tough spots and a beef with Sklansky (semi-rant)

[pete fabrizio]

This may not be exclusive to PLO, but I'm so tired of hearing the Sklansky Mantra that you should avoid making moves that could put you in a "tough spot" later on. E.g., Sklansky's line that you shouldn't bet if a raise will make you "throw up." Sklansky's reasoning is that you don't want to put yourself in a position where you could make a big mistake (either by making a bad fold or a bad call).

Sometimes this is true and sometimes it isn't. But if it is truly a "tough spot," you should be just as likely to make the right play (and possibly win a lot more money that you couldn't have won otherwise). A true "tough spot" is just another e.v. 0 spot, albeit with higher variance. Obviously that doesn't mean that risk of being put into a "tough spot" shouldn't be a consideration. E.g., checking behind when the benefits to betting are marginal and there is a good chance of being check-raised into a "tough spot" -- but it's not just because you might make a mistake, but because you are in an e.v. positive position and are risking being put into an e.v. 0 position.

Now I'm sure Mr. Sklansky understands all this and just uses that explanation as a shortcut so that he doesn't have to do a giant EV tree for every decision. But one area where I see this play out irrationally, imo, is when it comes to this forum and how to play aces. A lot of 2+2ers advocate playing them basically for set value only, unless you can get all or most of your money in before the flop. I think this nittish advice springs from a couple of things: 1) people don't raise/reraise enough with non-aces hands, and 2) people are deathly afraid of ending up in "tough spots" on the flop. If you are a terrible player and make net negative decisions, maybe this is right. However, aces are usually such a substantial equity favorite in most pots that I think people are just giving up too much by playing them so passively -- especially in good position and/or with good sidecards. So, sometimes you have to make a marginal call on a later street and lose -- that's poker, get over it. Sometimes you will make the tough call and win giant pots unimproved or with a counterfeiting 2 pair. (Not to mention you might take the pot uncontested, or win a big pot with your well-concealed side-cards, or hit top set and get paid off anyway, or any number of other profitable things might happen). And as a bonus, the more you play and get used to those situations, the more you will be able to spot the + and - e.v. plays better and better and those "tough" e.v. neutral spots will become rarer and rarer.

[Runner Runner]

I hear what you are saying. It makes me feel sick when the action goes raise, call, and I am in the big blind with single suited aces and I move the slider over to see how much I can get in the middle, and find out I can't get the required 1/3 of my stack in the pot, so I just call and check/fold when I miss the flop.

Position is so important in this game though, seems like it would be difficult to get the best of it when re-raising and not getting a enough of the chips in the pot to ensure you are getting the best of your opponent but also getting too many of your chips in the pot to ensure that you can "play poker". Basically you are often in a situation where you are always committed post flop and your opponent can pick when he goes with you (this is bad,bad,bad).

In position I actually prefer to just call, so that I can possible call on a flop that I miss and see if the opponent shows weakness after that.

I guess it really depends on how deep you are too. I agree that playing aces just for set value stinks, but I find that getting 15-25% of your stack in the middle oop also stinks.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear what you are saying. It makes me feel sick when the action goes raise, call, and I am in the big blind with single suited aces and I move the slider over to see how much I can get in the middle, and find out I can't get the required 1/3 of my stack in the pot, so I just call and check/fold when I miss the flop.

Position is so important in this game though, seems like it would be difficult to get the best of it when re-raising and not getting a enough of the chips in the pot to ensure you are getting the best of your opponent but also getting too many of your chips in the pot to ensure that you can "play poker". Basically you are often in a situation where you are always committed post flop and your opponent can pick when he goes with you (this is bad,bad,bad).

In position I actually prefer to just call, so that I can possible call on a flop that I miss and see if the opponent shows weakness after that.

I guess it really depends on how deep you are too. I agree that playing aces just for set value stinks, but I find that getting 15-25% of your stack in the middle oop also stinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously strength of sidecards and position matter a lot -- I'm not advocating always raising/reraising no matter what. (E.g., in big multiway pots, bare Aces can be a huge equity dog). I'm just saying that the irrational fear of ending up in a "tough" situation on the flop shouldn't stop you from raising/reraising when its profitable.

[TxRedMan]

dont play much deepstacked pot limit omaha, do you?

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
dont play much deepstacked pot limit omaha, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant response. Ok, you got me, I'm a total n00b and I'm just pulling this out of my a--.

[BluffTHIS!]

pete,

Most of those comments of David and others have been made primarily regarding NLHE, but the principle does translate to PLO. What he means is that if you make a bet and get raised, you should be glad, because either you can happily fold or happily call the raise or in fact reraise.

What he is advocating about avoiding tough decisions is not making bets where you can get raised off mediocre draws that couldn't (shouldn't) call a raise, or making excessively thin value bets where again you *shouldn't* call, but where generally you should have sought to had a cheaper showdown, i.e. exercised pot control.

Now you are right that if you can make tough decisions better than your opponents, then you will have an edge. But it is also true that if you routinely put yourself in tough spots against tough opponents, who are bluffing or raising thin a certain portion of the time to balance for when they have the goods, you mostly aren't going to like it.

All of which isn't to say you should never make thin value bets or semi-bluffs, because if you don't you will never get any action with big hands from observant opponents or even many looser aggro ones (which is why you must push big draws occasionally in PLO and be seen doing so in order to get action with sets). But if you go overboard in making such bets and bluffs, then good opponents will take appropriate countermeasures which includes checkraising and raising (including bluff raising on the river) a correct percentage of the time to punish you.

I will give a concrete example. You are on a FR table and there is a limp and raise which gets called behind in 2 spots including by you on the button and the original limper. So it's 4 way to the flop which comes down:

J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

And you hold: A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]


It is almost never correct to bet if all 3 other players check to you on that flop. Very likely one of them especially the first guy on a draw heavy broadway board is waiting to checkraise. And if you bet and he does and you both have deepish stacks, then you simply don't have enough outs to justify calling, especially if he is the kind of player who won't pay to redraw if you hit on the turn. And if all he or another player has is JT and another deuce or a 6 comes on the turn, then they aren't betting and you will have a greenlight to do so, and that bet might even garner a call by a suspicious AA. Similarly if you hit your flush someone else may have a lower one and bet into you allowing you to raise and drive out the guy with a set or 2 pair or make him pay dearly. Of course you mostly will brick the turn and someone will bet and you should fold unless getting enough pot odds via other calls. But so what? Multiway on that type of flop you had no real chance to steal and were able to get a freecard to bust someone or at least get a bet out of them.

You really need to think about this principle of not betting when you have a mediocre hand or decent draw and shouldn't call a raise, as you can't be a winner long term if you don't understand it. This also applies not just to betting at all, but also to betting the wrong amounts.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
You really need to think about this principle of not betting when you have a mediocre hand or decent draw and shouldn't call a raise, as you can't be a winner long term if you don't understand it. This also applies not just to betting at all, but also to betting the wrong amounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the "principle" fine. I am just saying that, as stated, it is frequently misapplied.

[BluffTHIS!]

pete,

Obvioulsy this or any principle could be misapplied in a discrete situation, especially if another important principle should take precedence (in the example I gave if you had a shorter stack and could bet yourself allin then that often would be correct because if someone doesn't have a big hand and something like KK is the only one that calls you, then you have cleaned up some additional outs when checking might have brought a certain turn card that kept another player in the pot).

And there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether you should bet or not besides just your hand strength in relation to the board. The more people in the pot then the more you should lean toward checking marginal hands and especially those with potential to make the nuts. And even HU the more tricky the opponent is, then the same thing. So if you know your opponent's tendencies very well, then you can make more bets and semi-bluffs with impunity if you think that they are more likely to fold. But it is a fine line and being overly aggressive in these spots can easily become a significant leak.

[LearnedfromTV]

Something I've been thinking about lately that relates to this.

Is there a class of situations in PLO where bare AA or AA with a thin redraw is comfortable being checkraised/raised/getting allin. Assuming 100BB stacks and a reraised pot, let's say. In holdem, there are some situations like this in regular raised pots... You don't often want 100BB going into a once-raised pot with an overpair, but sometimes you do. Boards where certain opponents who are very aggressive with draws or strong one pair hands will be playing a hand as they would play a set, but the range with which they would do so makes it right to get allin against them with AA, even relatively deep. Drawish boards mainly, because people plays everything faster and that strengthens the upper-medium strength hands like AA.

But in PLO it seems that the really drawish boards are brutal for AA, because big draws are so much bigger. You'd be against a set or a draw, and both are big favorites (unless you have a redraw to the nut flush, like the example Bluff used, in which case the marginal made hand/draw combo makes checking stanrdard if not automatic). But what about something like a lowish rainbow board with some straight draws but not monster wraps?

Now compared to holdem, AA is weaker, so you obviously need more in preflop to be talking about a comparable spot. So let's say, in the spirit of pete's post you reraised to something like 20% of your stack preflop with good aces, AAQJds or something, less than 1/3rd but still a sizeable amount, knowing you are more or less marking yourself as AA and setting yourself up to make a tough decision based on the board and action.

You are against two opponents, your stack is like 1.5-2x pot. Or you are headsup and your stack is 2-2.5x the pot. And then the flop is T63r. Is it right to jam or bet/call on this kind of board, figuring that when you get action you are often against pair+gutter, 9-13 out wrap type hands, not that often against sets (because people fold more TT/66/33 hands pre than say KK/QQ/JJ hands) and obviously you can't be against big wrap+flush draws. Maybe you have a backdoor flush draw or two and a backdoor gutter but basically you're just betting that the range of hands that calls your raise preflop and plays with you on this board isn't so bad for bare AA. Is this the kind of thing you're talking about pete? Being willing to put yourself in these situations by reraising less than commitment amount with good AA hands that will have a higher number of flops that are good enough to get it in on?

(I'm fully willing to believe I've picked the wrong kind of board for this thought; whether T63r is right isn't the point as much as the general concept).

[BluffTHIS!]

If you've marked yourself as having AA and a draw heavy board comes, then a lot of aggressive players will try to bet you out of the pot when first to act or reraise you with a pair and a draw. So if you want to take a stand occasionally to keep yourself from being abused, and can reraise allin, then doing that isn't bad sometimes. But they will likely always have outs and sometimes will have actually flopped the joint too. Sometimes with these types of players it's actually more menacing when they check to you when first to act as they are slowplaying. You will be more correct to do this HU than multiway when such a player is more likely to have it, and even if he doesn't could be running you into the nuts held by another player yet to act or who checked in first position. And the moral of this of course is not to play mediocre AA hands too strongly preflop .