Kill Phil in Cash Games

[Blair Rodman]

A poster on our forum asked an interesting question about Phil Gordon's discussion in his Little Green Book about an internet player he call BOW (biggest online winner). BOW's MO is to massively overbet pots post-flop in no-limit cash games, with both made hands and big draws. Gordon presents the BOW strategy as an effective cash game strategy, but one that's too volatile for tournaments. The poster questioned whether the BOW strategy is different from Kill Phil, if so, how, and can it be effective in tournaments. My reply follows:



A lot of people have asked on various forums if the Kill Phil concepts are applicable to cash games. In most cases, someone (not Lee or I) has answered the query with a statement to the effect that KP is only applicable to tournaments. Lee and I have discussed this between us at length, disagree with this contention, and think it’s time to address this issue.



The basis for the KP strategy is the all-in move pre-flop. This is tailored to, and works best in, tournaments because the escalating blinds and antes at the later stages of tournaments make pre-flop pots worth fighting for. For the inexperienced player, avoiding post-flop play against more experienced and/or talented players is an added benefit. However, the real power behind the strategy is the effect of putting a player to a decision for all his chips, and the power of fold equity when he backs down. Whether in a tournament or a cash game, an opponent has to think hard when faced with an all-in decision. The benefits of the possession of the attributes of fearlessness and aggression become quickly evident to KP players.



In our post-flop section, we touch on some applications of the all-in move at later points in a hand. In fact, if the predominant game ever changes to something like pot-limit pre-flop, no-limit post-flop, as we lobby for in our conclusion, we’ve already discussed the possibility of writing another book on the applications of the KP strategy in post-flop play.



BOW essentially is using a variant of the KP concept in cash games. By waiting until after the flop, he’s given the pot time to grow to something worth fighting for, similar to pre-flop pots in the late stages of tournaments. Then, when the flop dictates, he put his opponents to the big decision. The key is to play the same way with both a made hand and with a draw. This is also a key to Kill Phil, in which, when played correctly, opponents don’t know whether you have aces, suited connectors, or something in-between. (I’ve come to regret the suggestion we made in KP of betting 16th of your stack with aces or kings. I think it limits the effectiveness of the strategy. But, that’s another discussion,)



As to whether his strategy would work in tournaments, my position is that it would. I don’t agree with Phil’s contention that it’s too volatile for tournaments. Tournament strategies are all about courting volatility. Grinders don’t win tournaments. In fact, I think that KP practitioners can greatly increase their effectiveness in tournaments by seeing more flops, after learning to effectively employ Kill Phil in post-flop play. Add some small ball effectiveness to that mix, and you find a really dangerous tournament player. Conversely, KP practitioners should find many uses for the concepts, both basic and advanced, that they’ve learned from Kill Phil in cash games.

Blair Rodman

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Blair:

While BOW may be using a very effectice cash game stategy, I believe the analysis of it that appears in The Little Green Book is inaccurate. That's because Gordon treats very different hands such as sets, gut shots, and straight flush draws as being equally likely when in reality that won't be the case.

It's also clear to me that a KP type strategy could be effectice for cash games as long as that person keeps his stack size small. (See Getting Started in Hold 'em by Ed Miller.) However, when the number of chips gets large relative to the blinds, the penalty for losing a pot becomes too great relative to the award of winning the blinds. (There is an analysis of this in Harrington on Hold 'em.)This is, as you know, consistent with the advice in your book.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Scary_Tiger]

Yes, when I first read Phil's description of the BOW, I thought it was mind blowing, but then I thought of how frequently small gutshots appear versus how frequently you end up with a set. The idea of playing draws and made hands is clear, but the exact distribution of how he plays has to be very confusing. If he just pushed every time he had a gutshot it would be clear just calling every time would show a profit.

I think the reason Kill Phil's strategy will primarily be applied to tournaments is because of how frequently you have to play in a position where you don't have even 20 BB's in your stack. When you have more than 50 BB's I think you really have to pull out some other tricks.

[ephemeral]

Hi,

Let's look at a tangible example to try to get a handle on what I think Blair is saying. This hand came up at the first level of the recently concluded Aussie Millions Main Event which I was fortunate enough to win:

blinds of 50/100; average stack size around 20,000 (starting chips). UTG I make it t225 to go with 7h 6h and got called in 4 spots-pot size now just over t1000.

Flop: 4c 5h Qh

I check and next player bets t1000 and gets 3 callers to me. There's now t5000 in pot and it's my move.

What's your play here?

My play here was to move in with the whole t19000 I had left. This play is derived from principles discussed in Kill Phil. Either I'll win this pot now and add 25% to my stack, or I'll be about even money against 2-pair, if they have the courage to call and put their tournament on the line. Even against top set, I'm 40% to win this pot, and based on the betting, the board, and my reads, I was pretty sure that no set was out. I was also confident that a big flush draw would have difficuly calling this bet with only 9 likely outs as any overcards weren't likely to be outs considering my all-in move. Importantly, I would have played this hand the same way if I had a set.

The first player folded AA, and the next TT; the 3rd player took 6 minutes before releasing 4-5, and the last player quickly folded a big flush draw. I added that t5000 to my stack and never looked back. Fold equity was on my side and was rewarded in this instance.

Psychologically this play reaped big dividends. It put my opponents on notice at a very early stage that all my chips (and theirs) are in play at any time, and that I'm fearless. It also gave me the early chip lead at my table, a platform for continued aggressive play, especially effective with their now established trepidation.

Would this play be justified in a cash game with similar blinds and stack sizes? I believe it would for the same reasons discussed above. I think this is the type of play that the BOW makes. He also makes the same play with a made hand, such as a set. I think this is a winning formula either for tournaments or for live play.

BTW, this isn't a new concept. Doyle's been playing this way for years and I don't think anyone challenges his success.

Regards,

Lee

[Biloxi]

Is the stack size of other players at all relevant? In a large stacked cash game, there may be more players willing to call. Does this fact affect the results?

[ephemeral]

Hi Biloxi,

In the above tournament example all stacks were very deep at around 20,000 each. For cash game comparison, I made the same assumption. It's true that your fold equity is better in tournament play, but this is still a very difficult call to make in a cash game without a set.

If the aces get stubborn and play, you're a 56% favorite and don't mind getting played with. You're a very slight favorite over bottom two pair and a very slight dog against top two, but the dead money in the pot makes it profitable to play against these hands. Flush draws are unlikely to call in this spot.

The one hand that presents a problem is a set, although some players will fold bottom set faced with a decision for this much money. Even then, you're 40% to win a showdown against any set. The fold equity, image, and intimidation factors more than compensates for this IMO.

I'd like to clarify one point from my prior post. Kill Phil in its basic form is primarily a pre-flop strategy. This is to keeplesser-experienced players from having to make tricky post-flop decisions. As Mason correctly points out in his post above, this strategy is effective in tournaments due to the escalating blind structure, but is ineffectual in cash games due to the relatively small blinds compared to average stack sizes in most cash games (hence his statement that KP would be effective in cash games if your buy-in is small ala Miller).

I agree.

What Blair and I are talking about here, however, is extending KP long ball tactics to post-flop play, as in the example I provided from the Aussie Millions. Once players learns how to use KP and gain experience, they can incorporate long ball into their overall game including post-flop play, mixing it in with the excellent small ball tactics as described in books such as HOH I & II (which we whole-heartedly recommend) to become a complete player. The combination is dynamite. Even a lot of the top pros haven't fully developed their long ball game for fear of going broke--an error in our judgment.

Regards,

Lee Nelson

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lee:

I think you miss the point. I'm sure BOW is making precisely this type of play. That is he's over betting the pot with his very good hands such as sets and with his very good draws such as the straight and flush draw hand that you give in your example.

But that has nothing to do with the anlysis that Gordon gives in his book on pages 246-248. I find it very hard to believe that BOW is just as likely to hold 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] as he is to hold 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in this example because it seems very unlikely to me that BOW would even play the 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] given that Gordon has an ace-king and would not let BOW into the pot cheaply which is one of the stated requirements for BOW's strategy to be successful.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lee:

[ QUOTE ]
What Blair and I are talking about here, however, is extending KP long ball tactics to post-flop play, as in the example I provided from the Aussie Millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you and Blair have another book to do. We'll be looking forward to it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Just so there's no confusion, while I think that Gordon's analysis of BOW (Biggest Online Winner) in his Little Green Book is flawed, I do think that the Little Green Book is pretty good overall.

best wishes,
mason

[ephemeral]

Hi Mason,

I see your point and how your frequency argument applies. Thanks for the clarification.

Kind regards,

Lee