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!

Q: Though honestly I agree with what you wrote I just wonder since “Villain is a young online MTT wizard: highly ranked on Pocket Fives, tons of success” we know (and he might not know we know) that he knows he can bet anything and probably get a fold tons of the time because he can have AK and it is much harder for other people to (especially when they don’t check raise the flop). As soon as we call I think Villain needs to become super cautious. Against anyone else I insta fold k10. I actually thought this example was how to outplay a wizard but I was wrong. : -) I guess I leveled myself!

A: If I understand you correctly, you’re asking whether Villain couldn’t bluff this flop with a really wide range since he can represent nutted hands (not only AK but sets as well) more easily than we can. This would be more of a consideration in a heads up pot.

The nice thing about multiway pots is that they provide an opportunity to get free information from opponents who are otherwise very good at balancing their ranges and concealing information. This is because your opponent cannot play only against you. If you know what he thinks about other players in the pot, then that provides a framework for interpreting his actions.

In this instance, we’ve already said that the other two players in the pot were on the loose side. It’s safe to assume that a smart player will pick up on that quickly. Even if Villain knew that Hero would fold a hand like KT, he still can’t assume that the other two would. Loose players, by definition, don’t make tight folds based on sharp reads. On such a coordinated board, Villain must assume that he’s going to get action more often than not. Thus, we can treat his bet as honest and fold without going down the path of “but he knows that I know that he….”

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

I would probably fold although the pot odds are enticing and your hand (a pair and a draw) superficially seems very strong. This is a super wet board and a good player should not be leading into three opponents without something very substantial. I put him on KQ, AQ and stronger. If you raise all-in, I don’t think he folds much. I also don’t think you have the full 13 outs that a pair-and-an-OESD normally does.

Assuming you call, if your draw comes in, with an ace or a nine, it’s going to be a super-scary board, and it’s going to be tough to get paid off, especially being out of position. On top of that, your opponent will often also have a king, so you may well chop even if your draw comes in – or lose to AK.

Not all pair + draws are created equally. On a board like this, where so many draws are likely, it matters a lot that you have the worst pair and are drawing exclusively to non-nut hands. Out of position in a multi-way pot with action from a good player in early position, you can’t afford to treat this as a strong hand.

Against a range of {TT+,AQs+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,T9s,8d7d,AQo+,KJo+), Hero has about 26% equity. Adding in 99 and AJ, which I think Villain is more likely to check, gets us up to 30%.

Moreover, this flop smacks Villain’s range, and it’s not a board he’s betting light into three players. This means we can’t expect much fold equity by check-raising. Kordolius argues that, “the flop hits our range well too, and in his eyes we may represent better hands than we have.” I struggle to think of any high-equity hands Villain would fold to a check-raise. The fact that this flop hits our perceived range well ought to make Villain less likely to bet hands that can’t stand hear in the first place.  I think getting all-in on the flop would be a big money-loser.

Calling is not much more appealing. The immediate pot odds require Hero to have about 28% equity to call, which as we’ve seen is close. However, as Dangerhorse argues, there are significant reverse implied odds attached to drawing out of position to non-nut hands. With such a transparent draw, Hero can’t count on getting money in as a big favorite when he hits. Villain’s range also includes enough flush draws and high-equity made hands that bluffing diamonds won’t prove overly profitable either. In short, calling the flop would be roughly break-even if we were faced with an all-in bet, but on balance we’re likely to lose more than we make on future streets. Best to get out now.

This raises the question Georgios poses: ”Preflop the odds to call are great (almost 7 to 1) but you never thought to fold? Isn’t [this] a trouble hand vs three player[s,] one of them early pos raiser tourney pro? Isn’t [this] a reverse implied odds hand?”

Yes, which is why we have to proceed carefully post-flop. The nice thing about getting really good pot odds is that you can afford to cherry-pick only the most profitable spots. As long as you’re disciplined enough to get away from a deceptively pretty hand in a spot like this, I think it’s OK to peel pre-flop with what is admittedly a dangerous hand.

Even with this flop, I can imagine some scenarios where I wouldn’t check-fold. If the flop checked around, I’d feel a lot better about putting money into the pot on the majority of turns. I’d also feel better about calling the flop if the last player to act bet at it, rather than the early position raiser. Then of course there are other flops and other scenarios where Hero’s hand would have better equity. It’s just a matter of knowing how often they will come around and comparing that to the price you’re getting to see the flop.