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!

I know that there is zero chance of herding fifteen online poker pros into a conference room by 10AM, I tell myself that this is true and that I need not rush, but nevertheless I am there for our PokerStars Team Online meeting at 9:51. I just can’t help being early. This gives me nearly an hour to chat with the other “early” arrivers before we finally begin.

They are a formidable crowd. Shane Schleger was already an online MTT hero six years ago, when I was just starting to grind my way up. Today is January 6th, and he has already final tabled the Sunday Million this year. Mickey Peterson, on the other hand, arrived much later than I to the tournament scene but has already put up results that surpass both Shane’s and mine.

In 2009, Kevin Thurman set a record by earning 3,055,385 VPPs. That same year, I was down to the wire getting the last few VPPs I needed to cross the 100,000 mark and make Supernova. It boggles my mind that people manage to earn 1,000,000 in a year to make Supernova Elite, let alone that Kevin accumulated thirty times as many VPPs as I did.

Bjorn Schneider, sitting to Kevin’s immediate left, broke that record last month. The two of them just met this morning, though apparently they were on the same flight to the Bahamas. Bjorn was sitting immediately behind Kevin and listening to him tell his seatmate about “the guy who just broke my record”.

The two players at the table who are more my speed are Adrienne Rowsome and Richard Veenman, both of whom are, like me, mere Supernovas who play about twenty hours a week. Unlike me, however, they both have jobs outside of poker. We later learn that they are the only two working stiffs out of the fifteen of us.

Perhaps the most intimidating character at the table, however, is Anders Berg. Anders has a PhD in Pure Mathematics and three WCOOP bracelets. He also finished second in an event in last year’s WCOOP, narrowly missing a record-setting fourth bracelet. Anders is the oldest player in the room, but also one of the most fit. When he introduces himself, he rattles off numerous feats of athleticism alongside his academic qualifications. Though quiet and humble, he gives the distinct impression of having never done anything badly in his life.

Anders is hardly alone in this. The room is full of people who have excelled in other competitive venues besides poker. Andre Coimbra won the Magic: The Gathering world championships in 2009. Randy Lew was a nationally competitive video gamer before taking up poker. Several members of Team Online have a background in high-level chess, and no one is surprised when Anders Berg adds his name to this list.

Despite their geeky interests, these aren’t your stereotypical pasty internet nerds. Shane Schleger, Richard Veenman, Tyler Frost, and Diego Brunelli quickly find a common interest in tennis and arrange a doubles match for the next morning. In what sounds an awful lot like a hustle to me, Richard claims to be a beginner but admits to practicing tennis two and a half hours every day. Jorge Limon races rally cars, which he later tells me entails off-roading with modified street cars and which sounds pretty damn dangerous. Adrienne Rowsome is a serious yoga practitioner and plays slo-pitch softball, though her league seems to emphasize drinking more than any other aspect of the game.

I am struck by what a great job Pokerstars has done of selecting individuals who are serious about online poker but also well-rounded and interesting people. I am looking forward to seeing as much of them as possible during the week we’re about to spend together at the Atlantis resort (though I would have preferred not to have them sitting next to me in the main event, which is where both Bjoern and Jorge end up).

They are good players, to be sure, but they are not necessarily the best or the most famous on the site. This is the moment when the meaning of Team Online crystallizes for me: these folks are workhorses. They are driven, and they log serious volume online without putting the rest of their lives on hold.

Barry Greenstein and Daniel Negreanu fill an entirely different niche. They are superheroes, impossibly successful professionals to whom the average PokerStars player can look up but probably can’t relate. This isn’t to say that Greenstein and his fellow Team Pro members don’t work hard. I’m sure they do. I just think that they also possess some innate talent that separates them qualitatively from the vast majority of poker players, no matter how dedicated.

Every Batman needs a Robin. With a few exceptions (cough, Randy Lew, cough), most Team Online players represent attainable goals. They make good money, to be sure, but for most it has more to do with hard work than superhuman talent. Players who saw the red spade on my avatar sometimes told me, in accusatory fashion, that they’d never heard of me. I’m realizing that was kind of the point. Your average Team Online member is an ordinary person who’s had extraordinary outcomes by taking advantage of the game selection and VIP rewards available on PokerStars.

Spending a week with these extraordinary poker players is both intimidating and inspiring. On the one hand, their passion for poker is contagious. Each of them represents a unique twist on what’s possible with hard work and dedication. Then again, the shear amount of hard work and dedication required by some of their more impressive feats (Kevin Thurman tells me he played 24 tables, 10+ hours a day, 7 days a week for an entire year to set his record) is enough to make you run screaming for the nearest lazy river.

Thankfully the Atlantis has a great one of those, and my teammates do find time to float and enjoy the beautiful weather in the Bahamas. More than a few are anxious about falling behind Supernova Elite pace so early in the year, and swapping intelligence about where to get the best wireless signal during VPP Happy Hour is a popular topic of conversation. You can take the player out of the game, but you can’t take the game out of the player, and this bunch are players through and through. It was an honor to play alongside them, even if I didn’t meet them in person until our time together was nearly up.

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.