Was watching a recast episode of the 2008 WSOP main event this weekend. One of the players that ESPN was following was very animated and colorful. He was also very aggressive, and the announcer mentioned that this player’s online screen name was WIDR, which stood for When In Doubt, Raise. His play certainly reflected this tendency, and he pushed a number of other players off of better hands with his fearless aggression. He would open raise, they’d reraise, and he’d shove. They’d think for a long time and then usually fold.
Well, this got me thinking about aggression and how effective it can be. More importantly, I realized that not being aggressive can cost you some big pots that you should have otherwise won. Case in point:
I was playing some 6max $1/2 limit poker the other day. It was a typical 6-handed game, with a couple of loosey-goosey players, a fair bit of aggression, and 1-2 donks. I was playing a pretty tight ABC-style and just waiting for good situations to make some money from the bad play of the opp.
One of the donkier players was two seats to my right, and he just didn’t get the concept of open-raising. Except when he had a relatively big hand (such as AT+ or a pocket pair), whenever it folded to him on the button, he would limp in and allow me, the BB, to see a free flop. Often he’d get both the SB and BB along for the ride to see the flop. Now, he had position postflop on us, but allowing us to see cheap cards was a bad idea. One time, it cost him a fair bit of money that it shouldn’t have.
I had 75s in the BB and it folded to him. He limped, the SB folded, and I checked. The flop was A67, and because he didn’t raise, I figured he didn’t have the ace. I led out and he called. Turn was a blank, I bet, he called. River was another blank and I bet and he called again. He turned over K6s. If he had raised on the button, I would have certainly folded my 75. Instead, he let me see a free flop. We both hit the flop, but I hit it just a little harder than him. What should have been a +$1.50 blind steal for him, instead turned into a -$6.50 loss.
Sklansky has written that it’s a sin to limp into an un-opened pot. If you're not willing to open raise, then fold. The grinderschool guys also constantly harp on this concept. Aggression is key, especially when you’re first into a pot. If you’re opening a pot preflop and your hand is good enough to play, raise. Otherwise, you probably shouldn’t be playing it.
I think this concept is important in limit games, but it’s even more critical in NL cash games. Besides giving up the obvious fold equity of simply taking down the blinds, allowing the opp to see cheap flops can really cost you big if both of you hit the flop, but they hit it bigger than you. Ergo, I think WIDR should be accompanied with a similar term: WOPR, or When Opening Pot, Raise.
Now, should this always be the case? I mean, should you 100% of the time open raise? There might be times when open-limping has a bigger EV than raising. For instance, let’s say you’re at a very loose-passive table, with lots of people seeing the flop, but almost no preflop raises. In this case, if you have a hand like A5s in EP, you know you’re going to get a lot of callers if you simply limp. You’re obviously not hoping for an ace-high flop, as someone probably has a better ace than you and you’re going to lose a lot of dough if you can’t get off the hand. Instead, you're hoping for 2 or 3 cards to your suit, where you’ll have a draw to the nuts and can take down a bit pot. Hmmm. Actually, this may be a bad example, as color-coordinated boards tend to slow people down. No, let's say you have JTo in the same situation. Now you're hoping for a straight draw. I.e., you're hoping to build a big pot with the nuts, or with a draw to the nuts. Unlike, say, AA in early position in this same situation, where you would definitely open raise, hoping to get 1-2 callers, max or simply take the blinds, with JTo you want a lot of callers and you want to flop the nuts. Otherwise you will be check-folding. Because it’s a loose-passive table, limping in first is almost like limping in on the button with a drawing hand in a multiway pot in a more normal game. In other words (or letters?) there are cases when the best course of action may be WFNL, or When Flopping to the Nuts, Limp.
Okay, that said, I suspect that WFNL’ing is a fairly rare thing. I.e., a WOPR is a better general strategy than WFNL. Or, said another way: When In Doubt, Raise.
In other poker news, I played in a 4-handed home game last night and got killed. I believe I was the most experienced poker player there, but the nature of the games simply made it a crap shoot. It was dealer’s choice, and two of us kept traditional games like hold’em, Omaha, and stud going, but the other two players wanted to play crazy games, like Midnight Baseball, which is 100% luck. Of course, all the luck was flowing to these other two players during the session (which is why they kept wanting to play the non-skill games). Unfortunately, the pots in the traditional games were modest, while the non-trad games had much bigger pots. Ergo, I lost my entire $25 buy-in for the night in about 3 hours of play. It was certainly fun, but we need more skill and less luck to make me want to come back and do it again. (More players would be better, too.)
Anyway, time for lunch. The question is, do I want burgers or waffles….
All-in for now…
-Bug
No comments:
Post a Comment