)

If I think my opponent is likely to have a primary draw and I think I have the best hand, I'm likely to bet the size of the pot.

If I think my opponent has a primary draw and there is a good chance I don't have the best hand, I'll almost never bet.

When the four factors above lead to different conclusions about how much to bet, I average the recommendations and bet that amount.

Over time, you'll develop a more immediate sense of the "texture" of the board, and the amount to bet based on that will become almost automatic. Then, you can spend less time calculating your actions and more time observing your opponents.

This lesson is from Phil Gordon's Little Green Book: Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em , published by Simon Spotlight Entertainment.

Lesson: 28
Know Your Opponent; Own Your Opponent
Paul Wolfe
September 26, 2005

I was at my first World Series of Poker in 2002, talking to a player who had made the final table the year before. He told me something I've never forgotten, and it's helped me ever since.

I had raised pre-flop with A-K and he called from the button. The flop came all small cards. I checked and he fired a pot-sized bet. I looked at him and said, "You must have a good hand." His reply caught me off guard; "It doesn't matter what cards I have if I know what cards you have."

At first I thought I might have a tell – maybe I hummed when I missed the flop, or I looked away from my chips. It was later that I realized I did have a tell, but it had nothing to do with my physical demeanor. It was the way I played my cards.

Poker is often not so much about the cards you have, but knowing the way your opponent plays. Keeping track of which hands your opponent raises with - and the position from which he raises with them - is a large part of the game.

In a live game, it is hard to remember exactly what cards your opponent has raised with over the years and, if they're good players, those hands will change from time to time. But many poker players are creatures of habit, playing the style they are most familiar with. Online, there is no excuse not to have this knowledge at your fingertips.

While playing on Full Tilt Poker, I get to write notes on players and it is a great help. I am always referencing my notes, and they will often tell me which hands an opponent has played in the past. The color-coding makes it even easier for me. I use one color to mark the players who only bet when they have a strong hand, and another color to mark the action players.

When I see a player marked with a certain color, I can safely assume that he's going to overplay his hands. This is a guy I am more willing to call with a hand that might be a little weaker, or a drawing hand after the flop. Why? Because I know that if I hit my hand, he's going to pay me off; I have implied odds to call. With another player, I'll play a little tighter because not getting paid off means my implied odds aren't there. This one bit of information has both increased my winnings and minimized my losses.

Self-awareness is an important part of any endeavor. But in poker, knowing your opponent is just as important as knowing yourself.

Lesson: 27
How Bad are the Beats?
Steve Brecher
September 19, 2005

While playing on Full Tilt Poker, I have said that there are three topics I won't discuss in table chat; politics, religion, and whether online poker is rigged. That's because many people's opinions on those topics are hardened and not amenable to friendly or productive discussion.

Away from the table, I'll venture a couple of comments about improbable events in poker. While not direct instruction in the tactics and strategy of play, these comments may help you take "bad beats" in stride -- and that, in turn, is an essential part of poker maturity.

First, let's consider what most would view as a typical "bad beat" -- a lower pocket pair winning against a higher pocket pair in hold 'em, such as KK beating AA. When those hands share one suit, the chance of the worse hand winning is about 18%. The chance of the lower pair winning twice -- that is, the next two times that such hands happen to go against each other -- is about 3%. If in one session of play, a lower pocket pair beat a higher pocket pair twice, that might seem a little, well, weird to some players.

Consider another situation involving chance. When two dice are thrown, the chance of rolling "snake eyes" (1-1) is about 3% -- about the same as a lower pocket pair beating a higher pocket pair twice.

Suppose there were 600 craps tables using standard, unaltered dice with nine players around each table -- a total of 5,400 players -- and these tables operated for a three-hour "session." How many players would observe snake eyes being thrown at least once? The statistical expectation result is not important. The point is that it's easy to intuitively see that a large number of players would.

Further, do you think some players might see snake eyes thrown several times in an evening -- say, three or four times? (That is equivalent to six or eight poker "bad beats.") And if some of those players would be inclined to report their observation on forums and in chat, then it might seem to some as if the dice were "fixed."

Let's go back to poker. Recently, I played a hand of No-Limit Hold 'Em on Full Tilt Poker. An opponent four seats in front of the button open-raised pre-flop. It was folded around to me in the big blind, and I called. I semi-bluff check-raised the flop, continued with a semi-bluff bet on the turn, was raised all-in, and called the raise. I made my draw on the river. After the hand my opponent chatted:

opponent: ur horrible steve
opponent: why the [****] did u call that?
opponent: horrible that this site rewards that

(Confidential to opponent: I know these comments were made in the heat of the moment after a big loss and don't necessarily reflect your considered view.)

Let's take a look at my call on the turn. I held Ad Td; my opponent held Kd Kc. The board was Qd 9d 7h Jc.

With my opponent's actual holding, I had 16 outs to win the pot on the river, making me a 1.75 to 1 underdog. Of course, it could have been worse for me against other holdings, but even the worst case for me would have been to be up against K-T (a made straight), and then I would have been only a 3 to 1 underdog.

After my bet and the opponent's all in-raise, I was getting pot odds of 3.7 to 1 to call, so the call is clearly correct. But it seemed to my opponent -- and to at least one observer -- that I made a bad call, and that my winning with a 36% chance to do so when I called was a bad beat for my opponent.

The moral of this story: While "bad beats" (low-probability events) do occur, sometimes a closer examination of a poker hand can change first impressions and allow you to continue to play with a cooler, clearer head.

Lesson: 26
Third Street in Seven Stud
Perry Friedman
September 12, 2005

For those of you who are unfamiliar with seven-card stud, there are some betting quirks in the game that you should understand. During the opening round of betting (also called "third street"), the player with the lowest up card is forced to act first. There are two choices: Bet the "bring-in" amount (which is usually one-third of the full bet) or "complete" the bet (make it a full bet). If the player chooses to bet the bring-in amount, another player has the option of completing the bet. Note that this is not considered a raise, because it is only increasing the initial bet to one full bet. This means there is still a bet and three remaining raises allowed during the opening round.

You should almost never bring in for a completion in Stud Hi, except in very rare tournament situations. There are a number of reasons for this, including the need to conceal the strength of your hand and the desire to keep your options open later in the round.

If you make it a habit only to bring in for a completion when you have a good hand, an astute player will pick up on this and will steal from you every time you don't complete the bring-in. Conversely, if you always complete the bet, you are throwing away money when you are forced in, which is usually when you have a bad hand since you already have the lowest up card.

Furthermore, bringing in for a completion limits your betting options. If you bring in for the minimum and someone else completes the bet, you can raise back for a full bet, whereas your opponent can only complete for a partial bet. You can also decide to slow play your hand if someone completes. Completing the bet exposes you to being raised back a full bet. By always bringing in for the minimum, you do not give away the strength of your hand and leave your options open on third street.

When playing in a live ring game, I will seldom even look at my down cards when I am the bring-in. Whether or not you look at your cards first is a matter of personal preference, but by not looking, you can't give a tell. However, one of the important aspects of stud is being aware of what cards have already been dealt out to your opponents. If you decide not to look at your hole cards, you should still peruse the table and take inventory of what cards are already out.

For some people, cataloguing all the upcards may be a tedious and exhausting process, and they will prefer to look at their downcards first so that they immediately know which key cards will improve their hand, or if they even have a playable hand at all. The only flaw with this shortcut is that when you do have a playable hand, you need to be aware of what your key cards are and know which cards will help or hurt your opponents. I recommend getting in the habit of always mentally keeping track of all of the up cards.

In heads-up play, keeping track of the cards is much simpler; they are always there to see and you don't need to remember who folded which cards. This makes it even less important to check your down cards before acting.

In online play, you will always be aware of your down cards, but you should still get in the practice of tracking your opponents' cards. One way to keep the game interesting - and to work on your skills at the same time - is to track all the cards even when you are out of the hand. As the hand progresses, try to figure out what hands your opponents are likely playing. At the showdown, you can see how well your reading skills are coming along.

Stud can be a very enjoyable and interesting game, but it relies less on intuition and more on keeping your mind focused and your eyes open.

Lesson: 25
Flopping a Monster
Richard Brodie
September 6, 2005

When I started playing poker, I would get so excited when I flopped a big hand that I forgot my main goal: Win as many chips as possible. When I had marginal hands, I would think hard about what my opponent had and whether I could beat it. But when I had a big hand, I just wanted to get all my chips in the middle.