The Biggest No-Limit Hold'em MythBig stacks can 'bully' the table, by Ed Miller | Published: Oct 24, 2007

Live $1-$2 and $2-$5 no-limit hold'em cash games can, for many

players, be some of the most lucrative games in the cardroom. Several

years ago, I was a committed limit player (and even wrote a couple of

books about it), but nowadays I'm sold on no-limit. It's great because, at

least at the low levels, learning a winning strategy isn't too difficult. And

furthermore, a wide array of approaches can win, as long as you play

accurately and with discipline. My Card Player columns will focus on

teaching you how to beat this great game.

"What a bully!" the big blind said lightheartedly as he threw in his cards.

"That's just the way the big stack is supposed to play," mused his friend

next to him.

They were talking about me. I had just stolen the blinds in a $2-$5 no-

limit hold'em game. After a series of fortunate events, I had run my stack

up from the maximum buy-in of $500 to around $1,300, enough to have

everyone at the table comfortably covered.

The big blind and his friend had unwittingly repeated what I consider to

be the biggest no-limit hold'em myth: Big stacks can "bully" the table,

and short stacks have to sit and take it. I hear this idea everywhere -

from TV commentators, from table coaches, and even in a book or two.

I once overheard someone counsel a friend not to buy into a $10-$25

game because he had only $2,000 that day to play with. (He had a lot

more in his bankroll.) "The big stacks will eat you alive. You gotta have

at least five dimes to play that game. You might as well take your two

dimes and burn it. If you can't buy in full, don't buy in at all. You gotta

give yourself a fighting chance."

They're all wrong. Big stacks don't hold any inherent advantage over

small stacks. Just because you cover everyone doesn't mean you have

any special mathematical privilege to bully the table. And if you try to do

so against astute opponents, you might find yourself the one busted by

the end of the night.

Now, I'm talking about cash games here, not tournaments. In

tournaments, the "bullying" concept has some merit, though it's hardly

what some people would have you believe. In cash games, however, it's

utter hogwash. A deep stack holds no inherent advantage whatsoever

over shorter stacks - none.

Let's see why. Let's say you and I are playing heads-up $2-$5. We each

have $3,000 in our pockets. You buy $3,000 worth of chips. I buy $300

and leave the rest in my pocket. Naturally, we're playing with the table-

stakes rule, so once I've bet my entire $300 on a hand, we're all in and

there's no further betting. That means that the most you can bet on any

hand is $300, the same as me. Even though your stack is 10 times the

size of mine, when we play a hand, all of your excess money sits

harmlessly unused, just like the money in my pocket.

Strategically, it's completely irrelevant that you have a big stack and I

have a small one. If you try to "bully" me by raising a lot with weak

hands, I can punish you by reraising more often with better hands. If you

want to avoid steadily losing your big stack over time, you'll have to put

on the brakes and play a more "normal" strategy.

"Sure," you might say, "that's obvious. If we both start with $3,000 and

you buy in for $300, it doesn't matter on the first hand whether I buy in

for $300 and keep the rest in my pocket or if I buy in for $3,000. Either

way, we're playing for $300. But what happens over time? You're a lot

more likely to bust out than I am."

That's true. If we both play equally well (which is not likely if you waste

your money trying to bully me), I'm 10 times more likely to lose my $300

than you are to lose your $3,000. Fortunately, I have 10 $300 buy-ins,

while you have only one $3,000 buy-in. If I rebuy for $300 every time I

go broke and we play until one of us has all the money, we both have an

equal shot. The fact that I've played the short stack throughout doesn't

affect my chances one bit.

Indeed, if the rules would allow it, I could buy in for just the $5 big blind

every time and still have totally equal chances. All you could do with

your mighty stack is call my big blind and watch the boardcards

helplessly.

So, what's the deal? Why does everyone talk about big stacks bullying

and short stacks getting bullied? In cash games, it's primarily a

psychological thing. Typically, someone gets a big stack by winning a

few big hands in a row. Naturally, it can be a bit intimidating to watch

one of your opponents drag a few monster pots and sit in front of a mini-

Everest of chips. You start thinking that your chips might be the next

addition to the mountain.

Don't think that! It's not true. Maybe your opponent is a great player, but

chances are that he mostly just ran good for a few hands. You have

nothing to be afraid of, and your opponent's big stack confers no

advantage whatsoever. Don't buy in to the myth. If you have $200, it

doesn't hurt you at all if your opponents have $2,000 or even $20,000.

You're playing for $200, and when your opponents play against you,

that's what they're playing for, also.

If you're the one with the big stack, you don't have a mathematical

advantage, but you may have a psychological one. I've noticed that

after I build a big stack in a cash game, some players start to play

scared against me. Where they might have check-raised a good hand or

tried a bluff against me before, they'll play more cautiously now. You can

take advantage of the timid play by - bullying. But always remember,

you aren't bullying because you have a bigger stack; you're bullying

because your opponents are afraid of you.

So, that's it, the biggest no-limit hold'em myth. Go ahead and buy in for

whatever you desire. Those sharks with deep stacks aren't going to get

the best of you. In fact, you may well be getting the best of the sharks,

because while it's not true that big stacks have an inherent advantage

over short stacks, the opposite sometimes is true! You actually could

give yourself an edge merely by buying in short. I'll show you how it

works in the next issue.

Ed will personally answer your questions at his online poker advice

column, www.notedpokerauthority.com. He has authored four books on poker, most recently Professional No-Limit Hold'em: Volume 1.

The Virtues of Playing the Short StackTwo major advantagesby Ed Miller | Published: Nov 13, 2007

In the last issue, I tackled the biggest no-limit hold'em myth: Big stacks

can bully small stacks to gain an advantage. Not only is it not true, small

stacks can actually gain an edge over big stacks! Before I tell you how,

let's revisit the biggest myth.

It's very common to hear people talking about big stacks "bullying" small

stacks, usually by playing loosely preflop and raising a lot.

Unfortunately, in a cash game, this tactic doesn't actually offer any edge

to the big stack, since the extra chips don't play. That is, if you have

$100 and I have $1,000, we'll be all in after the first $100, and my

remaining $900 plays no role whatsoever in the hand. I could put that

extra $900 in my pocket, and it wouldn't help (or hurt) you at all.

But if you have $100 and everyone else at the table has $1,000, you

actually have an advantage over your opponents. In fact, you have two

major advantages.

Avoiding Mixed-Stack PlayMixed-stack play is one of the most complex aspects of no-limit hold'em.

Strategy can change dramatically due to different stack sizes. If you are

playing $1-$2 blinds, with a given hand you might push all in with a $20

stack, just call with a $200 stack, and perhaps raise (but not all in) with

a $1,000 stack. When your opponents in a hand have very different

stack sizes (that is, you're playing against mixed stacks), your best play

could be different against each of them due to their different stack sizes.

For instance, let's say that you have $500 in a $1-$2 game. A tight

player under the gun goes all in for $20. A weak player with $400 calls next. You're on the button with the 2 2 . What should you do? I'd call, since I might flop a set and win a nice pot off the weak player. But if

the weak player had folded instead, I'd fold, since I'd likely be either

about even money (against overcards) or a big underdog (against a

bigger pair), and I'd probably be taking the worst of it alone against the

all-in player.

Unfortunately, even with the weak player in the pot, I'm still taking the

worst of it against the all-in player. The weak player's call doesn't

change the fact that I have to beat the tight player to win the $63 main

pot. I'm calling despite the all-in player, because I think the chance of

winning a big pot off the weak player is worth it. Because of the mixed

stack sizes, I have no perfect play. If I want to win money off the deep

stack, I have to cede equity to the short stack.

Now put yourself in the shoes of the tight all-in player. Let's say that you have the Q Q . You just got called by not one, but two players as a big favorite. You have a great chance to triple up. And you got called by

the second player only because his stack was a lot deeper than yours. If

he had had only $20, also, he would have folded. He called only

because he and the weak player were much deeper than you.

Playing against mixed stacks complicates your decision-making and

forces you to take compromises. Playing short allows you to face a

uniform stack size (yours), and enables you to benefit when your

opponents face mixed-stack situations.

Fold Equity Without RiskFold equity is the value you get from opponents who fold. The typical

way to generate fold equity is to bet or raise. Your opponents will

sometimes fold, and your chances to win the pot improve. This fold

equity comes at a risk, however, since you could lose whatever amount

you bet. When you're a short stack, though, sometimes you can get fold

equity without having to risk anything.

Let's say that you're playing a $1-$2 game, you have a $20 stack, and you have the J J . Two players, each with a $500 stack, limp in to you, and you push all in. They both call. The flop comes A 9 6 . (Doesn't an ace always seem to come?) Your opponents both check.

The turn is the 10 . One player bets $20, and the other folds. The riveris the K . Your opponent shows the Q 10 , and your jacks hold up.

Then, the other player starts to complain: "Why'd you have to bet? I had

a king! I would have won." Because your opponent bet the turn for you,

and your other opponent folded, you won a pot that you otherwise would

have lost. That bet carried fold equity, not just for the bettor, but also for

you. But unlike the bettor, you didn't have to risk anything to get the fold

equity. It came automatically.

If everyone had started the hand with $20, you would have lost the pot.

Because your opponents had extra money, however, you turned a loss

into a win. That's the second advantage of having the short stack at the

table; you can gain fold equity without risk.

"But," you might say, "having a short stack means I can't push anyone

off a hand. Maybe I get fold equity for free sometimes, but I also can't

generate fold equity when I want it because I don't have enough to bet."

That's true. But it doesn't invalidate either advantage of being the short

stack at the table. It's just a result of what I said at the beginning, that

different stack sizes require different strategies. You have a very

different set of options at your disposal with $20 in a $1-$2 game than

with $200. All I'm saying is that if you're going to buy in for $20, you're

generally better off if your opponents all have $200 than if they have

$20. And likewise, if you're going to buy in for $200, you're generally

better off if your opponents all have $2,000 than if they have $200.

The peddlers of the biggest myth will tell you that having a shorter stack

than everyone else puts you at a disadvantage. Not only are they

wrong, but the opposite is true. No matter what stack size you play, you

enjoy advantages when your opponents play much deeper stacks.

Next issue, I'll teach you how I use some of these ideas to beat real no-

limit hold'em games.

Sizing Up a GameDeveloping a ritual when entering a gameby Ed Miller | Published: Nov 27, 2007

Many students want to know how I size up a game. Once the

brushperson assigns me a table and a seat, what do I do then? How

much do I buy in for? What's my strategy on the first few hands? What

am I looking for? How do I use those initial moments to gain an

advantage that will last throughout the session? I'll share with you how I

approach these initial decisions. Other players I know do things

completely differently, so know that my way isn't the only way. But even

if you do things differently, you might find it useful to know how other

people approach the game.

I beat no-limit hold'em games by outthinking my opponents. In order to

do that, I need two things: knowledge of their weaknesses and a

strategy to exploit them. Without those two, I can't outthink anyone, and

I'm stuck relying on fundamentals to beat the game. Over time, solid

fundamentals will win, but a custom-tailored exploitative strategy will win

faster and better.

When I first sit in a game, I want to learn about my opponents as quickly

as possible. To that end, I generally buy in for about half of the

maximum. For instance, in a $2-$5 game, I'll often buy in for $300 rather

than the $500 maximum. In previous columns I pointed out that playing

a shorter stack than your opponents bestows a couple of inherent

advantages. So, when I first sit down in a game, while I still know

relatively little about my opponents, I harness those advantages by

playing short. Usually after an orbit or two, I top-up my stack to the table

maximum. But occasionally if I think I'm better off playing short, I won't

buy more. Buying in for less than the maximum gives you flexibility:

Before any hand you can always buy more chips, but you can never

take chips off the table.

I also play tight. I personally find that I'm more observant when I'm not in

a hand than when I am. Perhaps the emotional involvement clouds my

thinking, but my hand reading is sharper and my strategic thinking is

cleverer when my money isn't on the line. So unless I get dealt

something obviously worth playing, I sit out the first 10 hands or so and

let my brain focus totally on profiling my opponents and formulating

strategies.

What sorts of things am I looking for? First, I want to know what the

"standard" preflop raise size is and how often people call it. In online

games, initial preflop raises generally stay fairly small, but live games

frequently will have their own standard size that can range from three

times the big blind to 10 times or even more. (I've played in $1-$2

games in which players were routinely opening for $25 or $30.) I don't

always stick to the standard raise - not at all, in fact - but I need to know

what the other players expect and what looks ordinary and out-of-the-

ordinary to them. I also want to know how many players call preflop

raises. Let's say two players limp in a $2-$5 game, and then someone

makes it $30. Are those limpers likely to call the raise or fold? Should

the raiser expect one opponent or four? These observations help me to

determine what hands I'll raise preflop and how big a raise I'll make.

Next, I'll look for a player who seems to be playing very loosely. If

someone limps in and calls a raise more than once, I'll begin to focus on

him. Not only are loose opponents very profitable, but also since they

enter so many pots, it's likely that I'll play hands against them.

When I focus on a player, I try to develop a model for his post-flop

decision-making. Just because someone is loose preflop doesn't mean

he'll be loose throughout the hand. Some players are quite the opposite,

in fact; they are happy to see the flop for a raise or reraise with a weak

hand, but reluctant to play for big post-flop bets without a monster.

That's my favorite kind of opponent, so I'm always delighted to see that

pattern. I'll suspect such a player if I see him call a few preflop raises,

but then fold to flop or turn continuation-bets.

Some loose players aren't so obliging. If they aren't folding, I try to figure

out what sorts of hands they're calling with. Do they call the flop

automatically, even if it seems they've missed? Do they call outsized

bets with draws? (Just recently, within my first 10 hands at the table, I

saw a loose player call a $900 all-in bet on the turn in a $200 pot with

just a flush draw. Naturally, he got there on the river.)

I also look for tricky or aggressive players. When your opponents are

docile, waiting for strong hands to make big bets or raises, you can get

away with a lot of shenanigans. For instance, if it looks like no one

wants a $40 pot, you can bluff only $5 or $10, saving considerable

money when you get called. Or if you have a decent top pair but don't

want to face a big bet, you can make a smallish value-bet, confident that

you'll be raised only by better hands and called by the ones you beat.

These shortcut plays can turbocharge your win rate in a soft $1-$2 or

$2-$5 game.

Against aggressive players, however, they can backfire. Tricky players

will sniff out your weakness and pressure you with bluffs and thin value-

raises. So I try to figure out which players won't punish me for "getting

out of line," and which ones might, and I don't use the shortcuts against

the dangerous players.

That's my ritual when I begin a game. I buy in short, knowing that I can

always buy more chips but can't take chips off the table. I throw away

most of my early hands, and I spend my mental energy on identifying

game conditions (especially how much people are raising preflop and

how often they're calling) and profiling a few interesting-looking players.

If someone seems particularly loose, I'll watch his post-flop play and try

to develop a model for how he makes decisions. Then I'll tailor my

strategy to exploit his mistakes. All the while I'm on the lookout for

dangerous players who might prevent me from using some of my more

obvious ploys.

In my next few columns, I'll put these ideas into practice, choosing somehypothetical game conditions and explaining how I'd react to them.

A Foolproof Strategy for Wild GamesBuy in a little shorter and get your money in early with good handsby Ed Miller | Published: Dec 05, 2007

Recently I was in a crazy $2-$5 no-limit hold'em game. I could tell it was

a crazy game even before I watched one hand. The maximum buy-in

was $500, but at least $8,000 was on the table. Four players each had

more than $1,500. Either the game had been going with the same

lineup for a very long time or people were playing a lot of all-in pots,

sloshing money around to one another (and rebuying over and over).

While not completely reliable, the amount of money on the table is a

reasonable indicator of how aggressive the game is. If all of the stacks

are short and medium, expect a quiet, perhaps even weak-tight game. If

everyone is deep, you probably should expect fireworks. If one player is

really deep and everyone else has a normal-size stack, there's a good

chance the deep player is loose and aggressive. It's not always the case

- he could be deep just because he got really lucky or because he's

been glued to the seat for 48 hours (look for 32-ounce coffee cups and

bloodshot eyes) - but loose-aggressive players are the most likely ones

to build deep stacks in a game with a maximum buy-in.

Back to my crazy $2-$5 game. Usually I would buy in for the maximum,

$500, to give myself the best chance to win a big pot. But I wanted to try

out a strategy that I consider foolproof for beating crazy no-limit games.

I bought in for $300, 60 big blinds. Last issue, I said that I often buy in

for around that much to scope out a game. After all, I can buy more

chips before any hand, but I can never take money off the table.

But this buy-in was a little different, because the foolproof strategy relies

on a short buy-in in order for it to work. In a crazy game, many players

will play very loosely preflop, even for a raise. After watching a few

hands (and after losing my first buy-in right off the bat with pocket jacks

against 6-5 on a 6-5-2 flop), I saw that the "standard" preflop raise at the

table was to $30-$40, and, typically, between three and six people

would call it. So, a typical hand would see five or six players to the flop

for around $150 - a crazy game, indeed.

Naturally, if five or six players are seeing every flop, their standards are

none too high. Many players were playing (for raises) any two suited

cards, nonsuited connectors, and hands like K-7 offsuit. Now, if

everyone at the table has $2,000 in front of him, and if everyone is

playing loose like this, the low standards don't actually hurt anyone. To

get an advantage in poker (or to get taken advantage of), someone

needs to adjust his strategy to exploit the weaknesses. If no one is

taking advantage of it, playing loose is harmless.

But the foolproof strategy is designed to take advantage of it. First, you

don't have $2,000 in front of you. You have only $300, making the $30

preflop bet a sizable 10 percent of your stack. And, by the elegant

symmetry of the table-stakes rule, it's also 10 percent of all of your

opponents' stacks when they're playing against you. (Remember, their

extra money is irrelevant when they're playing against you. It's as if it

weren't even on the table.)

Playing K-7 offsuit for 1 percent of the stacks can work out fine. Playing

it for 10 percent is a recipe for disaster. They simply can't outflop or

outplay you often enough to make up for building such a big pot with

such a stinker of a hand.

So, what's the foolproof strategy? Buy in for 40 to 60 big blinds. Wait for

strong starting hands: pocket pairs, big aces, and K-Q. In position, you

can add some more hands. Ask yourself, "Is this hand better than what

my opponents are probably playing, or am I playing this to try to get

lucky?" If you're playing to get lucky, don't play. For instance, if you see

the 8 6 , throw it away. It can be a good hand when the stacks are

deep and you have some control over your opponents, but it will only

cost you money in a wild and woolly game.

So, you're waiting for good hands. If you have a medium or big pocket

pair, or two big cards, raise preflop. With small pocket pairs or on the

button with your somewhat weaker hands, you can just limp.

If the pot is raised and you hit the flop well, move all in. For instance,

let's say you raise to $35 preflop with the K Q and five players call.

The pot is $210 before the flop, and you have $265 remaining. The flop

comes Q 9 7 . If everyone checks to you, push all in. Even if

someone bets in front of you, push all in. The pot is too large to consider

folding a hand as strong as yours. Indeed, that's what makes this

strategy "foolproof." Your goal is to get your money in early with good

hands, so that there are no tough decisions. You aren't relying on your

hand-reading skills or your creativity to give you an advantage; you're

relying on raw math.

That's the basic idea. Obviously, you won't push with every hand on

every flop. If you raise preflop with pocket jacks and the flop comes A-K-

6, check and fold. If you have A-K and the flop comes J-9-7, check and

fold. If you limped in preflop with pocket fives and the flop comes Q-10-

3, check and fold. But if you connect solidly with the flop, the pot will be

big enough and your stack will be small enough that you can just put

your money in and be confident that, over time, your bets will earn you

money.

You can mix it up a little bit. For instance, you can try limp-reraising if

you get a strong hand in early position. Or, you can try a squeeze-bluff if

a loose player raises and a few people call. For example, if someone

raises to $40 and three people call, you can try moving all in with the J 9 . If no one calls, you win $160 for your $300 risk. If you get

called, you're getting 3-to-2 on your money, enough to compensate you

even if you run into A-K.

The reason many people have trouble in wild games is that they

repeatedly leave themselves in a no man's land. They flop a decent

hand, but then the big bets start pouring in, and they second-guess

themselves. By buying in a little shorter, you can get your money in with

confidence and with a mathematically guaranteed, foolproof advantage.

Crushing Wild No-Limit Hold'em GamesThe foolproof strategy in actionby Ed Miller | Published: Dec 19, 2007

Wild games give many players fits. The betting gets so big, so fast, it

takes them out of their comfort zone. "Sure, this top pair is better than

what I usually see out of my opponents, but do I really want to bet $500

on it?"

If you avoid wild games, though, you're missing out on some of the

easiest poker money there is. Last issue, I outlined my foolproof

strategy for beating wild games. The basic idea is to buy in somewhat

short, 40 to 60 big blinds, wait for strong starting hands, and get your

money in fast preflop or on the flop. It's foolproof because if you do

faithfully wait for the good hands and keep your stack short, you

eliminate the chance that you'll get outplayed by your crazy, but

sometimes clever, opponents. They may intimidate you or read your

hands well, but they can't outmaneuver the math.

Here are a couple of examples of the foolproof strategy in action:

You have the A K on the button in a $2-$5 blinds game. Your stack is around $250 (50 big blinds). A loose player opens for $30, and three

players call. Move all in. It's a no-brainer. Obviously, you're at least

going to call, which would make a pot of $157. You can raise $220 more

for the chance to win without a fight, or you can just call and hope to

catch a pair against four (or more) opponents. Overall, you're much

better off trying to pick up the sizable pot immediately.

Some of you may be saying, "I don't like it. This is just another guy who

likes to overplay A-K." But I assure you, it's not overplaying; indeed, not

moving in would be a big mistake. It's all because of the pot size

compared to the stack size. You intentionally bought in short, so while

your raise is all in, it's not for that much actual money. And because of

the loose raise and several loose calls, there's a lot of dead money in

the pot.

The only hands you're concerned about are A-A and K-K. If someone

with 6-6 calls you, it might appear at first to be a "coin flip," but it's really

not. Sure, you'll be about 50-50 to win the pot, but you're risking $250 to

win $370 (or even more, depending on who calls). Getting 3-to-2 on an

even-money shot is a terrific outcome! Don't disparage it with the term

coin flip. If I could flip coins over and over while getting 3-to-2 each time,

in a month I'd be the richest man in the world.

So, you're really worried only about A-A and K-K. Those hands aren't

likely. The original raiser is loose, so he could have any number of

hands. And the callers are even less likely to have a monster. This is a

soft situation, and it's a perfect place to pounce with impunity.

Indeed, I'd move all in here with A-Q, or 8-8, as well. And depending on

how wild the game really is, I might do it when even weaker. See, I told

you the strategy is foolproof. Even a fool can move all in with A-K after a

raise and a few calls.

Here's another example: You have the K J on the button. The

same loose raiser opens for $25, and this time only one player calls. You call with your $250 stack. The big blind calls. The flop comes K 7

3 . The blind checks, and the preflop raiser bets $50. The next

player calls. Move all in again. You'd obviously at least call, which would

make the pot $250. You have only $175 more, so you can make a

natural raise of three-quarters of the pot size to protect your top pair. In

this wild game, you may get called by weaker kings, by flush draws, or

possibly even by weaker hands. Don't worry about whether your top pair

is good or not; there's more than enough in the pot already to

compensate you for those times that you run into a better hand.

Again, it's the foolproof strategy at work. If you had bought in for more,

you might have had a tougher flop decision. You would think twice about

losing $600 or $1,000 in this $200 pot with just top pair with a moderate

kicker. But your short buy-in makes the play automatic.

Wild games cause some people trouble because their hand-reading

skills get out of whack. It feels sort of like playing "blind." Add in the big

and fast betting, and crazy games can present some problems. While

buying in full can help you get the most out of wild games if you're

already a master at playing them, buying in short is the key to a

foolproof strategy. Limit your exposure to the crazy betting, and get your

money in fast - preflop and on the flop. Doing that enables you to

harness the built-in advantage of playing better hands. You can ride thatadvantage to a solid, long-term winning strategy.

Beating No-Limit Hold'em Games With Just a Chip and a ChairA theoretical discussion that's worth the effortby Ed Miller | Published: Jan 02, 2008

My last few columns have been about the advantages that short stacks

have over deep stacks in no-limit hold'em and about how to harness

those advantages to beat wild games. I want to step back now and

explore what I mean by the advantage a short stack gives you.

A few issues back, I said that short stacks have two main advantages

over deeper stacks: They avoid mixed-stack play, and they gain fold

equity without risk. Strategies differ depending on the stack sizes: You

might play a hand very differently with 200 big blinds than you would

with 40 big blinds. So, if you have two opponents, one with 200 big

blinds and one with 40 big blinds, oftentimes you have a problem. You

can't play perfectly against either of them for fear that the other one will

get the better of you. So, you have to compromise. Mixed-stack

"compromises" ultimately cost you money. If you play short, generally

you will never have to play these mixed-stack situations, and thus will

never have to compromise.

Furthermore, if you are the short stack against two deep stacks,

sometimes your opponents will still be duking it out in a side pot after

you've gotten all in. If one gets the other to fold, you've gained winning

chances without risking anything extra. That's a bonus you'll get only if

you're a short stack.

Typically, I like practical poker advice. Theoretical discussions make my

eyes glaze over. But I'm going to break that pattern here by going

theoretical for a bit. I think it's worth the effort.

Let's say you are playing in a sixhanded game against five copies of

yourself. You play well with deep and short stacks, and your opponents

play exactly as you do. It's a $1-$2 no-limit hold'em game, and you each

buy in for $200 (and rebuy every time you dip below $200). Thankfully,

this game isn't raked. If you play it for a long time, you should expect to

break even, and you should expect the same for each of your five

opponents. Getting a long-term edge in poker depends on imbalances.

It depends on exploiting weaknesses. If you play the same way your

opponents do, you won't have an edge, and ultimately you'll just break

even. So, you against five copies of yourself is a break-even game for

everyone.

Now let's say you are playing in a sixhanded game against five copies

of yourself, but you buy in for $100 while your opponents all buy in for

$200. You play only three hours at a time, so after every three hours of

play, the stacks are reset to their original sizes. You should expect to

make a profit in this game. Even though you're playing against players

as good as yourself, the inherent advantages of playing a short stack

will win the day and make you money over time.

Now let's say you are playing in a sixhanded game against five copies

of yourself, and you are allowed to buy in for $2 (just a chip and a chair)

while your opponents all buy in for $200. You always rebuy for $2 if you

go broke, and after three hours, all of the stacks are reset to their

original sizes. You still should expect to make a profit at the expense of

your normal-stacked opponents! Perhaps this conclusion seems

ridiculous to you. After all, how can you "beat the blinds" if all you have

is one big blind in your stack?

When you play with one big blind, the table-stakes rule says that your

opponents play with only one big blind, as well, when they're in a hand

with you. Imagine a game in which you play against five copies of

yourself and everyone has only $2. It's a break-even game for

everyone. Sure, someone for this hand has the crippling disadvantage

of posting the blind, but that will rotate for the next hand, and eventually

everyone will share the burden of the blinds equally. Since no money

leaves the table and no one has an inherent advantage, everyone

breaks even.

Because of the table-stakes rule, however, when you play with $2, it is,

to you, as if everyone were playing with just $2. Sure, they have more

money with which they play against other players, but to you that money

is irrelevant. So, if you would break even at a table full of $2 stacks, you

will at least break even against bigger stacks. But you'll actually do

better than that, as the advantages of a short stack will once again kick

in. For instance, let's say you limp in, someone raises, the blinds fold,

and you're heads up. The pot is $7, and you have only one opponent.

You're getting 5-to-2 on your money, and you have to beat only one

player. Those are very attractive odds, and they come from the short-

stack advantage.

When I say that short stacks have a natural advantage, this effect is

what I'm talking about. Obviously, you won't find yourself in a sixhanded

game against five copies of yourself very often, so one might dismiss

this entire exercise as impractical. But it's not. Sure, if you're the best

player at a table full of gamblers looking to drop their stack on the first

gutshot they see, you'll probably make the most by buying in for the

maximum and waiting for your payday. But if you find yourself in a wild

game full of cagey players (and plenty of these exist), remember that

you can get the best of a table of players who are just as good as you

merely by buying in short.

There are two other real-life lessons from this mythical game against

five copies of yourself. First, when you're in a tournament and you have

just a tiny stack, don't give up! You may have lost most of your winning

chances, but remember that your remaining chips are more powerful

and more valuable than they might at first seem. Second, don't take the

short stacks too lightly. If you try to "bully" them too much with loose

raises, you just may be playing into their hands.

So, while you perhaps shouldn't try to buy in to every game for just one

big blind, know that if you could and if you tailored your strategy to make

the most of your miniature buy-in, your chip and chair would ultimately rule the day.

Conquering Crazy GamesFour simple stepsby Ed Miller | Published: Jan 16, 2008

Several issues ago, I gave you a foolproof strategy to beat wild no-limit

hold'em games by buying in short. Since then, a number of readers

have asked me the natural question, "So, I use your strategy and double

up. Then what?"

Good question. Fortunately, the strategic ideas stay much the same.

Just follow these four simple steps:

Prepare Yourself Mentally to Get Stacked

You will get stacked in crazy games. It's not uncommon to get stacked

two or three times in a session. You can't protect yourself from this. If

you plan your strategy around not getting stacked, you will lose. Sure,

you won't lose it all in one hand, but if you refuse to get all in, over a

series of hands you will eventually lose it all. Wild players will escalate

the betting and challenge you to play all-in pots. Don't hide from it;

embrace it. Big pots are fun, after all. They're even more fun when you

have the edge, which you will if you keep reading.

Always bring at least five buy-ins with you to the cardroom. If that's too

much money, drop down in stakes. If you can't drop down, buy in for

less. You are far better off splitting your $300 into six $50 buy-ins than

you are buying in for $200 and playing like a wimp.

Play for Made Hands, Not Draws

In crazy games, a large percentage of the money gets bet preflop and

on the flop. If you've bought in short, you might be all in on the flop. But

even with 100 big blinds or deeper stacks, oftentimes, half or more of

your stack will be bet by the flop, and you'll essentially be committed to

your hand. You don't have time to draw. If you're playing $1-$2 with

$200 stacks and it's $20 four ways preflop and $80 on the flop, you've

likely already passed the point of no return.

For instance, let's say five players limp, and you make it $20 to go with

A-Q. Four players call, so there's $100 in the pot. The flop comes A-J-8

with two of a suit. Everyone checks to you. You could move all in

immediately. Or, depending on the situation, you could bet

approximately the size of the pot. But by betting less, you're not holding

back so that you can fold if things get a little scary. That money is going

in eventually, just not this minute. If a scary turn card comes and

someone else bets, you're calling. This is a crazy game, after all, and in

crazy games, people do crazy things. You have only $80 left, and

there's already at least $380 in the pot. There's no folding.

That's why you want made hands, not draws. Even if the stacks are 100

or 150 big blinds, your most critical "should I stay or should I go"

decisions will still come on the flop. You want to make that decision

when holding a flopped set or top pair, not a gutshot draw or bottom

pair.

Keep an Eye Out for Dead Money

Dead money makes crazy games worth playing. What's dead money?

It's all of those preflop calls made by people with hands like 7-6 that

make gutshots or bottom pair. If you're playing $1-$2 and you see the

action go raise to $15, call, call, call, you can be fairly certain that a lot

of that $60 pot is dead money.

It's dead because those callers generally can't back up their $15 with

the rest of their stack. Take advantage of that fact by putting in reraises

with hands with which you might not normally think of trying them.

For instance, I was in a wild $2-$5 game once with about a $500 stack.

Before the flop, a player limped, and I also limped with pocket deuces.

The next player made it $50 to go and got five calls back to me. I moved

all in.

You might think I was crazy. As many people are happy to point out

when I relate the hand, deuces are either a "coin flip" or are way behind

a bigger pair. If I had gotten called, I likely would have been a significant

underdog.

But the dead money makes the play. Whenever five players have

entered the pot, you can be certain that many of them have weak

hands. They called the $50 with 9-7 or A-4 or K-10, hoping to catch a

good flop. Unfortunately, that's too much initial risk to take with those

hands. Since you know that your opponents figure to have weak hands,

you have a good chance to pick up all of the dead money.

After I moved all in, the initial raiser thought for a bit and folded. The

next four players all folded quickly. The final player, who originally

limped in from under the gun, thought for a long time. He kept repeating,

"I know you don't have a big hand," and, "I probably have the best

hand," to try to rattle me. Eventually, he too folded, showing me his K-Q.

Given that I likely would have at least called the original $50 with my

deuces, I risked $450 more for the chance to win the $350 pot

immediately. Even if the K-Q player had called, I still would have made

out well for the hand. I'd have been a very slight favorite, and I'd have

been risking $500 to win $750. Getting 3-to-2 odds on an even-money

shot is nice, though not quite as nice as winning without a fight. Either

way, my all-in move had a strong upside, and it was financed by the

dead money.

Act Decisively

Beating wild games is about taking calculated risks for big chunks of

your stack. Don't chicken out! There was a time in my no-limit career

when I would have talked myself out of the deuces play. "I limp after a

limper, and now all of a sudden I represent pocket aces? No one's going

to believe me. Someone's going to call with a pair, I just know it."

The fear is justified. The story could have ended very differently, and in

a future hand when I try it again, I may get the play stuffed back in my

face. But that's how you win. It's not taking the sure thing that makes

you a great player. Everyone knows how to take the sure thing. It's

taking the risk the good risk that other players either never think of

or talk themselves out of that enables you to stand above the crowd.

So, the formula is fairly simple. Stick to pocket pairs or big cards before

the flop. Look for opportunities when you know the pot is fat with weak

calls, and then seize the moment by moving in preflop with your small

pocket pair or on the flop with your modest top pair. And if and when you

fall on your face and the pot goes the wrong way, hold your head high, get out your wallet, and shout, "Rebuy!"

Three No-Limit Hold'em PlaysTry them todayby Ed Miller | Published: Jan 30, 2008

The unwillingness to try new things dooms many poker players to

lackluster results. It's very easy to develop a style, a pattern of play, and

just follow it without thinking. How do you play? If you flop a set, do you

always check it on the flop? If you flop top pair, do you always make a

small raise to "see where you're at"? In similar situations, do you always

tend to adopt a similar approach? If you're honest with yourself, the

answer is probably that you do tend to play on "autopilot" much of the

time.

Unfortunately, if you never try new things, you'll never improve. Unless

you're consistently taking thousands of dollars per month out of your

game, chances are that you don't play perfectly. You do stuff wrong. So

the next time you play, why not try to break your pattern? Force yourself

to try out something you don't normally do. You might be surprised with

how well it works. I suggest trying out these three plays the next time

you're at the table.

An All-In SemibluffDo you usually play your draws passively? If you flop a flush or straight

draw, do you immediately start thinking, "Hmm, do I have odds to call?"

Do you typically check and call, perhaps occasionally throwing in the

occasional cheeky flop bet? Try going for the full monty next time. Push

all in.

Here's an example: You're playing $1-$2 and everyone has around a

$200 stack. An early-position player makes it $10 to go, and one player calls. You call with the K J on the button. The big blind calls. There's $41 in the pot, and you have $190 remaining.

The flop is Q 8 6 , giving you a flush draw, an overcard, and a runner-runner straight draw. The preflop raiser bets $30, and the next

player folds. Try moving all in for $160 more.

Obviously, it's not guaranteed to work. Your opponent might have A-Q

(or maybe even better) and call. It's a calculated risk, but it's a fairly

solid one. Your flush draw will come in at least one time in three, and

sometimes catching a king will also be enough to win.

There are a couple of rules of thumb. Don't try it if your raise will be

more than twice the size of the pot. In this example, there was $41 in

the pot preflop, $30 from your opponent, and $30 worth of call from your

push, making the pot $101. Your raise was $160 more, less than twice

the $101 pot.

Don't try it if someone has shown exceptional strength in the hand. If a

really tight player who never reraises preflop without pocket aces

reraises preflop, don't try it. If there's a bet and a raise to you on the

flop, don't try it. Try it only when the action is "normal," as whenever

that's the case, there's a good chance that your opponents won't have

the hand strength to look you up.

A River Value-Bet

A lot of no-limit players, if they flop a pair, will bet once on the flop and

then check it down on the turn and river. It's a safe option, but it also

wastes a lot of value. If you're a chronic pair checker-downer, try a river

value-bet next time out.

For example, let's say you have the A 10 in the big blind. Again, it'sa $1-$2 game with $200 stacks. Two players limp, the small blind folds, and you check. There's $7 in the pot. The flop comes K 10 2 , giving you middle pair. You bet $5, hoping either to win immediately or

to get called by a weaker hand. The first player folds, and the second

calls. The turn is the 8 . You check, and your opponent checks. The

river is the 7 . Try a value-bet of maybe $10 or so.

Your opponent called your small bet, with position, on the flop. That play

doesn't necessarily represent strength. But since you're out of position

and don't have much hand yourself, you check the turn. When your

opponent checks, also, it suggests a weak or moderate made hand

(likely no better than a weak king) or a draw. When another blank

comes on the river, there's a fairly good chance that you have the best

hand. In addition, with all the weakness you've shown, your opponent

may not be able to resist seeing a showdown with a small pair for just

$10 more.

This may seem like small-time stuff. After all, we're talking about only

$10. But when I play, I see one player after another check down decent

pairs with which they could have won an extra $10, $20, or $50 if they'd

had the guts to bet it. All of that money adds up. It's not about winning

$10 on this hand; it's about learning to find all the situations where you

can win a little extra.

A Double-Barrel BluffBluffs and golf swings have something in common: follow-through is a

key to both. Throwing out one $25 bet may seem like a cheap way to try

to pick up a pot. But sometimes it just isn't enough, and you need to

back that first bet up with another one.

If you're a chronic chicken when it comes to backing your bluffs up with

the big money, throw caution to the wind the next time you play. Give it a

shot.

Here's an example: Everyone folds to you on the button, and you have the 10 8 . You make it $15 to go in your docile $2-$5 game. Only the big blind calls. The flop comes K 9 4 , giving you a flush draw. Your opponent checks, you bet $20 into the $30 pot, and he calls.

The turn is the A , and your opponent checks again. Try a $50 or $60

bluff into this $70 pot.

Your opponent could have called the flop with a wide range of hands.

Good hands like a set, two pair, or top pair are all possible. So are

weaker hands like a smaller flopped pair or pocket pair, a flush draw, or

a gutshot draw. The offsuit ace on the turn weakens most of your

opponent's possible holdings. In addition, since you raised preflop, your

opponent has to worry that you might hold an ace. Your second barrel

has a good chance to win immediately.

Force yourself out of your comfort zone. Sharp poker doesn't feel "right"

at first. It's not cozy. It may even make your stomach queasy. Push

yourself. Try out these three plays at your next session. If they don't

work out, try them again the next time - and again the time after that. If

you practice them enough and incorporate them into your game, you may be pleasantly surprised with the results.

Plays That Tip Your HandThree no-limit hold'em 'giveaways'by Ed Miller | Published: Feb 13, 2008

Being too readable can really hurt your no-limit hold'em game. Winning

no-limit hold'em depends on fear and surprise. If your opponents are

uncertain about your holding and fear the hands you could have, you

can steal a lot of pots. And if they are surprised by what you have when

you get all in, you can win some monster pots. If you're too readable,

you won't have fear or surprise on your side, and your results will suffer.

Readable opponents are always my favorite. I don't care if they are tight

or loose; if I know what they have a lot of the time, I will pick them apart.

One key to reading many players is to pick up on plays that I call

"giveaways." They are specific plays that are very reliable and

immediately enable me to narrow my read to just a few possibilities.

Here are three common plays that I consider giveaways:

The Weak Continuation-BetA player opens for $20 in a $2-$5 game. The button calls, and the big blind calls. Everyone has at least $500. The flop comes K J 5 . The big blind checks, and the preflop raiser bets $25. This less-than-

half-pot bet is often a telltale sign of weakness. The board is big and

coordinated. The preflop raiser got called in two places and believes he

should make a continuation-bet. But he's not feeling good about his

hand or chances, so he throws out a small bet. If you're on the button,

raising to $75 or so will quite often win this pot immediately.

Most players - if they flopped a hand they were proud of, like A-K -

would bet more on this semidangerous flop. They'd want action with

their good hand, and they'd want to protect it. If they flopped a monster,

like top set, they might underbet or even check. But even if they made a

smallish bet every time they flopped a monster, they'd still have a weak

hand far more often than not (weak hands being far more common than

monsters).

Some very sophisticated players have learned to turn this play around,

betting small intentionally to invite a bluff-raise. But many players aren't

sophisticated and are happy to give away their hand strength with a

weak bet.

The Turn Give-upThis giveaway is similar to the weak continuation-bet and is just as

simple. A player opens for $20 preflop, and just the button calls. Both players have more than $500. The flop comes K J 5 . The preflopraiser bets $30, and the button calls. The turn is the 4 , and the raiser

checks. This too is generally a giveaway for a weak hand.

Often, the preflop raiser will fire one barrel on the flop, hoping to take

the pot down. When called, he'll give up on the turn and just check-fold.

Again, some players have learned to reverse this giveaway by

sometimes check-raising the turn. Since any player, no matter how

good, will sometimes play a weak hand exactly this way (raise preflop,

bet the flop, and give up if called), you should indeed sometimes mix up

this pattern by check-raising the turn with good hands.

The Preflop OvercallSomeone raises (maybe after a limper or two). Another player calls.

Then, someone else calls. This third player has overcalled - called a

raise after someone already called. For a large majority of amateur

players, this preflop overcall is a giveaway for a marginal or drawing

hand. It could be a small pocket pair, it could be suited connectors, it could be a suited ace, or it could even be the A Q . But it's not pocket aces, and it's not pocket kings. Why am I so sure? Because

most players would always reraise with these hands. People sometimes

get tricky with big pairs when they're first in the pot, or even when

they're heads up against a raiser. But once multiple players have

entered the pot, most players play their monsters "straight," raising and

reraising, given the opportunity.

This giveaway also usually holds for overlimps - a limp after one or

more limpers - but it's not quite as reliable.

There are two ways to use this information. First, you can try a preflop

squeeze, whereby you put in a big bluff-reraise in a pot with one or

more overcallers. Your bluff is more likely than average to work

because, by overcalling, your opponents have defined their hands as

likely too weak to call a big raise.

Second (and more rarely), you can sometimes pick off some

spectacular bluffs. Let's say a loose-aggressive player open-raises, and

three players call. You make a big reraise from a blind with pocket tens.

(Assume the stacks are such that this raise makes sense.) The original

raiser folds, as do several of the callers. But the last caller, a tricky

player who reads hands and sometimes makes plays, moves all in from

the button. You can call, because this play is more likely than not to be a

bluff. Your opponent almost certainly wouldn't overcall from the button

with A-A or K-K. She couldn't expect you to raise from one of the blinds,

since you typically don't. She called with a medium-strength hand that

plays well in multiway pots. But after you raised (a possible squeeze,

she's thinking), and everyone else folded, she saw an opportunity. She

reraised as a "resqueeze." Her original overcall is a reliable enough

giveaway that it's safe to call. You won't run into a better pair very often.

This last example is an exception to a general hand-reading principle. If

your opponent takes an early action for small money that suggests one

thing, but a later action for larger money that suggests another, the later

big-money action is far more likely to represent what your opponent

actually has. Limp-reraising follows this principle: Your opponent limps

early, a seemingly weak move, but then reraises strongly for much more

money, implying a strong hand. Usually, your opponent will indeed have

the strong hand. It's a principle that will serve you well. This overcalling

giveaway is an exception, however, because for many players, it's

nearly 100 percent accurate. Many players will literally never with

pocket aces merely overcall a raise and three calls.

Final ThoughtsYou can use these giveaways in two ways. First, look for other players

making them in your next session. Chances are, you'll see each of them

a number of times. By pairing your sharp reads with the guts to try a

bluff or two, you can take your no-limit game to the next level.

Second, watch your own play for these giveaways. Don't try to eliminate

the plays entirely from your play. After all, sometimes you have to give

up on the turn. Just reverse the plays sometimes or mix things up

enough so that you won't be an easy target for any of your opponents who may have read this column, too.

Plays That Tip Your HandThree more no-limit hold'em 'giveaways'by Ed Miller | Published: Feb 27, 2008

All poker players like to think they're sneaky, but some aren't quite as

unpredictable as they think. In my last column, I discussed three

"giveaway" plays that will tell your opponents what kind of hand you

have - if they're paying attention. In this column, I have three more

giveaway plays for you to look for when you play.

The Fooling-Around RaiseThis play has been around forever. I saw it in limit hold'em games, and

now I see it again in no-limit hold'em games. Only a few players do it,

but those who do tend to do it again and again. I'll call it the "fooling-

around" raise.

Here's how it goes in no-limit: Some guy limps in, or maybe he calls a

regular-sized raise. Then, another player behind him raises. There might

be a call or two, and then our original caller decides to reraise. But it's

not a big reraise (that might imply a big hand). It's a small raise, perhaps

a minimum raise. Recently in a $1-$2 game, I saw this fool-around

raiser call $2, and then when it was $12 back to him, he made it $22 to

go. He had pocket threes.

Then, after a $10 raise and a call, I saw him make it $20 to go. He had

J-9 that time.

Then he limped in for $2, and I made it $15 with pocket queens. A tight

player called from one of the blinds (very likely a small or medium

pocket pair or A-K). The fool-around guy made it $30 to go. I reraised

$60 more. The tight player whined about wanting to see a flop and

folded. Then, the fool-around guy grinned and folded.

I've seen these fooling-around raises regularly for as long as I've been

playing. Again, only a small percentage of players make them, but those

who do tend to make them regularly. They usually choose drawing

hands, such as connectors or small pocket pairs. Be on the lookout.

They are very exploitable, so if you find one of them in your game,

rejoice.

The Nervous RaiseA player who typically makes preflop raises of $30 or so in a $5-$10

game makes it $60 to go from under the gun. For some players, this

raise screams one thing, "I have pocket jacks!" It could be tens, maybe

A-K, perhaps queens. But that's about it. And the prime suspect? Jacks.

The psychology is simple. The raiser is thinking, "I know that pocket

jacks is a good hand, but I hate it. I always seem to lose with it. I'd

rather everyone just fold so that I can pick up the blinds. Let me raise an

extra-large amount this time to help make that happen." The irony is that

the out-of-position, extra-large raise often just creates difficult situations

that a normal raise wouldn't. That's especially true if you call gleefully

behind them, knowing exactly what they have. But irony aside, for some

players, this nervous raise is a dead giveaway.

The Speech

If you play live, or if you've watched live play on TV, you've heard it. You

make a bet, and then your opponent goes into the tank. He starts

babbling. "You must have hit it. You hit it, huh? You made a flush. You

made the darn flush on me." Blah, blah, blah.

The speech means one of two things: Your opponent is genuinely in the

tank and is retching about whether to call or not, or he's Hollywooding,

has the nuts, and wants to seem weak so that he can get the last of

your cash.

The giveaway, then, is how your opponent reacts after the speech. If it's

the river and he just calls, he was honestly in the tank. If it's the river

and he raises, however, he was Hollywooding and actually has a

monster. People don't give the speech and then raise as a bluff. The

speech followed by aggression is a dead giveaway for a huge hand.

I played a hand recently that made me think of this giveaway. It was a

$2-$5 blinds game, and my opponent had about $450 total. I had him covered. I had the 2 2 in the big blind and called a $5 raise in a fourhanded pot. The flop came 7 5 5 . I checked, and it was checked around. The turn was the 2 , and I bet $35. Two players

called. The river was the 9 , putting a possible straight and a backdoor

flush on board. I had a somewhat bluffy image (I thought so, at least) at

the time, so I bet $200, hoping to perhaps get a suspicious call. The

next player started with the speech. "You hit the backdoor flush, huh? I

knew I should have bet earlier. Darn flush." Blah, blah, blah.

After about a minute of the speech, he moved in for a little over $200

more! The other player folded, and I called. He showed 7-7 for the

flopped full house.

Giving the speech and then raising is such a strong giveaway for a

monster hand that it's getting close to correct for me to fold my full

house! I'm getting nearly 4-to-1 to call, but once he mentions that he's

"afraid" of the backdoor flush and then puts me all in, the worst hand he

really can have is the nut flush - or maybe a king- or queen-high flush.

And, of course, he could have a full house in numerous ways. With the

worst-possible full house, I'm a significant dog. Getting 4-to-1, I'm not

going to worry too much about it, and if my call was wrong, I don't think

it was too bad. But this example just shows the giveaway power of the

speech. If he had just quietly raised all in, I would have called and

expected to win. Since the speech came first, though, I was expecting to

lose when I called.

As a footnote, the speech becomes more reliable the later in the hand

you get. If your opponent hems and haws preflop, and then says, "I

guess I'm ready to go home now," as he pushes all in, that's not

necessarily pocket aces. It could still easily be, but sometimes your

opponent legitimately is on the fence about what to do, and just says,

"What the heck," and pushes. But on the river, no one hems and haws

legitimately and then pushes all in. If you hear the speech and then your

opponent moves in, he was putting you on.

Final ThoughtsI see giveaways frequently when I play. Sometimes all they do is

confirm what I was already planning to do, but occasionally they can

really change dramatically the way I play a hand. In particular, hearing

the speech on the river has helped me fold straights and flushes that I

never would have folded otherwise. Learning to use giveaways is a fun and lucrative skill to add to your playing arsenal.

Fearsome Check-Raise Bluffs Made EasyPlaying out of positionby Ed Miller | Published: Mar 12, 2008

Playing out of position in no-limit hold'em puts you at a big

disadvantage. Consequently, I recommend avoiding it as much as

possible. Does that bully in seat 4 keep raising your blind? For the most

part, I say, let him have it. When you're playing with $200 stacks, a

measly $2 blind isn't a big deal. And it's quite easy to lose a nice chunk

of your stack by trying to "take a stand" with a hand like J-7 after a 7

flops. So, I usually just fold the J-7 and wait until I have the button.

But you can't help but play out of position sometimes. Let's say that you

have K-Q in the big blind, and a loose-aggressive player raises from the

cutoff. You have too much hand to fold. Calling is good, as is reraising.

(I would choose one or the other depending on the specifics of the

situation.) Let's say that you call. Now, you're playing out of position.

The hand will continue most commonly as follows: You will miss the flop,

you will check, and your opponent will bet.

Aggressive players will continuation-bet the flop a large percentage of

the time. Some players will bet every time. If you simply fold every time

you miss, you are playing into your opponent's hands. To win your due,

you sometimes have to check-raise bluff.

But you definitely don't want to check-raise bluff every time. If you try

that, your opponents will catch on and your success rate will plummet.

So, you have to pick your spots. Here's my guide to choosing the best

situations:

Pick on Loose Players: Joe McRock has just opened from under the gun. He is ultratight from up front, so you think he probably has pocket

aces, kings, queens, jacks, or A-K. One player calls, and you call from

the big blind with the 3 3 . The flop comes J 7 4 . You check,

Joe bets two-thirds of the pot, and the other player folds. This is a weak

opportunity for a bluff. Your opponent's range of hands is simply too

strong, on average, to bluff profitably.

This would be a much more attractive bluffing opportunity if the raiser

were loose. If you could expect the raiser to sometimes have hands like

the A 3 , 8 6 , or K 9 , a check-raise bluff would work much

better.

Watch the Stack Sizes: Stack size is the most critical factor in nearly every no-limit decision, and bluffing is no different. When you check-

raise bluff, you don't want the stacks too shallow or too deep. You want

them just right.

They're too deep if your opponent might think that he can call your

check-raise and "wait and see" what happens later in the hand. For

instance, let's say that you're playing $1-$2 with $500 stacks. Someone

opens for $10, and you call from the big blind. The pot is $21. The flop

comes, you check, your opponent bets $15, and you check-raise to $50.

It's $35 to go to your opponent, but there's still more than $400 left in

the stacks. Your opponent may call with hands as weak as a gutshot or

a weak pair, reasoning that the betting hasn't really gotten "big" yet. If

you check-raise bluff with these deep stacks, you should be prepared to

sometimes fire another barrel later in the hand if you get called.

Now let's say that your opponent has a $60 stack. He opens for $10,

and you call. The flop comes, you check, he bets $15, and you check-

raise to $50. Since that's all your opponent has left, he might well call

you with just modest draws or weak made hands, figuring that he can't

lose a whole lot even if he's beat.

You want the stacks to be deep enough for your opponent to fear losing

a big pot, but not so deep that he believes the betting isn't even big yet.

Attack Weak Bets: Your opponents will often give away information about the strength of their hands as early as their flop bet. The natural

inclination for many players is to bet more with good hands and less

with weak ones. When they're weak and just want you to fold, these

players might bet half the pot. And when they're fairly strong and hoping

to protect their hand, they might bet closer to the full pot.

If you pick up on a pattern like this one, you can choose to check-raise

when your opponent makes a smaller bet and let it go against a bigger

one.

Leverage Dry Flops: A dry flop is one that naturally hits few hands. For example, the 7 2 2 is an extremely dry flop. No flush or straight

draws are available, and to have a really strong hand, you need to hold

the card that people are least likely to raise preflop, a deuce. Your

opponent is far more likely to miss a dry flop than a coordinated one (for

instance, Q 10 8 ), and therefore your bluff is more likely to

succeed.

Indeed, 7-2-2 is maybe even a little too dry to make for a perfect bluffing

flop (though it doesn't have to be perfect to be worth check-raising). It

has two problems. First, your opponent will likely have at least two

overcards, which may be enough to convince him to continue. Second,

your opponent, if he is thinking, will know that it's hard for you to have

hit the flop, as well, and may suspect a bluff and play back at you.

A flop like the K 7 3 is somewhat less dry, but it makes for a

great bluffing opportunity. If your opponent doesn't have either a king or

a fluke monster hand, you'll likely get the fold you want as long as the

other conditions are in place (namely, your opponent has a wide range

of hands, the stack sizes are right, and perhaps his continuation-bet

was on the weak side).

A Fearsome Check-Raise Bluff: So, that loose-aggressive player from the opening example makes it $8 to go from the cutoff in a $1-$2 game

with $200 stacks. You call from the big blind with the K Q . The flop

comes J 7 7 . You check, your opponent bets $10, and you make

it $35 to go. Your opponent folds instantly.

This well-timed bluff worked because:

1. Your loose opponent could have a wide range of weak starting hands.

2. The stack sizes threatened your opponent with a big loss if you

actually showed up with the 7 you were representing.

3. Your opponent's continuation-bet size didn't exude confidence in his

hand strength.

4. The board was a dry one that would hit only a relatively small

percentage of your opponent's possible holdings.

Keep these guidelines in mind, and you'll soon be winning your share ofpots when you happen to be playing out of position.

The Squeeze PlayA good way to mix up your playby Ed Miller | Published: Mar 26, 2008

The squeeze play has a bit of a daring and clever feel to it. It's a bluff (or

semibluff) perpetrated against not one, but several opponents.

Someone bets, one or more players call, and you raise. When it works,

you feel like a champ, and you rake a big pot. When it doesn't work,

"Oops."

Here's a quick-and-dirty squeeze example:

You're playing $5-$10 no-limit hold'em with $1,000 stacks. A loose and

aggressive player makes it $30 to go. Two average players call. You're

in the big blind with the Q 6 . You raise to $150. Everyone folds, and

you pick up the pot.

The squeeze is a terrific weapon, and it's one that every no-limit player

should use. At first blush, it seems risky, since you're trying to bluff a

number of players at the same time. If any one of them calls, you're

toast. But actually, its risk/reward profile is often quite good. Here's why:

1. Since you're bluffing after a bet and several calls, the pot is bigger

than a "usual" bluff. In the above example, there's already $105 in the

pot when it's your action. Your bluff is $140 to win $105, so it has to

succeed only about 58 percent of the time to be profitable.

2. After you get past the initial raiser, oftentimes the callers will go down

easily. Calling tends to put an upper limit on hand strength. For

instance, the loose-aggressive raiser could have pocket aces (though

he would raise with lots of hands). The first caller could also possibly

have aces, but it's less likely. And the second caller is even less likely to

have aces. After all, few players would flat-call with aces after a raise

and a call. So, once you get lucky and the raiser folds, the callers (who

could only call the first time) often go down easily.

3. The initial raiser is "squeezed." That is, while the callers will usually

fold, sometimes they'll be sitting on a monster (or sometimes they'll just

be stubborn). If the callers didn't exist, the raiser could call with position,

closing the action. But since they do exist, the raiser could call, only to

get reraised or overcalled. That danger might induce the initial raiser to

fold a marginal calling (or reraising) hand.

An additional advantage to trying the occasional squeeze is that it

balances your play. If someone raises preflop and two players call, with

how many hands will you make a "straight" big reraise from the big

blind? Not many, only the very best. If you never try a squeeze, that big

blind reraise gives away far too much information about your hand.

When no-limit games first started being spread again in Vegas (in

2004), many of the "good" players in the games had this problem. If

they made a big reraise from the big blind, they had pocket aces or

kings every time. You can't play like that! You have to mix it up, and the

occasional squeeze is a great way to do that.

You can use the squeeze on any betting round, not just preflop. Indeed,

the play is equally useful after the flop. I remember a TV hand from

several years ago in which Gavin Griffin pulled off a remarkable

squeeze play. I don't recall the details of the hand, but the gist of it went

like this: They were playing the final table of a World Series of Poker

event, and all of the relevant stacks were deep. Gavin opened the pot

from middle position with 8-7. Someone called from the button, and the

big blind called. The flop came 6-6-5, giving Gavin an open-end straight

draw. Both of his opponents were excellent players. The big blind bet,

and Gavin called. Then, the button raised. The big blind called, and

Gavin made a big reraise squeeze! Both players thought, and eventually

folded.

This play relied on Gavin's opponents being tough players and excellent

hand-readers themselves. Gavin opened the pot, and the flop came 6-6-

5. From Gavin's perspective, the big blind could have a wide range of

hands, including many bluffs. After all, how many "raising hands" does a

6-6-5 flop hit? His opponent could be betting nothing just trying to pick

up the pot.

Gavin had a straight draw, though, so he called. Then, the button raised.

Could it be a squeeze? It might be. The button had position, and neither

player had shown much strength yet on the 6-6-5 flop. He might be

trying a squeeze or putting in a raise with a weakish holding to define

his hand.

When the big blind called, it defined his hand much more strictly.

Obviously, he had something, or else he would have folded. But with

trips or a full house, he might have reraised again. So the call indicated

a hand of medium strength, with a lingering possibility of a monster.

Gavin took a shot by reraising big.

He knew that his opponents couldn't mistake his reraise for anything

other than a slow-played monster. The call-reraise play on a 6-6-5 flop

was unmistakably a huge hand: a full house or maybe A-6. His

opponents would need a similarly big hand to call. Given the action so

far, combined with the already large size of the pot, the squeeze had a

good risk/reward profile. He had a good chance of success, and he'd

win a big pot. And if he got called by trips, he'd have a chance to draw

out with a straight.

That squeeze relied on finely tuned hand-reading and solid opponent

familiarity. Most squeezes aren't so dramatic. There are two main

conditions for a squeeze to possibly work:

1. The player who made the original bet or raise is marked with a broad

range, including bluffs and other weak hands. Don't try to squeeze

someone who will bet the flop only with a set! Many aggressive players

will bet with lots of hands. They are your targets.

2. The calling players aren't so clueless that they'll just call the raise with

whatever they called the original raise. They have to know that a reraise

usually means business. Most players do.

Once those conditions are met, try the occasional squeeze. It will mix up

your play, and let you experience the unique poker satisfaction of executing a well-timed bluff.

How Suited Connectors Cost You MoneyThey're played too oftenby Ed Miller | Published: Apr 09, 2008

You're playing $1-$2 no-limit hold'em at your local casino. Everyone

folds to you in middle position, and you limp in with the 9 7 . Another

player folds, and then someone with about a $150 stack raises to $10.

Everyone folds to you. You call, eager to see what prize the flop will

bring.

Does that story sound familiar to you? If it does, I fear that I'm the

bearer of bad news. Suited connectors are costing you money!

Most players play suited connectors too often and not-so-suited

connectors and suited not-so-connectors. We can be inclined to play

any of these hands if we're antsy to see some action.

Sometimes suited connectors are fine to play, but often they're not, and

it pays to know when is when. They're fine to play if and only if your

primary plan with them is to find a place to steal the pot. If you're going

in thinking, "Let's get lucky and hit the flop hard and stack these

donkeys," I think you're making two mistakes. First, you're

overestimating how often you'll hit the flop hard. You're a huge underdog

to flop two pair or better, which means that most of the time, "hitting the

flop hard" will mean flopping a draw. Draws can be good hands, but a lot

of their value comes from stealing equity.

Second, you're overestimating how much you'll win on average when

you do hit the board hard. Let's say you have the 6 5 , for instance,

and flop the K J 7 . That's a decent flop, but not a great one.

Why? Because everyone and his brother will notice if a third heart

comes, and they'll be cautious, so you'll rarely win a monster pot by

making your flush. And when you do play a big pot, you'll find yourself

up against a bigger flush fairly often. Your big pot-winning chances are

generally better if you make a straight than if you make a small flush.

The bottom line is, small-card hands (excluding small pocket pairs)

aren't that great at winning huge pots. Sure, they win huge pots

sometimes, but A-K wins huge pots sometimes, too. When you play a

small-card hand, you should be thinking, "Maybe they'll let me slip into

the pot and then steal it."

I play a lot of hands on the button. I avoid stuff like J-4, but I often play

hands like 10-8 offsuit or 6-3 suited. I'll raise preflop with them.

Sometimes I'll even call a raise with them (usually only if the raiser is the

only other player in the pot, and is someone I believe I have control

over). My plan is to try to find a spot after the flop to steal. Maybe it'll be

as simple as, raise preflop, bet the flop, and win. Maybe it will be a more

complicated steal that relies on a read of weakness. Maybe I'll flop a

draw and try a big semibluff. Having the button is flexible and lets me

formulate new plans on the fly. But the majority of the pots I win when

playing these hands, I win by stealing, not by making a big hand.

In fact, when I do accidentally make a monster with one of the trashy

hands, I often end up just "stealing" the pot anyway. The harder I hit the

board, the less likely it is that my opponent hit it, too. You can't win a big

pot without your opponent's cooperation.

I don't touch any of these hands when out of position. And while 9-8

suited is better than 10-8 offsuit or 6-3 suited, it's not that much better. I

usually don't play 9-8 suited when out of position, either. It's harder to

steal when you don't have position. It's harder to play your draw when

you don't have position. It's harder to win a big pot when you don't have

position. You don't make your money playing out of position. It's that

simple.

Let's go back to the hand with which I started this column. You limp in

with 9-7 suited, a player with position and a $150 stack makes it $10 to

go, and you call. This is a bad situation for 9-7 suited. You're out of

position, so it will be hard to steal. If you do happen to hit the hand,

most of the time you'll have nothing more than a weak bottom or middle

pair. If you flop a flush draw, it will be a small one that could get you

stacked by a bigger flush. And even if you do happen to make a big

hand and get paid, you'll win only $150 on your $10 investment. That's a

decent score, but it's not enough to make up for all the small and

medium losses. When you strip away the hopes and dreams of flushes

and straights, all you really have is a mediocre hand, out of position.

So, what would I do with the 9 7 in middle position? I'd fold it the

first time around. If something came over me and I happened to throw

$2 in the first time around, I'd definitely fold it to the raise. And then I'd

wait for the button to come around to me before thinking again about playing any of those small suited cards.

Playing Big Slick Against a ReraiseConsider pushingby Ed Miller | Published: Apr 29, 2008

Recently, I was playing in a fairly loose $2-$5 live no-limit hold'em

game. An early-position player with about $300 limped in. I was two off

the button and made it $20 to go with the A K . The button, with

about $325 total, made it $75 to go. He was an unremarkable, slightly

loose player. The limper thought for a while, and then called. I had both

players covered.

1. How should I respond? Should I fold, call, raise a bit, or move all in?

2. What's my plan for the rest of the hand (should I need one)?

Answer those two questions for yourself before you read on.

I'll tell you what I did.

I pushed for $325 total, roughly a pot-sized $250 raise. The reraiser

folded fairly quickly. The limper/cold-caller lingered, then folded pocket

queens faceup.

Why did I push? It's in the fold equity: I turned my hand into a semibluff.

My all-in four-bet looks very much like aces to my opponents. Indeed, if

they'd read Phil Gordon's Little Green Book, they'd think it was almost a

certainty that I held aces. So, I can expect many players to fold good

hands, up to and including pocket queens.

Naturally, some will call with pocket queens and perhaps even weaker

hands. That's where the semibluff aspect comes in, as I still have solid

equity against those hands. (Indeed, I have so much equity against

pocket queens and worse that I'd be willing to call if they had gone all in,

instead, provided I knew they had queens or worse.)

At my turn to act, there's $177 in the pot. By pushing, I risk $280 more

against the $300 stack and $305 more against the $325 stack.

I think it's quite unlikely that the limper/cold-caller has aces or kings.

He's had two opportunities to raise and hasn't, and I find that the

overwhelming majority of the time, a player with those hands will find

either an initial raise or a limp-reraise. The way he thought about his

cold-call further confirmed my suspicions, as it seemed he was

genuinely concerned by the action, not putting on an act to conceal

strength. I think he's most likely to have a pocket pair, queens or lower.

He also may have unpaired cards such as the J 10 and simply be a

loose preflop caller.

Naturally, the preflop reraiser could have aces or kings, but given even

a relatively tight reraising range of pocket aces through nines and A-K,

he'll have me dominated only a modest fraction of the time (15 percent

of the time, in this instance). If he's a looser reraiser (and I thought he

might be at the time), it's fairly unlikely that I'm in real trouble.

So, I think that most of the time, let's say at least 75 percent of the time,

I'm not up against either aces or kings. In those situations, I have a very

profitable semibluff, risking $280 to win $177 with roughly 50 percent

equity when called. When I'm up against kings, I'm still OK, as I have

about 30 percent equity and I'm getting more than 1.5-to-1 from the pot.

It's not enough to break even, but it will help cushion the blow.

Calling makes little sense in this situation due to the stack sizes. If I

were to call, there'd be one pot-sized bet remaining, and I'd be first to

act on the flop. On an ace or king flop, I'd have good winning chances,

but the flop might scare off lower pairs. On a non-ace or king flop, I'd

have poorer chances, but I might risk getting bluffed by a weaker hand.

In any event, my opponents stand to gain more by seeing a flop than I

do.

Folding is the most natural alternative to pushing. If the reraiser were to

have an exceedingly tight range, folding might be the best play. As it

was, however, I thought the reraiser might be a bit loose, so I rejected

folding.

The stack sizes in this hand were very well-suited for pushing. Since

only one pot-sized bet remained after the preflop reraise, a final preflop

semibluff push was a natural play. If the stacks were a bit deeper,

however, I may have folded, as the risk of pushing might have been too

great. And if the stacks were deeper still, I may have called, hoping to

flop well and win a huge pot.

Also, if my opponents see me pu