Collection of various Shorthanded Limit Hold'em articles/posts Opener 1-2 Limpers Facing A Raise Facing 3 Bet UTG MP CO Button MP CO Button MP CO Button CO Button AA R R R R R R R RR RR RR CAP CAP K-K R R R R R R R RR RR RR CAP CAP QQ R R R R R R R RR RR RR CAP CAP JJ R R R R R R R RR RR RR CAP CAP TT R R R R R R R RR RR RR F F 99 R R R R R R R RR RR RR F F 88 R R R R R R R R/F R/F RR F F 77 R R R R R R R R/F R/F RR F F 66 F R R R LA LA LA F F F F F 55 F R R R LA LA LA F F F F F 44 F R R R LA LA LA F F F F F 33 F F R R LA LA LA F F F F F 22 F F R R LA LA LA F F F F F A-Ks R R R R R R R RR RR RR CAP CAP A-Qs R R R R R R R RR RR RR F CAP A-Js R R R R R R R RR RR RR F F A-Ts R R R R R R R RR RR RR F F A9s R R R R R R R F F RR F F A8s R R R R R R R F F F F F A7s F R/F R R LA R R F F F F F A6s F R/F R R LA R R F F F F F A5s F R/F R R LA R R F F F F F A4s F R/F R R LA R R F F F F F A3s F R/F R R LA R R F F F F F A2s F R/F R R LA R R F F F F F AK R R R R R R R RR RR RR CAP CAP AQ R R R R R R R RR RR RR F F AJ R R R R R R R R/F RR RR F F AT R R R R R R R R/F R/F R/F F F A9 F R R R F F F F F F F F A8 F F R R F F F F F F F F A7 F F R R F F F F F F F F A6 F F R R F F F F F F F F A5 F F R R F F F F F F F F A4 F F R R F F F F F F F F A3 F F R R F F F F F F F F A2 F F R R F F F F F F F F KQs R R R R R R R RR RR RR F F KJs R R R R R R R R/F RR RR F F KTs R R R R R R R F F R/F F F K9s F R R R F F LA F F F F F K8s F F R R F F F F F F F F KQ R R R R R R R R/F RR RR F F KJ R R R R R R R F F R/F F F KT F F R R F F LA F F F F F K9 F F R R F F LA F F F F F QJs R R R R LA R R F F R/F F F QTs R/F R R R LA R R F F F F F Q9s F F R R F F LA F F F F F Q8s F F F R F F LA F F F F F QJ F F R R F F LA F F F F F QT F F R R F F LA F F F F F Q9 F F F R F F LA F F F F F JTs R/F R R R LA R R F F F F F J9s F F R/F R F F LA F F F F F J8s F F F R F F LA F F F F F JT F F R R F F LA F F F F F J9 F F F R F F L2-3 F F F F F T9s F F F R F F LA F F F F F T8s F F F R F F L2-3 F F F F F T9 F F F R F F L2-3 F F F F F 98s F F F R F F L2-3 F F F F F 87s F F F R F F L2-3 F F F F F 76s F F F R F F L2-3 F F F F F 1 PokerPages articles by Jason Pohl 1.1 Varying Your Play 1.2 The Overcard Quandary Part 1 1.3 The Overcard Quandary Part 2 1.4 'Stocking Stuffers' 1.5 Flop Play Part 1 1.6 Flop Play Part 2 1.7 A Secret about Winning 1.8 The Powerful Turn Raise 1.9 Adjusting to Real Players 1.10 The Scary Small Blind (Part 1) 1.11 The Scary Small Blind (Part 2) 1.12 Defending the Blinds 1.13 Preflop Play (Part 1) 1.14 Preflop Play (Part 2) 1.15 Don't Wake a Sleeping Giant 1.16 Back to Basics 2 Hypermegachi's 6-max Guide 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Preflop Play 2.3 Postflop Play 2.4 Hand Values 2.5 Flop Play EP 2.6 Flop Play MP 2.7 Flop Play LP 2.8 Flop Play in the Blinds 2.9 General Flop Comments 2.10 Turn Play 2.11 River Play 2.12 Protecting Your Hand 2.13 Blind Steals 2.14 Bluffing 2.15 Showdown 2.16 Summary 3 Other articles 3.1 Leaks in Your Shorthanded Limit Hold'em Game 3.2 MecosKing on Shorthanded Limit Hold'em, Part 1 3.3 MecosKing on Shorthanded Limit Hold'em, Part 2 4 Forum posts 4.1 Standard hand 101 (2+2) 4.2 Open raising standards (2+2) 4.3 Am I just running badly? (2+2) 4.4 Stop'n'Go (2+2) 4.5 25 very simple questions (2+2) 4.6 Bugs on Maniacs (ITH 6-Max) 4.7 Bugs on small/middle pairs 4.8 Bugs on his stats 5 Hand Examples 5.1 Blind play, a few hands from a 6-max beginner (2+2) 5.2 Some hands (2+2) 5.3 Some more hands (2+2) 5.4 Middle pair, very aggressive (2+2) 1 PokerPages articles by Jason Pohl 1.1 Short-Handed Poker: Varying Your Play by Jason Pohl "Vary your play." Those three words are like a sacred mantra, chanted down by more authors than I care to visualize. Those three words are treated as gospel by thousands of poker players every day. Because it is said so often and practiced even more, the sanctity of the advice often goes unquestioned. But is it really such a sacred concept after all? The Losing Psychology Why do losing players continue to lose? There are only a handful of plausible explanations. Maybe the losing player doesn't care about winning, or they aren't willing to put in the time to learn, or they don't know where to learn. Maybe the losing player fails to observe others, lacks necessary patience, or simply tilts at the first sign of bad luck. To each of these players, the instruction "Vary your play" must sound wonderful. After all, it's a simple concept and easy to implement. It requires little patience, since one can play extra hands in the name of 'variety.' It justifies tilting, explaining those bad raises or calls away. "In any case", the tilter thinks, "I'm just mixing up my play." It is some of the most undemanding advice available in the poker world, because everybody can be "unpredictable," and they don't even really need to know how to play. There have been multiple networks showing celebrities compete in poker tournaments for their favorite charities. An education in solid poker play this is not, but there is some entertainment value, especially if you enjoy poker for the sake of poker. When they were asked about their style, many of the celebrities stated something to the effect of, "Well, I have no clue what I'm doing, so that will make me really unpredictable. I figure that's a huge advantage." Of course, this sort of logic is flawed (and humorous). But it does give an introspective look into the thought process of many beginning players who feel that "unpredictability" is a "huge advantage." In this article, we will somewhat debunk the "Vary your play" motto. I will argue that it is an idea that only applies intermittently to specific sets of players. In effect, we will change the slogan to "Vary your play IF…" Figuring out when to vary your play will separate the losing players using unpredictability as an excuse from the winning players using unpredictability as a weapon. Reflecting the Wrong Image Let's begin with the fundamental assumption that there is a 'correct' way to play. I believe strongly that there is in fact a correct style, and that style is known as tight/aggressive. In order to be tight and aggressive, a winning player will naturally play tighter than most of their competition, and a winning player will bet, raise, or reraise more effectively than their competition. In addition, the tight/aggressive player will regularly show down winning hands. There is nothing a winning player can do to change these simple truths. And eventually, somebody will notice. But the reality is that most players will in fact never notice. There are several reasons the tight/aggressive player escapes detection. First, most players are unobservant. Online opponents might play 2 or more tables, read their email, visit their favorite website, or watch TV in the background. There is also a high turnover on most online games, with players changing tables or limits at a whim. Some players show up to play as little as ten minutes before work, errands, or the new episode of their favorite sitcom. Even at live games, most players only notice hands shown down at the end, and even then they might not pay heed unless they were the one losing the pot. Since most pots are won by a high-quality hand, it may not even register as unusual when one player consistently shows down good hands to take down large pots. In fact, such a trend might be taken as evidence of that player's good fortune. Note: You could encourage this point of view by occasionally 'admitting' that the deck is "running your over." Second, luck will play a role in mixing up one's play. No matter how tight one plays, they will occasionally get streaks of five or more hands where they start with premium holdings. Raising the pot several times in a row could brand a player as loose/aggressive, because few players would suspect that all those consecutive hands were in fact properly played. Finally, we come to the other underlying problem with loose calls or raises. To affect your image, you must show down your hand. Consider how often a hand like 96s misses the flop. Is it worth "advertising" your phantom loose tendencies if you must make several bad plays to show your hand? Remember, if you consistently take hands too far and bluff too much in the name of "unpredictability", you are no longer playing tight/aggressive. While trying to deceive people into believing you are a loose/aggressive or loose/passive player, you may in fact become one! Even when you finally show down a poor hand, your opponents must notice your play and make a change in how they play against you. Also, if they reason deeply enough to consider that you might play an extra hand to "vary your play," you have lost all advantage. In other words, a player good enough to pay attention could very well be good enough to see through your ruse. A player not good enough to see through your deception may not notice your 'bad play' in the first place. Earning a Bigger Pot It is often pointed out that it might be occasionally correct to limp-reraise with pocket Aces, or to raise with T9s from an early position, or a myriad of other plays contrary to standard practice. In fact, such advice is correct in specific circumstances. For example, if one or more players was raising every hand preflop (but not reraising), limping Aces with the intention of reraising might earn additional profit. Or, if the game was exceptionally tight, suited connectors might profit immediately because the chance of stealing the blinds is high (turning a marginal call/fold into a profitable raise). However, in these scenarios, the profit earned by playing the hand unconventionally is immediate. All this proves is that one must adjust their play to the game. The "correct" strategy has changed because there are extreme conditions. I have no quarrel with the need to adjust one's play to earn as much money as possible, dependent on game conditions. However, if there is no immediate profit earned from a misleading play, then we are back to depending on our opponents' observation skills to earn extra bets later in the session. If a limp-reraise with pocket Aces saves your opponents from making significant mistakes after the flop, the initial profit preflop may not actually increase overall profit. If none of your opponents will give you credit for strength when you raise from early position anyways, why raise with a weak hand to fool them? Limit poker is a game with finite edges. An opponent's gaffe will result in a relatively small, fixed loss. So, the profit earned when hitting a miracle flop with a substandard hand is far outweighed by the losses incurred when the flop misses or gives the substandard hand a second-best hand. For example, if a player gives up a small bet (or more) five times out of six by limping with 74s in early position, they are going to have an impossible struggle to earn enough when they finally win a pot (while not losing much when second-best). And remember, without trying to make questionable moves, even tight/aggressive players will sometimes lay a bad beat on their opponent or make a play which appears to be incorrect. Most players will not analyze the point of view of the tight/aggressive player, so they will chalk up the bad beat or 'bad reraise' as the play of a flawed but fortunate player. Two Alternative Forms of Variation There are alternatives to making inferior moves for the sake of future gains one hopes to earn. One alternative is to adjust to each specific player. I can hear you saying now, "Wait a minute! Wasn't I supposed to be doing that anyways?" The answer is 'Absolutely.' And that is the point. If you play possum (check-call some marginal hands or slowplay big hands) with one opponent because they are repeatedly bluffing, but then you immediately raise against another opponent because they are too tight/passive, then you have just projected two entirely different playing styles to the table. Imagine how confused even an observant opponent must be. There is another even less complicated option. Change poker rooms, change games, or change limits. In my opinion, one of the greatest assets to a poker player is their anonymity. First of all, most players need zero effort to protect their anonymity. They may not play more than a few hours a week at one or maybe two games at a time. Likely, those players are simply lost in the shuffle. However, if a player competes many hours a week, often at multiple games, then eventually others (especially good, observant players) will recognize them. Their tight/aggressive style will be noted by the better opponents, who will take advantage by avoiding confrontations or making a few extra strong moves saved only for a solid player willing to lay down a good hand. The solution is simple. Use multiple online sites. There are many online poker rooms that advertise on Poker Pages, including Paradise Poker, Party Poker, Bugsy's Club, True Poker, Palace Poker, Poker Room, Planet Poker, InterCasino Poker, Empire Poker, and Pacific Poker. I have not played at some of these sites, but I have also played at others not listed above. The nearly universal similarities among these sites is that they offer deposit bonuses and regularly have Texas Hold'em games available. Why not hold accounts with multiple sites and multiple handles? You can play as LuckyGuy1000 at one room, but RunningDeuces22 at another. Since you can switch back and forth between the accounts regularly, nobody gets too familiar with your playing style. The same thing applies to live games. If you have multiple options, be inclined to travel to different cardrooms. Occasionally play different limits or games altogether. The only things you need to maintain this variety are a healthy bankroll and some extra hard drive space on your computer...a pretty small price to pay to stay unknown and unpredictable. Vary Your Play IF... Of course, sometimes it does pay to vary your play. As the limits increase, the chances your competition will be paying attention increases. At low limits, varying your play is almost pointless, since it is rarely noted, and even if it was, it wouldn't make much of a difference due to the texture of the typical low limit game. At middle and high limits, there might be some value to 'false advertising,' but even then it depends on the length of time one spends at the table and the turnover of players. After all, if you or your opponents will not be playing in an hour, why sacrifice any short-term profit? Varying your play may also become important if you don't have choices for where to play. You might have a weekly home game with some solid players or only one casino in a 150-mile radius. If you are frequently returning to see the same group of players, then projecting a mottled image becomes valuable. Remember, many of the authors who constantly advise to "Vary your play" are in fact facing exactly these two criteria. They play high limits with a relatively small pool of players, and they play a lot. To thrive, they must deceive, confuse, and manipulate their opponents by giving up some short-term loss for the sake of long-term gain. For the rest of us, there is rarely such need. I leave you with one of the greatest lines in one of the greatest poker movies of all time, The Cincinnati Kid. I will not give away the story, so I cannot offer the full context of this passage. Lancey Howard is a famous professional poker player (i.e. the reigning champion) while the Cincinnati Kid is the up-and-coming young professional poker player trying to become "The Man." Lancey Howard: Gets down to what it's all about, doesn't it? Making the wrong move at the right time. Cincinnati Kid: Is that what it's all about? Lancey Howard: Like life, I guess. 1.2 Short-Handed Poker: The Overcard Quandary Part I by Jason Pohl Disclaimer: This two-part article includes a lot more mathematics than usual subjects would require. If you are a beginning player, please try your best to follow along. Understanding probabilities and how to calculate the profitability of different outcomes is definitely useful. I have also double-checked all equations, but I cannot promise there are not some minor mistakes since all calculations were completed by hand. If you see an error, please email me at [email protected], and I will have the math corrected. I hope you enjoy the article. What Makes a Player Lose? The main ingredient common to most losing players is a relative looseness. Losing players play too many hands, but more importantly, they will play losing hands too far. Some losing players are loose and aggressive. To some extent, their aggressiveness may help camouflage their vulnerability because they'll buy some pots, but eventually the loose aggressive player will run into a strong hand. When the confrontation occurs, the cost will be high. Loose passive players face a greater dilemma and can really only thrive if their competition bluffs too much. Known affectionately as calling stations, loose passive players will be pummelled by attentive players. Against any player that is too loose, the winning strategy is uncomplicated: wait for a good hand and bet. Bluffs will be consistently unprofitable if the competition calls (or raises) with weak hands. Profit will be earned on big wins with real hands. A winning shorthanded player is aware that the vast majority of competition will play too loose, even for a shorthanded game. In fact, many players will justify their flimsy calls with bottom pair or Ace-high by assessing, "This is a shorthanded game. My opponent is far more likely to be bluffing." Against such weak opposition, patience and showing down big hands are required to be victorious at the tables. This fundamental idea is at the heart of one of the toughest predicaments many tight aggressive players face. If a real hand is required to win because our competition is too loose, how does one play overcards? An absolute answer does not exist, because so much depends on the level and style of competition. But it can be helpful to examine some emblematic circumstances every shorthanded player faces. Overcards in a Heads-Up Pot. Scenario 1. Button has K Q . Big blind has 9 8 . Flop is 2 6 8 . Big blind bets out. 5.5 small bets in the pot. With this sort of flop, the big blind's bet is very straightforward. Top pair is a strong hand shorthanded, but definitely vulnerable, and a bet puts only 5.5 small bets in the pot. The button faces a difficult decision. The button has 6 outs (in this case, all 6 are clean.) If the button knew what the big blind held, he could calculate odds of 6/45 or 6.5 to 1. At first glance, 6.5 to 1 odds appear insufficient to call, but the button can pretty much count on winning at least one more big bet if a King or Queen falls. In other words, the implied odds are sufficient to justify taking a card off. If we presumed the button would win one extra big bet when a King or Queen falls on the turn, then the EV for a call would be calculated as follows: • Queen or King on Turn: (6/45 * 7.5) = +1.0 Small Bets • No Queen or King: (39/45 * -1) = -0.8666 Small Bets • Total EV: 1.0 - .8666 = 0.133 Small bets/hand profit So, the computations concur that a call is profitable. In this ideal scenario, where all 6 outs are clean, the button would make money by continuing to see at least the turn card. But would a raise be superior to a call? It depends. If we assume that the big blind will call a raise on the flop and then check on the turn, the button will be able to take a free card and add even more profit. Let's examine three possible outcomes. • Outcome 1: Button Does Not Improve: (39/45) * (38/44) = 1482/1980 = 74.85% The button does not improve when any of the 39 of 45 cards not a King or Queen fall on the turn and any of the 38 of 44 cards not a King or Queen fall on the river. • Outcome 2: Both Hands Improve: {(6/45) * (5/44) + (5/45) * (6/44)}= 60/1980 = 3.03% Both hands improve when either a King or Queen (6 of 45) falls on the turn, followed by a Nine or Eight (5 of 44) on the river or when a Nine or Eight (5 of 45) falls on the turn, followed by a King or Queen (6 of 44) on the river. • Outcome 3: Only Button Improves: {(6/45) * (39/44) + (34/45) * (6/44)} = 438/1980 = 22.12% -Only the button improves when either a King or Queen (6 of 45) falls on the turn, followed by anything but a Nine or Eight (39 of 44) or when a blank (34 of 45) falls on the turn, followed by a King or Queen (6 of 44) on the river. A blank means any card NOT a King, Queen, Nine, or Eight. For those who are wondering, the blank card in the second half of the equation can not include a King or Queen because the first part of the equation already includes the times that a King or Queen falls on both the turn and the river. Finally, we guess how much the button would earn or lose in each scenario. In possibility 1, that's easy. The button would lose 2 small bets since it raises the flop. In possibility 2, we can assume the button will lose the 2 small bets plus either 2 or 3 big bets (we'll average and say 2.5.) In possibility 3, the button will gain the 6.5 small bets in the flop plus an average of 1.5 big bets (2 big bets when the King or Queen falls on the turn, 1 big bet when the King or Queen falls on the river.) I know there are a lot of assumptions involved. But we're not trying to come up with a perfect answer, just an approximation. EV = (.7485 * -2) + (.0303 * -7) + (.2212 * 9.5) = -1.497 -.2121 + 2.1014 = 0.3923 small bets/hand profit Whew. Hope that math isn't too confusing. The ability to take a free card makes the button's hand three times more profitable than a call alone. But there's a real problem. Most shorthanded players beyond the lowest limits are quite familiar with semibluff or free card raises, and they will not let them work so often. If the big blind bets out again on the turn (even if they only bet when a nine or less falls), then the button's raise on the flop becomes a significant loser. A nine or less would fall 27 of 45 times on the turn. In other words, the button will now only improve (when the big blind doesn't improve) about {(6/45) * (39/44) + (12/45) * (6/44)} = 306/1980 = 15.45% of the time. Instead of .3923 small bets/hand profit, a raise would now result in approximately a .2 small bets/hand loss, even when we factor the times when a Nine or Eight falls on the turn and the big blind's bet prevents the button from improving (and losing additional money.) A call remains superior to a raise unless the button can be very sure to gain a free card. Scenario 2. Button has K Q . Big blind has 9 8 . Flop is 2 6 8 . Button bets. Big blind checkraises. 7.5 small bets in the pot. Let's compare the EV for a call (since we have already concluded that a raise is less profitable than a call against all but the most passive players.) If we again presumed the button would win one extra big bet when a King or Queen falls on the turn, then the EV for a call would be calculated as follows: • Queen or King on Turn: (6/45 * 9.5) = +1.2666 Small Bets • No Queen or King: (39/45 * -1) = -0.8666 Small Bets Total EV: 1.266 - .8666 = 0.4 Small bets/hand profit The calculations are fairly straightforward. With a larger pot, a call with overcards will be more profitable. Although the profit for a call after the big blind's checkraise is higher than after the big blind's bet out, this does not mean the big blind made a mistake by checkraising. The button will earn back .4 small bets profit on average, but that figure is after the 1 small bet already lost on the flop. If the button knew he was about to be checkraised, the best play would have been to check and take the free card. As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Scenario 3. Button has K Q . Big blind has Q 8 Flop is 2 6 8 . Button bets. Big blind checkraises. 7.5 small bets in pot. Both Scenarios 1 and 2 were near ideal situations for the big blind since all its overcard outs were clean. The reality is that this will often not be the case. If one was to presume that the big blind's checkraise meant it had a real hand, we could limit the possible holdings somewhat. Possible holdings that leave the Queen and King clean include A2, A6, A8, J8, T8, 98, 77, 99, and TT. Other holdings that counterfeit one of the button's outs are K2s, K6s, K8, or Q8. In other words, the button will be thwarted even when a King or Queen falls, because it will make two pair for the big blind. How bad does this counterfeiting hurt? Let's look again at the specific hands in Scenario 3. The button earns an extra big bet when a King falls and loses two big bets when a Queen falls. • Outcome 1. King on the Turn (3/45 * 9.5) = +.6333 Small Bets • Outcome 2. Queen on the Turn (2/45 * -5) = -.2222 Small Bets • Outcome 3. No Queen or King (40/45 * -1) = -.8888 Small Bets Total EV: .6333 - .2222 - .8888 = 0.4777 Small bets/hand loss Although it took a while to get to it, we have reached the first major point of this article. On an average flop, a player with a legitimate hand will have a kicker matching one of the button's overcards some portion of the time. And there is one last possibility. If the big blind holds a big hand such as 22, 66, 88, 86, KK, or AA, the button is drawing dead or nearly dead. By adding these holdings to the mix, calling with overcards against a legitimate hand becomes unprofitable. There are now 22 combinations which reduce the button to 3 outs, 22 combinations which reduce the button to virtually zero outs, and 88 combinations where a King or Queen are clean outs.