Manipulating the Odds

It is a clearly observable trend in poker that players are moving away from full-ring-game limit hold'em. Instead, the action is slowly but surely gravitating toward no-limit hold'em cash games and tournament play. Those players who still prefer limit hold'em to be their first choice are turning their attention to shorthanded play, specializing in games limited to a maximum of six, five, or even fewer players.

So, why is this happening? Many new players who are coming into the game are doing so because they have seen poker on TV. If they have done so, it is likely they have watched tournament play or no-limit cash play. Viewers want to see action, and the easiest way to provide it is to show big hands in which players put big amounts of cash or chips into the pot and someone gets busted. Limit hold'em is a great game, but it does not lead to these major confrontations in individual pots. New players whose only poker education is via TV are therefore going to head straight for the tournament or no-limit action and bypass the limit game altogether.

However strong, experienced players are abandoning full-ring limit hold'em. The problem with these games - for the better players - is that the fixed betting structure often makes it impossible to protect a strong hand, and thus many pots simply become a lottery. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs for players who want to make serious money in poker.

Here is an example: Our hero is in the big blind with the A K. A middle-position player who plays badly limps in, the cutoff - a strong player - calls, and the small blind completes. Our hero, holding a premium hand, raises, and everyone calls. There are four big bets in the pot and the flop is a pleasant sight for our hero: K 9 8, giving him top pair, top kicker.

The small blind checks, our hero bets, the middle-position player calls, the cutoff raises, and the small blind folds. Our hero considers the situation, knowing that the cutoff is a strong player. There are reasonable drawing possibilities with this board, as it features two connecting cards and is two-suited. Although our hero reckons that his hand is probably the best right now, he is out of position and is slightly nervous about three-betting. What if he reraises and the turn card is something ugly, like the 10. What then? He reasons that it is not a good idea to escalate the pot when he is unsure of where he stands. So, he elects to simply call and see what the turn brings. If it is a safe card, he will lead out. An additional point that our hero considers is that a simple call is likely to "close" the betting. In principle, this is not strictly true, as the middle-position player could now reraise. However, he has shown nothing but passive play so far in this hand, so a reraise from him now is most unlikely.

So, our hero calls - as does the middle-position player - and there are now seven big bets in the pot. The turn brings the 2, which is about as safe as you can get. Our hero now puts into action the second part of his plan and leads out to avoid the possibility of the round being checked around and his opponents (who are likely to be holding weaker hands) receiving a free card. Both players call, building the pot to 10 big bets, and the river brings the 6. This card does not appear to have completed any draws, so our hero bets, hoping to pick up calls from weaker one-pair hands. Unfortunately, the middle-position player now raises and the cutoff folds. Our hero now shows great discipline, resists the temptation to make a crying call, and mucks his hand. Although his pot odds are substantial, he can see that the generally weak and unimaginative middle-position player has raised with two live players in the pot, and he knows that in such circumstances, there is almost no chance that his one-pair hand is good. In fact, the middle-position player had the 8 6 and rivered two pair. Although in principle we have no idea what hand the cutoff had, let's assume he was playing the J 10, whereby his decisions were all perfectly logical (he landed a straight draw on the flop and his raise was angling for a free card on the turn).

Hands like this demonstrate why full-ring limit hold'em can be a hugely frustrating game for the good player. Our hero played the hand with great sophistication: He read the situation well on the flop and made a good call (resisting the temptation to reraise); he made a good lead bet on the turn, a good value bet on the river, and then a fine, disciplined fold when he got raised. He played well on every street. He showed appropriate aggression but was also capable of restraint when it was warranted. All the while, he read the hand well.

Meanwhile, the middle-position player played in typical fish mode. He opened the betting with a piece of rubbish. He was utterly oblivious to the meaning of the action around him on the flop and turn, and called along like a sheep. Then, he hit an undeserved lucky card on the river and scooped the pot. At no time did he have any real idea of what was going on. He had no plan and no ability to read the hand. His skill extended no further than noticing that he had a pair, and he decided to call along on the strength of it.

So, isn't this just a typical bad-beat story for our hero? Isn't it a case of the fish getting lucky here, but with a normal run of cards, he will get killed? Well, actually, no. The problem is that although it looks as if the fish played terribly - he didn't really make any very bad mistakes. We all know that he shouldn't open with 8-6 offsuit. It's not a recommended play, but he will really be in a bad way only if he runs into a high pair. Most of the time, he will be up against just two higher cards and will have reasonable chances. All of the calls that he made during the course of the hand were justified in terms of pot odds (check it out), although it is unlikely that he even considered what the other players might be holding, let alone make calculations involving his outs.

So, what can our hero do about this? If his game of choice is full-ring limit hold'em, not a lot. However, if he plays tournament poker or no-limit cash games, he can make substantial bets on the flop and/or turn that will convert the reasonable calls by his opponents in the limit game into disastrous ones. If he plays shorthanded limit hold'em, it is likely that the pot will be contested heads up and will thus be smaller. Now, the fish are making bad calls that are not close to being justified by pot odds.

This final scenario should provide a clue to an alternative way for our hero to play the original hand. When play comes to him preflop in the big blind and he is holding the A K, he can simply check! At first this play looks absurd; our hero is very likely to have the best hand, so surely it must be bad play not to raise. Well, maybe - but consider how the hand can develop. There are now two big bets in the pot when the favorable flop arrives. The small blind checks and our hero bets outs. The middle-position player again calls, the cutoff raises, the small blind folds, and both of the other players call. At this stage, there are five big bets in the pot. Now when the safe card arrives on the turn and our hero bets out, the middle-position player is not getting the right price to pursue his draw. The pot is offering 6-to-1 and he is drawing to - approximately - an 8-to-1 shot (five outs from 46 unseen cards). By not raising preflop and keeping the pot smaller, our hero has forced the middle-position player to make a mistake by calling. There are also post-flop playing advantages that accrue by not raising preflop, in that our hero has disguised the strength of his hand and is more likely to get paid off by a second-best hand.

I am not stating categorically that limping in preflop is the right way to play here. It is a judgment call. You will sacrifice some preflop equity, but in return you will gain post-flop playing advantages and can often prevent weak draws from getting the right price to chase you down. At the very least, it gives you another weapon in your arsenal to use to outplay weaker players.

Byron Jacobs is the author of How Good is Your Limit Hold Em? with Jim Brier, and Beginner's Guide to Limit Hold'em. They are available through bookshops and www.dandbpoker.com. Byron may be contacted at byronjacobs@aol.com.