Never Do Anything Always
Right now, I am sitting at work with little to do. I am passing the time by thinking about a few things poker related.
My first thought is the title of this blog entry: Never do anything always. The poker forums often have discussions about the correct way to play a hand. Much of the time, the "correct" way is obvious, but sometimes (and these are the most lively discussions) there is not one "correct" way to play, but several "correct" ways to play. The key, of course, is to know all of the "correct" plays and to randomize your actual moves a bit.
The specific hand that comes to mind was a post in which the hero, who held JJ in the first few hands of the final table of a no limit multi-table tournament, made a re-raise from UTG+1 of a mini-raise made by UTG. A player from late position then pushed all-in, and the question was whether or not the hero should call or fold. In my opinion, I felt like folding was the correct play because the third raise usually means AA or KK. Others argued that the pot-odds were too good to fold.
As is often the case with these posts, the discussion went off in another direction. Someone questioned the re-raise with JJ (it might even have been me). This discussion, I think, was much more interesting. I voted that the hero should have called with JJ and played "no set, no bet". Someone thought that there were not sufficient implied odds to play the hand this way. Many people thought that the hero should have pushed all-in. I certainly do not disagree with this play, but I think that it is risky from early position. No one thought that the hero should have folded, but perhaps that might not have been an awful play either. Why play a hand as weak as JJ from early position when you don't have a read on the table and you will be paid well for merely outlasting your opponents? The point of my rambling is that the hand should not be played the same way every time. The hero should call some of the time (maybe 30%), push all-in much of the time (65%), and fold every once in a awhile (maybe 5%).
The other poker thought floating around in my [empty] head is something from Rounders. I cannot remember the line specifically... but it was something about professional poker players not being able to handle the swings of no limit poker. Right now, I think that applies to me. I can certainly play no limit well on occasion, but the swings get to me far more often that I'd like to admit. I am seriously considering playing strictly limit from now on. I doubt I'll have the discipline, but it sure sounds good to me right now.
Speaking of my lack of discipline, I dumped about $25 playing no limit this morning. I was 3-tabling (mistake) and I was playing pretty tight. I mostly wanted to clear some rake hands for bonus reasons. On my bad hand, I was dealt KQ from the cutoff. Someone limped and I raised to 4x the big blind. The button and the original limper called. The flop was K 8 4 (rainbow) and the limper bet out, which I raised. I failed to notice that the button called (big mistake). The turn was another king and I pushed all-in when the limper checked to me. The button called; the limper folded; and the pot was pushed to the button (who held 44) when the river blanked. I don't know if I hate the way I played this hand or not. I certainly hate that I did not even notice that three of us saw the turn, but I don't know if I would have played the hand any differently.
Oh well, tomorrow is another day. I'll certainly have a different theory on how I should play.
My first thought is the title of this blog entry: Never do anything always. The poker forums often have discussions about the correct way to play a hand. Much of the time, the "correct" way is obvious, but sometimes (and these are the most lively discussions) there is not one "correct" way to play, but several "correct" ways to play. The key, of course, is to know all of the "correct" plays and to randomize your actual moves a bit.
The specific hand that comes to mind was a post in which the hero, who held JJ in the first few hands of the final table of a no limit multi-table tournament, made a re-raise from UTG+1 of a mini-raise made by UTG. A player from late position then pushed all-in, and the question was whether or not the hero should call or fold. In my opinion, I felt like folding was the correct play because the third raise usually means AA or KK. Others argued that the pot-odds were too good to fold.
As is often the case with these posts, the discussion went off in another direction. Someone questioned the re-raise with JJ (it might even have been me). This discussion, I think, was much more interesting. I voted that the hero should have called with JJ and played "no set, no bet". Someone thought that there were not sufficient implied odds to play the hand this way. Many people thought that the hero should have pushed all-in. I certainly do not disagree with this play, but I think that it is risky from early position. No one thought that the hero should have folded, but perhaps that might not have been an awful play either. Why play a hand as weak as JJ from early position when you don't have a read on the table and you will be paid well for merely outlasting your opponents? The point of my rambling is that the hand should not be played the same way every time. The hero should call some of the time (maybe 30%), push all-in much of the time (65%), and fold every once in a awhile (maybe 5%).
The other poker thought floating around in my [empty] head is something from Rounders. I cannot remember the line specifically... but it was something about professional poker players not being able to handle the swings of no limit poker. Right now, I think that applies to me. I can certainly play no limit well on occasion, but the swings get to me far more often that I'd like to admit. I am seriously considering playing strictly limit from now on. I doubt I'll have the discipline, but it sure sounds good to me right now.
Speaking of my lack of discipline, I dumped about $25 playing no limit this morning. I was 3-tabling (mistake) and I was playing pretty tight. I mostly wanted to clear some rake hands for bonus reasons. On my bad hand, I was dealt KQ from the cutoff. Someone limped and I raised to 4x the big blind. The button and the original limper called. The flop was K 8 4 (rainbow) and the limper bet out, which I raised. I failed to notice that the button called (big mistake). The turn was another king and I pushed all-in when the limper checked to me. The button called; the limper folded; and the pot was pushed to the button (who held 44) when the river blanked. I don't know if I hate the way I played this hand or not. I certainly hate that I did not even notice that three of us saw the turn, but I don't know if I would have played the hand any differently.
Oh well, tomorrow is another day. I'll certainly have a different theory on how I should play.
posted by frazwood at 3:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home