Prohibition 2.0: More On The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
November 27, 2006 at 10:36 pm | In Legal Issues | 1 Commentby Nelson Rose
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, “Prohibition 2.0,” has already caused as much panic, joy and confusion as the first Prohibition. Prohibition 1.0, the ill-fated 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, went into effect in 1919 and was repealed in 1933. The “noble experiment,” as it was called, was the 19th Century Puritans’ efforts to end sin in the U.S. by prohibiting the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors… for beverage purposes.”
Now, Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist, who aspires to be the next Puritan President of the 21st Century, is going to save our souls by prohibiting the transfer of funds to online gaming sites. Who would have thought that gambling, one of America’s fastest growing businesses, when legal, would become the ultimate sin?
Prohibition 2.0 requires federal regulators to make rules for banks, e-wallets and other payment processor to identify and block all transfers of funds for unlawful gambling transactions. Only gambling. Congress has mandated that financial institutions must prevent people from using their own money to buy this one product. There are no similar rules covering heroin or child pornography.
Whenever there is demand for something, there will be entrepreneurs willing to act as suppliers, even if the product is illegal. The most long-lasting, significant result of the first Prohibition was the creation of modern organized crime.
There are loopholes in the hastily written new Act. Like other Puritans, Sen. Frist feels he has a direct hotline to God. He didn’t need to have hearings or expert testimony or even have anyone proofread his bill. He attached it to the unrelated SAFE Ports Act, and under the rules of Congress, the only way any representative or senator could read the bill would be to vote against port security.
Entrepreneurs are already overloading my email mailbox with ideas to get around Prohibition 2.0. The most obvious loopholes are contests of skill and games in which no purchase is necessary to participate.
Like all prohibitions, the Frist bill contains silly exemptions. Prohibition 1.0 allowed alcoholic beverages used for medicines and sacramental wine.
A movement started to have beer declared a medicine, and it is amazing how many men decided to become, or at least dress like, priests and rabbis. Besides not changing the law on interstate horseracing, Prohibition 2.0 authorizes fantasy sports or “educational” games, whatever those are. And purely intra-state gambling has now been expressly made legal.
Of course, the individuals most happy with Prohibition 2.0 are the online gaming companies that are still taking bets from the U.S. The principals of privately owned online poker companies won’t be able to become instant billionaires by going public. But they are consoling themselves with the hundreds of millions of dollars that would have otherwise gone to PartyPoker.
The Poker Emotional Intelligence Test
November 21, 2006 at 8:23 pm | In Psychology | 1 Commentby John Vorhaus
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
Emotional intelligence, loosely speaking, is your awareness of your awareness. Poker players with high emotional intelligence are able to assess their strengths and weaknesses frankly and honestly, with acceptance, and without freaking out. To test your emotional intelligence, I’m going to present you with a number of poker situations and ask you two questions:
Has this ever been you?
How did you feel at the time?
To make the most of this quiz, just answer truthfully and write your answers down. Shine a light on your inner life; that’s how emotional intelligence grows.
SITUATION ONE: You’ve been playing online poker for several hours in a multi-table tournament, and things have not been going your way. You took more rebuys than you wanted to, and never built a stack. Utterly unable to gain any sort of traction in the tournament, you ultimately busted out not on a bad beat but a on very bad decision. Now it’s late, and you’re mentally exhausted. You know you’re not on your game, but the sting of defeat still owns you, so you jump into a sitngo tournament or a cash game and proceed to double or triple your losses. Has this ever been you? How did you feel at the time?
SITUATION TWO: You’re in a cash game and running well. You’ve been getting hit by the deck and enjoying a major rush. You’re enjoying that rush in every sense of the word — not just financially but emotionally. You feel high, like you’re invincible, a veritable king of poker. Not only do you want the feeling to last forever, you’re convinced it can. Like a golfer who has finally found the sweet spot in your swing, you believe that you have poker “solved.” So you push every small edge — or sometimes not even any edge at all — and end up giving back most of what you won. Has this ever been you? How did you feel at the time?
SITUATION THREE: You’re playing against a foe you know to be inferior. He makes manifestly bad decisions, and you can’t see any reason why you’re not taking all his money. Yet, you’re not. He keeps sucking out on you and winning pot after pot. The more you play against him, the angrier you get, until your primary motivation for playing at all is just to make that bastard pay. Has this ever been you? How did you feel at the time?
SITUATION FOUR: You’re in a poker game and you’re stuck. You’re beyond tilt — you’re a cork bobbing on the sea of poker — yet you can’t tear yourself away from the game. There seems to be some magnetic force that keeps your ass anchored to the chair. At one point you thought you’d just keep playing until you got back to even, but you’re past that point now; you’re past the point of pain or even of rational thought. You probably won’t move till you go broke. Has this ever been you? How did you feel at the time?
Look, I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad, but if you want to have a long career in poker, it’s not enough to learn how to bet with the best of it or to get away from a hand when you know you’re beaten. Success in poker absolutely requires that you acknowledge and address your whole underlying emotional landscape. Only when you’re truly honest with yourself about what you feel and why you feel it can you hope to master the game. Grow your emotional intelligence and – I promise – poker profits will follow.
‘Trying to Lose Can Help You Win’
November 21, 2006 at 1:26 am | In Texas Holdem No Limit | Leave a Commentby Mike Eikenberry
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
The great baseball Hall of Fame catcher, Yogi Berra, was known for his “Yogiisms” – humorous sayings that were often confusing, at time seemingly contradictory, but had more truth in them than it first appeared. “It ain’t over ’til it’s over” and “90% of the game is 50% mental” are just two of the better known Yogiisms. A lesser known one, “Trying to Lose Can Help You Win,” recently became very meaningful to me after playing in a $50 buy-in standard one table No-Limit Hold’Em tournament online at Party Poker. The payoffs were $250 for first and $150 for second.
After an hour of intense competition, the starting field of ten had been reduced to a strong-playing woman and me. She had me outchipped $7,120 to $2,880, but I had a much bigger problem. I thought I was playing in a different type of tournament (a special Party “Step” promotion) where the last two players remaining in the ten-player starting field would advance equally, no matter who won.
However, the final two players in the “Step” had to play until one of them had all the chips. This usually was quickly accomplished by both players going all in on each hand. My opponent and I had different goals – mine was a quick exit, since I had far fewer chips than she did, it would be quicker if I lost; hers was to win the extra $100 for first place. I had been all in only twice up to this point (both times I showed the nuts) and she was expecting a tight, tough match.
In the first eight hands, my opponent laid down her small blind twice. In the other six hands, I went all in before the flop and she eventually folded each time. What was going on? I was trying to lose and move on. Instead, I had won every hand and now had the chip lead. Amazingly, we had not seen one flop.
In the next hand I just checked so she could see a flop. I was going to bet all in on any two cards and hope that she would call. The winner would have all or most of the chips. We both called and saw a flop of 8 J A, all hearts. I went all in with my diamond 4 and spade 6. She thought for quite a while, then folded.
We went on a five-minute break. I can only guess what she was thinking. Had I gone all in crazy? Was I on a heater and getting all the good hands (in fact, I had not had a pair, two face cards at one time, or an ace at any time). Was she even playing the same player? On my side, I was tired of her stalling. However, if she wanted to play around, I would just not bet at all.
After the break, I did not bet for three hands. She folded once and checked right along with me on the other two, all the way to the end where I won both showdowns with ugly hands. My frustration level was building rapidly. Maybe if she won a hand things would change. I folded my next hand before she could act- she had won her first hand. She still folded the next hand on her small blind. That was it! I was going back to the all-in-every-hand approach. I went all in the next hand with king/jack; she made her first call with ace/ten. A king hit the flop and river and it was over – she was gone in an instant.
I went looking for my special “Step” promotion credit an hour later and, to my great surprise, had won $250 instead. I was trying to lose – how could I have overcome a 3-1 chip lead, won 13 of 14 hands, and the tournament? It was at that moment I remembered the Yogiism “trying to lose can help you win.” I had read them, studied them, and debated their meaning. Now I had lived one. My game would never be the same. Thanks, Yogi.
Assumptions and Defense Mechanisms
November 17, 2006 at 7:00 pm | In Bet Patterns | Leave a Commentby Scott Aigner
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
Several issues ago I presented a hand analysis in which a young man held trip 10’s with a board of 10-10-5-A (he held J-10). The opponents he was up against had started in the blind positions. He had over utilized a concept about blind hands being random and generally weaker than average despite that the flop and turn action was fairly strong with a check raise on the flop followed by a weak bet on the turn, a smooth call by the big blind, a raise by the young man, and a reraise all in by the player in the small blind. The big blind was just calling the whole time up to this point but then he moved all in after the first all in. The young man rationalized that he had already put in a fair amount of his stack and felt he also held outs even if he was behind. My instincts told me that the small blind held trip 10’s and that the big blind had slow played a full house. If this was the correct read then the young man held 3 outs to tie with the small blind (three Aces) and three cards that could win it for him (3 jacks). His pot odds were horrendous given that his last call was 60% of his entire stack. He was a much bigger underdog than he realized.
There are several concepts in play that this young man did not utilize in his analysis. One of these is that players like to trap in poker. The big blind trapped both of his opponents by waiting until he was forced to reveal his real strength.
A player’s action in the later rounds is usually a more accurate indication of their hand than the initial betting rounds. Only when the player who holds a big hand feels that his opponent(s) is/are trapped does he come to life. Sklansky discussed in The Theory of Poker that once the pot becomes big there is no longer a need to remain deceptive. The big blind laid a perfect trap by slow playing until there was no further need to be deceptive. He held pocket 5’s and had flopped the full house.
Defense mechanisms such as rationalization and denial play tricks on a lot of poker players’ minds. We even hear statements that reflect these defense mechanisms all the time at the poker table. Both can cause us to make further mistakes in our play during the remainder of the poker session but it can also influence our future play as well.
Don’t allow rationalization to trick you into thinking you played correctly or outright deny when you made a bad play. These mechanisms only compound your mistakes over time. By remaining objective you learn from your mistakes and prevent making the same one later on. Sure, it might be bad luck, but don’t just attribute it to bad luck until you have analyzed the situation completely. You just might find that luck had little to do with the actual outcome. Finally, assumptions cause a lot of errors in judgment. Don’t let them influence you too much, especially when the other variables are telling you differently.
This particular situation where you hold a strong but beaten hand is something we all experience a time or two early on in poker. It is one we have to personally experience in order to really understand what had transpired. By remaining objective, the lesson is relatively cheap. But if we deny or rationalize the play of our hand then we don’t learn the lesson and it becomes much more expensive in the future.
Call to Bluff
November 15, 2006 at 7:13 pm | In Bet Patterns | Leave a Commentby Tom Leonard
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
In today’s column let’s discuss an advanced play that has become very popular in no-limit but also has application in limit games as well. It’s a play that does require you to have some knowledge of your opponent’s tendencies to increase your level of success. It also requires you to be very aware of your opponent’s perception of you. Of course, these are both critical elements to all phases of successful play. We simply must observe and learn how our opponents play while being acutely aware of what image we have been projecting to them. Allow me to outline a scenario to demonstrate the dynamics of the “Call to Bluff” play.
Imagine limping in, or for that matter, raising with an unsuited King/Queen against a middle position limper. Let’s say you brought it in for a raise and everyone folded back to the middle position limper who calls your raise. Ok, you’re going to see the flop with position against a lone opponent. The flop comes a very powerful Ace—Ace—eight rainbow. Powerful for who is the question. Your foe who is out of position bets out and you decide to just quickly flat call. Now you have your lone foe asking himself, “What in Hades can this Bozo have to call with this board?” If you “know”, based upon past observations, your opponent would more than likely have slow played trip Aces in this spot you can feel comfortable that he is trying to buy the pot. If you had raised your foe on the flop he would either have mucked giving up his ruse right then or possibly re-raised either because he saw through your plan and is re-stealing or your read was wrong and he really has a hand.
Raising as a bluff in this situation looks just like what it is……..a bluff. Flat calling will give your opponent pause as he contemplates this strange turn of events. If he checks the turn, you fire a bet into the pot and you will be amazed at how many times he mucks and you win. Of course, if he raises you’re probably in trouble but this course of action will still be less expensive than having re-raised on the flop. This play is an example of recognizing the fact that if you always need the cards to win, you won’t be much of a winner in the long run. Why? Because the cards will pretty much even out over the long pull and if you’re just playing “ABC” tight poker you’ll be just like Shooter, the Kid’s mentor from the classic poker movie, The Cincinnati Kid. Remember when Shooter told the Kid, “The way I play now, just percentages, don’t win much, don’t lose much.” The translation is……Shooter is admitting to the Kid that he’s lost his ability to be an imaginative player who ferrets out and seizes opportunities. He just plays the percentages as in “ABC” poker. Sound fundamental poker but not the type of play that is going to consistently build your bankroll. Playing not to lose is a far cry from playing to win!
Our goal for this time together is to attempt to seize upon opportunities that arise during our sessions. If you hear Mr. Opportunity knocking, then answer the door! Remember, good cards come and go but opportunities to take control of a hand, and win it, crop up constantly. The meek may well inherit the earth……… but damn it, you want to book a win don’t you?
See you next “TIME”.
Online Gaming Has Uphill Battle with New Senate Majority Leader
November 15, 2006 at 7:10 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a Commentby Amy Calistri
First published in PokerNews
Online gaming advocates were high fiving after the mid-term elections as many of their mostly Republican foes were unseated. But this was an admittedly small battle in the war to undo the UIGEA. If online gaming is to win the war, they have an uphill struggle relative to the issue of regulation with the new Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
On the surface, Nevada Senator Harry Reid looks like the perfect focal point for the issue of internet gaming. In 2001, Reid was awarded an Industry Leadership Award from the American Gaming Association. Accepting the award Reid said, “I’ve been proud to help educate America about the contributions gaming entertainment makes to Nevada and across the country.”
Reid was not happy with Frist’s tactic of sneaking the UIGEA into the Safe Ports Act saying, “I can assure you that I was disappointed with the Majority Leader’s inclusion of an Internet gambling ban in an unrelated bill that plays an important role in protecting our nation from the threat of terrorism. I was also dismayed that the Minority Party was denied the ability to participate in the political process and be involved in the negotiations of the conference report. Consequently, those who opposed the online-gaming ban had no realistic opportunity to object.”
Reid has called the President a “loser,” Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas an “embarrassment,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan “a partisan hack,” and said the “nation’s capital had been overrun by organized crime Tom Delay-style.” But when it comes to online gaming, perhaps the most important thing he’s said is “Internet gambling cannot be controlled and, therefore, it should be illegal.”
What does Harry Reid know about gaming regulation? Plenty. Reid was the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission from 1977-1981. It was a particularly challenging period in Nevada gaming history as mob influence was prevalent and public opinion was low. As Chairman, Reid ushered in a new era of responsibility, paving the way for Nevada’s almost epic economic development. But it wasn’t easy. His life was threatened on numerous occasions; once when a car bomb was placed in his family’s station wagon. When Reid denied a gaming license to Stardust Casino executive and convicted sports fixer Frank “Lefty” Rosenthal, the showdown was so dramatic it was eventually portrayed in the movie Casino.
But even with his public anti-online gaming position, maybe Reid is the right person at the right time for online poker. He obviously understands the economic benefits of the gaming industry and he has been open to legislation that would study the potential to legalize and regulate online gaming in the US. But to do this and do this right, it means that online companies can’t just hide behind the cloak of offshore locations and hope that a skill vs. chance argument eventually filters through the court system. To turn Reid into an ally, online poker needs to come forward and articulate its ability to be regulated and demonstrate its willingness to contribute to the US economy via taxation and jobs. Those are the issues that resonate with Harry Reid and, to every extent, have defined his career.
Internet Poker Folds A Winning Hand
November 13, 2006 at 7:16 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a Commentby Nelson Rose
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
The fallout from the new Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 has been nothing short of amazing. Every publicly traded gaming company is running for cover, and many of the private ones as well. Operators as big as PartyPoker and the payment processor FirePay stopped taking bets from the U.S. when President Bush signed the bill into law on Friday, October 13th. Other companies have said they will cut off U.S. players once regulations are in place.
The main question is: Why? The new Act should add little to an online operator’s worries. Legally, it creates a new crime, accepting money for unlawful Internet gambling transactions, that only applies if the gambling is unlawful under some other federal or state law. Practically, this was not a drive by the federal Department of Justice or any state prosecutors. It was merely an underhanded ploy by a hypocritical politician, Bill Frist (R.-TN), to score some points for his presidential ambitions with the religious far right.
Some legal commentators have said that the new Act is something new, because it makes an operator guilty of this new crime in every state, since every state makes non-licensed gambling illegal.
But, half the states do not have laws on the books against bettors. In those states, betting even with an illegal bookie is not a crime.
The other states do make betting under some circumstances a crime. Of course, in the history of the United States, only one person, a sports bettor in North Dakota, was ever charged under these archaic statutes. I have heard it argued that up until now, the only potential criminal liability was on the bettors in those states, not the foreign operators.
Imagine what such a law would say: It a crime in this state to make a bet, but it is not a crime to be in a gambling business that accepts the bet.
There never has been a law that penalizes only the players and not the operators.
More importantly, these laws were on the books long before this new Act was passed; so were the many state statutes outlawing unlicensed gambling businesses. If an Internet poker operator was violating any of these state laws it was already in trouble.
Years ago, Congress made it a federal felony to be involved in any way in a “gambling business,” defined as five or more people violating state gambling laws for 30 days or with gross revenues of $2,000 in any single day. Worse, if those were state felonies, the operators were already guilty of the federal crime of racketeering, which has far worse penalties than this new Act.
Internet poker operators had looked at the state and federal anti-gambling statutes and concluded that they probably did not apply. The federal Wire Act, for example, was held to be limited to sports bets, while the state statutes are flawed because they do not expressly apply to out-of-state operators.
This new Act does not extend the reach of the Wire Act or any other federal or state anti-gambling law. There may be good reasons for folding a business that is making millions of dollars a day, including the risk of prosecution. But this new Act did not change those odds.
The Poker Shrink, Vol 14 – The Psychology of a Poker Tournament
November 10, 2006 at 4:50 pm | In Psychology | Leave a Commentby Dr. Tim Lavalli
First published in PokerNews
Every poker tournament is different. The structures are different, the players are different and certainly the cards are different. Recognizing how a tournament is different can increase your chances of making the money. Your pre-game ought to include at least an awareness of the internal psychology of a poker tournament.
To find the psychology of a tournament, ask questions like: Why are players here? Why are they playing this event? How can I use this knowledge to gain an advantage?
Let me illustrate what I mean by the “psychology of a tournament” by using a current NLHE event I have been playing the last several weekends. The tournament is Ultimate Poker Challenge being played each weekend at Binions in downtown Las Vegas. This is a year-long set of tournaments, so if you are going to be in Las Vegas in the coming year you might want to consider my analysis if you intend to sit down at one of these tables.
So what is the internal psychology of this event? Well it is the combination of the Binions celebrity name and the television coverage that gives these events their unique psychology. First, this is Binions, the original home of the World Series of Poker. Poker tourists often make the trek to downtown Las Vegas to play at Binions; they hold four small buy-in NLHE tournaments everyday. But the poker tourists are also there when the $340 Ultimate Poker Challenge events go off on the weekends, they see the permanent television final table set-up, they see the previous days event being taped, they see the scattering of professional players in the UPC events and they often plunk down their cash for a seat in the bigger buy-in UPC event. For that reason the Ultimate Poker Challenge events have a very fishy flavor, particularly in the early rounds.
Quite frankly, I have never seen so many first-timers playing in this size buy-in event before. Identifying the dead money is easy because they tell you “This is my first event” or they ask about the blinds every time they come around. Now the psychological aspects of such a mix of players require a savvy player to make many subtle adjustments. For example, after a table change, I found myself next to a lady who asked about the button and blinds every round. She simply could not “get it” how the button moved, and therefore how the blinds moved. Two seats past her was professional Kenna James and next to him was the super-aggressive tournament chip leader. Each hand had a very different make-up of players with varied psychological reasons for their play. The psychology of the event changed as the day wore on, players were eliminated and the TV final table loomed ever closer.
These can be very tough tables to play, trying to isolate that fish and avoid the sharks.
However, there were still players in the event who had not considered the motivations of the other players. They had not considered the psychological aspects of the play and therefore they could not manipulate the others players with their bets and raises. There is more to the psychology of a table or an event than how a bet or raise will produce the desired effect in a particular hand. The key is how your move will affect the particular players in the hand with you. Reading a player needs to be done repeatedly during a tournament, reading a table is more complicated still but reading the tournament is easy and you can do it before the cards are in the air.
To determine the psychology of any given tournament, just ask yourself: Why are players here today? Why are they playing this event? How can I use this knowledge to gain an advantage?
Junking In
November 9, 2006 at 6:27 pm | In Texas Holdem No Limit | Leave a Commentby John Vorhaus
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
If you have an adventurous spirit, you can look for profitable opportunities in no-limit hold’em by taking cheap flops with speculative holdings and hitting the sort of (granted, infrequent) monster flops that create big action and let you take some unsuspecting slackjaw off his stack. Make no mistake, these junk calls can be hazardous to your health, but if you’re in the right kind of game, one with lots of callers and few raisers, they can be profitably played. In such games, if a couple of people limp into the pot from early position they often start a limp stampede, a limpede if you like: a cascade of callers yielding correct odds for a wide variety of hands such as unpaired picture cards, small suited connectors and pairs of any size.
Warning: Only join the limpede if you’re confident that the blinds won’t make a play for the pot with a big sweeping raise. Most often, the blinds will just call, too, though, because the sheer number of pot participants discourages frisky raises. Nevertheless, some players love to raise into big fields of limpers, and you should know if you’ve got one of these guys in the blind before you decide to junk in.
Once you’ve junked in, you’re looking for one thing and one thing only: the perfect flop. Not an okay flop. Not a draw. You want the nuts. And not just the nuts but the nuts disguised so well that your unwary foes will hand you their stacks and never know what hit them. True, this occurrence is rare, but it does happen, and it’s the only thing you should be looking for with your junk calls.
Suppose you join a limpede with 5a-6a. If the flop were to come 4-3-2 rainbow, you’d get action from A-4, certainly A-5, overpairs, maybe even naked overcards. You’d slightly fear involvement from someone holding a set, for he’d be drawing to seven outs, plus runner-runner, but you can’t worry about that, for your goal is to bet big and get paid off by someone drawing slim or dead with a good hand because he can’t conceive that you’d be in there with 5-6. Of course he can’t conceive it. That’s why you’re there in the first place!
As you walk this perilous road, be sure you don’t confuse flopping perfect with flopping dangerously almost perfect. Suppose you junk in with 5a-6a and the flop comes 9a-8a-7s. Yes, you’ve flopped a straight, but it’s the idiot end, vulnerable to T-J holdings, and also to naked tens or jacks that can improve.
And yes, you’re drawing to a flush, but if there’s another flush draw out there, it’s almost certainly better than yours. As in the previous example, you’ll have to worry about sets drawing to full houses, but now that’s just one of the many threats you face. The only card off the deck you can really love is the 7a for a straight flush — and God forbid someone has the Ja-Ta. Having achieved the rarity of flopping a made hand, you’ll nevertheless have to fold if you face significant heat. That’s not a trick many players can master.
Let us acknowledge, then, that junking in is a dangerous game. There’s tremendous reward when it works, but if you don’t know how to run scared when you miss or only half hit, or hit in an iffy situation, you’re better off sticking to standard, tight-aggressive play. But if you have a taste for adventure, try junking in from time to time. It’s fun, plus good for your image, and every now and then you can turn junk into gold.
$36 Sisters
November 6, 2006 at 6:24 pm | In Holdem Limit | 1 CommentThis article by Richard Burke describes how your betting should change when playing a pair of queens in a limit holdem game as opposed to playing queens in a no limit game.
by Richard Burke
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
My local poker room was jammed on a Friday afternoon in summer. Under the gun at a full $4-8 Hold’Em table, Fred peeked and saw [Qh]-[Qc]. He raised, making it $8 to go. Five players folded; the Cutoff and the Button called; the Small Blind folded; the Big Blind called.
The dealer flopped [Kh]-[7c]-[2s]. Fred led the betting with $4, figuring that if anyone had a Set, Two Pairs, or Kings, then she would raise and he would fold. None raised; two called; the Big Blind folded.
The dealer burned and turned the a5. Although it was possible that someone had an inside Straight draw or a Flush draw, Fred thought those unlikely. Maybe his hand was best. He again led the betting. Both called the $8 bet.
The dealer burned and turned the for this tableau, [Kh]-[7c]-[2s]-[5h]-[Jc]. Fred observed that a Straight and a Flush weren’t possible. No one else had raised pre- Flop, so he discounted pocket Aces or Kings, and Big Slick, leaving a Set, Two Pairs, or Kings as dangers. Fred led the betting with $8; the Cutoff folded; the Button raised. Fred paid him off. The Button showed down dK-dJ, and Fred mucked his $36 Queens. “What had he done wrong?” he asked.
We retired to a quiet area where Fred bought adult beverages. Your early position, pre-Flop raise was good, I told him, because you likely narrowed the field. Instead of the usual five or more hopeful players paying to see the Flop, you had only three opponents.
When you hold the ‘Sorry Sisters,’ I told Fred, you want neither an Ace nor a King on the Flop, a 59% chance, as given by C(42,3)/C(50,3). You were a bit unlucky that an overcard flopped.
Still, a King on the Flop was better than an Ace, I told him. At low-limit Hold’Em most everyone plays Ace-Any starts; fewer play King-Any starts. However, they will call two bets cold with starting hands like [Kd]-[2d], [Kh]-[Js], and even [Jc]-[Th]. Even without overcards, a suited, connected, or paired Flop like [8h]-[Js]-[Ts], or [Kh]-[Td]-[Ts], would leave your Queens drawing slim. Fred nodded.
Your post-Flop bet was okay, I said, because you represented top Set, pocket Aces, or Big Slick. Your first mistake was your plan to fold if raised. Even without Kings, an advanced player might raise to test your strength, to slow you down, and/or to obtain a ‘free’ card on the Turn. My action would depend on who raised.
Your next mistake was lead betting on the Turn. Although you hate giving them a free card, they both smooth-called your post-Flop bet with that King on the tableau. You should assign them hands like Big Slick, a weak King, or possibly [Ah]-[7h]. With Kings being likely, I would have checked the Turn and then mucked if an opponent showed strength.
I too would have checked the River. If the Cutoff bet and the Button called (or raised), then I would have folded, because the Cutoff might have been bluffing, but not the Button. If the Cutoff checked and the Button bet, then I would fold, call, or raise, based on my read of the Button.
“Even heads-up pocket pairs are a coin toss against two overcards, plus it’s rare to get heads-up before the Flop at limit Hold’Em,” I said. “With overcards on the tableau, bad position, and two or more opponents, rather than lead bet, I look for reasons to muck.”
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
