Me Being a Weak Mouse

This hands been bugging me for awhile. I played it weakly the whole way through and playing anything weakly is wrong unless its practically unbeatable.

I limped with Jack-Ten in late position. The flop was 9-8-T, giving me an open ended straight draw with top pair. I bet out the size of the pot, $8. I got one caller, then a raiser who made it $16 total. I called the $8 more as did the previous caller. The turn was a 3. The check-raiser checked, as did I. The caller went all-in for about $40. The check-raiser called. I knew the check-raiser had the same exact hand as me, Jack-10. I then folded. My logic was that I was risking $40 to, at best, split the $56 from the 3rd player in the hand.

I always say that playing great poker is being able to win pots in which you have the same hand as an opponent. The only way to do this is to be aggressive. I've been able to do this with hands like Ace-King, Ace-Queen, Ace-Jack, and even once with Queen-Ten against a calling station.

With the Jack-Ten situation, here's what I should have done. Since I knew my pair of tens were good, and I was up against the same hand, I could have won the pot by being aggressive. Instead, I lost $16 cuz I was too passive.

No matter what the river was, I can go all-in and win the pot. If we both hit our straight, I'll get a call. If we both hit trips or two pair, I get a call. Even if he calls me with just a pair of 10s with a Jack kicker, we still split up $56 between us, or $28 a piece. If he folds, the $56 from the 3rd player, along with the $16 from the other guy with Jack-Ten comes my way at the end of the hand.

There's no way he'd be able to call an all-in from a player as tight as me. Even though the move is a ludicrous overbet, which might give him reason to call, with my reputation (the guy had played with me for 6 hours at this point so he knew how tight was), I don't see how he could call. At that point, I had about $270 in chips in front of me. He had more, but it would have been a big blow to his stack. He simply couldn't call the bet. Nor could he re-raise it, obviously.

By folding, I lost $16 on the hand. Had I called the all-in on the turn, then pushed all-in on the river against the same hand, I would have profited $72. Once again, I wasn't the lion at the table I'd like to be, I was a fucking mouse.

A Mistake or Not?

I have Ace-Queen. I raise 6 times the blind, a standard raise at $100 NL. I get 3 callers, 2 of them before me, 1 after me. The flop is 5-10-2, with 2 hearts. I don't have much of a hand and only 2 backdoor draws. The first two players check, and I bet $15 hoping to take down the pot. The player to my right raises me to $45. The other two players fold.

I'm fairly confident that at that moment, my Ace high was good, and he was just trying to make a move on the pot. Either that, or he had top pair or something, in which case I might be able to push him off of the hand. He had shown a proficiency for bluffing, and I put him on a semi-bluff.

I asked him how many more chips he had. He had $61 after the $45 raise. In my opinion, my only move was to raise him or to fold. A call gives him an opportunity to catch or bluff again on the turn.

The only raise that was feasible was an all-in raise. I knew he would call an all-in and if I simply minimum re-raised him to $75 total, he was going to go all-in anyway.

All I had was Ace high, and 2 backdoor draws. However, I was pretty sure I had the best hand. However, I was also pretty sure I was up against a monster draw. Since I was unpaired, he not only had flush draw outs, he had outs to hit a pair. I figured it was about 50/50 and decided to fold and wait for a better spot. He showed King-7 of hearts so he had the monster draw, but I had the best hand.

The odds on the flop were 53.13% in my favor. I should have put him all-in.

Even though it was close to 50/50 that I lose an additional $106 on the hand, the pot odds were in my favor. Assuming he calls the all-in, which he would have, the pot would be $260. I'd be risking $106 to win $154. Those are odds of 1.45 to 1. I was a 1.13 to 1 favorite to win the hand.

In 1,000 instances of this hand after the flop, if I put him all-in, I lose 469 times, and win 531 times. In the times I lose, I lose $49,714. In the times I win, I make $81,774. That's $32,060 profit over 1,000 hands, or $32 a hand. Risking $106 to win, on average, $32 of profit isn't that much, but over the long run it adds up. I should have put him all-in.

I should have realized the benefits of my hand. Yes, the King-7 had a great deal of outs, but even if they hit, I would still have outs. If he hits the flush, I'm still 16% to win the hand. If he hits a pair of 7s, I'm still 11.4% to win the hand. If he hits a pair of Kings, I'm still 13.6% to win with an overcard and a gutshot straight draw.

Also, I have many cards in the deck that improve my hand. An Ace on the turn makes me 81.8% to win the hand. A Queen makes me 75.0% to win.

Even though 47.87% of the time I'd lose an extra $106 on the hand, the fold I made loses $27 100% of the time. Over 1,000 occurrences, that is losing $27,000. Granted, over the same number of instances, I'm only winning $32,000, but that is a $59,000 swing compared to folding. In other words, by folding, I saw an average down swing of $59 on my bankroll.

Mathematically, going all-in was the right decision to make. It also would have been beneficial in terms of gameplay. Here is why:

1. It shows an overly aggressive player with position on me that he won't be able to push me around. Even if I lose, he'll think twice before trying to force me out of hands when he only has a draw. He might only call the next time he has a drawing hand.

2. It shows the entire table that they will have difficulty pushing me around. Because I'm so tight, aggressive players sometimes can push me off of winning hands. This costs me money in the long run.

3. It shows the table that I will bet with hands that aren't the nuts. This will give me action in the long run. I often don't get action from good players even when they have great hands because of my tight reputation.

4. If I lose, I reload and my stack goes back to $100, only about $30 below what it was before the hand. If I win, my stack is at $260, which means I'd be $130 more powerful at the table. I could be more aggressive, chase more cards, and win bigger pots against the other big stacks at the table.

AK vs. AJ vs. 99

I raise in early position with Ace-King. I raise to $10 ($100 NL, $1/$2 blinds). I get a caller. I put him on Ace-Jack, maybe even Ace-Queen. Whatever it was, it was Ace-X with a weaker X than mine. Good so far. Then a player re-raises me to $50. I put him on a middle pair, at least 8s, not higher than 10s though. I consider my position.

Calling is absolutely not an option. I've only got $100 in front of me, and putting in half my stack when I'm 1 in 3 to hit the flop just isn't a viable choice. I have 2 moves. I can move all-in or I can fold.

If I move all-in, the player with Ace-Jack will probably fold. However, I believed that the guy with the middle pair would have called the re-re-raise.

Since the player who called my raise has AJ, I know at least one of the cards in the deck that could help me is not going to come out. This isn't a race anymore. Heads up, AK vs. 99 is only 44.5% to win. Take out an Ace, and I'm in even worse shape. It just wasn't worth it. I had to fold.

The player with Ace-Jack called, pushed all-in on a blank flop, was called, turned a Jack, and rivered an Ace. I think I played the hand correctly. I protected my chips and didn't gamble. In a tournament, I may have pushed all-in, but cash games are lifelong things.

Off to the Races

Racing is one of the unique aspects of Texas Hold Em. Two overcards are almost as likely to win a hand as a pair is. On the World Series of Poker, and the WPT, the races are the most hyped up hands. ESPN's coverage is particularly favorable to showing all-in races.

Inexperienced players, however, don't seem to understand the concept of racing. They know it is a 50/50 chance to win or lose, but they don't get why they should or should not race, and when they should do it.

In tournaments, I'm a big supporter of racing. I'll throw all my chips into the middle at most points of a tournament in the hopes of doubling up. Granted, it is a coin flip, but winning tournaments is all about chip accumulation. Occasionally, if I have a medium sized stack, I'll avoid racing. But, if I'm short-stacked, I need to take the risk in order to increase my chances of winning the tournament or placing well. If I have a big stack, I can afford to take the risk of losing chips in order to potentially gain chips. You can't win a tournament without getting lucky, going to the races, and winning them. Just as Craig Raymer.

Cash games are different. Tournaments are short sprints of poker playing. Even a long tournament like the WSOP Main Event is a relatively short sampling of poker. About the most hands you one can play in the Main Event is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000. Just think about how many hands you play online or in a cash game over the course of a year and you'll see 5,000 is a small sampling to a player that plays regularly.

In cash games, it is all about the long haul. Why would you want to flip a coin for a few hundred dollars whenever there's a race? I always ask people how come they didn't just go to the roulette table and put $100 on black. The odds are about the same.

Some races are not exactly 50/50. Queens vs. AK suited, for example, can be close to 54/46. Over the long run, if you have the pair, you'll win 54 hands and lose 46. If all these hands are all-ins for say $100, and the situation occurs 100 times, you'll win $5400 and lose $4600. That's $800 over the course of 100 hands, or $8 per hand. Over time that adds up, but you need a large bankroll to endure the losses you'll receive 23 times out of 50.

At the same time, these races with hands like Big Slick or Big Bitch, will lose around 54 to 51% of the time. Over the long run, that means you're losing money. You're also taking big hits to your bankroll in order to lose money in the long run.

Not all races, of course, are all-in races. In these situations, it is typically better to have a pocket pair. With two non-paired cards, the odds of flopping at least a pair are 2.1 to 1, or 32.26%. This means if you're holding two overcards, you will miss on the flop 77.74%. After the flop, it is no longer a race. Without a draw, AK is about a 25% likely winner against a pocket pair that hasn't hit a set. Of course, if the pocket pair does hit a set, AK is drawing completely dead unless there is at least a backdoor draw.

What matters more than the cards in these non all-in races, is aggression and the ability to read players. You might have 99 heads up against AQ, and the flop might come KJ7. That isn't a good flop for 99, but if you can read your opponent, you'll know you have the best hand. You'll also know when and if the AQ hits one of its 10 outs on the turn or river.

Aggression plays a big part in winning races, even without cards. I was once in a hand with AK against 77. The player had limped with 77, and I raised with AK. He called. The problem for him was that he NEEDED to hit one of two outs on the flop in order to win the hand. Why? Because if he didn't, I was going to bet. Because he was playing the hand passively, and I was being the aggressor, my hand turned from Ace-King into anything I wanted to represent. There were 24 overcards in the deck that could come out that I could represent. I could also represent an overpair, or a straight, or a flush. Even though he was a 53% favorite preflop, because of my aggression, he was really only about 12%. The pot was about $25, 88% of the time I take that down, profiting $13, and 12% of the time I lose $12. On average, I'm profiting $10 per hand.

By the same token, if I raise with 77, and a player calls me with AK, the pressure is now on him to hit the flop. As mentioned above, he'll only do this about 1 time out of 3. If I don't think he's hit the flop, or if he hasn't hit the flop that hard with a hand like Ace-Jack and say he hits 2nd pair, then I can take down the pot by betting it.

So what should you do if it is a race. Well, avoid it if possible, unless you're in a gambling state of mind. Try to be the aggressor in the race. Also try to get into racing situations with players you've got a bead on.

A side note: I see a lot of bad poker at the $100 NL tables at Turning Stone. Sometimes I'm the one playing bad poker. However, I saw a great hand of poker played by a kid at the Stone on Monday night. He had QQ under the gun, and raised. He got 3 callers. The flop was 2-3-4, with 2 diamonds. It was checked to him. He bet out $15. He was raised by the player who checked to him. He though hard, then folded his Queens, showing the table. The player who check-raised him flipped over Ace-5 of diamonds. The player with A5 shouldn't have been in the hand, but the player with Queens played his hand aggressively until he found out he was beat.

Low Pocket Pair Vs. High Pocket Pair

I used to think that calling bets with low pocket pairs, even when I knew I was killed was an intelligent thing to do. Upon further review, I was wrong.

My thinking used to be like this, spike a set and win a huge pot. However, I've thought some more about it.

If going against a high pair, a lower pair needs to spike a set on the flop, this only happens 10.8% of the time. Let's say both stacks are at $100 and the preflop raise was $10 on top of the blinds. Let's also say there are a few other callers, which is the only time I'll go in when I know I'm beat. In theory, if I spike the set on the flop, and the guy with the high pair doesn't have the discipline to fold, I'll take ll his chips. I'll pay $10 to win a pot of about $130. That's 13 to 1 implied odds. However, about 1 time out of 6, that high pocket pair will also hit a set by the river. Let's say you're good enough to know when your set is up against a higher set on the flop. You get all your chips in on the flop with the best hand. The odds that the high pocket pair will hit a set are about 10.25 to 1 or 8.89%. So let's look at all the odds.

Pocket pair flopping a set: 10.8%, 8.26 to 1, will occur 1,080 times in 10,000 hands
High pocket pair hitting set on turn or river: 8.89%, 10.25 to 1, will occur 889 times in 10,000 hands.

If you don't flop the set, you'll lose $10 on the hand as the player with a high pocket pair will probably bet strong on the flop. So in 10,000 hands, you will fold on the flop 8,920 times and lose $8,920 over 10,000 occurrences of this situation.

Of the 1,080 times you stay in the hand, you will get outdrawn about 96 times by a higher set. On these 96 hands, the odds of you getting your quads are negligible. It will happen maybe once. The 95 successful outdraws will result in losses of your entire stack, most likely. This means a loss of $100, 95 times. $9,500 lost in total. The 985 times you win will result in a profit of $128,050. So in the long run, in 10,000 occurrences of this situation, you will win $128,050 and lose $18,420. This is a net profit of $109,630 over 10,000 occurrences. But, this is only $10.96 hand and doesn't take into the consideration the times you will both spike sets, which means you will either lose $10 if you're good enough to fold a lower set, or lose all your chips if you're not.

Here is when you should play your low pocket pairs:
If it's a limpfest and it only costs you $2 to see a flop. You can limp with deuces under the gun if you'd like, especially if the players in late position aren't typical late position raisers and you might see the flop for the cost of the blind. On the off chance you flop a set, you might be able to extract a good amount of chips from the other limpers who might catch top pair or two pair or something like that. You also might be able to see some free cards and be able to spike the set on the turn or river. Hell, your pocket pair just might stand up and win the pot. Don't count on this, though.

When playing against a raise, it becomes difficult. You don't want to go heads up when you're crushed by a higher pocket pair. Some players are so bad, that you might be able to tell you're up against Aces or Kings. However, if both of your stacks are large, say $250 or more, you might consider going heads up. About 10% of the time, you'll be able to take down $250 of profit for a $10 investment. This means losing $90 and winning $250 every 10 occurrences of the situation. That's about $16 a hand, which isn't a bad profit potential for a $10 investment.

If you have raises and re-raises, just fold the low pair. You have no idea how much it will cost you to play your pair and the likelihood of running up against a bigger set has doubled.

So play the low pairs, try to see cheap flops. If the flop is expensive, only play if you've got a large stack, your opponent(s) has/have large stacks, you have the discipline to fold a lower set, and your opponents don't have the discipline to fold an overpair.

Also, read this article:

Pesky Middling Pairs