Tags:
Hold' em, Poker Clinic, Psychology
This is far and away the biggest leak amongst winning players. “What? Winning players? Must not be a very serious problem then,” you might think. However you’d be wrong. The fact that they are winning players makes it worse because they assume nothing is wrong.
I should get more specific before I continue. The problem is that these players play in a way that makes money in their regular game, say $5/$10, six-handed No Limit. However, they have no idea why they make the plays they make. They learned from a book, or from watching a friend play, or maybe they just happened upon a good strategy. They raise a good range of hands pre-flop. They bet a good number of flops, check-raise bluff a good amount of the time, etc. But they don’t really know why they do it. They just know that it works for them (so far).
Shocking play
I was playing in a 25/50NL game at the Wynn. At first it seemed like the play was okay. It was clearly a soft game, but I thought a few of the players seemed solid, from observing them the first hour or so. Then this hand came up:
Some Guy (SG) opened to $200 in late position. I had no read on him. He was new to the table. Older Guy (OG), who seemed to play well, called in the SB.
Flop is Q-J-3, rainbow. OG checks, SG checks.
Turn 4s, bringing two spades. OG bets $300 into the $450 pot. SG calls.
As an observer, at this point, I’m putting OG on some kind of pair or draw. He hasn’t really taken enough action for me to put him on a narrow range of hands. I’m putting SG on something like A-K to A-10 or something midpairish. Occasionally he might have a flush draw, too.
River is the 9s, for a board of Qs Jh 3d 4s 9s.
OG bets $900 into the $1,050 pot. A big bet for most live games.
I put him on either a set, a straight, a bluff, or a flush — with flushes and bluffs having the most weight.
SG thinks for a while, maybe 45 seconds, and then calls.
Now OG makes a very disappointed face, and is reluctant to turn over his hand. “I guess he was bluffing,” I think to myself.
OG takes a few more seconds and hesitantly turns over Q-10 of hearts as if he’s embarrassed. SG looks surprised and mucks his hand.
This is the point where I realize that the players I thought were decent had no idea what they were doing.
A man in the three seat (3S), who had been playing fairly well and made it clear to everyone how good he was, says to OG, “Wow. I bet you didn’t like that call.” OG shakes his head no, in agreement.
WHAT!?!? ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS? YOU DIDN’T WANT TO BE CALLED!?!?!? AM I PLAYING 25/50? DO YOU GUYS REALLY HAVE $15,000 ON THE TABLE? THIS IS A JOKE, RIGHT? WHERE’S ASHTON?
Flawed thought process
I couldn’t believe that these guys had fooled me for so long. I really thought they knew how to play.
I realized then why I was fooled. They made plays that were correct most of the time. They had experience in this live 25/50 9-handed game, and they’ve been winners in it for a while. The problem was, I couldn’t tell why they were making seemingly good decisions. I couldn’t hear the thought process behind each decision.
See, the river bet with Qh 10h there is actually a good play. I would make the same bet against most thinking opponents. My reasoning would be that I have the best hand most of the time. My opponent likely wasn’t drawing, so won’t bluff if I check. So the only way for me to make money on the hand is to bet if I think he will call with a worse hand enough of the time (If he won’t call enough with worse, then I have to check and fold to a bet). Now I can decide on a bet size. I would choose a large bet for a couple reasons, mostly because I want to make my opponent make a bad decision. I want him to put me on a different hand or hand range than what I have.
So, looking at it from his standpoint, he might think something like: A large bet by me means a flush 30% of the time, a straight or set or two pair 25%, top pair 10%, and a bluff 35%. That’s what I’m trying to make him estimate with my bet sizing. If he believes this, he has to call with his mid-pair, since he has over 2:1 pot odds and has the best hand over 1/3 of the time.
If I make a small half-pot value-ish bet, he might put me on a range of 70% top pair, 10% straight/set/two pair, 5% flush, 15% bluff. Then he would correctly fold his mid-pair.
If I were bluffing this river, I might choose the smaller bet size to represent a thin value bet, and make him fold his mid-pair. You have to consider what your opponent might have before you make a bet, so that you can decide how big or small a hand you want to either push him off of or get him to call with. If I put my opponent on two pair in this hand, I wouldn’t ever expect him to fold to my half pot size bet because it’s not representing a strong enough hand. If I wanted to bluff, I would have to bet bigger, or check-raise bluff, which is probably the best bluff vs. two pair on this board.
Betting big and bluffing small
Another benefit to value betting big and bluffing small is that you make or lose more or less money respectively when you are called.
Anyways, that was a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to show you what a real thought process on that river should look like.
OG showed a huge leak in his logic when he thought his top pair was no good after his big river bet was called. Why did he bet, and why such a large amount? If he thought he had the worst hand, he clearly wasn’t betting for value. To bet for value, you should feel you have the best hand over half the time. So was he bluffing? Bluffing with top pair in this spot seems pretty terrible as well; any better hand would be unlikely to fold in that position.
I honestly believe that OG had no idea why he was betting. He just knew he had top pair. And I think the real reason he bet so big was that he didn’t want to be raised. I actually think he was trying to represent the flush so that low flushes wouldn’t raise him. (Hopefully you realize how dumb it is to try to represent a flush when you are value-betting top pair.) Unless you’re in a tough game against smart tricky players, which we weren’t, you don’t have to be worried about being bluff-raised on that river after that action. He only bet big because he was scared, not taking the expected value of his play into account at all. And 3S agreed with him. He agreed with OG’s almost nonexistent thought process.
The truth is that players like OG and 3S make money in the game they are used to playing. And as long as the game stays easy and the dynamic stays similar, they’ll continue to win because they happened upon a strategy that beats that particular game.
However, if players start to become more aggressive, or more passive, or tighter, or they start to check-raise more, etc. etc., OG and 3S will no longer be able to win, because they don’t have the mental tools to properly adjust. If they want to play in a heads-up game, or six-handed game, or they want to move up or down in stakes, or play in a tournament, they’ll be screwed. All of these new games require adjustments, and making proper adjustments to different game situations and opponents requires the ability to reason well.
Everyone has this leak to a certain degree. I’ve actually never sat there and thought about why I open-raise A-K suited on the button. I just do it.
The way to improve your game is to ask yourself, especially when reviewing big hands: Why did I make that play? What are some reasons for making a different play? Even in hands you aren’t a part of, think to yourself, “Why did he make that play? Would I make the same play? Why would I/wouldn’t I?”
If you end up getting a coach or some poker friends to talk to, make sure you discuss the reasons behind your plays. And please, operate under the assumption that you have a lot of leaks. Be on the lookout for them constantly. You’ll be better off that way, whether you actually are a bad player right now or not.
Read Part 1...
Read Part 2...
© Phil Galfond. Originally published in Bluff Magazine (US edition)
Phil Galfond is one of the world's most successful poker players - you can use your PKR Points to subscribe to his hugely popular poker training site, Bluefire poker.