PLAYING $1 AND $2 NO LIMIT CASH GAMES
WINNING WITH SMALL CARDS by Sam O’Connor
GETTING VALUE FOR A HAND
Here’s a question about value from a reader named “Chris”:
I was playing $1 and $2 blinds no-limit hold‘em last week and held A-Q next to the button. A player in middle position opened the betting by raising. This player had been playing many hands and had been raising regularly making it $16 to go which he did this time. I wanted to slow play him because he was an aggressive player, so I called. The blinds folded making it heads up, him and me.
The flop was a king, a jack and a seven.
The opener bet $30 and I called hoping I would either pair a pocket card or hit the 10. The turn was a 10 and I had a Broadway straight.
The opener bet $75. I raised to $200 and he folded. Did I get full value for the hand?
The question is really whether Chris should have gambled on a river card which could result in another, much larger, bet.
Many hold’em players will try to calculate the odds of the opponent improving his hand against the value of the pot. This, of course, is nonsense because we don’t know exactly what the opponent is holding or how much he will bet on the river. Those kinds of calculations are more for limit games. In no limit, Chris must play his player.
Chris’ decision to call the charging player preflop was probably good. We can tell from the way he presented his question, it’s his habit to raise preflop and he made an exception this time.
As this hand developed, it was hard for Chris to place the opponent on any kind of hand. Hard charging preflop raisers who play a wide range of hands don’t give much information when they make a standard raise. And, usually, hard chargers will call standard reraises because they don’t like to be pushed away from the flop. Also, a re-reraise from the charger might have placed Chris at a betting level he didn’t want while holding Big Chick. So a preflop call was all that was in order, with a distribution of power to be determined by the flop and Chris’ position advantage.
Because of the apparent weakness of Chris’ preflop call, the opponent decided on a continuation bet of $30. One thing Chris might have done at this point is raise to find out if the hard charger really had a pair, knowing full well the opponent had no idea what Chris had! In the opponent’s eyes the king or jack in the flop might have paired Chris and Chris possibly could have taken the pot at that time with a strong raise.
On the turn, Chris hit a long shot in getting the 10. (Congratulations, Chris!) The opponent bet $75 hoping Chris didn’t have a straight. Additionally, the wager was representing a possible straight for the bettor. But when Chris raised to $200, even a hard charger could no longer afford to stay in the hand. It’s important to recognize, in hindsight, raising would have been a good play on Chris’ part even if he didn’t have the straight.
Let’s look again at the possibilities at the turn. We’ll take a different course of action and say Chris only called the $75 turn bet. Then, let’s say, the board paired on the river. Chris’ hand would no longer be aggressively playable and he would be put to a guess when the opponent made his big river bet. Also, Chris never mentioned whether there were two suited cards on the board. (It’s hard for there not to be.) If the third suited card were to arrive on the river, Chris would also be put to a hard guess when the opponent took his customary cannon shot. So, in the vein of dead reckoning for playability, Chris’ raise at the turn and taking the pot at that time was the best decision.
It also should be pointed out that if there had been a third person in the pot, let’s say a third player who would have acted on the button behind Chris, Chris might have taken the chance of only calling. Chris could be hoping the third player would also call and contribute to the action, both at the turn and at the river. However, we must quickly acknowledge there would have been two players who could draw out on Chris or, with a river scare card, make it difficult for him to make or call the river bet. But occasionally, we like to gamble. Sometimes we’re happier for it, sometimes sadder.
Two Curious Observations:
1) If Chris had raised after the flop, he might have won with the worst hand.
2) If Chris had called after the turn, he might have lost with the best hand.
Winning with the worst hand and losing with the best hand are two of the things that make no limit hold’em intriguing and they underscore the need to play the opponents. Good players win with the worst hand more than mediocre players. Good players lose with the best hand less than mediocre players.
Bonus Value.
There is another value to be harvested. The opponent was a charger. When Chris raised him out of the action, Chris sent him a message: “Don’t mess with me.” (I hope Chris can tell us he didn’t show his cards when the hand was over.) Chris had the opponent set up for some lively play in the next hand or two. There could be some good wins for Chris against the opponent and against others at the table. Whether we win or lose the last hand, that win or loss always has an effect on future play. In Chris’ case it could have been lucrative.
Full Value.
So, did Chris get full value for his hand?
Yes, if Chris was playing it safe and strong, and sending a message to the table.
Maybe yes, maybe no, if Chris chose to play for a river pot. Of course, some of the future value would also have been at risk with a choice to gamble.
Sam O’Connor is the author of the new book "How to Dominate $1 and $2 No Limit Hold ‘Em".
You can contact him at HowToDominate@aol.com