These concepts are applicable to 2,5,6,10,11 level SNG.

In order to attain the maximum win-rate in all forms of poker, one must be able to master hand reading and how to react to her opponent's tendencies when playing those hands. One of the basic problems with this is that several players may be able to make a great read, but not know the best solution to the problems their opponents present to them. In this post, I would like to step back and take a look at some of the proper procedures of playing versus the normal small stakes SNG player, discounting exact hand values, image, or meta-game.

As a player moves up, she must be able to evaluate the standard thinking and counter-strategies that are typical in each level. The vast majority of players are losing players. What happens here is that these bad players are playing other bad players. Two typical opponents playing each other are not winning, but there are strategies that are developed that they use to play each other. When this kind of opponent is playing a good player, he unlikely to identify her as strong, and he is unlikely to make adjustments.

Situation #1: The calling station.

A calling station in No Limit has a different definition than Limit. A calling station in Limit will generally call down until the river, where he will either fold or call, depending whether or not he hit. In otherwords, the good player must be willing to pummel the station with constant bets. Here, we are looking to build equity.

A calling station in No Limit does not make a habbit of calling all bets until the river. For the most part, the caller will call if he hits, or fold if he misses.

I created a simple game:

We are dealt the hand 97 on the button.
The flop is only going to have one card: A king. We know this going in.
To represent a full calling station, that plays every single hand, I decided to reduce his calling range to 33.3%. His play is that if he has a king in his hand, he will call. If he does not, he will fold.

I assign villain the following hands:
Any pocket pair.
any two suited cards, both 8+
A8o +
Any two cards, both 9+
98 o/s
87 o/s
76 o/s
65 o/s
54s

We make a standard raise of 60. Because I had to make the math easy, I assumed that he would simply call with AK, AKs, and KK 50% of the time.

He has a total of 12 kings, 9 of which he will never raise, and 3, which he will raise with 50% of the time. In essence, we know that he has a king in 10 of his possible holdings.

We get a break-even bet of 105. (thank you jay_shark for checking the math)

In english: If we continue to bet 105 into the 120 pot, and the villain calls: the villain makes no money on the call and we expect to make no money on the bet. If we bet less than 105, the villain is not able to extract the most from us, and he loses money. If we bet more, he is actually getting the best of us, no matter if we continue the hand or not.

The conclusion:
Against a calling station that will fold on all flops he misses, you should NOT stop bluffing. The reason players are having difficulty beating constant callers is not because they are betting to often, but they are betting too much money.

Situation #2: The first hand.

Typical opponent: overplays the first hand.
Typical opponent adjustment: Play any pair strongly.

When you are playing your first hand, these kind of players are easy to identify. If you open for a raise and are faced with a small re-raise, the chances that this game can be over in one hand is dramatically increased.

Hand example:

Stacks are 1500 each, you have the button.

Hero holds A8

Hero raises to 60, villain reraises to 200.

Perhaps later in the game, we would not be happy to call, but here we probably have decent equity.

Pot = 400

Flop A46

Villain bets 250, hero calls.

Turn: J

Pot 900

Stacks are now 1050. This is important to note. The reason why I called on the flop is because I want to get all of the money in before the river. Remember that this is the first hand of the game, and that your opponent has a very large range of hands, including bluffs. In order for your opponent to make a decent bet, he must be willing to get most of his chips in here and now. Many players eyes are bigger than their brains.

Villain bets 600

Look at the entire situation here. The main thing to consider is how much is left in front of your opponent (450). He is probably not going to be pleased to fight back from this number of chips. This bet more often than not, reps some kind of hand, but almost never an actual ace. Perhaps a middling pocket pair. At this point you can be guaranteed that he will call lightly.

Hero raises all-in
Villain calls and shows QJ.

Hand example:

Hero has T9 on the button.
Hero raises to 80, villain raises to 200. Hero calls.

Pot: 400
Flop A96

Villain bet 200. Hero calls.

Pot: 800
Turn 9

Villain bets 200. This is an unusual continuation bet. It smells of a trap. I can be sure that he has an ace now and wants me to raise.

Pot: 1000
River: 4

Villain bets 250, hero raises to 600, villain shoves all-in, hero calls.

Villain shows A7

This hand needs further examination. Although the concept was applied, I made an error in applying it. On the flop, I assumed that I could stack the guy off. I was layed 7.5-1 odds (real+ implied) and I had 5 outs. This is a losing call, and it becomes worse when I consider that my opponent could have already had two pair, or redrew on me. In the heat of the moment, I erred.

Situation #3: The check-raise trap.

A common situation that can be encountered is when you raise on the button and face a three-bet. In most cases, our villain will want to c-bet the flop. Once in a while, your opponent will check. Buyer beware, this stinks of a check-raise. This strategy works because people think that a check means a wiffed AK and many opponents will bet. More often than not, the check-raise is minimum or very small. It never fails that when this trap is executed, the villain will be willing to go all-in.

Stacks
hero: 1500
villain: 1500

Hero holds 97 on the button.

Hero raises to 60, villain re-raises to 240.

We are not thrilled with the raise, but we call.

If we miss, we are done with the hand.

flop: 986

We flopped top pair with an open-ened straight-flush draw. Our equity versus QQ is approx 64% on the flop.

Villain checks.

We know the trap. Lets review our options:

We could check. The problem with this is that when we hit, there is either a flush or 4 to a straight on the board. Chances are, the villain will bet half the pot and be done with the hand if we raise on the turn.

Lets say that he does bet half the pot for 200, giving us a 800 pot on the river.

The argument can continue that if villain is willing to call a shove 17% of the time, it is better than going for a call if the villain is willing to call 400 45% of the time (7 in extra profit). Clearly, it is best to win 64% of the time if our villain is willing to call 100% of the time.

So, how much to bet? 300 sounds about right. Chances are, this will show our villain that we fell for his trick and he will re-raise a large amount because he wants to punish us for drawing. We will gladly shove or call all of our chips.

Equities for the following flops:

Hero: 97
Villain: QQ

Two pair 973: 74%
Open-ended straight flush draw 863: 56%
One pair + open ended straight flush 869 64%
One pair + gutshot straight flush: 965: 59%
Trips: 91%
One pair + open ended straight draw: 47%
one pair + flush draw: 49%

Without a large triple-combo draw we are better off taking the free card because even if villain is willing to call a half-sized bet 30% of the time on later streets, we have a higher expectation.

Situation #4: The point of desperation.

The point of desperation is the part of the game where one player has between 700 and 950 chips. At this point, the villain realizes he either has to hit or make a move.

Typical opponent: Tries to trap and end the match.
Typical opponent adjustment: Starts bluffing with higher frequency.

Although it may appear that our villain is on a heater, he is not. At this point of the game, we must be willing to make marginal calls.

Hand example:

Preflop stack sizes:
hero: 2050
Villain: 950

Hero holds 99

Pot: 800

Stacks:
Hero: 1650
Villain: 550

Final board: J876Q

Villain shoves all in.

I am not entirely sure where I am in this hand. I know three things:

That my opponent is far more likely to be bluffing here.
That if I call and lose, I still have 1100 left. I feel that my edge is large enough that I can still win.
It is very unlikely that my opponent has a straight, since I hold two of the trumps in my hand.

The question is why is he betting? He most certainly does not want to be left with 550 chips. He may think I can't call, that I have AK or a weak Jack. All total, the pot is now 1350, I need to call with 550. A break even call of about 33.3. I know that he would be bluffing here quite often. He raised me before the flop, which could mean he has something good or that he is trying to push me off my hand.

I call, villain shows 43.

hand example:

I got this villain down to 700. I began mini-raising pre-flop because his new strategy, after playing tight was to press all-in on every flop. After 5 times:

Stacks:
Hero 1950
Villain 1150

Level 15/30

Hero holds T7
Hero raises to 60, villain calls

Flop: QT8

Villain shoves all-in.

Our villain is missing the flop about 60% of the time. Meaning that we are going to show up with the best hand about 60% of the time. Although I lost this hand, this is an easy call.

Great post! I think a lot of this is definitely true with regard to players at the low-level NLTRNs. The first point about calling stations is a really important one. Even if it hurts, it's important to keep betting against these players.

Can this be stickied

It explains a lot of the situations that I am up against brilliantly and showed me 2 leaks that I need to plug.

Thank You!

i'm so glad you decided to make a poohbah post.

Dealing with fishy play is a crucial part of husng strategy.

Good post Dave !

Poker is all about exploitation and you hit on some nice arguments .

Good post. One qualm, though:

In the A8 hand, how do we know villain is overplaying his hand? If he really is a psycho, we'll find out soon enough and won't have to risk a good bit of our stack with A8 to find out.

Landonfan, everything I wrote is up for micro-scoping. I am going to wait for more reviews and questions before I respond.

nice one

I think calling a 3bet w/ 97s and those stacks is a big mistake. If you knew he had QQ you would probably never call. And you're losing your whole stack if the flop is 9 or 7 high.

The villain was the stupidest ever on the A7 vs 9T hand. If he wants you to raise the turn, why don't you?

Calling a 3bet w/ A8 is bad. In fact, I would rather call later in the game than earlier, because later in the game when stacks are 10BB deep you're not even playing poker anymore and A8 is good enough to get it in.

Glad to see someone else was puzzled by these examples. The points made are reasonable, but I was left thinking wtf on most of the hands.

We call a large three bet with 97s. Villian doesn't bet his over pair on this EXTREMELY WET BOARD....? I search for the villian that shoves A7 on a paired board to a huge river raise. I can't follow how we get to that river call with 99 when there are two overs and we can't see the action. WTF was villian doing in this hand with 43 for all his chips when he needs to double up and is short, trying to flop a wheel? I don't understand why suits don't matter in these examples. I don't undertand why villian stacks off with second pair on the first hand. There isn't much you are calling that flop bet with besides an ace after calling a large 3 bet.

How to beat calling stations is important.
Yes, some opponents play the first hand too aggressively.

Yes, Some times a 1/4 pot or weak bet after a 3bet pf is sometimes a trap (or a draw). (call and get thurr ???)

Yes there is a point of desperation. But understand the primary method for villian to double up and for you to swap to the short stack is for you to make that light/marginal call while behind. Agreed at some point depending on the blinds (<~750) it is correct for villian to shove a far wider range, steal more, and correct for us to call with less.

Love the logic an premise, Dave. Some of the examples threw me.

Mike

I think that how much you can out-play your opponent after the flop is vital to how loose you can play before the flop. I did say that if we do not hit at least two pair, we are done with the hand.

I, of coarse, do not know my opponent's exact hand. Many times, in this situation, he could have a large range of hands, including as little as A8. I wanted to show that once this villain checks after re-raising pf, he will more often than not have a large pair. It is exploiting this mistake that I wanted to focus on.

I really hope we aren't losing all of our chips with a pair of 7s or 9s, especially after seeing this check.

vs AK on a 745 flop we would have a 74% equity, sure.



This could be a problem. I sometimes get a little trappy. I figured that I have one more street to tie this villain tighter to the pot. If he doesn't actually have an Ace, but something like 77, then I don't want to encourage a fold. But, yes, with the thinking that I am stating, it would be better to raise on the turn.

This hand goes with the thinking that it is better to press small equities earlier than it is to press large equities later.

I think that if you were willing to play these kind of hands strongly earlier in the match, you would be surprised to see how they end up. People tend to think you play terrible like everyone else, so they will press all sorts of crazy holdings and attempt horrible bluffs, and yes, even shove with middling pair hands on the rivers, call all-in shoves with second pair etc.

I knew many things I was writing would get a ton of heat. The reason why I wrote this stuff is because I want people to question the foundations of their games. Sometimes poker is counter-intuitive until you learn to think of it mathematically. I do believe that if you are a slightly winning, slightly losing, or break even at these stakes, learning to apply these will boost you nearer to a 60% wr.

I don't think a villain 3-betting preflop and then checking the flop means he's automatically super strong "overpair."

Especially at the lower levels, I think it would be a big mistake to assume that.

And I think it is -EV against most players to call a 3-bet with A8.

All of these hands are derived from actual examples. Many of them are modified for two reasons:

1- I did not want to include elements that could change the focus of what I was getting at. I am sure that if I threw the actual bets, calls and checks, I would be spending the next three weeks explaining the meta-game. However, in all of these examples, I was left with no real idea how to complete the hand. I am simply stating some thoughts that could be used when critical decisions need to be made.

2- I didn't look at the HHs and my memory sucks.

It does happen. I used this example to show when you should check or bet. The key is not falling for this trap.

We all do. But you don't need to search very far.

I mentioned that he re-raised me before the flop. I had second pair + a gut shot on the flop. J87, the turn brought a 6, and the river brought a Q. I explained the thought process on the river and why I feel the call is correct.

The title of this is "Level 0 exploitation"

Level 0 being the Sklansky (red underline on 2+2?) of the different levels of thinking:

0- what do I have?
1- What does my opponent have?
2- What does my opponent think I have, etc.

I had a hand that was worth a call with the pot odds.

Rainbow boards. If I am missing on an important concept about suits on rainbow boards, I would be pleased to know.

Explained one post above.

If you think that your typical small stakes SNG player thinks like this, you are handing away credit. Like a credit card company that gives easy credit, they are not maximizing there earn rate.

Call all of your chips and get there often, yes. I showed how to think of each hand on different boards and what plays have the larges equities on each play.

This would be a great addition if you explained this.

Glad to see you joined in ChicagoRY.

It may not always mean that. If the board did come up different, say 743, wouldn't you be willing to check behind and keep the pot small? This would allow us to lose the least from a large pair and induce bluffs from missed hands like KT, etc.

I see this play all the time. I do believe it is a huge mistake to auto-bluff when they check to you. It is a trap that I think we could often fall into. Obviously, with meta-game considerations, we need to deviate.

Meh, you probably are right, especially in the later levels, but on the first hand, I am trying to think how they would play better hands. Over-all, it seems that I will often face a shove here, which I would be ******ed to call.

This is one of those things of what ranges we are facing versus a typical opponent. It may be very thin, but when we consider that hands like AK, AQ, KK, etc would straight out open shove, or raise an inhibiting amount, the balance is shifted.

I can't stand the thought of arguing with someone I know plays better than me.

You're confusing how we think when coming up with a hand range to call an open shove with and how we should think of somebody who 3-bets first hand.

These are not the same types of players. The player that 3-bets you is not likely any of the players that shove over it.

I'm kind of confusing myself, but basically I'm saying that it can easily and is often AK, AQ, etc. Just because he's not one of the shoving donks doesn't mean he has a weaker hand, in fact often times the players that shove over the raise first hand have weaker hands than the players that 3-bet you to a normal amount first hand. That is why (though it changes at different buyin levels) the calling range is a little wider than most players expect for first hand shoves from villains.

And I probably haven't played (or maybe ran I don't really know anymore) much better than you the last month or two.

Edited for clarity.

When I have time, I will look through my data-base and check how many of my first few hands go. From my experience, players at these stakes tend to over-play the first 3 hands. That is the central thesis of my argument.

Once we call the 3bet, we don't have much room for outplaying anyone. Say he checks a dry flop and we decide to bluff. The pot's 480, so we're betting around 300-350. That means we're bluffing over a third of our stack on the first hand with no reads on the villain.

Another scenario: the flop comes something like T72 and he hits the bet pot button (pretty damn common at this level). What are we doing now? If we're not going broke with TP we certainly shouldn't go broke with MP, but calling 3bets then folding a flopped pair will get you run over at this level.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're saying is that we're not continuing past the flop unless we have a monster or villain checks. If villain does check, we make a big bluff if we missed, or try to check it down if we hit something.

i'll just chime in to defend davet's hypothesis that the three-bet/check line is nearly always a trap. in limited games, i think it's very rarely villain giving up on UI overs.

nice post
bbbushu

Here are some hands that have surprising results. I posted three in LC yesterday.

All of these happened within the first three hands:

Full Tilt Poker, $10 + $0.50 NL Hold'em Sit n' Go, 10/20 Blinds, 2 Players
LegoPoker Hand History Converter

SB: 1,750
Hero (BB): 1,250

Pre-Flop: (30) T Q dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to 120, Hero calls 100

Flop: (240) 7 8 Q (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets 140, Hero raises to 660, SB raises to 1,630 and is All-In, Hero calls 470 and is All-In

Turn: (2,500) 3 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: (2,500) 5 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: 2,500 Pot
SB showed 9 Q (a pair of Queens) and LOST (-1,250 NET)
Hero showed T Q (a pair of Queens) and WON 2,500 (+1,250 NET)

Poker Stars, $5 + $0.25 NL Hold'em Tournament, 10/20 Blinds, 2 Players
LegoPoker Hand History Converter

SB: 1,500
Hero (BB): 1,500

Pre-Flop: (30) 6 A dealt to Hero (BB)
SB calls 10, Hero checks

Flop: (40) 8 3 A (2 Players)
Hero bets 60, SB calls 60

Turn: (160) 7 (2 Players)
Hero bets 160, SB calls 160

River: (480) 5 (2 Players)
Hero bets 400, SB raises to 1,260 and is All-In, Hero calls 860 and is All-In

Results: 3,000 Pot
SB showed T 8 (a pair of Eights) and LOST (-1,500 NET)
Hero showed 6 A (a pair of Aces) and WON 3,000 (+1,500 NET)

Poker Stars, $5 + $0.25 NL Hold'em Tournament, 10/20 Blinds, 2 Players
LegoPoker Hand History Converter

BB: 1,520
Hero (SB): 1,480

Pre-Flop: (30) 7 A dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to 60, BB calls 40

Flop: (120) A 2 4 (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero bets 80, BB raises to 160, Hero calls 80

Turn: (440) T (2 Players)
BB bets 300, Hero calls 300

River: (1,040) K (2 Players)
BB bets 300, Hero raises to 960 and is All-In, BB calls 660

Results: 2,960 Pot
BB showed K 6 (a pair of Kings) and LOST (-1,480 NET)
Hero showed 7 A (a pair of Aces) and WON 2,960 (+1,480 NET)

I could probably pull up a hundred more of these. I am suggesting that the typical bad opponent that you face will not know how to play against a seemingly random hand. Let's face it, it is no point waiting for proof that you are against a moron when there is a strong probability that you are against one when you playing at the 5s and 10s. If you can learn how to play against a random hand, you will have a huge edge against your opposition, and you taking advantage of these edges early is a powerful tool.

Dave,

I'm sure you also have hundreds of hands that you were on the bad end of these situations. The key to beating low stakes is playing abc poker. This is not abc poker imo.

Flat calling 6 x bb preflop raises???

Overbet-leading the flop???

Flating a 4 x 3-bet with 97o???

It all seems extremely results-oriented to me.

-HokieGreg

wwlwlwwwlwllwwlwwwlwlwwllwwlwwllwl

I went back over the past 200 games and marked how many games ended in 8 hands or less. I won 20/34 for a record of 58%. I am sure that if I showed 15 or less, these numbers would be equal.

Most of these losses were due to suck outs or cold-decks (KK vs flopped set, set under set, flush under flush, fh vs fh etc) because I ran super bad for a week in the middle of October.

I am not a losing player spouting b.s. advice. I have posted my w.r.'s in LC and you will see that my 5s are 61% over-all, and my 10s are 58% over-all.

With all of that said, if you are uncomfortable using these ideas, then don't, but if you are struggling to beat this game, then it would not hurt to rethink your game a little bit.

Dave,

You clearly put a lot of effort into this post, so I don't want to come off like I don't respect what you are trying to do. I just don't think very many of the hh examples you provide are correct.

As I said in my previous post, the goal is to play abc poker at the low stakes. Calling large 3 bets with marginal hands and stacking off light just because they are bad players is not the best way to go about maximizing your winrate at these levels.

Congratulations on your 58% winrate at the 10's. If you were playing abc, solid poker it would be closer to 62-63% probably.

I guess you are implying I'm not a winning player too. You might be right. A 3k game sample size probably isn't enough for me to be able to say whether I am or not.

Here is my month at the 33's:

Brag: I have more games than Hokie in the 33s when I was 4 months into playing poker. My ROI was 7 pts higher too.

Beat: This thread might turn into a flame war.

Seriously though, lets not turn it into a flame war, you two can have a civilized debate about this stuff.

Our games are almost identical Ryan.

Don't be afraid to say this is bad information.

Due to my bad bank-rolling, my wr at the 10s is probably not what it should be, but that is another debate entirely. I was actually stuck for many many games of getting creamed (not by bad play) before I showed any kind of profit at the tens. I am sure that if I spent more time at it, I would have a wr that resembles my 5s, but I usually bounce past it and tackle the 20s and 30s and drop back down.

I was not sure if you were a winning player or not. Glad to see that you are doing well, and yes, you probably are better than me as well.

Trying to further explain myself is taxing without sounding defensive. I had several reservations about posting this. I knew it would create an out-cry. Either it would seem that it is a losing player that felt like "whatever, I got the post count, so here we go," or it would sound too solid.

As I said, it depends on the player if they are comfortable using any of these thought processes. They are there for your own interpretation. I do understand that many of these hands are marginal. The thinking process during these situations is what separate the good from the bad, and in many cases, the losers from the winners.