Exactly like Toby Mac, I'm back no slack (if you can finish the original line then I'm betting you still have Newsboys and Jars of Clay hidden away in your old tape stash).

Let's go straight to the conundrum at hand. I would like to post this question to you:
When you have a hand that is probably ahead, but has almost no chance of improving, what do you do with it?

Let's look at two possible approaches.
1) Doyle Brunson says that he plays these hands cautiously and tries to take it slow. Let's say you have bottom two pair heads up and the board is a little flushy or straightening. Doyle says you put in a bet and see what the turn does, then repeat and see what the river does. If there is a running pair (i.e. the same card on the turn and river), be prepared to check and release the hand on the river.

2) Gus Hansen says you go ahead and put your money in on the flop. Since you are still probably 55-60%, by pushing in you gain positive equity by adding pressure to fold. Furthermore, in the long run you gain when your opponent calls as a 11-9 dog.

What do you do?

The Masters disagree. Should we go with the King, "Dolly" Brunson? 

Or the feisty Great Dane? Is there a "correct" answer?

 


Comments

Drew C.

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:37:56

To me, it depends on the player/table. If I've got a player that I know is likely to call big bets or all-ins, I prefer to play it slow. Most of the time you'll win the hand, while milking it for a bit more, and if you get unlucky and lose, you don't lose much. But the real gain in this strategy is that a calling station is a calling station: they will be prone to making big calls all the time, and so you can afford to wait until you are ahead by more than a 55-45 or 60-40 split. Wait until you've got a big monster to make a big move on a calling station.

In contrast, if I've got a player that I know generally looks for reasons to fold, I like to push it a bit harder, as there is no sense in losing a pot by playing soft that you could have won on the flop with a good bet. Here the big bet is more of a guaranteed win, rather than a big risk. You get cautious foldy-types by attrition just like this: you bet on them and bet on them until they are worn down or go on tilt.

Now, all that said, I think you can make a good argument for doing things the opposite way: you make big bets against the calling stations in this situation, because you are getting it in ahead; and you make small bets against cautious players, because you want to maximize how much you win in these hands (after all, you are ahead). As far as the individual bottom two-pair hand goes, you probably make more money doing this. But my argument against it is that, in the broader scheme of the poker game, you can do better than getting the most in you can with a hand that is only marginally ahead-- better situations will come around for you take big shots (assuming blinds are reasonable and your chip stack is solid).

 

Paul

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:05:29

Thanks Drew, I knew I could count on you for a sagacious argument. I think that, for most poker questions, the answer is "it depend" unless the question is something like "do you call an all-in heads up if you have 2 aces?" By the way, I can only think of one situation in which you wouldn't call in that scenario.

Back to the topic at hand. I prefer to take Gus' approach to the situation in most cases. This is for two reasons.
1) Against a good player you do gain the positive equity of a potential fold and, more importantly, I like to maintain a strategy of pounding on people on the flop.
2) Against a calling station, I think there is one variable - the size of your stack. If I the said calling station has 1/2 of my stack or less, I like to go ahead and go in for 2 reasons.
A. A weak opponent typically has lower standards for hands, and thus you might find that he/she will call you with something very weak.
Example:
In a raised pot, I went heads up to the flop with 53s in position against a weak player (I love small connectors and one-gappers against weak players. The flop came 543 rainbow giving me top and bottom pair with a backdoor flush. Brunson says to go ahead and take this one slow, but I reasoned that an overpair would the very BEST hand that this player would ahead. I went ahead and moved in and, sure enough, he called with A3. I was 75% and it held up for the rest of his stack. I know that a better opponent would never have called with such a holding, but weak aces are a common hand for a weak player to have.
B. Furthermore, I want to go ahead and take the risk in this situation because I don't want a calling stations' chips to go to someone else if at all possible. I would prefer to flip for it with 55% and take him out than play it slow and let someone else inevitably take his chips a few hands later.

 



Leave a Reply