Punishing Tight(er) Players (Part 2: In for the Kill)

Having covered general bullying in Part One, now we turn to digging a hole big enough to catch these players for the maximum payout. After continued bullying, raising both their limps and their attempts at pre-flop raising, we should be succeeding as time goes by in ruffling their feathers. Note that sometimes this strategy results in intimidating a player to such an extent that they withdraw into severe passivity or even stop playing altogether – this is by no means a disaster because we’ve managed to steal their money along the way.

At some point, most likely after venturing as far as the flop (and paying for the privilege by calling our [re]raise) and being bet into, they will be really struggling with the fact that we can’t have caught enough of the flop every time. It’s only human nature for the constant bullying to have a cumulatively negative effect and, inevitably, there comes a point at which they’ll snap or, quite feasibly, decide to punish us.

As we gain experience we learn to recognise this tipping point, and at this stage we need to adjust our strategy so that at the next opportunity (and subsequent spots thereafter, should they not bite – during which time we’re still collecting their money) we raise with a big hand. In the meantime it’s worth stepping back a little when they limp and raise so as to add to the tension while narrowing down our range…

Ultimately we’re hoping that the two worlds that are the opposition’s frustration (and consequent poor decision making) and our finding strong hole cards collide in an all-in situation. This might arise via our reraising pre-flop, betting to their check and them pushing all-in, or a raising war pre-flop.

Of course this won’t always work – and there’s no guarantee we’ll win the big pot – but such a strategy against the right kind of player can be profitable over time regardless of whether it reaps maximum reward.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Decision Making on the Turn (Part 2: Decent hands and Draws)

Part 2: Decent hands and Draws

Having considered how we should treat both poor and less than average marginal hands with a healthy dose of caution when contemplating the potential efficacy of a battle plan from the flop to the turn/river, we can now put our minds to dealing with genuinely good hands on the flop (for strong hands see Part 3).

Remember the fact that we have connected with the flop to the extent that further action looks justified means being careful to not get too carried away, so interpreting actions with a degree of accuracy is imperative.

Typical hands that fall into this category of essentially being too good to routinely surrender without a fight, but not big enough to throw the kitchen sink in with are, for example, top pair with a good kicker, bottom two pair and as yet unmade but potential winners in the form of strong flush and straight draws. Of course we should automatically take into account such things as stack sizes and position (very important!), while flop texture is obviously going to have an influence on our actions depending on what kind of hand we have. With a made hand and possible draws in play we need to accordingly hike up the price for others to stay in contention.

It gets a little more complex when we have the draw as position assumes maximum significance. The more information the better because, as well as being better able to determine the right pot odds for the draw, having good position affords us semi-bluffing possibilities under the right circumstances. Typically situational, much will depend on others’ actions (including previous history) because such a tactic can backfire. Has the opposition shown signs of being more than just an unimaginative ABC type player? Are they likely to be slowplaying a monster? Without overcards we might well have only eight outs, and so on. With poor position it’s essential to tread very carefully indeed but there is still room for manoeuvre. For example if we raised preflop and now have a strong draw, a bet that represents a made hand both gives us a chance of remaining in the driving seat and sets us up perfectly in the case of hitting (especially against those players prone to bluffing).

With these hands we need to plan constructively but realistically, with a view to maintaining a level of pot control. Position is often crucial, which should serve as a reminder to generally respect this would-be golden rule, especially when we don’t hold strong hands, which will be the subject of Part 3.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Playing small pocket pairs against different styles (Part 2)

Part 2: Versus Tight Passive Opponents

In the context of our getting busy with small pocket pairs, we’re probably not going to have a fun, exciting time against Tight Passive players due to the rather unadventurous, timid nature of their approach. But that isn’t to say we shouldn’t bother being aggressive when we are dealt holdings like 55 and they will be our likely opponents in the hand. Moreover, this actually fits in nicely with our general strategy against so-called weak-tight players because they tend anyway to be easier to exploit and, consequently, we should be looking to take advantage of their overly cautious strategy whenever opportunities present themselves.

Essentially, these players put so much emphasis on being tight that when they do commit it’s indicative of a monster hand. Note that they will also be playing small pairs, but only by limping or calling a manageable raise. When the flop brings them nothing concrete they have a habit of just giving up in the face of aggression, which is why raising pre-flop with small pocket pairs against Tight Passive opposition is a profitable play. Apart from helping in isolating them, raising is also preferable to limping because by assuming the initiative we are defining the respective roles in anticipation of making our continuation bet on the flop a more credible move. Unless they have hit we will pick up the pot regardless of whether we improved. Remember, too, that position is not a very significant factor here – these players base their decisions on hand strength. Nor will they try bluffing or bullying tactics. When they do seem happy to commit we should take their action seriously, even when we have hit a set and they have voluntarily put themselves all-in.

Our strategy with small pocket pairs against Tight Passive players is to take the initiative with a view to pushing them off the pot after they have failed to connect with the flop, being prepared to occasionally continue with the aggression on subsequent streets. Ideally, we want to raise enough just to tempt them in, and then step up a gear once the flop arrives with a bet big enough to help them stick to their game plan.

Our own holding is usually going to be less relevant than against other styles where we should have greater implied odds. It’s nice to have a pair (and the potential to hit big) but the theme here is exploiting our considerable fold equity which, over time, can make up for what we are having to give up in implied odds, thanks in no small part to the fact that by raising with our modest pairs the initiative helps us pick up the pots in which we’re behind.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador,

Bluffs: To show, or not to show (Part 2)

Continuing from where we left off in Part 1, showing bluffs is a powerful tool when it sows the seeds of doubt in the opposition’s mind. Everyone is susceptible to being paranoid, and even a single reveal can be enough to unbalance a player, make them overly suspicious in scenarios they’ve thus far been handling well.

Delving a little further into the psychology of showing bluffs, a particularly effective (and amusing) tactic is to throw in a series of bluffs and shows and then suddenly stop (showing, not bluffing!).

Note that we can ‘randomly’ show (to advertise generally), or single out just one opponent as the target of the strategy. Either way, the whole table gets to see, of course, and we need to keep in mind that not everyone will share the same interpretation of our behaviour and, consequently, different players will respond in different ways. Furthermore, others will also be scrutinising how a player we might be targeting reacts to our actions and adjust accordingly. These factors can then prevent us from achieving our aim.

Given the dangers inherent in overdoing the virtual flipping of our cards after a bluff, we should also try to be aware of situations where showing tends not to be a good policy. For example at a table that we’ve been managing to boss we don’t want to suddenly draw attention to our stealing because the well will dry up as we wait to pounce.

Essentially, if the bluffs we’re showing don’t logically fit in with our overall table image the inconsistency will be conspicuous enough to render our strategy practically useless. Rather than succeeding in sending the opposition down a route of our choosing and setting up traps for the future, being impossible to read and a master of disguise, we run the risk of being the most transparent player at the table.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador 

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No – it’s Blaze Poker! (Part 2)

Here are a few more thoughts to consider when playing 32Red’s exciting new Blaze Poker:

Position

The ‘Position! Position! Position!’ poker mantra should never be forgotten, but with the Blaze format it is even more significant than usual. Information being paramount at standard NL tables, we’re not going to have as much to go on here because, despite getting to know some of the players as we occasionally bump into them during our random table assignations, in many hands we’ll find ourselves up against players about whom we know very little or even nothing. Consequently, without any useful history and playing habits to work with, it would be too much of an edge to give away were we to voluntarily enter the fray with sub-optimal holdings out of position. Moreover, given the nature of the game, whose Quick Fold facility essentially embarrasses people into concentrating so heavily on premium hands, we have to take into consideration the fact that many more players who get involved will have considerably stronger hands than usual, in turn increasing the importance of position. Once the hand gets going we need – particularly post-flop – as much in our armoury as possible.

Look out for the Small Blind Thieves!

Stealing the blinds is part of the game but there is a different kind of dynamic to the psychology in Blaze Poker due to the collective (early, out of position) auto-folding that induces the SB to think a steal could be on the cards if the BB, too, isn’t prepared to invest any more in a hand. When in the BB, rather than blindly (ahem) joining in the fold-fest (thoughtlessly using the ‘check-fold’ button, for example), I would recommend waiting to see what’s happening – we’re already going to be able to fit many more hands into a session with Blaze Poker, so there’s no need to go overboard at the cost of potentially exploitable, profitable opportunities.

Following on from what we touched upon in Part 1, an effective play might well be to 3-bet the SB’s aggression when heads-up, regardless of our holding. We will be raised very rarely (and will anyway have position after calling), will pick up the pot quite often, and be in position – with the initiative – the rest of the time.

Call pre-flop all-ins only with a monster

Again, Blaze Poker is going to affect different people in numerous ways as some seek to exploit how they perceive others will approach the format, some will tweak their game slightly, some won’t change at all, some will take an unorthodox stance, and so on. Remember also that at these popular (lower) blind levels there will be players who are simply enjoying the change of scene.

Nevertheless, when it comes to straight shoves pre-flop, it’s risky calling with anything less than premium, and I’m not even sure that KK merits a place alongside AA as a premium all-in calling hand in the Blaze format; certainly QQ, JJ and AK are just asking for trouble.

Perhaps suggesting we stand down with KK in this situation could be considered a little too cautious, but at least the fact that we’re being dealt so many hands at such a comparatively rapid rate means we should not be impatient as AA will come around sooner than on a standard table.

Of course there are numerous practical (and psychological) implications and considerations to keep in mind when switching to Blaze Poker but, for the time being, at least, I hope these tips help make a session easier to handle!

Good luck at the Blaze tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Tournaments: Short-handed versus Full-table (Part 2)

While patience is less of a factor in short-handed tournaments compared with a full table, information is even more important than usual. Given that here we’re having to pay more for each orbit (and thus actually play more), it’s obviously imperative that we know as much as possible about how our opponents play.

We should try to glean maximum information as quickly as possible without – of course – investing much of our own stack in the process. It makes sense, then, to sit back a little during the first level or two, perhaps avoiding speculative plays for the moment. This has a couple of advantages, one being that we get to learn about others’ playing habits at someone else’s expense. Significantly, this approach also prevents the opposition from learning about us, while this fact-finding period also gives us extra time during which we can actually better gauge both how we might tackle this or that player and what table image we want to generate.

Note that, rather than diving into a tournament all guns blazing because it’s short-handed and we feel we must fight fire with fire from the off, so much can be gained by initially taking a back seat. The advantages offered by a slow start are potentially immense, but meaningless tricks, unjustified involvement and failing to establish a table image that we (not our opponents) can subsequently exploit are ways to irrevocably damage our tournament prospects.

Once we have amassed enough useful information about our opponents we can then adjust accordingly. For example, against genuinely passive opponents (as opposed to those who have also been craftily observing) we should of course be looking to isolate and then put them under pressure with (over)bets and raises (remembering to make these look believable). Some players are clearly new to short-handed games and are unwilling/unable to shake off the shackles that restrict their freedom to remain involved in difficult pots. It’s surprising how easy it is to scare them away during the latter stages of a hand by putting their tournament life to the test; this tactic can reap sizeable rewards when a pot has been building up, but we need to engineer it properly to avoid it backfiring.

Aggressive, bullying players can be dealt with in numerous ways depending on circumstances, our own table and so on, but essentially we need to let them know that we’re both unpredictable and not to be messed with, even if this means (re)raising with nothing and showing our trash when we’ve won the pot (this cheeky play also serves to confuse everyone else at the table).

Obviously there’s a lot to learn about the rich tapestry that makes up short-handed tournaments, but if we start slowly, learn about the opposition during the first couple of levels and remember to be deliberate about our own plays in order to create an effective table image, then already we will have a considerable edge.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Poker, like life, needs balance… Part 2

By ‘balancing’ our play we mean that, rather than doing exactly the same thing each time we are faced with a given situation, instead we act differently every now and then.

An obvious example is what we do with aces. Rather than automatically opening with the standard raise we could be a bit more tricky and limp (with a view to reraising). The intended result is to sow the seeds of doubt in the opposition’s minds so that our actions become increasingly more difficult to read and, in turn, more awkward to react to.

While we might occasionally hold back – at least initially – with pocket aces, we could step up a gear with smaller pairs so that instead of entering a pot as cheaply as possible we (re)raise. As well as making us less predictable, this kind of aggressive play brings with it the additional advantage of putting our opponents under pressure.

Of course we must remember to avoid letting our ‘extra’ plays become the new norm, as this would make us even more ripe for exploitation than we were in the first place. If we start to overdo pre-flop 3-betting with small pairs, then chances are that it won’t take too long for us to find ourselves being punished, with opponents even being able to bully us off the pot simply by bluffing.

The point behind our being flexible is to reduce our predictability and thus make it harder for opponents to adjust to our (too limited) strategy. Going overboard merely helps highlight which elements of our approach others should be adjusting to, whereas failing to do anything that mixes up our play doesn’t sufficiently trouble anyone and, consequently, gives the opposition more freedom to hone their own strategies.

Thus we need to find an effective balance that allows us to slow down with bigger hands and speed up with 33, for example, while at the same time continuing to be aggressive most of the time with monster holdings.

The key is to continually strive to unsettle and confuse opponents throughout a session, while simultaneously making sure that these occasional alternative tactics do indeed remain occasional so that the foundations of our overall strategy remain in place. This comes with experience and it is easier to balance out our play than we might imagine. Crucially, if we don’t make adjustments to our game, then others will.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

No Limit: Should we always dump ‘Trap’ hands? (Part 2)

Gaining and using information – or interpreting the various pieces of the puzzle that we’re presented with – is an imperative. We tend to bet rather than check because this induces a meaningful reaction. So, back to our example, we raise in early position and bet the K93 flop. Now anything but a fold is clearly some kind of declaration of intent, but the problem with this type of holding is that, while each of these possible responses can indeed tell us something, not having AK means that the element of doubt rears its ugly head from our own hand rather than the opposition’s. We simply don’t know whether or not our hand is dominated. Add to this the problem being compounded by being out of position, and hitting the card we were hoping to see suddenly isn’t the advantageous situation it first appears to be.

For instance, what do we do when, betting our top pair and good kicker, we are faced with a raise? The prudent answer would really be to fold because unless it is an audacious bluff someone has just been perfectly happy to follow up calling our initial bet by raising our continued aggression on a K-high flop.

And a call here is hardly great news, either. It’s fair to assume that our opponent wasn’t paying to see the flop with a mediocre Kx. Of course at the lower limits people can call pre-flop with anything, but as the standard of play keeps improving – and if we’re continually striving to develop – we should be trying to approach the game assuming others are following a generally decent strategy. With all this in mind we could do worse than avoid raising pre-flop in early position with the ostensibly friendly but nonetheless potentially hazardous KJ and similar hands. It might indeed be one of the better hands but, if we get any significant action, it usually means we’re up against a stronger one.

Even in middle position we are still vulnerable to landing in the same situation by raising pre-flop, but if it’s folded round to us in the cut-off or button, the fewer potential banana skins and the fact we (should) have position justify raising. Again the prospect of being dominated needs to be taken into account when meeting with more aggression than we’d prefer to see.

But what about limping with the likes of KJ? In early position it’s simply too much hassle because we really don’t want to be calling any raises and we’re out of position. Limping in middle position might be okay if we believe that the nature of the play thus far affords us an edge over certain players in this kind of scenario, and late position obviously offers more flexibility. However, we need to remember here that such a play is susceptible to exploitation by those who are also coming along for a cheap ride with tricky suited connectors, for example.

Different players are happy with different approaches, but it is clear that some of those hands that look good are actually bad for us. An easy solution, especially for lesser experienced players, would be to limit activity to suited cards, and only in middle/late position.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the 32Red Poker tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Tweet

Sit & Go: Sit & Stay (Part 2)

Let’s say we have limped in a few times with ‘promising’ hole cards – folding to a bet after missing the flop, folding on the turn after calling post-flop or even having to fold pre-flop when confronted with a big raise – and these plays have seen our stack decrease from an initial 1000 chips to 820. Only one player has been eliminated and we’re in 7th. Then comes the next deal.

Continuing with the same ‘strategy’ we call with Ah 7h for 40 on the button with four other players, after which the BB raises to 80, a couple of players call, as do we. The flop comes As Kh 2s, the BB bets 100, the initial callers fold and we’re the only obstacle between the BB and the pot. What do we do? We have top pair and there’s a heart on the board, so we decide to call. The turn is the 9c and the BB bets a modest 100 again. The flush has gone but we still have top pair and stick with it. The river brings the 8c and this time the BB ups the bet to 200 and we call. He could have been on a spade flush draw or raising pre-flop with a pocket pair like jacks or tens. He takes the pot with his AK (surprise, surprise… not) and we’re left looking at our stack of 340 and wondering how it got so low when all we’ve done is make a few calls and had a go at a pot with a pair of aces. This is a common way to play – no doubt inspired by the loose approach to multi-table tournaments that some players adopt in order to strike lucky and steal a start on the rest of the field.

But in a Sit & Go, where we need only to finish higher than seven players – rather than 700 – to make the money, this is a poor game-plan. What makes it a seriously dangerous one is the gradual, hardly noticeable decline in chips brought about by what appear to be small but are in reality collectively significant bets. Don’t fall into this mindset.

Note, too, that going all-in at the early levels when most or all of the players are still at the table is also fraught with danger – regardless of our hole cards. Making a stand even with AA might offer the best chances of significantly increasing our stack but, importantly, runs the risk of elimination, particularly when two or three others are also all-in. Moreover, during the earlier rounds, an experienced player’s involuntary feeling of excitement on seeing his AA appear on the screen is tempered by the danger signals that follow a split second later – good cards can be our undoing (but of course we should still welcome them). Furthermore, the stronger players will be rubbing their hands when a couple of players go all-in before the tournament has had a chance to warm up, hoping for more callers to follow, and also hoping that the all-in fever spreads. Someone might take a big lead with 4000 chips after knocking three players out, but the tournament has then been downsized to seven players.

Start slowly, be selective, disciplined, attentive, patient and calm. Sit & Stay. When we’re down to, say, five players, the time has come to step up a gear and, although we could be quite a way behind the leaders, at least now were in a position to battle it out in a 5-player tournament that has three prizes. In a game that is essentially the survival of the fittest in the quest for the money, it’s a case of five down, two to go.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Tweet

Multi-Table Rebuy Tournaments: Basic Strategy (Part 2)

If we are willing to put another €1 in such a tournament to strengthen our position, then we should also be happy to spend the same amount in restarting after losing our starting stack. Obviously there is a point at which continually rebuying loses its value in relation to the prizes, while for some players practical implications (bankroll) understandably take precedence even before this point as there is no guarantee that disaster will not strike even when the going looks good. Timing is also a factor. For example if we lose everything just before the end of the rebuy period so that the tournament situation (number of players left, prizes and prize structure, average stack etc.) suggests that even a rebuy and the subsequent add-on will not put us in a strong enough position to compete, then there is nothing wrong with calling it a day. Rebuying with a view to making our presence felt is one thing, but rebuying simply because we can is quite another. Sometimes we might react so poorly to even a single reverse that we are no longer in a position to play properly, in which case a rebuy is likely to be followed soon after by an ill-judged all-in, another loss and, potentially, a series of tilt rebuys. This is not so much of a problem in the lower buy-in tournaments, perhaps, but can be dangerous to most players’ bankrolls at a higher level.

Looseness is not only a major characteristic of rebuy tournaments, but a necessary tactic, in fact. Assuming again that we are not worried about forking out for two or three rebuys (at least), then getting involved with marginal hands is fine. Even if we lose the stack we can rebuy, while a bit of luck or post-flop skill might net a bag load of chips. We also need to factor in how others are playing, for there are many who interpret ‘loosening up’ as taking their chances with just about any decent looking cards thanks to the rebuy safety-cushion. It doesn’t take long to identify these players, and nor should we have to wait too long to find hole cards with which we can challenge them (here is another good reason to rebuy early, since these players tend also to get into the rebuy spirit either by buying extra chips or going all-in – or both – and thus have more chips to donate). Note also that just as we observe other players’ habits, so we are being watched. Consequently, any ostensibly loose play we show during the first few levels might induce certain players to call our big bets when we have genuine holdings at a later, more critical stage of the tournament.

Finally there is the add-on at the end of the rebuy period. Unless we are way, way ahead of the pack it makes sense to buy the additional chips. Even if we are languishing near the bottom of the remaining players these chips can come in handy when we consider how quickly fortunes and circumstances can change for the better. Like the initial early add-on rebuy and the flexibility afforded us by the restart rebuy, the final add-on is a key part of these tournaments.

Rebuy multi-table tournaments generate both a large number of chips in play and, generally, a prize fund that snowballs during the rebuy period. In order to properly compete for the bigger prizes we should be willing to invest several times the amount of the buy-in because, if we don’t, we will be at a considerable disadvantage to enough of those who do.

Good luck at the tables!

Angus Dunnington (AngusD at the tables)
32Red Poker Ambassador

Tweet

Next Page »