A Symphony of Errors
Monday, 17 June 2013
With Jeff Kimber.
What makes poker a fascinating game is that it’s an inexact science where very often there will be no “correct” answer and many different ways to achieve the ultimate goal. Like any sport or game, when everyone plays well, poker is like a great piece of art, or a classical masterpiece played by a full symphony orchestra, but what happens when everyone makes mistakes in the same hand? I played a hand in the £1,000 GUKPT Main Event at the Victoria Casino in London last year and I was one of four players who, looking back, would have to admit we could have played our hand's better.
Ironically, the one guy who was berated for his poor play probably played it the best, although his youth, and the fact he won a meaty pot, probably contributed to the criticism he received from the grumpy old men.
Blinds were 100/200 and Ken Wong was table chip-leader with about 50,000. He had played very few hands but had doubled up in back-to-back hands, both times with aces, and in general he plays a good, tight game (he’s a nit). Ken made it 500 under the gun, the next guy passed and I looked down at A?K?.
With around 15k, my automatic move is to three-bet there, but given it was pre-antes, Ken plays tight and he has a very solid impression of me (he knows I’m a nit), I felt like he would fold all worse aces and therefore hands I’m beating and I’d only get action from better hands and probably win a small pot, and maybe lose a big one.
Add to that the bonus that it might get squeezed behind, and then, if Ken folded, I could four-bet and pick up a lot of dead money compared to my stack size, or, if forced, go with it there and then.
Devilfish had just joined the table with about 18k and after a bit of a speech about relieving Ken of some of his big stack, he three-bet it to 1,200. I’ve played with Devilfish a number of times and behind all the chat and bluster I think he’s still a really good poker player. You don’t survive as long as he has in the game and chalk up nearly $5million in tournament winnings without being able to play.
It’s unlikely he’s re-raising light here, but, should it be folded back to me, my plan was to four-bet and call it off, knowing that the Fish will fold some hands that are beating me and could have air anyway. Plus, I’d add 25% to my stack without seeing a flop if he folds, and, should he have queens or jacks, I’d face a race. However, while I was processing these thoughts and waiting for the action to get back to Ken so I could see what he did, (if he four bet I was out of there, he’s a nit!) the young kid in the small blind started dwelling up and playing with his chips.
He had just moved to the table less than five minutes earlier and I didn’t recognise him, but he had the look of a Scandi, didn’t look old enough to be out without his mum and had run up a stack of 35k or so comprised of lots of small chips, giving the impression he’d won lots of small pots rather than big showdowns like Ken.
After looking at all our stack sizes and having a bit of a dwell, the kid made it 2,700. Ken now dwelled for an eternity, again sizing up all the relevant stacks, gesturing his frustration. This gave the impression he had a fairly big hand, possibly A-K or A-Q, although he has been known to enjoy a dwell for the sake of it and he could well have had nothing. I was faced with a horrible prospect. I couldn’t cold-call the 2,700 out of my 15k, and making any raise basically committed me to the hand.
Looking at the action, Devilfish could have a monster, although I felt his hand was more likely to be similar to mine given the raise size, and the kid looked like a decent online player, meaning he could really have anything, but his range should be pretty tight, given his position, newness to the table and the amount of old guys in the hand. If I moved in and either the Fish or the kid snapped me off with a monster I would feel pretty stupid, and with 70 big blinds it wasn’t like I needed to get my stack in or take a race. Also, if either of the guys behind me had jacks or queens I would be in a race, but not a fair one, because I felt like some of my outs were in the other hands. Given the action I felt like folding was the best option, an annoying conclusion as it was only the third premium hand I’d had, and I’d lost with both kings and queens.
Devilfish gave it a bit of speech, told the kid he couldn’t pass for that amount and flicked in the call. The flop came Q?J?8? and the kid bet out 2,500. Devilfish thought for a moment and raised to 6,000. After checking how much Dave had back, the small blind shoved all-in and now, pun intended, the Fish went into the tank.
Thinking out loud he mused upon the kid’s possible holdings. “Flush draw?” he pondered, which fell on deaf ears. “Ace-king of clubs?”
Having put in half of his 18,000 chips at this stage, the Fish eventually made the call with A-Q for top pair top kicker, only to get shown the bad news that he was all but drawing dead – the kid had cold four-bet 9?T? and flopped the nuts with an up and down straight flush redraw.
This hand had taken about 12 minutes in all, and eaten well into the break, but I hung round to see its completion (and get the good news that an off-suit river 10 made my A-K the nuts) and hear Devilfish giving the kid the benefit of his years of experience as he packed up his Werthers Originals and his wireless, telling him that his re-raise was never getting through and that he should enjoy the one time in a million he flopped so well because every other time he will be facing an impossible task of playing a big pot out of position.
Silently, I agreed with the Fish. The kid had got really lucky in a pot he shouldn’t be in, but as I wandered off to enjoy what remained of the break, I started to rethink the hand. I concluded that all four participants could have played better, ranging from the young kid who played fine once he’d decided to get involved, down to the Fish, who played his hand pretty terribly.
Let me explain why. The kid played his hand OK because he was risking 2,700 to pick up about the same in dead money, presuming he thought Devilfish was three-betting light. I don’t think the kid played his hand brilliantly, because he was out of position should he get called, and was up against three pretty tight players, and while his 9-T suited flops well, he could well be up against at least one monster, and not even get to a flop. He didn’t really need to get involved and could have made the four-bet bigger given his position. But everything else he’d done, his post-flop bet-sizing and getting it in on the flop, was good.
Ken didn’t play too badly either, but raising under the gun with no hand pre-antes isn’t ever a great idea, even if you are trying to open up a bit with a big stack. He later told me he had A-6 off-suit.
I played my hand pretty badly, and without being results-based, any other way would have seen me win a pot of some decent size, perhaps even a full double up, given that I would have made the nuts had I got that far. Rather than getting complicated, I think just three-betting first up would have made my life a lot easier. I also could have sat and thought about the image I had for the young kid and considered whether he’d make his cold four-bet light. If I’d done so my cold five-bet would have obviously won me the pot. I think that my thinking was a bit too simple given the situation, but at least I only lost 500 in the coup.
Then we get to Devilfish. Having found myself instantly agreeing with his analysis, after thinking for five minutes, I think he was completely wrong, and I don’t like his play much at all. His three-bet of Ken’s open and my call is fine, though his bet size is not great against two players, and invites a “cheap” cold four-bet. His three-bet looked like what it was: a half-decent hand he’d like to play two or three-handed in position. Whether the kid seized on that, or just saw lots of dead money and a pretty hand in the small blind and slid some chips in is debateable, but once that had happened, and Ken and I had folded, the Fish could have played better there too.
Peeling A-Q is debatable, but in position, perhaps, Devilfish has the experience to outplay opponents and know where he’s at. Flopping top pair, top kicker is always nice, but in a four-bet pot it’s not like it’s the nuts. Once the pre-flop aggression has continued, Devilfish doesn’t have a stack deep enough to raise ”for information”. If he raises here, he’s put in half his stack and is basically committed, so while there are plenty of draws on a Q-J-8 with two clubs flop, calling and reassessing is the best option.
By raising and getting it in, Devilfish is basically discounting many of the value hands his opponent may have four-bet pre-flop – J-J, Q-Q, K-K, A-A – and if these are not in his opponent’s range, then surely five-betting pre-flop is the better play. Having to call off your stack knowing you’re likely to be dead is the worst feeling in poker, and maybe the Devilfish’s parting tirade was more of a face-saving exercise that genuine outrage at the kid’s play.
I will play my hand differently next time, and I only paid 500 chips for that lesson, so maybe I got off light – it cost Devilfish his whole stack. Poker is an ever-evolving game and learning that people make plays that you find unorthodox, and being able to counter them, is imperative to survival and becoming an even better player.