My latest poker strategy article, “Having a Plan For a Hand“, is now appearing on Part Time Poker:
In this article, I want to consider a hand that at first glance may look like just a lucky flop against a bad player. In truth, however, I think the fact that I was in a position to win a big pot and that my opponent was in a position to lose a big pot when he should not have both come down to planning. From the outset, I had a plan for the hand, he did not, and that’s what got him into trouble.
The article is essentially a thorough analysis of a single hand from both my perspective and that of my opponent. I indicate when and how I started planning the hand for myself and how a similar plan would have helped him avoid a disaster.
Check it out and please let me know what you think!
The sites blocked from my work but I’ll give it a read when I get home. Sounds like it should be a good one.
Nice article as usual. You mention a few times that his $24 3-bet of your $8 raise is small. What would you consider a normal sized 3-bet? Wouldn’t a pot-sized 3-bet be $26? Does that $2 difference really make this 3-bet small enough to call with that much wider a range than a $26 3-bet?
I wondered that too as a 3x raise is “std.” … but after a bit of thought I think it has to with lack of adjustment to the small open. If BTN opens for the “std.” 3x BB, then you have a “std.” re-raise to 9x BB (requiring 6xBB to call) which is a lot with effective 75BB stack. But BTN opened for 2x BB, and then BB raised to 6x (requiring 4x BB to call). Assuming I’m correct, that means Andrew thinks BB would be better with a 3-bet to 4.5x, or 9x BB (where BTN would then have to call 7x BB) … making it much more similar to dealing with a std. open.
Yeah, he ought to re-raise somewhat more relative to my open when my open is smaller. If I open to 3x and he re-raises to 9x (which I would still say is on the small side), I have to call 6 into a pot of 13.5, meaning I need 44% equity. If I open to 2x and he re-raises to 6x, I have to call 4 into a pot of 9.5, requiring 42% equity. More importantly, effective stacks are deeper post-flop with the only 6 BB going into the pot pre rather than 9 or more.
Villain should 3-bet to $32 vs hero’s minraise, for the reasons James stated.
Great article!! for many reasons.
I full agree with your conclusion that ” I had a plan for the hand, he did not,”
Your poker plan makes several assumptions.
The most critical assumption is:I have the best hand on flop.
You make great analitycal job describing the implication of your assumption which is extract as much as possible.
I do not see in your plan any provisions for a possibility of your being underdog.
I do not blame you. When you make “poker” plan you forced to make assumptions.
When I hit hard a wet flop with 75BB effective stack or less I realize that my flop assumption does essentially decide the hand.
Great article
I like the reasoning behind the min raise allowing you to call the three bet. You had an article before about betting larger in early position and smaller in later position (as an inverse to your widening range), but this article made the reason for the small bet clear using an example hand. One key was the pre-flop effective stacks being large enough (80 BB in this case). I’ve tried the min raise with 40 to 50 BB, but there isn’t enough behind to call most re-raises, so I either folded or made bad calls to 3 bets (exploitable). I never thought that part through (thus didn’t have a plan).
You don’t mention anything about the small blind, other than he folded, but if he had a smaller stack, say $150 to $200, and you also had only played 3 hands with him (thus no reliable 3B%), would that effect your initial raise?
How much of this planning is done ahead of time vs. during the hand?, in other words you’ve already thought about these situations before like the small initial raise and wanting to get it in on the flop with this kind of hand/board.
Last thing, think you want to say big pot in the last sentence: “…. his mistake to win a bit pot on a favorable flop.”
Hey Dana,
I’m not Andrew, but I think I can answer your questions:
1) Regarding SB’s stack
This should depend on who the SB is. You can make some assumptions about the SB based on his stack (ie – not full stacked, probably not a regular and more likely a weaker player), and then tailor your strategy accordingly.
Vs most recreational players – i’d default to an exploitable raise sizing. Min-raise hands that want to take flops vs his potential 3-betting range, and 3x my value hands. In an ideal world, he’ll 3bet too small (like villain in this hand) and you can make +EV calls with your implied odds hands. If he’s calling too much out of position, i’d continue to raise big with my strong hands, for obvious reasons.
Things change a bit if you’re playing against a professional short stacker (someone who buys in for the table minimum and plays an exclusively push/fold strategy), and you’ll need to look at the math for this – but most online sites have negated this strategy for the most part (this is a mathematically unexploitable strategy with 20bbs, but most ppl who do it with 30+ just end up making mistakes)
2) Planning
Can’t speak for Andrew, but most of this is thought out before the cards are dealt. You want to be aware of who your weakest opponents are, and what your strategy is vs them. If you are 400bbs deep with a fish, you’ll tailor your entire strategy to putting yourself in spots to win a huge pot vs him.
In the 75s example, you’d always want to check the stack sizes / opponents left to act when determining what the best play to make is. If you had 2 pro short stackers in the blinds, the best play may be to fold. If you had 2 nits in the blinds, the best play would be to 2-2.5x raise, etc etc
That makes sense, thanks for the response Chris