Tournament Strategy: Avoiding Coin-Flips

In my post about playing in a tournament with a short stack, I said that you should look for a spot to try to double up. In other words, you should be prepared to go all in before the flop with hands that stand up well in coin-flip situations. When you are short stacked this makes sense, but too many players with healthy stacks make the mistake of letting their tournament fate ride on coin-flips. The most common situation is pocket queens against big slick - two premium hands that many players seem willing to go all in with no matter what the stage of a tournament. I used to do it myself but I've wised up.

Before you make a move involving most or all of your chips, do a risk assessment. What is the upside? You double up. In the middle stages of a tournament doubling your chips is great, but it doesn't automatically put you in the money. You gain a slight advantage, but what do you risk? You risk everything.

Once you are in the money, moving up positions can greatly increase the money you make. It's then that the upside justifies the gamble. Or, as I have said, when you are short stacked the "down side" - being knocked out of the tournament - is what will happen if you don't act, so you might as well try it. In the middle of a tournament, with an average sized stack, its just a bad gamble.

If you believe in your own skill as a poker player, you should feel confident in playing QQ or AK without going all in pre-flop with them. By the middle stages of the tournament you should have enough information on your opponents to play against them. By going all in pre-flop you are saying you would rather give your fate over to chance than rely on your skill to play the hand out. You won't win tournaments if you don't have more confidence in yourself that that.

Thinking is important.

It's a wonderful autumn day in Calgary, Alberta. Much too nice to go in to a casino, right? Ah, but I just feel so good that I know I'm going to play well...so it's off to play a little 4/8 limit hold'em!

Yes, I just got back from my 3 1/2 hour session and I'm feeling pretty good about making $145 today. I played really well, and by that I mean I only made a few mistakes, and the mistakes I made were not very costly.

I would like to relate one hand in particular because it illustrates the importance of always thinking about what cards your opponents may be holding.

This is limit hold'em, with a $4 big blind and a $2 small blind. I was in the small blind with QQ. The guy under the gun limps in and four guys call him. How sweet is this? It is very unlikely any one of them is holding AA or KK, and odds are also in my favor that neither an Ace or a King will flop. With $26 in the pot already, I know I will get callers if I raise here, so it's only costing me another $6 to build the pot up even more. So I raise it up to $8.

Now let's just stop and think about what I've done and what the other players must think about my hand. Raising in this position is showing a lot of strength - I'm saying I like my cards so much that I'm willing to bet they will still be ahead of five other guys (maybe six, if the big blind joins the party) after the flop. I had not made a single pre-flop raise up until this point and I had been playing very tight. A bet like this, with the tight table image I know I have established, can only mean I'm holding AA, KK, QQ or AK. Even if I had AQ or JJ I probably would not make such a move, and good poker players would probably know I'm most likely to be holding one of the four hands I've just named.

Back to the hand: the big blind folds, and every single one of the five remaining players calls my raise. There is now $52 in the pot, and I'm even more certain that nobody has AA. Anybody holding AA would re-raise to build the pot, confident of getting at least one caller (me) and probably a few more. KK is also very unlikely for the same reason. So everybody is just drooling over that $52 pot and hoping the poker gods will smile on them.

The flop: Jd 9h 6d

So, there are possible flush and straight draws. It's also possible that somebody has pocket Jacks, Nines or Sixes, so my over pair may not be good. I have to act first, so I decide to place the $4 bet (In limit hold 'em I am limited to betting or raising $4 at a time before the turn, and after the turn the bet has to be $8 - that's why they call it 4/8 limit.) My reasoning is that I am probably ahead, and if one of my opponents has the trips they will likely re-raise me. If nobody re-raises, then I'm probably good. I also think anybody who missed the flop completely will fold and I'm happy to narrow the field here.

What must my opponents think of my hand now? They must know that unless I've suddenly gone crazy, I've got a big pair. AK has just been eliminated from the likely cards I'm holding because it would be way too risky to raise against five guys without even a pair! Still I get two callers (no raise - so I think I'm okay) and the pot is now $62. What do my opponents have? Ace-something, probably. Maybe two diamonds and they hope to hit the flush. I hope the turn is not a diamond or an Ace.

The turn: Ace of Clubs.

Well, durn. I think I may have just fallen behind here. I don't think I'll bet because the chances are just too great one of these guys has an Ace. So I check.

And now I'm going to let you in on a little secret. One of my opponents is holding AQ. I don't know this yet, but I'm about to find out. So here is this guy holding AQ, which he pays $8 to see the flop with. He misses the flop but he pays another $4 to see the turn, and he hits his ace. Now if he had been thinking about my hand, he should think I've got AA, KK or QQ, so he should figure he is a 2/3 favourite to be ahead. What does he do? He checks. Now I don't want to say this was a stupid thing to do, but it was a stupid thing to do. Here is my advice to him (assuming he reads my blog) and to all of you: If you think you are ahead, but vulnerable, then for God's sake bet! By simply checking he is putting himself in a tough position if the river completes the flush draw or straight draw (If he hasn't been playing attention he might think I'm drawing to one of these). If he has been paying attention and has me on KK or QQ (If he thought I had AA he would have folded by now) , then by checking he'll have a tough decision to make if the river brings a King or a Queen.

And the other guy checks too. Sweet, I don't have to make a difficult decision with the Ace on the board.

And the river is a big, beautiful Queen of Hearts.

I don't even consider checking to "lay a trap". I might do that in no-limit, but in limit all that bluffing and trapping stuff is ineffective. I bet $8. My inattentive friend gleefully raises to $16 with his two-pair. The other guy can't fold fast enough. I announce raise, but I haven't been paying very close attention myself - I can't raise because my opponent has no chips left to call with, so I have to just call. He turns over his two pair and I show my set of Queens and rake in the $94 pot.

And he is very upset. Apparently I am just a lucky jackass who can't win a hand unless he rivers a set.

Am I? I think I played that hand perfectly. If he had been paying attention and figured out what cards I was probably holding (how many clues do I have to give him?) then he would have saved himself a big loss. And if I rivered a set, well he let me see the river for free didn't he?

(Yes, in poker "river" is a also a verb.)

Tight is Right: The Conclusion

In my post Tight is Right, I outlined an experiment to only play certain cards in certain positions over 1,000 hands of play-money hold 'em. To review, my playable hands were as follows:

From Early Position: AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AKs, AQs, TT, and AKo
From Middle Position: all of the above hands, plus AJs, KQs, 99, A10s and AQo
From Late Position: all of the above hands, plus KJs, 88, QJs, K10s, A9s, AJo

It was really difficult at first to discipline myself to only playing these cards. Everyone folds to me on the button and I'm holding KQ off-suit? I guess I gotta fold. I have four players calling a limp ahead of me and I get dealt 77? I guess I gotta fold. This exercise was a great way to discipline myself to making tough folds pre-flop. I even folded some of the hands my rules would have allowed me to play when another player showed significant strength. You re-raised my big raise? Okay, I can fold QJs here.

The results? After 1,000 hands I finished ahead by 893 bets. In my $50 play-money game that comes to $44,650. Yes that's play money. People play better when it's real money, so you can't expect the same results but it still illustrates the general principal that playing tight poker is the foundation you should build your game around.

Once you have disciplined yourself to play tight, then you can start adding other weapons to your arsenal. You will learn the best times to steal the blinds, when and how to defend your blinds, when to raise with a strong hand and when to check with a strong hand. You will learn who you can bluff and who you can't and you will learn when someone is likely to be bluffing you. But as you learn all of these things you must never forget that tight poker is the foundation your game is built upon. You will not do silly or reckless things. You will be able to wait for as long as it takes to set a perfect trap, or to make the effective bluff. You will have more patience than those you play against and that will make you a great poker player.

The Case Against Limping

I never limp on the button, one off the button, in super high ante structures, with high cards, when it is my birthday, when I'm drunk and I could go on. Bottom line: I'm not a big fan of limping. - Gus Hansen.

In an earlier post (To limp, or not to limp?) I suggested limping was a bad idea. My anti-limping stance is getting stronger. I now have a little evidence to back up the idea that limping in and allowing the big blind a free look at the flop is a very bad habit.

Earlier this month I wrote a post (Tight is right) promoting the idea of playing tight poker. I committed myself to playing only certain hands in certain positions for 1,000 hands of poker to see how I would fair. As I started my experiment, I realized I had a problem - how would I count hands I played from the big blind when I got to see the flop for free? Obviously most of these would not be premium hands, so how did they fit into my experiment? I decided simply to track the number of times I got to see the flop for free and whether I made or lost money over-all from this situation.

Well folks, I've played the 1,000 hands and the results are in. 43 times while in the big blind I was allowed to see the flop for free with hands I normally would have folded. It is important to understand I am not counting the times I was dealt a playable hand in the big blind - I'm only talking about hands I definitely would have thrown away (because I forced myself to stick to my experiment) had I not been allowed to see the flop for free.

So how did I do in this situation? Obviously I ended up losing most of these hands, I had bad cards and was playing out of position after all, but almost all of these losses were folds right after the flop, so I only lost the one bet of the big blind and I would have lost this to any pre-flop raise anyway. Here's the interesting thing; the hands I won from this position had big enough pots to more than make up for all the hands I lost. In fact I came out ahead by 160 bets just because I got to see the flop for free. For my $50 big blind (play money, mind you) this came to a total profit of $8000. Okay, yes. It was play money. But still it illustrates a point - don't limp! You are just giving the big blind a free pass! Over time the big blind will profit every time he or she sees the flop for free, so do not let that profit come at your expense.

How many times has something like this happened to you: You are in the big blind with 4c 2d. Some guy limps, there are a couple callers and you just check, getting to see the flop for free. The flop come Kh 2h 4d. Sweet! The original limper bets half the pot, everyone folds except you. You call. The turn comes 4h. He bets. You raise. He goes all-in. You call. He shows Ah 8h - an Ace high flush. You turn over your full house and he goes nuts! He starts screaming "You played 4-2 off suit!?? Are you an idiot?" Then you remind him you were in the big blind and saw a free flop. Ha ha.

This happens a lot, particularly on the internet where so many hands come so fast people easily forget who was in the big blind. You can hit all sorts of weird hands that nobody will put you on, and you can win very big pots.

It happens. Just don't be the dumb sap on the other side of the story.

Never limp.If someone limps before you, and you have a hand worth playing, you should strongly consider raising.

To limp or not to limp?

If you are playing no-limit hold 'em and everyone has folded ahead of you, then (assuming you are not in a blind) you have the option of folding yourself, calling the blind, or raising. Of these three options, taking the route of putting in only the amount of the big blind is an action commonly referred to as limping. Limping is often seen as a weak move and many strong players make it a point never, ever to limp in. Why such vehemence?

The most frequent point the never-limpers make is that by only betting the minimum, the person sitting in the big blind will not be required to put any more chips in the pot before the flop. The limper is in effect offering the big blind a free look at the flop, and in addition the small blind can still come in at only 1/2 price. Such generosity is not good business.

Also, by raising you force your opponents to "define" their hands somewhat. If they call a healthy raise, you can be reasonably sure they are likely holding big ranks, pairs or possibly suited connectors. When a flop then comes down something like 4c 7h 4s, it is rather unlikely that anyone hit a great hand with it. However someone playing out of the big blind who got to see the flop for free is actually more likely to holding a four than those who paid to see the flop. Now you are unsure of where you are, and even a good hand like AQ could be in trouble.

You certainly shouldn't limp in with very strong cards, like big pairs. The reason is that limping invites many players, not just the blinds, to see the flop cheaply. Maybe you think you will make more money with your big hand if more people are playing, but what you are really doing is making it much more likely that one of your opponents will out-draw you to a better hand. You can win just as much money against fewer opponents by raising than you would against many opponents by limping, but your odds of being beaten outright increase dramatically the more opponents you go up against. So don't limp with hands like jj or better.

Some players will limp in with drawing hands for the exact reasons that such hands pay off best against multiple opponents. For example it is not uncommon for someone in early position to limp in with something like Ac 8c, hoping a lot of people follow his lead, fatten the pot and make his flush draw potentially more profitable. Is this a good move or a bad move? I really don't know. It depends on a lot of things.

If you are playing against "loose" players - those who play a lot of hands and really don't like to fold - then seeing a lot of flops yourself for as cheaply as possible just seems to make sense to me. If you are at a very loose table (maybe a home game where your buddies have had a few beers) you can even take down a massive pot if someone has a weaker flush.

I know Chris Ferguson and Gus Hanson would disapprove, but I have limped in with suited aces, small pairs, and suited connectors (suited cards of consecutive ranks. 4s 5s, or 9c 10c, etc.) . Not often, but I have done it and will do it again.

But I do understand the anti-limping sentiment. I sense that it is really the passive nature of limping that is objectionable. Winning poker players usually try to control the table and by limping one allows a player in later position to assume the active roll with a raise. Players who like to dictate the pace of play are the most vocal anti-limpers. Perhaps they have a point.

Perhaps.

I welcome your thoughts.