To Show or Not to Show

I’m frequently astounded by the number of players who reveal their hole cards haphazardly in low stakes cash games. After everyone folds to their bet, players will show everything from a monster to a big bluff, and 90% of the time it’s not part of any larger thought process or strategy.

I’m going to separate this article into two parts. First, I’ll review the obligations and rights I have at showdown when revealing my hole cards. There’s not much strategy in this first part as the rules are very clear, but it’s important to have this information in your back pocket so you don’t breach etiquette at the table. I’ll then move on to strategies for showing (or not showing) my cards after everyone folds to my bet.

I should know the rules of showdown to retain the option of concealing my hole cards when not obligated to show. Most players know that the last person to take aggressive action by a bet or raise is the first to show their hand at showdown. Since there is usually a verbal statement of “I call”, the player who got called knows to show their cards immediately. If they neglect to show quickly (which is a definite breach of etiquette) I’ll say something like “I called you, let’s see what you got.” If I’m beat, I then have the option to muck without showing.

In contrast to the situation above, showdown order is often confusing when everyone checks (or is all-in) after the dealer reveals the river card. In that situation, the first player to the left of the dealer button must show. Since there are always certain players who would rather pull their own toenails out than show their hole cards, I might need to ask the dealer to intervene and enforce the rule if my opponent attempts to wait me out.

With all that said, beginning players should lean towards revealing their cards at showdown whether obligated to or not. By showing, I am assured that my hand will be read correctly and I won’t miss out on any pots I’ve won (but think I lost). Even veteran players can misread their hand, especially on boards with four to a straight or flush. For this reason, I lean towards showing my hand even when not technically required to do so, unless there is a very compelling reason I don’t want to show my hole cards. In other words, I pick my spots carefully.

Keep in mind there is a continuous debate about the right to see mucked cards at showdown. The rule in most card rooms states that if I’m dealt into a hand, I may ask to see any hand involved in the showdown, which would include a folded hand. But there is a recent trend to limit the ability of players to see mucked hands, as the sole purpose behind the rule is to protect players against collusion. If someone is abusing this rule and asking to see mucked cards after a lot of hands, I have the right to call the floor over to intervene.   

In contrast to showdown, showing (or not showing) my hole cards after everyone folds to my bet allows for a lot of strategic planning. There is nothing inherently wrong with showing my cards after folding everyone out, I just want to make sure it’s part of a larger plan. Very broadly, I’m seeking to exploit the leaks in my opponent’s game, whatever those leaks may be. Bluffs will get through more easily if I show a few made hands, and made hands will get more value if I show a few big bluffs. Keep these two ideas in mind while we explore how these strategies can look in actual practice. Also bear in mind that while these strategies will work fairly well against poor players or beginners, more experienced players will usually sniff out what you’re doing. As with all poker strategies, you need to assess the competence of your opponents and determine what level of thinking you need to operate on.  

If I’m playing against a super tight player I’ll show only my made hands to continually establish myself as an honest, ABC type player. I want to reinforce my opponent’s erroneous belief that they are correct to fold all but their strongest hands against me when I show strength. By establishing that my bets always mean what they represent, I can extract value from otherwise useless cards when I use them as bluffs. This strategy also increases the certainty my opponent is rarely bluffing if he plays back at me, and allows me to safely fold to any significant show of strength.

On the other hand, I like to show big bluffs to the opposite type of player. Preferably, my opponent is a maniac who thinks he is God’s gift to poker. Against a player like that, I will always show a big bluff if he folds to one. Then the next time I pick up a made hand I can extract maximum value against him. One method I particularly like is to slow play a strong hand and then fire out a big raise or overbet on the turn or river. He’ll talk himself into a call with even a marginal holding in that spot as his ego won’t let him entertain the possibility of folding to another bluff.

One final note. In low stakes, friendly home games I tend to show my cards much more often.  There’s still a small amount of cash on the line, but if your main goal is socializing with your friends there’s certainly no harm in having some fun and showing your cards. Just save it for your casual games, and stop showing your cards at the casino without a plan!

Outkicking the Competition

I was sitting at a $1/$2 cash table at Bethlehem Sands a few months ago and kept winning pot after pot against the player to my right. Not big all-in pots, but the small $30 - $70 pots that are the bread and butter of winning cash game players. He eventually said to me in frustration, “you’re so damn lucky, you have me outkicked every single time.” I just smiled and agreed with him, knowing luck has nothing to do with it.

Dan Harrington, one of the tightest players around, discusses the five ‘trouble hands’ in his Harrington on Cash Games series: KQ, KJ, K10, QJ, and Q10. These are the non-pair hole cards that contain 10 or above but not an ace (J10 is in a separate category for a variety of reasons, namely its unique ability to hit the nut straight four different ways). These hands can actually be quite profitable, but I have to pay attention to the table conditions and react accordingly. Harrington generally advises players to only play these hands pre-flop in position and suited, and to play them strongly post-flop only with two pair, trips, flushes, and straights (or draws to flushes and straights when you can make decisions based on your actual and implied odds). He advises players to slow down the action and fold against any strength when holding only top pair. You can read Dan and a few other pros’ thoughts on these hands here: 

Action Dan is indisputably one of the best players around, but his advice is dated given the table conditions that abound in low stakes cash games today. He rightly notes the trouble hands can leave you outkicked and broke, but the wide diversity of opening hands at cash tables today necessitates a reexamination of his advice. The key is understanding my opponents’ ranges and how these hands stack up against them. Let’s jump back to the table from a few weeks ago.

The table is extremely diverse in stack size and style of play. After a few orbits I notice an important condition for extracting value from the trouble hands - there are lots of limped pots, and three or four players at the table who robotically limp any two cards. Limped pots mean I can make or call a few bets post-flop without any danger of getting pot committed. But more importantly, a few players who limp any two cards ensures that hands like top pair, high kicker will win frequently against top pair, average or weak kicker (or even weaker holdings like second pair). Half the players at this table have no problem calling two or even three streets of value with top pair, questionable kicker.

When I hit a pair on the flop with one of the trouble hands at a table like this, I want to bet for value and isolate one of the weaker players. Yes, sometimes they will outkick me or hit a weird two pair, but most of the time I’m going to have them drawing nearly dead. It’s preferable to play these hands in position as it allows me to limit the size of the pot by checking back a street of action if necessary. And in the absence of any obvious draws, my value bets should be on the smaller side to prevent the pot from growing too large.  

Note that I rarely raise pre-flop with these hands in late position if there are several limpers in the pot already. Most of the time a raise in this spot only succeeds in stuffing the pot with money as players at a table like this will rarely fold after limping. I just limp in and see a cheap flop, and if I do decide to raise I make sure it’s on the larger side to try and isolate a single player.   

There is obviously a limit to how far I take these hands. I have top pair, high (but not top) kicker. This is a medium strength hand. While my observation of table conditions allows me to extract some value here, I never come close to getting my whole stack involved. If someone plays back at me strongly, I always lean towards folding. This means allowing someone to bluff me out of a small pot from time to time, but that’s much better than calling off my stack holding a single pair.

Issues with pot commitment are especially problematic if there is a raise pre-flop and multiple callers. I differ a bit from Dan here in that I have no problem calling a raise in position with the trouble hands (usually any KQ, but KJ, K10, QJ, and Q10 only when suited). Given the tendency in small stakes cash games to raise 4 to 7 times the big blind pre-flop, the pot will already be huge once the flop hits. In a raised pot with more than three players I need to be much more cautious if I’m only holding a single pair.

In conclusion, I always observe table conditions sharply so I can decide when it’s advisable to try and extract value when I have top pair and second or third kicker. There are no hard and fast rules here, but you can start with the observations here to learn when you can proceed with these hands. If you fail to value bet against weaker players in these spots you’re leaving a lot of money on the table.

Getting Sneaky With Bullets

This week's blog post comes to you from Shanghai, China! I won't have enough time for a trip to Macau, but that's certainly on the radar for next time.

Some of the first conventional wisdom we learn as poker players is never cap the action with AA pre-flop at a cash table. Given the option, just keep raising and reraising until all the money goes in. The sneakiest action we contemplate is a limp reraise in early position, but that move is easy to read and will put you in a tricky spot if no one opens the action. I want to give you an alternative idea for bullets to maximize value and deception at the table.

To mix up my play (especially at tables where I don’t know anyone) I like to employ the following move with AA. Let’s explore the following situation:

$1/$2, 9 handed, I’m in middle position with 100 big blinds, everyone else has the typical wide variation in stack sizes you see at a low stakes cash game.

Action folds around to me and I make a standard raise to $12 with A♣A♥. The cutoff (with around 65 big blinds) three-bets to $32, and the action folds back around to me.

Most players exclusively do one of two things here: either four-bet to around $70, or shove all in. Either play is perfectly fine (and the way I play AA most of the time). But it’s frustrating to make that big four-bet and see your opponent muck their cards. There’s another option here - just call.

If I call in this spot there’s $67 in the pot and my opponent has about $100 left in her stack. Let’s say the flop comes down 5♠10♣J♦. If I check, my opponent will usually make a standard continuation or value bet of $30-40. I’m then going to check raise her all in unless the flop is extremely connected (I will address that situation a little later).

Of the likely hands your opponent might three-bet you with pre-flop, KK, QQ, AJ, or KJ will call here, as will J10 or a set. She will also sometimes call if she has AK, AQ, A10, or KQ given her remaining stack size and (incorrect) assessment of her outs. My reraise will fold out most lower pocket pairs, Ax hands that missed the flop, suited connectors, and other random junk that could have three-bet pre-flop (but I will sometimes get a loose call from one of these hands as well). I’m around 90% against KK, QQ, AJ, or A10, around 80% against AK, AQ, KQ, or KJ, and a surprising 27% if she happens to have exactly J10. I’m about 10% against the unlikely sets. On balance, I’m WAY ahead on most flops.

The whole point of this move is to let the villain think she is ahead and get her pot committed with the second best hand. By capping the action pre-flop, I’m allowing hands that would likely fold to my four-bet to proceed with the hand. These holdings include Ax, KQ, KJ, K10, pocket pairs 1010 and below, suited connectors, and possibly AK unsuited and JJ. I can then earn either one extra bet or an entire stack when I otherwise won’t make any money with my premium holding.

Some notes about this move:

It is essential that one of us is short stacked so my reraise on the flop is an appropriate size for her to call. I’m looking for calls from top pair decent kicker, overpairs, and hands that (she thinks) have appropriate drawing odds. Practically, this means a stack size of 45 - 75 big blinds pre-flop, and ideally somewhere near the middle of that range. If one of us has more than 75 big blinds a lot of the hands that will otherwise call my reraise on the flop will simply fold, which significantly decreases the equity of this move. With less than 45 big blinds, I might as well just shove pre-flop as any hand that makes a three-bet will almost always call given the pot odds. Remember, the whole point of this move is to get a player pot committed on the flop with a hand that would not go all in pre-flop, and larger or smaller effective stacks don’t allow your opponent to make that mistake.

Don’t pull this move against a maniac or a rock. Against a maniac, just get it all in pre-flop as they will likely call you down with a wide range of holdings. Against a rock, make a standard four-bet or shove as they are only three-betting with premium holdings in the first place and will likely call you. Target players who have a balanced three-betting range but are tight enough to fold anything except AA, KK, QQ, or AK to a four-bet.

I always let the villain close the action pre-flop and start the action post-flop to maintain the illusion she is ahead. But there will be some hands where my opponent checks behind me on the flop. If that happens, I can either check raise or just lead out with a standard value bet on the turn. If I get two checks, I make a small value bet on the river.

This move works equally well if I’m in position. Let’s say I raise on the button and the reraise comes from the small blind. I can still call pre-flop and shove once she makes her bet on the flop. If she checks the flop, I usually just check behind and follow my advice above on the turn unless the flop is extremely draw heavy.

And some final words of caution:

If the flop is super connected with a lot of high cards (something like 10♠J♠K♠) I need to at least consider folding unless I’m holding the ace of spades. There are now a lot more probable holdings that have me beat or at least have a much stronger draw than in the previous example. The possibility of a flop like this is a valid argument against playing aces this way in the first place, and in spots like this I have to be very confident in my post-flop read of my opponent to proceed.

Do you hear that? It’s the sound of a million poker players screaming that playing aces this way is only opening you up to trouble. And they are 100% right - this is a risky move and not recommended for anyone who can’t stomach the risk of getting their aces cracked. But fear prevents you from even considering alternative ways to play your best opening hand. Aces hover around 82% ahead of a sample range of hands your opponent would likely three-bet you with pre-flop. While there are definitely risks this move can go south, there are also risks in playing a premium holding the exact same way every single time. The benefits of this move can be equally valuable for both your bankroll and your table image - you will be a nightmare for your opponents to read if you successfully pull it off. Good luck!

Sniffing out the Overbet Bluff

Overbetting the pot is an effective tool in a competent player’s arsenal, but weaker players often do it haphazardly simply because they think they can get away with it. A hand will have little or no action past the flop, when all of a sudden a player fires out a big overbet on the turn or river (usually the river). This bet can be anywhere from slightly larger to a good 3 or 4 times the pot. Just last week I saw a player shove $60 into a $7 pot. I want to get you out of the habit of instantly mucking in this spot with an average holding and figure out when you’re likely ahead.

I’m playing a $1/$2 cash game at Mohegan Sun when a player sits down and makes this play twice within an hour. Both times the pot is limped pre-flop, there is a bet on the flop or turn (but not both), and the pot is around $25 - 35 going to the river. This particular player bets about twice the pot on the river, and both times the bet works (I never see her cards). I do notice that she gives the table a knowing smirk each time she scrapes the pot. I normally don’t give much credence to physical tells, but this is a case where you need to pay close attention to body language and facial expressions. I play the following hand with her about 30 minutes after she makes her last big overbet:

$1/$2, I’m in middle position with around 100 big blinds, everyone else has widely varying stack sizes from as many as 300 big blinds to as little as 50. Villain is in the small blind, also with around 100 big blinds.

Two players limp in and I look down at 9♣10♣. I limp, the button and blinds call, and we see a flop. Six players. Pot is $12.

Flop: 2♣10♥Q♦

Checks all the way around, and we head to the turn.

Turn: 2♣10♥Q♦8♥

The villain leads out for $5 which gets folded around to the player on my right, who calls. I’m acting second to last with second pair and an inside straight draw, which seems like a reasonable call in this spot (there’s also an argument for raising). The button folds. Three players to the river, and the pot is $27.

River: 2♣10♥Q♦8♥5♦

The villain fires out $55. The player to my right instantly mucks. Most players look down at their weak middle pair and instantly throw it away. But I know I have an actual decision to make. In spots like this I tend to take a lot of time to think. Too much time. This serves two purposes - obviously I can run through all possibilities and make the best possible decision, but the real reason is to assess the villain.

After a somewhat uncomfortably long time I look directly at her and say, “I can beat a bluff.” She smiles weakly and shifts in her chair. As I said earlier, I don’t typically rely on physical tells, but in this situation (a casual player making a potentially expensive mistake) I’m fairly sure I have her beat. Sure, she might have a weak queen or weird two pair, but her range is so enormous in a limped pot it's much more likely she has nothing. I call and she reluctantly shows total air, J♥7♥. She made a semi-bluff with her draw on the turn (quite reasonable) and when it missed she turned her hand into a big bluff (somewhat questionable given her action in prior hands).

Five things to note here:

1) I have to be more frequently correct with my call because of the pot odds. When she bets $55 into a $27 pot, I’m only getting 1.5 to 1 on my call. I need to be right almost half the time to show a profit. There’s nothing wrong with getting bluffed here occasionally if I don’t have enough information to be reasonably confident in my call. Just fold and keep the hand in mind for the future.

2) Look for spots where a draw likely missed. If a heart, jack, or nine completes this board I’m a little wary of a big overbet and even more wary of a normal size bet (but obviously calling any non-heart jack as that gives me a straight). The villain’s overbet in this spot is a reaction to missing her draw and trying to claim the pot anyway.

3) Creative players have this play in their arsenal and know when to employ it. If I see a competent player make a bet like this, I’m much more wary of calling. Sharks can sense when an opponent might be willing to make a hero call and will overbet the pot on the river in favorable situations. Unless I have an above average hand here I won’t get involved. The villain most likely has a decent holding, and my middle pair won’t be enough. Tom Dwan demonstrates some creative ways to employ an overbet in this video.

4) Pursuant to my third point, I’m not afraid to pull this move myself every once in a blue moon when I’m most likely ahead! If I’m strong and sense my opponent might be willing to make a hero call, I will go ahead and overbet the river. Remember, I don’t need action every time as a call here is worth two to four times a standard value bet. Not only will I win a big hand, my opponents won’t be very confident reading my river bets after I show a strong holding in this spot.

5) If you pull this move as a bluff, make sure your opponent can feasibly put you on the range you're trying to represent. Remember, low stakes cash game players lean towards calling when they have even a small piece of the board regardless of the pot odds. 

In conclusion, never get in the habit of auto-mucking your mediocre hands when facing a big overbet. Always take time to review the action and information you have on a player before making a decision, and learn to make this bet yourself under the right conditions.

Stop Overplaying Your Overpair

When I first began sitting at $1/$2 cash games I had plenty of experience playing tournaments and thought it would be easy money. I was wrong. Cash is a completely different monster, and unless you learn to adjust your game you’ll get eaten alive. Here’s a rundown of a hand I played the second time sitting at a cash table. I’m using it to illustrate the dangers of overplaying an overpair, and more broadly the dangers of playing a hand in a way that can leave you broke holding a medium strength hand.

$1/$2 cash game at Bally's Atlantic City, 6 handed (full ring table with a few players sitting out), I’m on the button with 150 big blinds, everyone else has roughly similar stacks.

The elderly tight passive player in the cutoff with around 125 big blinds raises to $7 (a smallish raise for a cash game) and I look down at Q♣Q♦. I three-bet to $25, and get a call from the small blind. The action folds around to the cutoff, who calls. Pot is $77.

Flop: 2♣5♦10♥

This is a pretty safe flop for my overpair. I’m only beaten by a set, and two pair / drawing hands are extremely unlikely on this board. Action checks to me, and I fire out a $40 value bet. The small blind folds, and told me after the hand he was set mining with J♣J♥. I should note here this is a somewhat strange line, as set mining makes more sense against more than three players in a cheaper pot. But if I take him at his word that he's using the jacks to set mine (meaning he believes it is likely someone has a higher pocket pair) his fold on the flop makes sense as his overpair is way behind and very unlikely to improve. To be clear, I would probably call the flop bet in his spot and at least see what happens on the turn as my opponents could just as likely have a few high cards that missed. The cutoff calls. Pot is $157.

Turn: 2♣5♦10♥3♣

Another fairly safe card. I think I need to get value from the cutoff if she’s got something like A10 or JJ and charge her to see another card if she’s drawing with a hand like A♣X♣ or AK. She checks, and I fire out $85. She calls, and the pot is $327.

River: 2♣5♦10♥3♣A♥

A terrible card for me. After some thought, my opponent shoves her last $100. I’m nervous my opponent has a set or ace, but I’m getting over 4 to 1 on my call. I call, and my opponent turns over K♣K♥. I'm beat even if that ace doesn’t hit the board (and certainly would call this bet with any river card given the pot odds).

So what went wrong? A lot, and we will get in to that in a second. But the biggest problem is I'm playing a small pot hand like a big pot hand. What does that mean? Small pot hands are holdings like top pair top kicker, overpairs, and weaker two pair type hands. Big pot hands are top two pair and sets (when there are no likely straights or flushes on the board), straights, flushes, boats, and better. This is a broad generalization and dependent on dozens of other factors, but let’s use it as a starting point to explore a better way to play this hand:

The tight player in the cutoff raises to $7. My raise to $25 with Q♣Q♦ to try and isolate the cutoff isn’t necessarily wrong, but do I really need to raise that much to accomplish it? Probably not. A raise to $20 works just as well. With this raise and calls from the small blind and cutoff, the pot is now $62. I should also think very broadly about which type of hands are calling my three bet here.

Flop: 2♣5♦10♥

Action checks to me, and instead of firing out $40 I make a reasonable half pot value bet of $30 as I don’t have any draws to charge. I should also point out my initial assumption that I’m only getting beat by a set is fatally incorrect. Small blind folds, cutoff calls, and the pot is $122.

Turn: 2♣5♦10♥3♣

The turn is always the point at which a hand can get away from you if you’re not carefully thinking about pot commitment and hand strength (your own and your opponent’s). As I said before, my thought process here is I need to get value from the cutoff if she’s got something like A10 or JJ, and charge her to see another card if she’s got something like A♣X♣ or AK. Let’s explore each of these thoughts individually.

Of course I would like to get value if she’s got A10 or JJ (or something like 99 or 88). But I'm not considering other possible holdings like 22, 55, 1010, KK, or AA. All of those hands beat me and can check raise me if I bet, putting me in a very uncomfortable situation. Although I consider the possibility she has a set, I completely discount her having KK or AA because most players don’t play these hands the way she does pre-flop. If she does indeed have A10 or JJ she might not call a river value bet after calling a bet on the turn (and certainly won’t call two bets with 99 or 88), so delaying my value bet until the river isn’t necessarily costing me a street of value. It’s much safer to get value after the river card hits and deny her the opportunity to check raise me on the turn when I’m behind.

Players tend to get antsy when there’s a flush draw on the board, and feel the need to charge players to see another card on each and every street regardless of the pot size and number of players in the hand. But remember that my opponent needs to have the flush draw AND the card has to hit. The odds of this are very small against one opponent with just one card to come. While a healthy bet to force out flush draws on the flop makes sense against multiple opponents, it’s not really necessary against one opponent on the turn. The other drawing hands I’m scared of that might hang around are AX type hands, especially AK. But many players would fold these hands after the flop, and even if she continues she only has three or six outs. Betting to charge a flush draw or overcards isn’t really necessary in this spot.

By checking here I’m controlling the size of the pot with my good (but not great) hand, and can decide whether or not to call a bet on the river or make a value bet if she checks to me. Either way, the pot remains manageable at $122 and I can make more effective (and less expensive) decisions regardless of the river card and her action.

River: 2♣5♦10♥3♣A♥

This looks like a bad card for me, but is actually a worse card for my opponent. Even if she is planning on value betting the river she will probably check. I would then check behind with my hand as I’m only getting calls from better hands and folding out hands I’m beating. Ironically, my opponent has the one hand beating me that might actually fold to a solid river bet in this situation (but keep in mind she also might find a call with K♣K♥).

Just for argument’s sake, let’s say the river comes down a blank. In that scenario I’m calling most of my opponent’s river bets, and if she checks to me I will make a small value bet of my own (and probably get a call). Note that even in the ‘worst case’ scenario of 1) a blank hitting the river, 2) my opponent checking to me for a third time, and 3) K♣K♥ calling my small value bet of around $45, I’m still losing less than a third of my stack on this hand.

In conclusion, I need at least a set to play the hand the way I did. I get pot committed on the turn and give myself no feasible way to get away from the hand on the river. Some final thoughts:
1) Always weigh the need to extract value against the benefit of removing a street from action, especially if checking down a street prevents you from getting pot committed with a medium strength hand.
2) Never completely rule out a possible holding just because it doesn’t conform to the way you’re ‘supposed’ to play your hand pre-flop. Usually this works the other way (players calling three bets with junk), but from time to time tight passive players will play premium holdings in unexpected ways.