Playing Bottom Two Pair - Rafe Furst

Players get excited when they flop two pair because they know they're in a great position to take down a pot. But often, two pair is not nearly as powerful as it seems. This is especially true when holding bottom two pair or top and bottom pair. These hands may look dominant on the flop, but they're usually quite vulnerable.

For example, say you're playing a No-Limit Hold 'em ring game. There's a standard raise to four times the big blind from middle position. You figure the player has A-K or maybe a middle or high pocket pair. Everyone folds to you on the button, where you find 5d-7d. You've got favorable position and a hand that can flop some powerful draws, so you decide to call. The blinds fold, and the flop comes 5c-7h-Ks.

This is great. Not only do you have two pair, but it's very likely that your opponent has a piece of this flop, with top pair top kicker or maybe an over-pair. He bets into you, and you have to decide what action is best.

I've seen some players smooth call in situations like this, but that is not a wise play. When you have bottom two pair and your opponent has an over-pair or top pair/top kicker, you're not as big a favorite as you might think. Your opponent has five outs - cards that will counterfeit your two-pair - which gives him a very live draw. You're a 75% favorite to take the pot, and that's great, but it's not the type of statistical edge that justifies slow playing.

The better play is to raise and put your opponent to a decision right there. Many players overplay top pair and over-pairs, and will either call or re-raise all-in. That gives you the chance to put all of your money in the pot as a big favorite. If he puts a bad beat on you at that point, so be it.

Is it possible your raise will force your opponent out of the pot and kill your action? Sure, if he's sitting with a pair of Queens or Jacks he'll likely fold, but against that sort of hand, you'd have no chance to win much of a pot anyway. Your opponent would probably check to you and then fold to any bet on the turn. And as Howard Lederer pointed out in a recent tip on playing sets, if a blank comes on the turn and you raise at that point, you'll be sending an indication that the turn card helped you in some way. He'll have to assume that his lone pair is no good.

There will be occasions when you flop bottom two pair or top and bottom pair at the same time your opponent catches top two pair or a set. When that happens, you're going to go broke. In fact, you should lose your stack in most situations like this. If you're not willing to risk a lot of chips in this kind of hand, you're probably not doing enough to maximize your pots when your hold the best hand.

When you find yourself holding two pair, play them aggressively and get your money in on the flop. It's the surest way to get the maximum profit from a strong but vulnerable hand.

Bonuses:
- Free $100 Bankroll at Full Tilt Poker
- 27% Rakeback at Full Tilt Poker

Read More

Big Slick: A Slippery Hand - Rafe Furst

I often tell people that short-term results are not a reason to change how they play, but I likewise encourage them to use any excuse to study and analyze their game.

Recently, a player on Full Tilt Poker lamented that he'd gone broke with A-K in his last several tourneys, and he suspected that he was doing something wrong. A few questions revealed that he was getting knocked out fairly early in these tournaments when he put his A-K up against pocket pairs for all his chips. It's a familiar lament.

Many people fall in love with A-K pre-flop in No-Limit Hold 'em because they know that they can rarely be much worse than 50-50 to win the hand if they get all of their money in heads up. While this is true, the reverse is also true: Rarely will you be much better than 50-50 to win an all-in showdown.

So why is A-K considered such a great starting hand? Folding equity. Under the right conditions, you can increase your pot equity to well over 50% by getting your opponents to fold in situations where they shouldn't. Here's a scenario: Blinds are $200-$400 and Jen Harman (who has $12,000 in front of her) raises to $1,200 from middle position with pocket tens. You re-raise all-in for $6,000 with A-K from the button. It is difficult for Jen to call here because, even though she suspects you might have A-K, she knows you could also make that play with A-A, K-K, Q-Q or J-J.

Does she want to play for half of her stack on what figures to be, at best, a 57% favorite? You, on the other hand, are confident that unless she has one of two hands (AA or KK), you are no worse than 43% to win, even if she calls. Unless Jen picks up on a tell, she is forced to fold a hand that is actually better than your A-K by a slight margin. Not only that, but you've also made her give up all the extra chips in the pot (mostly hers) that were giving her great odds to make a call. Variants of this scenario come up all the time in No-Limit Hold 'em.

By putting your opponents in a bind where they must first call you and then have to beat you in a race, you can turn a hand that is 50% to win with all the money in pre-flop and turn it into a hand that is a 75% favorite or better.

The mistake many inexperienced players make is not giving their opponents a chance to fold. They look down to find A-K and can't wait to get all their money in the middle and race. But as we can see from the example above, the power of A-K pre-flop really comes from the "folding equity" you gain when you can make your opponent lay down a hand they would not lay down if they could see your hole cards.

Here are three keys to getting the most out of A-K pre-flop:

1) Jam with A-K, but don't call all-in with it.

2) Raise enough when you have A-K to give your opponents a chance to fold.

3) Don't raise so much that the only hands that are willing to call you are the hands that have you dominated (A-A and K-K).

To execute these plays properly, it is important to keep in mind the size of the blinds relative to your opponents' stacks and your own stack. A-K loses much of its value when your opponents are short-stacked or pot committed -- and therefore unlikely to lay down a hand -- or when the blinds are very small relative to everyone's stacks. These principles apply to both ring game and tournament play. Getting back to my friend who kept busting early in tourneys with A-K...

In the early stages of a tournament, the blinds are very small relative to everyone's stack size. This contributed to his breaking of each of the three rules:

(1) He was calling his opponents' all-in raises when they had their expected pocket pairs.

(2) He was jamming only after his opponents were pot-committed.

(3) After getting gun shy from having his A-K cracked a few times, he made his raises way too big to "protect" his hand, but then was only getting called once he was beat.

This is one of those instances where looking at short-term results can lead to long-term improvements.

27% Rakeback at Full Tilt Poker

Read More

So You Wanna Go Pro - Rafe Furst

At the final table of this year's World Series of Poker, the media consensus was that there was only one pro at the table: Mike Matusow. We've since learned that this year's champ, Joseph Hachem, gave up a 13-year chiropractic career three years ago to play poker for a living. The other seven players at the final table won over a million dollars each. It's a safe bet that a few of them now consider themselves poker professionals. What does that mean?

Three Myths About Playing Poker Professionally

Myth #1: Either I'm a Pro or I'm Not

Consider the following players. Which ones are pros and which are amateurs?

Adam

Adam plays the tournament trail full-time. He's up thousands one month, and broke the next. He's always borrowing money from fellow poker players. He has no life outside the poker world and constantly thinks, "I wish I had some skills and experience that would allow me to get a normal job."

Betty

By day, Betty's an accountant making $50K a year. She plays poker in her spare time. Some years she earns $20K playing poker, other years she earns $100K. She rarely has a losing year.

Charlie

Charlie picked up the game a year ago, entered his first tournament - the prestigious "WPT London" - and won it with flair and showmanship. He netted $500K and got a ton of TV coverage. He blew through $350K in the next 11 months playing every big event with no cash finishes. He's still got a bankroll, thanks to some juicy endorsement contracts from an online site and a beer company that guarantee him $1 Million a year for the next three years. All he has to do is continue to play in every major tournament and endorse their products.

Debbie

Debbie has a bankroll of $500K, She makes (or loses) anywhere from -$50K to +$200K per year playing a very erratic schedule. That schedule is structured around the good games, whether they're offline, online or on the tourney trail. She travels to far-off lands whenever she feels like it, and has plans to settle down and start a family. Someday. But not now.

Eddie

Eddie only plays online, He clocks in, plays exactly eight hours a day, five days a week, at four simultaneous tables no higher than $5-$10 limit hold 'em. He earns a surprisingly consistent $100/hr, takes the family on vacation twice a year, plays tennis, and attends opera on the weekends.

Myth #2: I Would be so Much Happier if I Could Just Play Poker Full Time

TRUE: It's fun playing an hour or two each day.

BUT: It might not be so fun playing all the time to the exclusion of other interests, family and friends.

TRUE: It's low-stress and entertaining, playing as a hobby.

BUT: It might be very stressful if you have to grind it out to pay the bills every month.

TRUE: Those big tourney winners on TV live like rock stars.

BUT: What about the other 99% of the players you don't see, all of whom are competing for your dream.

Myth #3: I Don't Need a Big Bankroll to be a Pro

Check the long list of Former World Champions who have gone a full year without making the final table of a major event. As of this writing, it takes roughly $500K to enter all the major tournaments in a year.

Ask your favorite pro how many times he or she has gone bust in their career, or how many times they have been hit up for a sizable cash loan from one of their good friends.

Poker is a great game; it's tons of fun, and it has never been as potentially profitable as it is today. But try to keep it in perspective.

Poker doesn't have to consume your life. You can make a good chunk of change playing poker, and you can do it without giving up all the good things you have going in your life.

Financially, mentally and socially, you are better off making poker fit into your life rather than the other way around.

Getting back to the players in the introduction, it's clear that Eddie is a pro. And it's equally clear (to me anyway) that Adam is definitely not, even though he thinks he is, and so does the general public. Adam is a dime a dozen in the poker world. You've even seen him and his ilk on TV a number of times. As for the other three, I don't know whether I'd call them pros or not, but I sure wouldn't mind being in their shoes.

"Professional" is just a word. Being a professional poker player is not the same thing as being a successful poker player.

Bottom line: You don't need to be a professional to be a poker champion.

Free $100 Bankroll at Full Tilt Poker

Read More

Understanding Implied Odds - Rafe Furst

Most players know what pot odds and implied pot odds (aka implied odds) are, and how to calculate them. Just about every poker book or website has a section on the topic. Still, I often see people making mistakes in calculating implied odds - especially when playing online. Too often, implied odds are invoked as a reason for a play when "wishful thinking" would be the more accurate description of the situation.

A perfect example came up in a recent tournament on Full Tilt Poker. The table was short-handed and playing rather loose pre-flop, but tight after the flop. The blinds were getting high, and a hand developed where we got to see a showdown between a loose player who I'll call "Loosey" and a player I'll call "Impy."

Impy had no pair and only an inside straight draw on the flop, yet he called a pot-sized bet from Loosey. Impy hit his straight on the turn, but was only able to extract a small amount from his opponent and ended up checking down the river. Impy's fuzzy logic on the flop was that, although he was behind, if he hit his hand he'd get paid off at greater odds than it required to chase his four-outer. As we saw in the hand, he got part of what he wanted (the straight), but failed to extract enough from his opponent to make his call on the flop reasonable. Furthermore, Loosey was short-stacked, had top-pair with a weak kicker, and was unlikely to have paid off much more than he did.

So, what can Impy do to improve his game? Here are some guidelines for using implied odds to greater advantage:
Only Play Against Big Stacks

When two players are contesting a pot, their maximum implied odds are exactly the same: the size of the shorter stack. If you and your opponent both have large stacks relative to the blinds and antes, your implied odds are much better than if one of you is sitting on a smaller stack, simply because there are more chips that can be committed to the pot during the hand. Players who are short-stacked tend to play tighter and are less likely to try to pick off a possible bluff because they don't have any extra chips to spare, unlike a tall stack.
Don't Play Short-Handed

The more opponents there are at your table, the greater the likelihood that one or more of them will pick up a good hand, be in on the flop, and ultimately pay you off when you hit your draw. In short-handed or heads-up situations, you have to get very lucky: first you have to hit your hand, then you have to hope your opponent has a good enough hand to pay you off. My advice is, unless you have a really good read on your opponents in the hand, don't even consider implied odds unless you are at a full 9- or 10-handed table.
Play Against Tight-Aggressive Players

Implied odds are greatest against tight-aggressive players. Why? Because these are the players who are likely to have strong hands after the flop, and are likely to commit a lot of chips to defend their good hands. Tight-aggressive players are also going to be involved in smaller pots on the flop, and will check-raise more often than loose players when out of position. This gives you free-card opportunities, which improve your implied odds. Psychologically, once involved in a hand, tight players may have a harder time letting go after the flop than loose players who are always in action. Over time, those loose players are going to have a harder time finding a reason to play with you after the flop.

The key to playing against tight-aggressive players after the flop is to keep the pot as small as possible until you hit your draw. If they put a lot of pressure on you, you're better off folding your draw and waiting for a better situation. Not every hand can be played profitably after the flop.
Incorporate Bluffs and Semi-Bluffs

If you are drawing on the flop, you should be betting and raising instead of passively checking and calling to hit your hand. This gives you two ways to win by:

* Forcing your opponents to fold, or
* Hitting your draw

This is called a semi-bluff. The only time you should play passively is if you think a free card will help your situation more than getting your opponent to fold.

Another thing to remember is that you are definitely going to miss your draws more often than not. In these cases, you should sometimes be bluffing, but the question is, how much and how frequently?

Let's say the pot has $100 in it and you have $100 left, and you are deciding whether to bluff on the river. You're giving your opponent 2-1 odds to call you, which is exactly how often you should bluff in that situation (two times for every one that you don't).

How do you choose the right balance between keeping the pot small after the flop and playing aggressively as I am advocating here? That's the art, and it requires lots of practice and a good read on your opponents. You may want to pick up Sklansky's Theory of Poker to learn more about optimal bluffing frequency and semi-bluffs. By employing these techniques correctly, you can vastly increase your implied odds and positive expectation.

Read More