Seidman not only updates his advice for contemporary game conditions but also corrects a few of his own earlier mistakes and re-explains some material in light of his current thinking about the game. The result is substantial value added to what was already an exceptionally good no-limit hold ‘em cash game book, one of the few offering really high-level insights to experienced players.

You can read the full review at http://www.thinkingpoker.net/poker-book-reviews/book-review-easy-game-by-andrew-seidman/.

Q: I was wondering if you had considered 3b pre? You’re going to have the worst position in the hand going forward. You’ll also have the worst relative position since villain 1 isn’t going to lead the betting to often being passive. I think you get the button to fold a bunch and you get heads up, granted in a bloated pot, but vs a passive player where I’d think you get to show down easier with 1p hands.

A: The short answer is yes, I did consider it. Really, though, if you 3-bet, what are you hoping will happen? You’ll have to fold to a 4-bet, so that’s a bad outcome. Even if you’re called, you won’t be eager to play a big pot if you flop top pair. A passive player’s early position raising range is pretty strong, and it gets stronger once he calls a 3-bet. I think it’s safe to assume neither of these players continues with AJ or KQ, which means that your AQ won’t dominate anything in their calling ranges. If called, you’ll be hoping either to bluff or to flop some value and check it down, maybe squeeze out a value bet. It’s not a disaster, but it’s not a great outcome either.

If I 3-bet, I’d really be hoping for folds. And at that point, it doesn’t much matter that I have AQs. If I thought a 3-bet would get a lot of folds (and I don’t , because again the raiser’s range is strong), then I would rather do it with a hand that has less calling value.

The results of this hand notwithstanding, being up against passive players is actually a reason to prefer calling. You can keep the pot small and wait until they reveal more information about their hands. Plus, calling keeps all those dominated Ax and Qx hands in their ranges, which is what you really want to be up against when you hold AQ. Being suited adds an extra bit of value in a multi-way pot.

This isn’t to say that AQs is never a 3-betting hand. It’s often a very good one. The important thing to see here is that the original raiser has a strong range, so 3-betting serves only to isolate the best part of his range, the part that dominates AQ, while folding out the part that AQ dominates.

Do you have a question for the Thinking Poker Mailbag? Please leave it as a comment below!

Saskatchewan limped UTG again, Belgium limped behind, and I raised to 1,000 with A4o in the CO. This raise really blurs the line between “value” and “making a move”, since I do expect to win often with a continuation bet but I also think A4 is ahead of both of their ranges. Essentially I’ve got position and the best hand, so even though it might be tricky to play post-flop, I don’t see how raising can be bad. Saskatchewan joked about how “you internet guys don’t allow limping” and called, and Belgium called as well. They both checked a K83 rainbow, I bet 1,600, Saskatchewan folded, and Belgium quickly raised to 5,100. I was sure he was making a move, so I considered my options.

This trip report focuses almost exclusively on the poker. If you want to read about the rest of the trip, check out Hello, Goodbye, Team Online.

As always, please let me know what you think!

I say I may be results oriented because I bet 3000, V1 sighed and folded, and V2 called with Jh 8h.

Value Betting

As many of you identified, Hero is very likely to have the best hand on the river. The question, however is not only how but whether he can get value from it. Especially in multi-way pots, where people tend to be more tight and passive, it can be difficult to get value from medium-strength hands.

I agree with Gareth that “we should assume we have the nuts versus V1″. We can’t, however, assume that he calls with worse when we bet again into two people on a card that improves some of the hands his JJ or whatever was beating on the turn.

I don’t agree that we have the nuts versus V2. His range looks more to me like busted draws or trips, meaning he either has us beat or can’t call a bet. In Bond2King’s words, “V2′s range is mostly missed draws or maybe an 8 or a 6, but he’s not calling with a 6 anyway.”

The key consideration behind betting, then, is whether the times V1 calls with worse outweigh the times V2 holds better. I’m still not sure of the answer. I’m also not sure whether Hero can call a river bet, and if so whether doing so is more profitable than value betting.

Scenario A: Villain 1 bets 3000, Villain 2 folds

Although V1 is very unlikely to hold a better hand than ours, I also think he’s very unlikely to bluff or value bet worse. Even with KQ, which would be oddly played to this point, I don’t see what he can expect to be called by. Passive live players suck at thin value betting anyway. Gareth suggests the possibility of a frustration bet, but he didn’t seem frustrated and in any event with something like 99 he may still be thinking he’s got a chance of winning if it checks down. Passive live players like seeing showdowns. I’d be inclined to fold.

Scenario B: Villain 1 checks, Villain 2 bets 3000

I feel better about calling here, but it’s not a lock. The scared money read makes me wonder whether he’d bluff into two people when so many draws obviously missed. He might, though, and I think there’s a good chance a live read could help me decide. Probably I’d call.

Scenario C: Villain 1 bets 3000, Villain 2 calls

I’d fold without thinking too hard about it.

In fact I like cbeak’s comment that, “another aspect of checking that I think is good is that it is lower risk insofar as we can see how things play out before deciding (avoiding, for example, hero bets, v1 calls, v2 raises, hero?).” When a decision is close, especially in live poker, I tend to err towards letting my opponents act, as they often give away information via physical tells or bet sizing. In other words, if it’s close anyway, I like to to create opportunities to collect more information that might help me make a profitable decision. So I kind of wish I’d checked here planning to see what happens and decide.

Thanks for all the comments, and sorry that I don’t have a more definitive answer for you!

Hero: It’s me. Late 20′s, wearing a PokerStars Team Online patch and sunglasses, not saying much but friendly when I do happen my mouth. I’ve been quiet so far and recently showed down KK in a 3-bet pot.

Villain 1: Middle-aged Canadian, recreational player, on the loose-passive side. He limps more than he raises in early position.

Villain 2: Young Spanish kid, maybe 22 at the oldest. This is likely one of the biggest events he’s played, as he’s giving off a bit of a “scared money”-vibe.

Villain 1 opens to 450 in early position, Villain 2 calls in the CO, and Hero calls with As Qs in the SB. The flop came Qd 8c 2h and checks all the way around. Hero bets 900 on a 6c turn, Villain 1 quickly calls, and Villain 2 asks how much, thinks for 15-20 seconds, and calls.

The river is the 8d, making the final board Qd 8c 2h 6c 8d. There’s 4200 in the pot. Do you bet or check? If you bet, how much? If you check, how do you respond to each of the following?

a) Villain 1 bets 3000, Villain 2 folds.

b) Villain 1 bets 3000, Villain 2 colds.

c) Villain 1 checks, Villain 2 bets 3000.

I’ll post results and my thoughts on Friday, as usual.