Wow, do you still play poker?

Yes, I do! But I haven't played at the casino in a very long time. Truth be told, I haven't played seriously for 5ish years... I entered graduate school in Aug 2009 and haven't seen the inside of a poker room since. Sad, I know. I am reduced to a hodgepodge of low-stakes homegames. For me right now, though, its fine.

Anyway, so I just finished a homegame, and was part of a very interesting hand. It's a $0.25/$0.50 NLH ring game with a $40 table limit. I had ~$80-90 in my stack, and came up as UTG against the Button (villain), who had a comparable stack. The game allowed for straddles UTG.

CO ($80.26)

Villain (Button) ($85.87)

SB ($15.62)

BB ($11.20)

Hero (UTG) ($89.15)

UTG+1 ($40.09)

MP1 ($25.47)

MP2 ($130.38)

MP3 ($34.68)



Preflop: Hero is UTG with 10, 10

Hero straddles $1, 2 folds, MP2 raises to $3, 2 folds, Villain calls $3, 2 folds, Hero raises to $6, MP2 calls $3, Villain calls $3



Flop: ($18.75) 6, 3, 7 (3 players)

Hero bets $15, 1 fold, Villain calls $15



Turn: ($48.75) 7 (2 players)

Hero bets $15, Villain raises to $34.75

Pot odds were a favorable 4.99 to 1, but I just couldn't put the villain on a hand.

So I thought: What could beat me? AA-JJ, 7X, 66, and 33. AA and KK seemed unreasonable because I would expect a player on the button to re-raise. Due to the tightish nature of the villain, 7X seems unlikely, unless it is 77 or A7 suited diamonds. However, I don't think those hands can call my re-raise. 66 seems less likely (because of the re-raise) and 33 seems impossible. So really, I'm expecting QQ or JJ, as they both fit into the betting profile. If that is the case, then I'm only 5% to win.

What could I beat? Lots of things, right? I beat 99,88, 55, 44, 22, AX (save 7s), etc. These hands are still drawing and didn't seem it could stick around amidst all the action. I couldn't see any of these hands playing to the flop, then pushing the turn.

I fold, and Villain shows 99.

Now, I can't help but wonder if I missed something.

Be Aggressive and Know Your Opponents

Ok, now I admit that it has been at least 2 months since I've played what I consider to be *serious* poker, as the holidays, trips to the Philippines, and cruises have seemed to get in the way. Now that I'm getting back into the swing of things, I remember one of the most fundamental tenants of poker that one needs to be successful, especially in weak games. BE AGGRESSIVE! If you're playing in a pot, you should be raising. If your hand is not good enough to raise, then it's usually not good enough to call (with exceptions of course). I saw way too many pots where 8 people limped in and saw a flop. #1. That's not poker, that's bingo. #2., and more importantly, you have NO idea where you stand in the hand. The flop is almost meaningless since you can't put anyone on a hand. Worst that can happen is that the flop actually hits you with middle pair or something and someone busts you with a hidden pocket overpair. You'll have no idea. So, when you're sitting at the tables or online, keep this in mind: No one limps in when I'm in the pot. They'll have to pay to play!

One last thing I want to mention is something I'm getting better at every time I sit; pay attention and know your opponent. Not just what they play, but their skill level also.

My rule of thumb is: Don't give anyone credit for a move you've never seen them do.

With this, there is also an inverse rule: Don't make a move that your opponent will not recognize.

My friend AA says "You can't sing to a man with no ears." This is very true; especially in lower limits and tournaments. My theory is that the reason Carlos Mortensen was the last pro to win the WSOP Main Event is due to the fact that professional high-end moves are nullified by an amateur's ignorance of the move and inability to recognize it. Then, it's just a math game... here's what I mean.

Let's say that there are 200 players that we can consider to be "high-end professionals." In last year's Main Event (2006), there were like 8700 people. So, to win the WSOP, a pro would have to bust out about 50-60 people (fuzzy math, but it illustrates my point). Let's say that 1/2 those people have NO BUSINESS being in the tournament. That means of the 50-60 people the pro has to bust out, 25-30 of them will have to be beat on pure luck. Over that long a stretch, you're talking about A LOT of luck. So, naturally, the larger the tournament is, the more it favors the donks, because there are just so many more chances for the donks to come out ahead. Another way to look at it is this: Say that you are in a shooting competition. I give myself 200 bullets to hit a target dead center, and I give you 8500 bullets to hit dead center. You are likely to win because you have the advantage of numbers.

Back to the point, don't pull a move that you don't think your opponents will recognize. To more experienced poker players, a check-raise means trouble. To inexperienced players, it simply looks like you missed a bet. If your opponent has never bluffed (over time), it's likely that they'll be more prone to be bluffable. You get the picture.

Lastly, playing a table simply to try to qualify for the "Bad Beat Jackpot" is not a good enough reason to play the table. I hate limit.