Yesterday I was planning to spend the afternoon playing at Imperial Palace, but they had no game going when I arrived, so I wandered down the street to the Flamingo, where I had not played since (hang on, checking records) December 16, 2010. I generally don't like it much there, but it will do in a pinch. Sometime recently they opened a new casino. Well, it's really just an extension of the main Flamingo casino, but it is set up in such a way that it looks and feels like it's separate. It's the "Margaritaville Casino." It's tropical-island-themed, with cocktail waitresses in bikinis, Jimmy Buffet music playing overhead, clusters of faux palm trees, etc. It's actually very pleasant, as casino floors go. To celebrate the opening, they issued new chips, as shown above, which, of course, I had to add to my collection.
I was one of the players starting up a new table, and quickly discovered that I had lucked my way into an assemblage of calling stations. Instead of my usual game, I switched to what I think of as my "Bill's strategy," named for Bill's Gamblin' Hall and Saloon, which was the first place I found myself consistently facing a table full of people who would call anything, fold nothing, and be aggressive only with the nuts. The strategy is not exactly rocket science: Value bet the strong hands, check-fold everything else, omit the bluffing. Against such opponents, it does not matter that that strategy means that you are effectively playing with your cards face up. They don't bother looking at them; they see only their own cards, and play accordingly.
The Bill's strategy was paying off well, supplemented by stacking a guy when I had the good side of a flopped set-over-set (my queens to his treys). It was getting close to the time that I needed to leave to catch the start of the Sunday night IP mixed game, when there was a touchdown in the late football game, which meant it was $100 splash-pot promotion time.
They drew a card to determine which table would get it, and mine was the one. Next hand, the floor guy brought over 20 red chips and plunked them down in the middle of the table before the cards were dealt. I was in the big blind and got A-8 offsuit.
My expectations were low. My limited experience with splash pots like this is that people go crazy, like a school of sharks in a feeding frenzy. FREE MONEY! ME WANT! Players raise and reraise crazily, shoving stacks of hundreds of dollars into the pot in an effort to win the house-supplied overlay.
Not this time. It was a family pot limpfest. I was stunned as one by one they all dutifully set two blue chips out in front of them. There was no discussion, no collusion, no collective strategy being deployed. I thought surely somebody was going to put in a raise that I would consider prohibitively large, given that my hand was one that was very likely to be dominated by somebody with a better ace, leaving me with, at best, maybe a 25% chance of winning the hand. With my nice profit for the afternoon about to be locked up, I wasn't in a mood to monkey around with a big chunk of my stack trying to get lucky with odds like that.
As the number of limpers increased, it dawned on me that these people simply could not figure out how to adjust to the radically different situation that the splash-pot promotion was presenting them. There is a very good reason that in no-limit games bet-sizing has everything to do with the size of the pot: You need to figure out what the pot is worth in order to determine how much it's worth risking in order to win it. As extreme examples, it usually would made no sense to risk $100 to win $2, but it would almost always be worth risking $2 to win $100. When the pot starts at $103, as this one did, a player who thinks he likely has the best hand--or thinks that he can convince everyone else that he does--should make a stab at the pot that is many times more than what the standard opening raise would be when just the $3 in blinds is up for grabs.
But when the action got to me, it was still just the size of the big blind I had already posted, so heck yeah, I'll take a free flop.
It came ace-rag-rag. The small blind checked. I thought about what to do. This table was so passive that there was a real chance that all ten of them would check. A pot now at about $115 (after rake) was absolutely worth taking a shot at with top pair, even with--or maybe especially with--a flock of calling stations behind me.
But how much to bet? I did not have great confidence that I had the only ace, and with ten limpers, there could easily be some weird two-pair that had hit and that might remain undetectable until I had committed a lot of money. Especially with my bad position, I didn't want to spend a lot and then have to abandon my children in the middle of the table.
It seemed to me that all of the other players were not perceiving this as a $115 pot. Instead, they were seeing it as a $15 pot with a $100 bonus going to the winner. Of course, logically that is a distinction without a difference. But perception is a fair substitute for reality in such situations, and I decided that I would play along with the table's apparent conventional wisdom. I also had in mind the general axiom that one should not bet more than it takes to accomplish the goal, which in this case was, ideally, to win the pot uncontested, and, failing that, to determine where my hand stood in relation to the strength of the others.
If the other players are seeing this as a $15 pot, then it makes no sense to bet $60 or $70 at it. So I bet $10. Frankly, this seemed like an absurd thing to do. I can state categorically that I have never opened the betting at a $100+ pot for $10 before yesterday. But I was in Rome, and doing what I thought the Romans do.
Like a row of falling dominoes, the players tossed in their hole cards one after the other, and I won a $115 pot with my little $10 bet. I have no idea why this bunch of calling stations--who previously would call three streets of 1/2- to 3/4-pot bets with top pair/bad kicker or second pair/good kicker--all suddenly decided that less than 10% of the pot was too rich for their blood, but that's how it went down.
Sitting here describing it and watching the replay in my brain, I'm still dumbfounded. None of it makes any sense from the point of view of a rational poker player. It may be that I was the only one at the table that might be able to claim that label.
I can't remember ever reading advice on how to handle a situation where your opponents think the pot is different than what it really is, because this must surely be a situation that comes up only rarely. I won't claim that being able to figure out what your opponents think the pot size is will be a skill that you need very often, but apparently it's one that can come in handy at least once in a great while.
Posts
11 comments:
"" Instead of my usual game, I switched to what I think of as my "Bill's strategy," named for Bill's Gamblin' Hall and Saloon, which was the first place I found myself consistently facing a table full of people who would call anything, fold nothing, and be aggressive only with the nuts. The strategy is not exactly rocket science: Value bet the strong hands, check-fold everything else, omit the bluffing. Against such opponents, it does not matter that that strategy means that you are effectively playing with your cards face up. They don't bother looking at them; they see only their own cards, and play accordingly. ""
i played at bills more than u have but not much recently, i played there way more back when my roll was under $3000. that games tougher to win in than $1-2 NL, too many european grinders and too many shortstackers. all the tourists are in the tourny, not the cash game. i do not believe at all they (only bet with the nuts) or call any raise. sometimes the games tight. also i do use a strategy kind of like u suggest, and every time i do people tell me i cant win because everyone knows what i have.
I think my default play would have been to raise pre-flop. I'm guessing that most of the players weren't very deep, so you aren't liable to get yourself into too much trouble.
LOL That's crazy.
Raising preflop would certainly have been a worthwhile consideration, since I was last to act and nobody had shown much interest in the pot. Had I had more time to think about the situation, I might have done that. But I was caught off-guard by the action going so completely against my expectation, and didn't take time to think about the best way to proceed.
Tony: My description of Bill's is based on playing there mostly in the few months after the poker room opened in 2008. I've only been there a couple of times this year, so I don't claim a good sense of what it's like now.
hey
thought you quit collecting?
not sell your collection in the end?
I made a stab at selling the Palms chips on ebay, but got no takers, and haven't done any more about the whole subject since then.
Once they all limp the best play isn't to raise, it's to move all-in. Your A8 is actually a better hand than you need to make this play. Even if you get looked up by all pairs and all better aces, they are still going to fold enough times to make taking the $100 worth it. Locking up your profit does play an understandable role, but if your goal is to maximize profit over the long term the shove is the best move.
Yeah, I think there's merit to that approach. It has the one disadvantage of possibly being extremely expensive if one of the first players was deliberately limping with aces or kings in the hopes that a raising war would break out behind him, but I think that unlikely at this particular table.
As I said, I was completely caught off guard by the action, because I had just assumed that somebody was going to play it as a $100 pot, and when nobody did, I was confused as to how best to proceed, and a free flop sounded like as good an idea as any. In retrospect, I don't think it was, but it worked out OK in the end anyway.
Grump,
What would your action been when one of the limpers would have check raised your 10 flop bet to 60? The raiser started with 200.
Probably would have let it go.
Grump, A rules afficianado like yourself will probable have some interest in a recent post at Craakker's blog, when he talks about a ruling when it was argued whether a hand should be ruled dead when it may (or may not) have touched the muck.
Post a Comment