Questions From a Client

A poker student's queries

As you probably know, I have many clients, poker students with whom I work. I recently was asked a lot of questions in an e-mail from one of my clients that had such broad application that I thought I would share them with you. The correspondence has been lightly edited for clarity, and my answers have been expanded here.

My client wrote, "I have some questions about playing hold'em cash games only. Inasmuch as I have read many books, I have adopted many things as truths in playing poker. Now, I question them. What do you think of the following statements?"

1. "'A-A vs. K-K all in preflop is just unavoidable. Basically, if you have K-K, you should be prepared to go all in preflop. If your opponent has A-A, you are just unlucky.' Many poker pros/writers have said this."

Bob Ciaffone: True, for stacks of 100 big blinds or less. False, for stacks of 200 big blinds or more. Unclear, for stacks of 101 big blinds to 199 big blinds. If you are playing only $10-$20 blinds and you and the opponent both have monster stacks of $6,000, do you think you have to put all of your money in with two kings? There must be some point as money deepens where you do not go broke with pocket kings preflop. Look at the ratios between pot size and stack size. Suppose you open for three times the big blind and everyone folds to the big blind, who now makes it 10 to 12 times the big blind. If you have 30 big blinds, you reraise all in without thinking about it. If you have 200 big blinds, would you prefer to call and see the flop, or reraise with the intention of putting in all of your money if your opponent comes back at you? A call is prudent, as you are getting attractive odds to try to flop a set, yet you still retain the option of staying in if you flop an overpair.

2. "'If you flop a set and lose to another flopped set, it is unavoidable.' This came from Todd or Doyle Brunson's writing. You seem to believe that you should proceed with caution if you don't have top set or the nuts. How rare is it to have two people flop sets?"

Bob Ciaffone: It is definitely quite rare to have set over set. However, you misquoted Doyle. He said that you should be able to get away from bottom set in an unraised pot, but that you are unable to do so in a raised pot. Even though this is an oversimplification (as most generalities are), it is essentially true.

3. "'If you get all the money in with the best hand and lose (get outdrawn), you are just unlucky.' For example, you have the nut straight with a flush draw possible on the turn, and a person immediately in front of you goes all in. You must call (and possibly raise to force out a flush draw)."

Bob Ciaffone: True. The best way to see if you played correctly when looking at the unreliable sample size of one hand is to look at how you stood when the big money went in, as opposed to looking at the actual result.

4. "I have been trying to play big hands, flop a set or catch a straight and double up. I must say, it has not served me well in the long haul. I make pot-sized bets on the flop, turn, and river (if I choose to bet) to make the odds poor for any possible draws and such."

Bob Ciaffone: Why are you making pot-sized bets on the river if the object is to make the odds poor for possible draws? On the river, the odds for possible draws are the same for all hands - zero. River betting is highly dependent on the situation, not formula-based.

5. "I see Daniel Negreanu advocating playing small-ball poker, keeping pots smaller and lowering your risk. I have his new book and I have not read this section, but I did see a video he produced in which he showed some of the basics. What should I be trying to accomplish? Play few hands after the flop with big pots, or try to keep pots smaller (by betting half the pot)?"

Bob Ciaffone: Small-ball poker, in my opinion, is suitable only for poker geniuses like Daniel Negreanu who are playing live (as opposed to online) and excel at reading people. Making solid-size bets helps narrow the range of hands the opponent may be holding, ends pots with a victory more often, and makes the game easier to play.

"Of course, I assume I should try to get as much money as possible in the pot when I have the nuts."

Bob Ciaffone: Sounds like you are pretty easy to read.

6. "David Sklansky wrote that if you have the nuts, you should go all in. He is such a numbers guy. He claims you will make more in the long run from the people who call than you will by value-betting. I am not sure this is working for me. When you hit lots of hands in a session, it does look like a bluff. But, I have not been getting lots of cards and hitting draws for a couple of months. I know cycles like this happen, so I am not discouraged. I just think attempting to do this is pointless."

Bob Ciaffone: I do not know any professional no-limit hold'em player who automatically goes all in whenever he has the nuts - including Sklansky.

7. "I really have not been bluffing lately. Very few people fold in $1-$2 no-limit, anyway. The ones who will are easy to spot. Should I just not worry about bluffing?"

Bob Ciaffone: If you do not bluff, and go all in whenever you have the nuts, even the idiots will pick up on this and will play well against you. Bluffing is a necessary tool in poker. I do agree that it is harder to bluff in the $1-$2 blinds games, as the weaker players flock to these games. As we know, the worst fault of many weak players is that they neglect the skill of folding when it looks like they are beat. It is also tempting to check in these games when acting first, as opposed to bluffing, because these players often do not understand that they have been invited to take the pot, and they decline the invitation and gratefully take a free card when they are in front. But some bluffing is OK in any game.