lesson four: stack size and pot size dictate the right play

A lot of times, what decision you should make on a given betting round is determined by how many chips you or your opponents have in their stacks. This principle is true in cash games, of course, but magnified in tournament situations when you can't rebuy and the blinds continually go up. This is true not just in relation to whether to bet in a given situation, but also how to size a bet you might make.

A pot that played out during the Monday night game this week illustrates this principle quite well:

It was the $0.25/0.50 blinds level, which is the first level after the rebuy period. Eric was second to act with $12.25 in his stack, and looked down at pocket eights after a fold from Marc under the gun. There were seven players at the table at this point, and he elected to limp. I like limping or raising here, but given Eric's chips, it didn't cost him too much to limp into the hand and adopt a wait-and-see approach to the hand. If he raised to something like $2, he could potentially have trouble getting away from the hand and end up playing for all of his chips in a "coinflip at best" situation.

He elected to just call. Chip called in middle position with pocket sixes, and it folded to me in the small blind. I looked down at the pocket fives. There was no way I was going to fold here. With a pocket pair, and $1.75 in the pot, it cost me only $0.25 to see the flop if Chris checked in the big blind (which he was likely to do). I had about $35 or $40 in chips at the time, so I could have raised and then gotten away from the hand without doing serious damage, but there wasn't any real reason to do so: I'd be building a big pot out of position in which I pretty much needed to spike a five on the flop to stay around, plus, I didn't want to be confronted by a reraise from the other players. Specifically, if Eric shoved all of his chips in, I'd have a tough decision. Interestingly, if I had raised, Eric would most likely have been forced to go all-in against me. I'd be most likely making it $2.50 or so to go, so if he just called, the pot would be $6 and his stack would be $9.75. With a hand like a pair of eights, which is likely to be best preflop, it'd be much better for him to shove than to see a flop and possibly have to fold for that much of his stack when overcards hit the board (even though they may have missed his opponent). Therefore, I completed the blind, and Chris checked. The board came five of spades, seven of spades, five of hearts.

Since I had flopped four fives, a basically unbeatable hand, I elected to check. I didn't want to bet yet and force out the possible flush and straight draws that could be out against me. Chris checked, and Eric went all-in for $11.75. Chip thought for a long time, and eventually folded. When he did this, Chris folded without waiting for me to act. I said "wait a minute, it's on me. I call - quads." and showed down my hand, eliminating Eric when my quads held up (he would have needed both of the remaining eights on the turn and river).

The biggest mistake made in the hand, in my view, is Eric's all-in bet on the flop. Since it wasn't raised preflop, there are several things wrong with raising here. First of all, since it was limped around, the pot was small. There was $2 in the pot when he bet $11.75. If he had bet a lesser amount, say something in the $1.75-$2.50 range, he could find out if his hand was best, and maybe fold his hand to a raise. Given his stack, it didn't make sense to make that bet. It's true he was short-stacked, but he's risking way too much to win too little in that spot.

Think about it. The pot is two dollars, and your opponent bets $11.75 and is all-in. With a board of 5 7 5, what hands would you be willing to call that bet with? In my opinion, nearly all of the hands that can call that bet can beat pocket eights. The only hand that can call maybe and be behind the eights is ace-seven. Any five calls, and overpairs may call too (and they all beat eights). Therefore, he's putting himself in a situation where there are only two outcomes possible: either he takes down the $2 in the pot because no one has anything (which would've happened if he'd bet a smaller amount, anyway), or a hand that beats him makes the call and he gets eliminated.

Here's another approach that could've been taken - raising rather than limping preflop. Eric still would've been stacked in the hand, but his decisions would have been much easier. Assuming he makes it $2 preflop and Chip calls, I'm probably calling too, not to get Eric's stack, but to get at Chip's (he had me covered). Getting a great price, Chris probably calls here too and we see a flop four-handed still. This time, however, the pot would be $8 and Eric's stack would be $10. He would have to move at that pot with the overpair. He'd still get called by better hands, but he might also get called by flush or straight draws, and definitely the ace-seven. More importantly, though, the times when his eights are best, and no one else has anything, he's taking down $8, rather than $2. This represents almost a 50% increase in his stack. The odds no one has anything make it a common sense play against three opponents in a tournament, especially when you're on a shortish stack. You just have to consider the risk-to-reward ratio. Is it worth risking X for a shot at Y? How likely are my opponents to fold, etc.? This is how good poker decisions are made.

As a last note, if Eric had begun the hand with $6 rather than $12, limping becomes entirely too speculative, as he is risking too big a portion of his stack to just see a flop. Again, it is just too likely a bad flop will come off and he will have let players with overcards come into the pot and beat him. Therefore he'll either have to fold, or commit the rest of his chips with only a 9% or so shot of winning the pot and staying alive in the tournament. With a stack that small, and a hand that is likely to be best preflop, it's much better to go ahead and shove the chips in. If everyone folds, he picks up the blinds, increasing his stack by more than 10%, and is thus enabled to wait another round for a hand to move all-in with.

getting better all the time

After some cold cards, and a couple of small losses in the ledger, things are turning around. Not only as far as the hands I've been receiving, but also with reference to my play.

I think every poker player who is really interested in actually learning the game can feel when they've reached turning points. It takes a lot to actually learn the concepts you need to win, but it takes the experience of playing the game while considering the concepts to actually see them work. I've been reading some literature about cash games recently, and there's a universal principle that it's super important to understand: Don't go broke with top pair.

This is a tough thing to do, since top pair is often the best hand, especially against weaker opposition. However, the fact is that if the stacks are even remotely deep, top pair's probably not going to end up being good if you're forced to go all-in with it. A couple of authors have different ways of stating this.

Here's how Dan Harrington, 1995 World Champion put it in vol. II of Harrington on Cash Games:

If you have shown consistent strength throughout the hand, and on the turn your opponent either bets into you or raises your bet, top pair is very unlikely to be good. Let the hand go.

Put more mathematically, you need to be shorter on chips or the pot needs to be unusually large for you to be pot-committed with top pair or an overpair. The book Professional No-Limit Hold'em advises that ideal stack/preflop pot size for hands that are likely to make top pair hands ideal is 4:1. In other words, if you have $100 in your stack, the pot needs to be $25 or more when the flop is dealt before you can think about pot-committing with top pair top kicker, etc.

Otherwise, you're probably going to get shown trips and have to ship your stack across the table.

what you should be looking for as soon as you sit down

There's a lot of information you can get about the game you're playing in right away, before you sit through several rounds of the button and watch a lot of hands play out. This information can give you an edge right away to help you make correct decisions against your opponents, and increase your potential opportunity for profit.

First, as Mike Caro would say, look for the general demeanor of the game. If it looks like the players are laughing and having a good time, that's way better than if the table is playing quiet lockdown poker - people are gambling. Also, take notice of where the chips are - who has what amounts, where they are seated, etc. Pay special attention to the way in which players have their chips stacked, and if any chip stacks are exceptionally neat or messy, that probably indicates tight and loose play, respectively (of course this doesn't apply to messy stacks of players who have just won a big pot and haven't had a chance to add it to their stack yet).

One thing though, that you always want to notice in the first few hands is the rate of calling versus raising preflop, and how many players are entering each pot and staying in for the flop. If there's a lot of calling by a lot of players, and not very much raising, you are in good territory. You are most likely facing a lot of calling stations.

In Doyle Brunson's Super/System, he has the following to say about playing against this type of player:

"The perfect opponent to face is the Calling Station. He's similar to a loose-drunk player, but he rarely bets. Most of the time, he just checks and calls. And if you can't beat a man who always checks to you. . .you can't beat anyone.

Timid players don't win in high-stakes poker."

You have to notice your opponent's tendencies. This is a must because it's correct to play each opponent differently, and in general you want to tighten up at loose tables and loosen up at tighter ones. There are concrete reasons.

Consider this: What, by definition, does an exceptionally tight player do wrong? He/She calls too much. Similarly, a too-loose player calls too much. If your opponents are making habitual mistakes, encourage it. The tight player folds all the time, so you may as well agress against the tight player. Let him/her keep folding. They'll be doing it when they have you beat. Let the loose player pay you off. And if you're up against a player who bets and raises all the time, you'll have to call more, because on average he/she has a weaker hand. Also, against this type of player, it is enormous to have a monster hand, since in many cases they will do the betting for you, and if you have the nuts you can stick in a huge raise on the river, hopefully after they've pot-committed themselves by betting all the way down.

Sometimes, if your loose-aggressive opponent is in position against you, you are presented with more opportunities for check-raise rebluffs. This is a risky move, as it essentially risks two bets rather than one. However, with knowledge of your opponents and careful timing, it can be done. In order to try, however, I'd have to be extremely sure my opponent was capable of folding.

Of course, you can still be check-raising with the good hands that warrant it as well. In fact, I suppose more hands require a check-raise when facing a super-aggressive player out of position vs. a normal one, since they'll bet when checked to much more often.

However, you still would much prefer to have the loose players to your right so that you can avoid being out of position against them. Particularly if they have a lot of chips.