Evan Roberts Hand Analysis - Pokersavvy Plus Video

Here is a clip of Evan Roberts reviewing a $25/$50 headsup no limit hand:


Evan is a poker pro who has won millions of dollars playing high-stakes online cash games. He is a heads-up NL specialist who plays mostly on Prima and OnGame, at stakes $25/$50 and up. He recently graduated from Stanford University and is an extremely bright guy and a very good instructor.

Evan Robert's Article
In this column, I will address several common mistakes that players make when analyzing hands they have played.

My opponent was a regular high-stakes player against whom I have played many hours. He is capable of making large bluffs and thin value-bets. Before I started the match, I reviewed my notes on him: “Likes to three-barrel way too much, particularly on f/d [flush draw] boards and early in the match. Often will overbet-shove the river with bluffs/made hands.”

hand setupThis hand occurred roughly 15 hands into our match. I was dealt the Q♠ J♦ in the big blind; my opponent openraised to $150, and I called.

The flop came Q♣ 9♦ 3♣. I had flopped top pair, and I decided to check. My opponent bet $250. Sometimes I will check-raise in situations like this, and sometimes I will call. I decided to call and re-evaluate on the turn.

The turn was the 5♠. I checked. My opponent bet $750 relatively quickly. At this point, I believed his range of hands was still very wide. I believed he would bet Q-10+, any two pair, any overpair, and any set for value. I also thought he would bet most of his flush and straight draws again, and that a considerable portion of his range was still made up of bluffs. I thought that if I raised here, I would be called only if I was behind (or maybe by a strong combo draw like the J♣ 10♣), and he would fold any hand that I beat. Given this, I thought calling would be the superior play, even though I risked allowing him to make a straight or flush on the river with a hand that he would have folded to a check-raise.

The river was the J♠. I checked, and my opponent went all in. This was a great river card for my hand. I had checked, hoping that he would bet so that I could check-raise all in. Instead of making a pot-sized bet, he decided to push all in. Against some players, this would be a bad sign, as many players will overbet only with very strong hands. However, given our history, I knew that his range here was fairly wide. I believed that he would make this play for value with K-Q+, any two pair, any overpair, any set, and any straight. I also thought he would have a busted draw or complete air a high percentage of the time. Given that the only draw that completed on the river was a gutshot-straight draw, and that I now beat some of his value-betting range, I was more than happy to call.

evan roberts video clipI called, and he showed the K♣ 10♠ for the nuts. I believe I played this hand well. I estimated that on the river, I was ahead more than 50 percent of the time, and I unfortunately ran into one of the hands that beat me. If I were to explain this hand to a friend, I would do so in the manner that I presented here, explaining what range of hands I put my opponent on at each juncture, and why I did what I did.

Many poker players, even very good ones, do not do this. When they analyze hands after the fact, they often fall into one of the following three types of traps:

1. They assume that because they lost the hand and/or got stacked, they played it wrong: “I guess I should have folded on the river when he shoved.”
2. They attempt to determine the optimal course of action in the hand based on the outcome: “If I had only check-raised the turn like I wanted to, he would have folded his gutshot and I would have won.”
3. They make broad, unwarranted inferences about their opponent's style of play: “He overbets the river only with the nuts.”

Poker is a game of imperfect information. We attempt to narrow our opponent's hand range and make decisions based on our assumptions. Often, even when we get to see our opponent's holecards, we gain no additional information about whether our assumptions are correct. In my case, I put my opponent on a range of hands that I was ahead of. He happened to have a hand within this estimated range that beat me. Was my estimation correct? I think so, but I certainly can't be sure. The only way to find out would be to play tens of thousands of hands with him and see what he does in similar situations over the long run. I certainly would not alter my estimation of him based on the outcome of a single hand, nor will I attempt to reanalyze my decision-making processes now that I know his holecards. You shouldn’t, either.

Good luck at the tables.♠