Book Review:
Cowboys Full,
By James McManus
2009, Farrar, Straus and Giroux
In Positively Fifth Street, James McManus did a three-part juggling act in relating his first-hand adventure at the World Series of Poker's main event with the trial of the accused killers of Ted Binion, while also injecting a healthy dose of poker history. Of the three themes, the poker history came off as dry in comparison to the more immediate drama found in the other threads. It comes as a very pleasant surprise then that Cowboys Full, an ambitiously large study of poker, should be such a fascinating book.
As a history, Cowboys Full is impressive. McManus goes back beyond the game -back beyond the invention of cards itself- and methodically brings us up to the game we recognize today. But as interesting as the history is, the book is most fascinating when it shows how the skills various historical figures developed at the poker table influenced their success in the business and political world. The chapters covering the Civil War are brilliant.
Unfortunately Cowboys Full weakens somewhat in its later chapters where McManus repeats much of what he wrote in Fifth Street and regurgitates what appears in other books. Two full chapters are devoted to Texas banker Andy Beal's attempts to better the best of the Vegas pros, and while interesting, this story has already been covered in great detail in Michael Craig's The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King. Yet, overall, it is the most complete book on poker I have yet read. Those who do not understand poker's appeal, or view it merely as a form of gambling, would do well to read it.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The problem with advice
The problem with giving poker advice is that what may work generally, often doesn't work in specific situations.
In an earlier post I stated rather definitively that you should not limp in with strong hands, like big pairs. This is pretty sound advice, however there are times when even this law should be broken. If you have a maniac at the table who is raising every hand pre-flop, then go ahead and limp. Let the maniac raise you and then you can re-raise or just call depending on your read of the situation.
This is the beautiful and frustrating thing about poker - it is situational. You could be holding the exact same hole cards in the exact same position at two different tables, and the right thing to do at one table is to fold, and the right thing to do at the other table is to go all-in. So much depends on the way your opponents are playing, how confident you feel you read them, what you think they think of you...The list of things that can sway your decision at a specific moment are nearly infinite. It is dangerous to follow advice you have read on a poker blog when there is strong evidence you should do something else.
The problem is advice is always based on assumptions like your opponent is behaving somewhat rationally, and therefore her behaviour is somewhat predictable. If you raise pre-flop 10 times the big blind and some one calls you, you can assume that unless this person is an absolute nut, they have a great hand. The funny thing is that people do nutty things all the time.
Ironically, as I am writing this blog I am also playing a freeroll. A guy just went all in from early position with 10c 4d. I rest my case.
Does this mean that one should not bother reading poker books and blogs? No. Just bear in mind that all the good advice you get should be applied unless you have a strong reason to do differently in a certain situation. Ultimately your success or failure at the poker table will have to do with your read of each situation and each situation is different. However, your ability to read situation correctly will be enhanced by the studies you have done.
Still, you can read about poker all you want, but you will learn the most by playing the game. A lot. If you are not comfortable playing for money then don't, but try to find a game where your opponents are not complete screwballs. Play on-line tournaments; the "all-in-with-anything" fools usually get knocked out in the first hour, and after that you can get a taste of what real poker is like.
I hope this blog will not just be me spewing advice to you. I hope you will converse and challenge me. I hope you will share your own experiences with me. I would like to learn from you as much as I would like to help you.
In an earlier post I stated rather definitively that you should not limp in with strong hands, like big pairs. This is pretty sound advice, however there are times when even this law should be broken. If you have a maniac at the table who is raising every hand pre-flop, then go ahead and limp. Let the maniac raise you and then you can re-raise or just call depending on your read of the situation.
This is the beautiful and frustrating thing about poker - it is situational. You could be holding the exact same hole cards in the exact same position at two different tables, and the right thing to do at one table is to fold, and the right thing to do at the other table is to go all-in. So much depends on the way your opponents are playing, how confident you feel you read them, what you think they think of you...The list of things that can sway your decision at a specific moment are nearly infinite. It is dangerous to follow advice you have read on a poker blog when there is strong evidence you should do something else.
The problem is advice is always based on assumptions like your opponent is behaving somewhat rationally, and therefore her behaviour is somewhat predictable. If you raise pre-flop 10 times the big blind and some one calls you, you can assume that unless this person is an absolute nut, they have a great hand. The funny thing is that people do nutty things all the time.
Ironically, as I am writing this blog I am also playing a freeroll. A guy just went all in from early position with 10c 4d. I rest my case.
Does this mean that one should not bother reading poker books and blogs? No. Just bear in mind that all the good advice you get should be applied unless you have a strong reason to do differently in a certain situation. Ultimately your success or failure at the poker table will have to do with your read of each situation and each situation is different. However, your ability to read situation correctly will be enhanced by the studies you have done.
Still, you can read about poker all you want, but you will learn the most by playing the game. A lot. If you are not comfortable playing for money then don't, but try to find a game where your opponents are not complete screwballs. Play on-line tournaments; the "all-in-with-anything" fools usually get knocked out in the first hour, and after that you can get a taste of what real poker is like.
I hope this blog will not just be me spewing advice to you. I hope you will converse and challenge me. I hope you will share your own experiences with me. I would like to learn from you as much as I would like to help you.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Two Suited on the Flop: Scenario #2
Let's review another "possible flush draw" scenario, this one taken from my personal experience.
I am in late position with pocket fives. There is one limper and one caller before me. I call. The small blind calls and the big blind checks, so there are five of us to see the following flop:
I am in late position with pocket fives. There is one limper and one caller before me. I call. The small blind calls and the big blind checks, so there are five of us to see the following flop:
5c Ac 8d
Sweet puffs of wheat. Not only did I hit my trips, but if one of my opponents has an ace, he will be reluctant to fold. There is a chance someone is going for a flush in clubs as well, so I might get some money from them too. Of course it is possible that someone out there might have pocket aces or pocket eights, but I feel pretty confident I have the best hand.
The original limper bets half the pot. Nice. The next guy calls, which is even better. I suspect neither have great hands, otherwise they might be betting more to protect themselves from the flush draw. I want to raise enough to build the pot but I don't want them both to fold, so I double the bet required of me to call. Both my opponents call. Now the pot is four times what it was before the flop.
The turn is a 9s, so the board looks like this:
5c Ac 8d 9s
5c Ac 8d 9s
I'm glad to see that no club hit. The original better seems hesitant, then checks. The next guy bets half the pot. What does he have? Two pair? I have no idea. Only pocket aces or pocket eights beat me, and he is more likely to be holding A8, AK, or AQ all hands he might bet this aggressively. What ever he has, I sense he likes it a lot. I decide to go all-in on the theory that trip 5's will beat a majority of hands he is likely to be holding. The first player folds. The second player calls instantly. I show my trips and he shows: 6d 7d.
It takes a second for it to sink in that my opponent is holding a straight. I didn't even notice there was a straight draw on the board.
How could I have been so stupid?
My attention was drawn away from the straight draw by a number of things. First and foremost, I got too excited by my own hand. When you hit what you are hoping for on the flop, part of your brain goes "Jackpot!" and you stop thinking about everything your opponents could be holding. You just get greedy and think about how much you are going to win. I thought about the ace and I thought about the flush draw, but I was too lazy to look for the straight draw.
I made a very common mistake. Straights tend to catch people by surprise. I think it has something to do with how the human mind works. The brain has a little more difficulty recognizing what straight draws might be on the board.
I have a feeling today's lesson is one you will just have to learn for yourself. Mostly by making the same kind of mistakes I did.
The profitable part of the lesson is that you can reverse the situation. By playing straight draws, particularly against multiple opponents, you put yourself in the position of hitting a straight that is over-looked by an excited opponent holding something like three of a kind.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Two Suited on the Flop: Scenario #1
So here is a very common situation - you are playing no-limit hold 'em and the flop comes with two cards of a particular suit. How common is this? By my calculations it happens more often than not, so figuring out the best way to play all sides of this flop must be crucial to playing winning poker. So lets examine some of the ways a "possible flush draw flop" should be played.
Scenario #1:
You are holding Ah 8h. You call an earlier limp and the button and both blinds call behind you. So five players see the following flop: Kh 9s 6h. Nice! You just flopped a nut flush draw, and the fact the pot is being contested by multiple players increases the chances of someone paying you off, right? You, measure the size of your opponents stacks and see the all have more chips than you do, so you could double-up though any of them. This is good right?
Well, maybe. One of the cruel ironies of poker is that hitting a good flop always doesn't translate into big pots. Your hand is only good if you can hit the flush and if the three suited cards on the board don't scare your opponents away. In my experience these are to very big ifs.
Let's get back to this example hand and I'll show you what I mean:
Chances are very good one or more of your opponents is holding a king. Why? Because people like to play aces and kings. The original limper and the button are the two most likely to be holding either a king or an ace (remember, you have one of the aces, so that makes the odds kings are being held a little better), because they liked their hand enough to at least put in the amount of the big blind. The two playing out of the blinds could have anything. So, someone at the table probably hit at least top pair, and what is this guy thinking? He or she is thinking "I think I'm ahead but I should worry about those hearts! I can't let some fool suck out a flush on me."
Small blind is the first to act and he checks. The big blind and the original limper also check. Well this really is good news! Unless one of those three are setting a trap (possible, but unlikely), they don't have a king. Why do I say that? Remember what the guy with the king is thinking. Someone with a pair of kings or better at this point is definitely worried about the flush draw, so they are going to almost always bet big to make sure that draw has to fold or pay too much to see the turn. You should feel safe that the first three missed the flop.
With just the button to act after you, you probably should bluff here. Why? Well, it might work. You only have a 32% chance of hitting the flush, so why not try to scoop the pot right here? More importantly, by betting here you send the message that you have a king and that "hides" your flush draw. A bet of about 2/3 of the pot should be enough to look serious. More than that might make it look like you are trying to "buy the pot" - which is exactly what you are doing. So you bet around 2/3 the pot. Smart move, you poker genius!
The button goes all in.
Well, durn it. Now, you feel like an idiot for bluffing. Everyone folds to you. You briefly consider if it is worth calling your whole stack on this draw, but sanity kicks in and you fold.
Normally the next hand would be dealt and in twenty minutes you have forgotten this small loss. But I'm going to show you exactly what happened - why you did everything right and lost and why the button acted foolishly and won.
The Early Limper was dealt a pair of pocket 5's. He figured he'd try to see the flop as cheaply as possible, so he just limped hoping to trigger a bunch of calls and no raises. He got his wish.
You were dealt Ah 8h remember? You were happy to call and were happy to see two others join the big blind behind you.
The Button had Ad Kc - big slick.
Both of the Blinds had rags that missed the flop.
So now you see what the button did. He flopped a pair of kings with an ace kicker. Not a bad hand - in fact he can feel pretty confident he is out in front. But he's worried about those hearts. So he does what a lot of players do in this situation - he grossly over-bets.
The Lesson: Players make this over-bet mistake all the time, and they even think they are doing the right thing by "protecting their hand". If you are in a game and you notice your opponents pushing all in like this, you can set yourself up for a big pot against them. Don't play a lot of suited cards, like the Ah 8h in our example, because guys like that won't let you draw to your flush. Instead play more medium and small pairs. If you are holding a pair, there is about a 12% chance that you will see a third card of that rank hit on the flop. Now 12% may seem pretty thin, but with guys going all-in with only a pair of kings (and they really will do this!) you have a good shot at winning big pots with your trips.
Just remember to make sure your opponents have enough chips to make your three-of-a-kind pay off. Don't make this move if your opponents don't have a lot of chips.
Another great advantage of playing medium and small pairs is that sometimes you will get a full house when an opponent gets a flush. In this situation you will almost always win a huge pot.
We'll look at another scenario tomorrow.
Scenario #1:
You are holding Ah 8h. You call an earlier limp and the button and both blinds call behind you. So five players see the following flop: Kh 9s 6h. Nice! You just flopped a nut flush draw, and the fact the pot is being contested by multiple players increases the chances of someone paying you off, right? You, measure the size of your opponents stacks and see the all have more chips than you do, so you could double-up though any of them. This is good right?
Well, maybe. One of the cruel ironies of poker is that hitting a good flop always doesn't translate into big pots. Your hand is only good if you can hit the flush and if the three suited cards on the board don't scare your opponents away. In my experience these are to very big ifs.
Let's get back to this example hand and I'll show you what I mean:
Kh 9s 6h
Chances are very good one or more of your opponents is holding a king. Why? Because people like to play aces and kings. The original limper and the button are the two most likely to be holding either a king or an ace (remember, you have one of the aces, so that makes the odds kings are being held a little better), because they liked their hand enough to at least put in the amount of the big blind. The two playing out of the blinds could have anything. So, someone at the table probably hit at least top pair, and what is this guy thinking? He or she is thinking "I think I'm ahead but I should worry about those hearts! I can't let some fool suck out a flush on me."
Small blind is the first to act and he checks. The big blind and the original limper also check. Well this really is good news! Unless one of those three are setting a trap (possible, but unlikely), they don't have a king. Why do I say that? Remember what the guy with the king is thinking. Someone with a pair of kings or better at this point is definitely worried about the flush draw, so they are going to almost always bet big to make sure that draw has to fold or pay too much to see the turn. You should feel safe that the first three missed the flop.
With just the button to act after you, you probably should bluff here. Why? Well, it might work. You only have a 32% chance of hitting the flush, so why not try to scoop the pot right here? More importantly, by betting here you send the message that you have a king and that "hides" your flush draw. A bet of about 2/3 of the pot should be enough to look serious. More than that might make it look like you are trying to "buy the pot" - which is exactly what you are doing. So you bet around 2/3 the pot. Smart move, you poker genius!
The button goes all in.
Well, durn it. Now, you feel like an idiot for bluffing. Everyone folds to you. You briefly consider if it is worth calling your whole stack on this draw, but sanity kicks in and you fold.
Normally the next hand would be dealt and in twenty minutes you have forgotten this small loss. But I'm going to show you exactly what happened - why you did everything right and lost and why the button acted foolishly and won.
The Early Limper was dealt a pair of pocket 5's. He figured he'd try to see the flop as cheaply as possible, so he just limped hoping to trigger a bunch of calls and no raises. He got his wish.
You were dealt Ah 8h remember? You were happy to call and were happy to see two others join the big blind behind you.
The Button had Ad Kc - big slick.
Both of the Blinds had rags that missed the flop.
So now you see what the button did. He flopped a pair of kings with an ace kicker. Not a bad hand - in fact he can feel pretty confident he is out in front. But he's worried about those hearts. So he does what a lot of players do in this situation - he grossly over-bets.
The Lesson: Players make this over-bet mistake all the time, and they even think they are doing the right thing by "protecting their hand". If you are in a game and you notice your opponents pushing all in like this, you can set yourself up for a big pot against them. Don't play a lot of suited cards, like the Ah 8h in our example, because guys like that won't let you draw to your flush. Instead play more medium and small pairs. If you are holding a pair, there is about a 12% chance that you will see a third card of that rank hit on the flop. Now 12% may seem pretty thin, but with guys going all-in with only a pair of kings (and they really will do this!) you have a good shot at winning big pots with your trips.
Just remember to make sure your opponents have enough chips to make your three-of-a-kind pay off. Don't make this move if your opponents don't have a lot of chips.
Another great advantage of playing medium and small pairs is that sometimes you will get a full house when an opponent gets a flush. In this situation you will almost always win a huge pot.
We'll look at another scenario tomorrow.
Monday, August 23, 2010
More Poker Wisdom
Here are more poker tips that I frequently find myself thinking about.
From Bobby Baldwin: Be Polite.
You want the other players to be enjoying themselves. If you are winning, make sure that you praise the play of your opponents and comment on how lucky you have been. They will naturally want to see themselves as skilled and you as "just lucky", so you don't have to do much to encourage this. The most important thing is that they like playing with you and invite you back. When you see a guy try an obvious bluff, pretend to really deliberate before calling. Praise his courage for trying so gutsy a move as you rake his chips in, shaking your head at yourself while questioning your own recklessness.
From Mike the Poker Pro: Be Patient. In Mike's own words: "I see guys on their last day in Vegas make all kinds of reckless moves. I don't need to play that way. I live in Vegas. I don't have a plane to catch." In other words don't try to win every hand. Sit back, wait for the good cards, and let the other guy take the risks.
From Judi James: Differentiate "leakage" from "performance". Your opponents will be sending you lots of signals to help you interpret their relative strength or weakness. Some signals they are unaware they are sending. You should consider such signals as "leakage", true indications as to how your opponent feels about his or her hand. Other times your opponent will send false signals in an attempt to look weak when strong, or strong when weak. These signals you should consider "performance". Most people have standard moves they repeat when they perform, which you can detect if you pay close attention.
From Doyle Brunson: Pay close attention. Even in hands you are not involved in. If you only watch the other players when you are in a hand, then you are getting far less information on your opponents than you could be.
From I don't know who: Don't go broke with a pair. This is just one of those cardinal rules, which you should remember every time you flop top pair and someone else goes all in. Stop. Think. What is that guy going all-in with? Chances are it's better than a pair.
From Phil Gordon: Drink lots of water.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Bits of Poker Wisdom
I have read quite a few books and blogs about poker and I'd like to share some of the advice that I find particularly compelling.
From Willie Nelson: Perhaps the best piece of advice is to be yourself. If you try to emulate others, you will likely just do a poor job of it. I used to have difficulty when I had a big stack of chips in a tournament. I knew from the books I read that in that position I was supposed to bully the small stacks around, so I tried to do that. But I was not a good bully. Being a bully is unnatural for me, so I am unconvincing and ineffective when I try to play that role. Willie Nelson said something to the effect of "If you are a butterfly, don't try to be an eagle." What he meant was you are always most effective when you are true to own nature. Willie was talking about poker. The great thing about poker is that a smart butterfly can beat a hundred sharks, lions and eagles.
From Chris Ferguson: Never stop learning. The moment you think you have the game figured out is the moment it has passed you by. You can only be your best if your are constantly trying to get better.
From Jennifer Harman: Everybody, even the worst players, does one thing very well. You can learn something from even the worst players.
From Howard Lederer: Be a well-rounded human being. Once you grasp the basics of the game, then understanding human nature is the key to success at the poker table. By sitting in a casino or on an internet poker site for 60 hours a week, you are actually limiting your experiences too much. Read philosophy, do yoga, learn to play the violin. Any number of activities that stretch your mind in different ways will give you insights that your leather-assed opponents may never have.
From Antonio Esfandiari: Think about what your opponent is trying to get you to do, and do the opposite. Usually profitable. It is good to always be asking yourself, "What is he trying to get me to do?" After awhile you will find you can get better at predicting your opponents actions. Of course if you always do the opposite, he's going to catch on.
Also from Antonio Esfandiari: Never tell bad beat stories.
Also from Antonio Esfandiari: Never bet a lot to win a little.
From Mike Caro: Never call "poker-clack." "Poker-clack" is that clucking sound of disapproval people make with their tongues. If someone is raising the pot and they make that sound, fold.
These are just the few that came to my mind this morning. More tomorrow.
From Willie Nelson: Perhaps the best piece of advice is to be yourself. If you try to emulate others, you will likely just do a poor job of it. I used to have difficulty when I had a big stack of chips in a tournament. I knew from the books I read that in that position I was supposed to bully the small stacks around, so I tried to do that. But I was not a good bully. Being a bully is unnatural for me, so I am unconvincing and ineffective when I try to play that role. Willie Nelson said something to the effect of "If you are a butterfly, don't try to be an eagle." What he meant was you are always most effective when you are true to own nature. Willie was talking about poker. The great thing about poker is that a smart butterfly can beat a hundred sharks, lions and eagles.
From Chris Ferguson: Never stop learning. The moment you think you have the game figured out is the moment it has passed you by. You can only be your best if your are constantly trying to get better.
From Jennifer Harman: Everybody, even the worst players, does one thing very well. You can learn something from even the worst players.
From Howard Lederer: Be a well-rounded human being. Once you grasp the basics of the game, then understanding human nature is the key to success at the poker table. By sitting in a casino or on an internet poker site for 60 hours a week, you are actually limiting your experiences too much. Read philosophy, do yoga, learn to play the violin. Any number of activities that stretch your mind in different ways will give you insights that your leather-assed opponents may never have.
From Antonio Esfandiari: Think about what your opponent is trying to get you to do, and do the opposite. Usually profitable. It is good to always be asking yourself, "What is he trying to get me to do?" After awhile you will find you can get better at predicting your opponents actions. Of course if you always do the opposite, he's going to catch on.
Also from Antonio Esfandiari: Never tell bad beat stories.
Also from Antonio Esfandiari: Never bet a lot to win a little.
From Mike Caro: Never call "poker-clack." "Poker-clack" is that clucking sound of disapproval people make with their tongues. If someone is raising the pot and they make that sound, fold.
These are just the few that came to my mind this morning. More tomorrow.
Friday, August 20, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)