Great article Rob.

I still swear I never do that. Someone must have gone in and edited my hand histories to make it look like I play worse than I do. Yep, I'm sure of it.

This recently came up in a thread in the Beginner LHE forum.

I'm only beginning to grasp how large an error this is, and really understanding the reasoning behind it helps me to avoid the error, so reinforcement is good. I'd also look at King Yao's Weighing the Odds in Hold 'Em Poker, page 280: Chapter: Common Mistakes in Short Handed Play
Mistake #11: Frequently Calling Raises in the Small Blind.

Great article Rob.

I still swear I never do that. Someone must have gone in and edited my hand histories to make it look like I play worse than I do. Yep, I'm sure of it.

Believe it or not I've talked about it with almost every student I've talked to in the past few weeks and I've also talked about it in two video reviews I've done that I can remember, so it's a lot more common than you might think.

Rob

You talking full ring or 6m ?

A decent mid pair or toppair will make you money in 6m if you play well.

You talking full ring or 6m ?

A decent mid pair or toppair will make you money in 6m if you play well.

6m. Realistically I just don't think 76s and 87s type hands flop big enough given how often they also flop poorly (but well enough that you can't get away from the hand) to justify calling in pots that often end up 3-ways with the worst position and marginal odds preflop.

Rob

I just don't think 76s and 87s type hands flop big enough given how often they also flop poorly (but well enough that you can't get away from the hand) to justify calling in pots that often end up 3-ways with the worst position and marginal odds preflop.

You are totally right on this, the worst problem is you can not really try to build the pot as your hand is all about implied odds and (i don't care what logic others use) a raise takes away from implied odds. If you try to keep the pot small, then its pretty hard to build a big pot later in the hand, which also takes away from your implied odds (it might be implied, but not realistically implied).

So what usually happens in multiway pots is someone plays quite well, realizes that they are probably "in the lead but not going to improve much" while at least one other has probably played suited connectors and is "behind but has the capability to improve a lot". Those implied odds will be whisked away as fast as you can say "damn I wish I couldn't add up sometimes".

Throw in bad position and your really in trouble now because that little check call is going to stand out like a sore thumb. So, bad position, a hand that will probably not realize its value when it makes it, and the fact its going to cost you quite a bit when it half hits and never makes it, hell lets not forget the times it makes it on the idiot end or the board goes four flushed and it becomes a liability, it all leads to one big leak.

I think this is really spot on and it is a spot that a lot of players consistently get wrong. Thanks for bringing it up.

As long as you're calling with KQ or AK or AA often enough, calling with 67s in position is a +EV play vs. the average player, because you can rep a wide range. However, I rather dump 55 anyday and play 67s. And when you get it in with a set you're not going to be avg. 90%. AT BEST, you're 90% if he has TPTK or overpair, but usually you will be around 3-1 because he will have flush or combo draw. Oh, and thats just the times that you actually do flop a set. What about all the other 8 times where you check fold or check call one street, and then check fold the turn? I don't like the strategies in this article, but that's my 2.

As long as you're calling with KQ or AK or AA often enough, calling with 67s in position is a +EV play vs. the average player, because you can rep a wide range. However, I rather dump 55 anyday and play 67s. And when you get it in with a set you're not going to be avg. 90%. AT BEST, you're 90% if he has TPTK or overpair, but usually you will be around 3-1 because he will have flush or combo draw. Oh, and thats just the times that you actually do flop a set. What about all the other 8 times where you check fold or check call one street, and then check fold the turn? I don't like the strategies in this article, but that's my 2.

FWIW I'm a limidonk and I think you might be thinking more along the lines of NL play (though I think it's a leak to call with 76s there too, but for different reasons).

Rob

FWIW I'm a limidonk and I think you might be thinking more along the lines of NL play (though I think it's a leak to call with 76s there too, but for different reasons).

Rob

Hello Rob,

could you expand more on this?

Hello Rob,

could you expand more on this?

Not sure which part you mean -- about the difference between the mistakes?

In limit, it's really a factor more of your effective odds, because you have to be comfortable playing for pair value. In a 4-way pot you'll unfortunately be tied to a lot more flops than you might expect (the aforementioned K84 boards and A72, even when you're facing 2 on the flop sometimes). So as a function of letting more people in the pot preflop (you don't have much of a choice if you play the hand in limit -- it's going to be 3 or 4-ways the vast majority of the time), you have to be prepared for the inevitable difficulty of facing bets with marginal draws in big pots.

In NL, you're not going to be calling nearly as often postflop, but it's going to be a lot tougher to extract value from your pairs. You're pulling the value from the hand based more on its bluff/monster/monster draw potential, and I don't think either is necessarily strong enough in a 3-way pot to be calling HU or 3-ways frequently there. In addition in NL calling there will invite more squeezes from good players in the BB, which you can't profitably call. Obviously I'm a donk in NL and I'm sure there are some opponents who can occasionally call with 76s, but the post I responded to said "in position" and this entire article is about calling out of the SB, not in position, and additionally there are a lot of other factors that go into the decision.

I won't call in this situation with something like 76s (anymore, that is ), but I still find myself struggling with better suited connectors. If I had something like KQs (or maybe KJs) I would certainly 3-bet, but what about a hand like JTs, QTs, or even QJs? Making it 3 with KQs won't get anyone to fold, but I think the hand is strong enough (even against 3 or 4 opponents) to reraise - is this correct?

Wow! I've just gone through my stats in Hold Em Manager on playing suited connectors and 1 gappers as well as non-suited connectors and 1 gappers in the blinds, (discounting Broardway cards) and it is a huge leak in a raised multi-way pot or even facing a min raise from the button.

Basically in the 9,000 hands of these sort the common problems of these hands are:

1. Not enough flops hit your hand dead on.
2. When you get a piece of the flop you are still looking to improve so you are normally facing further bets out of position to try and get to later streets
3. You call your bet and then the third person in the hand squeezes. Whipsawing sucks when you're in the middle.
4. Against a late position raise their range is so wide they just won't pay you off enough times to make it profitable.

I'm sure I'm just repeating others advice but these hands are great in position against early position agression. They are simply horrible out of position.

I'm a winning micro-stakes player and I was shocked to discover that over those 9,000 hands in the blinds I had lost the equivalent of 3/4 of my entire bankroll.