This was the first article I've written on poker and I'm sure at least some of you got some value out of it. I'd really like to thank the editor, Bryan, for all the comments that he made on the first couple revisions.
I have an itch to write another article. If anyone has topic suggestions for NLHE or PLO, I'll give it a shot!
In example 2 I don't like the slow play given the 2 clubs. But this is because I never found a player who would raise in EP with QQ+ and fold AKs and AQs, and usually also AJs too. In this case you surely want to charge her more if she is drawing, but also, if she has aces that include the Ac, or she has AKo, with the same A, he's giving her great implied odds for the nut flush draw. And if any club comes on the on the turn or river and the board remains unpaired, he's now playing defense with terribly difficult decisions if she bets or raises. Finally, I can't imagine AL has played enough and seen enough against any player to be as sure as he is that she can only have a major pair. (I'd be interested in hearing from him what he did observe to lead him to this critical conclusion).
Bottom line: this play is predicated almost entirely on a possibly heroic hand read, that, even if he is right, it is a situation that is very, very unlikely to confront his readers.
I had played around 500 hands with RP over the week and that is quite a lot in a live poker setting. I had never seen her bluff raise with air or raise a draw ever. She was as straightforward as a player could get. She would have smooth called with the hands I listed in my article (which includes flush draws) and she would have folded over cards (never saw her float and attempt a turn steal).
Preflop I had seen her limp with hands as good as AQ and even AK which I myself do in certain spots as well.
You might call this a possibly heroic read, but when I collect and analyze data I "go with my read" though it can be wrong at times. Go read the article by Patrick Antonius on page 36 of the Sept 26, 2007 Cardplayer Magazine where he discusses playing a hand by his "read" which as it turns out is horribly wrong. All you can do is collect information and make an educated guess as to the best way to play a hand. Even if you don't agree with my "read" you can still learn from the analysis.
Yes, a club on the turn could mess things up a bit and kill my action some but that will only happen 18% of the time. And given my read I would still be pretty confident in my hand. I attempt to play hands to get the most value across my opponents range of hands not specific to just in case they have a draw.
Thanks for your reply and I look forward to any more discussion.
OK, I hear you. And your point about Antonius' article is well taken. However, this kind of makes my point: that this is more of a hand-reading example than a generalizable strategic analysis since when you have high certainty AND accuracy in reads, poker becomes much simpler. I, for one, have rarely been able to get as comfortable with a read as you did in this case.
So, I'm more interested in discussing and reading about situations where the uncertainty is greater and the author explains the thought process that lead to a decision. See some of the hands I have posted in LL and ML NL forums on 2+2 for examples.
But I see your point, and appreciate your response.
I definitely agree with you that this article has hand reading at its very core. It is by creating hand ranges through "reads" or patterns in an opponents play that allows someone to quantify the uncertainty of a situation. The first hand example I gave has a pretty high uncertainty factor based on the wide hand range. The fact that I won the hand actually should have little to do with the analysis done. I possibly should have even left the end results out as was suggested before we went to "print". Results often create bias and make it harder to see the main lesson.
In each example though, I lead you through as many of my thoughts that I could recall that I used on the way to my decisions.
It wasn't my point to create a generalizable strategy. In fact, my main point was to break the generalizable strategy that many people employ which is to blindly felt an overpair (which I have seen A LOT of regardless of circumstances). It was my point, however, to show what information you should be attempting to collect and use during the play of a hand.
It wasn't my point to create a generalizable strategy. In fact, my main point was to break the generalizable strategy that many people employ which is to blindly felt an overpair (which I have seen A LOT of regardless of circumstances).
Interesting, since in the games I play online (2/4 and 3/6), overpairs are very often 3b, never min being folded. In fact, most of these guys play NL the same way as they have been playing LHE.
Go read the article by Patrick Antonius on page 36 of the Sept 26, 2007 Cardplayer Magazine where he discusses playing a hand by his "read" which as it turns out is horribly wrong.
Is this article available on the CP website? I can't find it anywhere.
