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/.

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!

We’ll start with the results:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, 320 Tournament, 200/400 Blinds 50 Ante (8 handed) – PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Button (t24118)
SB (t25330)
BB (t9032)
UTG (t8323)
UTG+1 (t25215)
MP1 (t13846)
Hero (MP2) (t16901)
CO (t31444)

Hero’s M: 16.90

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A♦, 4♥
3 folds, Hero bets t800, 1 fold, Button calls t800, 2 folds

Flop: (t2600) 4♦, 4♠, K♥ (2 players)
Hero bets t1666, Button raises to t3640, Hero calls t1974

Turn: (t9880) 10♠ (2 players)
Hero checks, Button checks

River: (t9880) 7♦ (2 players)
Hero bets t12411 (All-In), Button calls t12411

Total pot: t34702

Results:
Button had K♦, Q♦ (two pair, Kings and fours).
Hero had A♦, 4♥ (three of a kind, fours).
Outcome: Hero won t34702

As many commenters identified, the crux of this hand is in recognizing that Hero’s hand looks reasonably strong after calling the flop raise. Many of you made compelling arguments for 3-betting the flop, which I’ll come back to in a moment.

As played, I don’t think we can expect a bluff from Villain on the river. If he wanted to take a shot, he would have done it on the turn, when he had better leverage. If Hero checks the river, it’s pretty clear that he has showdown value, and it’s too easy to click call. Villain’s flop raise, if it’s a bluff at all, is likely to be a one-shot “feeler” to determine whether Hero has anything at all. Once he gets the answer, I don’t think we can expect him to keep bluffing.

Thus, no matter how heavily his range is weighted towards bluffs (and I think it very much is), those aren’t the hands to target for value, at least not on the river. We have to aim for the part of his range that has some showdown value, either a K he raised for value on the flop or a bluff that turned or rivered a pair. Some of those hands might value bet if checked to (though can KJ/KQ expect to get called by enough worse hands?), but I don’t see them calling a check-raise. Nor do I see Villain shoving for any kind of value over a bet, unless he has exactly KT. Not only is it a questionable play generally, but tournament players in particular tend not to go for thin value with significant chunks of their stack.

That leaves the value betting to Hero, who has a choice between betting smaller or larger/all-in. Fred wishes that we were “less polarized on a river shove”, but I think polarization is exactly what we want here. No matter what, Villain has a bluff-catcher. A smaller bet looks more like thin value, which means a larger value range for us.

This is a spot where a big bet is disproportionately easier to call than a smaller one. In other words, Villain presumably calls 3000 more often than he calls 12,000, but nowhere near four times as often. The overbet shove represents a nuts/air range against which it’s actually easier for Villain to talk himself into a call. Ian says it very nicely:

“When he checks back the turn, he’s either got some showdown value (but then why the flop action?), has given up or perhaps he picked up the draw.

I think it’s going to be hard to get much value out of him, so I’m very tempted to ship and see if he can talk a marginal made hand into a hero call.”

Three-betting the flop is an interesting and very viable option. As Jonny pointed out, it’s not a spot where I expect a tournament player to spew or “attempt a re-re-bluff”. However, Emo Meltdown is correct that “Because he’s unlikely to put a another chip in the pot against a flat (it would be pretty spewy to try to bluff Andrew off the K+ he’s likely to have when he calls the flop raise), it’s not like we lose a bunch if he folds his air to a flop 3bet.”

Against a good hand-reader capable of very disciplined folds, this is a better way to represent a bluff than shoving the river, as it’s very difficult for Hero to show up with air after calling the flop (absent the Emo Meltdown “Scandi float”). Even with KQ on the river, Villain can beat only an out of position float or a small pair/Ax turned into a bluff, both unlikely.

I also like this because it contributes to what Gareth calls a “boss image”. Even if Villain correctly guesses that this is rarely a bluff and folds, there is still a seed of doubt in his mind. He’s likely to overestimate your bluffing range in odd spots in the future and to play more straight-forwardly against you generally. This is a particularly important consideration in live poker, when the whole table is likely to notice your play and adapt accordingly.

So I think three-betting the flop is a very viable line. Failing that, though, I think checking the turn just in case Villain wants to bluff, then shoving the river to maximize value from bluff-catchers, is the way to go.

Thanks again to all our participants!

It’s Level 4 of the PCA. Hero is wearing his PokerStars Team Online patch, which in Villain’s eyes probably makes him a cash game grinder with minimal tournament experience. Villain is a young online MTT wizard: highly ranked on Pocket Fives, tons of success, modest live experience but certainly knows what he’s doing in any tournament situation. He’s new to the table in the last hour and neither he nor Hero has done anything remarkable in that time. With the exception of Villain and one other good but short-stacked player on Hero’s left, the table is reasonably soft, certainly above average for the field.

Blinds 100/200/25. Villain (13K) opens to 500 UTG+2. Two of the looser players (16K and 40K)  at the table call, and Hero (35K) calls Kc Ts in the BB.

Flop Qd Jd Th. Hero checks, Villain bets 1450 into pot of 2300, the other two fold, and the action is back on Hero. What’s your plan?

Just to focus the discussion a bit, let’s assume that if you raise, Villain will shove or fold. If you call, talk about how you’d proceed on each of the following turns:

a) 2s

b) Kh

c) Tc

d) Ah

e) 8d

I’ll post my usual thoughts and results when I’m back from the Bahamas, which will likely be around the 13th. I play Day 2 today, so wish me luck!

A: Good question. Let’s start by talking about the flop float: it’s close, but I don’t love it. You don’t say whether you had a backdoor draw, but I think that would be the deciding factor for me. When you’re playing against an UTG raiser, there’s a world of difference between floating with AJ and floating with AK. The trouble here is that you don’t dominate a lot of his bluffing range. He probably has some suited Js in there, but he’s probably not playing A9. That means that unlike with AK, when an A falls, you still just have a bluff-catcher if he keeps betting. And if you don’t improve, you may end up losing to a better A-high. That complicates matters, so without the added equity of a backdoor draw, I’d just fold the flop.

That said, a call isn’t bad, and you got a great turn. As you realize, that one’s an easy call.

On the river, you’re right that you beat only bluffs, and you’re now behind a larger part of his range. By my count it’s only a slight overbet, so I think it’s conceivable that he could shove a hand as weak as KQ for value.

Then again, as you say, it’s a good card for him to bluff. Without knowing more about his pre-flop range, it’s hard to say how many hands he has that need to bluff. Small pairs could easily turn into bluffs here, but I think better pairs like 88 or 99 probably check the turn, so that’s not a big part of his range. If he has suited connectors in there, he’d probably bluff those as well, but otherwise it’s hard to put him on air.

When I started righting this, I was going to tell you to call, but I’m now leaning towards a fold. I just don’t see a lot of air in his range, since you lose to all broadway hands.

The sticking point for me is when we get to Level Three thinking: your hand looks weaker than it is. When you call the flop and then overcards fall on the turn and river, that looks like a bad runout for you. Your hand looks like a pocket pair, and there’s a lot for a pocket pair to be scared of here. I’m just not sure that matters.

One way of dealing with tough decisions is to analyze your own range. If you fold AJ here, what would you call? Is AT in your range? How about JTs? T9s? JJ? 44? Would you ever play AK or KK this way? You probably should slowplay many of those hands when you’re up against a really tough player, so that you have coverage in spots like this and are a bit harder to bluff.

As much as it pains me, I’m going to fold this. It’s a good spot to bluff, but it’s also a good spot to value bet, and he doesn’t have a lot of air in his range. His range is just a lot stronger than yours in this spot, which is why he can bluff with impunity, but also why you need to fold.

Thanks for a really thought-provoking hand!