Jim Brier's Cardplayer Article

[Felipe]

Making some interesting arguments for and against S&M&M's Small Stake's Hold'em.

It's mostly the first part I am interested in. Particularly the argument that we will only earn our "fair share" when we have position and we can get to see more than just the flop. What do you think?

[ QUOTE ]

Hand No. 1: You have the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 10[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] in the big blind. Six players limp in, including the small blind. What should you do?

Book Answer: Raise. Your hand figures to win far more than its share against a big field. Again, many timid players dislike gambling with hands like this before the flop. They would check, planning to spring to life on a favorable flop. That strategy is profitable, but it is less profitable than raising now. A big suited ace is a terrific hand in a sevenhanded pot. Expect to win significantly more often than the 14 percent of the time that is your share against six opponents. Being out of position should make you somewhat less willing to raise, but not when you have such a strong hand. You must take advantage of an edge this big. In fact, not raising here is terrible. It might be a bigger mistake than raising with 7-2 offsuit!


My (Jim's) Thoughts: I would raise if I were on the button or in the cutoff seat with this hand against a large field of limping opponents. By doing so, I can control the hand better and maybe get a free card if I wish. The problem with raising in this situation is that there are many more unfavorable flops than favorable ones, and my position handicaps me. My most frequent improvement will be catching one pair (not necessarily top pair), and now I am in a marginal situation with a large pot, few outs, and bad position. Occasionally, someone will limp-reraise, thereby reducing the field and increasing my cost to play the hand. As an aside, a typical betting sequence in which you go all the way to the river will result in your putting in more than 14 percent of the money that ends up in the pot. This is due to the fact that not all of your preflop opponents will stay all the way to the river.


Here is a hypothetical example that illustrates how being in late position and making this raise versus being in the blind makes a difference between winning and losing a big pot. Suppose that after raising, everyone calls and the flop arrives with the Jspades 7diamonds 2clubs, leaving you with an overcard and a backdoor-flush draw. The small blind checks. Now what do you do? Assume that you check, rather than lead into six opponents with nothing. It is checked to one of the late-position players, who bets. The small blind folds. There are 15 bets in the pot and it costs you one bet (right now) to call. You have three outs with an ace, but will a top pair of aces with a mediocre kicker win the pot against five opponents? How much is your backdoor draw worth? Maybe one out? If you do the mental math discussed in the book, maybe you can come up with two effective outs, which is a 22.5-to-1 shot on the next card, and your pot odds are only 15-to-1. But if you hit your runner-runner flush, you will usually win a nice pot. So, do your implied odds make up for this shortfall? You have a tough decision to make.


Assume that you fold. Three other players call, so there are nine big bets in the pot. Now, the turn is the 3clubs. It is checked to the flop bettor, who bets. One player calls. There are 11 big bets in the pot. The river is the 8clubs, which would have given you the nuts. It is checked to the flop bettor, who bets, and his opponent calls. The flop bettor wins with J-10 while his opponent shows A-7. Now, replay this hand with you making this preflop raise from the button instead of from the blind. The most likely scenario is that everyone checks to you, the preflop raiser. Having nothing, you check and take a free card. Now, you go on to win a nice pot.


The point is that by raising when out of position with a hand that needs significant improvement to win, you place yourself in situations where you have trouble making good decisions. The idea that, preflop, a suited ace will win more than its "fair share" against a large field probably assumes that you get to see all the cards to the river, which will often not be the case. The way that a hand like this gets to realize "more than its fair share" is by having good position. In this way, the chance of seeing the turn and the river without getting bet out of the hand on the flop is increased.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Ragone04]

I read them all and Brier doesn't make many arguments for the book... most are directly against

[Ragone04]

articles like this make me wonder how many low-limit players have been turned into spew-machines due to this book.

[JJH3984]

[ QUOTE ]
articles like this make me wonder how many low-limit players have been turned into spew-machines due to this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising when you have +EV is hardly spew. Citing one example where it isn't adventagous to raise is not enough to convince me that the SSHE bible (in my mind) has turned me into a "spew machine"

[Lunar Tweak]

i don't think this illustrates his point very well. i mean, of course we'd rather have good position, but it doesn't mean that raising with ATs from the BB is a bad play. i think this article shows why it's good to have position, but doesn't show why we shouldn't raise with a good hand from the blind.

as far as getting our "fair share." we'll flop a pair of Aces or better or a flush draw almost 30% of the time. that's plenty "share" for me getting 6 to 1 PF...

[Lunar Tweak]

[ QUOTE ]
I read them all and Brier doesn't make many arguments for the book... most are directly against

[/ QUOTE ]

first off, i haven't read the book. but i think most of Jim's arguments are contradictary and he likes to pick out the few rare situation that the book would be wrong and exploit it to fit his ideas.

i guess it's good to get different views about certain hands for perspective. but overall i don't think Jim has many good reasons for playing the hands differently. but that's just my opinion. anyone agree w/ his articles?

[Ragone04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
articles like this make me wonder how many low-limit players have been turned into spew-machines due to this book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising when you have +EV is hardly spew. Citing one example where it isn't adventagous to raise is not enough to convince me that the SSHE bible (in my mind) has turned me into a "spew machine"

[/ QUOTE ]

spew-machines are created every day due to most people applying this book incorrectly. Of course not you though, or anyone else on the 2+2 boards... other people [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Niediam]

4,329,436 games 281.734 secs 15,367 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 23.4840 % 22.18% 01.30% { AcTc }
Hand 2: 12.7303 % 11.72% 01.01% { random }
Hand 3: 12.7672 % 11.75% 01.02% { random }
Hand 4: 12.7643 % 11.75% 01.02% { random }
Hand 5: 12.7752 % 11.76% 01.02% { random }
Hand 6: 12.7311 % 11.72% 01.01% { random }
Hand 7: 12.7479 % 11.73% 01.02% { random }

Not raising seems foolish with a large edge. I know people won't be playing truely random hands but with 6 besides yourself seeing the flop it has to be fairly close.

[SeaEagle]

Didn't read all of Jim's articles, but of course not every example in the book is completely clear cut. It wouldn't be a very good book if they only gave examples where the solution was obvious. The MO of the articles is to examine some of these not-so-clear hands, so it might come across as negative to the book, but I don't think it was intended that way.

Brier says he'd raise ATs on the button. Well, that IS a clear cut example. It would be downright stupid not to raise ATs on the button with 5 or 6 people already in.

Raising in the BB is less clear but, really, not that much different than raising, say, AKo. You're raising on equity alone. If you get a good flop you'll collect a big pot. If you don't, you'll end up check/folding the flop quite often. In his example, Brier specifically creates a flop that is almost perfectly borderline on a flop decision. In practice, the vast majority of flops will be much easier to play than the one in the example. I don't think it's criminal to just check with ATs in the BB in this situation (like limping on the button would be), and even if an individual might decide that ATs is just a little too weak for them, personally, to raise in this situation, the hand is a good example to illustrate how multiple limpers change the correct way to play some hands.

[W. Deranged]

Brier is making an important and subtle point about Realizable Equity. He's saying that he wouldn't raise ATs out of the BB because, while he acknowledges we have an edge in Pure Equity, he doubts we have an edge in Realizable Equity. This is an interesting claim.

I disagree with it. I think that, at small stakes, our superior post-flop play will somewhat counteract the equity-realization loss we get from being out-of-position in small pots. So I feel comfortable raising ATs.

But it's really all a question of boundaries. I'm sure Jim Brier would raise AKs out of the BB in the same situation. He'd probably raise AQs as well. Maybe he doesn't raise AJs, or maybe he does. He's just setting a slightly different boundary due to his different opinion on the equity realization question.

Similarly, we're not all going out and raising A7s out of the BB in the same situation. I might raise A9s sometimes in the right situation. I'm basically always raising ATs, but almost never A8s. It's just a question of boundaries.

The key things to think about are these:

1. Jim Brier really thinks about poker in a way that is quite commensurate with the way Miller does and we try to. He may use slightly different language. He may critique, sometimes harshly. But, if you really think about what he's saying, he's critiquing a relatively small and subtle and sophisticated point.

2. These kinds of arguments are not the most important to our bottom lines. The are, as I said, border cases. Almost by definition, that means that their expectation is going to be pretty close to zero; if we believe that raising ATs out of the BB in a five-way pot is profitable but raising A9s is not, realize that neither checking ATs nor raising A9s can possibly be that large an error, as the two straddle 0 EV.

3. What we really should all think about is the way in which Jim's difference of opinion reveals important considerations for future play. Jim is challenging us to think about equity realization and pre-flop play. Maybe there are times when we WON'T be able to realize enough equity to make ATs profitable, due to game conditions, relative positions, etc. I mentioned that there are times I might raise A9s or A8s; my border might change due to game conditions. You should think about how your boundaries do as well.