Izmet Fekali

Archive for the 'Texas Hold 'em' Category

Playing AQ and Similar Hands Preflop

(by David Sklansky & Izmet Fekali)

There's been some hot debating in Internet poker community about the proper way to play big cards preflop in loose games. In Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players, 21st Century Edition, Sklansky and Malmuth advocate their tactics of keeping pot small with hands like AQo to give opponents a chance to make big mistakes postflop when chasing. On the other hand, Abdul Jalib was first to point out that big cards (if best) should raise preflop to destroy implied odds of the fish. Serious students of the game are urged to take a look at his study on raising after loose limpers here. It appears to be a close call between raising and calling when holding best non-pair offsuit hand preflop against a ton of opponents, however, my own position on this matter is simply - RAISE!

The following is a reprint of private email exchange between Mason Malmuth, David Sklansky and myself, spawned out of a few rec.gambling.poker posts on the subject of comparisons between Lee Jones's and Sklansky/Malmuth books. As I did not get explicit permission to publish Mason Malmuth's private writings, they are left to the reader's imagination. David Sklansky's email comments are published with permission.

You might want to look first at the original rgp post by Mason Malmuth on merits of the new edition of HPfAP, my somewhat teasing reply and more detailed new HPfAP loose section critique. For the sake of completeness, here are also my first and second short errata posts.

The above rgp posts spawned the following email exchange.

Izmet Fekali

P.S. David Sklansky relented a bit on his position on playing AQo preflop in his recent 2+2 post. But only a bit.

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:06:43 EDT
Subject: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

I will be addressing this debate shortly. For now notice you err when you say that we hope to win with an unimproved AQ. The fact that we do not, is why 87 offsuit is not that important to get out. In the first case we would worry that it has five cards to make one pair or better. In case 2 we only have to worry that it makes TWO pair or better with four cards. As to your other points, you are correct that we are not talking about ridiculously loose games with complete morons. Certainly A10 should be played in those games. However the "horse race paradox" comes into play more than you think. I will have more to say about this on 2+2 when I get around to it. Feel free to reprint.

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:35:16 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

I will be addressing this debate shortly. For now notice you err when you say that we hope to win with an unimproved AQ.

I was a little too quick with that statement, you are right.

The fact that we do not, is why 87 offsuit is not that important to get out. In the first case we would worry that it has five cards to make one pair or better. In case 2 we only have to worry that it makes TWO pair or better with four cards.

Your point was clear to me. My point is you make the most money from dominated hands. These are the ones you want in.

As to your other points, you are correct that we are not talking about ridiculously loose games with complete morons. Certainly A10 should be played in those games. However the "horse race paradox" comes into play more than you think. I will have more to say about this on 2+2 when I get around to it.

Maybe I'll post there :)))

Feel free to reprint. DS

I appreciate it.

Izmet Fekali

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 20:55:39 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

I will be addressing this debate shortly. For now notice you err when you say that we hope to win with an unimproved AQ. The fact that we do not, is why 87 offsuit is not that important to get out. In the first case we would worry that it has five cards to make one pair or better.

BTW, in the first case, when AQ and 87 both don't improve on the flop, 87 has six available outs (not five) to make one pair or better.

In case 2 we only have to worry that it makes TWO pair or better with four cards.

When AQ hits on the flop, 87 needs two cards out of six (not four) available outs to make two pair or better.

Or am I really missing something here…

Izmet Fekali

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:16:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

four other cards on board that aren't the ace or queen that paired you.

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:37:05 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

four other cards on board that aren't the ace or queen that paired you.

Ah, that's what you meant! Gee, this one was NOT easy to figure out :)))))

I mean, it was obvious to me what your point was, - as you need to catch an ace to queen in these games, 87 needs to catch twice to beat that pair (when you also catch). I did not get your point about 87 having a fewer number of tries available to do so (boy is this difficult to word properly, especially for a non-English speaking person).

But here's a question I forgot to ask you the last time:

Is it your position then you'd rather see hands like 87 calling your raise cold than dominated hands like AJ or KQ? My experience is that having dominated hands still in play is a big moneymaking situation, as they have tough time folding even on the river, let alone the fact that they are apt to raise you on the flop, when you both hit your common card. Remember, we're talking idiots here. As a side benefit, this kind of a raise can be a nice help in knocking some passengers out.

For holdings like 87, I dunno, they seldom get past the flop, see? If they do, they have a gutshot (which I don't like that much), or they flopped a pair also. So we are talking 4 or 5 outs here for them. On the other hand, with a flop of, say, 25Q, I'll get action even from hands like AT, Ax or KJ as the fish tries to hit that overcard. And these are the type of hands most likely to call the preflop raise cold.

To look from the other perspective - I have stated elsewhere in my post that I'd rather call two cold with a hand like 98s than QJ. Do you feel I have to reconsider?

Maybe I'll do some sims to get a better feel for this (but they are soooooo boring to set up…)

David, I appreciate your comments anytime, as I am quick to reconsider my positions if faced with solid arguments. I learned long ago it's not wise to blindly follow any beliefs as strong as they may be.

Thanks for your time.

Izmet Fekali

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 14:56:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

Yes you would rather call with 98s. My only point was in multi-way pots where a hand like AQ needs to pair to win it should feel no particular need to knock out 87.

From: izmet@siol.net
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:47:29 +0200
To: Dsklansky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Loose games

You wrote:

Yes you would rather call with 98s. My only point was in multi-way pots where a hand like AQ needs to pair to win it should feel no particular need to knock out 87.

OK. I concur your point is valid.

But then again, if I'm happy to have 87 in, then which hands would I rather have out (other than AA, KK, QQ, AK, of course)? Probably the hands with a king only.

Is it then safe to conclude that AQ doesn't mind lots of opponents if best preflop?

I feel that AQ is quite robust here (if best preflop) and should definitely raise. But not to knock out. To cut idiots' implied odds. But because of the other factors you mention, like tying people to a big pot (which I agree is bad), it might be a not so clear cut decision. I'll have to munch on it some more.

A case could be made for limping in early position to conceal your strength with AQ, wait for a good flop and then go for a check raise. This usually knocks out a few gamb00lers. If our premise is an ace or queen on the flop is mandatory, the idea of seeing cheaply has merits.

But then again, I'd regard a JTx flop as quite OK, see, and in this case I'd be sorry for not raising preflop. A bloated pot is what I'd want.

My God, it's always like this, back and forth, pro et contra, give and take. This hold'em business is complicated as hell… you did a good job years back, this is probably not said often enough.

And I do appreciate your responses.

Izmet Fekali

From: Dsklansky@aol.com
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:22:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Loose games
To: izmet@siol.net

Once AQ gives up on winning without a pair it really doesn't want to get others out, at least up to a point. And if it was all in, it definitely should raise. On the other hand, with even semi rational opponents, that raise for value doesn't gain too much and may be overshadowed by the fact that keeping the pot smaller not only avoids draw-outs by players less willing to accept lesser pot odds, but makes it more likely that you can get a raise in later to shorten the field. Again these concepts do not apply against total live ones so you and Gary Carson are right there. On the other hand, even in games like that, using these ideas will certainly make you a winning player.

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker, texas holdem

December 25, 1999 Posted to Poker, Texas Hold 'em

Comments(0)

Implied Odds

In email, Marge writes:

Dear Izmet,

In the 2+2 forum you state that,"You do not want to put money in early when in implied odds situations" when you were responding to somebody who was thinking about raising in the big blind with K-Q suited. And I was wondering if you could explain to me, or tell me where I can find a more in depth explination, how I'm shooting myself in the foot when I call or raise with hands that thrive on implied odds. For instance, if I decide to raise in late position with pocket 6's, because I think I can buy the button. OK, now I've got the button(essentially), but now I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage because of the extra money in the pot after everybody calls? How does this hurt my implied odds? I don't get it.

Thanks for any help, Marge

By definition you are relying on postflop earnings when in implied odds situations and are therefore, able to call preflop with somewhat worse odds than it seems.

Let's take your example with pocket 66. There are two ways to play this hand preflop. You can re-raise a steal raiser preflop to get heads-up and are about 6:5 favorite against overcards. Note that this is NOT an implied odds situation. By being favorite, you are earning money with your early raises (although this hand is a bit tricky to play postflop). You are earning 54.5% (6/11) of any additional money going into the pot. As you are getting 50-50 pay-out on your raise (the opponent must call the same amount you bet), getting money in early is profitable.

Of course, this is not the best example of reverse implied odds, as you might lose a lot postflop when a scare card hits and you cannot know whether your opponent's bet is a bluff or not. But I'm sure you understand the logic. A better example would be a hand like AKo which will usually win more than it's fair share against many opponents preflop and therefore MUST raise for immediate profit.

Implied odds situations are quite different. As soon you are not heads-up with 66, you are in an implied odds situation. There is no way to win fair share of pots with this hand, unless heads-up. By fair share I mean a hand must win:

50% heads-up
33.3% in three way pots
25% in four way pots
20% in five way pots
16.6% in six way pots
etc.

66 will win more than 50% heads-up, but will NOT win more than 33% three way! That means you need to hit your set on the flop multi-way, else fold. This is the only profitable strategy unless the pot is humongous, and you can get about 20 to 1 on the flop for a call.

Let's say the pot has been opened with a limp and a caller. You are on the button with 66 and call (correctly) as you do not expect blinds to raise or fold and are therefore getting 4 to 1 on your call. SB calls and BB checks as expected. The pot is now five handed.

Note that you are about 9 to 1 underdog to win this pot (there is a 7.5 to 1 chance to flop your set, but as you can still lose with it, 9 to 1 is about safe estimate for debating purposes), yet your call was correct because of the implied odds.

If you do not hit, you fold immediately. If you do, you can be pretty sure to collect the missing odds postflop. Note that if everybody folds on you on the flop when you hit, your play is essentially ruined despite winning the pot. You were counting on extra bets postflop or else your call preflop was a mistake.

How much do you have to collect postflop for profit when you hit? As you were 9 to 1 dog and only got 4 to 1 on your call, you have to collect 5 small bets postflop to break even. Sometimes you will collect much more, sometimes you'll collect less. Having only 4 opponents is about borderline. You'd be happier with more.

Now let's say the blind raises behind. Everybody calls and so do you (correctly, as a mistake has already been done and folding now would be even worse). You are still 9 to 1 dog, but your implied odds are cut in half. You got 4 to 1 on your money, but these are big bets now, not small. You need to collect 5 BIG bets now postflop to break even. This spells trouble.

If there were a re-raise and everybody called, you'd still be getting 4 to 1 on your money preflop, but would have to collect 5 triple bets to break even. I'm sure the principle is clear to you now.

Note that it is of no importance whom raises preflop. The odds stay the same whether you raised preflop or your opponent. When you are raising yourself, you are cutting your own implied odds.

Please note a hand like 78s is NOT in an implied odds situation against limpers preflop. Suited connectors win more than their fair share and can therefore, raise for immediate profit. The implied odds with these hands are a bonus when they hit a draw on the flop. There is a rule of thumb I constructed and I vainly (and somewhat in jest) call it "The Fekali Principle." It applies to preflop situations:

"Big hands should bet early; little hands will bet late."

It means the small hands (relying on implied odds) should see the flop cheaply and torture big hands later when they hit their draws. Conversely, big hands should put the money in early to charge drawing hands for the privilege. For more info on this see

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_526705137

For best info on preflop play, see

http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html

… you will not find a better analysis of hold'em preflop play anywhere, including S&M.

There is some info on implied odds on my Loosest Games FAQ pages, but you'll probably have to dig around a little:

http://www.fekali.com

Feel free to ask again if I did not manage to make the explanations simple. Note that I'm a European and English is not my language.

A quick note: buying the button with 66 multi-way is not a spectacular achievement. If you hit your set on the flop, there is not much advantage in being the last to act as opposed to being next-to-last.

Izmet

In follow-up, Marge writes:

Dear Izmet,

Thank you soooo much for your help. You have an incredible gift for simplifying something to the point where even a nine year old could understand you. I found your paper on "Calculating Drawing Hands", and for the first time in my life I can understand the mechanics behind Inside Straights. You're my Hero!!

Thanks again, Marge

Think nothing of it. Thanks for your comments.

P.S Why is being next-to-last (to act) more of an advantage than being last to act in certain situations, as you noted?

When you hit a set on the flop, you do not mind getting raised behind. In fact, you would welcome it.

Izmet

Technorati Tags: Izmet Fekali, poker, texas holdem

October 22, 1999 Posted to Poker, Texas Hold 'em

Comments(0)

Are extremely loose games beatable?

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 99 15:34:17 MET
From: izmet@siol.net (Izmet Fekali)
Subject: Re: Are extremely loose games beatable? (a 2+2 debate)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker

Izmet wrote:

With many in, jam preflop with hands like T9s, JJ or ATs even if one opponent shows you pocket aces!

Chris K. wrote:

With all due respect: this is nonsense.

Izmet asks:

Care to elaborate?

Chris K. writes:

Three reasons to raise:

To eliminate opponants and increase our chances of winning.

To build a bigger pot should we hit our draw, providing that we are experiencing postitive expectation anyway.

We are ahead and are Taxing the mediocre draws.

In a pot pre-flop with nobody likely to fold to a raise and re-raise (I.E. California low limit hold 'em) Does raising with a hand like T9s JJ or ATs against a known player with AA increase your expectation? Does it eliminate any other players and increase our chances of winning? Are we ahead and taxing the mediocre draws? Maybe, no, and no.

I'm glad at least somebody is willing to tackle this subject. OK, let's debate then.

First, let me make something clear. I used the words "even if one opponent shows you pocket aces" to illustrate the point, NOT to provide some lunatic strategy against aces. If one of the opponents indeed has aces, ramming and jamming preflop with said hands and many opponents becomes marginal, but still correct. Again, my point is as follows:

With enough opponents calling raises preflop, profits will be (disproportionally) split between two best hands.

Let's take a look at somewhat extreme example of JJ against AA and six loonies calling all preflop raises (remember, we are talking loose here). Let me say it right here: if a player raises UTG and shows me pocket aces before I get the chance to act, my JJ will be hitting the muck with enviable velocity. Granted, aces are a bit like Doug Grant: stay away, live another day.

But let's say I don't know (yet) I'm against rockets raising UTG. There are two callers, and I re-raise with my jacks. Lo and behold, there are four more callers (including the blinds) behind. I think to myself, this is gonna be interesting, thank you Allah for bringing food to the table, thank you for knowing I'm especially fond of fish.

Now the original UTG raiser re-raises again and shows me his aces. I'm not particularly happy seeing those friggin' alphabet starters, but as I am certain nobody is folding at this point (I can see mouths watering all over the table at the prospect of a gigantic pot), I make it five bets immediately with my jacks and everybody calls (California players please note five bets cap is standard in posh Vegas joints).

I say it's an immediate +EV move.

According to my sims, against aces and six more opponents, pocket jacks will win a little less than 15% of the time, and the aces will win about 38% of the time. If the game is $20-40, there is now $800 in the pot. I have a 15% equity in this pot ($120) for a cost of $100. This of course translates to $20 immediate profit (hey, I know it's not much, but it wasn't me dealing those damn aces to that pathetic turd juggler).

Now imagine being against AKs (especially when not in suit with one of your jacks) in this situation instead of aces. I have a whooping 24% equity then, for a $92 immediate profit in the above situation. Now this is not peanuts anymore. You are therefore advised by simple and modest Izmet Fekali here to jam your heart out in similar situations when the bankroll size is not an issue. Remember, it's the number of callers that's important, NOT just having the best hand.

Granted, variance goes thru the roof here, but I always wrongly assume everybody is loaded bankroll-wise as I am (I've been flipping burgers in Ljubljana for some time now and it seems quite lucrative to greedy ol' me).

Out of the 3 hands you mentioned, JJ being the best … you are about a 4.5 - 1 dog against the Aces. And you might be a favorite against the rest of each individual player, but the combined odds against the field would probably put you at about (guessing) a 6-1 or 7-1 dog against the field (including the AA). The T9s and ATs probably don't make the cut and may make the situation negative — Thus making the pre-flop raise unsound.

Funny enough, JJ is not the best hand out of the three mentioned when against aces. The honors go to T9s as this hand will win about 16.5% of the time in this situation according to my sims. I didn't bother to do sims with ATs as this hand would indeed do poorly against aces (I roughly estimate about 10% win). But nevertheless, jamming with this hand would still be correct if there were enough (let's say ten) opponents calling the raises. Again, it's the concept that's important, not particular hand situations.

Maybe it is fair to mention that some of world's best limit players are quite aware of this concept. I first stumbled upon it this summer in Bellagio when Abdul limped UTG with T9s (in a $30-60 game) and then subsequently jammed the pot against my pocket queens when five other optimistic players showed propensity for calling all raises. Sadly enough, that (humongous) pot failed to find the way home and made the day for another player. I felt the urge to pluck his eyes out when watching him rack that mountain of chips.

Another quick semi-related note: as it was obvious at the table that I and Abdul knew each other, there was plenty of reason to suspect collusion on our part, raising wild preflop like that. He was smart enough to show his hand to a fellow rgp-er Sergeant Rock (smartly folding in the blind) before mucking on the flop to avoid any kind of accusations. You are advised to do the same when jamming like this.

On the plus side, should you flop a good draw, you will have good pot odds to draw to. You hope that what you give away pre-flop, you make up + some post flop.

This is true, of course. But, please be aware I'm talking about getting +EV preflop, not sacrificing it.

Now the best part, a hand like T9s against 8 players who acted and decided to put their money in (in other words they are not 8 random hands á la computer simulation) has a good chance of drawing dead to the flush. Lets say 1 time in 5. So it maybe a negative expectation call anyway, but can be overcome by post flop play. If you raise — you increase your negative expectation thus you lose some by raising. You trade a little EV for a bigger pot, which I guess is acceptable.

We are talking extremely loose games here, where opponents are not sane and their hands are close to random. There is no such thing as six sane two-or-three-bet-cold-callers. Even if their holdings are somewhat rational, the concept of jamming with the second best hand still holds water.

True, drawing dead is a possibility. Still, on average, T9s will win more than fair share here and can profitably jam.

The real plus for these types of hands is in medium 4 way action where your raising for the unspoken 4th reason to raise:

4.Raise for deceptive purposes where it may cause your opponants to make critical mistakes in the later, more expensive rounds. I.E Give you a free draw to beat them.

This is just a bonus, a very nice one, though.

Which rarely happens in 9-way action pots. Anyway … Questions for the math and statistic weenies.   How do you calculate the combined odds of you versus the field? For instance: You have JJ and are against AA — which makes you about a 4.5-1 dog against the AA, but you inturn are a 4.5-1 favorite against 1 player, and 5-1 favorite against another and a 1.5-1 favorite against a another.

Lets say

Player 1: - AA

Player 2: KQs

Player 3: 88

Player 4: JJ (you)

Player 5: T9s

I am quite good with numbers, as I used to work in a license plate factory and had numbers coming out of my ass. But, this kind of math sends shivers down my spine and I prefer to fire up Turbo, sit back, light a doobie and think pure thoughts while waiting for results.