The good thing about being a poker player is the ability to set your own hours. A lot of people in and around poker have written a lot of things about keeping yourself in prime shape to play, and some of that is knowing when to take a couple of days off. After the shootout the day before yesterday, I was pretty ready for a nice break, and since there was only a 5K NL event yesterday/no event at all today, it seemed like a good time. Putting in a few hours playing different games instead of grinding out SNG's and tournaments was a nice touch; instead of trying to pushbot and hoping not to get called, I spent some time making street by street decisions in limit and (tonight) some 15/30 razz at the Rio.

Razz is a game that is almost always played in a mediocre to bad fashion (I'll be fair and say I'm mostly including myself here) because it's so math heavy and compounds errors so much - one loose player who makes big mistakes on third or fourth street and locks himself into hands to the river can pretty much make the entire game. Tonight, I played with an Omaha bracelet winner, a guy who presumably understands poker, who was far too loose on third, made himself keep drawing with marginal hands because of it, and visibly tilted because he wound up down so much to people who (despite making big errors like betting with no edge themselves) just destroyed him with their better hand selection. Unfortunately, you never see this game anymore, because of the variance associated with good players playing each other and because bad ones get wiped out ridiculously fast. That's too bad, because it's one of the most fun, and the easiest to play 'decently' - while also giving you the chance to make some nice, thin value bets. It also lets you play one of two diametrically opposing styles depending solely on the guy across from you - you can either bloat pots early, tying both of you to a pot where you have a big equity edge on third, or keep them small and let the other guy make huge equity mistakes on fourth and fifth. Add in some obvious crazy semibluff spots, and it's a very subtle, but rewarding form of poker. I don't pretend to be great at it - I probably give away equity to most of the top FT pros - but, wow, did I ever have an edge over the non-2+2'ers at the table tonight. With that, I've basically talked myself into playing the razz bracelet event on Sunday.

But enough about a game none of my readers care about...tomorrow, it's back to the grind. Three hours of totally different games later, no limit sounds good again.

Unfortunately, I'm continuing to run very bad (0 for 3 big 70/30's in just one Sunday tournament is impressive, honestly, as is running Ax into AA 4 times this week), but in the meantime, there are definitely benefits to being out here. Playing live is certainly different, but the games are so much easier/the players so predictably bad that I can feel myself improving - thinking about new lines, getting people to fold through raw aggression, and opening up my game in a number of areas. Live players telegraph their hands so much and so thoroughly that simply taking away pots, including big ones, is incredibly easier.

A bunch of hands from this week:

1)The hand I posted about a couple of days ago (63d on the AA8 flop) is a fantastic Yeti theorem hand. Bluff recently published a segment on 2+2 poster's Yeti's theorem, which, in a nutshell, is "people who bet/3 bet a paired board never have anything". It's so true, especially on AAx boards, where an ace just never 3 bets a raise (a big mistake pretty often, BTW), especially not a small 3 bet. Pulling the trigger on a four bet with 6 high is something else altogether, though. I have no idea who the button is, but I'm sure I'll be seeing him on TV at some point.

2)In the 1K sat I played last night, I raised with AA and got called by an MP player who then folded QJ face up on a JT7 flop because "I bet so much" (2/3 pot, when we were 100 bets deep - this is a profitable call if he puts me on exactly AA.) This is just another "live players are so bad" post, but this week, I've been trying to see how profitable it is to check TPTK+ after a PFR, especially on multiway boards when I'm sure someone will bet. So far, that's been pretty mixed live (most of them are so straightforward that they just don't bluff no matter how much you want them to, and the rest are so bad that it's irrelevant whether you check or bet) but has gotten some nice results online. Nobody ever believes a PFR followed by a checkraise on a K72 board, either.

3)Another fun hand from the 1K: two limpers at 50/100, I raised to 500 with AK (I'd been raising a lot and had 8Kish behind, covering everyone), they called and the flop is AQJr. Both limpers thought [I was 100% sure that both had at least some piece of this flop], then checked. This is a very tough spot online that most people misplay - the fact is that you usually have too many outs to bet/fold to a CR profitably, and if you follow the predictable "bet the flop, check behind on the turn" line, when either villain bets the river you will often be folding the best hand (because you can't really call that bet profitably.) The correct play here in multiway pots, especially vs opponents that won't 2 barrel bluff, is to check behind and look for cards that change your turn equity (also balancing out the times you check behind with something like 99).

After I checked, the turn bricked off, the first limper bet 800, and the second thought forever and called. Normally, online, this is a close decision between a call and a fold, but live, it was very easy to tell the second guy just didn't have much - a weak ace at best. So I overcalled, the river bricked off as well, we checked through it and I won a nice pot. The interesting part is that I'm pretty sure I missed a small value bet on the end - something very hard to make online against anyone half decent, but pretty easy with live reads. I'll get better at these as the month goes on.

Tomorrow's event is a 2.5K NL freezeout and/or some sats I'm looking forward to; hopefully, it'll break me out of running bad :)

In addition to sat strategy like the last post, over the years, I've made a couple of big satellite threads on 2+2. At one point, I promised I would update last year's thread and/or talk about how and where to qualify for the WSOP after I got a seat. Hopefully, I'm not done winning seats yet, but here's some things I'll throw out there:

-Just like last year, this year, winning on FTP or Stars gives you a bunch of bonuses if you make the final table or win the ME. The FT first place prize alone adds $1,000 in EV to the tournament if you have an exactly average shot of winning it with 10K entries, $2,000 if it only has 5K, and so on.

-This year, picking between FTP and Stars for qualifying is tricky. When you play an FTP sat, for example, you're basically just playing a regular tournament with a bunch of $12,000 payouts at the top. For a few reasons, this means a tougher field at FTP than normal; FTP also has 12 minute blind levels, where Stars has 30(!) minute blinds, and Stars throws in 1K (or a week's hotel stay) for the first package you win. That makes Stars the best place to win a package if you're only going for one, but the first Stars package is non-refundable or transferable (you must use the seat) and the second only pays out in W$, which are worth around .85 on the dollar. FTP also has the 'King of the WSOP' promo running - I probably won't be playing enough to get there, but clearly, if you're going for multiple seats, Full Tilt's the way to go. (I'm American so I have no idea what, if anything, Party and other non-US sites are doing.)

-Smaller sites remain a good option, but multiple seat satellites are such a huge advantage over winner take all sats that the latter are just about never worth it. The exception is sats with overlays, like the $250+20's at Bodog last year. This year, it looks like Bodog has some overlays again, but they're allowing people to win multiple packages if they're spaced > 30 days apart, which might eventually kill that. (Incidentally, this is a terrible rule.) There are a couple of other sites that might be good this year, too - I won't mention them in print, but you should be discreetly looking around a few out of the way tournament schedules.

Good luck in the WSOP.

In my first blog entry, I wrote about the common 'decent player' fallacy of playing hands 'the way you are supposed to' rather than thinking about the overall situation. Today, I'd like to follow up on that by comparing two hands - one unquestionably played badly and one that is defensible - and analyzing the thought process behind them.

In this month's 2+2 Magazine (the link will change soon so I'm not linking it yet), there is an article by David Sklansky that also attempts to talk about unorthodox approaches to no limit. In his example, with 80 BB behind in a 'straightforward' playing game, he holds 77 after 2 limpers in MP and overlimps in an eventual 6 way pot. He then checks a 732 flop (fourth of six to act) and makes the argument that, if a rainbow Q hits the turn, you should check one more time.

Obviously, I hate to be on the wrong side of David Sklansky. However, this is an example of a very badly played hand and a misguided thought process - one that's full of fancy play syndrome, and very light on thinking about your opponents' ranges and their thoughts about your hand.

Why? DS's thoughts about the flop check are that "[y]ou check because it is likely that no one has much, you want them to catch up if they don’t, and you expect they will bet if they do. Plus if you check, someone may bluff or semi-bluff with a hand that they would have folded had you bet." That's true to a point - if you check, one of the two players behind you might bet something like 66 or even A3 that would probably fold to a bet. But that pales in comparison to the range of hands that will (at least) call a bet now and possibly even on the turn and river, but will check behind on the turn if you follow his probable line of check/call, check - not just the obvious ones like 54 and 99, but any 7, some 'gutshot plus ace' hands like A4, and even random overcards from players who decide this is the perfect flop to float vs. a likely weak-ish made hand. (Remember, just because players are straightforward doesn't mean that they are robots or terrible poker players.) Just as importantly, on this flop, the hands that 'catch up' on the turn will very often catch up to the nuts and now have a good shot at stacking you.

So much for the flop check. Assuming we got to the turn this way, do we check again when a Q hits? Of course not! All of the same arguments still apply - except that now, in this small pot, if we knew someone behind us had a queen, we would much rather bet out (and hope KQ raises) than go for a very scary looking checkraise. Remember how weird this line looks to your straightforward opponents - you showed no real interest in the hand PF and on the flop, but now checkraise a card that probably hit somebody in a six way pot. While some people will call you down light, most will fold something like QJ right there, while happily calling you down on two streets (and probably even raising a jack on the river) if you just bet your hand.

This hand is a good lesson in how to avoid playing in an unorthodox way. Don't just do it because you have the effective nuts and decide now is a good time to slowplay; you must have a reason for it and a plan for the hand.

---

With that hand in mind, I'd like to talk about a hand I played at full ring 10/20 NL the other day. This hand actually took place in a fairly passive PF, calling station-type bad postflop game of the type DS describes, with effective stacks of 100 BB. My image at the time was fairly tight, possibly even nitty; I did not have particularly good reads on my opponents, but thought they were the typical loose/bad players in that game.

In the actual hand, two or three people limped PF and I decided to limp 7 5 on the button. (There are some good arguments for raising here, too. DS's and Ed Miller's No Limit: Theory and Practice has some good analysis of preflop spots like this one.) The blinds completed/checked and five or six people saw the flop, which came J T 9. It was checked to the limper on my right (I believe in MP3), who bet half the pot, meaning he had 'something' but not particularly very much.

In theory, this meant I had a 12 out draw, and some people would raise here. The arguments for raising are that it cleans up the eights as outs, lets you take a free card on the turn, and inflates the pot for when you hit. In this game, however, QT might still call a bet/raise cold, and a jack would never fold (not now and possibly not on the turn), so I chose to call instead and hope for a diamond. One of the EP limpers overcalled, so 3 of us saw the Q hit on the turn; EP checked and the other limper quickly bet half the pot again.

Now, this hand suddenly became interesting. If I called, I wouldn't be protecting my hand. If I raised, with my image, most likely both players would fold, although a naked king might still call down. Additionally, a 3 bet would make me throw up, but I would likely have to call it.

So what should I have done? To some degree, the good thing here is not that you find the best line, but that you're thinking about it at all, because most mediocre to decent players simply raise their flush. However, the best line here varies with the situation, and, of course, my opponents' hand range.

Here, I thought that MP3's hand was clearly not a set - he would have frozen up when that very ugly turn hit, although he just might be bad enough to bet an 'improved' 2 pair. Instead, this was either a bluff, a straight (perhaps something like KT, who semibluffed the flop and 'hit' the turn) or a higher flush. In that case, I didn't have to worry about the board pairing unless the EP player had a huge hand, too (and he gave no indication of that with his PF limp/flop overcall on a JT9 board.) Most likely, then, I only had 6-7 diamonds to worry about, and perhaps not even that, in terms of protecting my hand, and any straight would have no choice but to pay off on a non-diamond river. Therefore, although I had to really think about the situation, I chose to just call again.

EP did something interesting - he overcalled - and all three of us went to the river. The river was a low black card, he checked, and MP now quickly bet the pot! Now what?

At this point, the pot was around 1250 (625 for me to call) and we had 1000 more behind. I thought about it for a few seconds and decided to just call again. My reasoning, which should be easy to see by now, was severalfold:
-If EP had a king, he might come along and overcall;
-MP's range was now very clearly 'bluff or straight +' and possibly shaded towards the high end;
-It was very unclear whether MP would pay off a river shove with just a king, especially with my image.

As it turns out, I think my reasoning on the river was wrong. EP thought a while, but folded, and MP turned over Ks8s for a turned straight that he was likely mistakenly 'value betting' (because, of course, he had a king and both of us showed no strength.) It's very possible that I got the most out of the hand, but in retrospect, if I had to play it over again, I would probably shove the river regardless and hope MP called; I underestimated how weak my hand looked, and it was very possible that a bad player would somehow find a call there.

However, this hand *is* a good example of when to 'think unorthodox' and why. It's not enough to simply play a hand differently because you feel like it, any more than it would be to check a 732 flop because 'you have top set and they have nothing'. Instead, you should always try to find the best line based on your range (this is where G-Bucks come in), your opponents' range, their perception of you, and how the hand has appeared to play out to them. Furthermore, the right result is sometimes not as important (although it sure does help your bank account) as the thought process you took to get there.

In my next column - always assuming I find a hand or two worth writing about - I'll try to expand on this concept and mix in some examples of the thought process that goes into good hand reading.

Hello, everyone. I am a new writer here at Tworags and would like to introduce myself. My online nickname is Adanthar; I am a high stakes online tournament player and also play 5/10 to 10/20 NL. In between my day job as a non-profit lawyer, I've more or less been playing for a living since 2005.

For my first column, I'd like to talk about what I plan to do at Tworags. I firmly believe that the best way to get better is to analyze hands, and that's exactly what I do - I probably think about poker and post about it more than I play (which says as much about my work ethic as it does about my analytical skills, but never mind that.) Most mediocre to decent, but not great players do think about their borderline hands and try to avoid basic mistakes, but a lot of them take certain more basic poker "tenets" for granted. For example, they will never fold KK preflop because "the times you get KK vs. AA and AA vs. KK even out", they'll often slowplay the nuts no matter what the board looks like (or, vice versa, never slowplay the nuts regardless), and so on. The bottom line for many of these players is that they make big calls and big folds because "it's what you're supposed to do" and never think about the other player's hand range, what the other player expects from them, or the overall situation. In midstakes and high stakes no limit against good, thinking opponents, these mistakes are often more damaging than 90% of the marginal hands usually posted in places such as 2+2.

In the near future, I will try to post many examples of such hands and attempt to explain why they are more critical to your development as a player than most people would expect. In the meantime, I'd like to point our readers towards a new Bluff Magazine column written by Phil Galfond. In this column, he introduces a concept known as 'G-bucks' - basically, Sklansky dollars, but taken for your entire hand range as opposed to just the hand you actually have at the moment. This is a crucial part of what I'll be talking about over the next few weeks, and I encourage everyone reading this to stop and read that column - it's a great read.

Thanks for reading - hope to see you back at Tworags soon.